Talk:Abkhazia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abkhazia article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

To-do list for Abkhazia:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Discuss the reputation of long living among the abkhazians (there are books on this)

Abkhazia is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Abkhazia is part of WikiProject Caucasia, an attempt to better improve articles related to Caucasia and Caucasians. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page. This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Abkhazia. Georgia (country) Portal Abkhazia is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the country of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Abkazia land of Abkhazians 2 Abkazia land of Georgia 3 Abkhazian Air Force 4 Russian propaganda? 5 an outside opinion 6 Here we go again 7 New Athos problem 8 Well known? 9 Number of Georgian returnees to Gali 10 Gallery 11 Demographics -> table 12 Vandalism 13 Reference 14 Demographics II 15 Ethnic Cleansing 16 Shorten This 17 War of Abkhazia website 18 Links in general 19 Ethnic cleansing 20 Demographics III 21 Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#About_sovereignty 22 To Aristokles 23 Demographics IV 24 What I mean 24.1 Number 24.2 Restricted 25 Intro 26 Proper Source 27 Intruduction 28 Excessive Use of De Facto 29 Clarification/More Details on Pocopocopocopoco's suggestions 30 Religion 31 Postage stamps 32 Russia completes withdrawal from 1 of 2 remaining bases in Georgia 33 Abkhazian WIkipedians 34 Negotiations between Abkhazia and Georgia, GEORGIA ACCUSES RUSSIAN PEACEKEEPERS OF VIOLATING THEIR MANDATE 35 Suggestion 36 POV sources 37 Abkhazian vs Abkhaz 38 The first sentence 39 Dispute resolved regarding Autonomous Government? 40 External links 41 Serguei Bagapch, self-proclaimed president of Abkhazia? 42 Name for Abkhazia in Megrelian 43 Republic of Abkhazia in the opening paragraph 44 Fair use rationale for Image:Zshartava1993sukhumi.jpg 45 Sanctions 46 War in Abkhazia Section needs more cites 47 Abkhazia: Independent or not? 48 Current Event? 49 60,000 refuge return claim

[edit] 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)

[edit] Abkazia land of Georgia

Ok! Now listen people! My name is George and I'm from Georgia. You all must know, that Abkazia is Georgia, not independent country. Georgia is independet country and Abkazia is Georgian land. There was Russian political games in Abkazia. We was friends, but Russia did all, for war. My father was fighting in Abkazia, not for Russians, not for politacal games...he was fighting for integrity of Georgia. Noone can take, not Abkazia and not Tskinvali. As our ancestors, we will fight for integrity of Georgia. Abkazians are Georgians...I'm from Imereti and I have friend from Racha, Achara, Guria... and we all are Georgians, as people from Abkazia. And you all who wrote this article must know, that Abkazia is not independent country, Abkazia is land of independent Georgia and I'll fight for this.
P.S. Sorry for my English...
"სამშობლოს არვის წავართმევთ
ჩვენც ნურვინ შეგვეცილება
თორემ ისეთ დღეს დავაყრით
მკვდარსაც კი გაეცინება"
Gnome(G) 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? Alaexis 19:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See up --Gnome(G) 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange comments but suggesting what exactly ? Buffadren 13:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous comment I have ever read on wikipedia. It's a talk of a 6 year old child. This sort of language is abusive. Zone 00:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.wikipedia.org/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... Gnome(G) 06:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gnome, please look at Ldingley's userboxes [[1]] . 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ( [2], [3] ). 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 [4] . 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 [5]. 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 [6]

This is the start page of Abkhaz wikipedia [7] Alaexis 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 - [8]). 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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".[9] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Links in general

I’ve got a question to all users who don’t want unhelpful links to clutter up Wikipedia: Do you feel OK with this website, which has not been updated for ages, or with this one, which claims the name of Tbilisi, capital of Georgia, to be a word of Abkhaz origin (I especially like the title of the article Ancient Abkhazianhood of Tbilisi.)? Kober^Talk 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree to remove the www.abkhazia.org . I've also never understood why it's there.

I've checked http://abkhazia.e-caucasia.com. There's quite a lot of articles there and some of them seem to be informative (those about language, religious situation, famous people). There's also good gallery there (I especially liked the photos of frescoes in Pitsunda cathedral). Imho this link should remain. Alaexis 03:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

About external links in general, Wikipedia already has well-established guidelines in place. Our own personal opinions must always take a backseat to the rules. Now, the way to deal with nationalistic links (on either side) is to mark their bias. This can be done by "sectioning off" the links within subcategories (for instance, pro-independence / anti-independence) or it be done by marking each individual link (for instance, adding a parenthesis afterwards to alert the readers to the bias of the link). But do not remove wellestablished links which have been part of the stable version of the article for a year, or more. - Mauco 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read my post more carefully. I didn't remove the links just because they are nationalistic, but because of their unreliability. The real issue in the case is not whether they are pro- or anti-independence. One of them (abkhazia.org) belongs to a non-functional political party and has not been updated since 2004. The other contains non-scholar articles and ethnic slurs. They have been part of the stable version of the article for a year because nobody cared to check them. --Kober^Talk 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, even so, the longevity of their inclusion merits that they are not just removed point blank. Let some of the established editors of this page (you and the others) discuss it first. Don't just jump the gun. - Mauco 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think we need to have any external links at all. I know that might seem a bit radical, but most of those links don't really help the article, plus we already have enough external links in the "References" section. I say we trim all unneeded links, and keep only a small number of them. Khoikhoi 03:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's *too* radical imho. Besides there's a consensus about most of the links - there exists a controversy about only 2 or 3 of them. Alaexis 03:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just think that there are too many external links on this page. To quote from How not to be a spammer:

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)

Khoikhoi 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at them in detail:

   * President of the Republic of Abkhazia. Official site

// definitely needed; the site of the Abkhazian Autonomous Republic should also be added if it exists

   * BBC Regions and territories: Abkhazia

// contains more or less the same information as the article does presented in concise and nonbiased manner. Probably could be removed.

   * Abkhazia profile page at Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation

// contains an overview of the history of Abkhazia. Could be removed.

   * Publication of the United States Institute of Peace: Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union

// nice balanced paper by G. Starovoitova about post-soviet conflicts. I'd vote for keeping.

   * The Autonomous Republic of Abkhazeti - from Georgian National Parliamentary Library

// presents Georgian view of the Abkhazia's history; should be kept imho

   * Former Soviet war zones |The hazards of a long, hard freeze, The Economist, 19 August, 2004

//The Economist is my favourite English-language magazine, but the link is to the paid content so I'll delete it right now

   * Sun and Surf, but Also Lines in the ‘Russian’ Sand, The New York Times, August 20, 2006

// this link also requires registration, although a free one. Therefore I think this link should be removed.

   * Site devoted to Abkhazia

// see the arguments in the previous section

   * (English) Abkhazia.com Official website refugees from Abkhazia

// should be kept imho

   * (Russian) Abkhazian news

// Abkhazian news from the Georgian perspective - let's keep it

   * (Russian) State Information Agency of the Abkhaz Republic

// the same from the Abkhazian perspective. Definite keep.

   * (Russian) www.abkhazeti.ru Official web of IDPs from Abkhazia and IAG Aphkhazeti

// this could not be an OFFICIAL site because there's alredy another official site here. I think it could be removed, otherwise some similar site from the other side (like abkhaziya.org) should be added.

   * Picture Gallery - Georgian Refugees in Abkhazian War

// could be moved to the article about the war

   * (Russian) www.apsny.ru

// it's a regularly updated site about Abkhazia. I think it should remain.

   * Abkhazian language

// nonpartisan site about Abkhaz language. It's already present in the Abkhaz language article so it could be removed

   * Special Abkhazia on Caucaz.com, Weekly Online about South Caucasus

// there are no articles about Abkhazia newer than 2005. I'd rather remove it.

   * Abkhazia Provisional Paper Money

// there are two pictures of modified Soviet notes there. i don't have an opinion about this one

   * Orthodox Churches of Abkhazia

// nonpartisan site devoted to the ancient church-buildings of Abkhazia; while there are no articles about Abkhaz architecture and culture it should remain here

   * Official site of the Orthodox Eparchy of Abkhazia

// Could be moved to the article about religion in Abkhazia when there'll be one. For now let's keep it here. Alaexis 05:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The BBC link should stay because many people will check Wikipedia’s accuracy in the sources like BBC. Your arguments about http://abkhazia.e-caucasia.com are rather weak. How can you take seriously the source which claims Tbilisi to be "a Georgianized ancient Abkhaz city"? This link should be removed. Other pro-Abkhaz, pro-Georgian, or neutral sources contain enough information about the Abkhaz culture and history. There’s no need to adopt the websites with marginal POVs.

I agree. Alaexis 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The alleged "official website" of the Orthodox Eparchy of Abkhazia is another issue. An eparchy (i.e. diocese) is normally a subdivision of Orthodox Christian Church. The site doesn’t even say to which church the eparchy belongs. This is simply not serious. The Eparchy of Abkhazia (Tskhum-Abkhazeti) is a canonical territory of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the fact was officially and unambiguously recognized by the Russian Holy Synod in 2003. Then what this Eparchy of Abkhazia website means? Which church it is a member of? There are no independent or self-governing eparchies. So better remove this absurdity from the page and don’t load the article with POV links. --Kober^Talk 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'lll write my opinion about it after I'll have familiarised myself with this issue. Alaexis 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm removing that link. Reinsert it after you will have familiarized yourself with the issue.--Kober^Talk 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How about less than 10 links? Suggestion: 3 from Abkhazia, 3 for the Georgian position, and 3 which are independent/outside/neutral. Just pick the best. Instead of deleting the others, move them to the relevant forks. For instance, a site which only deals with the war doesn't need to be in the main Abkhazia article, but is suited in the separate article dealing specifically with the war of Abkhazia. - Mauco 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic cleansing

I have just noticed that a reference to an ethnic cleansing of Georgian population has again been removed. Unfortunately, some users who are involved in this article promptly respond to any change deemed to be pro-Georgian, but are surprisingly tolerant to anti-Georgian POV edits and don’t even care to restore a well-sourced and vitally important passage. Kober^Talk 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not I did not notice it. Are you sure it was present in the political status section at any time? Btw the ethnic cleansing is mentioned three times later in the article. Alaexis 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it should not be included for reason listed in archives. Plus it dilutes the meaning of the phrase 'ethnic Cleansing' where it really happened and was used in the real sense. Buffadren 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Buffarden here. After all it's called 'ethnic cleansing' by some respectable international organisations. Alaexis 12:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Buffadren, how can you make such a shameless statement? Are you going to claim that there was not a deliberate ethnic cleansing campaign against Georgians? It is simply ridiculous. Over 200,000 Georgians were expelled out of their homes, leaving their family members, neighbours, and friends dead in Abkhazia. Let's don't forget that Abkhasian separatists fought under the command of Shamyl Basayev, Hero of Abkhasia, and the ruthless butcher, who later thanked Russian officers for an excellent series of lessons they had delivered to his detachment during the war in Abkhasia.

I orginally come from a small town that was ethnically cleansed by a foreign army. Every man woman and child were butchered, that's ethnic cleansing. Buffadren 11:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

no wait, i'm jewish and i think WE were ethnically clensed. the point: your personal definition is really of no consequence, and disruptions of normal life of such proportion based on ethnic lines is hardly identifiable as anything but. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.128.145 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Demographics III

I've removed 1897 census numbers, from the table since none of the references actually support these numbers. In fact, one of the references listed says these numbers are controversial, and it hardly warrants placing these numbers in a table as if they were verified and accepted facts. And, these contradict the numbers for 1886 Family Lists. Samurzaq'anians are ancestors of present day Gali region population, which is 99% Georgian (Megrelian). Counting them as Abkhazians is a blatant lie. I am also removing the blatant POV about Samurzaq'anians being of "mixed Abkhaz-Mingrelian identity". These are just quick changes. This part of the article needs further improvements. (PaC 14:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Nobody argues that Samurzakanians are mostly Mingrelians. They are NOT counted as Abkhaz in the 1897 figures. This reference supports the 1897 census figures. The Abkhaz (by mother tongue) numbered 59469 in Kutais guberniya which included Abkhazia then [10]. In this reference it's written that Abkhaz and Abaza numbered 70,000 by that time. This reference gives the total population of Sukhum district (100,000). The census carried out in Russian Empire is no less reliable than Soviet censuses and there are no reasons it could be biased. Alaexis 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a proper use of sources. Firstly, 1987 census does not provide any numbers for Abkhazia. They only give them for Kutaisi gubernia. They don't give the numbers for total population in Abkhazia, and there is no way to deduce numbers for Georgians in Abkhazia from that. Secondly, they are not counting by nationalities, just the languages the people speak. These numbers for ethnic composition are your own interpretations, and pretty bold ones at that. I actually suspect that they counted Samurzakanians as Abkhaz speaking. 1886 Family List supports that.

This reference is not a proper source. You take it out of context. If you read the caption to the picture [11], you would see that it states: "These census figures are disputed on a number of grounds including the way in which ethnic groups have been defined." Your other source lists the population of Abkhazia as 100498 in 1897. Yet it is not clear where they get their data, since your first link from 1897 census data does not have this number for Sukhum region. Was there another census in 1897? Moreover, your second source for some reason does not give a separate number for Abkhazians. They only say that Abkhazians and Samurzaqanians together constitute 86%. The number for Abkhazians is, again, just your loose interpretation.

Juggling different sources like that is not a proper way of compiling controversial demographic data especially when they are contradicting each other.

I think listing these numbers in a table as proven facts is misleading, to say the least. I will wait for you to respond before deleting these numbers. You'll have to provide the reliable source that actually contains these numbers for 1897 census, without your funny math. Otherwise it is just your speculation. I actually think we should delete the 1897 line from the table and write it up below the table. (PaC 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

How come this reference is not a proper source? It could be added to the article that these numbers are disputed and that they are based on the mother tongues. You wouldn't claim that some people with Abkhaz native language were in fact Georgians, would you?

Here it's written that "In the 1897 census the Abkhaz population was seen to be 55.3% and the Georgians rose to 24.4%. The population balance continued to change in the following years to the disadvantage of the Abkhaz people.". See also the article "Demographic Manipulation in the Caucasus (with Special Reference to Georgia)" by B. G. HEWITT, Journal of Refugee Studies 1995, Volume 8, #1. Alaexis 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ps. The 1886 numbers could also be added to the table (see my question in the end of the subsection). Alaexis 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use anything you find on the net as a reliable source. kafkas.org is not supposed to be a credible and neutral (and academic) reference especially given a pro-separatist tone of the article and, more importantly, the obscurity of its publisher. Hewitt's bias and anti-Georgian sentiments are also well-known and have been criticized by several leading experts on the Caucasus. Just have a brief look at his inflammatory abstract: The gross insensitivity on the part of nationalists in Georgia that led to the bloody wars in South Ossetia and, primarily, Abkhazia are examined and placed in the historical context that has seen mainly North Caucasian minorities subjected to frequent demographic manipulation by two of the region's imperial powers, Russia and Georgia, who have regularly acted in concert over the last 200 years. Parallels between Shevardnadze's war in Abkhazia and Yeltsin's assault on Chechenia are drawn, and the case of such minorities in Georgia as the Mingrelians, the Armenians and the Meskh(et)ians is touched upon. The West's blind adherence to the principle of ‘territorial integrity’ is criticized for abandoning minorities to the whim of the local bully.

This is politically motivated (and not only politically, in the case of Hewitt)demagogy rather than a scholarly approach to the problem. According to Mr. Hewitt the Georgianophobe, Georgia appears to be a regional imperial power (much like Russia, hehe) acting in concert with Moscow to bully local minorities especially North Caucasians (I wonder how Georgia can bully North Caucasus and manipulate their demographic situation). And Mingrelians appear to be an "ethnic minority" subjected to discrimination at the hands of "grossly insensitive Georgian nationalists". (Sickening)--Kober^Talk 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't dismiss an article in the peer-reviewed journal just because you consider its author a Georgianophobe. Besides, it's not the only proof, it's one of the multitude that support these numbers. Alaexis 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who considers Hewitt a Georgianophobe (or perhaps I'm one of those "grossly insensitive Georgian nationalists" and "imperialists acting in concert with Russia" who don't want to recognize his genius). The abstract of the article speaks for himself. --Kober^Talk 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, you still have to produce a primary source that contains these numbers for 1897. BTW, what is Hewett even saying about 1897 census in his article "Demographic Manipulation in the Caucasus ..."? (PaC 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

The numbers of Abkhaz and Georgians in 1897 in Abkhazia are given there. It could be easily checked by any person with access to a good library. Alaexis 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Hewitt is well known Georgianophobe (thanks to his Abkhaz wife) and he has discredited himself long time ago. Actually he was a very good Kartvelogist until he met his wife. Brainwashing is a powerful tool of manipulation. Anyway, he cant be counted as neutral source, he is overwhelmingly bias. Ldingley 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone 'well-known Georgianophobe' is not a serious argument. How has he discredited himself? Alaexis 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, I gather you do not have any other primary sources about 1897 census besides the link that you provided [12]. In this case we should remove the 1897 line from the table, write up what we actually know about this census, i.e. that according to the census in Kutaisi gubernia there were about 60000 Abkhaz language speakers, and that's it, don't you think? (PaC 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree. Alaexis 07:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Here’s a quote from Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus by Svante E. Cornell of Uppsala University (Sweden):

It must be noted that even the numbers are the subject of disagreement. In 1886, the Abkhaz constituted 41 per cent of the population of their present-day territory. Hence it must be noted that Abkhazia has always to a great extent been multiethnic; moreover, confusion arises from the fact that one of the largest groups in the census of “Sukhumi region”, today’s Abkhazia, is the “Samurzakanians”, their name deriving from the older name of Gali region, Samurzakano. Most of the Samurzakanians must be thought to have been Mingrelians, and a minority Abkhaz. But the figure for 1926 is 27 per cent, despite the fact that the Abkhaz population doubled from 26,000 to 56,000 in this time. By 1959, however, the Abkhaz share plunged to 15 per cent, in absolute numbers increasing only by 10 per cent in 33 years, whereas the population of the territory doubled from 201,000 to 404,000 in the same time span. Since 1959, the Abkhaz have been somewhat recovered, their population now growing relatively rapidly, but still constituting only 18 per cent of the population of the republic in 1989, 94,000 out of a total 525,000. (Cornell, Svante E. (2001), Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus, p. 156. Routledge (UK), ISBN 0700711627) --Kober^Talk 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another POV is the Abkhaz census figure included in the infobox. Here’s a quote from the International Crisis Group document called ABKHAZIA TODAY Europe Report N°176 – 15 September 2006, page 9:

"Abkhazia’s population is certainly much less than it was. De facto state officials like to quote a total population of 320,000, including 110,000 Abkhaz, but this sounds unrealistically high on both counts. In January 2005 the electoral roll, probably a more reliable guide to the numbers of those at least of voting age, comprised 129,127 individuals, suggesting an overall population between 157,000 and 190,000. In 1998 a UNDP needs assessment mission estimated the population between 180,000 and 220,000. With less than half its pre-war population, vast tracts of Abkhazia, especially south of Sukhumi, feel empty and desolate. North of that city, settlements are much more populated, especially during the summer season".

Britannica estimates Abkhazia’s population at 177,000 as of 2006.[13]. Can anyone explain why the Abkhaz mythological data are given precedence over the reliable international sources?--Kober^Talk 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a rhetorical question as you've already added those numbers. Alaexis 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a minor question: is the family lists data from Mueller's book or from somewhere else? Alaexis 16:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read the book АБХАЗИЯ-1992: ПОСТОКОММУНИСТИЧЕСКАЯ ВАНДЕЯ by Svetlana Chervonnaia recently(it could be found here). It looks like it's the same book that's called "Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Russian Shadow" in English (or maybe it's another book, it doesn't matter).

Here is a quote from the book (from the list of sources)

54. Так, еще в царской России, по данным переписи 1897 года, абхазы в пределах нынешней Абхазской АССР составляли 55% населения (58697 человек), грузины - 24% - 25640 человек (См.: 1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32).

This is the 1897 census data for Abkhazia. Alaexis 09:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex its not Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Russian Shadow", she published about 6 books about Abkhazia. Ldingley 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, I do not know why you insist on sticking these numbers in the table at any cost. It seems like you are not looking for the truth but just for the excuse to place the numbers you like. The link you provided [14] appears to be some unfinished draft. The numbers just repeat what Hewett was saying, and you still do not have any primary source. I mean, come on! If you so much want to see these numbers there, at least make a decent attempt for a proper research. The other reason why IMHO you can't really place these numbers in the table is that the 1897 census appears to just count the people by their native language which is not the same as saying these people were Abkhaz or Georgians. How do you know some Abkhaz did not name Georgian as their native language, how do you know that some Georgians did not do the opposite? What about bilingual people, how were they counted? I'll return to the previous version. (PaC 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

I can't agree with you. This - 1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32 - is the primary source and you could check it if you want. Alæxis_¿question? 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, why don't you produce the quote from this book, since you are claiming it to be a primary source. Have you seen it?(PaC 15:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

No. I do believe Mrs. Chervonnaya in this case though. Do you think Mrs. Chervonnaya's books are not reliable? I'd like to point out that they are cited a lot of times in the articles about Abkhazia and it doesn't make any sense sometimes to believe them and sometimes to ignore them. Alæxis_¿question? 15:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First of, as I said, the link you produced appears to be an unfinished draft. Second, it is not the question of believing. This is a sensitive point (especially when you try to capture it in the form of the table) and the information needs to be checked thoroughly. Also, you know perfectly well that the 1897 census did not really count ethnic composition, but a linguistic one which is not the same, so claiming a specific number of Abkhazians or Georgians is a-priory false. And placing these numbers in the table about ethnic composition is also incorrect.(PaC 15:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

If you think Mrs. Chervonnaya made a mistake you are free to check the primary source.

Now about languages. This is what's written:

“

54. Так, еще в царской России, по данным переписи 1897 года, абхазы в пределах нынешней Абхазской АССР составляли 55% населения (58697 человек), грузины - 24% - 25640 человек

”

Where are the languages mentioned? Alæxis_¿question? 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you just proved that she made a mistake. Since this link that you so graciously provided says that the counting was based on languages. (Again quoting from that unfinished draft? Really?)(PaC 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

No, actually. Technically one doesn't contradict the other. Alæxis_¿question? 16:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can construct a theory that accounts for both, but we are not in a business of building theories here, are we? Surely this discrepancy at least warrants my demand for better checked sources, wouldn't you agree? (PaC 16:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

From the formal point of view (=Wikipedia policies) the ref I've brought justifies inclusion of this information. After all no evidence proving that these numbers are wrong has been presented.

From the common sense approach it's highly unlikely that an ethnic Georgian person would declare Abkhaz his/her mother tongue (if this data was indeed based on native language, that is). Alæxis_¿question? 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, it is very regrettable that you are not looking for the real facts, but rather trying to push your POV at any cost. Take a look at Russian_Empire_Census. Only mother tongue was considered in 1897. No "nationality" question was asked. That takes care of what you call "formal point of view". As for your "common sense approach", let the readers use it, don't force it on them. As you can see, the numbers you forcibly trying to place in the table are simply not true. Moreover, in the case of Abkhazia this is not a clear cut question. In my understanding, Samurzaqanians were under Abkhaz princes rule for a while and spoke Abkhazian very well. With a low quality census (as all sources point out) they very well could have been counted as Abkhaz speaking. Otherwise how do you explain the discrepancy with 1886 data? And what if they were counted as bilingual? We can't speculate on this. We can only present facts. Especially in a sensitive issue like that. The write-up that we had is more accurate representation of facts then your unsupported table entry. (PaC 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

The same arguments you've given here could be applied to the Soviet censuses when these people had to be counted as either Georgian (or Mingrelian in the 1926 census) or Abkhaz. Btw you've failed to present sources proving your claims (i. e. low quality of 1897 census, proficiency of Samurzakanians in Abkhaz). Alæxis_¿question? 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not have to present any sources on that, since I am not placing this in the article. You, on the other hand, place your claims in the article, and therefore have to support it. Which you couldn't. Sorry. (PaC 19:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

you can't put the numbers of language speakers in the table of ethnic composition

It's written below the table that these numbers are based on the mother tongue. It's not the number of language speakers. And why do you keep deleting this - The population of the Sukhumi district (Abkhazia) was about 100,000 at that time. Greeks, Russians and Armenians composed 3.5%, 2% and 1.5% of the district's population.^[1]? Alæxis_¿question? 05:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#About_sovereignty

By no means I can't accept POV inserted by Alaexis. As per Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#About_sovereignty there can't be a "region" called independent state. Abkhazia it's not listed as an "independent state" in the list, and we can't know how in the future will be, as per WP:CRYSTAL--ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ ^{(πείτε μου)} 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Aristokles

Nope, it's not OR. See "Years of “frozen conflict” leave Abkhazia isolated and poor. The Lancet, Volume 367, Issue 9516, Pages 1043-1045", http://www.c-r.org/resources/occasional-papers/abkhazia-ten-years-on.php, http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JCS/Chechnya.htm . That's just a few examples. Alaexis 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

When it's the on UN list I believe you. It's not an UN member. Can you provide me a link that is a member of UN? I need solid sources please.--ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ ^{(πείτε μου)} 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats not scholarly source or reference, good luck next time Alex. Ldingley 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Luis, I understand the old intro was a compromise forged quite a long time ago (before I came here,, at least). Do you also want to change it? Alaexis 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise with your WP:OR? and your not reliable sources? Show me your solid sources please, I need UN links.--ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ ^{(πείτε μου)} 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex to include Abkhazia or SO, TR, etc to the list of sovereign states is not only going out of boundaries of the acceptable accurate encyclopaedic article but present biased information based on false assumptions with no source or reference at all. As for this article, in my opinion the term de facto and de jure are wrong. Only UN resolutions and their position and definitions are correct (which BTW your country also supports in SC). Weather we like it or not Abkhazia is an Autonomous Republic of Georgia. Now its Wikipedia here, not UN SC meeting so I let it go. But thank god there are international organizations with real authority and legality. Cheers. Ldingley 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this article's intro? Abkhazia's sovereignty is nowhere mentioned there. Alaexis 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ARISTOKLES, you are not going to get any UN links where there is clear indication that Abkhazia is suvereign state :) see United Nations resolutions on Abkhazia. Ldingley 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics IV

Alex, stop stubborn reverts. 1)1897 census numbers do not belong to the table! They did not count Abkhaz or Georgians -- they counted the first language of respondents only. There is no such thing as Abkhaz by mother tongue or Georgian by mother tongue. 2)Also you still haven't presented any verifiable primary sources for the numbers language speakers in Sukhum gubernia (e.g. what does "С. 32" mean in 1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32.?)(PaC 06:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

c. 32 means page 32, methinks. Why is it not a reliable source, btw? Again, it's written below the table that these numbers are based on the mother tongue Alæxis_¿question? 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The census data was published in 89 volumes. page 32 of which volume do you think it is? (PaC 06:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Meh... (c). 1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32. So it's in the volume dedicated to Kutais guberniya. Alæxis_¿question? 07:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Guessing? (PaC)

No.

“

Всего за 1898 - 1905 гг. было выпущено 117 томов погубернских итогов (по 89 губерниям)

”

It's from here. Alæxis_¿question? 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's written below the table that these numbers are based on the mother tongue. It's not the number of language speakers. And why do you keep deleting this - The population of the Sukhumi district (Abkhazia) was about 100,000 at that time. Greeks, Russians and Armenians composed 3.5%, 2% and 1.5% of the district's population.^[2]? Alæxis_¿question? 05:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it is "not the number of language speakers"? That's what the census counted (PaC 06:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

No, they counted a number of people with certain mother tongue. Alæxis_¿question? 06:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is not the same as the number of Abkhaz and Georgians, is it now? (PaC 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

It's written below the table that these numbers are based on the mother tongue. Alæxis_¿question? 06:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you understand. By placing these numbers in the table you are saying that there were 59000 Abkhazians in Abkhazia and make a note that it is based on mother tongue. This is incorrect. We only know from the census that 59000 people listed Abkhaz as their first language. Also, find proper sources first, before placing these numbers anywhere (table or not). (PaC 06:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Why is the source that I provided not proper? Alæxis_¿question? 07:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you've never seen it and haven't provided the reliable secondary sources that quote it either. See also my question about С. 32. (PaC 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

If you have doubts you're free to go and check it. Alæxis_¿question? 07:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not how the things work on Wikipedia. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" - a quote right below the edit area. Seen it?

Also "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."(PaC)

Of course. I've provided verifiable source - you could go and verify it if you have doubts. Alæxis_¿question? 07:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with this logic (PaC)

[edit] What I mean

“

About 250,000 ethnic Georgian residents of Abkhazia are restricted form entering the region by the Abkhazian separatist regime and cannot participate in the elections.

”

As some ethnic Georgians have already returned to Abkhazia this sentence should be referenced. Alæxis_¿question? 11:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number

More than 262,000 persons remained internally displaced in Georgia by June 2004. The overwhelming majority (about 249,000) were ethnic Georgians displaced from Abkhazia from 1991 to 1993, of whom about 80,000 originated from the Gali district and about 52,000 from Sukhumi. Since 1998, an estimated 40,000 and 60,000 IDPs have spontaneously returned to Gali, with part of the population migrating seasonally between Georgia proper and Abkhazia. About another 12,400 ethnic Georgian IDPs remained displaced from the South Ossetia region…

About 40 percent of Georgia’s internally displaced population (104,000 persons) live in the Samegrelo region adjacent to Abkhazia. About 92,000 displaced persons, 35 percent of the total, settled in Tbilisi, and 31,000 settled in Imereti. About 48 per cent of the displaced population live in collective centres and the rest - in private homes. UNITED NATIONS

HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES Regional Office for the Benelux and the European Institutions Background note on the Protection of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Georgia. (The document has already been cited on this talk page as well as in the article itself)

Enough? --Kober^Talk 11:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restricted

There is no such word in the source you've brought. Again, it could be true but it should also be referenced. Alæxis_¿question? 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex, please stop nitpicking and spare my time and energy. First you put the number of IPDs under question (and I did provide the source), now the word "restricted" appears irritating to you. It is obvious that you want to outrightly eliminate this sentence. Then how would you describe the resistance offered by the separaitists to the IPDs return? --Kober^Talk 12:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's your source:

The [Abkhaz] government has issued a statement that it will never again allow a Georgian plurality in Abkhazia… While the Abkhazian government has encouraged Armenians, Russians, Greeks and other minorities to return, Georgians can only do so with special permission after an application process. The Demographic Struggle for Power: The Political Economy of Demographic Engineering by Milica Zarkovic Bookman, p. 131.--Kober^Talk 12:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my question probably was a bit confusing - actually I put under question the following statement "250,000 [...] are restricted from entering Abkhazia" as a whole right from the beginning. Alæxis_¿question? 13:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

See Nagorny Karabakh article, the official status should go first and than whatever current situation is (it might change at any time favorably or unfavorable for any side). However, official status is more important and actually In all encyclopedia (Britanicca) the official status of Abkhazia comes first. Also the word “regarded” is not same as “recognized” Abkhazia is recognized by all international organizations and countries as part of Georgia, not only it is regarded as such. Ldingley 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with regarded->recognised change.

Eh, why is official status more important than factual situation? I'm not sure this (or the opposite) could be proven. Alæxis_¿question? 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

De facto and de jure statuses of the Russian troops in Abkhazia also differ, but we prefer to focus on de jure one for the sake of neutrality, right? --Kober^Talk 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently the intro reads as follows: Abkhazia ... is officially part of Georgia, however ..., and within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia. It's not logical - it can't be officially part of Georgia without being within its recognised boundaries and vice-versa.

So the negative effect of the change is quite apparent while its positive effect is much more obscure. Alæxis_¿question? 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We will fix that, np Alex :) Ldingley 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The word 'currently' could be added to scores of sentences in the article - there's no point in adding in adding it just to one sentence in the intro. Alæxis_¿question? 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok Alex. Ldingley 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper Source

Since Alex thinks he does not have to follow wikipedia rules, can somebody find the proper source for 1897 census? His "1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32" does not really exist. The volumes are numbered, so can somebody find out the volume number for Kutaisi gubernia? And the table number that lists the native language composition? (PaC 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Papa Carlo, i tried to find any sources relating to 1897 census and I could not find anything. You are correct, the "1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32" is non existent. Ldingley 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were you I wouldn't put this under question. If Mrs. Chervonnaya cited nonexistent source it would damage her reputation rather badly. Fortunately for her the source in question of course exists. The 89 volumes corresponding to the guberniyas were published in 1898-1905 and are now in Russian State Historical Archive ([15]). Alæxis_¿question? 19:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing can damage her reputation, especially coming from you. Her work is used by many universities in the west, York and Columbia one of them. Anyway, i cant speak Russian (only few things i can understand and read) but it would be very helpful to have them in English. If you are using Russian sources, why not Georgian primary sources? Ldingley 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See my answer at Ardzinba's article talk about this.

Not every bit of information in the world exists in English. Alæxis_¿question? 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex, you have to start reading carefully. Let me spell it out for you again: The census results are published in a lot of volumes. These volumes are numbered. For your source to be valid, you have to specify the volume number for Kutaisi gubernia. Otherwise what you are doing is equivalent to referencing Tolstoi's "War and Peace" as a "Book about Natasha Rostova and Pierre Bezukhov". It's not really a proper way of referencing your sources. Find out which volume (volume number) contains data for Kutaisi gubernia.(PaC 04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Intruduction

Is the spelling for intruduction should be introduction? Or is it because this is an article outside U.S. which makes intruduction acceptable. Thanks. Biztalkguy 01:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you just change it yourself next time? Alæxis_¿question? 07:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive Use of De Facto

This article uses de facto too often. To the reader, it is sufficient to say that the republic is de facto in the beginning. Pocopocopoco

We could remove first and third de facto's in the political status since it's pretty evident in both cases what is it written about. I don't really see it as a problem though... Alæxis_¿question? 06:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, after introducing the terms de facto and de jure to differentiate the respective government bodies, they need only be used whenever it needs to be made clear which is being referred to. In a general article like this one, that may be often, but in the articles on the respective governments, that might be infrequent (mostly to identify when the non-subject govt. is being referred to). Askari Mark (Talk) 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification/More Details on Pocopocopocopoco's suggestions

Sorry for getting all of this across in two posts.

From reading this, I think the article represents a somewhat Georgian POV.

1) As mentioned above, there is a repetitive number of "de facto's" when describing the regime in Sukhumi. Look at the article for the TRNC de facto is only mentioned once.

2) It's POV to describe the regime governing "Upper Abkhazia" as the "de jure government of Abkhazia" when they only control 17% of Abkhazia. Only Georgia refers to them as the "de jure government of Abkhazia". Basically they are a government in exile running from a small portion of Georgian controlled Abkhazia. Parallel administration would be a better term. --Pocopocopocopoco 03:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely invalid arguments. Regime in Sukhumi is de facto ad this should be mentioned all the time as it is in many sources. De jure government of Abkhazia is recognized by UN and most of the countries. It is not parallel administration but legitimate authorities of Abkhazia. None of the content on Abkhazia has any Georgian POV, actually its otherwise. Hmmm judging from list of your contributions, I smell a rat (Buffander whats up?) NokhchiBorz 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Buffander whoever he is nor am I Buffadren either. Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers , WP:Assume_good_faith . Would you be so kind as to provide a citation of a reliable non-Georgian source that states that the government in "Upper Abkhazia" is de jure and is recognized by the UN. Pocopocopocopoco 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Pocopocopocopoco 02:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

LOOL Yeah Ssure hehehe. NokhchiBorz 14:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, since it appears that there's no evidence that the government running from Upper Abkhazia is De Jure and recognized by the UN, I recommend that the box on the De Jure government be removed and the section that talk about the De Jure government instead be called the Abkhaz Government in Exile. As well as the article about the De Jure government be replaced with Abkhaz Government in Exile. Also, any reference to the Abkhaz De Jure government be replaced with Government in Exile. If you don't like Government in Exile, we could call it the Abkhaz Government in Upper Abkhazia. Note that just because the UN recognizes the teritorial integrity of Georgia, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Government in Upper Abkhazia is De Jure. The UN might consider that government as a Georgian attempt to impose a puppet government on Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added original research tags and will remove them as soon as someone provides evidence. I have also added them to the underlying article. If there is no evidence, I suggest editing these articles to reflect "Government in Exile" instead of "De Jure Government" Pocopocopocopoco 02:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have searched materials relating to this and found approx 23 sources supporting the section claims. Will site bibliography soon. De jure government is also included in 34 UN documents and correspondences. "The UN might consider that government as a Georgian attempt to impose a puppet government on Abkhazia." This is completely untrue sentence, its actually otherwise, UN recognized the government by also referring to it as "Legal authorities of Abkhazia." (UN Observers report, dated 1999, Geneva PM RS65, Letter of Piter Boden UU Representative in UNOMIG to Mr Nadareishvili concerning on situation in Abkhazia) Also European organizations such as OSCE and EUP (Budapest Summit and Berlin Summit, correspondence section 8.12 Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict, pp 87-88) refer to it as legitimate government or de jure authority of Abkhazia. Will provide references tomorrow. I will also keep reviewing the sources which were provided to me. The UN catalogue of observers reports, compendia references from years 1991 till 2006 are available in every reference library, year 2007 is not yet published. Taton80 16:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody kindly teach me how to incert citations and references into text? Thanks in advance. Taton80 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just write <ref>reference text</ref> wherever you want to insert reference. Look at the other references in the text also.

Btw, in case you're going to cite some UN documents it would be very helpful if you also gave links (as most of them are available online). Alæxis_¿question? 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

I removed the passage about the so-called "Eparchy of Abkhazia" for a couple of reasons:

1. "The republic is administered by the eparchy" does not make any sense: the republic cannot be administered by an eparchy.

Please reformulate it if you don't like it. Alæxis_¿question? 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Most importantly, there is not a single reference to this so-called “Eparchy” outside the website of this sect.

Where did you search for it? I've found quite a lot of them (see here). Alæxis_¿question? 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whom are you kidding? Most of your search results refer to Tskhum-Abkhazia eparchy (a de jure subdivision of the Georgian Orthodox Church). Try to obtain more specific info about the status of this sect and its relations with the Russian church.--Kober^Talk 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not kidding anybody. Out of the first nine yandex hits (excluding the official site itself) 4 refer to the Abkhazian eparchy - http://georgia.orthodoxy.ru/eparhies1.htm, http://www.euro1news.ru/pravoslavie/news_2007-05-29-21-39-04-809.html, http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints/caucas1/msg/2006/08/m61924.htm, http://www.apsny.ru/religion/religion.php?page=content/christ/news_chr.htm, http://www.pravaya.ru/news/12404?print=1 . I'm not saying anything about the neutrality or even reliability of these sources. However claiming that there's not a single ref to it is clearly not true. Alæxis_¿question? 06:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The first of your four links is about the Georgian eparchy (see this list at the very same site). The second links does not work. The thrid one is indeed interesting. It mentions Майкопское Соглашение от 29 мая 2005 года. I don't know what this means, but the link is going to be of some help. It seems that a few remaining Orthodox priests (Abkhaz and Russian, judging from their surnames) organized themselves into this eparchy and cannot even decide to which church they belong.--Kober^Talk 07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're a bit mistaken - here's the quote from the first site

“

Богослужения проходят в Сухуме, Гудауте, Гагре, Лыхны, Илори, Агудзере. Проводятся выездные богослужения с крестными ходами вокруг храмов. Их проводят 13 священнослужителей, шестеро из них представляют абхазское духовенство. С каждым годом количество прихожан увеличивается. "Все больше молодых людей приходит в церковь, - говорит отец Дорофей - секретарь Сухумской епархии. Около 70% населения - христиане. Наша церковь существует за счет пожертвований прихожан". Основным источником доходов Абхазской Епархии является Новоафонский Монастырь, входящий в число туристических объектов.

”

Tskhum-Abkhazeti eparchy doesn't conduct service in these churches, doesn't get any revenues from the New Athos monastery. And father Dorofey is Dorofey Dbar. Alæxis_¿question? 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The second link works fine for me - try to access the site from the list of yandex search results. What exactly is happening now there is hard to determine due to the lack of sources (especially non-partisan ones) however it's irrelevant. The Abkhazian eparchy exists and it should be mentioned in the article. Alæxis_¿question? 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I found this link and reconstructed the passage about the eparchy. Kober^Talk 07:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

3. What do "certain relations with the Russian Orthodox Church" mean? First of all, this sort of statement does not meet encyclopedic standards and is misleading and confusing. Churches and their subdivisions (eparchies) in the Orthodox world don’t have "certain relations", but are organized in a strictly defined hierarchical order. Second, this kind of formulation seems to me an attempt to euphemize the fact that the Russian church interferes in Abkhazia, violating the canonical law and agreements with its Georgian counterpart.

Imho certain relations is more NPOV than interference. Besides it's already written in the article about the violation of the canonical law etc. Alæxis_¿question? 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not NPOV, but (I have to repeat myself) unencyclopedic, plus vague and confusing to the average reader. Yes, the Russian interference is mentioned and there is no need to repeat it in the text. --Kober^Talk 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's list the examples of interaction between Russian Orthodox Church and Abkhazian eparchy there. Alæxis_¿question? 06:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Introducing external links in the main text in the way it is done in the section is normally discouraged in Wikipedia and looks like advertising rather serving to improve the content. Kober^Talk 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No difference for me. The link could be in the reference. Alæxis_¿question? 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The References section is to document information or claim provided in the main text, not to advertize the web links.--Kober^Talk 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is quite a minor issue and I think something could be thought up later. Alæxis_¿question? 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postage stamps

I've got some postage stamps from Abkhazia, issued shortly after the USSR breakup, depicting Groucho Marx and John Lennon, accompanied with symbols of peace. I'm wondering, would a scanned image of such a stamp be appropriate in this article, and would it fall under fair use? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the law of Abkhazia on copyrights state symbols and signs (including flags, seals, insignia, banknotes and other state symbols) are not the objects of copyright. I think that stamps also fall into this category. Upload them to Commons and we'll think where to use them. Alæxis_¿question? 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem to be working. I'm reluctant to scan the stamps (image can be seen here) without being certain that there isn't any copyright problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole site seems to be down now. Try to access it later or view the cached version. Alæxis_¿question? 08:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia completes withdrawal from 1 of 2 remaining bases in Georgia

[16] Russia completed its withdrawal from one of two remaining military bases in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia on Wednesday, a long-promised move that Georgia's president has pressed for years. --Tones benefit 17:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abkhazian WIkipedians

...are there any? --PaxEquilibrium 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody that I know of. Alæxis_¿question? 06:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They might be hanging out on Russian pages.

[edit] Negotiations between Abkhazia and Georgia, GEORGIA ACCUSES RUSSIAN PEACEKEEPERS OF VIOLATING THEIR MANDATE

There are secret negotiations between Abkhazia and Georgia. GEORGIA ACCUSES RUSSIAN PEACEKEEPERS OF VIOLATING THEIR MANDATE. Russian peacekeepers today cut off traffic bound for Svaneti [region in northwest Georgia bordering Abkhazia]. Kavkas-Press’ regional correspondent reports that the peacekeepers have reinforced their post No 302 near the village of Khaishi, from which roads lead to Svaneti and upper Abkhazia [Georgian-controlled upper part of the Kodori Gorge] with additional heavy equipment. The Russian peacekeepers are obstructing the movements of trucks loaded with construction materials set to be used for works on the road to upper Abkhazia. The road is to be finished by the beginning of August, after which the Kodori Gorge will be connected with the rest of Georgia. Let us remind you that as yet upper Abkhazia can only be reached by helicopter in winter. The Russian peacekeepers have reinforced the post with grenade launchers and additional heavy equipment and manpower. The Georgian side has accused the Russian peacekeepers of violating their mandate, as they have effectively granted an observation post the authority of a control checkpoint. They are checking all people using the road and inspecting their vehicles. [17] --Ursul pacalit de vulpe 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Why not make seperate articles about abkhazia the historic region, abkhazia the de facto independent republic, and abkhazia the autonomous republic of Georgia? Tamokk 04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is always easy to have one battleground. More seriously, all three subjects essentially intermingle with each other, and it would be difficult to determine exactly what should be written in each one. The articles about the autonomous republic and what you and pro-separatist editors call "de facto independent republic" without any info on pre-conflict history would leave the reader in confusion. I see no reason to split the article into three potential POV forks.--Kober^Talk 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why so pessimistic? Assume faith that NPOV equilibrium can be achieved. Tamokk 05:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I have got enough experience out here on Wikipedia to be pessimistic about things like this. NPOV equilibrium can never be achieved when there is a single-purpose group of users who wage a permanent agitprop war on the Abkhazia-related pages. I think it would be better to improve this article and the related sub-articles rather than split it. What is supposed to be written in the "de facto republic" article can be moved to the Politics of Abkhazia, Subdivision of Abkhazia, etc. De jure stuff goes to Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, Upper Abkhazia, partly into Subdivision of Abkhazia. --Kober^Talk 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I am relatively new here, can you provide me with the list of the agitprop members? Tamokk 07:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't normally maintain blacklists, but you know them perfectly well. If still in doubt, you can visit talk pages of Abkhazia-related articles. Not surprisingly, you will find some of your old allies there.--Kober^Talk 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is something I have favoured and still favour. For the simple reason that the so called Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and the so called Republic of Abkhazia are seperate entities, and as such require seperate articles. If we have a page about the world's unrecognised states, then what it should link to is the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia, not the general Abkhazia page that also covers the autonomous republic. Likewise, the subdivions of Georgia page should link to the administrative entity that is a subdivision of Georgia, namely the Autonomous Republic of Abkazia.

That this proposal is sensible is also shown by the fact that this is common practice on Wikipedia, Taiwan is divided up in just this way, and so are the Western Sahara, Cyprus, Chechnya and Palestine.

Having seperate articles does not mean giving up NPOV. Each article in itself must still adhere to NPOV. sephia karta 10:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazia is one, and there are no separate entities of it. You can not divide this article. Based on your contributions and glorifications of separatist regime (which makes you biased), i can only guess why you want to split this article. The Abkhazian "Republic" has no recognition or any validity. However, if you want to be involved in original research, that’s your choice (but you would violate Wiki guidelines). Iberieli 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than engaging in personal attacks I ask of you that you engage my arguments. sephia karta 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but could you outline what exactly would you like to move and where to? We had a similar discussion on Transnistria article and haven't reached any definite conclusion. Until the proposal is clarified I cannot express my attitude to it. I also think that there are other, more needed things to do in Wikipedia about Abkhazia. Alæxis_¿question? 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already outlined. I suggest to make three separate articles. What should be written in each of them should be quite obvious. As sephia karta has already noticed this is a common practice in similar situations. Tamokk 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A de facto independent or whatever state, certainly deserves a separate article, but not under the name of Abkhazia. Tamokk 05:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my idea would be like this: we keep the current article on Abkhazia, but in addition we create articles on the "Republic of Abkhazia" and on the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia". We then remove from the Abkhazia article those sections that specifically deal with these political institutions. sephia karta 11:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. All the three articles would contain history sections that would double each other to some extent. It's also not clear for me what would go to AAR article (especially considering that we already have Upper Abkhazia, Kodori Valley and Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia articles). Alæxis_¿question? 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In my view the article on the ROA and on the AROA would not contain nearly as extensive a history section as the current Abkhazia article, just a short outline, recent history since their establishment and a link to the History of Abkhazia article. It's true that perhaps the AROA article would not be very long, yes. sephia karta 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kober's latest changes have convinced me that this would be a great idea. There are to many de factos and de jures in this article and splitting the different governments off into different articles would make a large number of de facto and de jures unneccessary. Otherwise the number of de factos and de jures is just going to keep increasing, it now seems like de factos and de jures are being used even in discussing religion. Soon, the article will be referring to de facto nuns and de jure priests. ;) Pocopocopocopoco 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV sources

Please provide neutral source for its claim before it is removed from the article: According to the Constitution of Abkhazia the adherents of all religions (as well as atheists) have equal rights before the law

I will start removing all POV sources from Abkhazia web sites (which are not neutral and are overwhelmingly biased against the other side). According to your logic on de jure government, Abkhaz sources are not suitable for NPOV article. Iberieli 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When we say something about the constitution of the Republic of Abkhazia the source that is used in the article is absolutely valid. If you see some other sources you consider POV or something please raise issues on the talk first. Thanks. Alæxis_¿question? 15:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia also contains the similar clause. In fact, any modern Constitution projected to be democratic speak about the religious freedom. So the info is redundant here. Furthermore, Abkhazia's current separatist regime persecutes the Georgian Orthodox Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses are also banned. Recently, my half-Abkhaz-half-Georgian friend (she is an IDP from Sukhumi and lives in Tbilisi) visited Sukhumi where her Abkhaz relatives live. As soon as she entered an Orthodox church with a Georgian grapevine cross, a local Russian priest cursed her and expelled from the church.--Kober^Talk 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, why don't you apply this logic to this article then? If you want you could add the info about AAR's constitution also.

I see no reason to exclude 100%-true piece of info in the article. If you know of independent accounts of the state of the religious freedom in Abkhazia it also should be added. Alæxis_¿question? 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really trivial. I believe there are still quite a few constitutions out there that reserve some special place for some religion, amongst which probably those of the UK and Sweden where resp. the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Chruch are the state church. sephia karta 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

sephia karta I think it makes sense to start those two articles. Also feel free to help on User:Tamokk/Abkhazia. Tamokk 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abkhazian vs Abkhaz

I have never heard of Abkhazian before. But I have only heard of Abkhaz. So I don't know if Abkhaz is the correct one. If Abkhazian is really the one that is correct, then revert. Chris! _{my talk} 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Googling for 'Abkhazian -wikipedia' gives much more results than that for 'Abkhaz -wikipedia'. The word is also present in Webster's dictionary. Alæxis_¿question? 19:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine then. Chris! _{my talk} 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, random Google search is not a valid argument. See WP:GHITS. Chris! _{my talk} 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I've also checked Webster's )) Besides it's not a deleting discussion. Alæxis_¿question? 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, it is a bad argument, no question about that. :) Chris! _{my talk} 18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question though because both forms are in use and I can not see any semantic difference. With Azerbaijani vs. Azeri, the first is used for things related to the state, the second for things related to the ethnos, but that seems not to be the case here. It might be a good idea to decide on some sort of guideline, for things like categories, to prevent randomness. sephia karta 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The first sentence

is a de facto independent republic which is officially part of Georgia. <-- This definition is confusing and maybe does not even make sence at all. On the one hand, Abkhazian republic does not consider itself to be "officially" in Georgia, and on the other hand, if it is officially in Georgia, then its "de facto" independence is abnormal.

It is a de facto independent republic, with no international recognition. It is within the borders of Georgia as recognized internationally. <-- Both statements in here are at least technically correcct, more or less. Tamokk 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and your version isn't bad. The only thing is that the words international recognition/recognized internationally in two consecutive sentences sound not very nice. If you can change the words keeping the point I'll support your version. Alæxis_¿question? 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Transnistria model is not bad

Transnistria, also known as Trans-Dniester and Pridnestrovie, is a breakaway territory within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova. Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure a part of Moldova, it is de facto an independent state called the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Tamokk 02:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Imho here the same thing is repeated twice - "is a breakaway territory within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova.", "Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure a part of Moldova,". If it's within the internationally recognised borders of country it's obviously de jure part of it (and vice versa). The word 'breakaway' is also not very neutral. If you don't think so try to insert it in the description of any country that had been part of other and watch the reaction. Alæxis_¿question? 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe, Transnistria is not good too. In all this cases one can be partial in tow ways, giving precedence to a region being independent or being part of some other country. Both are POV, but incorporating these in one sentence is a nonsense, my point was. Tamokk 06:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'm afraid our propaganda warriors will now incite an endless edit-war. The definition "de facto independent republic" is also POV. True, Abkhazia is de facto independent from Georgia, but its completely dependent on Russia. The self-styled foreign minister Sergei Shamba has proudly declared that Abkhazia is de facto under Russian protectorate. One expert in Moscow also said that "Abkhazia is a de facto continuation of the Krasnodar region" of Russia.--Kober^Talk 04:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Wikipedia has means to fight edit wars. "de facto" correctly or incorrectly is widely used in reference to Abkhazia. Details could be included in a footnote. Tamokk 05:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can easily find you an expert (he wouldn't even be anonymous, like yours) who'd say that Georgia is US's protectorate. Since in both cases formal protectorate doesn't exist the word was used figuratively and nobody really knows what it was supposed to mean. Alæxis_¿question? 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no need of so many refs. Tamokk 06:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the word "protectorate" was used not by an expert found by me, but a "foreign minister" of your beloved regime. --Kober^Talk 06:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in absence of formal protectorate one cannot know what exactly he really meant. Alæxis_¿question? 06:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, everybody (including you and me) knows what he meant and we really know that even without Shamba's statement.--Kober^Talk 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolved regarding Autonomous Government?

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia#Dispute_Resolved.3F

And approve the change so that we can put this issue behind us. A change in that article would also mean a change in the summary about the autonomous government on this page. Please see the summary in my sandbox to view what it will be changed to. Pocopocopocopoco 01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The sites of Abkhazian president and MFA should stay as they represent the official position of the Republic of Abkhazia. Likewise abkhazia.com, the official site of the Georgian refugees, should also be present in the article.

We also have apsny.ge and apsnypress.info news sites so again balance is kept.

We should either have both sites like apkhazeti.com and abkhaziya.org or not have any of them. I'm ok with both variants.

ps. Morieli's edit was reverted also because the description of the site was definitely not neutral. The external sites needn't represent NPOV but their descriptions should of course be neutral. Alæxis_¿question? 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its a huge deal but I'm sort of leaning toward Iberieli's take on this issue. We've got underlying articles for the Abkhaz republic, the Automonous Republic, so the external links for the autonomous government and the independent government would probably be better in those articles only. I question whether abkhazia.com belongs anywhere on wikipedia as it has some very questionable material on that site and it probably fails WP:RS the suitable article for it as an external link is probably Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia and not here. Pocopocopocopoco 00:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I wrote about abkhaziYa.org, not about abkhazia.org. Second, WP:RS is about the sources used for the article's text and not about external links (WP:EL deals with them).

I think that the three 'official' sites should be in the EL section of this article - because most of the readers won't probably get to those articles about governments and thus wouldn't have a chance to see them. After all nothing terrible happens usually if one link appears in two articles at the same time )) Alæxis_¿question? 10:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And I wrote about abkhazia.com not abkhazia.org and WP:EL also says to avoid "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and it tells us to refer to WP:RS. I find the material there questionable, the photos on that cite are questionable and the word genocide is plastered all over that site. I'm sorry but what happened in Abkhazia was ethnic cleansing but it wasn't genocide. - Pocopocopocopoco 01:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough. Alæxis_¿question? 07:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serguei Bagapch, self-proclaimed president of Abkhazia?

Who knows what is the English spelling of Serguei Bagapch ? Has he got a Wiki entry? Tazmaniacs 16:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He is Sergei Bagapsh. --Kober^Talk 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't want to unilaterally alter anything in the article, but someone should rewrite this idiotic introduction which is currently full of typically Russian de-factomania aimed at illustrating Moscow's puppet regimes as "de facto independent". Shota-G., Oct. 06, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.43.69 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name for Abkhazia in Megrelian

Is the name for Abkhazia in Megrelian also called Abkhazeti? If not, we should add it to the list of names for Abkhazia and I believe the megrelian should come after Abkhaz but before Georgian. Pocopocopocopoco 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is Abkhazeti. In Svan, it is Abkhaz. But I don't see any need to include all Kartvelian names in the lead. Then, we will have to include also Armenian (As some sources claim, Armenians are the 2nd largest group in today's Abkhazia) and Turkish (Abkhaz have a large diaspora in Turkey) names. This is obviously redundant.--Kober^Talk 05:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. The reason I brought up Megrelian is that it looks like it has some sort of semi-official status in Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Megrelian has a status of regional language in Samurzaqan (Gali district). Proper megrelian name for Abkhazia is " Saapxazo", and not "Apxazeti", the last is a georgianized form.

Does Mingrelian really have a status of regional language in Gali district? I did a quick google/yandex search and couldn't find anything about it. Could you give some reference? Alæxis_¿question? 07:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Abkhazia in the opening paragraph

I support user:El C's version with Republic of Abkhazia in the opening paragraph and I believe it to be NPOV because we already have a section called "utonomous Republic of Abkhazia". To be NPOV and to give the proper weight to the government that is independent from Georgia, it should be in the opening paragraph. Pocopocopocopoco 01:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not NPOV. It's just your POV. Nothing new about that. --Kober^Talk 05:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If we ignore the infoboxes, the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is described in the article but not the Republic of Abkhazia. That's what is POV. Pocopocopocopoco 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Both "Abkhazias" are discussed in each section with the exception of Economy and Politics that focuse solely on de facto "republic". We should move the subsection about the legitimate government to the Politics section to meet NPOV and reduce generally pro-separatist bias of the article. --Kober^Talk 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the autonomous republic could be added to the politics section. I can't imagine that Upper Abkhazia has much of an economy considering it is a sparsely populated gorge. Keep in mind also that NPOV doesn't mean equal exposure. Most of the politics is related to the de facto independent Abkhazia and that's what should be reflected in the politics section. Also, I believe the politics section should use official names for the de facto government. So instead of saying "de facto authorities" it should say "Government of the Republic of Abkhazia" or whatever other institution is involved. Pocopocopocopoco 04:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you want to convert the article into an English version of Mr. Bagapsh's website? Most of the politics is related not to the de facto regime, which owns its "independence" to the international terrorists like Shamil Basayev and to the Russian interventionists, but to 250,000 people expelled from the region. I think the IDPs issue should dominate the section, because it is a principal subject of the current negotiation format as well as all UN resolutions. Also, I think the intro should be rewritten and all this de-facto-independence paranoia should be reduced. In any normal encylcopedia such as Britannica, the lead sentence states that Abkhazia is an autonomous republic of Georgia. Info on Abkhazia's de facto status should follow next, and Russian interventionism should be more stressed.--Kober^Talk 04:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article should further be tilted towards Georgian pov. Alæxis_¿question? 05:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I say "Georgian POV"? I meant NPOV. The article, as it is now, is actually more pro-separatist/pro-Russian than pro-Georgia as a result of its domination by anti-Georgian users and little if any interest on the part of the third party users and neutral admins.--Kober^Talk 06:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Zshartava1993sukhumi.jpg

Image:Zshartava1993sukhumi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanctions

Although the CIS economic sanctions imposed on Abkhazia in 1994 are still formally in force and Russia has established a visa regime with Georgia, Russian passport-holders do not require a visa to enter Abkhazia

This makes it look like Russia violates some of its own obligations which is no longer the case. I also don't think that one can say that CIS sanctions are in force since not all CIS members apply them. If you don't want it removed altogether let's rewrite it somehow.

Here’s the text of the 1996 CIS agreement. Russia is the ONLY signatory to the agreement that has unilaterally withdrawn from it. Russia IS NOT the CIS, and the organization has never overturned its decision. All other countries remain adherent, at least officially, to the agreement. Ukraine and Azerbaijan have even condemned Russia’s decision.--Kober^Talk 09:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

---

“

There have returned to Abkhazia’s Gali District most of the refugees of Georgian nationality that lived there previously. Further progress of this process is being impeded by Georgia’s rejection of the system for their registration that was proposed by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

”

What did they mean by this passage? Alæxis_¿question? 08:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You should ask this question to the authors of that nonsense, imo.:)--Kober^Talk 09:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you know that it is nonsense, then your reasons for this might be helpful in deciphering that message. :) I recall having read that before, but I don't remember where.sephia karta 15:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry I cannot be of any help here. I take no particular interest in deciphering the pieces of the Kremlin propaganda, especially when even the Abkhazia experts like yourself and Alaexis are apparently baffled by this enigma. --Kober^Talk 16:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll write 'Abkhazia expert' in my cv from now on :)

The only thing I could find is this... Alæxis_¿question? 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War in Abkhazia Section needs more cites

It makes alot of unsourced claims such as the rationale behind the Georgian initial troop deployments into Sukhumi as well as the progression of the war. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? "The Georgian government dispatched 3,000 troops to the region, ostensibly to restore order." sounds fine for me. What would you like to change here? Also, please look at War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) article. Some things that are not referenced here are referenced there. Alæxis_¿question? 05:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It says "The Georgian government accused Gamsakhurdia's supporters of kidnapping Georgia's interior minister and holding him captive in Abkhazia. The Georgian government dispatched 3,000 troops to the region, ostensibly to restore order." So it's impying that the initial troop deployment to Sukhumi was related to the interior minister being held in Abkhazia by Gamsakhurdia supporters. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The troops were deployed to Gali not Sukhumi. The march on Sukhumi was Kitovani's own initiative and followed an attack by the Abkhaz militia on the border between Gali and Ochamchire districts.--Kober^Talk 03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abkhazia: Independent or not?

Is Abkhazia independent or not? From my studies, I can conclude nothing. On maps I have looked at, it shows Georgia holding all of Abkhaz territory. From what I have read in this site and others, only few Abkhaz people even exist. I Would say that Abkhazia is partially independent because some sources soy thst Abkhaz has its own millitary and goverment, but some Russians and Georgians are tring to tobble the Abkhaz goverment. But, with a stable army I would say that the goverment is well protected against these so called "Ruffians" of the Abkhaz goverment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.232.209 (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Event?

Would't this be considered a current event article? 99.165.253.250 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 60,000 refuge return claim

This is an odd estimate which is not supported by any source yet. The UN document does not mention any 60,000 IDPs being repatriated back to their homes in Gali district. As i know from some of the sources, not more than 36,000 IDPs were allowed back to their homes and lands but even this figure is questioned by UNOMIG. If we will not be able to find any source supporting the claim that 60,000 IDPs were repatriated, than i will remove the number and will replace it with the number which is currently available in some sources. Thanks. Iberieli (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the ICG mention 60K returning to Abkhazia. I don't have time to look it up right now. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli, the numbers are from the UNHCR Background note on the Protection of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Georgia remaining outside Georgia (reference #18). Even if it's currently unavailable in the net it doesn't mean the reference is invalid. You can, for example, check the cached version I've just added to the article. Alæxis_¿question? 05:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot, now i see the source although its still questionable how accurate their estimates are, Thanks again. Iberieli (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)