Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Name

"Unrecognized" is not part of the self-declared name, and so should be ommitted. Ybgursey 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sokhumi name

According to Britannica: "Sokhumi, formerly Sukhumi, city, capital of Abkhazia, Georgia. It lies on the site of the ancient Greek colony of Dioscurias on the Black Sea coast. Sokhumi's seaside location, beaches, and warm climate made it a popular Black Sea resort, with many sanatoriums and holiday camps.....

I also found other sources (National Geographic) where they mention that Sokhumi is an official name of the city and Sukhumi is its formal name (Used during USSR). Do we change the name? Please advice Noxchi Borz 21:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a National Geographic atlas, and is spells the city Sokhom. I'll double-check when I find it. —Khoikhoi 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoi its a first time i hear the name "Sokhom" :) You must be mistaken. Turks called the city "Sukhum Kale" and so did Russians, "Sukhum". In Abkhaz its "aq'wa" , in Georgian "tskhumi" and officialy after 1991 "Sokhumi." During USSR it was Sukhumi due to Rusification of the name. But Please double-check National Geographic. Britannica has good info too. Thanks Khoi :) Noxchi Borz 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, actually, it's Sokhum, not Sokhom. Incidentally, the map also uses the term separatists. ;) —Khoikhoi 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's an interesting ethnic map of the Caucasus (also National Geographic, but is a Feb. 1996 issue, the map below is from the 2005 Atlas.) This one is pretty good as well, but it's not NG. —Khoikhoi 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

File:Sokhom.png

Well Khoi, you should work for NG. Where do you get all those rare articles from NG? :) They should hire you. Ok, both of the maps which you had links to have "Sokhumi" the one here is "Sokhum." The name "Sokhum" is a mistake for sure. Its definately not Abkhaz, Russian, Turk, Arab or Georgian. They forgot to include "i" in the end. Here is what the city is called in following languages: Abkhaz: "aq'wa (trans. water), Georgian: "tskhumi", Turk: "Sukhum Kale", Arab: Sukhum, Russian: "Suxum" and "Suxumi" and Mingrelian: "tskhuma." I sent you more photos, check your gmail :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ldingley (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 May 2006.

Well, I think I heard somewhere that Sukhum/Sokhum is the name used by Abkhazians when the speak Russian. I also heard that they dropped the "-i" suffix because it's characteristic of Georgian names, so the Abkhaz see it as offensive. Yes, I got the email, outstanding as usual. :) I'll reply to it soon. —Khoikhoi 01:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, NG should definitely hire me. ;) —Khoikhoi 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Khoi, NG is a great source but not always accurate. I’d far prefer Sokhumi (the correct name of the city), but Sukhumi is also OK even though it’s a Russificated form. However, we must add the note explaining that the official name of the city is Sokhumi frequently transliterated as Sukhumi. Sukhum is an old Turkish name which was reestablished by Abkhaz nationalists in order to eliminate everything Georgian. However, both Abkhaz separatist officials and Georgian authorities continue to use Sukhumi when they give interviews in Russian. Most international sources also use either Sukhumi or Sokhumi. Here are my results of googling (excluding wikipedia):

• Sukhumi 218,000
• Sokhumi: 83,700 (Britannica, Encarta, GlobalSecurity, etc)
• Sukhum: 71,100 (excluding a certain Pamela Sukhum which seems to be surname)

Russian Google:

• Sukhumi 833,000
• Sukhum 113,000
• Sokhumi 2,780 Kober 06:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Kober. I don’t think Wiki articles should be written in the way not to offend some individuals. The importance of "official" status is very crutail for truthfulness and accuracy of Wiki articles. I actually met Abkhaz who did not find any offences in that name. The articles should represent in the way Britannica represents, an officially known and recognized material. Officially it’s Sokhumi and there are tons of un-official names of the city (every city has them), but what are we promoting here? Why is there a tendancy to promote pro-separatist agenda on these articles? That map Khoi which you attached to this page is very funny. They have maintained Georgian names on all the cities (Tkhvarcheli, Ochamchire, Gagra, Gudauta, Gali, Bichvimta, etc) but took away "i" from the Sokhum. If they want to be pro separatist, it should be: Sukhum, Tkhvarchal, Gagr, Gudaut, Gal, Ochamchir, Putsunda, etc :) BTW Bichvinta is purely Georgian name which definitely offends Abkhaz :) Wow. Another interesting thing, The color of those regions are almost same as Russian Federation :) Also somehow Chechnya's borders are not shown (its like they don’t exist) and the borders of other N Caucasian Republics also, thats amzing. Also Karabakh borders are totally wrong. This map is perfect in sense of propaganda and limited knowledge of the issue/geography which the author had when he was chopping off those territories. :) I think we should have Sukhumi or Sokhumi (official name). But I respect all oppinions and welcome all suggestions.Noxchi Borz 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys—I never said we should move the page to Sukhum/Sokhum. I personally would prefer Sukhumi over Sokhumi, as it conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). We had a similar dispute, should the page be at Kyiv or Kiev? As you can see, the English name for the article is used today. Besides, Sukhumi is by far the most common name. Anyways, there were no bad intentions. When I get the job with NG I’ll fix the place names. ;) —Khoikhoi 15:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoi, trust me they don’t pay well. :) Their best photographers still have financial problems and they usually go by with the help of commercial websites. That’s capitalism for you :) Sure, lets keep Sukhumi. Noxchi Borz 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, btw, have you seen this? —Khoikhoi 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BS my dear Khoy, the last thing Georgia wants is war. Only through peaceful means they will be able to achieve settlement, and they know it better than anyone. Don’t trust whatever Kokoit is declaring from Moscow. Moscow told him to say so but nobody believes in that crap. Yesterday in Moscow they started to deport all Georgian nationals and placed many posters on the street: "Respect yourself and your country, Dont drinks Georgian Wine." This all reminds me of Third Reich and SA operations. It’s disgusting. Noxchi Borz 17:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh! It’s a typical propaganda machine. Do you think Georgians are so mad to initiate a new war when the country has just begun to recover and is but slowly improving? The new peace proposal by the Georgian government has just received an international support. Kokoity relocated to Moscow a few months ago and said that the Russian capital is the best place to run the government in Tskhinvali – the most ridiculous words I’ve ever heard from a politician. The fact is that common South Ossetians are being increasingly convinced in necessity to return within the Georgian state. This is the reason for such claims. The Russian military bases are finally leaving Georgia. The country is going to withdraw from the CIS and is moving closer and closer to NATO. Now, guess who wants the war… Kober 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoi go here its a different NG map with Sokhumi: http://www.ngmapstore.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=185&itemType=PRODUCT&RS=1&keyword=georgia

BTW those maps are not official geographical NG maps. All atlases have same content. Kober you are 100% correct. Noxchi Borz 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

http://mapmachine.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/searchandbrowse.html?task=getSearchPlace&place=abkhazia

Search Results:

There are 27 Available Maps for "Abkhazia, Autonomous Region, Georgia". Noxchi Borz 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the context of the article, I understand how fruitfully the Kremlin's propaganda machine works. Very sad. Kutaisi, Georgia. June 09, 2006

de facto separatist

Hi Tasc before editing, please review the archived discussion about attaching separatist to the de facto term. Based on numerous sources, we have all agreed that current so called "government" and regime in Abkhazia is separatist. Please try to avoid POVs and let’s stick to NPOV. Otherwise state and present sources which contradict separatist status of Abkhazian regime. Thanks. Noxchi Borz 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the term de facto without further clarification is much confusing as the legal government of Abkhazia still continues to exercise both de facto and de jure control over the southeastern corner of the region known as the Kodori Gorge.--Kober 17:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. You need definite clarification of so called de facto rule of Abkhazia which was taken by separatist forces. Noxchi Borz 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaah, Bless...

Clearly many of the contributions to this article have been made by people whose first language is not English. Articles don't exist in Eastern European languages and the concept is difficult to grasp - should one correct the grammar? How can one do so? This is one of probably thousands to which this comment applies, it's probably going to change over time, and one would not wish to discourage people from contributing just because their English is not up to scratch. Any suggestions? I could change the grammar, but can't contribute materially to the facts.

Recent edits

The ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia is a well-documented fact. With all due respect, tasc, you have a strong anti-Georgian POV. I've seen it before on the Sochi talk page. --Kober 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, unfortunately, Tasc has strong bias towards Georgian articles and he jeopardises the integrity and truthfulness of Wiki articles. I only hope that he will stop implementing personal or nationalistic agendas on Wiki and respect the main pillars of Wikipedia, NPOV. So far he has demonstrated otherwise. Ldingley 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

tasc, if you add the tag, you should make a note on the talk page explaining your reasoning.--Kober 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

Recent changes to the stable version of article initiated by anon ip led to highly pov version. Threats of some editors made it impossible to edit page and maintain NPOV. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stable doesn't mean neutral. The text shouldn't be unbalanced and blatantly pro-separatist. Perhaps you would like to point out what specific part of the article you find non-neutral?--Kober 17:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It was stable and it was neutral. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, you are undermining the NPOV of the article by adding your own POVs. You have proven before on other articles (ex. Sochi) to have anti-Georgian bias and as I noticed you are slowly implementing your own ideas into articles which are related to Georgian events. I highly recommend you to maintain NPOV regardless of your Russian background and start a constructive co-operation with other editors like Kober who have contributed to Wikipedia tremendously. Pro-separatist, nationalist POV will not be tolerated on any post-soviet conflict articles. Take a look at Nagorny-Karabakh, a good example of co-operation and respect for NPOV. Ldingley 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anti-Georgian bias. I just don't see why politcs should be put in every hole. Could you please explain why your edits are not pov?-- tasc ^words_deeds 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you mix politics and show hidden national agenda on Abkhazia article. My contributions are always supported by sources both secondary and primary. Please consult and look into sources. I can provide list of sources you can review. But i will ask you again to drop the POV pushing and maintain NPOV. Thanks. Ldingley 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather drop my contribution. Will be telling people what to trust and what not on wp. Go ahead. Right whatever you want. None will read that rubbish anyway. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Im very sorry you feel like that. All the best. Ldingley 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Reworking

Hey Noxchi. It’s a pity to see that there are only a few users interested in this article. Yet we can cooperate to improve the quality of the current version. First of all, I think we should abridge the history section which is becoming too long and create a separate article on the History of Abkhazia. For the sake of compromise I agree to change the words like "massacre" with more neutral expressions, or at least we can use the wording how the UN and OSCE describe the events. Tell me what you think. Thanks, --Kober 17:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kober, great idea. We can start working of History of Abkhazia article with the help of sources from western scholars (Lang, Wardlop, Allen, Andersen, Mc'Killen, Blair, etc). As for massacres. Please review the book by Chervonnaia, Svetlana (Russian journalist witnessing the events). She called those crimes as massacres and also Human Rights Watch. "Georgia/Abkhazia: Violations of the Laws of War and Russia's Role in the Conflict." Published March 1995. I will also gather all UN and OSCE resolutions on Abkhazia like they did on Nagorno-Karabakh article. But its up to you, you may change the term "massacres" but judging from many reports, they were massacres (specially in Sukhumi and Gagra). Cheers. Ldingley 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Noxchi. Then I will start the History of Abkhazia article and put it on wiki in a few days. I'm not well-versed in the legal issues and it will be really great if you can focus on that. If most sources consider those events massacres (and they really do) we should obviously keep exactly this sort of description. Thanks again - respect. --Kober 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthem

Abkhazia's anthem should be listed in the article. Badagnani 23:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is too long

We need to shrink the article. Its becoming too big and it would be good if we transferred the chapters like "Abkhazia Today" and "Future of Abkhazia" into the Politics of Abkhazia article. Also we will have separate page for History of Abkhazia. Please make your suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ldingley 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you OK with the current size? It is 34K. This is about average for many other "Country"-type articles. However, a History of Abkhazia is a must and I have now made one. I just moved the text. Someone else should not shorten the section in the main article. - Pernambuco 14:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can try and shorten it, but I prefer someone who knows more about the history to pick what the main points are. For the summary to keep in the article. I am just a newcomer to these unrecognized countries. I am still learning. - Pernambuco 23:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Demographics at the beginning of the century

It is stated that Georgians constituted a majority in Abkhazia at the beginning of the century, and this is backed by information from the EB from 1911 detailing the ethnic composition of Sukhumi. The one does not necessairily follow from the other however, urban centers generally show a larger percentage of people of 'foreign' origin than a country overall does. Thus if one merely looks at the composition of Riga one might be led to believe that there are more Russians in Latvia than Latvians. There aren't. Of course it is not given the Georgian population actually was concentrated in the urban areas, but due to the uncertainty of the statistical relationship (also considering the small size of Sukhumi at the time) I will adapt the text accordingly. Sephia karta 15:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there IS statistics dating to 1897. The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary gives the following data about Sukhum district: Население округа состоит из абхазцев и самурзаканцев (86%), мингрельцев (5,5%), греков (3,5%), армян (1,5%), русских (ок. 2%), грузин (около 1%), немцев и проч. In English that would be:

The district population consists of abkhazians and samyrzakanians (86%), mingrelians (5.5%), greeks (3.5%), armenians (1.5%), russians (about 2%), georgians (about 1%), germans etc. Since georgians and mingrelians now are considered as georgians that would give the following abkhaz/georgian proportion: 86/6.5. The Sukhum district of that time occupied pretty much the same territory as Abkhazian ASSR. This is the link to the online version of the B&E encyclopaedia [1]. It's in Russian because I don't think there is online B&E in English.Alaexis

That is definitely a POV data gathered from a Russian web site which is completely unreliable. First of all, Mingrelians are not a separate nation from the Georgians. Georgians did not move into Abkhazia during Stalin. Please use reliable and valid sources and also it would be better if they are in English. Thanks. Ldingley 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This data is from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. Why would the encyclopedia published in the imperial Russia be biased to (or against) Georgians? The Russian language is of course a problem but I don't think this evidence should be discarded for this particular reason.

Mingrelians are indeed are now considered as Georgians, but that was not the case at the time the encyclopaedia was published. That's why I added 5.5 to 1 and wrote that there were 6.5 % of Georgians.

The Stalin's demographic policy should be dealt with separately. I've found something on the site of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management of the University of Maryland [2]

"An enormous influx of non-Abkhaz occurred throughout the Soviet period, encouraged by Stalin, who was an ethnic Georgian, and his lieutenant, fellow Georgian Beria".

Thanks. Alaexis

Please provide primary sources and secondary sources for this claim. The scholarly work of Dr Andersen, Lang, Blair contradict your claims of Georgian mass migration to Abkhazia. Stalin's ethnicity has nothing to do with Georgians or Georgia. This kind of bias and POV statement should be avoided. Try to see things in the perspective of NPOV. Also do not quote he sources which are from the Russian web sites, as we see today Russia is the conflicting side in this issue even far greater than the Abkhaz. Also with one source from Maryland Uni, provide a secondary opinion to support their claims of which references must be valid and reliable. Thanks. Ldingley 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this scholarly work of Andersen, Lang, Blair? Would you please give the exact reference

What do you mean by the secondary opinion to support their claims?

Again about the validity of Brockhaus. Consult with Georgians who know Russian whether pre-revolutionary encyclopedia is biased to Georgia. The accuracy of the web-version of the encyclopedia, to which I give reference can easily be checked by any person who knows Russian.Alaexis 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Andersen, Lang and Blair are Western scholars and authors of most valuable works on Georgia published in English. I don't know why Brockhaus is supposed to be more accurate than 1911 EB or other sources available on Abkhazia. Furthermore, Samurzakanians mentioned by the Brockhaus dictionary have never been classified as a separate group. Actually, "Samurzakanians" is a collective terms for the inhabitants of Samurzakano (modern Gali district in south Abkhazia) and most of them spoke (and speak) a local dialect of Mingrelian. The name Sa-murzakan-o itself is typically Kartvelian (Georgian/Mingrelian) meaning the "[land] of Murzakan" after the early 18th-century Abkhaz-Mingrelian prince of the Shervashidze family. For a comparison, see Sa-kartvel-o (i.e. "[land] of the Georgians), Sa-megrel-o (i.e., "[land] of the Megrels/Mingrelians), etc. Respectfully, --Kober 06:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Kober, thank you for a good point about Samurzakanians. They are indeed the Mingrelians who lived in Samurzakan. One can only wonder why they were united with Abkhazians rather than Mingrelians in the B&E.

Nevertheless the number of Abkhazians can be estimated too. The population of Sukhum district was 100498. The total number of Abkhazians was 'about 70000' [3](including Abaza, who live to the north of Caucausus, who numbered 5000 [4]). That gives us 60000-65000 of Abkhazians in Sukhum district (60-65%).

Brockhaus is NOT supposed to be more (or less) accurate than 1911 EB. Probably something like that should be written: "According to the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia, published in 1890-1906 in Russia Abkhazians and Georgians composed 60-65% and 25-30% of the Sukhum district population respectively in 1897'. Information from the 1911BE should also be added.Alaexis 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alaexis, thank you for your cooperativeness. Can you please provide the exact date of the B&E edition that estimates the number of the Abkhazians at 60,000-65,000? The Encyclopaedia of Islam article "Abkhaz" by Vladimir Minorsky says:

In the thirties of the 19th century the population of AbÕ9§zia was estimated at about 90,000, and the number of all Abkhaz (i.e. including those living in the north outside Abkhazia) at 128,000 souls. After 1866, the population of Abkhazia was reduced to c. 65,000... in 1881 the number of Abkhaz was estimated at only 20,000. No statistics on the Abkhazians in Turkey are available. [5]

Also, Georgian authors frequently cite the 1917 statistics (I’m sorry, I don’t remember the exact primary source) according to which the population of Abkhazia consisted of 74,846 Georgians (42,1 %), 38,121 Abkhaz (21.4%), 20,893 Russians (11.7%), 20,673 Greeks (11.7%), 18,219 Armenians (10.2%) and 5,087 of other nationalities (2.9%).

IMHO, the best solution here is to compile all these versions, mentioning that the figures vary and indicating the corresponding sources. Regards, Kober 08:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Ah, sorry. I see the B&E statistics date to 1897. However, it seems somewhat implausible that the ethnic Abkhaz populaton increased threefold from 20,000 in 1881 (as per Minorsky) to 60,000-65,000 in 1897 (according to B&E), doesn't it? --Kober 09:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem strange. Maybe some of Abkhazians returned from Turkey (as dfar as I remember that was the case in the novel "Sandro from Chegem" of Fazil Iskander) as the Caucausus became nore peaceful. But of course this is just my speculation.

Some kind of compilation should be done indeed. Maybe I'll write what I have proposed in my previous post and you would write the stuff from the islamic encyclopedia and 1917 statistics?Alaexis 14:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is another source of ethnic make up of Abkhazia [6] Ldingley 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is data from the 1979 census. I do believe it is true and I have never argued with it. The figures of 1992 and 1997 are also plausible. However, it has nothing to do with the "Demographics at the beginning of the century".Alaexis 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

2Kober (or someone else). Please add the appropriate references to the figures I've given in the demographics section of the article. I took them from your post on the talk page. However the Islamic Enciclopaedia link doesn't work and you did not provide the link to the 1917 statistics at all.Alaexis 17:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Atrocities committed by the two sides

The article states that the atrocities committed by the Abkhazian side were worse than those committed by the Georgian side and this is supported by a link to a book. If possible I would additionally like to see reference to reports from international (human rights) organisations, as this is a very bold statement. Sephia karta 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No comparisons of atrocities. 10 killed babies is not better than 1000 killed babies. This was already discussed in the main article in the topic: Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. `'mikka (t) 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Separatist vs de facto

The problem here is that de jure gov of Abkhazia (-in exile) now exercises both de jure and de facto control over the northeast of the republic. Georgia took full control of the upper Kodori Valley in August 2006, and now there's kind of diarchy in Abkhazia, with separatists in control of Sukhumi and most of Abkhazia, and de jure gov ruling in Kodori or the Temporary Administrative District of Upper Abkhazia, as the area is officially styled by Tbilisi. --Kober 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We must not forget or leave out that Sukhumi based de facto government is radically separatist. As for de jure, which is composed of many ethnic Abkhaz and Georgians, has different views on the status of Abkhazia. That government is officially recognized by international community as legal. In Kodori, which is part of Abkhazia this de jure government now controls big chunk of north-western Abkhazia and planning to set up the government there. Therefore, it’s becoming de facto for Abkhazia as well. Ldingley 16:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be best to use "separatist" and "recognized" to distinguish between the governments, then? I agree with Khoikhoi's edit summary that "de facto separatist" is redundant, and the control by each government over different parts of the region does make using "de facto" and "de jure" somewhat inaccurate as well. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

David, it’s simple. So called de jure government was the real body which controlled Abkhazia and administered that territory before the war. In it, there was significant number of pro-separatist members. That government had executive powers and was elected to represent Abkhazian Autonomous Republic just before the war. The elections were fair and recognized because every ethnic group of Abkhazia had a chance to vote equally. When war started, the separatist wing of that government left the capital and joined up the armed groups in Gudauta which launched a full scale country-attack on Georgian forces and the government of Abkhazian autonomous republic. Those rebel separatist former members of Abkhaz government managed to take over Sukhumi, expel majority of Abkhazia’s inhabitants (mainly ethnic Georgians), killed many members of the government (some managed to escape and form government in exile, just like Tibetan one) and pronounced a formation of new government of “sovereign” Abkhazia. World organizations, states, UN, OSCE, EU, EU parliament has condemned such action and did not recognize any of such government or election of it, where the majority of the population did not vote for it and was expelled. Just recently, Hague also spoke out and added that some of those members of that de facto Abkhaz government might be indicted in war crimes. So the western media labeled current separatist regime as de facto government (which factually controlls that territory) and the exiled one de jure (which has jurisdiction authority and international recognition as being official government of that territory). De jur egovenment was legally elected and represents not only the 300,000 Georgian IDPs but also the entire population of Abkhazia which their jurisdiction dictates. Now, this year the de jure exiled government managed to dislocate from Tbilisi to Kodori, the north-western region of Abkhazia populated by ethnic Georgians (Svans). That’s the simplest way to put it :) The so called de facto government is the separatist wing of that de jure government which governed Abkhazia since the creation of Soviet Union. De jure govenment has many abkhaz (Akishbaia, Marshania, etc) georgian and armenian members, while the de facto has only radical separatists and extreme nationalists in their club :) Ldingley 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of absolute accuracy it is important to call it as it is . To refer to de-facto or de-jure is clearly better than using emotive terms such as 'separatist' or 'recognised'. The Abkhazia would not consider themselves 'separatist' but 'separate'. There is a difference. So I suggest you refer to it in a scientific way rather than a politically sensitive manner. MarkStreet 20 Oct 2006

I think this article about Ablhazia is becoming very long… and somehow imprecise, because after the 2006 Kodori crisis Abkhazia, in a manner similar to Cyprus, has two governments: one formally and theoretically internationally-recognized (unionist and vinculated to Georgia) and other internationally-unrecognized (separatist and vinculated to Russia). The first controls around 30% of the territory Abkhazia, the other 70%. And there’s also the Georgian-populated Gali district, that is just partially-controlled by the separatist government.

So the article should reflect this divisions — in the way that is today, the article treats Abkhazia as a 100% unified and independet country, and this is really not the case. I think even tha main table should reflect this, showing both the flags and cat-of-arms of the separatist and unionist governments of Abkhazia.

Well, maybe it should be there another option: to separate the georgaphic place from the governments controlling the place — like the Korea and China articles.--MaGioZal 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding length: I made History of Abkhazia. See above. Now someone needs to shorten the main part. To make it shorter. I have no comment on the rest. But someone has to make history shorter. Now that it has a separate Main Article. This will therefore also make the over-all article shorter. - Pernambuco 06:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling?

On the top of the page it says: "Russian: Абха́зия Abhazia". Is the transcription really correct? Doesn't "х" usually become "kh" (instead of just "h") in English? (218.228.195.44 09:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Yes, "х" is usually transliterated as "kh" in English. Askari Mark | Talk 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, "х" transliterated as "kh" if "x" goes after vowel, to indicate that russian "x" ("ha") sounds a little harder than english "h". If "x" goes after cosonant, then it should be transliterated simple as "h", because cosonant already implies harderness of next sound. But I should notice, that most people pronounced transliterated russian words wrong because of that transliteration - they pronounce it too hard, making accent on 'k'. 'Nikita Mikhalkov' - was pronounced so bad on Oscar movie avards, I remember.

Sorry for my English.

No apology needed ... your English is far better than my quite limited Russian. "Абха́зия" probably should be transliterated as you describe, but I've always seen it rendered as "Abkhazia". I don't know why this is so. Perhaps because some native English speakers would be tempted to mispronounce it as "uh-BAHZ-uh" or "ah-BAY-zyuh". "Abkhazia" gets pronounced as close to correct as is likely without learning Russian pronunciation and syllabication. Spasebo! Askari Mark | Talk

Mistake

There is no evidence that Russia wants to incorporate Abhazia.I'll edit that section.Dimts 12:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Dimts

Hi. Don't you rememeber the passionate statements by by the State Duma memebers and the 2005 attempt to pass a law on admission of new subjects of the RF? However, I agree to temporarily remove the passage until the proper references are found. Regards, --Kober 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillics in Wikipedia

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Escaping the ethnic cleansing

This is what is written now:

In the chaotic aftermath of defeat, almost the entire non-Abkhazian (mainly ethnic Georgians) population fled the region by sea or over the mountains escaping a large-scale ethnic cleansing initiated by the victors

For a person unfamiliar with this issue it may seem like Armenians, Russians, Jews and other non-Georgian and non-Abkhazian inhabitants of Abkhazia fled fearing the ethnic cleansing by Abkhazians. As far as I know that was not the case and the main reason for the departure of Russians and other people was the economic hardships. Anyway, I would like someone to provide the appropriate reference to the sentence in question.Alaexis 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That was my interpretation. It sounds like everyone left except for Abkhazian population. Was that not the case? if so, improve on it! I don't know a lot about this subject. - Pernambuco 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It definitely was not. The non-Georgian and non-Abkhazian population (mainly Russians and Armenians) as a rule supported Abkhazians against Georgians during the war. I suppose they rather wanted to be part of Russia than Georgia. After the end of the war Abkhazia obviously expirienced very hard times in economic sense. The Russians who were mainly city-dwellers and did not have the advantage of family (clan) support were hit the hardest. So quite naturally a lot of them emigrated to Russia (as well as many Armenians and Abkhazians). The exact after-war statistics is unavailable with the figures varying greatly. By now I don't have time to provide the necessary references so I'll just change a bit your contribution.Alaexis 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

New main table

Hi,

As I said before, I thought that the table of Abkhazia was going pretty confuse. So I changed from the old one (to the right) to the new one (to the left).

In fact there’s not so much new infos on the new table; the main difference is the presence of the national symbols used by the Unionist Government nowadays. And the former infos were rearranged in a neater form, separating the geographic aspects from the political ones.

Well, that’s it. Feel free to discuss, and eventually edit it.--MaGioZal 08:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Аҧсны/აფხაზეთი
Apsny/Apkhazeti

Flag¹ Coat of Arms¹ ¹ Used by the de facto government
Official languages	Abkhaz¹ ², Russian¹ Georgian²
¹ Used by the de-facto separatist government
² According to the Constitution of Georgia
Political status	De Facto: Independent De Jure (internationally recognized): Autonomous Republic within Georgia
Capital	Sukhumi
Capital's coordinates	43°00′N 40°59′E
President¹	Sergei Bagapsh
Prime Minister¹	Alexander Ankvab
¹ De-facto separatist government in Sukhumi
Chairman of the Supreme Council²	Temur Mzhavia
Chairman of Cabinet of Ministers²	Malkhaz Akishbaia
² De-jure Government of Abkhazia in Upper Abkhazia
Independence  – Declared  – Recognition	From Georgia  23 July 1992  none
Area  – Total  – % water	8,600 km²  Negligible
Population  - Total (2000 est.)  - Density	250,000  29/km²
Currency	Russian ruble, Georgian lari
Time zone	UTC +3

Аҧсны/აფხაზეთი
Apsny/Apkhazeti

Area  – Total  – % water	8,600 km²  Negligible
Population  - Total (2000 est.)  - Density	250,000  29/km²
Time zone	UTC +3
Abkhazian Separatist Government Flag Coat of Arms
Official languages	Abkhaz and Russian
Political status	De facto independent
Capital	Sukhumi
Capital's coordinates	43°00′N 40°59′E
President	Sergei Bagapsh
Prime Minister	Alexander Ankvab
Independence  – Declared  – Recognition	From Georgia  23 July 1992  none
Currency	Russian ruble
Abkhazian Unionist Government File:Coat of Arms of Georgia (Sakartvelo).png Flag Coat of Arms
Official languages	Abkhaz and Georgian
Political status	Autonomous Republic of Georgia
Location	Upper Abkhazia (formerly known as Kodori Valley)
Chairman of Cabinet of Ministers	Malkhaz Akishbaia
Chairman of the Supreme Council	Temur Mzhavia
Independence (within Georgia)  – Declared  – Recognized	From Soviet Union    9 April 1991  25 December 1991
Currency	Georgian lari

Great! You have a very good point and your suggestion is worth to be discussed. The article needs to be seriously updated. I'll try to shorten the history section ASAP. Thanks, --Kober 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Separatist/De facto and Unionist/De jure

I think the terms “De facto” and “De jure” to designate the Sukhumi-Russian-backed and Kodori-Georgian-backed governments respectivelly are nowadays outdated, because of two factors:

01. The Abkhazian separatist government in Sukhumi does not control the entire territory of Abkhazia. The Gali district is conttrolled by Sukhumi and UNOMIG, and the region North of the Kodori valley is nowadays fully controlled by the government of Georgia, which already installed a government that is, theorically, the internationally-accepted one.

02. So, call the separatist government as “De facto” and the unionist government as “De facto” for me is POV. I think other sections in this article and other articles about Abkhazia and Abkhazian politics should be altered to reflect the current realities.--MaGioZal 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The terms "de facto" and "de jure" are legal terms and are used by most governments and international organizations (such as the UN), and not taken as POV. Nor is it necessary for a governmental entity to control 100% of its claimed territory to qualify for status of being the de facto government; it need only control the major portion. I would deprecate use of the terms here, but for different reasons.

First, the average reader is often unfamiliar with these terms (as they are "technical" and foreign [Latin]), and they form awkward, confusing adjectives for identifying a particular governing body — it's hard to keep straight which is which. Secondly, if Georgia attacks Abkhazia to regain control and is successful, at some point in the conflict the "de facto" government will change from the secessionist government to the Georgian government.

I believe that "secessionist" and "unionist" are much clearer; what is necessary is to identify these terms, when first used, as "de facto" or "de jure" and wikilinked so those unfamiliar with them can learn more. Askari Mark | Talk 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. - Pernambuco 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Someone using a Turksih ISP has altered the “Official language” status of the separatist government in Sukhumi to just “Abkhazian” because in its stating “(russian language is not official according to CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ABKHAZIA ( http://www.abkhaziya.info/GOS/GOS3.htm ))”. Well, let’s check it:

ARTICLE 6. The official language of the Republic of Abkhazia is Abkhazian. The Russian language as well as the Abkhazian language shall be recognized as the language of the government, public and other institutions. The state shall guarantee all ethnic groups living in Abkhazia the right to use freely their own languages.

So, as we can read the conclusion is that yes, the Russian language has a co-official status in the Abkhazian separatist-controlled territory. And as we can see in a lot of websites and many testemonials, the “De facto” main language of Abkhazia, used by the government and the people that remainded there after the war in 1993, is Russian.--MaGioZal 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Trifurcation of this page?

I suggest this page be split into 3 parts. One for the Republic of Abkhazia, one for the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and one for all things general to Abkhazia that don't directly relate to either of the two governments. Sephia karta 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If no one has anything to comment I will go ahead with this and expect such an edit not to be reverted immediately. Sephia karta 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for replying late. Your proposal does have merit but it I'm afraid it will create a great confusion for readers. --Kober 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How so? How would this be more confusing than similar set-ups with Western Sahara, Korea and Taiwan? All 3 articles would start with a short explanatory note linking to the other two articles. If anything, this would introduce more clarity, keeping things separate that are separate and following the practised principle of Wikipedia to devote seperate articles to seperate political entities. Sephia karta 13:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links to Combat Films & Research videos

We at Combat Films and Research believe that these episodes of our weekly CFR-TV are relevant and informative. We request that an unbiased editor have a look at our episodes to verify that it relates to this page, and if it is found relevant, for an external link to our content to be placed on the article. This page is static and there are no plans for it to be changed.

http://www.combatfilms.com/cfrtv_archive_0011.asp http://www.combatfilms.com/cfrtv_archive_0012.asp

I have replaced this for a reason. Several people keep attempting to add links to this company's films. So that the editors here don't have to constantly revert them, please explain here — as a matter of record for later archival purposes — why these links are inappropriate for this article. While it may be spam for Combat Films to post a link to its own site here, this is not necessarily true for other editors. Askari Mark | Talk 04:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

The term "de-jure" and sseparatist are extremly subjective in a situation when the whole area was devolved from the Soviet Union based on imposed boundaries. The "de-jure" government may in fact be internationally recognized, but it's hardly a "government" at all and is generally regarded by those of Abkhazian nationality as collaborationist.

This article should mention both points of view from a neutral position. I have therefore added a POV tag. Scott Adler 07:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. "De facto" and "De jure" are not subjective names, but legitimate terms used by the UN. There are two infoboxes in the article: one for the de facto authorities, and the other for the de jure government. Furthermore, the "de facto" one goes first. Doesn't this mean that the both sides are represented from a neutral position? --Kober 07:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I also deprecate the POV tag. The issue of "de facto/de jure" and "separatist/unionist" has been discussed here at length. I invite you to withdrawn the POV tag until you have at least read the relevant commentary. If you then still feel these terms are unwarranted, please recommend others which you feel are NPOV before adding a POV tag to the article again. Askari Mark | Talk 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Another POV: Equal weight

Not very active here, so this is for the experienced editors to discuss: It is POV to give the two governments equal weight if that isn't the reality in Abkhazia. My understanding is: One has control of 99% of the area. The other one has a small village in the gorge. In the article's infobox, these two are listed next to each other on the same basis. This is POV because of the weight. The right thing to do is to revert to the infobox which was there before, and then put a link on it: "See also: De facto government of Abkhazia". To a separate page. Please discuss. - Pernambuco 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, the de jure government enjoys an international recognition and controls not only a small village, but almost 20% of Abkhazia though this territory is scarcely inhabited. Secondly, I don't think that the two governments are given equal weight in the article and the "de facto" infobox goes first. The article's intro explicitly states that the secessionist authorities control most of Abkhazia including the regional capital. Elimination of the infobox for the de jure government wouldn't make the article more neutral, IMHO. Thanks, --Kober 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Kober. The presence of the two infoboxes does not imply POV through "equal weight" so much as it admits to there being a complicated state of affairs in Abkhazia. Having both a "legitimate" de jure and a "legitimate" de facto government is certainly just that. Furthermore, trying to explain the history and reality of this fact would require more than 1% of the article. Balance here should not be measured by "weight of text" so much as "evenhandedness in approach". -- Askari Mark | Talk 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I asked about this exactly one month ago and it looks like there are no objections or strong opinions on this, so I am o.k. with the current approach and will not change it, it was just something that I wanted to point out and let others discuss. And I thank you for doing so, thanks. Pernambuco 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a reference?

Could anybody provide a reference which proves that theMeanwhile the Russian State Duma is looking for legal ways to incorporate this region into Russia quote is true (because it sounds like 100% anti-Abkhazian POV).Thank you.Dimts 13:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The State Duma’s failed attempt to pass a bill on "the admission of new federal subjects into the Russian Federation" in the spring of 2005 comes to mind. Given the Abkhaz separatists’ frequently voiced desire to become "an associated member of the Russian Federation", I don’t think that the statement is particularly "anti-Abkhazian POV". As an opposer of "Georgia’s aggressive attempts to subjugate Abkhazia", you should do some more research on the issue before deleting the text from the article. Best, Kober 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, this statement is infelicious. It suggests that the absence of such 'legal ways' are currently the main hurdle for anything like associate relations between the two states, whereas in reality it is totally dependend on political will. Russia would first have to recognise Abkhazia and it does not want to do so at the moment, for whatever reasons. But if/when it does, all that is needed is 2 laws passed by resp. the Russian and the Abkhazian parliaments.Sephia karta 17:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kober,Abkhazia,unlike Transnistria,does not seek to unite with Russia.It prefers to become an independent member of CIS (you should do more research yourself).Secondly,you said it yourself that the attempt to pass that bill failed.So,the statetment has no ground beneath it.It has to go.Dimts 09:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the bill was discussed and failed means that the Duma is looking for legal ways to incorporate this region into Russia though without any result. I agree that this is due the absence of a political will, but that is another story. Whatever the reason behind it, the fact remains the fact.

As for the Abkhaz separatists's aspirations to become part of Russia, try to use a pretty simple and effective way to get information called Googling. Here are just a few results: [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. --Kober 10:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia has had past experiences too unhappy with Russia for it to want to give up independance and join Russia. Rather, its politicians have in the past voiced desire for 'associated membership', similar to the relationship between Micronesia and the USA. Whether Abkhazia will still want this if/when their independance is internationally recognised, is another matter. Sephia karta 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this what is called Associated state? There was a link to it from the Transnister page where I sometimes also hang out, it is a way to have a closer relationship without giving up independence..... Pernambuco 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Sephia karta 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Kober,are you misleading the readers on purpose?Dimts 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear stalker, could you be more precise in your accusations? I have an impression that you don't even know what you are talking about. Also, why is that your occasional appearances on Wikipedia pages always conclude with attacks on me? Do you know how such a behavior is classified on Wikipedia? Happy holidays, btw! --Kober 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kober,I'll be more precise.This reference (which is reference N2 on the Abkhazia page) does not say that the Russian parliament unanimaously voted to incorparate the region.You really should read it.

P.S do you know what a "stalker" is,or a "xenophobe" for that matter?

P.S.S I'm on Wikipedia everyday.Dimts 09:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh,and I've never turned you into my target.Your little attempts to discredit me are amusing.Dimts 08:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally,somebody made that statement NPOV (in other words,told the truth).Dimts 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Adjectival form of de jure and de facto

These do not take internal hyphens when used as adjectives. They are "foreign loan words" (i.e., Latin), so they are always written de jure and de facto (and never de-jure or de-facto). The related article De-jure Government of Abkhazia should be renamed accordingly. Askari Mark | Talk 16:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

What's this about the Kosovo-Abkhazia? --PaxEquilibrium 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

This map presents Abkhazia as a separate state (most location maps are dedicated to the separate states) which Abkhazia is not officially. It’s definitely POV map which is not needed on this controversial article. Otherwise, all separatist enclaves should be shown separately on the location maps like Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. If you need to locate Abkhazia, this map can be used to identify the northern part of this Georgian Autonomous republic [11]. Thanks. Ldingley 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Location maps are for any area where it might be useful to show where in the world the area you are discussing is located, showing the area on a world map doesn't necessarily imply the area is independant, it just shows what area you are talking about - Currently there is nothing in the article to establish that for readers that aren't already familiar with Georgia. I'll welcome suggestions for a non-POV way to show that. Kmusser 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully concur with Kmusser. Location maps such as these may be found in news articles, National Geographic, etc. They are an aid to locating a place — and it need not be a country; it can be a province, region, a country that existed long ago, etc. Such maps are value-neutral. There is nothing in it suggesting that Abkhazia is or is not separate from Georgia. It merely illustrates for the benefit of the reader where Abkhazia is located ... something probably 99% of the world likely has no idea. In fact, it would seem to me an excellent idea for such maps to be added to articles on other poorly known places like Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. The map you linked to only shows Georgia, and using it would suggest that all of Georgia was Abkhazia! Abkhazia exists, it has a location, and showing where it is located is NPOV. If there were a title to the map suggesting Abkhazia was an independent country, you'd have a point about POV, but it doesn't and I'm afraid you don't. Unless someone can show how this map is clearly POV, it should be allowed to remain. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but I don’t agree with you Askari. This map does show Abkhazia as a separate state. Only this region is highlighted in green and its borders are outside of the de jure borders of Georgia. If the region would have been green in the Georgian borders than I would understand the point which you and Kmusser were making. But separating it physically from the rest of Georgia is definitely a POV. And I do have a point in that. You cant have the locator maps for every region in the world. Than you should start with Russia, a place where many different republics exist and 99% of the people in the west do not know about their location. However, im certain that the Russian users would not allow it. Therefore, this map (although many thanks to author for considering the interests of the reader) should be modified so we don’t get any wrong impressions. Make a locator map where the whole Georgian borders appear, and you may separate Abkhazian Autonomous Republic by different colour. That way the official recognition and de jure status is respected. Again, im not accusing anyone, as I told to Kmusser I admire his dedication and consideration for the interests of the people who came to Wiki to learn about this subject. I made a valid point and it should be considered by the author of the locator map. However, I will find it hard to let this map endure on this article based on the controversy which surround this issue and in terms of NPOV integrity. Many Thanks Ldingley 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Ldingley. Consider removing the white line between Georgia and Abkhazia as these lines designate state boundaries on the map. Unfortunately Abkhazia is not de jure independent yet.Alaexis 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are many unfortunate things, like the still or yet non-existant Independent state of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital. We all have our own views and political wishes but the reality differs :) Its all up to the author to make the decision on the map. Ldingley 15:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I should hope that it is up to us all to make that decision (whoever the author might be you are referring to). And as for 'reality', I don't know about you, but for me the reality is that I would need an Abkhazian visa to visit the republic. Sephia karta 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that either representation of Abkhazia on a map (highlighted within the wider region vs. highlighted within Georgia) presents a certain POV. It seems to be impossible to have a map that is NPOV, or it would have to be one where both Abkhazia and Georgia are seperately highlighted from the wider region, to present the disagreement about the relationship between the two entities.

Another approach would be what I proposed before, to trifurcate the article into one general article, one article for the Republic of Abkhazia and one for the Autnomous republic of Abkhazia, where the two latter articles could have maps resp. showing Abkhazia as a seperate state and as within Georgia. Sephia karta 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, right now there's two maps up there, one showing Abkhazia within Georgia and one showing it within the region. This seems to be a balanced approach and in any case, if one map goes than the other should too. Sephia karta 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You may make visa regimes anywhere where possible, in this case massacring anyone who does not agree with your separatist drive and expel 300,000 of its rightful citizens. It’s a regime, a separatist regime which came to power by force and dirty war. Similar self designated republics have sprung up and in vain. International recognition of the statehood is more important than your claims of being mono-ethnic republic attaining power through utter violence. To split this article into self proclaimed/imposed so called Republic of Abkhazia of the separatist mono-ethnic/ideological regime and into Autonomous Republic which is internationally recognized via numerous UN resolutions is senseless. Than why not split Nagorno-Karabakh into Azeri republic and Armenian? Tibet? Palestine as its capital in Jerusalem (in terms of de facto, Arabs claim that and live there), Kurdistan? Etc. I’m sure many articles about different republics within Russia would spring up as separate Republics. This is off topic and has nothing to do with the map. I made my point so the author would take it into consideration. But if you want somehow to legalize the notion of glorious and victorious separatist regimes in any country and self designated Republics and Presidents, fell free to indulge but lets not deviate from the topic. Ldingley 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how any of what I said was not on topic. We clearly don't agree on this conflict, but what's right and what has happened and what should happen are issues seperate to the one at hand.

Incidently, the (tri)furcation I advocate for Abkhazia into region and political entities has been applied to Tibet and Palestine. The reason why there is no article on the Azeri republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is because no such thing exists. Sephia karta 01:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at revising the map, let me know what you think, I'm welcome to other ideas. Kmusser 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats a true NPOV version. Many thanks Kmusser again for designing these much needed maps. Best regards. May i also suggest to make similar maps for Chechnya and other republics of Caucasus region? It would help a lot. Thanks againLdingley 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ldingley. The current one seems fine to me. The topic is already controversial. Let's don't inflame another POV dispute. --Kober 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Kmusser's revised map is perfect. And, yes, Ldingley, you can have a locator map for any region, province, etc. — as long as it locates the subject of the article. A map cannot be inherently POV if it just shows a location; you need labels on it to do that. The white border you saw was an artifact of how the map was made, not some intent to push a POV. While the subject of this article is indeed contentious, I think we need to remember to assume good intentions. Not everybody who tries to contribute to this article is trying to push a POV. A better way to have handled this contribution would have been to address anyone's concerns here on the talk page, not automatically deleting it before only a couple of people got the chance to even view it. Letting Kmusser know what concerns some people had with the original map allowed him to come up with a version that satisfied everyone (I think). That's a much more constructive process and encourages more people to make positive contributions to this article. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This new map is nearly ideal. I cannot speak for all Russians but for me the similar map of any Russian region is perfectly ok, contrary to what Ldingley thinks )). Alaexis 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I can live with it. Since we're on the topic of maps though, since we're all so keen to have maps be NPOV, and since currently the article features a map showing Abkhazia as a province of Georgia and a map of Abkhazia with Georgianised names I suggest that these either be replaced or complementised by a map following the Abkhazian standards.

Plus, additionally, a map showing what part of Abkhazia is actually controlled by whom would be very neat. Sephia karta 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What to write in other articles about or mentioning places in Abkhazia

What should we write in other articles about or mentioning places in Abkhazia, about where they are located. Are they in Abkhazia, or in Georgia, or in Abkhazia, Georgia’s breakaway region, or in Georgian autonomous republic of Abkhazia, or defined some other way. All those have been used on Wikipedia city articles, I can see. How to write in city articles? How to write in lists of places or in articles about people where we don't want a too long definition. Probably a controversial issue. -- BIL 23:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Since it is such a controversial issue, we have to have too long definitions to maintain NPOV, imo. For the sake of neutrality, we should mention both de facto and de jure statuses of Abkhazia. Regards, --Kober 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Abkhazia, Georgia’s breakaway region" is ok, imho. I can't think of any shorter term. Alaexis 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Abkhazia, Georgia's breakaway republic", since that's what it is, a republic, and I don't believe that there is serious dispute about its being a republic. Sephia karta 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The last days there has been an edit war in the article Extremes on Earth about the world's deepest cave Voronya Cave, located in Abkhazia, Georgia's breakaway republic. Someone changed the location, preferring just Abkhazia. Someone else changed to just Georgia. Can we confirm here what we think is best. -- BIL 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I find acceptable any of "Abkhazia, Georgia's breakaway republic", "Abkhazia, de jure part of Georgia" and "Abkhazia, de facto independent" sephia karta 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazia land of [insert something here]

My goodness, have certain "unbiased" editors done a number on wikipedia. Wow, what they lack in skill, they make up for in SPAM. First off, this is an article about Abkhazia, not the political status of Abkhazia, which is de-facto Russian and de-jure Georgian, (in fact it's Russian but on the map it's part of Georgia). If you guys want, start up an article on the politics of Abkhazia/Georgia and spam away. But seriously, claiming that "Georgians and Abkhazians live in peace and then come the meany Russians and wreckie wreck everything" is pathetic, especially when Abkhazians are pointing out that they were opressed by Georgians. Also, this article is about the land of Abkhazia, not about Mr. Saakashvili or about his "feelings" towards Abkhazia. It's like that dumbass who wrote about Politkovskaya's murder when discussing Russian Duma elections of 2004. It's not related! This isn't a political article. So I have a suggestion: take the politics out, and make that a new article; that way when someone wants to invest in Abkhazia and check it's Demographics, he doesn't have to read all the bullshit you, "honest" editors wrote. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.32.85 (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Abkazia land of Abkhazians

• Has Wikipedia become the mouthpiece of Mr. Shakashvili ? Why are you deleting the POV immediately, without trying to convince us about your definition of labelling people as "secessionist" just because they have preferred "independence" from Georgia in democratic elections; since Georgians have tried to assimilate them since the rule of famous (!) Georgians Stalin and Lavrenty Beria ? What are you trying to hide in this 21st century ?

• This article is clearly biased. Why are you using the word "secessionist" throughout the article for people who want to be "independent" ? The ABKHAZIAN people do not want to live under Georgian control and they have proven this fact in democratic elections time and again. Who can blame them if they are fed up with Georgians like Stalin and Lavrenty Beria ?
• They have seen how Georgia has cancelled autonomy of another previously autonomous region, ie. Adjara, after their elected leader Aslan Abashidze was removed from power after Georgian intervention. \\mk

ABHAZIA, LAND OF GEORGIA. 70% OF POPULATION- MEGREL (GERGIAN). EVEN BAGAPSH'S (HEAD OF SELF PROCLAIMED REPULIC)IS MARRIED TO MEGREL. IT IS NOT ABOUT ETHNICITY, THIS CONFLICT IS ABOUT CAPITALISM OR COMMUNISM? GOT IT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.14.58 (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• George, lets analyze this...you say abkhazia is land of georgia, and abkhazians are georgians...does this make sense if abkhazians themselves say they are not georgians?!

The same goes for South Ossetia...

George my friend, of abkhazians and south ossetians do not want to be a part of georgia, and it is clear to everyone that these are different peoples who have different culture and languages than georgians and have been living in these lands for a very very very long time...why the hec do you want them in georgia?

forget the language of nationalizim and war and so forth...today is not the time for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.37.61 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes my friend, they(Abkhaz and Ossetians) want to be the part of the Soviet Union, which does not xist any more. There are people in ex-soviet countries who think they can travel back in time. It works for Russia, why not? They did not have to care about survival, the state was taking care of them. Once soviet infrustructures were gone people went on strike. Abkhaz and so called South Ossetians are brainwashed by the communists that they can do this. These autonomies are the mines plotted by Stalin and other comunists. There are many people in Abkhazia and so called South Ossetia who believe their self proclaimed administartion is wrong. But they are under presure and they know if they go against self proclaimed governments they will lose everything. I strongly believe that both self-proclaimed governors have been appinted by ..you know whom. There are hundreds of Ossetiand and Abkhaz living in the capital, or other districts of Georgia. There are Ossetian villages in Imerety, peacefully residing next to Imers(west georgians like megrels, Guruls...

To prrove 100% that Abkhaz are Georgian tribes but influenced by Maslims, you can see their folk songs and dances and than see Megrel, Svan folk dances and songs and if you are not one of them, it would be a compelling evidence for you that it is impossible to classify Abkhaz as anybody else, because you will see no difference.

Another thing is that an Abkhaz boy confessed that they are associating themselves with north Caucasian tribes, baathists and that they want to create a unitary muslim state between Russia and georgia, maybe whithin Russian federation. This could be true, since Chechen wariors are present in Abkhazia and in early 1990s, Chechens activly fought to massacare Georgians. North Caucasian muslims are activly fighting in Iraq agains American and other coalition troops (see archives of news on Iraq and Afghanistan). Georgia had a hot spot like this called Adjaria bordering Turkey, but people threw the governor away and guess what? He ran away where? to Russia and he strongly believes in Communism. Another region like this was in Samckhe Djavakheti, where Arminians wanted to sieze power, but local population took control. Now, do you understand what is georgia going through? Imagine if US Niagra population claims that there is another part of Niagra in Canada and that they want to become a part of canada or vice versa. What do you think will happen?

Wrongfulness of Abkhazia and So called South Ossetia cases have already been coded in Intrnational Law. Aaland remains in Finland and nothing can change it. It's an axiom and there is no Kosovo precedent that can be used as a value. Separatists are not just these regions , but also some poltical parties within Georgia who strongly fight to destabilize Georgia and this is the task given by th Communists who still believe in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.14.58 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazian Air Force

Aerobird and I have created the beginning of an article on the Abkhazian Air Force based on the limited information available to us. I'm sure some of the editors here have access to better and more extensive information, and we invite your contributions! Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

<Off-topic discussion moved to new topic, "Russian propaganda?> -- Askari Mark (Talk) 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the article but strip any propaganda from it Buffadren 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian propaganda?

Askari Mark beleave me, many editors has not true information about abkazia. This article is sample Russian propagand--Gnome(G) 08:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning, Gnome(G), but having just re-read the article to see how it has evolved since I last read it, I don't think I can agree. Wikipedia is pledged to hold to a neutral point of view (NPOV), supporting neither the views of one side or the other, but outlining both. Can you show me the anti-Georgian bias in passages such as these?

• Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic within the de jure borders of Georgia, on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, bordering the Russian Federation to the north. Abkhazia’s independence is not recognized by any international organization or country and is regarded as an autonomous republic of Georgia, with Sukhumi as its capital.

• On 21 February 1992, Georgia's ruling Military Council announced that it was abolishing the Soviet-era constitution and restoring the 1921 Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. Many Abkhaz interpreted this as an abolition of their autonomous status. In response, on 23 July 1992, the Abkhazia government effectively declared secession from Georgia, although this gesture went unrecognized by any other country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gnome, please look at Ldingley's userboxes [[12]] . Mine are just as biased as his (although of course you agree with his position and don't agree with mine).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an outside opinion

Hello, as an outsider to this article I would just like to point out that the first paragraph is both lopsided and contradictory. I would recommend something a little more NPOV. Abkhazia is a disputed territory within the borders of the Republic of Georgia. Rather than claiming it is a defacto republic. I would also point out that since there is a conflict on-going in Abkhazia the page should be tagged to reflect that. On this same point I would remind users to be careful of Recentism. Please don't make an edit unless it can be verified.--Cailil 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I thoroughly disagree with you here. There is nothing contradictory in the opening paragraph, its information is factually true (according to the sources, though Gnome(G) doesn't agree with this) and it is NPOV. Stating that Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic is merely an observation about the situation on the ground, and it does not in any way qualify this situation in terms of right or wrong. sephia karta 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I'm sorry, but I think you are being too bold when challenging the internationally accepted sovereignity of Georgia over its lawful territories (in this case Abkhazia). Just a friendly advise: don't expose yourself to Ruskii propaganda for a long period of time. This will severely damage your brain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.72.136.161 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is hardly a good argument. Look at Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland articles. There the intros resemble the current one here. I'm not really against the change, I just don't see the reason behind it. I don't think changing for the sake of changing is a good idea. If anyone is unhappy with the current intro please give some arguments. Alaexis 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am forced to agree with Alaexis, he is right, there is no good argument for changing, I support Alaexis and withdraw my proposal Pernambuco 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ldingley, what Montenegro or Russian Caucasus have to do with the problem we are discussing? Unless you can read my thoughts please refrain from writing what I think about Russian or Israeli integrity or anything else in future. I'll write what I think myself if it's related to the subject :).

Do you (as a native English-speaker) consider the current version (Abkhaz separatist appeal) grammatically correct? Alaexis 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This is harder than I thought.Let me explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try Alexis, if you are cracking down on international law you are an anarchist and nothing can convince you or may be you are just naive. Soon we'll get back our territories and you will lose, then we might even think about getting back our Sochi, pride of Russia and homeland of Georgia. You think you can get away with this? You do not Know Georgians. Have you heard about Mamelukes. Georgians do not lose, because they are strong and it is the law of nature that Strong, Smart, Right and Human survives. That's why symbol of Georgia is St. George. We are here to support democracy and you are there to support anarchy, war and separatism. I'm sorry but you are wrong in every way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.14.58 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

New Athos problem

wat is this?! it's name. translate name?! ok... someone transleted name...map is english...yea? if u translate novyy afon from russian it will be new afon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

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

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

btw, there is another issue with the map. The accepted English name of the territory is Abkhazia, not Abkhazeti or Apsny. So if this map is to be completely English the Georgian version of the republic's name has to be removed as well.

Another alternative is to give three-language territory name (Abkhazia, Apsny, Abkhazeti) and two-language names of the cities (Tkvarcheli, Tkuarchal; Gali, Gal). Alaexis 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I can only repeat what I have written more clearly. There can be two alternative policies regarding the names on the map.

1. Accepted English names only. This means Sukhumi, Tkvarcheli, Gali and Abkhazia.

2. English, Georgian and Abkhazian variants. This means three names for some entities (like Abkhazia, Abkhazeti, Apsny) and two names for most of them (Gali, Gal; Tkuarcheli, Tkuarchal) because usually accepted English version coincides with Georgian one.

In MY opinion the current map is ok. However if someone wants to make a new one s/he should adhere to one of the aforementioned policies to be consistent. Alaexis 16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. sephia karta 19:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well known?

The article states that "Abkhazia is well known for its beauty and contrasting landscapes." I take issue with that statement. Who is it well known by? By what scale is this measured? I reccomend the sentence be deleted. The next sentence is descriptive and NPOV. "The landscapes of the region range from coastal forests (endemic pine forests near Bichvinta/Pitsunda) and citrus plantations, to eternal snows and glaciers to the north of the republic." K 46R A 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Number of Georgian returnees to Gali

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

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

The head of the Gal district of Abkhazian republic is Ruslan Kishmariya ( [13], [14] ). I gather it's a Mingrelian surname. If I'm right the phrase about predominantly Abkhaz authorities is not valid. Alaexis 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I've looked at the list of the mp candidates from the Gal district [15] . They are Yuri Kereselidze, Akhra Kvekveskiri, Ramin Chekheria, Tamaz Shonia, Vyacheslav Vardania. Are they all Abkhaz? Is there any good method of determining one's ethnicity?

It seems like Abkhaz are more likely to have Russian names and seldom have Georgian ones (although this also happens). Anyway names like Tamaz, Akhra and Ramin sound Georgian to me. Alaexis 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please refrain from personal insults. I can also make some nasty remark about your wiki-behaviour, English or contributions.

What about Ramin Katamadze? I've recently listened to a radio broadcast where he participated [16]. So either he's not Georgian or you're wrong. Adiós. Alaexis 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can read, what is written on the link you provide, you will see that from the very beginning that person denounces his Georgian identity. In the same way if he were Richard Katamadze, this would not make Richard a Georgian name:).

And Akhra is Abkhaz name with no alternatives or usages by other nationalities. Thats why you should check information before saying "it seems so to me" and editing the article on such "grounds". Pirveli 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Now back to the article, why it is so surprisingly silent about the role of Russian Air Force in bombing and destroying Sokhumi? As far as I remember, the Russian defense minister and notorious Great Russian Chauvinist Grachev claimed that Georgians were bombing themselves. However, the Georgians shot down, in 1993, a Russian Su piloted by Major Shipko who had served in the Russian air forces and the UN military mission confirmed this fact.

This is correct but was the Su on a bombing mission or spying ? Buffadren 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There ARE Abkhaz users on wikipedia. Look here [17]

This is the start page of Abkhaz wikipedia [18] Alaexis 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

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

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

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

IMO, the galleries in the Georgia, Wales, and Spain articles are excessive as well.--Kober^Talk 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Demographics -> table

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

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

Currently there are 3 sets of pre-revolution numbers: from Encyclopedia of Islam (1881), from the B&E encyclopedia (actually based on the 1897-census data) and 1917 data. Before any further discusion could you provide reference for the latter statistics? Then we'll consider either moving all this info into table with appropriate footnotes or leaving pre-1926 numbers in the text.

About Sukhum district. The important thing is that at the time of census Sukhum district had occupied the same territory as the Abkhazian ASSR did later. Alaexis 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually I trust this data. You've pointed out recently that Gagra was part of Sochi district (or Chernomorski, not sure) since 1904 and till the Georgian conquest. Since the census was conducted by the Provisional Government Gagra wasn't included in Abkhazia. That's the reason behind conflicting numbers, I believe. Alaexis 07:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So this data is not very relevant - it includes only rural population of part of the present-day Abkhazia. It certainly doesn't deserve to be put into the table near the census numbers for the whole Abkhazia. Alaexis 07:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Being Canadian does not make a person non-biased on all issues :).

Please don't accuse me of what I haven't done. It was Kober who found 1881 info (look here - [19]). If you don't like it you may remove it, I have no objections. Regards. Alaexis 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC

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

Vandalism

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

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

Dear Buffadren, what are you talking about? It was exactly what an ethnic cleansing campaign is called and it is recongnized as such in the OSCE resolutions. The ethnic cleansing of Georgians was a deliberate policy aimed at changing the region's demograhic situation. Do you really think that the Abkhaz could have broken away in the presence of the Georgian majority of 300,000? What you call 'Ethnic Cleansing' type hysteria is actually a strong collection of facts. If anything, there are numerous sources for that. --Kober^Talk 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kober, not quite right. The majority of republic's poptlation was non-Georgian in 1989 and, consequently, supported Abkhaz during the conflict. Regarding the issue itself I'm neutral. The fact is that the majority of ethnic Georgians left the reptblic after the war. How to nmame it is the matter of choice. Alaexis 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Reference

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

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

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

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

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

Demographics II

Alex, can I ask you where your 1897 figures come from? I’ve just checked B&E and it only says "…абхазцев и самурзаканцев (86%), мингрельцев (5,5%), греков (3,5%), армян (1,5%), русских (ок. 2%), грузин (около 1%), немцев и проч", leaving the cryptic category of "Samurzakanians" open to conflicting interpretations. I gather your calculations are based upon the other B&E entry which places the number of ethnic Abkhaz at 70,000. However, it doesn’t specify whether the figure refers to the Abkhaz dwelling in Abkhazia or in the Russian Empire in general. On the other hand, we know from the 1911 Britannica that "Pop. 43,000, of whom two-thirds are Mingrelians and one-third Abkhasians, a Cherkess or Circassian race. The total number of Abkhasians in the two governments of Kutais and Kuban was 72,103 in 1897".[20] (Note: Sukhumi District was part of the Kutaisi Guberniya under the Russian rule). Indeed, Abkhaz also lived (and live) outside Abkhazia, particularly in the Kuban area, Tbilisi, Kutaisi, and Adjara (where they had fled the Russian persecutions in the 1870s when Adjara was still part of the Ottoman Empire). I’m leaving the section as it is now for the time being but it definitely needs to be reworked to meet a NPOV standard and to eliminate any possible original research.--Kober^Talk 18:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason they don't write in what year the population of Abkhazia was 43,000, so I have to assume it was 1911. So they claim Abkhaz numbered 43,000/3 = 14,000 in 1911 in Abkhasia (presumably Sukhum district). If we are to believe in the first Soviet census (giving 55 th.) this number is very very unlikely (considering the revolution and civil war that happened in between).

Now let's go back to 1897 figures. Unfortunately I don't know about Abkhaz population of Tbilisi or Ajaria so I have to assume if it were significant it would be reflected in the corresponding encyclopedia article (in EB1911 or B&E). On the contrary it's written in the article 'Russia. Population: Statistics (addition)' : "К черкесской группе — кабардинцы (98561), по сев. склону Кавказа в Терской и Кубанской обл., и абхазцы (72103) — в Кутаисской губ. и другие племена (46286) в Кубанской обл." You are right that Abaza (who live in Kuban) are included in the number of Abkhaz in the encyclopedia. However they numbered only 5,000 and I have taken it into account subtacting these 5,000 from the total of 72,103. Alaexis 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t want to seem distrustful, but I’m going to need the hyperlinks to your references. I would also ask you to name the exact source about the number of Abaza. However, I still think that all these calculations are tentative. They are not supported by academic sources with the exception of outdated encyclopedias whose information is rather confusing and contradictory. That’s why I suggested leaving only the Soviet-era statistics. If you still insist on keeping the pre-Soviet figures, we will have to find something more useful in modern scholarly literature. I will probably return with some citations on the subject. --Kober^Talk 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'Abaza' article is here. The detailed list of the ethnicities of the Kutais guberniya (and of other ones) can be found here. I insist that there is no reason to dismiss the results of the 1897 census - they are just as credible as all the Soviet census figures. Alaexis 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Don’t overreact. The figures are not invented, but they are interpreted differently. That’s why I said that the section should be balanced with the information from different sources. There is not a single reference to any "mixed identity" in the Imperial Russian demographic accounts. The 1886 data contains a separate category called "Samurzakanians" (without any further details about their identity), while the 1897 census classifies them together with Abkhaz. In the 1922-23 All-Georgian Census (which included Abkhazia) Samurzakanians are also counted as Abkhaz, but in the later censuses they are classified as Georgians. Neither Muller not Hewett is the only author who has studied Abkhazia. Most scholars I have read agree that the Samurzakanians were chiefly Georgians (Mingrelians) with a minority of Abkhaz. Don’t you think that all these controversies should be reflected in the article to meet a NPOV policy?--Kober^Talk 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

2 Sephia karta. Thx for adding this info.

Kober, you are artificially making the issue more complex than it really is. The 1897 census grouped the people by their mother-language (Georgian, Mingrelian, Abkhaz; no mention of Samurzakan language because it doesn't exist). There were 59,469 Abkhaz (by mother-language) in the Kutaisi guberniya in 1897.

BE does not even state to what year do their numbers belong. Let's add something like: "EB1911 states that Abkhaz numbered one third of 43,000 sometime". Of course we cannot divide 43,000 by 3 because it would be original research :)

ps. Btw your link to EB1911 does not work any more. Alaexis 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Artificially complicating? I would rather call it striving for consistency :) The 1897 census categorizes Samurzakanians together with Abkhaz. Not on a language basis, I guess. As for 1911EB, you could think of a better solution. Just insert a verbatim quotation (don't be afraid of copyright problems; the edition is in public domain) something like this: "According to the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica,... in the early 1900s". Why to make things artificially complex? Anyway, I see no point in further arguing over the topic until I find enough time to retrieve some other academic sources and rewrite the section. --Kober^Talk 17:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing

We have already had the Ethnic Cleansing debate here and I though the matter was solved. Today Alaexis, having had nothing more to contribute to the talk page debate took matters in his own hands and having waited like a tiger in the long grass and kept low for a week, changed it again. without comment here. NOT ACCEPTABLE !!!. Buffadren 14:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comparing me(?) to a tiger :) However I don't quite underatand what do you mean. I haven't changed anything related to the ethnic cleansing in this article lately. Check the history. Alaexis 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies Alaexis you are correct it was not you and I would have been surprised if it was. but it was kober Buffadren 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Koper needs to learn to discuss things before he makes changes, will he never learn, not everyone has his point of view, some people are more neutral Pernambuco 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pernambuco, you don't even know what you are talking about. You need to learn to assume a good faith of other users and expand your rudimental knowledge of the Abkhazian conflict before posting your absolutely pointless remarks here. FYI, the issue was discussed and there was no consenus on the removal of the ethnic cleasning passage.

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

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

Shorten This

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

The United Nations and other international organizations have been fruitlessly urging the Abkhaz de facto authorities “to refrain from adopting measures incompatible with the right to return and with international human rights standards, such as discriminatory legislation… [and] to cooperate in the establishment of a permanent international human rights office in Gali and to admit United Nations civilian police without further delay.”[11]

Perhaps this version,

The United Nations and other international organizations have urged the Abkhaz authorities to; refrain from using measures that interfere with people's right to return, not to use discriminatory legislation, and to facilitate an human rights office in Gali, and to admit UN civilian police.[11]Buffadren 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

War of Abkhazia website

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

1. The history of Abkhazia section is only half-made and does not have history of Abkhazia since 16 c.

2. The timeline of the conflict contains 5 (five) items.

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

Dear Alex, why have decided that you own this article and can remove everything you deem to be "pro-Georgian"? Being yourself anti-Georgian, you can hardly be impartial when assessing the neutrality of the source. I regret that I have not enough time right now to counter this Soviet-style agit-prop campaign on Georgia conflicts-related topics. -- Kober^Talk 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

you can hardly be impartial when assessing the neutrality of the source

Who can, then? You? Or probably Luis?

Besides, if you read carefully what I've written you would've noted that my problem with this site is not that it's pro-Georgian. Alaexis 14:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

That was not what he said, and biased links are allowed but at the same time, this particular link doesnt meet the rules for external links, if you dont know it, then see the rules here ......and one more thing, is this site Pirveli's own website or is he involved with it, or what? Pernambuco 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As for this: the rules here, You should read it carefully yourself, this site does not fall to the category of links that should be avoided. As for your last sentence, I hope you asked the question, not made a comment. Because if this is a question, I just answer NO. And if this was comment, then I accuse you of slender. If it is your habit of making sites and then putting them here, this does not mean that other people also do this. Pirveli 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

there's no need to get personal, and I am aware of the rules, now one of the rules is that wiki-pedia is edited by consensus, and you do not impose yourself, clearly theres no consensus for this link yet, so keep it out of the main article until the issue is decided here in talk and dont become an edit warrior. I dont know what slender is, but you can accuse me of it if you want, that is fine. just remember, it is best to not accuse anyone of anything but best to work in peace and consensus Pernambuco 03:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on removing this link, therefore you should not do this. And also you should not accuse me of putting my site here!! If you are really concerned you can find any information you need on that site there. Without making offending "guesses". Thats really getting personal. Pirveli 16:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You can add my voice to the growing list of those who don't want this link to clutter up Wikipedia. In addition to what the others have already said, there is also another very simply rule here: Sites which are still under construction are not eligible for listing. Wait till they finish the site. Then propose it here. Till then, it stays off. - Mauco 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This "growing" list includes ONLY those biased users, who agressively supported listing Abkhazia as a "sovereign state" without reference to the fact, that it is one of the regions of Georgia. The site is not under construction. Pirveli 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This site IS under constuction. Look at http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/abkh_geschichte.htm, http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/chrono.htm, try to click on the map of the ethnic make-up. They admit themselves that: This site is still under construction. As a result, some chapters cannot be read yet. We are apologetic for the inconvenience. Please come back later. Alaexis 03:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This site is NOT under construction. Couple of its sections are. All the others are not: http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/action_pics.htm , http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Georgia/geor_orgcrime.htm , http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/video.htm , http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Georgia/geor_mod.jpg , as well as the front page, containing informative links. This site contains UNIQUE PHOTO MATERIALS, as well as video materials about the war, which one can hardly find on the web without this site, as well as unique maps and important articles. You either have not actually looked into what the site contains, or you don't like the evidence, presented there. Pirveli 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the maps present on that site is already in WikiCommons - commons:image:Mapandersen.jpg so you could just paste it into the relevant article (like Georgian Civil War). The map that shows ethinc make-up of Abkhazia does not work. Those videos are certainly not *unique* as they are only links to youtube, googlevideo etc. Some pictures appear to be stolen borrowed from abkhazeti.ru site (look there). Imo this site does not meet the minimum quality criteria to be included here. Alaexis 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have one misinterpretation of my words, and one direct lie in your message. Misinterpretation is that I said UNIQUE concerning the photographs. And unique they are. Abkhazeti.ru does not have all the photoes from this site that you are deleting. The lie is that the photoes that are both on this site and on abkhazeti.ru are not stolen. The site has direct links on abkhazeti.ru. Besides, abkhazeti.ru has been also deleted from this Wikipedia article. Thus, you are trying to leave no source providing these pictures in the Abkhazia article. Pirveli 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)