Talk:Abkhazia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"officially the Republic of Abkhazia"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Absolutely right I wanted to say exactly that Vanikobar (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support removal of "official". It is WP:POV. Vnar123 (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing lead to make in matched to reality - Abkhazia is not just "partially recognized state"[edit]

The lead gives very wrong view of what actually happens in Abkhazia. It is Russian-occupied region of Georgia and it should be noted in the very first sentence. Just stating that "Abkhazia is partially recognized state" provides readers only with Abkhazian separatist POV from the very beginning. Please see Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, there is noted in the very first sentence that those regions are occupied territories of Ukraine, and it should noted here as well, these are very similar situations (except that Luhansk and Donetsk are now officially annexed unlike Abkhazia, but Abkhazia is occupied territory just like them anyway).
Moreover, Abkhazia is not just "partially recognized state". According to decisions of international courts, Abkhazia is under "effective control" of Russian Federation. This, roughly speaking, means that under international law Russia is liable for everything that happens in Abkhazia, Russia and Russian forces exercise control of that territory in the view of international courts. This should be also noted, there is absolutely no mention of this in the lead, which is wrong.
There is also no mention of Russian military forces in the region and that they invaded Georgia and occupied the territory during the Russo-Georgian war in 2008.
Moreover, it is good that lead mentions ethnic cleansening of Georgians in Abkhazia, but it should also mention that such things continue to take place even today, ethnic Georgians in Gali district continue to be oppressed by separatist forces, moreover, there are incidents when ethnic Georgians are killed by Abkhazian separatist forces and not tried for murder, for example, in 2016, Gigi Otkhozoria was murdered by Abkhazian border police. I am mentioning this because these incidents are very common, and they illustrate situation of ethnic Georgians in the region. Georgian government even compiled Othozoria-Tatunashvili list to hold these criminals accountable for their actions. International courts ruled many times that human right violations take place in Abkhazia and Russia is liable for them. This should be mentioned in the lead.
Additionally, Abkhazians are not "titular ethnicity" of the region, well, it is interesting fact that even the English name "Abkhazia" derives from Georgian name "Apkhazeti". So it is Georgians who gave name to the region, it was named after ethnic Georgian Abkhazians, who call themselves "Apkhazebi" (Abkhazians). Due to various migrations, Abkhazians today are called Northwest Caucasian people, but even the name of the region is originally Georgian, so Georgian Abkhazians are titular ethnicity, while modern Abkhazians call themselves "Apsuas" and their name of the region is not used by anyone. So Georgians are titular ethnicity of Abkhazia, Georgians gave name to the region (the defition of titular ethnicity). If no one is against, I will make corresponding edits. -- Cutoc (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Abkhazia has been recognised as a sovereign state by more countries than Taiwan. It doesn't matter whether there are foreign forces stationing there, as long as they are there at the invitation of a democratically elected government, which is the case.
Quite a few countries are hosts to foreign forces, who frequently offer security guarantees to the government: Japan, South Korea, Armenia, Syria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Turkey, Mali...
Yes, historically the territory of Abkhazia has been captured from Georgia. Although many argue that it never formed part of independent Georgia, it only happened to be controlled by Georgia briefly in 1991–1992. While Georgia and most other UN members (although not all), objecting in principle to border changing by force, did not recognise the new entity (especially as it was dependent on Russia), it doesn't mean at all that Abkhazia isn't currently a de-facto state with limited recognition. Which we reflect in the article.
Your musings abouts the origins of the term "Abkhaz" are irrelevant at best. — kashmīrī TALK 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matters that Abkhazia is recognized by more countries than Taiwan? It is only recognized by 5 countries, while more than 200 don't recognize them. Moreover, it is important to note why those countries recognize Abkhazia. They were bankrolled by Russia to do that or are directly backed by Russian military in the civil war, in case of Syrian government. I hope you are aware of this, if not, I can provide sources. Basically only Russia recognizes independence of Abkhazia and it tries to secure it by paying other countries to recognize it. Russia also pressures Belarus to recognize Abkhazia, but Belarus refuses so far, see Milk War.
No one recognizes legitimacy of that "democratically elected government". Moreover, it can not be democratic since majority of population (ethnic Georgians) were expelled from the region in 1992-1993. See Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia. Additionally, how much of real "independence" that government really exercises is very, very questionable according to majority of reliable sources. They can not really act independent of Russia. So they did not just "invite" Russian military forces, this is very inaccurate way to describe what actually happened - Russian invasion of Georgia.
Those countries you mention who host foreign forces, actually exercise "effective control" over their territory. Unlike that, international courts have ruled that Russia (not Abkhazia itself) exercises effective control of Abkhazia. This is position of international courts and I can cite many sources. So basically those are very different situations. Effective control is very important concept in international law as I explained previously, and this should be noted in the lead.
Apparently Kingdom of Georgia never existed according to those people. Anyway, I know there are many nonsensial Abkhazian separatist claims (not shared by anyone), including that Kingdom of Georgia was not actually a Georgian kingdom, but this is irrelevant.
If we are going to mention that Abkhazia is a partially recognized state in the first sentence, it should also be mentioned that it is Russian-occupied territory. We already have that standart on Wikipedia, see Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.
Apsuas call their country Apsny, it is not used by anyone, Georgian-derived term is used in most of the languages, so how are Apsuas titular ethnicity? It is not just me "musing", it is confirmed by many sources and even stated on Wikipedia:
The term "Apkhazeti" first appeared in the Georgian annals, which is of Mingrelian origin "Apkha" meaning back or shoulder[15][16][17][better source needed], gave rise to the name Abkhazia. It was used to denote Abasgia proper and entire Western Georgia within the Kingdom of Georgia. In early Muslim sources, the term "Abkhazia" was generally used in the meaning of Georgia.[18][19] The Russian Абхазия (Abkhaziya) is adapted from the Georgian აფხაზეთი (Apkhazeti). Abkhazia's name in most languages is derived directly from the Russian.
So, Georgians gave name to Abkhazia, not Apsuas (the definition of titular ethnicity). And I want to also emphasize that Georgians did not use term "Apkhazebi" to denote to Apsuas, they used to it denote native ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia, who were Georgian sub-ethnic group. -- Cutoc (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian occupation is in the lead, and the Abkhazian separatist POV is certainly not that they only partly count as an entity. I also don't understand what the derivation of Abkhaz has to do with any of this. CMD (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian occupation should noted in the very first sentence, similarily to Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. Currently it is only written in the last sentence and presented just as Georgian opinion (in reality, it is a fact that Russia occupies the territory in violation of international law). "I also don't understand what the derivation of Abkhaz has to do with any of this." - it is about who should be noted as titular ethnicity. -- Cutoc (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the Russian occupation needs to mentioned in the first sentence and I also don't think that we should state in wiki-voice that they are occupied, instead attributing this claim. Only a minority of countries have made statements to that effect. Of course, only a handful of countries extended diplomatic recognition to Abkhazia, which means that the majority consider it part of Georgia but do not consider it occupied. Alaexis¿question? 06:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to the claim that the true Abkhazians are actually Georgians and the modern Abkhazians are Northwest Caucasians who recently migrated to Abkhazia, its origin is in Pavle Ingorokva's work and now historians call it a "controversial assertion" when they are being polite or use terms like "astonishing stroke of historical revisionism" and "erasure of non-Georgians... from the historical record" ([1]). Alaexis¿question? 07:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we should have better ways to source prose than bean counting political statements. The term occupation has a few different meanings, it might be due. That said, we would need effective sources on it and it should be well-covered in the body first. The lead is not the place to introduce novel information and sources, it is a place to summarise the body. CMD (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, since effective control is important concept in international law, I will rephrase that part to attribute it to Russia. -- Cutoc (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, European Court of Human Rights, International Court of Justice and other international courts have ruled that Abkhazia is under Russian effective control due to Russian occupation. Russian military is stationed there without Georgian consent, which implies occupation under international law. This is not "claim" but fact.
Georgians are native to Abkhazia and the term "Abkhazia" is derived from Georgian term "Apkhazeti/Apkhazebi", which was used to denote to native Georgians in Abkhazia. Are you disapproving this part? -- Cutoc (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The body mentions the resolutions passed by the parliaments and the law and the lead currently summarizes this designation. Mellk (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, if we introduce the article by stating that Abkhazia is "partially recognized state" without explaning situation first, then we can also mention that it is Russian-occupied Georgian territory. There is a region (autonomous republic) with that name in Georgia, so we should at least mention that it is a Georgian region, why are we giving precedence to separatist claims, which fall under WP:FRINGE? Only 5 countries recognize Abkhazia to be a state, while more than 200 recognize it to be a region in Georgia.
See Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, there is already such standarts in Wikipedia, we should follow it. -- Cutoc (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The positions of ECHR and ICJ are important and should be mentioned in the article. You write that International Court of Justice and other international courts have ruled that Abkhazia is under Russian effective control due to Russian occupation. Where does "due to Russian occupation" come from? I don't see it in this article. The ICJ document is very long and written in legalese, so it's not obvious how it would support this statement. Alaexis¿question? 09:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, The ruling of European Court of Human Rights specifically mentions occupation Cutoc (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri:, you are contradicting reliable sources. The source says - Strasbourg court rules Russia has ‘effective control’ over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "Effective control" is a specific concept in international law, with specific meaning, it can not be degraded to "influence". There are reliable sources, so please don't remove it. It is position of International Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights and other courts, basically, worldwide legal community. -- Cutoc (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia's significant troop presence in, and overall influence over, Georgia's secessionist territories has already been deemed by international expert commissions as constituting effective control over the two regions.
International Law and the Post-2008 Status Quo in Georgia: Implications for Western Policies There is widely held consensus. This should be included.
@Kashmiri:, I am going to make edit returning the term "effective control" in the text, so please write your objection if you have any. -- Cutoc (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to who is native and who is not, what specific changes do you propose? Alaexis¿question? 09:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Describing an existing situation to a reader is not "giving precedence to separatist claims" or fringe. As I said above, bean counting political positions is not a healthy or productive way to build an encyclopaedia. CMD (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion that Abkhazia is a state is not supported by more than 200 countries, it is only supported by 5 countries, so it is fringe. -- Cutoc (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happily the article doesn't say that, but even if it did that has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE, which is clearly being misunderstood here. CMD (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are approx. 195 countries in the world, so no idea how you arrived at "more than 200". Also, the vast majority of them have not expressed any opinion on Abkhazia. — kashmīrī TALK 09:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I might have been mistaken, but 195 is still a huge number and overwhelming majority. Also, international law does not works in that way. You don't have to "express opinion" that you don't recognize a state, on the other hand, you have to express the fact that you recognize some new state because you need to established diplomatic relations, set up embassy and diplomatic mission and etc. The fact that they did not express opinion already implies that they don't recognize them. Please just google how many states recognize Abkhazia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoc (talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and because the Franks, who gave name to France, were a Germanic tribe, so the French are Germans and France should be part of Germany, right? [sarcasm]
About the rulings, are you referring to the 2011 ECJ ruling, which was summarised as follows? – .In the Georgia v Russian Federation case, it seemed on the face of it that there was a very tenuous connection between the actual dispute that the parties were concerned with and the treaty on which the application for judicial settlement was based. It was clear in this case that the possibility of a judgment on the merits was unlikely and that the International Court was, at best, being used as a convenient platform for the public articulation of a political grievance, or to draw international attention to Georgia’s plight, without any intention of engaging the judicial function in the actual settlement of the dispute. [2](page 755)
Anyhow, even "effective control" would need to be sourced. For instance, if you wanted to say that San Marino is under an effective political and military control of Italy (well, it is), it would need to be properly sourced. Oh, and it doesn't mean that San Marino should be termed as occupied territory. — kashmīrī TALK 09:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About France and Germany - that's very odd and false equivalence. Franks were Germanic, not German. That were different tribe which became a distinct group and later a nation. Here, it is a different story. The Georgian Abkhazians did not become a distinct nation, they consider themselves as Georgians (we are not talking about Apsuaas here).
No, I am referring to 2021 case. There are many reliable sources too other than this which state that Abkhazia is under effective control of Russia.
About San Marino and Italy - this is also false equivalence. San Marino is a sovereign country and I don't know whether Itlian military is stationed there, but if it is, San Marino still is not occupied, since sovereing countries have right to invite foreing military. Abkhazia, on the other hand, is not a sovereign country, it is not recognized as such, the territory is internationally recognized as Georgian territory, so de facto, unrecognized and illegitimate Abkhazian government has no right under international law to invite foreign militaries. Thus, it is occupation. It is like a some kind of organization (just organization, since it is not internationally recognized as states) inviting foreing military and then foreing country claiming that "this is not occupation". -- Cutoc (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ECHR has been established to rule on the adherence to, or violation of, the European Convention of Human Rights; nothing less, nothing more. It does not rule on countries' sovereignty, even if it has at times to make assumptions re. jurisdiction. Technically speaking, the ECHR is not the source of law in the matter of state sovereignty. — kashmīrī TALK 09:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I additionally cited other sources as well that effective control of Russia is widely accepted fact. Moreover, opinion of ECHR is still noteworthy, but there are also International Court of Justice and others. I have also cited a book stating that effective control of Russia is accepted by international community as fact. -- Cutoc (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you believe that that book is the benchmark of what is or is not accepted by "international community" (itself a propaganda term)? Already its first paragraph talks about "Russian invasion of Georgia", however the international fact-finding mission has established that it was Georgia that had started the 2008 war.[3] It's thus unclear how reliable the book is in other aspects. — kashmīrī TALK 10:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating Russian propaganda. Georgia did not start war. About that report, it says that shelling was carried out from South Ossetian side since 1 August, then Georgia used unproportional force, but then Russian invaded Georgia, which the report says was illegal. Russian troops entered Georgia illegaly, this is invasion, Georgia could not have started a war on its territory against Russia, this is nonsensial. And even Russia back then recognized those territories to be Georgian, so Russia invaded Georgian territory. -- Cutoc (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the book doesn't present it this way, and so it's credibility is in doubt. — kashmīrī TALK 10:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is credible work, it does not needs to note nuances, Abkhazia and Samachablo are Georgia, Russia occupies Georgia's internationally recognized territory without Georgia's consent. This is what matters and it is discussed. Anyway, Georgia has every right to reclaim its territory whenever it wants (it can not do it now because of Russia of couse, but this is just matter of circumstances, it could not reclaim Tbilisi from Arabs for 400 years but in the end, it did anyway, because Tbilisi is rightfully Georgian, just like Abkhazia and Samachablo). -- Cutoc (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just want to change the narrative of this page to kartvelian nationalistic view of the history of the region, make this kartvelian propoganda. No wonder why Abkhaz people don't want to live with you in one state.
Also, friendly reminder, that right of self-determination is superior to any teritorial integrity. 95.24.201.109 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Saakashvili hoped to recapture South Ossetia by force before Russia reacts, and hoped for NATO military support given NATO military presence in Kutaisi (even though he was told a few days earlier through diplomatic channels that NATO won't intervene militarily). This turned out a political miscalculation, and Georgia lost as a result. — kashmīrī TALK 10:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russian invasion of Georgia is illegal, Russian interference in Georgia's internal affairs is illegal, current Russian occupation of Georgian (historically and under international law) territory is illegal, Samachablo and Abkhazia are Georgia. Everything which contradicts this is just Russian propaganda. That's it. -- Cutoc (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abkhazia is recognised internationally (by a few states IIRC). Besides, it is subject of academic debate whether having international recognition is a defining factor for a state. There are functioning states with no international recognition, and in case of newly born states, it takes time to be recognised by others. Still, states get created (recently e.g. South Sudan).
All in all, the matter at hand involves complex legal considerations, which the article tries to balance, while what you are trying to stick in smacks of high-school history handbook. — kashmīrī TALK 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:FRINGE. Recognition of few states in irrelevant, it is a fringe opinion. Under international law, other countries can recognize a state only after a state from which is succeeded has recognized its independence. Georgia has not recognized Abkhazia's independence and whole world has not recognized, except Russia, Syria and such countries (I have already explained why they recognized it too). Recognition of Abkhazia would be violation of international law. Majority of the world (195 countries) consider Abkhazia to be region of Georgia. This is main opinion and should be included. -- Cutoc (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding the policy on WP:FRINGE. This is about sources. This information is certainly verifiable. For example, this book says: "Russia maintains a strong political and military presence in Abkhazia... Most other sovereign nations consider Abkhazia to be an integral part of Georgia". It also refers to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as partially recognized states that enjoy de facto independence. Mellk (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Donetsk and Luhansk are not just occupied by Russia, they have been formally annexed by Russia. The situations are not directly comparable. THMWikiAcc (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the lead to the stable version, before the repeated changes and additions. This included the removal of some new sources and content, they should be proposed for inclusion in the body. One thing that did emerge from this conversation that I agree with was the lead being able to convey the Russian role more clearly. To this end, I would suggest "significant political, economic, and military presence" be tweaked to "significant political, economic, and military influence", which directly reflects the wording in the body. Weirdly enough, there is nothing specific about this influence in the body, but the generic statements are currently there and sourced. CMD (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cited this book which states: "Russia maintains a strong political and military presence in Abkhazia". I see at the moment this statement in the body does not cite a source, so I would suggest to add a reference to this and to adjust the wording accordingly. I would also use the same source for the part about international recognition where it states: "Most other sovereign nations consider Abkhazia to be an integral part of Georgia". Mellk (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you say the book says that, it states it exactly in those words? If so, that's oddly similar to the text in the article (which was there in a similar form in 2013). On the other hand, if it provides more information, that would be preferable to maintaining the current vague language. CMD (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated this, but yes, that is a direct quote. Mellk (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to that portion of the text, but that's a tad concerning WP:Circular-wise. We should keep an eye out for a better source. CMD (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile, the recognition of Abkhazian independence (with the help of Russia) contributed to a rapid growth in military-political Russian influence on Abkhazia."[4] Mellk (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree that the lede is very misleading.
  • Calling it a "partially recognized state" obscures that only Russia and four of its client states recognize it as a state or separate from Georgia.
  • Stating that it is "officially" known as the "Republic of Abkhazia" obscures that this is only recognized as a republic by Russian back separatists, Russia, and four rogue states.
The lede needs to clearly summarize sourced content in article body, not obscure the article body.
Simply finding a source to fit your prefered POV is not the way sourcing works; the article needs to reflect a consensus of reliable sources. When no consensus in WP:RS exists, all reliably sourced positions which a consensus of editors feel merits inclusion per WP:WEIGHT, (with consideration of WP:AGE, WP:BIASED, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP) should be summarized or footnoted with sources.  // Timothy :: talk  02:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Partially recognized state" is a common term in literature, not an obscuration. Personally I prefer "breakaway state" for personal nuance, but both are part of a swath of effective synonyms (see this book for a couple more). The situation is well established in literature, and has been for a couple of decades. CMD (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be clear that only five rogue states recognize it. The current phrasing does not do that and fails WP:PRECISELANG.
The second paragraph clearly states the status: It states, "Abkhazia has been recognised as an independent state by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Syria". this meets WP:PRECISELANG, the other does not and readers not familiar with the subject will not have a clear understanding of what "partially recognized state" means, but will have a clear idea from the second paragraph.
You may find support for replacing "partially recognized state" with "Abkhazia has been recognised as an independent state by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Syria" from the second paragraph.  // Timothy :: talk  03:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's clear in the second paragraph, that seems reasonable. Not every sentence can capture everything, and the phrasing is what PRECISELANG is looking for, being written to "avoid using statements that will date quickly". A time-specific list is something WP:PRECISELANG advises against. CMD (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Abkhazia has been recognised as an independent state by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Syria" is as close as we will get, it will need to be updated if anything changes, but everything in WIkipedia does and this is (I think) unambiguous.
I did a quick search of JSTOR and ProQuest and found an wide range of wording:
Sorry for the wall of text, but here are examples from JSTOR (from only the 1 of 41 pages of results, I didn't want to go farther)
  • Breakaway "region" Atilgan, C., & Feyerabend, F. C. (2015). GEORGIAN-RUSSIAN RELATIONS: BETWEEN NECESSITY AND AMBIVALENCE. In G. Wahlers (Ed.), SECURITY POLICY AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT (pp. 35–53). Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. [5], International Crisis Group. (2018). Appendix C: Map of Georgia with Breakaway Regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In Russia and Turkey in the Black Sea and the South Caucasus (p. Page 30-Page 30). International Crisis Group. [6], [Atilgan, C., & Sarjveladze, M. (2012). GEORGIA AND ITS BREAKAWAY REGIONS: NO PROGRESS IN SIGHT. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep09968] , KLIMENKO, E. (2018). PROTRACTED ARMED CONFLICTS IN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE AND THEIR IMPACT ON BLACK SEA SECURITY. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. [7], de Waal, T., & Matveeva, A. (2007). External Actors in the Caucasus. In Central Asia and the Caucasus: A Vulnerable Crescent (pp. 5–7). International Peace Institute. [8], Studzińska, Z. (2015). How Russia, Step by Step, Wants to Regain an Imperial Role in the Global and European Security System. Connections, 14(4), 21–42. [9], STEPANOVA, E. (2008). SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKHAZIA: PLACING THE CONFLICT IN CONTEXT. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. [10]
  • Breakaway "territory" HARVEY, C. (2009). Russia Vetoes UN Mission in Georgia. Arms Control Today, 39(6), 43–44. [11]
  • self-declared independent territory BROOKS, C. (2013). Making a State a State. World Policy Journal, 30(1), 24–32. [12]
  • refers to it as both a "breakaway region" and as a "breakaway republic" Mühlfried, F. (2010). Citizenship at war: Passports and nationality in the 2008 Russian-Georgian conflict. Anthropology Today, 26(2), 8–13. [13]
  • "defacto state" Caspersen, N. (2015). The Pursuit of International Recognition After Kosovo. Global Governance, 21(3), 393–412. [14]
Proquest shows a similar set.
Also, I should be clear, I did work on a couple of sections, but I'm not going to change the lede, I think an uninvolved experienced editor should evaluate for a consensus. Greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  04:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of synonyms as mentioned, but that doesn't mean any particular one "obscures" the others. De facto state at the end is another very common variation which used to be used on this article, and is still used on Northern Cyprus. CMD (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All kinds of terms are used in the literature (de facto state, breakaway something, partially recognized, etc.). I think there is no danger of the reader thinking the recognition is more extensive than it is as long as the countries are listed in the next paragraph. Alaexis¿question? 11:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Abkhazia is a Georgian region[edit]

Officially civilized part of world not recognize it as an independent country as now they depending on Georgia in many ways so it's not a Abkhazian republic it's a region of country that decided to be with Russia and with that they started war of course Russia made revenge because of Georgia broke up with USSR before that but it was and is Part of Georgia since early centuries the land is Georgian Vanikobar (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Yawn) — kashmīrī TALK 22:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayfield on the post-WW2 economy[edit]

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


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)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2024[edit]

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 [petri dish·growths] 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia pages linked to this article are named Republic of Abkhazia: Georgian, Spanish, French, even Russian and Abkhazian wikipedia articles. Vnar123 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per previous comments in last RM. Common name/primary topic etc. Mellk (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because in reality, the separatists are in control, hence most references to Abkhazia will mean this. Mellk (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose per previous rm and wp:snow Abo Yemen✉ 18:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous RM. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a separate article. DrowssapSMM 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abkhazia&oldid=1217432962"