Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 1

Untitled
What a delightful irony - the dispute symbol resembles Abkhazia's national sign!!!

What appears to be an informtive web site: http://www.abkhazia.org/home.html gives a population figure of 100,000, a much smaller number than is listed in this entry (200,000-250,000). Hmmm... Is there some way to determine which is the more accurate number? Frankatca


 * The 100,000 refers to (1) the population of the capital city; and (2) the population of ethnic Abkhazians - not the total population of the whole region. --David Schaich 02:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to create an entry on so called "Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus". Anyone? Maybe someone from "FSB" :) The sentence on it in the article is misleading. BJS

This page needs update, at least Georgian-Abkhaz conflict should be added as well as Russian peacemakers. This is pretty much related to current Russian-Georgian events. Anybody? --User:Vassili Nikolaev

I've added some more information from the Statesman's Yearbook (98-99). I don't have anything post 1999. Secretlondon 17:35, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

Stamps
Should discuss (maybe just mention)(not internationally recnognised) Abkhazian stamps. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Cyrillic characters above the flag say Abkhazia. But if the Abkhaz name for Abkhazia is Apsny, shouldn't it say that? That is, is there any language that uses Cyrillic characters in which it's called "Abkhazia"? AJD 05:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

- Russian?

--In Russian, Abkhazia is Abkhazia. The English uses the Russian name. So the Russian version is technically correct. Don't worry, the Abkhazians won't mind -- most Abkhazians (particularly in urban areas) speak Russian at home. (KH)

This article represents pro-Georgian POV
The history section does not even mention about Abhazian Kingdom and other important history facts. It does not describe the conflict correctly. The whole article seems to be pro-Georgian and needs to be re-written... Rovoam 23:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm afraid you'll need to be more specific. I've been watching this article for bias for a long time, and I'm very pro-Abkhaz. I don't see the bias, but maybe I'm missing something. Ambi 08:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see below some of the automatically translated text. It is not perfect, but you may get an idea...


 * By the way, I have noticed on your home page the fact that you wrote the article about Larisa Bogoraz. I knew her personally, while I was living in Moscow back in 1978-83. She was also friend of Valeria Novodvorskaya. At that time here husband (Marchenko) was kept as a political prisoner... Rovoam

Here is the translation of the Russian article
Automatic translation (from &)

Abkhazians - small ethnic group, which is distinct being differed from Georgian. On the language and the culture they relate to the mountain peoples of the North Caucasus and they are some of the the oldest the inhabitants of West Transcaucasia. In the early middle ages Abkhazian Kingdom there existed in at one time with the Georgian Kingdom. In 1860-th years Abkhaziya was included into the Russian Empire. During the achievement and soon after it significant the part of the Abkhazian population (which confesses the mixture of Islamic, Christian and heathen beliefs) was either evicted or independently it was moved into the the adjacent Turkey. Despite to this, at the beginning of the twentieth century Abkhazians still composed the majority on their historical native land. After the revolution 1917 year Abkhaziya entered in the Soviet Union as sovereign republic in the composition so of that called Transcaucasian Federation, and its this status was confirmed in 1925 to year in the newly taken constitution of Abkhaziya. But in 1931 year this status was lowered to the Autonomous Republic in the composition Georgia.

During the Soviet period (especially under Stalin) Abkhaziya underwent massive "Georgification": Abkhazians underwent discrimination in many spheres. Laurentius Beria, the head of the Georgian Communist Party in 1930- yr. played very active role in realizing of this policy. As a result the persentage of Abkhazians sharply changed during the life of two generations. By 1989 year the number of Abkhazians was about 93000 (18 percent of the population of republic), while Georgian population was counted by 240000 (45 percent). Number of Armenians (15 percent of entire population) and Russians (14 percent) also substantially grew.

etc. etc.

To get an idea on how Russian version is different you may use Free On-Line transation services Rovoam

Population
Rovoam

Abkhazian kingdom was one of the feudal knighthoods in Georgia, along with Mengrelian kingdom, Emeretian kingdom, Kartli kingdom and others. There is no documented evidence (Georgian, Armenian, Arab or Greek) that the majority of population of the Abkhazia were the people who are identified currently as Abkhaz, or Georgians (Mengrelians, Svans) for that matter. Historians did not do histories of common people at that time. There is evidence, however, that the feudal lords and the elite of Abkhazia were Georgians. The reunification of Georgia started from Abkhazia by Abkhaz kings (princes), and ended up with kicking out Arabs from the whole territory of Georgia including Tbilisi by David III (see Britannica for that) in the 11th century. Your excerpt from the Russian article somehow misses that. It also misses the fact that during the Russian conquest of Caucasus in the beginning of 19th century, large number of Abkhaz along with other North Caucasian Muslim tribes (Chechens, Cherkez and Adigeess) were forced to abandon their homes to move to Turkey and Arab countries. Consequently more Abkhaz people live currently in Turkey and Jordan than in Abkhazia proper. That ethnic cleansing was done by Russians (not by Stalin – a Russian ruler of Georgian origin) in a similar way what Putin is doing now in Chechnya. So, I'd argue more for questionable neutrality of the Russian article than the English one. Considering the continuing Russian support to Abkhaz and Osetian separatists, using the Russian article as an authoritative source would be the same as using the information from Georgian newsgroups or press. bjs

I just found out that there is a Georgian version of Wikipedia already. Wanna replace the English and Russian articles with the translation of the Georgian one on Abkhazia? Russia has been an active participant in the conflict, and, therefore the Russian page cannot be considered as a neutral source. If there is a need of synchronization among the English, Georgian and Russian pages on Abkhazia on anything else related to the history, politics and culture of Caucasus, the English one needs to be used as an authoritative source and translate it into Russian and Georgian. bjs.


 * Well, if you think that Russian article is not good enough, because Russia has been a participant in the conflict, you probably assume that Russian article was written by Mr.Gorbachev or Mr.Eltsin. Since you think that Georian article is the most objective, you probably think that Georgia is not a participant of the conflict. However, this article was written by me, myself, and I am not a president of Russia, and I am not Abhazian, nor Georgian. &#1052;&#1091; article (in Russian) is based on the objective research, which is available on-line on both Russian and English (see, for example publications of U.S. Institute of Peace, some of them written by G.Starovoitova - a very trusted writer). If you think English version of Wikipedia is a main source, then we need to delete all existing Russian et al articles and translate English Wikipedia into Russian and other languages. However, the quality of English version is very poor (compare to Russian version). I don't think it is really a good idea to have everything identical (and maybe having being approved by The Central Commitee of the Communist Party?)


 * As of Abahizian history you have made a very valid point: there is not enough information - does it mean that we have to take your (pro-Georgian) interpretation? - I don't think so! Unless you are 1000 yesrs old and you lived in Ancient Abhazian Kingdom. But the truth is: Abhazian Kingdom existed at the same time as Georgian Kingdom(s), and at some point in history Abhazian Kings were in control of Georgian Kingdoms (ex. Abhazian king Leo, king George, etc.).


 * But I am not going to argue with you or with other nationalists. Because I don't care. English source of Wikipedia is very biosed already. So do whatever you want. Make up your story the way you want it to be. It's all yours now... Maybe when Abhazian people will read your version of their history they will change their mind too, and the conflict will be over? Good-Bye! And keep dreaming! ROVOAM.


 * P.S. English version of the article does not even mention about Abhazian Kingdom in its history section. What kind of history this is???!!! Is this what you call NPOV?! In Russian Wikipedia there is an article called "Abhazian Kingdom" in addition to the article of "Abhazian Republic" But... you probably don't want to know this! So... Keep dreaming! ROVOAM.

Yes, they were in control of Georgian kingdom and they were Georgians. At least they spoke and wrote in Georgian. Read the history including written by your own historians - Armenians!!! - not the one written on Lubianka. And, please do not vandalize the page. BJS. With due respect to Starovoitova as a Gorbachov’s time human rights activist, she cannot be considered as an authoritative writer on Georgian or Abkhazian history, especially on the ancient history. As for U.S. Institute of Peace, their branches exist in all former SU countries including Georgia and they too have some reputable writers. There publications are also online, and you can read them too and maybe translate in Russian to enhance the quality of your Russian article. BTW, all three countries, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have agreed officially not to use the Russian term Transcaucassia any more. So, please use South Caucasus instead. BJS.


 * OK! Let's hide the well-known history facts to present Gerorgian point of view! Is this what you like to do? With all due respect to your ethnical feeling I would like to include in this article true history section. Sorry, but I would revert your changes. I also have rights to edit this article, not only you. If you don't like this, you are welcome to ask for arbitration. - Rovoam


 * P.S. Transcaucasian Federation and Transcaucassia are not the same terms!

Hi Rovoam, Well, I left the link but I had to revert your history edit, because it is a Russian POV. Abkhaz were not a majority at the begining of 20th century (see the Britanicca reference in the body of the text, which was there before I made any edits to this text). Russians made them a majority through ethnic cleansing. As much as you like to portray it as a conflict between Abkhaz and Georgians, it is not. It is a conflict created by Russians, fueled by Russians, and it will be over soon once Russia becomes a democratic state and quits its imperial ambitions, which is long overdue, and all refugees will return to their home places. BJS.


 * I have read Rovoam edits, while I agree there was POV in it, your edits are as well POV. Many of Rovoam ressources were not Russian "propaganda." And besides, I thought Rovoam was Russian not Armenian. The Russians never made them majority there, please refer to your sources, because what you say here is simply ridiculous. This situation in the article, seems exactly like the Karabagh entry. Fadix 01:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fadix, Before calling something ridiculous, I’d suggest to do a simple logical reasoning and arithmetic: 1. Close to 50% of Abkhazia’s 500,000+ population according 1989 soviet census (not Georgian) were Georgians. Abkhazians at that time were only 70,000-80,000. The Russian military units located in Gudauta and the Russian black sea navy, and so called “volunteers” supported Abkhaz separatists in the war against the Georgian government forces and which led to the wide spread ethnic cleansing of Georgian population. 2. Russia continues to support the separatist regime there both economically and militarily, and resists the return of Georgian refugees to Abkhazia. There is enough evidence for that, even in this encyclopedia (not my contributions, btw). You can also do a simple Google search for that or, even better – Read the Russian duma resolutions, some of which are quite colorful themselves ... Giving Abkhaz and South Ossetians Russian citizenships and almost weekly consultations of Abkhaz and Ossetian’s separatists with Putin, the appointment of Russian generals as security and defense chiefs in the separatists governments are some of the recent evidence of Russia’s deep involvement in the conflict. But, I’m not going to do a homework for you here … I visited the Karabakh page and, yes, one parallel you can draw with the Abkhazia page is probably Rovoam’s involvement. Abkhazia, was historically Georgian territory, from the Colchis time and populated by Georgian tribes – Mengrels and Laz. The Abkhazian elite always was Georgian, even after and during Turkish invasion, conversion of the large part of Abkhazia’s population to Muslim religion and the advance of North Caucasian tribes down to the valley. Sokhumi was a city with Georgian population as a majority at the beginning of 19th century. I’m not familiar with the Albanian history and therefore, I cannot and I will not contribute the Nagorno Kharabakh discussion. I’m not Rovoam to make claims based on a superficial knowledge of something. As for Rovoam’s sources – well, he or she admitted that the article was written by the late ms. Starovoitova – a Russian ethnographer who studied longevity of Armenian population in Nagorno Karabakh and probably highlanders in Abkhazia as well, and who later became a politician and served various elected and government positions in Gorbachov’s and Eltsin’s time. But, being an ethnographer and studying longevity problems does not necessarily qualify her to be an authoritative source on Georgian history, or Armenian history for that matter. That is why, I suggested Rovoam to consult the writings of the old Armenian historians, and do not bring Ms. Starovoitova as an authoritative source on Georgian – Abkhazian history. And, that was it. Cheers and keep up your good work on Armenian culture and history. BJS

to BJS Bravo! Respect !!! Martin

I was young at the conflict time, however, as far as I remember, Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus was not "pro-Russian". On the contrary, it was the most anti-Russian. As far as I remember, the official Russia played pro-Shevarnadzean role in the conflict, but not pro-Abkhazian. For example, the Georgian descent in Gagra I remeber to be made using descent ships provided by the Russian Navy. There was a lot of criticism on the government about the support it provided to Georgians. However, the government feared the beforementioned Confederation which called for expulsion of Russians from the Caucasus and for ethncal cleansings against all non-Caucasians who lived in the Caucasus. This is what my memory tells me, may be it is wrong. --Achp ru 11:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The events between the collapse of the Russian Empire and the formation of the Soviet Union are missing
I believe these to be facts, but please correct me if I'm mistaken:

Abkhazia gained independance from the Russian Empire seperately from Georgia. Abkazia joined the North Caucasian Federation (NCF), Georgia the Democratic Federative Republic of Transcaucasia (DFRTC). Georgia left the DFRTC in 1918 as the Georgian Democratic Republic (GDP). The GDP then went on to annex Abkhazia, even though the two had previously recognised each other's independance. (This was condemned by amongst others the NCF and by the English.) Georgia and Abkhazia then initially joined the Soviet Union as seperate Soviet Republics only to form some sort of confederative union shortly afterwards. It wasn't until 1931 that Abkhazia was made subordinate to Georgia (as an Autonomous Soviet Republic) - by Stalin.

Furthermore, it is relevant that Soviet legislation was such that when Georgia left the Soviet Union in 1991, Abkhazia had the right to determine its own future (i.e. it was legally sovereign).

These are arguments put forward by the Abkhazian side, but I think that it is only fair that as facts these should be mentioned alongside facts supporting the Georgian pov (e.g. that in 1989 the largest ethnic group residing in Abkhazia was Mingrelian Georgians).

[No Title]
This is unbelievable! Wikipedia such a GREAT Internet site and you have such a BAD article. The whole article doesn't represent the TRUTH! It's absolutely PRO-GEORGIAN!!! They tried really hard to make this article, calling people who were fighting back the crusial attack of Georgian army - separatists, and saying 'breaking the peace' to discribe Abkhazian army's action to free the capital from Georgian's, who were killing normal citizens! It's not fair! Let the world know the truth! &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.65.98.11 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:02, 31 December 2005.
 * I probably jumped the gun in undoing this user's edits to this article, in that since this article apparently has POV issues they might have had some valid content. Someone who's familiar with the issue of Georgia might want to give them a look. On the other hand some easily checkable false numbers were inserted, things like "on the western end for Georgia" were deleted for no apparent reason, and the user has committed some previous vandalism. --Kizor 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

List of unrecognized countries
User:Irakliy81 has made some major changes to the description of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on List of unrecognized countries. Here's the diff:

I'm not sure how NPOV the old and new versions are, so comments are most welcome. -- ran (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the old version was perfectly neutral and I see no justification for the new version.


 * I re-add the original descriptions before they were changed. --Khoikhoi 18:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reworking article Georgian-Abkhaz conflict
I am trying to add a new section describing the stance of the Abkhaz side in the conflict so far. Talk:Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. I have found some references for that. Please come and contribute with verified information. Donnerstag 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

suhum, suhumi... etc

 * 1) I just think that having next to each other two links which led to the same article (one through redirect page) - is nonsense.
 * 2) And abkhazia definitly cannot be considered - georgia's subdivision.
 * 3) Regarding status: they are not sturgling for independence, which would refer to theeir "separatist" status. So "de-facto independent" is more appropriate wording. --tasc 08:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please fix the errors in the article but don't do wholesale reverts. --Khoikhoi 15:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well... That's exactly what i've been doing! No? --tasc 15:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, you reverted, but the article still had some POV in it, like the scare quotes. --Khoikhoi 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall assessment of the Article

I think the author of this article is intentionally misleading the public/reader. First of all, Abkhazia is part of Georgia (officially recognized, even by Russia). So subdividing it under Georgia is proper categorization of Abkhazia.

The status as de facto independent is not valid. International community (mainly UN OSCE) recognizes and conforms the status of Abkhazia as autonomous republic within Georgia.

As for "de facto independent." Who gave that status to Abkhazia? where did they vote for that status? is it documented? was it officially recognized? where are your sources for such claim? why don’t you indicate a valid source for any claims you making for the status of Abkhazia?

The name "Sukhum." It is not an official name of the city. The official name is Sukhumi. Where are your sources for claim that Sukhum is the official name of the city? please provide valid non-biased primary and secondary sources. You can not mislead the reader by changing the name of the city based on suggestions. Did you commit yourself for extensive research by using scholarly articles?

Finally after reading the whole article the conclusion is following:

1. Unfortunately Author is biased, and bases his arguments mostly on non-sourced, not-researched material. Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this article. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim (author has failed to do so). The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of the information.

2. The author does not provide primary and secondary sources for most of his claim.

3. You can not base your claims and make corrections based on what separatist regime is considering the status of Abkhazia or the name of the city. That government is not recognized by international community and therefore its claims are not valid and not be considered as authority on status of Abkhazia.

4. History section is completely revised, un-researched, biased and based only on claims (not supported by any publication, research material, historic data, etc).

Therefore, this article about Abkhazia should be considered as biased and corrupted. Unfortunately by violating basic research tactics for any disputed topic, you underline the validity and truthfulness of the article. The author should be responsible for any input or editing he/she is undertaking.

Luis Dingley York University

Biased? No sources/refs
They do not say that Abkhazia is a sovereign country. And they include Abkhazia as unrecognized country or special territory. Don't see any reasons to delete them. --tasc 13:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr tasc,

Please state a valid source or reference anywhere where the status is defined as "unrecognized country" or "special status" Please also within your source include the status of Abkhazia by United Nations, OSCE, and any other world organizations which govern and maintain the international law. You still use unprofessional approach to the topic. You are claiming unrealistic and un-sourced materials. Please before making any claims (which are hinting on the bias of your opinion) state primary and secondary sources or any other references as applicable.

To the reader of this “article”!

Unfortunately as a student I can not use this article as it is biased, misleading and completely disregarding the notions of research, facts, sources and truthfulness. Please refer to proper sources on the question of Abkhazia.

L. Dingley, York U.

'''p.s somebody should label this article as a dispute and biased! This article is a complete falsehood and can not be considered as valid.'''

'''MR TASC, YOU ARE VIOLATING WIKEPEDIA RULES. DO NOT REMOVE THE DISPUTED LABEL FROM THE ARTICLE. THE ARTICLE IS DISPUTED AND NEED TO BE RE-EDITED AND CHANGED. YOU CAN NOT SIMPLY REMOVE THE DISPUTED LABEL WITHOUT FIXING OR ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM FIRST! ATTENTION, THIS ARTICLE IS MISLEADING, FALSE AND BIASE. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR ARGUMENT BELLOW.

LD'''


 * LD, can you, without screaming, tell us what you object to? Is it simply that Abhazia is a de facto independent but unrecognized country? That is common knowledge, as any perusal of a news source such as the BBC or The Economist will tell you, so that's easy enough to fix. Is there anything else that's a problem? kwami 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kwami,

Im sorry but many people use this article as a research for the issue of Abkhazia. Firstly, you are wrong. When you use the term "official status" it only refers to the status which was recognized by the international community/organizations such as UN, OSCE, etc. UN clearly states the official status of Abkhazia as Autonomosu Republic within Georgia and therefore recognizes the status definition in the Georgian Constitution. Economist and BBC are not considered as international organizations which maintain the international law. Secondly, this article has no sources. The author is not familiar with primary and secondary sources. The history section is a complete falsehood and unfortunately the author took the info from the web sites (which is not a valid source). Please refer to David Marshal Langs scholarly articles on History of Caucasus and also W.E.B. Allen, A History of Georgian People. There are tons of scholarly articles, books and materials about history of Abkhazia (many of which i have studied) which completely differs from the claims of this author.

Thirdly, the corrections were made based on claims by the Russian readers. Biased opinions by Russian visitors are obvious. I labelled this article as disputed due to many facts of misleading info and false statements. I will contribute if agreed to the article based on primary and secondary sources (mainly western historians to avoid any bias).

The author does not have a right to remove the disputed label till the matter is resolved.

many Thanks
 * there is nothing to resolve, unless you give us an example. so far you failed to do so. --tasc 07:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

from Encyclopedia.com

"Abkhazia ABKHAZIA [Abkhazia], autonomous republic (1990 est. pop. 539,000), 3,300 sq mi (8,547 sq km), in Georgia, between the Black Sea and the Greater Caucasus. Sukhumi (the capital) and Gagra are the chief cities. Despite some perpetually snowcapped peaks, the region is mainly one of subtropical"

dear mr tasc by just systematically removing disputed label on the article, you are not helping your argument and disregard opponents valid claims. :(
 * please, check who is reverting you. It's not me, though i completely support it. I've asked to have points clarified for the discussion. Not to cite another encyclopedia. Points. Do you think that correction made on claims of russian readers is smth. to discuss? What kind of sources do you mean? Do you see sources in Armenia? Or United Kingdom? What exactly should they support? Article nowhere says that Abhazia is recognized by UN. I hope that de-facto notion causes no problem in understanding. --tasc 07:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between Abhazia being de jure an autonomous state in Georgia and de facto independent (independent of Georgia, anyway; one could argue about whether it's independent of Russia). This is the standard boiler plate wording used for such states: Chechnya in the late 1990s, Northern Cyprus, Taiwan. I fail to see any problem here.

As for the history section, I think it would be profitable to summarize your points of difference and hopefully give your sources. I don't know if they'll be immediately accepted or if they will trigger debate (I am completely ignorant of the situation in Abhazia), but that's the place to start. If you're going to object to the slant of an article, you need to state specifically what you object to. Otherwise the warning is useless, and I don't blame people for removing it. kwami 08:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, Without stating sources you can not claim the article to be true or relevant to the issue. Therefore, you do not have authority over the issue of Abkhazia. Many readers are misguided by the article which has tons of false claims and un-researched materials.

Mr kwami, Please study the issue before comparing it to Chechnya, Cyprus or Taiwan. Abkhazia has no identities with those political conflicts. Please give me more time and I will summarize all false claims, bias statements, and misleading info which this article gives about Abkhazia in terms of its status, history and conflict of 1992-93. I will use western scholars (exempt Mr Hewitt who has proven himself as biased and provocative historian) and ancient historical sources. The label is justly attached and I have already challenged the author for false statements. If you ar eindiferent to Abkhazia issue, please do not add more tension and statements (specially when you have no idea about the background of this issue). I have studied this conflict for a while now in the conflict resolution dep at York. I have collected one of the best documented materials on Abkhazia.

Due to this, do not remove the label which is justly attached to this article. I will appeal it to Wiki administration for violating the right of every visitor to question and deny the false statements made by the article.
 * 1) please sign your comments with 4 tildas ~
 * 2) so far you haven't presented anything but your own pov on talk page, therfore i cannot agree to have tag
 * 3) explain, what kind of source and for what particular statements you want to be provided.
 * 4) i'd be glad when you share some of your knowledge. --tasc 15:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are corrections to the history section

Sources: Dr. Andrew Andersen, History of Caucasus, p.39-68

W.E.B Allen, History of Georgian People, 1937 Issue, p. 110

David Marshall Lang, Making of Georgian Nation, 1 edition, p. 86

Medieval Abkhazia (ca 620 - 1221)
KING LEON OF EGRIS-ABKHAZIA

At the very end of the 8th century, Abkhazian Achrontos (Byzantine-appointed Governor) Leon launched an anti-imperial uprising, ousted Byzantine troops from most of Lazica, proclaimed the Kingdom of Egris-Abkhazia and bestowed the title of the King upon himself. As of today, some verbal supporters of Abkhazian separatism mistakenly believe that the Kingdom of Egris-Abkhazia was the first state of the Apsuans. That is wrong due to the fact that by its whole nature, Egris-Abkhazia was a pure example of a Georgian state: the majority of its population were Svans, Zans and Kartvelians (all the three groups were speaking closely related languages and were representing the branches of the furture Georgian nation), the official languages were Kartvelian (Georgian) alongside with Greek, the capital of the Kingdom was Kutaisi that was almost purely Kartvelian city. Two decades later, Egris-Abkhazia also seceded from Byzantine Empire ecclesiastically: Egris-Abkhazian church broke with the Patriarch of Constantinople and went under the Jurisdiction of the Catholicos of Mtskheta (the head of East Georgian Orthodox Christian Church) and switched the language of services from Greek to Georgian (Kartvelian). In fact, that was the creation of a united Georgian church that has been existing since the above events excluding a relatively short period of time between 1810 and 1917. (Andersen)

The end of the 10th century saw the forming of the first united Georgian monarchy when Curopalate David of Tao-Klarjeti invaded the Erldom of Kartli previously disputed between the Emirate of Tephelis, and the Kingdoms of Kakheti and Egris-Abkhazia, and crowned his adopted son Bagrat Bagrationi the King of Kartli in 975. Three years later, after the death of his uncle Theodosius the Blind, King of Egris-Abkhazia, Bagrat inherited Abkhazian throne. In 1001 Bagrat also included Tao-Klarjeti (Curopalatinate of Iberia) into his domain as a result of David’s death and finally, in 1008-1010 annexed Kakheti and Ereti thus becoming the King of the united Georgia both eastern and western. (Allen)

SELJUK INVASION: ABKHAZIA BECOMES ONE OF THE LAST BASTIONS OF GEORGIAN RESISTANCE

The second half of the 11th century was marked by the disastrous invasion of the Seljuk Turks who by the end of 1040s succeeded in building a vast nomadic empire including most of the Central Asia and Iran. In 1071 Seljuk army destroyed the united Byzantine-Armenian and Georgian forces in the battle of Mantsikert, and by 1081, all of Armenia, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria and most of Georgia and other countries of the area were conquered and devastated by the Seljuks.

In Georgia, it was only Abkhazia and mountainous areas of Svanetia, Racha and Khevi-Khevsureti remained out of Seljuk control and served as relatively safe haven for numerous refugees. All the rest of the country was dominated by the conquerors that were destroying the cities and fortresses, looting the villages, wiping out both aristocracy and farming population and colonizing the country with the nomadic tribes from Central Asia. In fact, by the end of the 80s of the 11th century, Georgians were at the edge of being irreversibly outnumbered by the newcomers in their own land. (Andersen)

KING DAVID AGMASHENEBELI AND GEORGIAN RECONQUISTA: 1089 -1125

The Anti-Seljuk struggle in Georgia was led by the young King David IV who inherited the throne in 1089 in the age of 16 after the death of his father George II Bagrationi.

Soon after coming to power, David re-built regular army and created peasant militia in order to be able to resist Seljuk colonization of the country. The First Crusade (1096-1099) and Crusaders’ offensive against Seljuk Turks in Anatolia and Syria favored David’s attempts to re-conquer Georgia. By the end of 1099 David stopped paying tribute to the Seljuks and put most of Georgian lands except Tbilisi and Ereti under his effective control having Abkhazia and Svanetia as his reliable rear bases.

In 1105–1124 Georgian armies under King David undertake a series of brilliant campaigns against the Seljuk Turks and liberate not only the rest of Georgia but also Christian-populated Ghishi- Kabala area in western Shirvan and a big portion of Armenia. During the same period of time, Georgian protectorate was established over Alania (1120) and Islamized eastern Shirvan (1124). Several months later, King David died (01/1125) leaving Georgia with the status of a strong regional power. In his country, King David is called Agmashenebeli. That can be translated into English as “the re-constructor” or “the restorer”

QUEEN TAMAR THE GREAT: 1184 -1213

Reign of Queen Tamar was the peak of Georgia’s might in the whole history of the nation.

In 1194-1204 Tamar’s armies crushed new Turkish invasions from the south-east and south and launched several successful campaigns into Turkish-controlled Southern Armenia. As a result, most of Southern Armenia with the cities of Karin, Erzinjan, Khelat, Mush and Van, was put under Georgian control. Although not included into Georgian Crown lands and left under nominal rule of local Turkish Emirs and Sultans, Southern Armenia became a protectorate of the Kingdom of Georgia.

The temporary fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 to the Crusaders left Georgia the strongest Christian State in the whole East Mediterranean area. The same year Queen Tamar sent her troops to take over the former Byzantine Lazona and Paryadria with the cities of Atina, Riza, Trebizond, Querasunt, Amysos, Kotyora, Heraclea and Sinopa. In 1205, the occupied territory was transformed into the Empire of Trebizond with Tamar’s’ relative Prince Alexius Comnenus crowned Emperor. Although officially called an Empire the new state was Georgia’s dependency for more than two hundred years.

In 1210 Georgian armies invaded northern Iran (today’s Iranian Azerbaijan) and took the cities of Marand, Tebriz, Ardebil, Zenjan and Kazvin putting part of the conquered territory under Georgian protectorate. That was the maximal extent of Georgia throughout her history. During the described period of time Queen Tamar was addressed as “The Queen of Abkhazians, Kartvels, Rans, Kakhs and Armenians, Shirvan-Shakhine and Shakh-in-Shakhine, The Sovereign of the East and West”. Georgian historians often refer to her as “Queen Tamar the Great”.

The period between the early 12th and the early 13th centuries and especially, the era of Tamar the Great, can truly be considered as the golden age of Georgia. Besides the political and military achievements, it was marked by the development of culture including the architecture, literature, philosophy and sciences all over Georgia including Abkhazia. (Andersen)
 * do you understand difference between history of Georgia and history of Abkhazia? --tasc 15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

tasc, they are the same country if you read properly historical materials. Please allow me to finnish!

Early History
Proto-Kartvelians were bordered by Zykh tribes to the north-west (those were Proto-Adygh ancestors of modern Adygh and Apsua ), Proto-Nakhs (ancestors of modern Chechens and some Daghestani peoples) to the north-east, Proto-Armenians to the south-east and Aramaeic-speaking tribes to the south and south-west.

Between 2100 and 750 B.C., the area survived the invasions by the Hittites, Celts, Medes, Proto-Persians and Cimmerians. At the same period, the ethnic unity of Proto-Kartvelians broke up into several branches, among them Svanian, Zanyan and East-Kartvelian ones.

That finally led to the formation of modern Kartvelian languages: Georgian (originating from East Kartvelian vernaculars), Svan, Megrelian and Laz (the latter two originating from Zan dialects).

By that time Svans were dominant in modern Svanetia and Abkhazia while Zans inhabited modern Georgian province of Samegrelo, north-eastern coast of Turkey between the rivers of Coruh and Kizil-Irmak, and partially Georgian provinces of Imereti and Guria. As of today, most of Abkhazian Georgians speak Megrelian together with Georgian while those living in Kodori canyon, still speak Svan. (Andersen) As a result of cultural and geographic delimitation, two core areas of future Georgian culture and statehood formed in western and eastern Georgia by the end of the 8th century B.C. The first Georgian state was the Kingdom of Colchis that covered modern western Georgia (including Abkhazia) and modern Turkish provinces of Coruh & Rize. The Kingdom of Colchis has been mentioned in ancient chronicles at least since the middle of the 6th century B.C.

There is little or no exact information about the ethnic composition of Colchis and Iberia. Since 2 000 B.C., north-western Colchis (modern Abkhazia and part of Krasnodar territory of Russia) was inhabited not only by the Svan and Zan/Sanygh but partially also by the Apsyl people whose origins are unclear. It is assumed but not proven that the Apsyls could be the ancestors of today’s Apsua (one of the ethnic groups of modern Abkhazia speaking distinct language belonging to Adygh group). In any case though, the Apsyls made up less than a quarter of the whole population of north-western Colchis (modern Abkhazia) of that time.

Another important ethnic element of ancient Colchis were Greeks who between 1000 and 550 B.C., established quite a few trade colonies in the coastal area among them Naessus, Pitiys (modern resort town of Pitsunda), Dioscurias, Guenos, Phasis (modern Poti), Apsaros and Rhizos (modern Rize in Turkey). Most of the local Greeks called Pontic Greeks, used to live in the coastal cities where they dominated culturally while their influence in the rural area was quite limited.

Between 653 and 333 B.C., both Colchis and Iberia were successfully surviving in fight against Median and later Persian empires. At the end of the 3d century, southern Iberia saw the armies of Alexander the Great who established a vast Greco-Macedonian empire to the south of the Caucasus dominating both west- and central Asia as well as Greece, Egypt and partially India. Neither Iberia, nor Colchis were incorporated into the empire of Alexander or any of the successor Ellinistic states of the Middle East. However, all ancient Georgian kingdoms especially Colchis, were greatly influenced by ancient Greek culture. Greek was widely spoken all over the country and for a while was one of the official languages.

Between the early 2nd century, B.C.and the late 2nd century A.D., the Kingdom of Colchis together with the neighbor countries, become an arena of long and devastating conflicts between major local powers Rome, Armenia and the short-lived Kingdom of Pontus.

Between 120 and 63 BC, King Mithridate VI Eupator of Pontus, conquered all the Colchis including modern Abkhazia, and incorporated it into his domain that for a while embraced a considerable part of Asia Minor as well as eastern and northern Black Sea coastal areas.

From 187 to 70 B.C., the coalition of greater Armenia and Pontus was actively expanding at the expense of Rome taking over its East Mediterranean possessions. However, the success of anti-Roman alliance did not last long.

As a result of brilliant Roman campaigns of Pompeus and Lucullus, the Kingdom of Pontus was completely destroyed by the Romans and all its territory including Colchis (with modern Abkhazia as its part), were incorporated into Roman Empire as her provinces.

The former Kingdom of Colchis was re-organized by the Romans into the province of Lazicum ruled by Roman legati. The Roman period was marked by further Hellenization of the country in terms of language, economy and especially culture. For example, since the early 3d century, Greco-Latin Philosophical Academy of Phasis (present-day Poti) was quite famous all over the Roman Empire.

The following 600 years of West Georgian/Abkhazian history were marked with manipulation between Rome and Parthia (Iran) who were fighting long wars against each other for the domination in the Middle East including Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Albania (territory of modern Azerbaijan) Iberia and Lazicum.

Persian invasions of Georgian lands touched predominantly Iberia (Eastern Georgia) and less Lazicum (Western Georgia with Abkhazia) where Roman and later Byzantine (East Roman) positions were quite stable until the very end of the 3d century.

In the early 3d century, Roman province of Lazicum was given certain degree of autonomy that by the end of the century developed into full independence and formation of a new Kingdom of Lazica-Egrisi on the basis of smaller principalities of Zans, Svans, Apsyls and Sanyghs. That new West-Georgian state survived more than 250 years until in 562 it was absorbed by East Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

In the middle of the 4h century, Lazica adopted Christianity as her official religion. That event was preceded by the arrival of St. Simon the Kananites (or Kananaios in Greek) who was preaching all over Lazica and met his death in Suaniri (Abkhazia). According to Moses of Chorene, the enemies of Christianity cut him in two halves with a saw.

The re-incorporation of Lazica with Abkhazia into East Roman Empire in 562 was followed by ca 150 years of relative stability that ceased in the early 7th century when the Arabs appeared in the area as a new regional if not global power.

'''I need more time for complete explanation of sources and more historic materials. Also conflict section is completely wrong. Please give me more time.

Mr tasc Thanks for inviting me for discussion, I hope we can keep our conversation pleasant. I also have interesting maps of the region but i don’t know how to share them with you, please let me know how can i send them to you. '''
 * There is a link on the left side. Upload files And please, sign your comments --tasc 15:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Info
Article states the Abkhazian Autonomous Republic was annulled by Georgian Parliament. This is False! Only Ossetian Autonomous "Oblast" was annulled by the Gamsakhurdia govenment. Abkhazian Autonomous status has never being changed. Ministers (Arzimba, Eshba, Shartava, etc) of Abkhaz Autonomous Government were elected just days before the war.

How can you fool reader so much with so many false claims?
 * links please. --tasc 15:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I never use web site links a reliable sources, only documented articles. Here one from Amy McCallion, Abkhazian Separatism, 2000 first edition Rev 1 article, published: Review of International Studies.

“In 1991, the newly formed Georgian Assembly, under the leadership of President Eduard Shevardnadze (Gorbachev’s onetime foreign minister), reinstalled the Georgian Constitution of 1921 and tried to revoked the national autonomy of the Abkhazians, However failed to do so.

JDingley

BTW tasc, if its not a secret, what is your nationality?
 * what about later 15 years? was smth. published about this period? i don't have one. why? --tasc 18:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * for good sake put damn 4 tildas at the end of your comments. And btw who is going to clean mess you left in history section? --tasc 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen tasc, lets keep civilized way of communication please! I don’t know what is tildas (im new to wiki), so relax, i'll learn. As for History section, it has to be there. Anyone has a right to edit the article based on existing knowledge/facts (backed by sources, primary/secondary). So the reader should have access to all kind of information about Abkhazia. There was no history of Abkhazia available for middle ages (which is very important). Your History section is written with many invalid and misguided claims, which are not historical facts but more propaganda case for separatist cause. Did you do the research on Abkhaz history? You claim its not Georgian history while it has been Kingdom within Georgia for the most part of its existence. As for sources, i need them for those historic claims which you or author are making. Do not quote me BBC, Economist or some pro separatist or pro Russian web site BS (pardon).


 * Im not blaming anyone, i just want to correct some very serious mistakes. Many have used means of propaganda and provocations about the topic which sadly later created the conflict between two very close nations. Im offering you a civilized communication and of exchanging facts about Abkhazia. I don’t want reader to be misguided, and have access to some biased an untrue claims (like so many pro separatist or pro Russian web sites on the net). That is my only concern, and as Wiki rules dictate I have every right for that. I'll post more info but I need more time because I have very limited time.
 * p.s what do you mean by 15 years?

Luis
 * I have patiently enought showed what 4 tildas is: ~ . Today is 2006. 1991 was 15 years ago. What you don't understand is that your part-of-georgia opinion is also pov. --tasc 21:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr tasc, you only demonstrated personal attacks and so far i haven’t seen any valid argument which could say otherwise about the issue. Abkhazia being part of Georgia is not a POV but a real fact, politically or historically. I was ready to introduce them to you but you simply have anti Georgian bias so there is no point. However, this does not give you right to mislead the reader of this article. You still haven’t responded or presented sources for your unfound and provocative anti Georgian claims. Unfortunately, you are not ready for civilized discussion. I deeply regret it. All the best, Luis DingleyNoxcho 01:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To Ldingley
Dear Mr. Dingley,

I would like to inform you, if you don't know already, of our Neutral Point of View policy here at Wikipedia. It means including every point of view no matter how ridiculous they may seem. Your additions made to this article reflect the Georgian POV. For example, you added:

''As of today, some verbal supporters of Abkhazian separatism mistakenly believe that the Kingdom of Egris-Abkhazia was the first state of the Apsuans. That is wrong due to the fact that by its whole nature, Egris-Abkhazia was a pure example of a Georgian state.''

It is your POV that it is wrong. This article is already very neutral and I personally don't see anything wrong with it. Your additions are not neutral, furthermore, the sources you have been citing, e.g "History of Georgian People", "Making of Georgian Nation" are not acceptable for a NPOV encyclopedia. I'm going to be reverting your edits until you can make your paragraphs sound more neutral.

P.S. if you're wondering what my nationality is, I'm American. Half Jewish, 1/4 Dutch, 1/4 English. --Khoikhoi 01:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To Khoikhoi-Biased provocators no pasaran!
Mr Khoikhoi, So you want to lie to the reader and tent the truth? No the statement was writen by Dr Andrew Andersen (historian of Caucasus region) and he is definatelly not Georgian POV. You can not consider it as Georgian POV, you are Biased by making such assumptions.

Im sorry but you failed neutrality long ago. Based on your article it is very much pro separatist and anti Georgian. I already stated the luck of valid and reliable sources.

I will keep fighting for the sake of reason and reality. You systematically try to mislead the reader who may be interested in this region. You have failed to present solid historical and political backing for your claims. Both books stated by me are written by Western Scholars. You like it or not, Abkhazia historically was part of Georgia and only historical sources for that region you may find only in the pages of Georgian history (starting from Greek historians, ending up with western scholars on Caucasus).

I have now realized how biased people can manipulate the issue.

Im Scottish/French Canadian

LD


 * LD, you do not seem to be editing in good faith. You accuse others of being dishonest, when you have no reason to believe this is true. You engage in personal attacks. You won't even cooperate with something as simple as typing ~ at the end of a comment. True, one of the people you are debating with is also rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, but only one, and you accuse everyone. I suggest that if you wish to engage in civil debate, you try being civil yourself, and to assume good faith on the part of others. kwami 01:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've skimmed over your additions. Two things:
 * They read like a history of the Glory That Is Georgia rather than a history of Abhazia.
 * I strongly suspect that you have plagiarized the entire passage, which is a copyright violation. kwami 02:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Kwami, Im not blaming everybody, and specially not you :) But how would you feel or say when they intentionally change history and reality? i studied Caucasian conflicts, history, ethnology, linguistics for long time now. I have made contacts with many specialists of this region. One of our students wrote an essay and we as TA gave it a bad grade. Do you know what this student did? She took info from wikipedia, professor was outraged by the amount of false claims. Later i went through wiki myself. Abkhazia article is completely false, Chechnya one is 50/50, Karabakh is ok but can be fixed in some places, Ossetian-Ingush conflict is bit better, etc. Mr Khoikhoi was awarded so many times “combating chauvinism” when he supports it. The whole article is anti Georgian and pro separatist bias. Facts are facts, you love Georgians or hate them, and you cannot edit historical data so freely as you can do it on wiki :) I promise to use Noxch Borz 02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC) all the time kwami! I haven’t plagirazed anything, you may contact mr Andersen freely, ask me and I’ll give you his email. He is professor of History in Vancouver. Abkhazia History is Georgian History kwami, they are not separate entities. Only people like Khoikhoi(specialist in Daghestani villages) and tasc who never read history of the region can claim otherwise :) cheers LD Noxch Borz 02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Dingley, the problem is that you're looking at this from a Georgian perspective. It's a fact that Abkhazia is de facto independent. Just taking the Georgian POV and saying that it's part of Georgia isn't acceptable here.


 * Despite what you think, can you really say that Abkhazia is part of Georgia? Just because it is recognized as being in Georgia doesn't mean that it's true. For years the US refused to accept the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states, however they were part of the USSR from WWII on, right? --Khoikhoi 02:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, lack of basic knowladge on the topic !
Khoikhoi have you ever read history of Abkhazia? Have you ever made a serious research on this region/topic? im sorry but you can not compare Baltic states within Soviet union to Abkhazia case. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Never say that because people will definitely think that you have no idea even about soviet system or have any background in History. Abkhazia historically was a Georgian Kingdom populated since the Kingdom of Colchis by Mingrelo-Svan speaking people (ei south Caucasian Kartvelian speaking groups). This territory was called Lazica-Egrisi. In Middle Ages the territory was called Kingdom of Abkhazeti-Egrisi which had its capital in Kutaisi and was part of newly formed united Georgian Kingdom of Bagrat Courapalates. Only during the Ottoman invasion this territory was striped from Georgia. By that time, there were predominantly Mingrelians (ethnic Georgians) living in that region, However near Gulripsh, Gudauta and Gagra Abasginians lived side by side with Mingrelians and Svans (both are ethnic Georgian groups). Abasginian origins are very much disputed by historians. As Andersen writes pro separatists say they are ancestors of modern Apsua (Abkhazians).

Now this is very important Khoikhoi, Kwami and tasc! During the Russian campaign of colonization in Adigey-Circasia, they have massacred and killed thousands of local tribes (this terror was called "Mukhazirstvo") such as Shapsugs, Apsuas and Abazgins. Their whole population was systematically killed. That time prince of Abkhazia Grand Duke I. Shervashidze (Shervashidze’s were dominant rulers of Abkhazia region) pleaded with the Tzar to stop the Mukhazirstvo. In return he dislocated these tribes into his Kingdom of Abkhazia in the areas of northern Gudauta, Gagra and Ochamchire. Tzar granted Shervashidze his plea and allowed only Apsuas to dislocate into his Kingdom. These tribes later mixed with local Mingrelians (90% of Abkhaz last names are Mingrelian). Now the term itself Abkhazian in Middle Ages referred to Mingrelians. There are tons of evidence for it. Today the Separatists call themselves Apsua (Aps’wa) and their land Apsny (Aps’ny). Mingrelian call themselves Abkhazian (Abxazebi) and their land Abkhazia (Aphkhazeti). These are facts which come from many different sources, books, historical documents, research, etc. All of you are not well informed or well read about the background of the issue. I travelled actually to the separatist Abkhazia with Mr James Loyd. We inspected churches (built by Bagrat Courapalates and by later Georgian Kings) historical monuments and so on. Actually grave of King Bagrat Courapalates was bombed by Separatists to completely erase everything Georgian, including church walls which had Georgian inscriptions. I have noticed a same pattern here. You intentionally change and erase the facts of history, claim the unthinkable by comparing it to Baltic states and so on. Please for the sake of reason conduct more research on the topic. You are gravely mistaken. Abkhazia topic is not same as Karabakh, Chechnya, Palestine, Tibet or Cyprus. I will finally finish with my last comment. You have not mentioned the facts of ethnic cleansing of Georgians in the war. Just recently Hague tribunal adopted the term ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia, by 2007 they want to start the hearings on that case. Close to approximately 20,000 people of Georgian origin were systematically massacred. For the last 5 years under the watch of so called Russian peacekeepers, massacres are endless in the Gali region. 300,000 IDPs are on the merge of starvation and unseen misery. Unfortunately I don’t find any more reason to argue with you. You are typical anti Georgian biased individual whose goal and intention is to manipulate history for the sake of separatist or any other cause. I don’t have time or energy to argue with people like yourself mr Khoikhoi. However, I will pass on this article to some experts I know (mainly they are in Berlin). I hope they will appeal to Wikipedia administration for violating basic rules of truthfulness and fairness. Thanks a lot for discussions thou. LDNoxch Borz 14:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Noxch Borz is right in many respects. His edits are, however, far from NPOV as it does not even allow the Abkhaz vision of the problems to be also represented. The article needs some revision to be clearly neutral. There’s also a serious lack of references and sources and the external links need to be categorized into pro-Abkhaz (more precisely pro-secessionist) and pro-Georgian. There are, no doubt, many more interesting and important facts worthy of a mention in this article.. I'll work on this as soon as I can find the time. I also hope to receive positive input and co-operation from you all. Thanks, Kober 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Kober,I’m ready to co-operate with you on the article if you will allow me to do so. The article is without any reliable source or scholarly article. Mr Koikoi called me a pro Georgian POV due to the reasons that i quoted scholarly, historical materials of David Marshal Lang (Professor of Caucasian studies, Harvard University) and W.E.B. Allen (well knows historian of Ancient Armenia and Caucasus). Both books are titled Georgians or History of Georgian Nation. There is no single book about Abkhazian nation or History of Abkhazia. The only valid source for Abkhazian history you may find in books based on Georgian History by western scholars and historians (except George Hewitt who has an Abkhazian wife and has proven to be biased). Mr Roger Rosen (long time scholar of that region) has extensively and for a long time studied Georgia and Caucasus. He also has valid and reliable sources for the historic part of Abkhazia and war period. Please refer to his work for details (I can send you his materials). Another specialist of Caucasus conflictlogy is Dr Andrew Andersen, who has created many historic maps and scholarly articles about Abkhazia, Chechnya, Karabakh and Georgia. Mr. Khoikhoi fails to understand the importance of reliable, well documented primary and secondary sources. You can not oppose the existing academic work which is available for public. I can provide with full info on what i have mentioned above. I was lucky enough to have worked at University of Toronto where they have amazing collection of historic materials about Abkhazia. Thanks.Noxchi Borz 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Incredible! It's totally pro-georgian orientated article. Who cares about people who live in Abkhazia? What about their opinion? This article is too narrow... It's not representing the truth. Situation in Abkhazia is different. No-one mentions those parts of history when the country was independent from Georgia, no-one says about how and why Georgia started the War, no-one mentions what a disaster it was for Abkhazians... Why? Why not tell the truth?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zone (talk • contribs).


 * Please indicate reliable source where is clearly blaims Georgia for starting a war. Do you have also a source for claim that Abkhazia was independent? You want the truth? Do more research, use place importance on sources.Noxchi Borz 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Noxchi Borz, and thanks for taking an interest in the history of Georgia, which is, in a matter of fact, inseparable from that of Abkhazia, and to claim otherwise means to push a POV. The article, in my opinion, should focus on the fact that the region is home to both Abkhaz and Georgian peoples, both have their arguments and both suffered heavily from the conflict, not to say about the ethnic cleansing of the Georgians.


 * The current version of the article does lack neutrality. It doesn’t clearly explain the de jure (internationally recognized) status of Abkhazia and the Abkhazia location map within Georgia was removed without reasoning. I think a box containing the basic info about Abkhazia, as an autonomous republic within Georgia, should also be added.


 * I’ll probably start from the early history of Abkhazia… It’ll take some time, however. When contributing to the article about such a controversial and delicate issue, you have to have your edits backed up by millions of references, so you know…


 * Best wishes, Kober 06:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bagapsh not officialy President
Mr Bagaph is not a President (the capital letter "P" indicates official status) as he was not officially recognized by international community as such, he is president (self-claimed) of separatist govenment. The term "de facto government" is wrong, the proper name is separatist government. Pro Georgian government is exile is very wrong. By official (and im highlighting OFFICIAL by UN and OSCE) name is "Legitimate Government of Abkhazian Autonomous Republic in Exile" UN, OSCE, Helsinki Convention on Abkhazia 1998. This government was democratically and officially recognized, headed by Zhiuli Shartava, Raul Eshba (an Abkhaz BTW), Tamaz Nadareishvili and later joined by Guram Gabiskiria (killed and mutilated on September 27, 1995 along with Shartava, Eshba, and many others by Abkhaz/North caucasian/Russian forces). Mr Saakashvili has removed Mr Alasania from heading this government and made him an envoy of president of Georgia to Abkhazia. read recent news. Thanks. Luis Dingley Noxchi Borz 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

UN Press release from Norwegian reps:
 * "Within the frameworks of its visit to Georgia the Norwegian delegation met Irakli Alasania, head of the legitimate government of Abkhazia in exile, Irakli Chogovadze, Minister of Economic Development and Gia Kavtaradze, Justice Minister."

OSCE Press release:
 * "Irakli Alasania, Head of the legitimate government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia in exile was appointed to the position of the Counsellor of the President of Georgia.

Council of Europe Doc. 10848:


 * “…including emergency humanitarian aid, without which the Georgian Government and the legitimate government-in-exile of Abkhazia, which is responsible for the displaced persons, would be unable to cope)….”

Noxchi Borz 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Subdivision
We should respect the international recognition and law which states clearly on the status of Abkhazia as part of Georgia. It is not a country but Autonomous Republic within Georgia. Removing the tag can only indicate to one thing: Anti Georgian e.i pro Separatist POV and completely disregard for NPOV. Otherwise please provide reliable sources before changing or re-editing the article. Noxchi Borz 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The pro-separatist POV would say "Abkhazia is an independent country", not ""Abkhazia is a de facto independent country".


 * Here's a source: BBC - Abkhazia has been de facto independent for more than a decade, following a bloody war for independence. --Khoikhoi 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, you've probably overlooked that BBC classifies Abkhazia under the Regions and Territories category and defines its status as a Republic within Georgia. The UN agencies always use "Abkhazia, Georgia". The current article already has a Europe template illustrating Abkhazia as a de facto independent country. Can you clearly explain why you consider adding a Georgia template a POV? I modified it and added notes about Abkhazia and South Ossetia to meet NPOV policy. Have you forgotten that Wikipedia policy not only allows but requires the inclusion of all viewpoints? Please be more cooperative. Kober 04:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooops, just realized that the template has a footnote in it that clearly says that it is a self-proclaimed republic. I'll re-add it - in what ways am I not being cooperative? --Khoikhoi 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I simply mean that not all edits made by a Georgian user are POV. They should not be immediately reverted without consideration. I absolutely agree with Noxchi that the proper use of official international sources will allow the article to be clearly neutral. He seems to be quite familiar with the materials of the OSCE, the UN, etc. I do not see why not to allow him to use all these sources in the article. Kober 18:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow that’s amazing. BBC became an international organization (replaced UN, OSCE, Euro Council, EU parliament, NAFTA, etc) which started to govern international law and can recognize regions as independent, de facto, de jure, etc :) BBC news page is a great source for status verifications, good job. That’s very interesting how some here completely ignore UN resolutions S/1994/583, S/2001/242, 1364, OSCE resolution on Abkhazia (clearly defined status as Autonomous Republic within Georgia), European Counsel Resolution of 2002, 2004, 2005 (same as OSCE), etc. Im not mentioning the small players without authority over international law/recognitions such as Helsinki Convention on Human Rights, Hague War Crimes Tribunal (5.8/2005 review on Abkhazia), Amnesty International and so on. Kober is correct, BBC has Abkhazia under category of Georgia. But why or who mentioned that BBC is a reliable source which can contradict UN and other world organizations which I mentioned? Taiwan is de facto independent, actually verified by those organizations mentioned above. Same term has never been used to identify status of Abkhazia by any legitimate body which governs the international law. They all clearly state: ABKHAZIAN AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC. Now if you want to create your own set of laws and make BBC as a new headquarter, go ahead :) Im sure people in BBC would love that idea. LD Noxchi Borz 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is quite amazing. Let's go tell it to the world. --Khoikhoi 21:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides, international recognition does not determine a country's status. --Khoikhoi 21:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What? Who told you that? Wow Khoikhoi you have invented a new world (besides creating BBC as new body of international law). So now everybody can proclaim the "country". Finally, dream of Quebec, Basque Country, Catalonia, Chechnya came true. So you really claim that "a country does not need international recognition" ? hahahaha, wow that was good, Bravo!. What a waste of time! Noxchi Borz 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite a shame, eh? ;-) --Khoikhoi 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Shame indeed my friend, but not to me :) Noxchi Borz 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are 100% right - I should have something around my neck and be dragged through the streets, for I do not know the truth. --Khoikhoi 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh Khoikhoi your a funny fellow, a nice chap indeed :) cheers!Noxchi Borz 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ldingley: if and when Quebec starts an armed rebellion, defeats attempts by the Canadian military to recapture it, and sets up an independent government that then survives for a few years or so, be sure to let us know and we will update Wikipedia accordingly, just as we have done for the Republic of China (Taiwan), Somaliland, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, and Abkhazia. -- ran (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah sure ran, I’ll make sure to update you on Quebec "independence" and defeat of Canadians. :) You think your funny but unfortunately, you are not ran :). Canada is not that crazy as China/Russia is, we don’t invade democratic regions :) Cheers. Anti-Georgiano No Pasaran! :) Noxchi Borz 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you have completely missed the point, both when directly explained to you by Khoikhoi and then indirectly explained by me, I suppose there's no point in wasting further time here trying to argue with you.

That China/Russia argument does not, unfortunately, have anything to do with my analogy nor with how such breakaway states are treated in general on Wikipedia.

You can rant and rave all you want in the talk pages, but unless you plan to start making more NPOV edits soon, we will continue to revert your edits.

I'm also Canadian, btw. -- ran (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * dear fellow Canadian. I agree there is no point wasting more time. You have failed to provide reliable, valid sources for those claims made in the article. You didn't provide any solid arguments as to defend the statements made in the article. Im not going to re-edit anything. That article is anything but NPOV. Actually it has many POVs, which i outlines above with indicating sources. Your cynical and sarcastic answer was not enough to prove me wrong otherwise. The wisest approach from your side would have been research and contradicting the arguments by sources (primary and secondary). "rant and rave all you want" common that’s not the way to talk to people. :(
 * "we will continue to revert your edits" its your right to do so. BTW did you write an article on South Ossetia? very well done, truly NPOV article. So don’t waste your time. I will do just the same. Do more research, use more sources, and be more realistic. Dont worry, we will not invade Quebec. :) Take care. We have gone of topic, my apologies to the reader. LD Noxchi Borz 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

categories
Looks like the Fight-of-the-Day is over which categories Abkhazia belongs in. It belongs in Georgia, of course, but here's how it works, folks: There's a hierarchy of categories, and normally we only list the categories at the bottom. Georgia is automatically included because it's a supercategory for Abkhazia. Therefore it doesn't need to be explicitly included. To be consistant, I also removed the Caucasus category. If you wish 'Georgia' or 'Caucasus' to appear at the bottom of the page, then you should fix the category pages so that they display properly. kwami 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks kwami, i agree. regards, LD Noxchi Borz 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * p.s kwami but Abkhazia is not a country. Abkhazia should be removed from the category of European countries. Please see Catalonia which has autonomous status in brackets. Abkhazia was not recognized as European country. To be a country, there must be international recognition and laws to conform the sovereignty and status of an independent country. Abkhazia has none.


 * Sorry, have to disagree with you there. Abkhazia has declared itself a country, and that's good enough. It's not our job to decide whose claim is just. It should be listed as both a European country and as part of Georgia. Northern Cyprus and Transniestria should also be listed as European countries. Shoot, we count Taiwan as a country, and Taiwan doesn't even recognize itself! kwami 07:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not create a separate category for unrecognized or self-styled countries? I think it would be the best solution out there. Kober 09:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's currently under 'disputed territories', though I guess that's not quite the same thing. kwami 11:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Kwami
Dear Kwami,

I completely understand your point and respect your opinion. I’m happy that people taking so much interest in the issue of Caucasus region. However, I’d like to disagree with your comparison of Abkhazia with Taiwan. Taiwan is a completely different issue and background. You see, close to 60% of Taiwanese don’t want any independence from mainland China. Taiwan has never declared independence or labeled itself as a separate country. I don’t consider Taiwan as separatist enclave of China. It is more ideological confrontation which led to the separation. If for instance, Chinese communist party would collapse, Taiwan will take steps of returning into the jurisdiction of China and implementing their experience with democracy into the Chinese system. Taiwan has demonstrated a great success of democracy and therefore, the rest of the world supports Taiwan’s determination. Abkhazia is a completely different issue. 300,000 people (80% of population) were expelled from their homes by force. Ethic cleansing of Georgians (more than 10,000 civilians) was committed and appalling facts of systematic mass murder were verified by Hague and OSCE. Russia openly annexes Abkhazia and has demonstrated that the problem of separatism is not a main case but more in weakening Georgia. Today the regime in Abkhazia is pro Russian and maintains the old tactics of ethnic cleansing and terror in Gali region. People who lived in Abkhazia since days of Argonauts are not allowed back into their homes (ones again, 80% of Abkhazia’s population). Abkhazia is not Chechnya, Kosovo, Taiwan or even Nogorny-Karabakh. It is a real precedent of separatist failure and annexation by the foreign country. Abkhazia has totalitarian regime which took power after mass slaughter of one ethnic group by using full support of Russian military and government. An apartheid with many similarities with the tactics of Hutu slaughter of the Tutsis in 1993. In fact if you study the origins of Abkhaz separatism, you clearly can see that provocations and aspirations were initiated by Moscow. You may read all about this in many sources, documents and books. When I started to study this issue I was more inclined in support of separatist cause (as I did support Chechen, Basque, Corsican and Tatar), however after long research I have come into conclusions which contradicted my previous views. Same happened to the Russian journalist Svetlana Chervonnaya, who came to Abkhazia during the war in support of separatist but later after witnessing horrors of massacres and mass murder wrote an amazing book about her experiences and real political intrigue carried out by her country in that small region (Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia & the Russian Shadow). Regards. LD. Noxchi Borz 14:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit I know little of the history. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a disputed territory and self-declared country. kwami 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree :) No dispute in that Noxchi Borz 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"pro-georgian" govenment
Khoikhoi Thansk for your help in editing the mistakes on my articles. Why do you consider Government of Abkhazian Autonomous Republic as "pro-Georgian"? I has abkhaz members equally as Georgian. Secondly, it has been recognized internationally (please see above) as legitimate Government of Abkhazia. That web site title if Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and as you know the region was recognized as such. The government is also composed of Armenians and Greeks. They were democratically elected in Abkhazia during the pre-war elections were both ethnic groups took part in the elections. You should maintain NPOV and call current "de facto" Abkhaz separatist government as Pro-Russian government, and there are tons of sources to prove that accurate. Regards, LD Noxchi Borz 20:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. How about "gov't in exile"? --Khoikhoi 20:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Its up to you Khoi :) I just wanted to say that we should call things by their official name (recognized and so on). Nobody anywhere has labelled that government as "pro-georgian." Actually many sources have labelled separatist government as pro Russian :) Noxchi Borz 20:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll go with "in exile" because I guess it's better than "pro-Georgian". Cheers, Khoikhoi 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Khoi :) BTW did you name yourself after Daghestani village? or im confusing something? Do you know meaning of my nick? Noxchi Borz 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Naw, the Khoikhoi were a South African ethnic group, they were cousins of the Bushmen. Actually, I have no idea where you got your nickname from. Please tell me more. :) --Khoikhoi 21:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Noxchi Borz (in Chechen) means Wolf :) Noxchi Borz 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, from the old coat of arms, right? --Khoikhoi 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct :) Noxchi Borz 15:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus
This organization was highly financed and initiated by Russia just before the war in Abkhazia. There are tons of sources indicating so. There is no single document were this organization is called anti Russian. On contrary it was pro Russian. The Chechen war has demonstrated that "Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus" was created only to fight Georgians and not for independence of Caucasian people. None of "Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus" members supported the war in Chechnya. Today the memebrs of that organization are located in Abkhazia and in Russia and have great contacts and relations with Russian govenment.

Government of Abkhazia in exile
Khoi you corrected the link of that government to address the NPOV. Same goes in the box, the government is not "Pro-Georgian." That claim is definitely a POV. The majority of that government members are abkhaz, after Armenians and Georgians. None of them (or in any way you can find a source) where they call it "pro" or "anti" Georgian. Please read more sources Noxchi Borz 23:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the main thing I was reverting was "Autonomous Rep. of Abkhazia", but I guess you removed it, so that's that. &mdash;Khoikhoi 05:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You may remove the Autonomous Republic status but it’s an official status of Abkhazia and it will stay so. You see, 300,000 (there was close to 350,000 Georgians and 80,000 abkhaz living in Abkhazia before the war) people were expelled from their lands/homes and that so called de facto government came to power thanks to brutal ethnic cleansing. Much more like Serb brutality in Vukavar. Abkhazia case is not a Chechnya case. Those 300,000 made up majority the A. Republic and have lived there since times of Argonauts and Homer. Thanks to Russian aid, financing and support, very small portion of people (aggressively using separatism) managed to expel anyone who does not agree with their agenda. And their agenda did not focus on "independent" Abkhazia but more in securing Russian influence within the borders of Transcaucasus, these 13 years has proven so. History of Abkhazia (aphkhazeti) is very interesting and there are tons of books and materials about it. "Republic of Abkhazia" was a POV (pro-Russian/Separatist), therefore I removed it. Did you get my email? Noxchi Borz 02:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but how Abkhazia is officially recognized does not reflect reality, however. If Georgians aren't allowed to return to it, fly their flag there, is it part of Georgia? Abkhazia has it's own president, prime minister, government...so how is it not a country? As for the ethnic cleansing factor, it isn't one. Nazi Germany commited some of the most colossal atrocities of all time, but it was by all means a sovereign nation. Same goes for all the other countries who committed genocides. I hope you don't take me as an anti-Georgian, I am certainly not one. No, I haven't got your email--have you tried my gmail account? &mdash;Khoikhoi 02:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Khoi, I forwarded the email via Wikipedia. My email is noxchiborz@gmail.com


 * Now as for Abkhazia. The simple answer to your question is No. Abkhazia never was, is or will be independent. Why? Historical past, today's reality and future aspirations (of the separatists) play a decisive role in Abkhazia. You can not have "prime minister" or a "president" when you drive out majority of the population (who are natives of that land much like abkhaz) and implement policies of ethnic cleansing. Didn’t we lear anything from Nazi Germany, Balkans and Rwanda?
 * You are wrong to overlook this factor. You can not commit war crimes and build an independent country based on persecution, expulsion and genocide of one ethnic group. None is their right mind will ever support that. Abkhazia has no president. bagapsh is self made president. Nobody from the 300,000 remainder of Abkhaz population voted for him. Nobody recognized those elections or people who claimed victory in them. Khoi, you can not remove those 300,000 people just because they were of Georgian ethnicity. Georgian people lived in Abkhazia for 5,000 years. Just because of some thugs who were heavily armed by Russian nationalists in Moscow, these people are denied their right on their homes and their property. In Gali district of Abkhazia, they daily and systematically murder Georgian families. Im basing my claims on UN reports which come out from Gali in an alarming rate. The historical factors, geographical and geopolitical are also in favour of Georgians. There are tons of books about it by world renowned scholars. Abkhaz are as much victims of Russian policy as Georgians are. Khoi, the Abkhaz question is not of liberation or independence cause but more in Russian annexation of that territory. If abkhaz wanted an independent state, they would have kicked out Russians in the first place. They would have held a fair referendum based on the vote of all citizens of the region (including all ethnic groups) and seek the international recognition (which is most essential of all, as Kosovo case has demonstrated). But they did it all other way around. Committed mass crimes, drove out international observers and entrenched Russian forces (along with heavy Russian financial and military aid). Russia is not a liberation cause fund raiser in Caucasus. She started that crisis and she will maintain it in her best interests and not in any way for abkhaz or Georgian. If you see the suffering of those 300,000 IDPs, you will have a different view than now. Not every place has a right to be a country Khoi, History has demonstrated that. And nobody is convinced that abkhaz should have one, on contrary they oppose it due to many factors which surrounds that controversial question. Send me your email and I'll forward you those photos. All the best

. Noxchi Borz 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Separatist govenment
Im sorry Khoi but the name separatist is not a POV. This is how the Abkhaz cause is described almost everywhere, a separatist one. To say its not is a POV indeed and does not reflect or respect NPOV. Please site for me couple of sources where there is no mention of that. I removed the "so called" as i agree with you on that, but please don’t violate or temper the reality and proper names for this topic. Im not Pro Georgian POV pusher. On contrary, i try to bring out NPOV as maximum on this article which has tons of problems. Please read Abkhazia articles in different languages, almost all of them are same and reflect NPOV. However, not this english article which is heavily manipulated by pro separatist sympathizers, im sorry Khoi but its a fact. Therefore you need to explore more sources on this topic and expand your understanding of separatism vs de-jure vs de-facto. Nobody recognized that government and even the 80% of Abkhazia's population did not participate in those elections or has agreed that they were legal. How can you call it De facto government if you don’t indicate that they are separatist wing of the Abkhaz politics? Before editing, gather more sources, we can only co-operate and help eachother. This way we have true NPOV success on Abkhazia. Lets work together Khoi Noxchi Borz 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)