Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

NATO POV

references are us( or nato nations)/ georgian.. abkhazian references/ russian blanked out to insignificant portions.. neutral references (say from non aligned movement nations) missing..

This is really disturbing sometimes. But this is English Wikipedia, and, of course, the editors use mostly Western media. They just do not have other sources to use, as next to noone speaks non-Western languages in Europe/US and there are no sites that provide any information free from US corporate interests. Well, maybe some Egyptian sources, some Chinese do write in English. Maybe some from Middle East like Al Jazeera may have been quoted more frequently, just to give an independent POV sometimes. However, most people in the West think Western medias are neutral during the conflict and just do not ask questions about pro-Georgian POV in Wikipedia links, both medias and NGOs. Of course, if you analyse the discourse of these articles, most are absolutely pro-Georgian. But what can be done about it? We have only one media system, and if most medias are controlled by US corporations, we just do not have much choice.

We have choices...There are so many english newspapers in india, pakistan and other nations OUTSIDE EU AND NATO states..the size of the circulating volumes and size of population coverage will match (if not exceed) most of the western ones..If people are too lazy to have a look in at other neutral portals, then dont blame the lack of availability..i feel that excuse is an excuse for laziness and insincerity..Please note that many of the asian news agencies like ndtv, zee, dawn ..have independent reporters at many of the conflict zones , besides having inputs from western sources-(from which they portray an independent neutral observation without any need for sexing it up to favour their nation's role)..So, stop excusing laziness and stop being myopic..That is a request!..Cityvalyu (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

could you be more specific? Like what exactly you don't like and what exactly do you propose. Alæxis_¿question? 13:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

India and Pakistan sources don't have representation in Georgia (Abkhazia) and don't possess first-hand information about the situation. There're only two kinds of sources of first-hand information: 1) EU, OSCE and UN - respected, international, multilateral organizations 2) Georgia, Abkhaz de-facto government and Russia - all three being interested, prejudiced parties, direct participants of armed conflict. Claim here that multilateral Western sources are unreliable and Russo-Abkhazian sources, having very clear agendas, are objective - is simply unacceptable and a clear attempt to steer impartial analysis off course and towards specific agenda. This should not be allowed. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of politically motivated goals of any party.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.21.97 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Early History

Is this irrelevant?

“ In the 9th–6th centuries BC, the territory of modern Abkhazia was the part of the ancient Georgian kingdom of Colchis (Kolkha), which was absorbed in 63 BC into another Georgian Kingdom of Egrisi, known to the Byzantine authors as Lazica and to Persians as Lazistan after the Laz tribe. But in 6th century AD, Kingdom of Egrisi was absorbed into the Kingdom of Abkhazia as Abkhazs became the dominant ruling power among Georgian people. 11th century Chronicle Leonti Mroveli mentioned that both Colchis, Laz(Egros) and Abkhaz had the same origins, who descended from Togarmah the grandson of Biblical Noah. ”

No, it looks relevant enough. Why are you asking? Alæxis_¿question? 08:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I added and you reverted. bediau —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berdiau (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You've added then not exactly what you've just written here:

“ From VII century AD, Abazg people became the dominant power among other Kartvelian people in the west Georgia and established the Kingdom of Abkhazia. Native historical sources mention that Abkhaz, Ran, Svan, Laz and others are the Kartvelian people who share the same land, language and religion ”

Abazg weren't Kartvelian people and Abkhaz are neither; Ingorokva's theories have long been discredited.

Discredited by who? Russian and separatist propaganda? Jeez, so shocking. Wonder why they would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.111.114 (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

By Berdzenishvili, Lomtatidze, Soselia... Apswaaa (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides, could you clarify how "But in 6th century AD, Kingdom of Egrisi was absorbed into the Kingdom of Abkhazia as Abkhazs became the dominant ruling power among Georgian people." is referenced by Georgika VIII, page 3? This book is in Georgian so unfortunately I can't read it, but it's a compendium of various Georgia-related Byzantine texts, so I suppose that it would be better to use the original as the reference. What exactly is written there in page 3 that you want to use? Alæxis_¿question? 17:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Georgika VIII, page 33 mentioned that

“ since XII century A.D Byzantine historians sometimes called united Georgia Abasgia (Abkhazia, Abasgoi) and its king Abasg,

so for example [Georgian philosopher] Ioane Petritsi was "Abasg gramarian" for [his teacher] John Italus [Byzantine philosopher].

”

Generally Kartvelian people are called Kartvelians after the tribe Kartli which managed to unify other ethnically relative people. So the name of these people (decadents of Togarmah) changed throughout the history according to the dominated tribes like Hayastan (Armenians), Kartvelians, Abkhazians and so forth.

But, we also know that non native sources recorded history after the Greek or Roman names like: Colchis, Lazica, Pontus, or even Georgia which are non native names.

So in native sources, for instance in 11 the century The Georgian Chronicles the term Abasgoi or Abkhaz is unknown. Instead the west Georgia is known as Egrisi and people Egrosians after Egros the son of Togarmah

“ Armenians, Kartvelians, Albanians, Movkans, Herans (Hereti, Leks, Caucas and Egros (Egrisi) had one father named Togarmah, son of T'iras, son of Gomer, son of Japheth (Yabet'), son of Noah who after the destruction of Tower of Babel and division of tongues came and settled into the land between Black and Caspian sees and between Mount Ararat and Mount Elbrus which belonged to him and his house. ”

Even the Bible mentions that the "northernmost house of Togarmah will follow Gog" , which is typically reflected that majority of population flow Orthodox Christian Church

So there are different names in native sources and in foreign sources. For example in History of the Wars, Roman scholar Procopius c. 500 – c. 565 described the Black Sea people Abasgoi as warlike and as worshipers of tree dieties.

But, much befoer Procopius Greeks had already colonized the Black Sea (c.1200 BC) and founded colonies like Dioskourias (later Sebastopolisand Sukhumi) or Pitiuntas (Bichvinta).

In this case, local native Georgian sources mention that

“ term "Abkhaz" appeared lately after the Greek conquest of Black Sea people whom they called "Abasa" and since then Abkhazia separated from Egrisi which was also the political border between Georgia and Greece world. ”

This is also recognized in the Greek letters

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=37060190

http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/div/qarTvelebis%20gaafxazeba.pdf

http://rbedrosian.com/gc3.htm

http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/cauc/ageo/kcx1/kcx1.htm

http://dato.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000090/Georgika_VIII.pdf

Thank you for the comprehensive answer. Please sign your posts in future by typing four tildas (~~~~), it'll make easier for others to follow the discussion.

I presume that in the beginning of this thread you've written the final version of what you'd like to place in the article so I'll comment on it.

“ In the 9th–6th centuries BC, the territory of modern Abkhazia was the part of the ancient Georgian kingdom of Colchis (Kolkha), which was absorbed in 63 BC into another Georgian Kingdom of Egrisi, known to the Byzantine authors as Lazica and to Persians as Lazistan after the Laz tribe. <ref> David Braund, Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC-AD 562, Oxford University Press, USA (September 8, 1994) p 27</ref> <ref> Gregory Timothy E. ''A History of Byzantium'', 2005, p78. ISBN: 0631235124 </ref> ”

I agree completely with this part.

“ But in 6th century AD, Kingdom of Egrisi was absorbed into the Kingdom of Abkhazia as Abkhazs became the dominant ruling power among Georgian people.<ref> Georgika VIII, page 3 [http://dato.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000090/Georgika_VIII.pdf] </ref> ”

From what you've written above we can only use this sources to prove that "since XII century A.D Byzantine historians sometimes called united Georgia Abasgia (Abkhazia, Abasgoi) and its king Abasg". This is an interesting fact and it should surely be mentioned in History of Abkhazia and, possibly, here as well. But to make the conclusion from this that Abazgs were Kartvelian people would be original research regardless of the actual state of things.

Another thing that should be clarified is when Egrisi was incorporated into Abkhazian princedom. Here it's written that it happened through dynastic union in 770 (unfortunately there are no inline citations there) while according to your proposed version it was in 6th century (when Abkhazia wasn't yet kingdom, btw).

“ 11th century Chronicle Leonti Mroveli mentioned that both Colchis, Laz(Egros) and Abkhaz had the same origins, who descended from Togarmah the grandson of Biblical Noah. ”

Imho this should be added to History of Abkhazia article and isn't needed in the main article about Abkhazia. Alæxis_¿question? 17:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, then the final version instead of the first paragraph of the Early history:

---

“ In the 9th–6th centuries BC, the territory of modern Abkhazia was the part of the ancient Georgian kingdom of Colchis ("Kolkha"), which was absorbed in 63 BC into another Georgian Kingdom of Egrisi, known to the Byzantine authors as "Lazica" and to Persians as "Lazistan" after the Laz tribe.

However, in VIII century A.D the Abkhaz people became the dominant ruling power and establish the Kingdom of Abkhazia also known as Kingdom of Apkhazeti-Egrisi or the Kingdom of the Abkhazs which covered the territory of Egrisi (Lazica) lasting until 1008-1010 the final unification with other Georgian kingdoms. In XII century A.D the Byzantine historians sometimes called united Georgia as Abasgia (Abkhazia, Abasgoi) and its king Abasg.

Between 1000 and 550 B.C Greeks established the trade colonies at the Black Sea coastal areas, e.g Pitiunt or Dioscurias which then became the capital of the modern day Abkhazia.

According to The Georgian Chronicles, the first inhabitants of what is now Abkhazia and the whole western Georgia were Egrosians, the descedants of Egros son of Togarmah, grandson of Japhet, son of Noah, who came from the land known as Arian-Kartli.

Strabo (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) locates Moschoi people somewhere in modern Abkhazia on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, in agreement with Stephan of Byzantium quoting Hellanicus.

”

So what you think ? nikos (talk)

I propose the following instead of the two first paragraphs of the section (as Egrisi is already mentioned in the 2nd paragraph):

“ In the 9th–6th centuries BC, the territory of modern Abkhazia was the part of the ancient Georgian kingdom of Colchis ("Kolkha"), which was absorbed in 63 BC into another Georgian Kingdom of Egrisi, known to the Byzantine authors as "Lazica" and to Persians as "Lazistan" after the Laz tribe.

Between 1000 and 550 B.C Greeks established the trade colonies at the Black Sea coastal areas, e.g Pitiunt or Dioscurias which then became the capital of the modern day Abkhazia.

Strabo (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) locates Moschoi people somewhere in modern Abkhazia on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, in agreement with Stephan of Byzantium quoting Hellanicus.

The Roman Empire conquered Egrisi in the 1st century AD and ruled it until the 4th century, following which it regained a measure of independence, but remained within the Byzantine Empire's sphere of influence. Although the exact time when the population of Abkhazia was converted to Christianity is not determined, it is known that the Metropolitan of Pitius participated in the First Oecumenical Council in 325 in Nicea.

Abkhazia, or Abasgia of classic sources, formerly part of Colchis and later of Egrisi (Lazica) until the late 690s, was a princedom under the Byzantine authority. Anacopia was the princedom's capital. The country was mostly Christian with the archbishop's seat in Pityus. Arab incursion in Abkhazia was repelled by Leon I jointly with his Egrisian and Kartlian allies in 736.

After acquiring Egrisi via a dynastic union in 780s Abkhazia became the dominant power in the region and the Kingdom of Abkhazia also known as Kingdom of Apkhazeti-Egrisi or the Kingdom of the Abkhazs was established. Then the Georgian language replaced Greek as the language of literacy and culture. The kingdom flourished between 850 and 950 when it annexed significant part of Eastern Georgia including Tbilisi. The period of unrest ensued which ended as Abkhazia and eastern Georgian states were unified into a Georgian monarchy in the end of 10th-beginning of 11th century.

”

I've added the following passages to the History of Abkhazia article. We need not go into such details here imho.

“ According to The Georgian Chronicles, the first inhabitants of what is now Abkhazia and the whole western Georgia were Egrosians, the descedants of Egros son of Togarmah, grandson of Japhet, son of Noah, who came from the land known as Arian-Kartli.

In XII century A.D the Byzantine historians sometimes called united Georgia as Abasgia (Abkhazia, Abasgoi) and its king Abasg.

”

Looks good!.. Add this after Strabo and thats it:

“ The Roman scholar Procopius (c. 500 – c. 565) described in his History of the Wars the eastern Black Sea people, known asAbasgoi, as warlike and as worshipers of tree deities. ”

nikos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Colchis?

I would like to know how Colchis can have been an "ancient Georgian Kingdom" when it predates the existence of Georgia?!! Outrageous POV violation! 195.135.237.21 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that this issue in general (when can we call a historical political entity "X", where X is a modern-day demonym) raises interesting and difficult dilemmas, it shouldn't be a problem when there is a certain continuation of culture, language and genes. Anyway, what matters is what the references say, not what we deduce.sephia karta | di mi 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really such an "outrageous POV violation" as some would like to portray it.--Kober^Talk 04:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sephia karta, what do we know about Colchis language and genes? Apswaaa (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't read anything about Colchis so far. But like I said, sources is what matters. sephia karta | di mi 22:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

“For all their curiosity the Ancient Greeks were peculiarly uninterested in the diversity of languages attested among the many peoples with whom their travels brought them into contact, all of whom were classified as ‘barbarians’. Specifically, they have left us no evidence of the languages spoken by those tribes their writers named as residing along the east coast of the Black Sea, which they loosely termed Colchis, descibed by the Mingrelian scholar Dzhanashia (1988.295) as ‘more a geographical than political term, and even then with uncertain boundaries,’ though for Strabo (1st century B.C.) it extended roughly from Pitsunda (northern Abkhazia) to Trebizond (Turkey).” (http://www.apsny.ru/special/word/abkhazia_broxup_1993.pdf, p. 3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apswaaa (talk • contribs) 11:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What we know about Colchis is clearly stated and cited in the lead for the Colchis article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchis. Colchi does not "predate" Georgia. Georgian ethnical groups, in the ancient times, had two kingdoms: Iberia and Colchi (later: Egris). This is a well-documented and cited historical fact. Obviously it does not work for modern-day bandits who performed ethnic cleansing and are trying to justify their "statehood" by bogus historical lies, but it's going to take a little more than the likes of Apswaa going wild on Wikipedia to create historical lies. Sorry, can't do. Apswaaa should stop abusing Wikipedia to advance his/her clearly political agenda or should be stopped. Apswaaa, are you going to go to Colchis page and edit it now, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.111.114 (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

International Chamber of Commerce

Abkhazia is now a member of International Chamber of Commerce [9]. Should this be included in the article somewhere? Offliner (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the Economy section? --Illythr (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

International Chamber of Commerce is an organization whose members are companies, not countries! Abkhazia clearly can not be part of this organization, because Abkhazia is a territory and not a company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.111.114 (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Facts or POV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abkhazia&diff=prev&oldid=339577438

Abkhazia has a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Kober, where is POV here? Apswaaa (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is not a proper place for quotes from individual politicians or public figures from hostile camps. And if inserted, they should be properly attributed and should not be presented as facts. If you insist on inserting Chirikba's ideas then we will have to add an opinion by the Georgian government officials or the conclusion by the EU that Russia's recognition of Georgia's territories violates international law. The very first sentence of the article says that the territory "considers itself an independent state". That's enough for the lead.--Kober^Talk 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not Chirikba’s idea. Four criteria for statehood laid down in Montevideo Convention are regarded as part of customary international law. The fact is that Abkhazia meets all the criteria. Recognition by Russia is a different question. The EU and Georgian government may think whatever they want about it. Apswaaa (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention does not, in any way, apply to Abkhazia. It's not a UN resolution, neither Georgia or Russia or even any kind of Abkhazian representatives have anything to do with it. It has as much relevance to Abkhazia as my cousin and best friend signing a piece of paper, which is - none! Stop making up facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.111.114 (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Montevideo convention has nothing to do with Abkhazia. These four criteria are regarded as part of customary international law. Apswaaa (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Statehood section

I have removed the statehood section as this is irrelevant. There is no need for an entire section dedicated to just two sentences dealing with what the Montevideo Convention speaks of. Perhaps the contributor would like to consider adding the information in somewhere else on the article. Also, the Montevideo Convention sets down the 4 criteria for statehood - some countries may argue that Abkhazia does not meet the requirements - the population is disputed, the territory is disputed, and the government does not have the ability to conduct diplomatic relations with the vast majority of states. One link is not enough, I'm afraid, as a reference to such a bold assertion. I personally support Abkhaz independence, but I also recognise this is an encyclopaedia which needs to show facts, not conjecture, opinion, wishes, dreams, what should or should not be. --MacTire02 (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that Abkhazia is a permanently populated (216,000) defined territory (8,432 sq km). How can this be disputed?? The territory exists, and people live on this territory. The Montevideo convention doesn’t say anything about the number of states to conduct diplomatic relations with. Apswaaa (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me Apswaaa. The Montevideo Convention does not state anything about number of states - therefore we cannot assume that this means one, two, three or however many states. Secondly, the population is not defined - the previous census has been disputed and is estimated to be anywhere between 157,000 and 220,000, together with the displacement of people resulting from the conflict (both Abkhaz and Georgians). The territory is also disputed - Georgia claims all of it, backed up by powerful interests in the West. I said it before in my last posting - I am in favour (agree with, want to see) of an independent Abkhazia, but two small lines carrying assumptions on what the Montevideo Conference means for statehood does not cut it in Wikipedia. As I said before, find somewhere else in the article to include this info and back it up with more references. Find the references, discuss it in a neutral manner, and hey presto - you have an encyclopaedic entry. --MacTire02 (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above comment, even using the Montevideo Conference as the basis for statehood is invalid. Article 1 of the Conference states:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

However if we read on we also discover that article 1's conditions are limited by article 11 which forbids the use of military force to obtain sovereignty. So even the Montevideo Conference as an example actually contradicts the Abkhaz government's position as an independent state according to international law. --MacTire02 (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The existence of the territory with a permanent population (we don’t need the exact number) is not disputed in any way. The status of the territory is disputed. We don’t need art. 11 as Abkhazia is not a party to the convention. Art. 1 is used as it contains a generally accepted notion of a state. Please, read p. 6 (The US State Department’s statement, Opinion No. 1 of the Badinter Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia, James Crawford’s opinion). Apswaaa (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Look Apswaaa. I already told you I agree with Abkhaz independence. I want an independent Abkhazia as I believe in every nation's right to self-determination, regardless of who they are or where they are located. However, the Montevideo Conference states in article 10 that "The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods" and in article 11 it states that sovereignty, territorial acquisition etc. may not be recognised if they "have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure". I'm not saying that what you had written was wrong, or that what was written by Nr. Chirikba is wrong either. What I am saying is that it is a very bold statement that needs to be referenced by more than one person who seems to be ignoring aspects of the Montevideo Convention. You can't pick and choose I'm afraid and that's what Chirikba is doing. It is a point-of-view piece of work and it needs to be analysed or reviewed by other peers in the field, especially seeing as the holder of the article has obvious leanings (a portal for Abkhazia). Eother that or provide other references please. --MacTire02 (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear MacTire02, I appreciate your attitude to Abkhazia, but I would also like you to understand legal matters. I already told you that Abkhazia is not a party to the Montevideo convention. Concerning references, there are many of them in Chirikba's article. Aren't they enough? Apswaaa (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly do understand legal matters Apswaaa. If you are not party to a ruling, convention or otherwise legal document or declaration, then you are not privilege to its foundings or declarations. It is for this reason that many countries in the world do not recognise the Vatican, the Republic of China, Somaliland, Kosovo, etc. Bare in mind that these territories also comply with the first four sections of article 1 of the Convention. Also common international law is described as the basis for which international law is established - i.e. the Montevideo Convention is not a legal document, either for the signatories or otherwise, but is used as a basis to found modern international law. Concerning references, no those references in Chirikba's article are not enough. They back up what he has to say. In other words it is still point of view. You need to find other external secondary sources that are separate from Chirikba's article. Chirikba talks about his understanding of the Montevideo Convention - what about other people's understanding of the Convention and it's applicability to the Abkhaz case? As I said before, we do not, or at least should not, push particular points-of-view here. This project is about establishing facts, not opinions, and certainly not about discussing or pushing a singular point-of-view. Bare in mind that the Convention may also include Georgia, and by Abkhazia seceding it could imply that, as Georgia would not then have a defined territory (claiming more territory than it is actually in control of) it may fall under the definition of a state which should NOT exist. Therefore by rigourously following the convention you declare Abkhazia as a rightful nation amongst the international community while denying Georgia's right to such a status too. You would also deny Russia's right, as well as the right of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ireland, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Kosovo, the two Koreas, etc. The implications are too huge for us here in wikipedia to be using one man's position to establish something as fact. Hence the reason for needing more than just one man's references and his choice of references used to back up his own work. --MacTire02 (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

MacTire, unfortunately, you don't understand legal matters. 1. The reason why many countries in the world do not recognize the Vatican, the Republic of China, Somaliland, Kosovo is different. 2. The Montevideo Convention is a legal document (but not for Abkhazia). 3. Georgia (with or without Abkhazia) has a defined territory. 4. I can't understand why Chirikba's references are not suitable. Just because he used them? And if he hadn't, would they have become suitable? Apswaaa (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Apswaaa I do understand legal matters. Please explain how the situations regarding the Vatican et al. are different from Abkhazia? All of these countries have defined borders/territory, defined populations, the ability to enter into international and diplomatic relations and stable governments. Yet they are not recognised as states in international law. The fact is that the Montevideo Conference did not gain international consensus, and hence is only used as a basis for international relations. It is not used as a definition of statehood, although commonly cited as such. Take Switzerland for example: Switzerland uses the Montevideo Convention as a basis for establishing what it regards as the definition of a state, but at the same time it also recognises that "recognition is [not] enough to create a state". The European Union uses the Montevideo Convention as a basis for its definition of a state, but again this is NOT defined in EU directives or rules. The UN uses membership as part of its requirements for defining a state. According to the Badinter Committee on the Former Yugoslavia all communities have "the right to see their identity recognized and to benefit from 'all the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized in international law, including, where appropriate, the right to choose their national identity" but that this right is defined as "'imperative norms' binding all subjects of international law, and, which could one day be applied to protect, for example, the rights of Gagauz or Chechens without entailing the break-up of Moldavia or Russia" and hence Georgia. And what about other states and territories that do not recognise the Montevideo Conference? Does India follow the same principal? How about the PRC? Or Russia for that matter? The fact is there is no fully all-comprehensive legal definition of "statehood". Regarding Chirikba's references, no they are not suitable as they constitute backing up a POV reference in Chirikba himself. Chirikba is obviously not going to use references that contradict what he is writing. But that article of his is his opinion based on his understandings of law. But law is open to interpretation, and in this case Abkhazia has only received very little international recognition. Therefore, if it were the case that the Montevideo Conference was legally binding (i.e. constituted International Law) then all countries would have no option but to accept its findings and recognise Abkhazia or risk breaking international law. You need to find references outside Chirikba to back up what you are saying. I'm not saying you can't use him - but you need to provide pros and cons. Otherwise we risk turning this article into a POV article establishing as fact that Abkhazia is an independent state recognised as such by international law. You can, for example, create a section entitled "Statehood" and describe under that title that some authors describe Abkhazia as a state under international law (provide more than one reference for this) but you must balance it by showing how other states to not accept Abkhazia as a state under international law (and again provide more than one reference for this). All I am saying is that this must be balanced and neutral. A bold statement suggesting that it IS a state, recognised as such by international law and providing only one reference to an article by an author writing for a pro-Abkhaz site is not sufficient for Wikipedia. --MacTire02 (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. Apswaaa (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mac on this. This is a statement that needs to be verifiable from somewhere else. This is what the project is all about. Outback the koala (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with Mac too. –BruTe ^Talk 07:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you need to verify? The fact that Abkhazia is a permanently populated defined territory? Or the existence of the government? Or may be the capacity to enter into relations with the other states? Apswaaa (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:VER - the very first sentence reads "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The policy goes on to say "...that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source...and that the source directly support the material in question." It also states that WP:VER is one of Wikipedia's core content policies "...along with No original research and Neutral point of view." Once you have read these you may want to take a look at WP:SOURCES, as this will explain what sources are acceptable and what ones are not. Having done this, all should be clear for you. Regarding what you wrote above - Permanently populated needs referencing, the defined territory part needs referencing, the capacity to enter into relations with other states needs referencing. Apart from that, the section "asserted" Abkhazia was an indendent state meeting the requirements of internation law for such. We CAN NOT say that. We are not here to conjecture, assert, or support points of view. I have already told you how to write what you wanted. Please follow that and stop ignoring other editors' comments when it does not suit you. --MacTire02 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your reference above to the UN site is not acceptable. It does not mention anything about Abkhazia, and therefore can not be used. If it were to be acceptable then it could be argued that it was acceptable as a reference to suggest the North Pole is an independent state. In otherwords, the link doesn't state whether or not Abkhazia has the capacity to enter into relations with other states. --MacTire02 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1. My reference was about the recognition of a new State or Government, not the capacity to enter into relations with other states. You still don’t understand legal matters. 2. Concerning the capacity... Haven’t you heard about Abkhazia’s relations with Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua...? Apswaaa (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok. The article has an unreferenced statement that “Abkhazia covers an area of about 8,600 km2”. Let’s delete it! Apswaaa (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you for real? Why do you want so much to be rude and argumentative? The above fact does not have a reference. So get one. But do not delete the sentence. This piece of information was obviously inserted erroneously by an editor. However we don't simply delete everything. We act positively to get a reference for it. On the other hand, it is incumbent upon us to not insert information that we know will be challenged without referencing it. Can you not understand the difference? Seriously? --MacTire02 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I do understand legal matters. Far more than you. I am also a speaker of English, something which you obviously are not. If your reference was about statehood then it still doesn't stand. Abkhazia is not a UN member. That reference speaks of how states become members. Nothing else. It leaves recognition of statehood up to individual members. "The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold." and it also confirms what I said that the UN can NOT recognise states. "The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government." There is NO LEGAL INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION of a state, only guidelines some countries choose to follow while others do not 2. No I have not heard about Abkhazia's relations with these contries. I know they recognise each other but that is not the same as relations. For example I know Obama is President of the USA. That does not mean I have relations with him!! --MacTire02 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I’m not a native speaker of English. You may correct my mistakes if you wish. My reference was about recognition. It was an answer to your statements “they are not recognised as states in international law,” “a state, recognised as such by international law.” When did you say “that the UN can NOT recognise states”? I can’t find it. 2. Relations with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia Apswaaa (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine but it still doesn't solve anything. If it was that easy to find references why did you hold out for months without providing them? Secondly, it has diplomatic relations with 3 countries according to your references, yet it still does not hold diplomatic relations with over 190 other sovereign states. But this is beside the point. I'm not arguing with you about what is or is not the case. I'm arguing about wikipedia policy. You are not adhering to it. This is about verifiability, not truth. It could be argued that, due to the lack of relations with the majority of the world's sovereign states, that Abkhazia does not possess the capacity to enter international relations. Your sentencing and propsed structure ignores this position which is the position held by the majority of the world (but not by me). I am not suggesting this but the majority of the world is. Which is why you can't simply insert statements like yours. Such statements must be balanced (yours are not), when controversial they must be backed up by more than one source (yours are not), they must be NPOV (yours are not), they must be written in English and must be comprehensible. As an editor you must also recognise where edit warring occurs and refrain from entering into such a scenario, keeping cool, and discussing these things on the talk page. You do not do this - instead you keep editing, deleting, reinserting material you do not agree with (although in the last 2 or 3 days you have refrained), you refuse to enter into discussions on the topic and instead challenge other editor's credentials, and simply reiterate the same information over and over again. All this is not the actions of an editor who wishes to contribute positively to a collaborative encyclopaedia. It is not a forum for the discussion of who is right or wrong, who has the moral high ground or not, what is true and what is not, etc. It is about what can be referenced, unless obviously clear-cut (e.g. Humans live on earth). Please read the guidelines and familiarise yourself with them before any further contributions. Otherwise you risk disrupting this project, for which you may find yourself blocked. Regarding the UN, what I said was in relation to the UN recognising countries - "The UN uses membership as part of its requirements for defining a state" which is another way of saying that it can not recognise countries - it can only recognise its own members. --MacTire02 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A “reliable” source.

According to this source Megrelian is a dialect of Georgian (p. 42). How can it be reliable? Apswaaa (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

migration of Abazians in Abkhazia in 15th century

some abkhazian nationalists keep eraising the content about migration of Abazians in Abkhazia in 15 century... here is text that was written in the article.. if anyone has any corrections that you would like to make do it please... I will leave this here for a wile for people to edit and than insert it into the main article After acquiring Egrisi via a dynastic union in the 780s [[10]] Abkhazia became the dominant power in the region. Kingdom of Abkhazia/Egrisi, also known as Kingdom of Egrisi or the Kingdom of the Abkhazs, was established. The Georgian language, which had been secondary language, replaced the Greek as a primery language.The kingdom flourished between 850 and 950 when it liberated significant parts of Eastern Georgia including Tbilisi from Arabian Rule. A period of unrest and chaos caused by conflict betwean major powers in Georgia (Kakhetia Abkhazia and Meskhetia) ended as Abkhazia and other eastern Georgian states were unified into a single Georgian monarchy under King Bagrat III (who himself was buried in the Monastery of Bedia in the Tkvarcheli district of Abkhazia) in the end of the 10th, and the beginning of 11th centuries. In the 16th century, North Caucasian ( related to Adigean) tribes started to migrate to Abkhazia most probably due lack of land and constant conflicts in the North Caucasus. Georgia weakened from Mongolian invaisions was valuable for such migrations into Abkhazia. This was also escalated by geographical changes and to the mountain slide in Abkhazia that for sometime almost complitely isolated the land from Georgia. North-West Caucasian tribes, who are referred to as Jikks in Georgian sources (foreign sources use the general term of "Abazs"), settled in Abkhazia. The indigenous population of Abkhazia could not duly "assimilate" to the new comers, from a social and religious point of view. The mass of resettled migrants replaced the local population, which resulted in a radical change of ethnic composition in this area[[11]]. Georgians called this new ethnic group "Abkhaz", according to their place of residence, whilst Abkhaz kept on calling themselves "Apsuas". Identification of ethnonyms "Apsua" and "Abkhaz" caused chaos and confusion for researchers of the history of Abkhazia. It's worth mentioning, that the self-name of the Abkhaz "Apsua" is a phonetic variation of the ethnonym "Abaza". It is recognized in linguistics that the Abkhaz (Apsua) language together with the Abaz language form a linguistic entity, and there is only a dialectical difference between the two languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.125.25 (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

“If so, then we have to point out that the Abazinians moved TO the North Caucasus FROM Abkhazia in waves of migration starting in the 14th century, as acknowledged in volume 1 of the 11-volume Georgian Encyclopaedia.” Apswaaa (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

“The Abazians... are deemed to migrate to the North Caucasus from the south...” (K. Lomtatidze. The Abaza language. // Languages of the peoples of the USSR. V. 4. 1967. P. 123). Apswaaa (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I’m going to remove the following absurd section: “In 15th century Abazians, northwest caucasians (related to Adigeans), started to migrate in Abkhazia. This was caused by several Geographical and political changes in the region. The scale of migration was large enough to radically change ethno-composition of the Area. They were still refered as Abkhazians in Georgian sourses mainly because of their place of residence[24].” Apswaaa (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your edits on the talk page. Edit Warring helps noone. Providing sources is very helpful to content disputes. Outback the koala (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have copied the section above to my own sandbox for now so I can work on it. Both of you please feel free to contact me or leave a message on my talk page while we clear this all up. As Koala said, edit warring helps no-one - instead it uses up valuable Wikipedia resources which could be better used elsewhere. Remember also to assume good faith. Just because an editor deletes content does not necessarily mean that editor has a particular POV. I deleted a section here and was accused of being an Abkhaz nationalist! What actually happened was I deleted a section which was POV, incorrectly sourced, if at all, and was so badly constructed linguistically as to render it barely comprehensible to an English reader. Remember to check the edit summary for details as to why a section was deleted/reinstated, and if it looks like there is an edit war starting, please keep cool, and take it to the talk page. This way you can get help in dealing with the issue at hand. As was, the only way that we knew edit warring was occuring was the fact that I have this page on my watch list, and it was quite busy! Please check the wikipedia guidelines for content, behaviour, style, citations etc. Regards, --MacTire02 (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made a small commentary on the spelling, grammar and some points to be discussed at my sandbox if you would like to take a look. You can comment here, or beneath what I have written on my sandbox. --MacTire02 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now completed a clean-up of the history section in the article, tagging as necessary those problematic areas that need citations, those that are possibly POV, and clarifying certain elements, as well as correcting the spelling and grammar. There is still a lot of work needed to imrpove this section, but I feel we must do that before we can clean-up any other sections, as this is the section that was causing most of the edit-warring. Thoughts or opinions? --MacTire02 (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a clearcut case of sockpuppetry to me. Do you think so to? If so, I am become inclined to file a report. Why don't they discuss the edits being made? Outback the koala (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you. If there was really any truth or verifiability to what either side was saying then references/citations should have been more forthcoming, as well as the discussion of the topic. Why they are not discussing the edits I do not know, and why they seem incapable of reading other editors' (such as my own) edit summary comments, is beyond me. Perhaps you could file a report. I certainly have no problem with that. --MacTire02 (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I discussed my edit above in this section. Apswaaa (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No you did not discuss. You asserted your point of view and stated what you were going to do. You did not in any way invite discussion, nor attempt to find any compromise. I instigated this entire section here so that people could agree on what content to include in the article and what content to remove due to the fact that there was too much edit warring going on. At that stage you were very active, along with user Brute and several IP addresses. However, as soon as I interupted here and tried to get you guys to reach consensus, you all vanished. That is not how to build consensus, and it is certainly not discussing. --MacTire02 (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I asserted the point of view of Lomtatidze and of the authors of the Georgian Encyclopaedia. It is well known that the Abazians migrated to (not from) the North Caucasus. Apswaaa (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest Apswaaa, I haven't a clue from where the Abkhaz or Abazins migrated from. If it is well known please provide references, and preferably English speaking ones. I am a speaker of Russian, but most English speakers are not. Remember this is the English language wikipedia. That reference is fine but you need more due to the language constraint. Secondly, you initially did not argue your point. You just popped in a reference, and removed content claiming it was wrong. No commentary. No discussion. Nothing. Simple antagonistic approach which is not acceptable behaviour here or on any collaborative project. Discuss it first. If it really is true then where is the problem with that- it will be discovered you are correct. Patience is all you need, as well as the courage to discuss. --MacTire02 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The theory of Abkhaz migrated to Abkhazia in late middle ages appeared in Georgian academic circles in the Stalinist period (see Pavle Ingorokva, has been discredited and revived again after Glasnost. See for example Under Siege: Inter-Ethnic Relations in Abkhazia by Tom Trier et al: "More radical Georgian historians posit that those who today identify as Abkhazians are in fact migrants from the North Caucasus...". Bruno Coppieters echoes this in Europeanization and conflict resolution: case studies from the European periphery, p. 196 : "But a radical ... section of the Georgian national movement saw Abkhaz ... not as an autochthonous community of Abkhazia".

Actually there's a lot of radical (pseudo-)historical literature from both sides of the conflict, so we tried to use mostly Western sources. Let's think about whether these theories deserve to be mentioned (and where) and how to put them in proper context. If we just list all the claims by radicals from both sides we'll have to split the article into two separate narratives. Alæxis_¿question? 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is quite a disagreement about whether modern day Abkhazians are decedents of Abazian tribes who did migrate in Abkhazia in 16th century. This is time period when first time modern day Abkhazian lastnames, language, culture and even paganistic religions appear in Abkhazia. This migrations have been described by number of historians. Most important one of all would probably be Patriarch from Antiochia who was extremely concerned about Christianity loosing its ground in Abkhazia. It was replaced by paganistic religion which is almost identical to the religions practiced in North-Caucasus link title. This is also period when Kelasuri wall (also known as Great Abkhazian wall) was built by Levan II Dadiani of Megrelia to protect his fiefdom from the [Abkhaz]Kelasuri Wall . Also one more very important thing that needs to be mentioned is that Abkhazia was part of Colchis civilization (western Georgia). However Modern day Abkhazian language (which only appeared in Abkhazia after 16th century) has nothing in common with any other west Georgian (Colchian languages). There are Svan laz Megrelian languages preserved on the territory where once Colchis civilization existed. All these three are considered as sister languages while modern day Abkhazian language has no similarity to these other languages what so ever. On the other hand has only dialectic difference from Abazian language and is sister language of Circassian (Adigean) language which are both Northwest Caucasian. Just check it yourself at Caucasian Languages. In addition Abkhazians are not ethnically related to any other Colchian tribes who lived throughout Colchis civilization but are related to Abazian Ubikh and Adigean tribes who all live in north Caucasus.avaza 4:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Avaza, please can you break down what you have written above? You mentioned for example that "Abkhazians are decedents of Abazian tribes who did migrate in Abkhazia in 16th century", however the reference you provided suggests that the Abkhaz migrated to. You use the word in which suggests they were already in Abkhazia. Secondly, can you please provide more than the reference you listed above. This theory is one that is controversial, and as such requires more than one essay on the topic as a reference. Especially if the authors are unknown, and the paper is published and hosted by an unknown source. Secondly, due to the nature of Wikipedia being an open-content encyclopaedia, and one which is easily modified to suit editors' aims and goals, the usage of Wikipedia as a reference is greatly discouraged. Again, please provide a reference for the Kelasuri Wall, as the one reference you seem to want to provide for EVERYTHING doesn't mention Kelasuri Walls- it mentions the Kelasuri River. Thirdly, you mentioned that the Abkhaz migrated to (I assume this is correct) Abkhazia in the 16th century. However, Svetlana Chervonnaya in her book Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia and the Russian Shadow argues that the Abkhaz were already living in Abkhazia and were mentioned by the Assyrians as early as the 11th C. BC. They were also described by Pliny the Younger, Arrian and other Roman writers of the first and second centuries. Vjacheslav Chirikba (p. 43) in the book The Abkhazians: a handbook also describes certain Abkhaz-Adygean archaeological features, particularly dolmens, present not only in the North Caucasus, but also in Western Georgia before the current era (i.e. AD). You also speak about Abkhaz not being in any way related to any of the Kartvelian languages - what's the point you are tryng to make here? Russian and Karelian are not in any way related either, but to use your analogy would be to suggest the Karelians moved into Karelia where Russians had already lived prior to their migration - something that is factually incorrect. Secondly, what language one speaks is not an indicator of anything except cultural influence and social tendencies - e.g. the majority of Irish people speak English - that is not to suggest the vast majority of Irish people ARE English. There was no vast migration of English people to Ireland. Yet we speak English! Look at Rwanda - always either independent or part of a Belgian colony - and yet most of the inhabitants there can speak English. Again the English never arrived there. In other words, using linguistic tendencies or proficiencies is an indicator of nothing when speaking of the ancestry of populations. You also stated that the "Abkhazians are not ethnically related to any other Colchian tribes" - prove it! Where is the DNA analysis? What authors have proven this? And where is their work published? I am not saying in any of this that you are wrong, but quite simply that to assert such extreme and bold statements, to do so in very bad English, and to use only ONE reference for all your statements, is quite blatantly against Wikipedia policies. Remember, Wikipedia is not about the truth - it's about Verifiability. --MacTire02 (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This page is totally irresponsible and subjective

Summing all the bill to Abkhaz people while not mentioning that aggressor was and is Tbilisi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.203.7 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. The owner of the territory can not be aggressor, and Tbilisi is still internationally recognized capital of the Georgia within the borders that includes Abkhazia. Your bandit, separatist government, on the other hand has performed ethnic cleansing, throwing out 300,000 Georgians (far more than the number of ethnic Abkhazs on the territory). Think before you talk.

f —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.111.114 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

300,000 Georgians?? According to the 1989 Census there were only 239,872 Georgians in Abkhazia. Apswaaa (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And how many were there after you unilaterally violated Sochi treaty, attacked disarmed Georgian government in Sukhumi, in Sept 1993 and "won the war"? Zero. Excuse me for not being precise. Clearly cleansing of 239,872 ethnic Georgians is nothing for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia#POV_and_undue_weight Apswaaa (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This link does not prove anything. UN Resolution was not issued only because it was blocked by Russia, the provocateur of the conflict. It's a undeniable fact that 250,000 Georgians were displaced forcefully and are not allowed back to their homes, further the results of the mission's investigation state: "After the Abkhazian forces had taken Sukhumi, most Georgians living in the region between the Gumista and Inguri Rivers tried to flee before the arrival of the Abkhazian forces. Some others who stayed behind were reportedly killed when the Abkhazians took control of villages and cities in Ochamchira region". These FACTS satisfy the Wikipedia definition of Ethnic Cleansing. Case closed. Go vandalize some other page, Apswaaa.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.111.114 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanna ask these question, reply them if you want to apply label of ethnic clensing: Was there a Georgia when Romans and greeks documented the name Abasgia and Apsili in 1st century AD? What was the capital of Abkhaz King Lewan? What happened to Abkhazians who lived there for millenia. Also, why is still there so many mengrels, armenians and russians in Abkhazia(which carries the same name for 2 millenia)? how the population was Georgianised? And why did early christians had found a catholicte in Abkhazia if it was historiacal part of georgia. Without replying this you have no right to have the answers for ethic clensing claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.79.12 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Recognition

The opening paragraph states that Abkhazia is recognized by Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. As South Ossetia and Transnistria themselves are largely unrecognized, I don't think that they carry the same weight as the other nations listed. I feel that some distnction should be made. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made a small change. Bazonka (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that handles it well. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Basis pretension of Abkhaz people

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzaradi (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Muzaradi, can you translate what you wrote above into English? It makes no sense. The only parts I understand are the Russian language parts. For example, "independency" is not English - in the context above it is not even clear what you meant. Another point is the name "basis pretension" - what in the name of God does that mean? --MacTire02 (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Article about what?

The first line says " a political entity on the eastern coast of the Black Sea and the south-western flank of the Caucasus whose status is disputed." I don't know what else to read. For governments in exile we usually have another page. Do we not have one for the Georgian POV position? The RoA is in de facto control of the territory, this page is about that. We could also possibly have an article on the geographic region. I don't know where else this can possibly go. Outback the koala (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No we do not have one for the Georgian POV position. As a political entity we do not have an article on the Autonomus Republic of Abkhazia. We only have a short article describing in brief detail the history of the autonomous government as well as a list of heads of government. But Abkhazia is more than the ARA or the RoA. Therefore we should include more than just info on the RoA. And the idea of having one article for the ARA, one for the RoA, and a separate one purely geographical in nature is absurd to me. However, I think I can offer a compromise. How about we merge the article Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia into this article, and then do as has been done on the Kosovo article, with a purely geographical infobox listed top on the right, followed by an infobox on the de facto RoA, and just below that a further separate infobox in the ARA (in the Kosovo article it is listed thus: Geographical infobox, Independent Kosovo infobox, then UN administration infobox). What do you think of that solution? --MacTire02 (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I have created a sandbox subpage with how the start of the article could look like, if you want to take a look. This way we could reserve Government of the Republic of Abkhazia for information solely related to the structure and intricacies of the Government alone, and likewise we could reserve Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia using a similar structure. The order to the infoboxes is done to give priority 1st of all to the geography and demography of the area, 2nd to the de facto governing entity, and 3rd to the de jure governing entity which no longer controls the area. I have also changed slightly some of the wording, but this could be worked out more thoroughly later on. What do you think? I know it's a bit cumbersome, so what we could do is create a template for each infobox, say a {{Abkhazia infobox}}, {{Republic of Abkhazia infobox}} and {{Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia infobox}} to reduce the amount of KBs used. --MacTire02 (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Outback the koala. I disagree with the set-up proposed by MacTire02, because it gives undue weight to the ARoA, which is only a government-in-exile. Its connection to the geographic territory of Abkhazia is only theoretical. It only exists on paper and in a few offices in Tbilisi. This is also what makes the comparison with Kosovo inadequate, since in that case, the geographic area of Kosovo really extends beyond the territory controlled by the RoK. A much better comparison is the article South Ossetia, which does not award any undue weight to the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia either. Finally, from an encyclopaedic point of view, I posit that the primary association with 'Abkhazia' is that break-away state, i.e. the RoA, so that is what this article should be about.sephia karta | dimmi 12:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK but then we need to do something about the article about the Government of the Autonomous Republic. I actually didn't realise what I had proposed amounted to undue weight towards the ARoA. I am actually in favour if Abkhaz independence, so I am really shocked that anything I had written could be contrary to such! "I posit that the primary association with 'Abkhazia' is that break-away state" - likewise, most people would associate Chechnya with the breakaway state from Russia, and not with the current de jure and de facto government of Chechnya, yet we see that article located under the subdivision of Russia status? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but currently the article appears to be almost entirely leaning towards the Abkhaz side, despite the fact that only 4 countries recognise this status. I understand it's not about plurality or anything like that, but surely we should show that there are other points of view too? --MacTire02 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying, and I do not think Sephia is saying either, that we should exclude alternative view points on the issue. On the other hand we need to recognise that we cannot take a position on whether one view point is more legitimate than the other solely based on number count of those recognising. I agree with Sephia that the article should be mainly about the political entity that is the RoA because in my view we should start at who is in de facto control of the territory and work from there. Additionally we might ignore the Abkhaz POV over the Russian POV which I believe are different in this case(for example in their opinions on the declarative statehood, etc..). Thats great that you support Abkhaz Independence, but we still need to build this article into a neutral, yet true article, and adding the seal of the gov-in-exile for the autonomous gov is not either. Outback the koala (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Outback the koala said. MacTire02, what exactly do you mean when you say but then we need to do something about the article about the Government of the Autonomous Republic? sephia karta | dimmi 15:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What I meant by that statement is that, currently, when you go to that article, it appears to be nothing more than a list of leaders of that administration and a brief history that appears to focus solely on the history of the wars in Abkhazia and their effects on the that administration's location, information which is already pretty much covered here. There is nothing that describes what powers the administration theoretically has, nothing about how it is elected, if indeed it is elected, who elects the members and what sort of eligibility criteria there are. My point basically in all of this is that the article on the de jure administration is so lacking in any real information that can not be found here that it, to my mind, seems rather pointless in having a separate article about it. If nothing was to be done to rectify that article's content (and I know very little about its structures, who is in it, powers, details about the devolution of jurisdiction from Tbilisi, etc. so I could not possible do it myself), it may seem more appropriate to have a separate section within THIS article dedicated to the ARoA institutions. If however, the majority of people feel it is more appropriate to have two separate articles then something must be done about the ARoA article. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You are right that there isn't a lot of content there at the moment, but I believe there is scope for more. Another consideration is that this article (Abkhazia) is already quite long, so my personal opinion is that we shouldn't merge the ARoA article into this one. sephia karta | dimmi 14:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has always had a section dedicated to the Goverment of the ARoA, and imho it's given due weight. Do you think more should be written, and if yes, what information do you propose to include here? Alæxis_¿question? 10:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the section about the GotARoA in this article is basically fine, although it could use an update. As for the GotARoA article, we could write more about its structure, i.e. its legislative branch and the cabinet, whether there are elections, if yes, who gets to vote, and if no, how officials are then selected. Also, any internal conflicts/debates/issues (if there have been any) should be covered, ideally.sephia karta | dimmi 17:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What you're failing to see is that they're two govts claiming to be the official govt of Abkhazia. All you want is the de facto Govt and you want to exclude the de jure one. That is 100% biased! AKA 100% POV IJA (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)