Talk:Abkhazia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:13, 21 June 2016 editIJA (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers28,331 edits →RfC on Infobox ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:12, 19 November 2024 edit undoUnsungHistory (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users542 edits →Rayfield on the post-WW2 economy: ReplyTag: Reply
(580 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header \|search=yes }}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes }}
	{{Outline of knowledge coverage\|Abkhazia}}
	{{Controversial}}		{{Controversial}}
			{{On this day\|date1=2010-08-26\|oldid1=381101873}}
	{{Vital article\|level=4\|topic=Geography\|class=B}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Abkhazia~~\|class=B~~\|importance=Top}}		{{WikiProject Abkhazia\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Caucasia~~\|class=B~~\|importance=High}}		{{WikiProject Caucasia\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Georgia (country)~~\|class=B~~\|importance=High}}		{{WikiProject Georgia (country)\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Russia\|importance=high~~\|class=B~~\|hist=yes\|pol=yes}}		{{WikiProject Russia\|importance=high\|hist=yes\|pol=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Limited recognition\|importance=High}}
	{{WP1.0\|WPCD=yes\|v0.7=pass\|class=B\|category=Geography}}
	{{WPURC\|class=B\|importance=Top}}
	}}		}}
			{{To do}}
	{{OnThisDay \|date1=2010-08-26\|oldid1=381101873}}
	{{to do}}
	{{Auto archiving notice\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=90\|small=yes}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes \|template=		\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes \|template=
Line 20:		Line 17:
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 7		\|counter = 10
	\|algo = old(90d)		\|algo = old(90d)
	\|archive = Talk:Abkhazia/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Abkhazia/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{old move
			\|date1=28 July 2023\|from1=Abkhazia \|destination1=Republic of Abkhazia\|result1=not moved\|link1=Special:Permalink/1170854555#Requested move 28 July 2023
			\|date2=29 March 2024 \|from2=Abkhazia \|destination2=Republic of Abkhazia \|result2= not moved \|link2=Special:Permalink/1217432298#Requested move 29 March 2024
			}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (DRG and the Soviet Rule) ]. <!-- {"title":"DRG and the Soviet Rule","appear":{"revid":1076981361,"parentid":1076967288,"timestamp":"2022-03-14T00:23:41Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":,"replaced_anchors":{"After restoration of independence":"After the restoration of independence"}},"disappear":{"revid":1206497904,"parentid":1184191297,"timestamp":"2024-02-12T09:05:59Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
	}}		}}

			== "officially the Republic of Abkhazia" ==
	== Humorous Flag of Bigoted ignorance. ==

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


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

	:: Dear user, Silvery Right Palm is shown on Genuise map of 1314-1315 (c.1385. Guillem Soler.Biblioteca Nacional, París.)<ref>{{cite web\|title=c.1385. Guillem Soler.Biblioteca Nacional, París.\|url=https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dbBIdgpY2kA/TYkuaXBMX3I/AAAAAAAAAII/ivQsyPT67d4/s1600/1339.+Angelino+Dulcert.+Biblioteca+Nacional%252C+Par%25C3%25ADs..jpg\|publisher=*c.1385. Guillem Soler.Biblioteca Nacional, París.}}</ref> and the map says: “lands of the Greatest King of Georgia". Right Palm was the symbol of Georgia, though Abkhazia was also considered as the name to Western Georgia.
	On the same regions you can find Georgia's 5 cross flag. Meaning the incorporation of Dadiani's lands into Georgian Kingdom<ref>{{cite web\|title=1339. Angelino Dulcert. Biblioteca Nacional, París.\|url=https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dbBIdgpY2kA/TYkuaXBMX3I/AAAAAAAAAII/ivQsyPT67d4/s1600/1339.+Angelino+Dulcert.+Biblioteca+Nacional%252C+Par%25C3%25ADs..jpg}}</ref>.
	Right Palm is also shown on the regions of current Gagra, Gonio, and Sukhumi. It also appeared on the Portolane of Gilermo Solerto indicate Sukhumi as the residence of Dadiani. “Silvery Right Palm ” is not Apsua but oldest Georgian symbol, which means ruler or sovereign<ref>{{cite web\|title=The Genoese trading factors in Abkhazia\|url=http://httpdefencegeorgia.blogspot.com/2011/03/genoese-trading-factors-in-abkhazia.html}}</ref>.

	== External links modified ==

	Hello fellow Wikipedians,

	I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080813035731/http://www.civil.ge/eng/detail.php?id=17617 to http://www.civil.ge/eng/detail.php?id=17617

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

	{{sourcecheck\|checked=failed}}

	Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 21:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==

	Hello fellow Wikipedians,

	I have just modified {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	*Corrected formatting/usage for //www.eek.gr/default.asp?pid=6&id=579

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

	{{sourcecheck\|checked=true}}

	Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

	== Issues with Definition ==

			If its de jure status is that it's part of Georgia, shouldn't official name be "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia"? What does "officially" mean otherwise? It's obviously ]. Also, there are two articles on Crimea: ] and ] where first one refers to the general region, and the second one refers to the internationally-recognized jurisdiction. I think this is the correct and most neutral practice when it comes to territorial disputes. — ] (]) 16:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
	Hi all,
			:The article about Crimea is about the peninsula itself, the administrative division articles are ] and ]. ] (]) 16:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
	Please assist me to resolve the problem with the info box of Republic of Abkhazia which is placed on right side of the article.
			::Adding on to that, the ''de jure'' Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has its own article: ]. <big>]]</big> 21:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

			:Absolutely right I wanted to say exactly that ] (]) 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
	Problem: Definition "Republic of Abkhazia" is not common or legal and it's not recognized internationally. Info box misleads audience, giving expression that "Republic of Abkhazia" is official name and commonly used. It also features symbols of separatist government, which are presented as official symbols for Abkhazia.
			:Fully support removal of "official". It is ]. ] (]) 05:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::Saying it is "Officially Independent"is POV,but so is "It is Part of Georgia" ] (]) (]) 22:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Rayfield on the post-WW2 economy ==
	Description:
	Common name of Abkhazia since Soviet times is Autonomious Republic of Abkhazia.
	Internationally Abkhazia is referred as Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia or Abkhazia.
	This is due to the fact that UN, U.S. all European countries and almost all countries in the world recognize Abkhazia as the part of Georgia with it's legal status "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia".
	Only Russia, which occupied Abkhazia in 1993 and few Anti_western countries call Abkhazia "Republic of Abkhazia".
	In 2015 Google map added word "Autonomous" to "Republic of Abkhazia"<ref>{{cite web\|title=Google Maps adds “Autonomous” before “Republic of Abkhazia” following Georgia’s request\|url=http://agenda.ge/news/41886/eng\|publisher=Agenda.ge}}</ref>.
	Later it started referring a Abkhazia.

			I've removed some of the information that has been added, so I'd like to give an explanation here. This is what Rayfield writes in his ''Edge of Empires''
	Resolution:
	There must be clear definition for the information presented in info box. It should include first official name, status and heraldic of de jure authorities, as well as de facto titles and symbols, but with clear description that these names and symbols are not common, and not recognized by UN, EU and the world except of Russia, Venecuela and some other countries.
	--] (]) 19:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

			{{cquote\|Life in Georgia was grim: there were only old men, boys and invalids to help the women work the fields and the factories. (The population in 1945, 3,232,000, was 10 per cent smaller than in 1939: it would not return to 1939’s level until 1960.) The produce of the countryside and towns went to feed and rebuild European Russia. For want of goods, or a market economy, money lost its value; inflation soared. Serfdom was now introduced into industry, as well as agriculture: from 1948 workers were deprived of passports, and leaving a job became impossible. (In 1949 Beria proposed giving workers and peasants passports and freedom of movement, but his proposal was rejected on the grounds that labour was scarce.) Reluctant workers could be deported for eight years’ forced labour in ‘remote districts’. Some 9,000 peasant households were resettled between 1947 and 1952 from the highlands to underpopulated areas – Abkhazia, the newly drained Mingrelian marshes and newly irrigated Samgori fields – and left to fend for themselves.}}
	:Neither that name of "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" are the common name of the area, which is just "Abkhazia", like the article title. The infobox is set up as it is to reflect the situation on the ground, but if you look at the very first paragraph of the lead, you will see the situation wrt Georgian sovereignty explained, while details of limited recognition you request are already present in the infobox as it stands.
	:As an aside, as far as I'm aware there are no official heraldry symbols for the Abkhazian government-in-exile, although if that is changed it would be good to know. ] (]) 23:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

			Only the last sentence concerns Abkhazia directly. The previous sentences have to do with the general situation in Georgia. The 1948 reforms affected ''workers'' (as in factory workers), while peasants, including the ones resettled in Abkhazia, had no passports even before or after that.
	:: ] well noted. Both are not common. But As far as I know Wiki reffers to official name first and then to others. Though using Abkhazia the the general title is OK. But the info box misleads users. There must be two Boxes: One for Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Second for Separatists Republic of Abkhazia.

			I think it would be a good idea to describe the economical situation in Abkhazia in Soviet times in this article, but we should use sources which discuss Abkhazia rather than the whole Georgia or USSR-wide changes, unless they impacted Abkhazia in a major way. The 1948 measures tying workers to their jobs were unlikely to impact Abkhazia since there was very little industry there. ]<sub>]</sub> 15:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	::Yes, there are official ]. I just lack of knowladge to insert them into this article. Hope others will help.

			:"Life in Georgia was grim: there were only old men, boys and invalids to help the women work the fields and the factories. (The population in 1945, 3,232,000, was 10 per cent smaller than in 1939: it would not return to 1939’s level until 1960.) The produce of the countryside and towns went to feed and rebuild European Russia. For want of goods, or a market economy, money lost its value; inflation soared. Serfdom was now introduced into industry, as well as agriculture: from 1948 workers were deprived of passports, and leaving a job became impossible. (In 1949 Beria proposed giving workers and peasants passports and freedom of movement, but his proposal was rejected on the grounds that labour was scarce.) Reluctant workers could be deported for eight years’ forced labour in ‘remote districts’. Some 9,000 peasant households were resettled between 1947 and 1952 from the highlands to underpopulated areas – Abkhazia, the newly drained Mingrelian marshes and newly irrigated Samgori fields – and left to fend for themselves."sounds very POV ] (]) (]) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	::These two boxes should be filled with relative symbols and titles. Otherwise, now, this box show partly Separatists republic and rest Autonomous republic.

			== Coherence in terming ==
	::Current symbol is for partly recognized/separatist republic of Abkhazia. CAption below the flag should say "Flag of Partly recognized Republic of Abkhazia"
	::--] (]) 07:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

			I see that for Kosovo, it is stated that it is a country, while, accoding to UN, it is a province of Serbia.
	:::The Heraldry for the Autonomous Republic shown on the heraldry website are just proposals, I do not believe they have been adopted into law. They are not for example used on the .
			Without entering the partisan discussion, and based on the Misplaced Pages definition of "country", I assume that the appropriate way to define Abkhazia, is that it is a ]:
	:::The infoboxes have been discussed before, and as I noted, the current one reflects the governing structure actually in use. The government-in-exile has its own page, linked in the lead. I trust readers to be able to figure out that Abkhazia is only partially recognised due to its prominent mention, it is bad writing to mention it every single time the separatist republic is mentioned. ] (]) 08:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
			<blockquote>
			"''A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory''".</blockquote> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Requested move 29 March 2024 ==
	: The Heraldry for the Autonomous Republic is used on official website of
	It shows both: Flag of Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Coat of Arms.
	There is no single word that symbols are not approved by the law. But I will double check it.
	Meanwhile the rest - Infobox with Title and status of Autonomous Republic must be added.
	OK. I understand that the current info box refers to "Republic of Abkhazia" (parttly recognzed) but till there is no second info box for Autonomous Republic, it misleads readers.
	--] (]) 08:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

	--] (]) 08:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

			<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	] Government in exile has own wiki page but it's not about country, but governmental body. current article is about Abkhazia and it show only one governing structure - illegitimate body. Not adding legitimate body to the info-box misleads readers.
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
	Your argument that all readers are well educated is quite weak. Many in USA identify Republic of Georgia as State of Georgia in USA. And many in Russia still believe that Georgia is part of URSS.
	What I propose is very simple: to have 2 info box.
	Do you see something problematic in it?
	--] (]) 09:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

			The result of the move request was: '''Not moved''' <small>(])</small> ] <sup>]·]'']</sup> 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
	::I'm familiar with the heradly website. The Heraldry Council came up with those symbols a few years ago now, and listed them as proposed symbols when it did so. The website has changed a bit since then, but given the complete lack of text on that website (which in general is not that well maintained, search through it a bit and there's still some places where Abkhazia is represented by a blank shield for example), I do not take it as a source for their proposals making it into law.
			----
	::I disagree that it is misleading to present the governance as it exists on the ground. On the contrary, it would be very misleading to present an infobox, with associated demographics economics etc., for a body which exerts no influence on said parameters. The current infobox clearly notes the lack of recognition, and and the lead gives a concise explanation of the situation. All the government-in-exile is is a governmental body, it does not exert a governing structure. My argument was not that readers are well-educated, but that they could read what's already blatantly obvious on the page. ] (]) 09:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
			] → {{no redirect\|Republic of Abkhazia}} – The article looks like a chaotic mix of different kind of informations about historical Abkhazia, separatist Republic of Abkhazia and Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. This looks confusing. The historical region of Abkhazia should have its own page Abkhazia (region) like ]. Politically, there is separatist Republic of Abkhazia, and there is also Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. The world (except five rogue states) recognizes Abkhazia as territory of Georgia. There should not be priority given to separatist narrative. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should have its own article ], where its history and controversy would be discussed. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should not be portrayed as heir to historical Abkhazia and the name Abkhazia should not be appropriated by it, this is violation of NPOV and FRINGE. Currently, the name Abkhazia is given to Republic of Abkhazia, because this article with the name of Abkhazia begins with the claim that Abkhazia is a partially recognized state. Why does not it begins with such text "Abkhazia is a region of Georgia"? This is violation of NPOV. Create separate article for separatist republic. This article '''Abkhazia''' should be disambiguous page, redirecting to separatist Republic of Abkhazia, Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Abkhazia (region). Most of the Misplaced Pages pages linked to this article are named Republic of Abkhazia: Georgian, Spanish, French, even Russian and Abkhazian[REDACTED] articles. ] (]) 05:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
	: It was misleading for me, since I decided to correct it. It's misleading for many of my foreign friends. Of course it's up to Wiki editors, but it decision should not be biased. Now it now shows different attitude towards identical situations. For example Crimea (occupied by Russia) and Abkhazia (Occupied by Russia) . For Crimea there is a ] and for page is redirected to this page and protected from editing.
	:This condition creates feeling that editing wa conducted unfairly and base on political motivation.
	:My opinion remains: Article Abkhazia lacks of infobox on Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia.
	:--] (]) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

			:* '''Oppose''' per previous comments in last RM. Common name/primary topic etc. ] (]) 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
	::The infobox contains: "Partially recognised", "First international recognition", "Annulled by Georgia immediately thereafter", "By Russia. Another 3 UN member states also recognise Abkhazia's independence". The first paragraph of the lead contains: "partially recognised state", "separatist Abkhazian state", "recognised only by Russia and a small number of other countries", "the majority of the world's governments consider Abkhazia part of Georgia", "Georgia officially considers the area an autonomous republic, the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia." If people feel mislead after all of those, then I suggest there is little that can be done.
			::Why exactly should Abkhazia necessarly mean separatist Republic of Abkhazia and not Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia? For this confusion to be avoided, the move needs to be made. Otherwise, the lead needs to be changed to be more neutral. Most of the states in the world don't percieve Abkhazia as a state, but as autonomous region of Abkhazia. Writing otherwise is violation of NPOV and FRINGE rule.] (]) 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
	::Crimea is a markedly different case, given the Ukrainian autonomous administration of Crimea was actually exercised for over two decades, and the article is useful in covering that. The Georgian Autonomous government on the other hand exercised limited control during the war immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and over bits of the Kodori Valley and surroundings for two years. ] (]) 10:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
			:::Because in reality, the separatists are in control, hence most references to Abkhazia will mean this. ] (]) 05:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::In reality, Russia is in control of affairs there. And most references don't say that Abkhazia is not Georgia. While saying Abkhazia, most of the references say that it is a Georgian region. Only small number say that it is independendent. While talking about separatist officials, they usually say "''de facto'' Abkhazian officials" or "separatist Abkhazian officials" and such things to avoid confusion. ''De facto'' control alone does not everything since they are locked from communicating with the civilized world and are left to Russia only. They are not recognized ''de jure'', which is notable thing. ] (]) 06:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This is just rehashing the same argument by the previous proposer in the last RM. If you have a new argument, then you can mention that. ] (]) 06:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' this sounds like a split request, and not a move request. ] is for that purpose -- ] (]) 07:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. This page is about Abkhazia as a territory, i.e. as described on page ]. Nothing prevents from creating a separate page, ], which would be about the modern-day separatist unrecognized state (briefly described in a section of this page, ]). ] (]) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' per previous rm and ] ''']]''' 18:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' per previous RM. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a separate article. ]] 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Comment'''. Until relatively recently something similar was practiced in the case of ] where there were 3 separate articles on the partially recognised state, nominal Serbian province not in control of the area and the region itself. For some reason the practice was changed. I was not an active participants so I don't know all the details and reasoning used there but if you look further maybe you can identify relevant discussions and find something useful, applicable or relevant for this case as well.--] (]) 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
			::All the previous examples, such as Kosovo and China, were removed as they were essentially ]s. In those cases, and this one, the "region" was defined by the geopolitical region. ] (]) 02:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
			<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
			</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

			== Misleading toponym section ==
	:] Thank you for editing. Well done. Now it looks better.
	As regard to the difference between Crimean and Abkhaz Autonomous Republics. As far as I understand, your point is that Crimea's Autonomous Republic used its status since the collapse of Soviet Union till the occupation and in Georgia control governance was partly lost.
	:I agree that current government is de-factor ruler, so that proves importance of having it on page. But the status of Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is internationally recognised till today and this status was exercised (de-facto) in upper Abkhazia till 2008 (Russo-Georgian War).
	:My suggestion is to have two info box for article. This does not contradicts with wiki rules. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			First phrase of the toponym section: ''"Abkhazia (] <sup>]</sup> ] or ] <sup>]</sup> ]) is etymologized as a land of the soul"'' is misleading. Abkhazia isn't etymologized as a land of soul - Apsny is. Word Abkhazia is russified form of Apkhazeti which is thought to be of Kartvelian origin. ] (]) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	::My point was that the Crimean Autonomous Republic fully functioned for a long time, whereas Georgian governance of post-Soviet Abkhazia has never been fully established. Even the Chkhalta government only lasted a couple of years. I noted my issues with a second infobox above.
	::Also, although I suppose it may have happened a few times, I have not seen any statements from foreign governments recognising the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. They recognise Georgian sovereignty, which is not the same as recognising specific administrative structures.] (]) 13:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
	:::Lol what does it mean "They recognise Georgian sovereignty, which is not the same as recognising specific administrative structures"?! They recognize Georgian statehood, Georgian law and Georgian sovereignty this includes everything. OMG some try so hard to diminish Georgia.--<big>]</big>] 14:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
	::::It means that we shouldn't extrapolate sources to say things they don't. It's hard to see how you feel this diminishes Georgia. Countries recognising sub-state structures can often lead to issues down the line (see: Kosovo). ] (]) 14:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
	: ] Sorry, but your statement about recognition only Georgian sovereignty, excluding specific administrative structures, is senseless. Recognition of sovereignty means recognition of borders and it's governing structures. Government of Separatist Republic of Abkhazia does not recognize region as the part of Georgia. Do you mean that International community might recognize Georgia's sovereignty but not its governance? And remark regarding upper Abkhazia is not true. Autonomous Republic was controlling it since 1991. My question remains: What kind of problem you see in having two info-boxes? Becouse it seems like you are trying to hide Georgia's jurisdiction --] (]) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
	::No, a recognition of sovereignty is a recognition of ]. Sovereignty generally includes the creation of governing structures regardless of outside interference. See for example any selection of China's statements on the matter. The international community recognises Georgian governance, but I have seen no specific statements saying they want that governance to be a certain way. Upper Abkhazia was controlled by a warlord until 2006, which is why the Autonomous government was based in Tbilisi until that time.
	::I stated my concerns above. Implying a governing structure where there is none does not help the reader. ] (]) 15:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
	I agree with ] that the lead overall gives sufficient weight to both points of view (de facto and de jure control), however, I also don't think that the infobox reflects that, since it gives one point of view much more prominence. I would like to see ]-style infobox, giving fair weight to both de facto and de jure situations. Further, I don't think the duration of control has anything to do with it: we present both administrations in the Crimean article not because Ukraine was administering it for some arbitrarily significant amount of time, but because both views have significant support and should be given ]. ] (]) 11:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

			:I've rewritten this section, lmk what you think. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	I'd like to suggest ] ]-inspired "combined infobox". Bests, --] (]) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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

			Wikidata has one item for the Republic of Abkhazia here:
	: Proposed info-boxes are acceptable. I will vote for adaption if I may.
			https://www.wikidata.org/Q31354462
	--] (]) 20:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
			and a separate item for the region of Abkhazia here:
			https://www.wikidata.org/Q23334

			It looks like there are only 13 translations of Misplaced Pages (including the version in Russian, aka Русский) that have a separate article for each of those items. 160 other translations of Misplaced Pages (including the English version) only have a single article that covers both topics. My question is: should those 160 translations link to the first item or the second item? I'd suggest they should link to the first item, and I'd also suggest that for clarity the second item should be renamed to something like Abkhazia (region). Although I'm ok with having them link to the second item, if that's what other people prefer. But right now it looks like it's some of each. There are 16 translations of Misplaced Pages (including the version in French, aka Français) that only link to the first item. 135 translations (including the version in Portuguese, aka Português) that only link to the second item. 2 translations (including this version in English) that link to the first item but have a redirect that links to the second item. And 7 translations (including the version in Spanish, aka Español) that link to the second item but have a redirect that links to the first item. It looks like all the wikinews and wikivoyage translations (including the version in Portuguese) link to the first item only. - ] (]) 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
	{{reflist}}

			:You likely have to ask this on Wikidata, figuring out how they differentiate the items. ] (]) 06:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
	===Polling to adopt ] ===
			:And don't forget ] which has strange English sitelink. ] (]) 20:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
	{{collapse top\|Statements copied to RfC}}
	It was several times that people had controversy about the current infobox. One thing is clear it's not well formed and misses many things. Due to this I think it's time to vote for adoption of a ''']'''.--<big>]</big>] 18:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{agree}}--<big>]</big>] 18:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
	::Please have a read over ]. The correct procedure if you wish to escalate this is an ], or something else in the ] system. ] (]) 22:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{agree}} Great great proposition! --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">] (])</font>''' 23:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{agree}} for reasons already stated with two proposed fixes. (1) The two Chairmen and legislature from the "Georgia (de jure)" section should be removed. The Georgian de jure claim is significant, but the administrative positions with no actual power are not. (2) Abkhaz and Russian should be added to spoken languages. They were excluded in the old infobox since they were in the "Official languages" field. But now that we have two "Official languages" fields, all of the major spoken languages should be repeated within Spoken languages. ] (]) 07:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
	::{{comment}} ] we can agree about languages, but not about removing two de jure Chairmen, they are representatives of IDPs, they care about them and if someone (UN or etc) will decide to do something in Abkhazia they talk with them. They have weight (power) even in exile. They also care about those Abkhazians who come in Tbilisi or Zugdidi for medical treatment. --<big>]</big>] 11:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
	:::I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with the conclusion. As far as I can tell, the "de jure" chairmen have no power in Abkhazia, which is the subject of this article. In 2008, their administration was evacuated even from the small part of Abkhazia that they had some control over. Right now they seem to perform the sort of low-level administrative functions that would not be covered in any other infobox on a region. Also, a statement that "if someone (UN or etc) will decide to do something in Abkhazia they talk with them". I can only assume that any "talking" to them would be purely a gesture, since if you want to DO anything in Abkhazia, you would have to talk to de facto government. ] (]) 12:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
	::::Beside that actual control on the ground, de jure government claims all Abkhazia, so at least readers should know (see) who is a head of them, who organizes their governmental activities and so on.--<big>]</big>] 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
	::::], this is an example of what I was discussing above when I was talking about the governments link with the population being very different.
	::::Anyway, ], if you really want to go down this path again but do not know how to set up an RfC, I would be happy to do so for you?
	::::Lastly, I encourage any interested users to read the discussions which resulted in the current compromise infobox, which take up basically the entirety of ] and conclude with ]. ] (]) 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Archives or previous discussions do not mean that topics are closed and mustn't be changed for ever. Be happy and do RfC :) --<big>]</big>] 20:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
	: hi ]. Your statement "if you want to DO anything in Abkhazia, you would have to talk to de facto government" does not correspond to reality. Till now, countries (except of Russia and Venezuela, Nikaragua) and their citizens can't do anything in Abkhazia in terms of long-term business. This is due to and international diplomacy of Georgia, U.S. and EU. For entire world Abkhazia currently is considered as Bataclan theatre during the attack. Even De Facto government is wrongly referred here as so, since almost all Countries admit that It's Russia who keeps control over Abkhazia, including financial control. Russia promised to cover
	There attempts of Turkish entrepreneurs to start business in Abkhazia, but as far as I know almost all such attempts failed to Georgia's involvement.
	There is no recognition of elections in Abkhazia, and very few arguments proving real weight of De Facto government. It's obvious for me and the rest of community with knowledge of situation in Abkhazia that De Facto government of Abkhazia is the puppet structure with no real power. But Russia can be called De Facto. Please correct me if I'm not right while saying this. --] (]) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{agree}} per nom. –] <sup>]</sup> 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{disagree}} In the proposed infobox more square footage is devoted to the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (Georgian subdivision) than to the de facto government which gives it undue weight. While we can argue about the extent of (in)dependence of current Abkhazian government from/on Russia, it's indisputable that the AAR government now has no say whatsoever in the affairs of Abkhazia. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
	** Well, there is an ], without administrative positions of AAR (instead, I've added "see details" link to article about that government). Bests, --] (]) 07:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
	***] you think like communist scholars in regard to Big Soviet Encyclopedia, ''"oh this republic had more words or space not mine and etc"''. More square footage is a result of longer names of official organs and that's all not because we wrote more info about de jure subjects. Your argument is too weak and at some point pointless. And about AAR government's role we already have written above--<big>]</big>] 07:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
	*** Didn't see it, ya, it's better. The time zone also should be corrected as the de facto one is different from Georgian time (but that's the problem with the current one as well). The fundamental question of whether we should mention AAR in the infobox (=prominently) when it has zero influence on the situation on the ground remains. Note that the relation to Georgia is already mentioned in the infobox and the lead. I agree with CMD's comment above that it'd be helpful to use ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
	****If you like to speak about the ground then make Infobox about the ground and not about all Abkhazia which is not only situation on the ground and not only "AR" but AAR as well.--<big>]</big>] 16:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
	{{collapse bottom}}
	===RfC on Infobox===
	{{rfc\|hist\|pol\|rfcid=AEC94E0}}
	Should the infobox in this article change from the to one such as ? ] (]) 12:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{agree}} It was several times that people had controversy about the current infobox. One thing is clear it's not well formed and misses many things. --<big>]</big>] 18:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{agree}} Great great proposition! --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">] (])</font>''' 23:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{agree}} for reasons already stated with two proposed fixes. (1) The two Chairmen and legislature from the "Georgia (de jure)" section should be removed. The Georgian de jure claim is significant, but the administrative positions with no actual power are not. (2) Abkhaz and Russian should be added to spoken languages. They were excluded in the old infobox since they were in the "Official languages" field. But now that we have two "Official languages" fields, all of the major spoken languages should be repeated within Spoken languages. ] (]) 07:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{agree}} per nom. –] <sup>]</sup> 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{disagree}} In the proposed infobox more square footage is devoted to the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (Georgian subdivision) than to the de facto government which gives it undue weight. While we can argue about the extent of (in)dependence of current Abkhazian government from/on Russia, it's indisputable that the AAR government now has no say whatsoever in the affairs of Abkhazia. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{disagree}} per {{u\|Alaexis}}. We have long held that Abkhazia is a de facto independent state per the declarative theory, albeit that it has limited recognition and is not a UN member. Thus it appears on ] alongside ], ] and other similar entities. The proposed infobox (particularly with its use of ''de jure'' to describe the relationship of Ahkhazia with Georgia) somehow implies that it is legally bound to Georgia (which is what de jure means). This is not the case, however. Abkhazia has its own legal system, and has not been functionally part of Georgia since 1992, thus any reference to the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" is meaningless. Since we're treating this as an independent country, its infobox should be similar to that used for any other country, and the current one does that job fine, including dates of the various separations from Georgia.  — ] (]) 13:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	**{{comment}}] what does it mean "Since we're treating this as an independent country"?! Who treats? You? Definitely not Misplaced Pages! Because nobody on the Earth treats it like independent, even Russia doesn't.--<big>]</big>] 14:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	**{{Question}}Is the font size meant to stay that small?] (]) 14:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{disagree}} pare Alaexis and Amakuru. The new box puts too much weight to the "in exile" institutions which might or might not be legal/legitimate, but the fact is that their real influence is close to zero in the field (you can hardly purchase anything in laris in Abkhazia, and I doubt that Gvazava or Kolbaia are allowed to set foot there). Put the disclaimers wherever appropriate and describe the controversy, but the current infobox does the job just fine. While ] stated (s)he agrees with the proposal, (s)he also advocated removal of the "Georgia (de jure)" section, which AFAICT results in the current solution, more or less (issues about languages and calling code still should be ironed out anyway). ] (]) 15:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	**{{comment}}I am telling again and again this infobox and article is not only about situation on the field or ground it is about all Abkhazia including its history, geography, people, development institutions (both de jure or de facto) and et cetera and et cetera. So please enough this one direction "arguments"--<big>]</big>] 16:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{disagree}} - I don't like the proposed infobox. It's unlike any other infobox for a partially recognised country. I think we should keep the current infobox but add the information regarding the autonomous government. I'd just like to point out that the undue weight argument regarding the proposed infobox is very weak, I don't see how stating the region "]" (the only extra thing) is giving undue weight. I also don't agree with the argument ''"Since we're treating this as an independent country"''. We're not treating Abkhazia as an independent country as that'd be POV. We're treating Abkhazia as a partially recognised country and a disputed territory. I'm by no means a supporter of Abkhazia's independence however I don't think it would be fair to treat the Autonomous Government as equals to the Disputed Republic Government. The Disputed Republic Government actually governs Abkhazia. This is an encyclopaedia and we should be stating facts. Whilst the Autonomous Government is notable and should be included in this article, we need to show to our readers that they have no authority in the day-to-day administration and governance of Abkhazia. We don't want to be misleading our readers. ] (]) 16:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	**{{comment}}{{ping\|IJA}} for what you say we have two terms ''De facto'' and ''De jure'' so readers won't be misled. --<big>]</big>] 16:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	**{{comment}}{{ping\|Giorgi Balakhadze}} Some countries and RoA would argue that Abkhazia is ''de jure'' independent, so de jure according to whom? I still don't think it is fair to treat ARoA and RoA as equals in this as RoA actually administrates Abkhazia whereas ARoA is just a government in exile with no powers over Abkhazia. I agree that the ARoA should be mentioned in this article but not as equals with the RoA. ] (]) 18:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{agree}} In my opinion the proposal is good and contain important information, I disagree with those disagreeing. Abkhazia is de-facto an independent country but according to the international community, Abkhazia is an integral part of Georgia, which in Georgia is the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Removing this will not be ]. Furthermore, any proposal for improvement, must be based on the structred offered by the RFC creater, I do not affirm that the infobox is by all means the best but I don't see a major problem with it, with emphasis on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.--] <small>''(])''</small> 16:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	*{{disagree}} I disagree as it is an unrecognized state, it should still have its own infobox examples are ], ], and ]. Even certain rebel groups have country infoboxes - see ] and ]. But if this goes through, we should probably move the current article about the partially recognized state to ]. ] (]) 16:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	**<u>As I know new users have no right to participate in such polls</u>--<big>]</big>] 17:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	***"All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC." - ] ] (]) 17:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	****This article is not only about ''frozen conflict creature'' RoA but about geographic region Abkhazia. If you wish you can start discussion about writing new article for the RoA but not touching this one.--<big>]</big>] 17:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	* {{Disagree}} The current infobox was arrived at after a long period of discussion (conclusion ]). This infobox informs the reader of the actual situation, presenting to the reader information about the government that governs. It also provides clarifications where this governance is affected by the international situation, such as the note of partial recognition in the sovereignty section along with the number of recognising countries, the note on Georgian annulment of the Abkhazian declaration of sovereignty, and international calling access. A previous comment brought up the question of neutrality, but there is no disagreement on the topic of our infobox, which is who governs Abkhazia. The disagreement is instead on whether that government is legal and right, and that is very clearly explained both in the clarifications mentioned above, and in the article text. Furthermore, presenting the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (ARoA) administration in the infobox presents them as a government when they have never actually governed. It would be a purely theoretical infobox section, and is misleading. The lari is not used in Abkhazia, and the Georgian language is suppressed, but the proposed infobox presents these both without question. Such a presentation actually obscures what the ARoA administration actually does, as while it does not govern, it performs other tasks such as providing representation for internally displaced people within Georgia proper. ] (]) 16:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
	:: dear ] I'm excited how easy is for you to write disagree. Seems like you did not read anything in discussion and just repeat Putin's words. It's obvious that users like you have nothing common with[REDACTED] but with politics. You are biased. the difference between us is that I love my country which is partly occupied by Russia, and you just play Putin's pupet game for reasons which are far from editing).
	Dear all, when you put word disagree, please read discussion.
	Number of words "Disagree" does not change history. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*{{agree}} the most neutral position tho--] (]) 17:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:12, 19 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abkhazia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 26, 2010.

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Abkhazia Top‑importance

	Abkhazia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbkhaziaWikipedia:WikiProject AbkhaziaTemplate:WikiProject AbkhaziaAbkhazia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Caucasia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia

Georgia (country) High‑importance

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: History / Politics and law High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Limited recognition High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Abkhazia: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-01-14

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : (or rather proposals) Culture (Literature, Architecture)
- Detail the relationship with the South Ossetian war
- Discuss ties with the Abazaz and the Circassians
- Discuss the reputation of long living among the abkhazians (there are books on this)

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 28 July 2023, from Abkhazia to Republic of Abkhazia, see discussion.
Not moved, 29 March 2024, from Abkhazia to Republic of Abkhazia, see discussion.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (DRG and the Soviet Rule) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

"officially the Republic of Abkhazia"

If its de jure status is that it's part of Georgia, shouldn't official name be "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia"? What does "officially" mean otherwise? It's obviously WP:POV. Also, there are two articles on Crimea: Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea where first one refers to the general region, and the second one refers to the internationally-recognized jurisdiction. I think this is the correct and most neutral practice when it comes to territorial disputes. — 185.115.4.187 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The article about Crimea is about the peninsula itself, the administrative division articles are Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Mellk (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding on to that, the de jure Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has its own article: Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Yue🌙 21:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely right I wanted to say exactly that Vanikobar (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Fully support removal of "official". It is WP:POV. Vnar123 (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying it is "Officially Independent"is POV,but so is "It is Part of Georgia" UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 22:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Rayfield on the post-WW2 economy

I've removed some of the information that has been added, so I'd like to give an explanation here. This is what Rayfield writes in his Edge of Empires

“

Life in Georgia was grim: there were only old men, boys and invalids to help the women work the fields and the factories. (The population in 1945, 3,232,000, was 10 per cent smaller than in 1939: it would not return to 1939’s level until 1960.) The produce of the countryside and towns went to feed and rebuild European Russia. For want of goods, or a market economy, money lost its value; inflation soared. Serfdom was now introduced into industry, as well as agriculture: from 1948 workers were deprived of passports, and leaving a job became impossible. (In 1949 Beria proposed giving workers and peasants passports and freedom of movement, but his proposal was rejected on the grounds that labour was scarce.) Reluctant workers could be deported for eight years’ forced labour in ‘remote districts’. Some 9,000 peasant households were resettled between 1947 and 1952 from the highlands to underpopulated areas – Abkhazia, the newly drained Mingrelian marshes and newly irrigated Samgori fields – and left to fend for themselves.

”

Only the last sentence concerns Abkhazia directly. The previous sentences have to do with the general situation in Georgia. The 1948 reforms affected workers (as in factory workers), while peasants, including the ones resettled in Abkhazia, had no passports even before or after that.

I think it would be a good idea to describe the economical situation in Abkhazia in Soviet times in this article, but we should use sources which discuss Abkhazia rather than the whole Georgia or USSR-wide changes, unless they impacted Abkhazia in a major way. The 1948 measures tying workers to their jobs were unlikely to impact Abkhazia since there was very little industry there. Alaexis_¿question? 15:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Life in Georgia was grim: there were only old men, boys and invalids to help the women work the fields and the factories. (The population in 1945, 3,232,000, was 10 per cent smaller than in 1939: it would not return to 1939’s level until 1960.) The produce of the countryside and towns went to feed and rebuild European Russia. For want of goods, or a market economy, money lost its value; inflation soared. Serfdom was now introduced into industry, as well as agriculture: from 1948 workers were deprived of passports, and leaving a job became impossible. (In 1949 Beria proposed giving workers and peasants passports and freedom of movement, but his proposal was rejected on the grounds that labour was scarce.) Reluctant workers could be deported for eight years’ forced labour in ‘remote districts’. Some 9,000 peasant households were resettled between 1947 and 1952 from the highlands to underpopulated areas – Abkhazia, the newly drained Mingrelian marshes and newly irrigated Samgori fields – and left to fend for themselves."sounds very POV UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Coherence in terming

I see that for Kosovo, it is stated that it is a country, while, accoding to UN, it is a province of Serbia. Without entering the partisan discussion, and based on the Misplaced Pages definition of "country", I assume that the appropriate way to define Abkhazia, is that it is a country:

"A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.12.175 (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Abkhazia → Republic of Abkhazia – The article looks like a chaotic mix of different kind of informations about historical Abkhazia, separatist Republic of Abkhazia and Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. This looks confusing. The historical region of Abkhazia should have its own page Abkhazia (region) like Syria (region). Politically, there is separatist Republic of Abkhazia, and there is also Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. The world (except five rogue states) recognizes Abkhazia as territory of Georgia. There should not be priority given to separatist narrative. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should have its own article Republic of Abkhazia, where its history and controversy would be discussed. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should not be portrayed as heir to historical Abkhazia and the name Abkhazia should not be appropriated by it, this is violation of NPOV and FRINGE. Currently, the name Abkhazia is given to Republic of Abkhazia, because this article with the name of Abkhazia begins with the claim that Abkhazia is a partially recognized state. Why does not it begins with such text "Abkhazia is a region of Georgia"? This is violation of NPOV. Create separate article for separatist republic. This article Abkhazia should be disambiguous page, redirecting to separatist Republic of Abkhazia, Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Abkhazia (region). Most of the Misplaced Pages pages linked to this article are named Republic of Abkhazia: Georgian, Spanish, French, even Russian and Abkhazian[REDACTED] articles. Vnar123 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per previous comments in last RM. Common name/primary topic etc. Mellk (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly should Abkhazia necessarly mean separatist Republic of Abkhazia and not Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia? For this confusion to be avoided, the move needs to be made. Otherwise, the lead needs to be changed to be more neutral. Most of the states in the world don't percieve Abkhazia as a state, but as autonomous region of Abkhazia. Writing otherwise is violation of NPOV and FRINGE rule.Vnar123 (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Because in reality, the separatists are in control, hence most references to Abkhazia will mean this. Mellk (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

In reality, Russia is in control of affairs there. And most references don't say that Abkhazia is not Georgia. While saying Abkhazia, most of the references say that it is a Georgian region. Only small number say that it is independendent. While talking about separatist officials, they usually say "de facto Abkhazian officials" or "separatist Abkhazian officials" and such things to avoid confusion. De facto control alone does not everything since they are locked from communicating with the civilized world and are left to Russia only. They are not recognized de jure, which is notable thing. Vnar123 (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is just rehashing the same argument by the previous proposer in the last RM. If you have a new argument, then you can mention that. Mellk (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment this sounds like a split request, and not a move request. WP:Proposed splits is for that purpose -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This page is about Abkhazia as a territory, i.e. as described on page History of Abkhazia. Nothing prevents from creating a separate page, Republic of Abkhazia, which would be about the modern-day separatist unrecognized state (briefly described in a section of this page, Abkhazia#Republic_of_Abkhazia). My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per previous rm and wp:snow Abo Yemen ✉ 18:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per previous RM. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a separate article. DrowssapSMM 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Until relatively recently something similar was practiced in the case of Kosovo where there were 3 separate articles on the partially recognised state, nominal Serbian province not in control of the area and the region itself. For some reason the practice was changed. I was not an active participants so I don't know all the details and reasoning used there but if you look further maybe you can identify relevant discussions and find something useful, applicable or relevant for this case as well.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

All the previous examples, such as Kosovo and China, were removed as they were essentially WP:POVFORKs. In those cases, and this one, the "region" was defined by the geopolitical region. CMD (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading toponym section

First phrase of the toponym section: "Abkhazia (/æbˈkɑːziə/ ab-KAH-zee-ə or /æbˈkeɪziə/ ab-KAY-zee-ə) is etymologized as a land of the soul" is misleading. Abkhazia isn't etymologized as a land of soul - Apsny is. Word Abkhazia is russified form of Apkhazeti which is thought to be of Kartvelian origin. Lemabeta (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section, lmk what you think. Alaexis_¿question? 20:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata links

Wikidata has one item for the Republic of Abkhazia here: https://www.wikidata.org/Q31354462 and a separate item for the region of Abkhazia here: https://www.wikidata.org/Q23334

It looks like there are only 13 translations of Misplaced Pages (including the version in Russian, aka Русский) that have a separate article for each of those items. 160 other translations of Misplaced Pages (including the English version) only have a single article that covers both topics. My question is: should those 160 translations link to the first item or the second item? I'd suggest they should link to the first item, and I'd also suggest that for clarity the second item should be renamed to something like Abkhazia (region). Although I'm ok with having them link to the second item, if that's what other people prefer. But right now it looks like it's some of each. There are 16 translations of Misplaced Pages (including the version in French, aka Français) that only link to the first item. 135 translations (including the version in Portuguese, aka Português) that only link to the second item. 2 translations (including this version in English) that link to the first item but have a redirect that links to the second item. And 7 translations (including the version in Spanish, aka Español) that link to the second item but have a redirect that links to the first item. It looks like all the wikinews and wikivoyage translations (including the version in Portuguese) link to the first item only. - Burner89751654 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You likely have to ask this on Wikidata, figuring out how they differentiate the items. CMD (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

And don't forget d:Q2914461 which has strange English sitelink. Infovarius (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: