Wikipedia

Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 10

< Talk:Abkhazia
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Kashmiri in topic Abkhazia is a Georgian region
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

"Puppet state of Russia"

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Despite recent political refutations by Sukhumi of proposals from Moscow (specifically a Russian proposal to annex Abkhazia in the future), it is generally accepted that Russia has immense influence over Abkhazian affairs. However, what is not generally agreed upon is how to label Abkhazia's status as "state" that is heavily connected to and reliant on Russia. Is it a puppet state like Vichy France was of Nazi Germany? Or is it a satellite state like the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was of the Soviet Union?

An anonymous user recently changed the parts of the lead and infobox to describe Abkhazia as a "puppet state". Whether or not this descriptor is valid is not up to editors to decide unilaterally as it would be original research, so I looked at the sources given to verify the change.

The first source provided is from thecommentator.com, a blog site, clearly not a reliable source. Even if it was, however, it does not describe Abkhazia as a "puppet state"; rather, it uses even harsher wording and describes Abkhazia as a Russian-occupied area of Georgia. The second source, a book by Céline Francis, actually speaks to the debate and uncertainty among scholars as to how to describe Abkhazia. In the page given, there is no mention of "puppet state" or "quasi-state"; Francis instead opts to use the term "de facto state" in her book, explicitly stating such. The third source from the BBC is not a news article by a journalist or the news team; it is a featurette of a photographer who travelled to Abkhazia. The only mention of a "puppet state" is from the photographer, not an academic or expert on the matter. Finally the fourth source is a blog post by a Russian thinktank, and the only mention of a "puppet state" actually contradicts the edit: "It is not fair to argue that de-facto Soviet states like Abkhazia are 'a Russian puppet state' ..." Regardless, this source would hardly qualify as a reliable source anyways.

If "puppet state" or "puppet government" is a common descriptor for Abkhazia, then it should not be difficult to find reliable sources that state such. The sources provided thus far by the anonymous user are either (or a combination of all three) unreliable, flat out contradict their edits, or just generally state what I mentioned in the first paragraph, the fact that Russia exerts great influence over Abkhazia due to the latter's geopolitical and historical circumstances (but not how this fact should be labelled).

For this reason I have reverted their edits and am asking them to provide reliable source(s) and/or a direct quote(s) verifying their changes from the one reliable source they provided, the book by Céline Francis. Yue🌙 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Puppet state is not a government type, you can puppet through different forms of government. Anyway, what this article could actually use is some information on what control Russia does have on the Abkhazian government. There's precisely zero on this in the Politics section, and one sentence with no detail somewhat misplaced in the Status section. CMD (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Joshua Keating (1 January 2018). Invisible Countries: Journeys to the Edge of Nationhood. Yale University Press. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-0-300-22162-6. OCLC 1005119575.
  • Sebastian Relitz (22 July 2022). Conflict Resolution in De Facto States: The Practice of Engagement without Recognition. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-00-062300-0.
  • Alaverdov, Emilia; Bari, Muhammad Waseem, eds. (29 October 2021). Handbook of Research on Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Conflicts and Their Impact on State and Social Security. IGI Global. pp. 263–. ISBN 978-1-79988-913-7. OCLC 1263248333.
  • Nikoloz Samkharadze (18 May 2021). Russia's Recognition of the Independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. BoD – Books on Demand. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-3-8382-1414-6. OCLC 1222208046.
Moxy-  14:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

@Ercwlff: I'm not sure that the Encyclopedia of Islam really supports the statement in the Name section: Statement:

In various medieval sources the term "Abkhazia" was generally used in the meaning of Georgia.

Encyclopedia of Islam:

For all practical purposes the term Abk̲h̲āz or Afk̲h̲āz , in early Muslim sources covers Georgia and Georgians (properly Ḏj̲urzān , q.v.). The reason (cf. below under 2.) is that a dynasty issued from Abk̲h̲āzia ruled in Georgia at the time of the early ʿAbbāsids. A distinction between the Abk̲h̲ăzian dynasty and the Georgian rulers on the upper Kur is made by al-Masʿūdī, ii, 65, 74. The people properly called Abk̲h̲āz is possibly referred to only in the tradition represented by Ibn Rusta

So the source only says something about early Muslim sources (and then lists a couple of exceptions) which is not the same thing as 'medieval sources' in general. Considering that it's the Name section of the main article about Abkhazia, this seems to be unnecessary detail - we certainly can't describe all the usage nuances of the name of Abkhazia since the early medieval times in this section. I'd suggest to move this to the History of Abkhazia article. Alaexis¿question? 17:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alaexis: It is not a nuance. That's what both given references show and both are credible. -Ercwlff (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so let's use the same wording that the sources use. Alaexis¿question? 20:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
But clearly, not only the early Muslim authors did refer with Abkhazia to Georgia as a whole but later ones, Byzantines and Russians, too. Reread Lortkipanidze's paragraph that starts with "As 'King of the Abkhazians' came first in the title of the kings..." -Ercwlff (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Quite possibly. My point is different: the definition has shifted over time:
1) The Georgian kingdom in its entirety
2) Western Georgia - Kingdom of Abkhazia
3) Land to the west of Anacopia as on Vakhushti's map
4) Territory between Inguri and Psou
These changes are notable and should be covered in the article/section about the history of Abkhazia. What I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't be in the Name section which is supposed to give a concise overview of the modern naming. Alaexis¿question? 09:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you calling our places “Abkhazia” “Tbilisi” “Batumi”. Use “Apkhazeti”, “Thbilisi” and “Bathumi”. It is phonological correct and, in my opinion, a very reasonable one. I am Georgian, we are calling them like that (Like, I understand not everybody is familiar to the way we are calling them, but if Kiev became Kyiv, Lvov became Lviv and Kharkov became Kharkiv, why won’t you do it now? ლუკააა (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And plus it was in 2014 when all started to call by autonym and not by exonym. It’s not right, because in August war, nobody was calling us as “Saqarthvelo” or calling our cities like “Thbilisi” “Bathumi” “Quthaisi” etc.

You were keep calling our countries as “Georgia” (alright, you can argue that every single european nation calls us by exonym Georgia because greeks told you about us (which are also european) ) “Tbilisi”, “Kutaisi”, “Batumi”, “Sukhumi” (but you were using names that russia was calling us to this day! You can’t argue on that!). ლუკააა (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Why you ignored us in the first place!? ლუკააა (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S:August war (2008) started before Russo-Ukrainian war (2014) ლუკააა (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are irrelevant. The relevant policy regarding name choices on Wikipedia is WP:COMMONNAME; i.e., whatever names are commonly used in the English language is what is used on Wikipedia. You are demanding that Wikipedia conform to one Georgian's specific preferences instead of the other hundreds of millions of English speakers. Yue🌙 05:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago38 comments15 people in discussion
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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Schierbecker (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

– Like Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea, and Nagorno-Karabakh and Republic of Artsakh. The we need article about geographic area. Panam2014 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have updated the request to have the second line (Geography of Abkhazia → Abkhazia), as requested by the nominator below. SilverLocust 💬 11:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are different precedents, so this should be decided by its merits. It has not been demonstrated that the geography is the primary topic - something that the average reader wants and expects to see when searching for Abkhazia. Alaexis¿question? 14:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. It's always a complex topic whenever a geographical region has the same name as an administrative/political entity, and it gets particularly tricky for Wikipedia when that administrative entity is not universally recognised. My main reflection is that geographical regions stay, while administrative entities come and go throughout history. It's perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion here, but I'd prefer to have, as a matter of principle, geography as separate from administration as possible. Crimea is a good example. Another example would be Catalonia: let's imagine Catalonia declares independence as some sort of Republic of Catalonia which doesn't get wide recognition. What should be the primary topic of Catalonia article: the geographical region on the Iberian Peninsula or the new political entity? I guess most editors would opt to keep these two topics separate, with the region being the primary topic. Same for the imaginary independent Scotland I guess. Par analogiam, I think that Abkhazia as a geographical region should be separate from any political entity that may be formed on its territory, and that the geographical region is the primary topic of the term "Abkhazia". — kashmīrī TALK 15:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    Abkhazia isn't a geographical region, it's political. Its borders are defined by politics, not geography. The complexity in the geographical/administrative matters in this regard are the same as any polity, like the geographical entities of New York City, KwaZulu-Natal, and France. CMD (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    So, borders of what regions other than islands are not defined by politics? Catalonia, Scotland, Nagorno-Karabakh... their borders are a result of as much geography as politics. For reasons of neutrality, especially important in case of entities with limited recognition, I'm all for differentiating between these administrative constructs and respective geographical regions. That's how we have differentiated between Nagorno-Karabakh and Republic of Artsakh, among others. — kashmīrī TALK 16:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    Additionally, Abkhazia is very much a geographical region. It's a precisely the region on the Black Sea inhabited, since antiquity (see Apsilae), by people self-identifying as Abkhazians and traditionally speaking the Abkhaz language. Whether the region formed part of the Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union or Georgia, it was called Abkhazia by the people living there. — kashmīrī TALK 16:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    There are a variety of potential geographic bodies, but the point is we don't differentiate in the suggested way between Scotland, Catalonia, France, Tokyo, Rio Grande do Sul, and so on, and their "respective geographic regions". If you want to talk of "among others", that is the normal way to handle these articles, see also the Taiwan and Kosovo discussions I linked above. Nagorno-Karabakh claims to cover a wider area than the very small Republic of Artsakh. As for the second comment, I don't understand it. People's language and identity aren't generally considered to be geographical features. Even if they did, the argument would similarly apply to Scotland, France, etc. CMD (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Chipmunkdavis: Nagorno-Karabakh and Republic of Artsakh have separate articles since years (before 2020). Panam2014 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    And here is the first edition from 2002, where the article separates the Republic's "most of the region" from the wider region. CMD (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    I think most references to "Abkhazia" are for the republic itself, rather than a geographical region. "Crimea" typically refers to the entire peninsula but the subdivisions themselves do not cover the entire peninsula. Mellk (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Per WP:COMMONNAME. When a source references "Crimea" in the political sense, it may not be clear to readers if they are talking about the de jure Ukrainian government or the de facto Russian government. This is because up until recently (in the grand scheme of things anyways), the former was the governing body and thus there is significant coverage of the former. This is the same with Taiwan; when a source says "Taiwan condemns China" or something along those lines, there is no confusion as to which government is being referenced. When a source says "Russia meets Abkhazia counterparts", it is clear that the barely mentioned autonomous Abkhazian government under Georgia is not being referenced. Yue🌙 00:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    The proposer failed to mention it in the header, unfortunately, but they have simultaneously proposed to rename Geography of Abkhazia as "Abkhazia". — kashmīrī TALK 08:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Kashmiri and Panam2014: If Panam2014 would like to propose both moves at once, I can fix the template here to have multiple requests. For technical bot reasons, two requested moves cannot be opened regarding the same page (namely, in this instance, Abkhazia). SilverLocust 💬 08:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks. They mentioned this second proposal in one of their comments above. @Panam2014? — kashmīrī TALK 08:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Kashmiri: I support the proposal. Could you do it? I am not good. Panam2014 (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    @SilverLocust, could you help? — kashmīrī TALK 11:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Kashmiri and Panam2014: Done. SilverLocust 💬 11:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rather than using WP:OR to claim equivalence between distinct situations based on arbitrary standards, Wikipedia is supposed to solely rely on how most RS refer to a subject on a case by case basis. This means that the proposer does not give a reason for the move that is based on any policy or guideline. Also, neither Republic of Crimea nor Autonomous Republic of Crimea covers the entire Crimea region, which also includes Sevastopol and northern part of Arabat Spit as part of Henichesk Raion in Kherson Oblast. StellarHalo (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, per Taiwan and Crimea cases. Both the Republic of Abkhazia and Georgia claim this area, Abkhazia, and we should show both claims in a balanced manner. --Whitekocher (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    Oppose — Per WP:COMMONNAME.... zero indication that people would be looking for a geographical area. Moxy-  22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments. Mellk (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the claims that the proposed title better comports to WP:NPOV is required. Specifically, evidence of how reliable sources refer to the Republic of Abkhazia; do they refer to it without qualification, or do they make it clear that the region is disputed? BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisting comment: requesting more comments based on policy — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Abkhazia has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Georgia (country) has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and per @Moxy Abo Yemen✉ 16:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History section

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The history section is far too long for SUMMARYSTYLE and it duplicates (literally) the content in the article History of Abkhazia. The text needs to be condensed to meet SUMMARYSTYLE.  // Timothy :: talk  01:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 1 year ago50 comments8 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Alaexis, The ruling of European Court of Human Rights specifically mentions occupation Cutoc (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@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)
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)
As to who is native and who is not, what specific changes do you propose? Alaexis¿question? 09:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I just updated this, but yes, that is a direct quote. Mellk (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
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)
"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)
  • 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

References

Abkhazia is a Georgian region

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

(Yawn) — kashmīrī TALK 22:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abkhazia/Archive_10&oldid=1229550946"