Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 6

POV infoboxes
The Abkhazia and South Ossetia infoboxes are very POV - The Kosovo model should be used for these infoboxes as in these cases there are alos two competing entities claiming to be the govenrment of the region, one which claims to be an independent state and one that claims to be an autonomous region. If no objections are raised I will create a general regional infobox and then two infoboxes below for each political entity. Dn9ahx (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you not seen the discussion in the previous section? Please participate there. sephia karta  |  dimmi  13:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dn9ahx. I have no personal opinion about the conflict but having a single infobox makes it look like Wikipedia is taking sides. I think we should take a neutral approach like on the Kosovo, Libya and Tibet articles, for example. The Libya article has two infoboxes, the Kosovo and Tibet articles currently have none. Iota (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a crucial difference between Abkhazia on the one hand and Kosovo and Libya on the other hand. The geographical areas designated by 'Kosovo' and 'Libya' are governed by two administrations. These two places each contain two political entities, so they are both covered. The geographical area of Abkhazia is governed by only one administration. The Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (unlike the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija or the Transitional National Council) is purely a government in exile, it only exists on paper and in some offices in Tbilisi. I disagree that this infobox makes it appear like Wikipedia is taking sides. It simply reflects the fact that Abkhazia is currently administered by the 'Republic of Abkhazia', without passing judgement on this fact. sephia karta  |  dimmi  17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The infoboxes are in gross violation of NPOV. They present Abkazia as a legitimate country, equal to UN countries. Serious work needs to be done to neutralise them. The information in them presents what the partially recognised de facto Government of Abkhazia says, which is POV because they're taking their side. Abkazia is disputed therefore we need to present that. Remember wikipedia needs to be NPOV. IJA (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The infobox presents a reality that does not exist, namely that Abkhazia's status is uncontested and normalised, which it certainly is not.  Abkhazia has attained very little recognition and has not joined any international organisations of note.  You cannot present Abkhazia as an independent state, which the article and infoboxes for the most part do.  The Georgians have declared it to be, along with South Ossetia, "Russian-occupied territory" and most of the world agrees explicitly or implicitly. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give any arguments as to how the infobox presents Abkhazia as an uncontested independent country? How does legitimacy factor into the use of infoboxes? We use similar infoboxes for all kinds of entities. Independent countries, but also subnational administrative divisions (Alberta, Cornwall, Faroe Islands), historical states (regardless of the extent of their recognition, Biafra, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, Transkei, Republic of South Maluku), international organisations (Arab League, European Union, Benelux), even fictional countries (Land of Oz, Syldavia) and yes, also states with no or only limited recognition (Somaliland). Do you also propose to change the article Somaliland? Or Biafra? In fact, the infobox used here states that Abkhazia is recognised by only a few countries. So the infobox itself is not in any way 'a gross violation of NPOV'. Furthermore, the introduction of the article clearly states that Abkhazia's independence is not recognised by most of the world's states. But at the end of the day, Abkhazia is de facto an independent state, and to sweep that under the carpet because its independence is seen as not legitimate by many other political actors would be in breach of WP:NOTCENSORED. sephia karta  |  dimmi  11:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about Abkhazia not the "Republic of Abkhazia" and the infobox must reflect that. The info box presents Abkhazia as the "Republic of Abkhazia" and that is unfair as the is article is about Abkhazia the region, Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia as well as the de facto independent Republic of Abkhazia. The info box just portrays it as the latter. Also the infobox portrays the Republic of Abkhazia as any other every day state which Abkhazia is not. "Biafra, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, Transkei and Republic of South Maluku" are all former historical entities which Abkhazia is not. Abkhazia is not an international organisation. Also I do propose we do change Somaliland too. No one is trying to sweep the "Republic of Abkhazia" under the carpet as you say. Only information relative to the government of the "Republic of Abkhazia" is mentioned in the infobox and nothing about the "Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" of which 188 UN members states recognise as Abkhazia's Autonomous Government. The infobox must include relative information about the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, such as the Chairman of Cabinet of Ministers Giorgi Baramia and the Chairman of the Supreme Council Temur Mzhavia. We need mention that Georgian is an official language and that  the Georgian lari is also an official currency. We don't even have the coat of arms of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia in the infobox yet we have the flag and coat of arms of the "Republic of Abkhazia". It is very biased and one sided, we need to show information relevant to both governments, not just one as that is taking a point of view. You can't just pick and choose which bit of information to include and which bits not to include. Completely blanking the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is POV. This needs rectifying. IJA (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree - this article is about the country, the Republic of Abkhazia, not the government in exile, nor the geographic area. I would strongly disagree with a Somaliland change too. It's completely POV for us to change that status cased on purely on this opinion. Why not change Taiwan then? Is it really a state then? It only has minority recognisition, just like Abkhazia... I completely reject this rational. For the gov-in-exile, just create another page like we do with NKR. Outback the koala (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox actually states that the Georgian language is a "Non-official language", how biased is that? Who says that Georgian is not an official language of Abkhazia? The "Republic of Abkhazia" did. However the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia says that Georgian is an official language of Abkhazia, so why does the infobox just portray what the Republic of Abkhazia says? That is unfair and biased as the article is about Abkhazia the region, the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of Abkhazia. We can't just have an infobox about the Republic of Abkhazia as this is not what the entire article is about. IJA (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Outback the koala let me read you the first line of the article "Abkhazia is a political entity on the eastern coast of the Black Sea and the south-western flank of the Caucasus whose status is disputed." This article is not and has never been solely about the "Republic of Abkhazia". The article is about Abkhazia as a whole. Also the article "Taiwan" is an article about the Island, just as this article leads to a region however the infobox is POV. IJA (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The recent change of the infoboxes makes the top of the page looking awful. I do not not think that such an effect is something desired by any editor here. With much repeating information in the infoboxes, I think we should try to have just one, combining all information. Grey Hood   Talk  11:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I can hardly agree with that. But regardless- what do you propose to fix this issue? I dont see anything substantial from your comments here. Outback the koala (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in case you have been addressing me (which I am not sure of) I should say that I actually attempted to fix the issue by merging infoboxes. IJA has amended my version, and I hadn't particularly strong objections against his version. But seems other editors didn't like the resulted combined infobox, and they also have their point. Grey Hood   Talk  23:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A single infobox approach is consistent with general Wikipedia practices. It usually goes like this, one side add and then another balances. For instance now we have Russian and Georgian languages listed both as Official language(s) and Non-official or disputed languages. And I guess this is not about April Fools' Day being WP:FA candidate. The result usually appears maybe "balanced" but somehow not informational or readable for someone who is not familiar with the article's subject. After all we should consider the purpose, i.e. writing a free encyclopedia, people do read it. That's why I think more attention should be directed at the article content/body. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

IJA, you haven't yet explained why legitimacy factors into the use of this infobox. 188 UN member consider Abkhazia to be legally part of Georgia, yes perhaps. But no one questions the fact that Abkhazia is currently a break-away state. And the government, flag, etc. of this break-away state are the ones that were listed in the infobox. Perhaps many states think that the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia should be the government of Abkhazia (although that would require sources for verification), but it simply does not currently govern any part of Abkhazia, so its inclusion in this infobox is unwarranted. It is akin to including the data of the in-exile National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma to the infobox in the article Burma. sephia karta |  dimmi  22:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The 188 number is itself a little misleading; states that don't take a position are to be excluded. Many African states do not take a position at all. Outback the koala (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually several states regard Abkhazia as under Russian occupation. Let me make this clear, this article is about the region/ territory of Abkhazia not the de facto independent Republic of Abkhazia. The infobox should reflect that this article is about the region of Abkhazia. The infobox you want is an infobox about the de facto independent Republic of Abkhazia and not an infobox about the region/ territory of Abkhazia. It is POV to portray that the de facto independent Republic of Abkhazia is the legitimate government of Abkhazia. I've combined the two competing Governments into the infobox to make it NPOV. It is POV to just show information about the de facto independent Republic of Abkhazia and to exclude the legitimate Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia relevant information. That is why I have included both sets of information. Showing only information relevant to the de facto independent Republic of Abkhazia is taking a side and is taking a WP:Point of view. Showing both sets of information in the infobox is the only neutral solution. If the article was titled the "Republic of Abkhazia" then yes I could see your point, however this article is about Abkhazia as a whole. IJA (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So we're now back at listing Russian and Georgian languages both as Official language(s) and Non-official or disputed languages. This does not make any sence, can anyone explain me what does this classification mean? Would it be acceptable to merge those two as Languages in use or something POV-less like that? We could discuss classification in the body using proper attribution. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about the region of Abkhazia and the administration that currently controls it. There can be no doubt that this is the Republic of Abkhazia. For the rest, I can only repeat what I said earlier, namely that legitimacy does not factor into this, that the infobox does not suggest in any way that the Republic of Abkhazia is legitimate, and that it in fact explicitly states that it has only been recognised by a handful of states. But you continue to ignore these points.
 * Instead, you advocate that we include the attributes of a government-in-exile into the infobox of a territory it does not control. Name me one other government-in-exile which is awarded similar treatment on Wikipedia. sephia karta  |  dimmi  22:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Sephia strongly. There is no reason for the status quo to change. Anyone who says 188 UN members dont agree, does not understand what that means - lack of recognition does not commit support for the other side. Outback the koala (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is POV to say that is the flag of Abkhazia, it is POV to say that Georgian is not an official language, it is POV to say that Sergei Bagapsh is the President of Abkhazia, it is POV to state that the official name of Abkhazia is the "Republic of Abkhazia" etc because that is all disputed. 188 UN countries do not agree with this. It is extremely POV to only state all the information you want. I'm pretty sure that you would find it POV if the infobox only included information about the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia aka the de jure legitimate government of Abkhazia. That is why both must be included so that the infobox is status neutral aka in line with NPOV. IJA (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, if the situation were reverse, if there were a war tomorrow which put the Government of the ARoA in control of Abkhazia and sent the current government into exile, then of course I would support a corresponding change in the infobox. Even if the current government would flee to Sochi and try to carry on, it would be removed from the infobox, because it would only be a government-in-exile.
 * It is not POV to say that the current administration (and by extension its composition (President, parliament, etc.) and its attributes, like its flag) is the government of Abkhazia, because for an encyclopaedia, this is an empirical question. Whether or not this government is seen as legal by other governments is something which should be noted, but this is politics, and it is not something which can affect this empirical fact. If tomorrow the government of India should proclaim that the speed of light is exactly 300,000,000 m/s, we would not then change the corresponding infobox. sephia karta  |  dimmi  22:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 188 UN member states may think whatever they want about the status of Abkhazia. It is necessary to understand that their opinion doesn’t change the reality. About “de jure”. De jure, according to Georgian law, Abkhazia is part of Georgia (remember that Georgian law has no effect on the territory of Abkhazia). De jure, according to Abkhazian law, Abkhazia is an independent state. Apswaaa (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For a moment I have supported the version with one merged infobox, but finally having looked at situation with Kosovo, I see that we needn't mix so much information at one place. There is already an article about the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and it has its one infobox with all relevant information, so seems there is no particular need to insert this information into a different infobox. In order to strictly uphold neutrality we might have made two separate articles, Abkhazia and Republic of Abkhazia. But they will have a very similar content, and I'm not sure that there is so much need to clone Wikipedia articles only because of excessive pedantism in neutrality issues. Unlike the case with Kosovo, Georgia doesn't control any part of Abkhazia, and the Georgian government in exile existed outside of Abkhazia for most of the last 20 years. So, from now on I'd strongly advice against mixing or multiplying infoboxes. Grey Hood   Talk  23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support the creation of a separate article titled the "Republic of Abkhazia". The content would be very different, for example it's history section would be 1991 onwards whereas "Abkhazia" would have a wider range of history. The Government sections would be different as well. Economy and Geography would be similar, however the economy could  be different because we could into more depth about the Republic of Abkhazia trading with countries which recognise it. Maybe Geography need not be mentioned too much on an article about the Republic of Abkhazia whereas it would be on more depth on an article about Abkhazia as a whole. Also foreign relations would be included on RoA but not on Abkhazia as much. IJA (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would point out to User:Greyhood that Kosovo and Abkhazia are different scenarios. Kosovo's independence was the result of a lengthy UN process and international effort.  The rather shabby treatment it gets on Wikipedia is because of obsessive, aggressive POV-pushing Serbian and Russian editors.  The main point of this debate is for all entities to be treated equally.  You can't have a Kosovo infobox that is a generic outline and then let Abkhazia have one with its coat of arms.  - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bobby on that point, that they are different situations; but beyond that I'm not sure what he's arguing. Outback the koala (talk)


 * I agree that the Republic of Kosovo is getting a hard time on Wikipedia. But the only possible reason why there should be two different articles Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo - i.e. that they don't coincide geographically - does not apply here. So in this crucial respect, the two cases are not comparable. sephia karta |  dimmi  22:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have the infobox state more explicitly that Abkhazia enjoys only limited international recognition, like this? sephia karta |  dimmi  22:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't edit war. Discuss it first, then find consensus. Yes, Sephia, I think that would be fair. Outback the koala (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion survey
Procedurally agree, the article history appears lame. It appears there is no consensus about what symbols to use in the infobox. Perhaps no political symbols are needed in this article infobox, without expressing any opinion on legitimacy of either side. This is an article about Abkhazia, the History section starts with ancient Greek sources dating from couple of millenniums ago. Current political situation is only one aspect. With that, there are Flag of Abkhazia and Coat of arms of Abkhazia articles and I personally would not object adding new Symbols section, which for instance present in each country of the United Kingdom article, in this article also, per WP:SUMMARIZE. A placement in the body might be more appropriate and would allow more serious discussion with proper attribution. which seems like a more WP:NPOV way of making a statement. We don't need this article saying something controversial in Wikipedia's voice and I'm not sure how it is avoidable within infobox style limitations without creating serous readability problems. Wikipedia takes no position, but simply states what is claimed by others. I'm pasting an an infobox of Abkhazia mentioned in the talk section above by User:MacTire02. The infobox is a compromise that might not be fully satisfactorily to everyone, but it might be interesting if there are Wikipedia policy based objections and how we can address it, improving this article, without going in endless POV circles. Your opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is going on
 * Suggestion
 * Rational


 * The main objection to this infobox, as well as to the current one in the article has to do with WP:UNDUE; both of them fail to inform the reader who is actually in charge there (yes, it's clear from the article, but most of the info in infobox is repeated in the article). The Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia does not control any part of the country, and has very little influence over the lives of the refugees from Abkhazia who now live in Georgian proper. So, regardless of what infobox we choose the situation on the ground should be clear to the reader (and also that it's only partially recognised). Alæxis¿question? 11:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Abkhazia is not partially recognised. It is recognised by few states. Apswaaa (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apswaaa, that make zero sense at all. On the infobox, I agree that Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia should not be included, except in a "claimed by" capacity. It has no de facto control within the state. Outback the koala (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What does “partially recognised” mean? Apswaaa (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It means recognised by some, but not by all. It can mean the majority recognises the country (such as the Vatican, PRC, Slovakia, the Czech Republic), a substantial number recognises the country (Kosovo), or only a tiny minority recognises the country (Abkhazia, S. Ossetia). --MacTire02 (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alæxis and Outback the koala, and I want to add that while this might appear sensible, I think it is a mistaken case of political correctness. Take the example of Israel, whose very existence is hotly disputed by some other states and indeed a significant number of people. Still, we wouldn't take out the offending symbols from that infobox, would we? The point which I have made before but which I still haven't seen refuted, was that Wikipedia does not commit itself to the legitimacy of political entities it writes about. The fact that we have an article Republic of South Maluku complete with flag, infobox and president, does not mean Wikipedia is taking a political stance here. Hell, we even have infoboxes with flags for micronations like the Principality of Sealand.
 * Furthermore, this proposal has repercussions for similar cases, at the least the articles South Ossetia, Transnistria and Somaliland (and why not Israel, if controversy really is the driving motivation?).
 * Finally, I don't understand your comparison to Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. They all come with flag and political authorities listed in their infobox, don't they? (Except for Northern Ireland, where the government in charge explicitly maintains that there is no official flag.) sephia karta  |  dimmi  18:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Sephia karta says that this is not the only Wikipedia article about controversial entities and I generally accept the idea that infobox is not a place to look for legitimacy confirmation. A point on overall Wikipedia style consistency is appreciated as their compromise suggestion to pipe State with limited recognition at native_name infobox line. From other hand Republic of Abkhazia is a redirect to this article so it might be sensible to use their symbols in the infobox after additional thought and consideration.
 * I also would not object adding a text line to the infobox Government in exile: Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia along lines of User:Outback the koala idea if custom field names are acceptable. It would be informational. Though I have doubts about adding graphics of their coat of arms there, my point on UK is that any country symbol generally could be handled also in the body respectfully or even have a dedicated section as a topic tradition.
 * I'd definitely object nonsense categorization like disputed language or listing the same language twice though since it is not appropriate and confusing imho.
 * Finally having ISO/IEC 7501-1:1997 Principality of Sealand passport could be useful for next Bahama vacation or not. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No-one contests that they're the flags of England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. I wasn't saying that they should be removed, I was saying that both governments should be included to maintain neutrality. It is contested that them national symbols are of Abkhazia or not. it is POV to state that they're the flag and CoA of Abkhazia because 188 UN member states disagree. We need to mention both Govts to be neutral. If you want an infobox soley about the de facto independent RoA create a separate article specialising in that subject. IJA (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the language nonsense, IJA. I really appreciate it.
 * Small irrelevant correction, actually it was already mentioned, N Ireland does not have an official flag anymore, though some continue to respect and use Ulster Banner, for instance for sport events. Though dynamics here do remind wonderful NI-unique tradition of kerbstones painting, which according to WP:RS here is still manically maintained.
 * To the point of your argument, on magic 188 number, nothing unprecedented there. Clearly de-jure A is part of G. However see for instance Northern Cyprus infobox, no Cyprus flag there. More examples were mentioned above. And to remind everybody, using either graphic styling of this Wiki article infobox would not change the status of A and would not make it less independent/occupied or more Georgian/autonomous in the real world for sure.
 * Do you believe, IJA, that all mentioned articles about controversial entities are unbalanced? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Cyprus there is no such thing as a "Northern Cyprus" however according to Georgia there is a place called Abkhazia. That is why this article is about the region of Abkhazia. The TRNC article is about a country as the region doesn't exist politically to the rest of the world whereas the region of Abkhazia exists politically to the rest of the world. South Ossetia doesn't exist as a region but only as a self declared independent state. Abkhazia can mean several things, where as South Ossetia only refers to one thing aka the de facto independent country. IJA (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @Agada, to say the ABK is de jure Georgian is POV, it the Georgian POV - if you were sitting in Russia, I don't think you'd be arguing that. We cannot take side in this dispute, therefore we should show who is in de facto control and let that be. Outback the koala (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. sephia karta  |  dimmi  22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 188 UN member states do NOT recognise Georgian sovergeinty over Abhkazia. Show me one source the states this; it is completely untrue. Please, IJA, stop making this rediculous and far-fetched claim. Outback the koala (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 188 UN member states recognise Georgian sovereignty over Abkhazia by default. There may be one of two UN member states who recognise Abkhazia as disputed territory, but I'm yet to see evidence of that. IJA (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the more crucial point is that even if 188 UN member states consider Abkhazia to be legally part of Georgia, you cannot simply without sources assume that they also recognise the Government of the ARoA to be the government of Abkhazia. As a matter of fact, I would like to see a source that anyone outside Georgia takes this government serious. Because that is the point that this discussion comes back to. In the end, the infobox should answer the empirical questions how large Abkhazia is, how many people live there, and who governs the place. The government of the ARoA does not, in any meaningful sense of the word, currently govern Abkhazia, and to put it in the infobox is misleading. Governments-in-exile are paper tigers, they are noted on Wikipedia, but they are not awarded any undue prominence. Not the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia, not the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, not the Royal Lao Government in Exile. Why should the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia be any different?

And one more thing. The logo that IJA keeps re-inserting is not in fact a coat-of-arms, it is a government logo. So what is it doing there in the infobox anyway? sephia karta |  dimmi  22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What you're failing to see is that they're two govts claiming to be the official govt of Abkhazia. All you want is the de facto Govt and you want to exclude the de jure one. That is 100% biased! AKA 100% POV Also de facto doesn't overtake de jure. IJA (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To say that the RoA is not "legit" as you did in this edit summery is completely POV. To say it is de jure is just as similarly POV. I have undone your edit because of the rational. Please guys; talk here, edit after the discussion! Outback the koala (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two Govts claiming to be the official Govt. If you want an infobox solely on the "Republic of Abkhazia", then create a separate article for it. This article is about the whole of Abkhazia as a region, it is not an article about the de facto independent country. It is biased aka POV to only include information about RoA and to ignore and exclude information about ARoA. Both needs to be shown on the article. If you want help creating a RoA article I will gladly help you, but this is not that article. IJA (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is pushing a pro-Republic of Abkhazia bias by having an infobox only about the RoA. It is outrageously POV to state that Georgian is not an official language of Abkhazia in the infobox. It is pure pro-Rep of Abkhazia bias. It is extremely biased to claim that the official name of Abkhazia is the "Republic of Abkhazia" when only 4 UN member states recognise this. I'm sorry but for the sake of neutrality we can't only include the RoA on an article about the region of Abkhazia, it is in gross violation of WP:NPOV. Would you find it biased to only have information about the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia? Of course you would and the same applies to only showing information about the RoA. IJA (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that listing the RoA in the infobox only is the same as listing the ARoA would be.  I think that the ARoA definitely belongs in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the infobox.  Even if, as you said, this is an article about the region of Abkhazia, this holds true - the ARoA has *no* presence inside the region of Abkhazia. Listing both in the infobox is just confusing, and since the ARoA sits in exile, things they declare are not applicable in practice to the territory of Abkhazia.   It doesn't make sense to, as an example, list the Georgian lari as an official currency, when there is no governmental authority in the physical territory of Abkhazia that requires (or supports) its acceptance.   It is also a little bit disingenuous imo to say that 188 UN states recognize the ARoA as the legitimate government of Abkhazia since in practice most of those states haven't actually taken a active or considered stance.   For what it's worth I also looked through the wiki pages for all countries that currently have a government in exile and in none of them at the moment does the government of exile appear in the infobox.  The article on China does mention the governments of both Chinas in the introduction to the piece, which is pretty similar to what this article does currently (although that's still not quite the same thing since the PRC and ROC both control territory.) Kevin (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the point being made is that this is an issue of consistency. When one loads up the Abkhazia page, at the top (on the right-hand side in the infobox) is "Republic of Abkhazia" with flag and seal.  This creates the impression that Abkhazia is an independent state, which it may well be.  Abkhazia the region and Abkhazia the secessionist entity are coterminous, as is the same with Kosovo.  Yet, on the Kosovo page, there is no "Republic of Kosovo" infobox with a flag or seal/coat of arms.  There's a map.  Someone actually had to create a Republic of Kosovo page, which should've been unnecessary, because POV-pushing editors refused to allow the "Republic of Kosovo" infobox with state symbols to be at the top of the Kosovo page, as is the case with Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, et al.  They are presented as independent countries; Kosovo is not.  Editors can't deny to Kosovo what is given to the other secessionist entities as a matter of course because there happen to be a lot of hyper-vigilant and very aggressive Russian and Serbian editors, along with their sympathetic collaborators, who jam up every discussion on this issue with hysteria and propaganda-laden sloganeering. Basically, these secessionist entity pages have to be changed to look like the Kosovo page or the Kosovo page should be changed to look like the others. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, when I look at the Kosovo page I see what IJA is proposing for here. But I dont beleive that the setup would work here. Really I think the Kosovo page should be changed. I've never involved myself over there because of the POV pushers holding so much ground. Really, Kosovo is the odd duck out, I dont see why other pages like this one should conform to that setup style; It should conform to the standard elsewhere. Outback the koala (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree on the proposal of AgadaUrbanit. We need to avoid POV pushing in the infobox when possible, and leaving just a physical map of Abkhazia seems a good compromise. Otherwise we risk to put possibly redundant information, just for the sake of balance - whether the government in exile and half of the population also in exile have more weight, than the government, supported by Russia and the other half of the population, etc, etc. So, let's keep it simple, and strip political claims out of the infobox. Kouber (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is wrong to assume that I'm doing this as some sort of vengeance because of the Kosovo article. I'm just stating that it is POV to only include RoA on an article about Abkhazia as a whole. And for that reason I support Canadian Bobby, Kouber, Dn9ahx, Iota and MacTire02 who all believe that the current infobox system is biased as it excludes the ARoA which is biased, unfair and POV pushing. It isn't just me arguing this point. IJA (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

IJA, I will directly refute two central claims of yours:

What you're failing to see is that they're two govts claiming to be the official govt of Abkhazia.

No. I completely agree that there are two governments claiming to be the official governments of Abkhazia. But that in itself does not mean both should be presented in the infobox. It should of course be covered in the article. In fact, it is addressed in the introduction. But you are falsely claiming that these two governments have a comparable pedigree, and that they should therefore be awarded equal prominence. Whereas in actual fact, the one government is actually in control of the entire territory of Abkhazia, while the other government sits in exile outside Abkhazia, being little more than a theoretical entity. And since the infobox is merely meant to present a summary of the main facts of the article, it is not unjustified that it should only cover the government which is actually in control of Abkhazia.

''All you want is the de facto Govt and you want to exclude the de jure one. That is 100% biased! AKA 100% POV Also de facto doesn't overtake de jure.''

As Outback the koala rightly pointed out, which government is the de jure government of Abkhazia is exactly what the conflict is about. I'm just saying that this legal discussion is rather academic, and that the infobox should concern itself with the facts on the ground. You are not currently able to use lari as a currency in Abkhazia, it is as simple as that, so the infobox should not suggest otherwise by listing 'lari' as an official currency, to take but one example.

And, let me say this again, Kosovo is not a valid comparison because the Serbian administration actually controls part of Kosovo, which is not the case here. sephia karta |  dimmi  23:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and if the mild edit warring continues I think we should look to full protecting the page to force discussion here. I think it is clear that there is an international dispute over the territory and that we should not take sides. But that does not give us a to give undue prominence to an entity that has no control what-so-ever over the territory it claims. Noone is suggesting it be excluded completely - but theres no need to have it in the infobox. Outback the koala (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should not take sides, but you certainly do that by eliminating the autonomous government from the infobox. The government represents 250,000 residents of Abkhazia who have been expelled from the region by the secessionists. The argument that this government has no control of territory is, therefore, flawed.--KoberTalk 05:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have decided to no longer involve myself in this discussion as, to be quite honest, I have far more pertinent things to be concerned about. But regarding Sephia's previous comment, no part of Kosovo is under control by the Serbian authorities in Belgrade. The Serbian areas of north Kosovo are currently controlled by local Serbs based in Kosovska Mitrovica and not by Serbia proper. The Serb region has set up the Union of Serbian Districts and District Units of Kosovo and Metohija under the governance of the Serbian National Council for Kosovo and Metohija. This in turn is theoretically controlled by UNMIK, even if UNMIK itself does not recognise this government. The Belgrade government, while encouraging the local Serb administration in Kosovo, does not actually recognise it as each of the Belgrade government, Pristina government, UNMIK and the EU are opposed to the separation of North Kosovo from the rest of Kosovo. --MacTire02 (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, I never tried comparing it to Kosovo. "You still haven't said why for the purpose of this infobox Wikipedia should care which government is legitimate. Why is that important?" Why should wikipedia care? Because the governments are disputed and wikipedia has a policy of Neutral Point of View and you keep on being BIASED by only wanting to show one of the two disputed governments. If I were to be biased I would only show the autonomous Government however I am being neutral by showing both of the disputed Governments. By showing both disputed Governments we as Wikipedia are not taking a side and thus upholding NPOV, by only showing one of the two disputed Governments we would be POV and that wrong and biased because we would be taking a side. Please I ask you, can you come up with another neutral infobox which shows both disputed Governments? But we cannot just show one of the two disputed Governments that is wrong and biased. We need to uphold WP:NPOV. IJA (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * IJA, maintaining WP:NPOVdoesn't necessarily mean giving equal coverage to both sides. Clearly, Outback understands that WP:NPOV is wikipedia policy, he just disagrees with you over how to apply it.  You should explain to him why you think his specific reasons are flawed, instead of just saying over and over again that you are being NPOV because you are giving both sides equal coverage.  Kevin (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

@Kober: Even if the government of the ARoA acted as the government for the 250,000 Georgian refugees (which to my knowledge is hardly the case, they pay taxes to and elect only the central Georgian government), I fail to see how that affects this issue. This article describes a geographical entity, and among other things the infobox gives a summary of the administration which administers this geographical entity. Since the refugees are currenty located outside Abkhazia, the government of the ARoA is not that entity.

@MacTire02: I did not know that, but it doesn't affect the point that the geographical area of Kosovo is currently administered by two unrelated administrations, and that this could form the basis for the current set-up for those articles, as opposed to here. But I'm happy to not further get into the set-up of the Kosovo articles here.

@IJA: I have a very sound principle for why I don't want to represent one of the governments in the infobox of this geographical article: because it ísn't even physically located within this geographic area and it doesn't administer any part of this geographic area. It is a government-in-exile and no other government-in-exile is mentioned in the infobox of the geographic area it claims on Wikipedia. Now you keep repeating that there is a dispute over which one is the government of Abkhazia, and that we should thus represent both in the infobox. But as I've tried to make clear, there isn't actually a dispute over which government is currently governing Abkhazia. And this is what the infobox should summarise: the administration which is currently in charge. The dispute is only over who should legally be governing Abkhazia, but that should not be given WP:UNDUE prominence. (WP:UNDUE being the part of WP:NPOV which makes it clear that we should not always give equal weight to two conflicting positions.) sephia karta  |  dimmi  22:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And as for what I propose: I already suggested to include the qualification 'state with limited recognition' towards the top of the infobox so that it is clear that the legimitacy of the current government is not undisputed. I also have no problems with the proposal (made by either AgadaUrbanit or Outback the koala) to include a link in the infobox to the government-in-exile. sephia karta |  dimmi  23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion is going nowhere, so the proposals below. IJA (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Creation of a separate "Republic of Abkhazia" article
Maybe it is time to create a real article Republic of Abkhazia, instead of current redirect, following Taiwan vs. RoC separation. This could improve overall Wikipedia quality. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think creating a separate "Republic of Abkhazia" article will be the only neutral solution. If there was an article titled the Republic of Abkhazia, I would have no problem whatsoever about having an infobox solely about the Republic of Abkhazia. It would be similar to the articles Ireland V Republic of Ireland, China V People's Republic of China, Nagorno-Karabakh V Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Kosovo V Republic of Kosovo, Taiwan V Republic of China, Western Sahara v Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Great Britain V United Kingdom ect. The content on an article titled the "Republic of Abkhazia" would be very different to the content on the article "Abkhazia".

We could have to very encyclopaedic articles focusing on different topics. Other similar articles already use this format and I believe that this should be the same. IJA (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Republic of Abkhazia content: aka content regarding the self declared state
 * Post 1990 history
 * International status
 * Government
 * Foreign Relations
 * Military
 * Economy
 * Administrative regions
 * Abkhazia Content: aka content regarding the region
 * Background of Abkhazia as whole
 * Overview of all of Abkhazia's history
 * Geography
 * Demographics
 * Society

I still have not seen anyone provide a concise explanation of *why* you think the infoboxes are PoV. Please point it out to me if I have missed it, but all I have seen so far is people going "It's NPOV to not cover both equally" who seem to be missing WP:Undue. I am struggling to see why the infoboxes are PoV. Until a concise explanation of why the change is needed to comply with WP:NPOV is given, I do not think this is an appropriate change.

BTW: except for the case of Taiwan, NONE of your examples are valid comparisons with this situation. The borders of Abkhazia and the Republic of Abkhazia are coterminous. In all of the examples you gave except for Taiwan, the articles are different because the entities they are describing are not coterminous. Kevin (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is taken from the article WP:NPOV, "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." By only Representing the RoA in the infobox, we are not fairly representing the ARoA. We are giving too much of a portion to RoA and not enough of a portion to ARoA. Also you claim that the ARoA is a minority is false, the ARoA is the official administrator of Abkhazia according to 188 countries who recognise Georgia's sovereignty over Abkhazia. Also according to according to WP:UNDUE, why should Republic of Abkhazia be more equal than ARoA, when in actual fact it should be a lot less equal as it is only a minority view. The view that the Republic of Abkhazia is the administrator of Abkhazia is only shared by 4 countries. The majority view aka 188 countries should take precedent over the 4 countries according to WP:UNDUE. We should not take sides regarding this dispute, it is unfair to take the minority view and to present it as the standard view as this is untrue. Also you may say that the RoA is by fact the administrator of Abkhazia and that is why we should present it as such. According to WP:NPOV a fact is an "uncontroversial statement". Now you tell me, to state that the Republic of Abkhazia administrates Abkhazia is that 1 a fact aka an uncontroversial statement or 2 an opinion aka value judgement or disputed view? Therefore your de facto argument has no ground. IJA (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to sleep so I don't have time to address your entire post, but in response to the last part: stating that the Republic of Abkhazia currently administers the region of Abkhazia is absolutely a fact. It's preposterous to say otherwise.   It's easy to determine that systematically, by examining which organization conducts tasks in the physical region of Abkhazia that consist of the administration of government.  For instance, you could ask the following two questions: "In Abkhazia, who do the tax collectors represent?  In Abkhazia, what government do the police report to?"  In both instances the answer is the Republic of Abkhazia, so, ipso facto, the Republic of Abkhazia does in fact currently administer the region of Abkhazia. To say that the Republic of Abkhazia is the *rightful* administrator of Abkhazia would be an opinion, but to say that the Republic of Abkhazia currently administers Abkhazia is a fact.


 * I know that most of this post is tangential to the actual issue, but I wanted to clarify that, absolutely, 100%, stating that the Republic of Abkhazia currently administers the territory of Abkhazia is NOT opinion. Kevin (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that no-one has given a valid reason as to why the ARoA should not be included in the infobox. I would like to draw everyones attention to WP:UNDUE.


 * "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."
 * I would like to point out that the Republic of Abkhazia is only recognised by 4 countries which is a Minority View, however taking into account it's current de facto control of the region I can see as to why it could be included, however the Majority View (188 countries) is that Abkhazia is a sovereign part of Georgia of which the ARoA is the governor of Abkhazia, which currently has no de facto control. Now to exclude the majority view in the infobox is going against WP:UNDUE and is thus not in line with WP:NPOV. Also only showing the RoA is giving too much undue weight and proportion considering the size of that minority view.


 * There are two solutions to neutralise this issue. We could either:


 * Option A: Include the minority view which is that the RoA is the administrator of Abkhazia and has de facto control as well as including the majority view which is that Abkhazia is a part of Georgia and the ARoA is the administrator even though it has no de facto control.
 * Option B: Have separate articles for the different views aka an article for the "Republic of Abkhazia", "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" and "Abkhazia" (Region), no politics/ government.
 * For the reasons I have stated above, we can't use the current system of just including the RoA in the infobox as it is going against WP:UNDUE as well as WP:NPOV as a whole. IJA (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per User:IJA - Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'm not sure that we should include the information about ARoA into the infobox (mainly because during the last few years this government was almost invisible), I'm absolutely against splitting this article into 2 (3) different articles. This would not bring additional value to the reader, as a flow of the history section would be interrupted, and such related sections as History and Demography, Geography and Administrative division would be in different articles.
 * Regarding all the other examples from the beginning of this section, they all differ from Abkhazia: the entities mentioned there are different, for example, but not only, in terms of territory (Ireland != Republic of Ireland, Great Britain != UK). On the other hand in case of Abkhazia we have a well-defined territory which has a de facto government, not recognised by the majority of UN members, and a government in exile. So we should mention both of them in some way but not break the article in two.
 * To sum up my argument, I think we should discuss how to mention both governments claiming to be in charge of the country, writing more about the de facto one, as it makes various actions the encyclopedia ought to describe. Splitting the article is imho not a good idea, worsening the article flow and structure in the best case and creating a pov fork in the worst case. Alæxis¿question? 19:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alaexis pretty much summed up my viewpoint here. And IJA, there *is* a compelling reason as to why the RoA should be mentioned in the infobox: the RoA, no matter who you ask about it, the RoA is inarguably currently is complete control of Abkhazia.   And to reiterate, it is NOT a matter of debate as to whether or not the RoA currently administers Abkhazia, it is only a matter of debate as to whether or not they are the rightful administrators.  The article already does what you listed as option 1, by including the fact that the RoA is the administrator of Abkhazia while mentioning that Georgia still maintains a claim of sovereignty over Abkhazia.


 * If you come up with an infobox format that includes both states that is more legible than your current iteration, I won't contest it, even though I do not think both states belong in the infobox. Kevin (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok when I have some time on my hands, I'll come up with a smarted and neater format of including the two. Also I'm not contesting that RoA doesn't have de facto control over the territory of Abkhazia. IJA (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think kevin has better managed to argue what I was trying to argue. It is not contested what authority currently administers Abkhazia, so if that is what infoboxes of geographic articles on Wikipedia represent, then why would there be a POV problem? The only way the ARoA comes into this is because Georgia recognises it as the legal government of Abkhazia (which you cannot automatically extend to all 188 UN states which recognise Georgian jurisdiction over Abkhazia). Which brings back the question I asked earlier: do we really want infoboxes to show governments which some consider to be the legal government of that geographic entity but which doesn't even have the power to enter the territory it claims to govern?

I also agree with Alæxis that splitting the article is unwarranted. In addition to the other examples, not even Taiwan/Republic of China is comparable, since the RoC comprises more islands than just Taiwan (analogously we have both Malta and Malta Island). (Although in accordance to WP:COMMONNAME the RoC article should really be located at Taiwan, or at least redirected from it, and the geographic article should be located at Taiwan Island or Taiwan (island).

Now as for moving forward. I could imagine having two infoboxes below one another. First the present infobox, followed by the ARoA, like on the right. I think any solution which somehow tries to fuse the two governments in 1 infobox can only be very confusing for readers. sephia karta |  dimmi  18:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can, accept that, I wouldn't say it is perfect however I believe it to be a hell of a lot better than the current infobox system. I might add a little to the establish events. But overall I like it. IJA (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of having a collapse section for the long official names of the ARoA section. Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. sephia karta  |  dimmi  16:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make the the long official foreign language names collapse so that it looks neater however the "State with lim rec" and "govt in ex" get in the way because wikicode is hard to use and sometimes stupid. Oh well I tried. IJA (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks ok for me. Alæxis¿question? 06:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Vanuatu does not recognize Abkhazia or South Ossetia
The UN ambassador from Vanuatu rejected the rumors that Vanuatu had recognized Abkhazia or South Ossetia:

http://gazeta.ru/news/lastnews/2011/06/04/n_1869013.shtml http://pik.tv/ru/news/story/vanuatu-ne-priznavala-nezavisimost-abxazii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this at Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There's no point having the same discussion in two places. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Client-state
The user has inserted twice now (with this edit and edit) into the infobox that Abkhazia is a client-state of Russia. I informed the user but he/she has subsequently deleted the comment from his/her talk page. Just to be clear I am placing the same comment here on the article's talk page.

Please desist from inserting "client-state" into the infobox. First off, your reference does not mention Abkhazia as a client state of Russia. What it does mention is Georgia having to "...abandon Russia’s South Ossete client state". In fact, Abkhazia is only mentioned once in the entire piece. Secondly, the piece is not an academic piece of work - it is simply an analysis piece from the opinion section of the Times. It is therefore not reliable as a proper reference. Please see WP:PSTS. Mac Tíre  Cowag  16:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Split article
Following successful separation of Kosovo article, i propose split on the same way. As this article now covers 3 different subjects, Republic of Abkhazia, Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, and Abkhazia, region disputed between two sides, i propose split into two new articles.


 * Republic of Abkhazia, independent state, recognised by 5 UN members and 2 non UN members, de facto independent state, with its own infobox, post recognition history, Government and administration, etc
 * Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, part of Georgia's territory, with its own infobox, government, related history, Administrative divisions, etc.
 * Abkhazia, with its own region infobox, region disputed between two entities, with its history up to modern "problems", demographics, geography, climate, etc.

This system look to me near perfect, as in Kosovo, China, and other examples, vandalism was minimized to its minimum possible extent, and like that articles and subjects can "grow" without any national pretensions or anything else, as each side have its own POV, but in a NPOV manner. Although Kosovo and Abkhazia examples are not quite comparable in its problematic sense, similar pattern can and should be used, as those will only be useful to this Wikipedia subject. -- WhiteWriter speaks 12:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support We will be able to have three rich encyclopaedic articles on three very different articles. IJA (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support splitting according to proposed topics sounds good to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but note that there are POV accusations going on at Talk:Kosovo following the split. These are inappropriate and misguided in my view, but perhaps we should wait to see what happens there before making big changes here. I assume you also propose a similar split for South Ossetia. Bazonka (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Splitting is not a solution to POV disputes. It is far more reader-friendly to keep all relevant information together on one page. The Kosovo split is not a good model to follow; that split never was a good idea either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but that is only your opinion. Majority of users on that page compares that split with liberation. -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've already written regarding a similar proposal: "a flow of the history section would be interrupted, and such related sections as History and Demography, Geography and Administrative division would be in different articles". Also, the edit warring here has been minimal for last few years so the problem the split aims to deal with seems made up to me. Alæxis¿question? 06:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with Alæxis, there is not a lot of vandalising at this page, and it is not of the type that would go away after a split (I frankly don't see how splitting would be a good remedy against any type of vandalising). Furthermore, I want to point out that Kosovo and Abkhazia are fundamentally different cases. I don't know a case on Wikipedia where we have separate articles for a political entitity and a geographical territory which corresponds exactly to the geographical extend of that political entity. Note that the Republic of Kosovo does not control all of Kosovo, whereas the Republic of Abkhazia does control all of Abkhazia. sephia karta  |  dimmi  13:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unlike Kosovo or Libya, Abkhazia is no longer controlled my multiple entities, the Republic of Abkhazia has had full control of the area since the 2008 war. We shouldnt split articles just because there is a government in exile (are we going to do this with Belarus?). Also, the infobox change should NOT have been made without a clear agreement. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Abkhazia is fully controlled by the Republic of Abkhazia, so we don't need three articles. Perhaps there is some sense in making Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia a separate article, but three articles are redundant. Grey Hood   Talk  09:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The duplication problems between each article would be huge. Demographics, History, Culture, Economy, Geography, etc. would (well, should) be identical in all three articles. Furthermore, by creating the proposed diametrically opposed Republic of Abkhazia and Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, WP:NPOV would basically automatically be broken by giving each article a clear de facto POV. Much better for NPOV and for the readers if Abkhazia stays as it is, with a description of the conflict in the relevant sections (eg Politics). Also noting that an issue raised in the recent attempt to move the Kosovo page to Kosovo (region) was that wikilinks would end up pointing to the wrong page. If that argument holds, who will go through with the checking of every wikilink? We'd end up with the problem we currently have with China, where IPs and New Users wikilink China when they should wikilink to the PRC. Per Greyhood though, I would not be opposed to the creation of a Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia article that would cover the status Georgia asserts to the region. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The current infobox is pushing a POV (that Abkhazia is an independent state), which is not true, especially for the majority of the English speaking readers. Hence, a separate Republic of Abkhazia article needs to be created in order to reflect that point of view, without misleading the readers that Abkhazia = Republic of Abkhazia. Kouber (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Official languages
This silly edit warring over languages is getting tiresome. This article must maintain a neutral point of view. NPOV is a keystone of Wikipedia. Abkhazia must be represented as being both a part of Georgia, and an independent state, with no preference given to either view. Therefore the official languages given in the article must be those recognised by both independent Abkhazia and by Georgia. We can add notes to indicate which entities recognise which languages if necessary. Bazonka (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Can someone provide a reference that shows the official languages of Abkhazia from the Georgian point of view. Then the info box should list them all, not relegating any to a footnote; and the lead should give the name of the country in all the official languages. —Coroboy (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tricky situation. The infobox should really have the full name of the state in it, which it currently only has in English. There wouldn't be an official Georgian name for the state at all. As much as we try to accomodate all views, NPOV is also about not overstating certain views. Abkhazia exists. The government in control of it is not the Georgian government. On a side note, independently of this page, a Georgian official name should be placed on Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the constitution of Georgia: official name of the entity is the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Official languages in the region are Georgian and Abkhaz (p. 3, Article 8).--KoberTalk 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Abkhazia exists..." Well, that's definitely not the fact Georgia denies. "The government in control of it is not the Georgian government" - this is not the reason to remove the Georgian name from the lead section. --KoberTalk 13:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Abkhazia as in the country. Anyway, Georgian is still in the lead section as a translation for Abkhazia. The infobox as I said should have longform names, of which there wouldn't be a Georgian one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is, POV stays there. Congrats! --KoberTalk 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the WP article Official language, "An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction."


 * Article 6 of the Constitution of Abkhazia says "The official language of the Republic of Abkhazia shall be the Abkhazian language. The Russian language, equally with the Abkhazian language, shall be recognized as a language of State and other institutions."


 * That means that although the word "official" is applied directly only to the Abkhazian language, the Russian language is also an official language of Abkhazia. If we are quoting this constitution as our source, both languages should be listed as official in the infobox; neither should be relegated to a footnote. —Coroboy (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The official languages of both independent Abkhazia, and Abkhazia within Georgia must be mentioned, in order to maintain NPOV. It does not matter if Georgia has no control, or if the Abkhazian government is illegitimate, both points of view must be given. So, as I understand it, we should list Abkhazian, Russian and Georgian. Bazonka (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We have the Georgian name in the lead to show that title. Even if we accept that the opinion of an entity that has not controlled anything more than a tiny sliver of land in Abkhazia for about two decades should be presented as equal to the government that has controlled it, just having a name in another language doesn't make any particular POV assertion, and there is no proper name for the Republic of Abkhazia in Georgian. What would make better sense would be to combine the first three paragraphs of the lead to present all the views there, but far more concisely than they are now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, I thought we were talking about the official languages, not the name of the country. But in any case, I'm sure the Georgians have a name for Abkhazia and a word for Republic - just because they don't recongise its legitimacy, it doesn't mean they can't say "Republic of Abkhazia". Bazonka (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise; I was addressing only the point of what languages are "official", not the names of the country/region. And I was addressing the fact that Russian was not being listed despite a reference from one POV showing that it is an official language. As Bazonka said above, Georgian should also be listed from the other POV that Abkhazia is part of Georgia. —Coroboy (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of the languages in the infobox is to show the countries official native names. It's weird we haven't got a long form for Abkhaz or Russian (if someone can find them that'd be good). At any rate, I would have thought having a Georgian translation of "Republic of Abkhazia" would be a huge POV against Georgia, as no doubt some would construe it grants legitimacy etc. The best place to have the Georgian translation is in the first sentence of the lead (the very start of the first sentence) where important translations are given. Georgian, a very important translation, is shown here properly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Include all three as all three are considered official according to different bodies. Also having "Republic of Abkhazia" in Georgian doesn't legitimatise Abkhazia's independence, that's ridiculous and non-logical. IJA (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised at some of the logic I've seen at various articles like this. Mixing up two points of view in an infobox is not a good idea in terms of clear information presentation. We've established very clearly that Georgia claims Abkhazia, and that Abkhazia's recognition is very limited. It would be impossible for readers to miss this (and even in the infobox there's still the map which shades Georgia in). With that in mind, having the facts as they lie on the ground in Abkhazia seems perfectly reasonable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Abkhazians in Turkey are almost exclusively Sunni Muslims."
I want to learn what is the basis for this ? Interesting fact from Ottoman archives is, most of the Abkhazians have brought Pigs(or boars) with themselves in 1864, contradicting the Sunni Muslim hypothesis. in following 150 years, many have become Muslims but most are only on paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.181.72 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"thousands of Abkhaz, known as makhadjiri, fled Abkhazia for Ottoman Empire "
This phrase is not true, nobody "fled" their homes willingly, they were deported by Imperial Russia. Shouldn't this page be an independent source for information? It looks more like a Georgian apologist version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.181.72 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Russian and Georgian versions
Can anyone check the Russian/Georgian/Abkhazian(?) versions of this article to ensure neutrality? Particularly the Georgian version, which I imagine must draw from a pretty narrow number of contributors... Interlaker (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Recognition of Abkhazia
this is total vandalism, i will contact to administrator. Abkhazia is recognized as Georgian region by Europian union, and by total majority of world except of Russia nikaragua, venezuela, nauru, vanautu, tuvalu. i have made changes with sources from UN webcite, European parliament's webcite, BBC webcite and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your changes were against WP:MOS and were designed to push a POV. Wikipedia is not a political entity, and does not 'recognise' countries or follow a particular political viewpoint. CMD (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is Not political! Abkhazia is recognized as Breakaway Region of Georgia by EU, UN, NATO, and every single Country of the planet not including Russia, Nauru, Vanautu, Nikaragua, Tuvalu. I had written it from sources of EU, UN, BBC, and i can make lots of sources where it is said that Abkhazia is a breakaway Georgian region. I warn u last time, to make something about it, or i will inevitably make a complaint about it. Wikipedia is world wide dictionary and it MUST contain only True information from official and internationally recognized sources. And this kind of misinformation must be corrected because it is someones personal view! Wikipedia is not a diary or someones peronal views cite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia must give a balanced view, showing both sides of the debate. So we cannot say that Abkhazia is definitely part of Georgia, or that it is definitely an independent state - we have to use neutral wording like "X claims that it is Y". Bazonka (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

balansed view is cool, but whole world and all of the world wide organizations recognize abkhazia az Part of GEORGIA. i can maka milions of citations from any part of the world not including Russia, Vanautu, Tuvalu, Nauru, nikaragua and other comic countries. if Wikipedia is Going to support separatism than its reputation as world wide dictionary will become under question. i hope for quick solve of this problem. Or i will inevitably contact to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and they will make wikipedia to solve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the problem? The article states that Abkhazia is a disputed territory - you cannot deny that this is true. It then states that it considers itself to be an independent state, and this is also recognised by Russia etc. Whilst your view is that it is not independent, you cannot deny that this is what Abkhazia (and Russia) claims. The article then states that Georgia and most of the rest of the world considers it to be part of Georgia. This is giving a balanced view, so what's the problem? Bazonka (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Non-UN member states:


 * Republic of Kosovo: partially recognised state


 * Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic: partially recognised state


 * Taiwan: state

Of countries that are recognized by several UN member states, rather than 1 (like Northern Cyprus) or note even having control (like State of Palestine), Abkhazia is currently the only state to be labeled as a disputed territory rather than partially recognised state. This should be corrected, or else the above states should be labeled disputed territories as well. Otherwise, there is bias. --5.34.22.88 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not really understand you but... Anyways, the word "partially" leads to ambiguity (1 as well as 192 is "part" rather than nothing (1) and entireness(192) respectively) and also your edit does not show that there is a dispute.
 * Also 3% (6 out of 193) doesn't make a territory state.
 * Besides, changing a TOTALLY and flawlessly correct sentence with a kind-of correct one is an obvious sign indicating someones' separatistic/vandalistic/provocative or i-have-some-free-time-but-dunno-what-to-do-istic purposes of their actions.
 * So, just after you finish reading of this post, calm down and revert your edit. BTW, rethink before you change the very first sentence of an article.--Dixtosa (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, do not use straw man methods (detaching a part of the post and then putting it under intentionally biased heading).
 * "Partially - in part; in some degree; not wholly."
 * Kosovo, SADR, Taiwan (last one might or moght not be an exception) - would you change their label to 'disputed territories'? Isn't there a sign of someone's "separatistic/vandalistic/provocative or i-have-some-free-time-but-dunno-what-to-do-istic" views on those pages, judging by your words?
 * P.S. No rude words, all-caps or exclamation marks were present in the post. As calm as it could be. --37.99.37.203 (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not the article about Kosovo, SADR, Taiwan... If you have problems with those articles discuss them on the relevant talk pages. There is no established standard on Wikipedia about how to define such entities. Your rationale that 6 UN members recognize Abkhazia is not convincing as the remaining 187 do not. Then why don't we define Abkhazia as "mostly unrecognized"? "disputed territory" is the best solution out there. The recognition issue is dealt in the following sentence. --KoberTalk 07:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is not with those entities being called 'states', it's with Abkhazia not being called 'state'. 6 of 193 UN member states officially recognize Abkhazia. That's why it's partially recognized state. There is no such term as 'mostly unrecognized state'. 'Disputed territory' doesn't reflect the fact that Abkhazia is a governed entity - state. Just like it wouldn't reflect it for the above mentioned entities. --37.99.35.156 (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's just one of the conflicting points of view. Whether Abkhazia is a state or not is a subject of dispute. That's why "disputed territory" is a neutral definition. The point of view that Abkhazia is a state is dealt with in the very same lead section.--KoberTalk 08:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Repeat: state - governed entity. Government of the Republic of Abkhazia. --37.99.35.156 (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not all "governed entities" are states. Not a valid argument. And, more importantly, it does not prove why the other point of view should be ignored. --KoberTalk 08:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All partially recognized states are situated on disputed territories. So, calling it 'partially recognized state' would automatically imply 'disputed territory'. However, not all disputed territories contain states (either unrecognized or partially recognised), like Basque, Chechnya or Northern Ireland. Calling Abkhazia merely 'disputed territory' implies it is closer to these entities than to the above mentioned. --37.99.35.156 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your latest comment once again proves that defining Abkhazia as a "disputed territory" is a good start of discussion. The partially recognized state is the next thing to be discussed in the lead section.--KoberTalk 09:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The primary definition is 'partially recognized state'. And disputes over its territory should be discussed in the lead section. Just as for every other disputed entity. --37.99.35.156 (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ОК, i will tell you how we solved this question on Kosovo article. Kosovo is disputed territory, as Abkhazia, and it have its own article with region history up to conflict. Republic of Kosovo is partially recognised state, in the same way as Republic of Abkhazia. Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is in Kosovo case know as Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, with its own article. My proposition would be to separate those three articles, as those are sepate conflicting entities, that have their own histories, international status, and future. Several similar entities were already separated on wiki, as that was concluded to be the best solution in these questionable cases. Our main central conclusion was that Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, very, very same as here. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 09:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be the best solution. And the reference points for future Wikipedia pages of same nature. --37.99.35.156 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That has always been contentious there, and was rejected here (albeit in a much more limited discussion). It just created massive duplication in the desire to achieve political correctness. CMD (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase «disputed territory» is formally correct, but not exactly describes the situation. There is a number of disputed territories, but only a few of them can be considered as non-recognized or partially recognized states. As for «disputed territory», it is a territory which belongs to different states on a different point of view. This situation is not exact: one point of view defines Abkhazia as a state, and another as a part of its state. This is completely fit the phrase «partially recognized state». Disputed territory may be left in parentises. 77.73.142.121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

infobox
The infobox presents the Republic of Abkhazia as the legitime Abkhazia. Definitely not saying we should do this but the article says "the majority of the world's governments consider Abkhazia a part of Georgia's territory" so per WP:WEIGHT it would make more since for the infobox to present that POV. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It presents the Republic of Abkhazia as being the de facto situation on the ground. Whilst this will not please the pro-Georgians, it is reflecting reality (although arguably not the legal reality). I agree that this is not entirely neutral, but it is a tricky situation and very difficult for us to be properly NPOV. Some suggestions to address this: we could either add a second infobox, or follow the Kosovo methodology, where the Kosovo article is purely about the geographical area, and there are separate articles on the competing political entities of the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. This approach has not been entirely popular, but it certainly quietened the edit warring once it was adopted. Bazonka (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to West Bank Israel conceders the West Bank disputed, which is it's de-facto status, but the international community rejects Isreal's claim to the West Bank and calls it "occupied" so we call it "occupied". I don't think we should go that far here tough, partly because the ROA claim to Abkhazia has more registration then the Israeli to the WB.
 * The infobox can present both situations mostly just by adding the info at Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia infobox. For example we can add Georgian to the list of official languages with a note that it's an official language of the AROA, not the ROA. This article is about Abkhazia, the Republic and the Autonomous Republic, it should reflect both. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree with you Emmette Hernandez Coleman.-- Balakhadze [[file:Georgia.gif|26px]]ႫႨႼႤႰႠ 13:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Although you could count this as 'original research,' I've been to Abkhazia and I at least can vouch for the fact that the situation 'on the ground' in Abkhazia is one of a country operating separately from both Georgia and Russia, despite the political status. Interlaker (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Infobox? This was already discussed in the past. There is no reason for the new opening discussion, in Abkhazia there has been no change. Jan CZ (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

*
Here is an article about The Republic of Abkhazia, so if someone wants to write/read about de facto, separatist Abkhazia I suggest to go there.-- Balakhadze ႫႨႼႤႰႠ 20:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realise "de facto" means "in reality" right? CMD (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Many times de jure is more important than de facto, look at marriage.Recent info (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag
The neutrality of this article is disputed....why? — Lfdder (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the answer -- Balakhadze [[file:Georgia.gif|26px]]ႫႨႼႤႰႠ 13:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop edit warring and discuss it then. — Lfdder (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If people disagree, you don't keep on doing your own thing. You come here and discuss it. This might very well be something that needs to be addressed in one way or another, but there needs to be discussion before that happens. — Lfdder (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * if you read the article you will notice it's so full of Russian POV. Recent info (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which bits? We need specifics if you want anything discussed. CMD (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed one right in the lede: "Abkhazia considers itself an independent state..." Now land can't take any position whatsoever, however the government of the Republic of Abkhazia considers itself the legitimate government of an independent state. However I'm not sure if this is pro-Russian bias or just bad phrasing.  A lot of the lede seems to be poorly-written. A better phrasing might be:
 * The entire territory of Abkhazia is controlled by The Republic of Abkhazia, which declared independence from Georgia in 1999 and was recognized by Russia in 2008, in the aftermath of the South Ossetian War. The independence of the Republic of Abkhazia is recognized only by five UN members and three states with limited recognition. The majority of the world's nations recognize the territory as part of Georgia, which designates the territory as the Autonomous Republic of Akhazia, whose government-in-exile sits in Tbilisi. The status of Abkhazia is a central issue of the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict. [paragraph break]
 * There may be other issues too, though most of the article seems to be better-written than the lede. I can definitely see why a sensitive reader would detect a pro-Russian/RoA tone in the lede, though I think it's less due to blatant bias than to the fact that a lot of contributors probably aren't native English speakers. —Quintucket (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Page protection
I've restored the protected version and added another week's full protection, as I see the reverting started again without discussion. The point of page protection is to give people a chance to talk, so the discussion should begin as soon as possible. Perhaps you could hold an RfC to ask whether the article should have one infobox or two (or none), and if one, which one. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't agree with protecting the page while conversation goes on. If people violate the 3RR, block them, but in the mean being let the rest of us try to come to consensus via bold, revert, discuss process.  (For example here's a couple non-infobox issues that I'd like to take a crack at resolving, and can't due to page protection.)


 * That said, Abkhazia is one of several contentious articles on my watchlist. And while I watch my watchlist only sporadically, I happened to catch this argument and would like to give my input on the infobox dispute, which seems to be at the crux of the edit war. Now Chipmunkdavis is a reliable, informed, and level-headed editor, and generally when I see him involved in a revert war with a nationalistic POV-pusher, I assume he's doing the dirty work none of the rest of us want to do.  In this case though, I think the Georgian editor has a point, if probably for the wrong reasons (Georgian nationalism rather than actual neutrality).


 * The Republic of Abkhazia currently controls 100% of the territory it claims, and that same exact territory is claimed by Georgia to constitute the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. This is different from Kosovo, where part of the territory is controlled by Serbia.  However it's also different from South Ossetia and and Northern Cyprus.  While all three states de facto control all the territory that they claim and yet are recognized by only a small minority of nations, neither South Ossetia nor Northern Cyprus is an administrative division of Georgia or the Republic of Cyprus.


 * Abkhazia however is a subdivision of the Republic of Georgia, and both the Autonomous Republic and the Republic claim the same land. Effectively the Georgian position is that the Autonomous Republic is the legitimate authority, and that the territory is part of Georgia.  The Russian/RoA position is that the Republic of Abkhazia is the legitimate authority, and that Abkhazia is an independent territory.  The Republic of Abkhazia has control on the ground and recognition from Russia and a handful of other countries (all of which are either ALBA members or recipients of considerable Russian aid), while the Autonomous Republic/Georgian claim has the de jure recognition of the vast majority of the world's countries.


 * I've noticed that English-language media tends to refer to Abkhazia by terms such as "breakaway region of Georgia." This treatment seems to suggest a view that Abkhazia is rightfully a part of Georgia, but also seems to acknowledge the legitimacy of the RoA claim, or at least recognize the facts on the ground.  I would therefore contend that the Georgian editor is absolutely right that we really need to include both infoboxes or neither.  As for which should go first, I'm inclined to suggest that we should include the Republic of Abkhazia's first.  While most reliable sources do treat it as a breakaway province of Georgia, it would be somewhat absurd to put an entity that controls none of the land before the one that controls all of it, whatever the strength of the sources and legal claims of the former. — Quintucket (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for explaining that. I restored the protection following Chipmunkdavis's post on my talk page, but the point was to encourage discussion between the editors reverting, which isn't happening. Does anyone want the page to remain protected? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for explaining your reasoning. I think that it's unfortunate that a lot of articles that touch on ethnic issues tend to devolve into repeated cycles of protection, unprotection and edit wars, followed by more protection.  My position is that if a user refuses to follow the third step of BRD, the appropriate step might be a temp block or topic ban of that particular user.  Of course we hope that said users will learn, and eventually contribute constructively, but a page protection makes all changes to an article difficult, which is a problem unless the article is active enough that users will post suggests and admins will see and implement them.


 * In this case there seem to be two nationalistic users on one side and several dedicated Wikipedians on the other. I'd generally take whichever side Chipmunkdavis is on (like I said, his persistence in dealing with single-issue, POV-pushing nationalists should be an example to us all), but in this case I think those two users are right, even though their refusal to defend their actions seems to indicate that they don't know a thing about Wikietiquette.  I hope that they can learn, but I imagine that if the US had, say, several several wars with Canada over the Canadian Internal Waters, I might have difficulty with civility and reasonable argument myself. Any rate, as someone with a longstanding interest in Eastern Europe and Western Asia, I hope my response is a more coherent defense of their position. — Quintucket (talk)


 * Yes, your explanation is very helpful, thank you. I'm glad to see the discussion is continuing. As no one has replied that they want the additional protection, and you have said you'd like to make some edits, I'm going to lift the protection. I hope editors will refrain from adding the second infobox unless there's consensus to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the most part I want to rewrite the lede, which is right now a bit of a mess, and I can wait to do that. I practically guarantee you that as soon as you unprotect the page, one of the Georgians will immediately add the second infobox.  Unless you want to warn and then and them temp-block said user when they revert again (which is the method I'd suggest, but then you don't see me asking to take up the mop); I'm fine with just waiting until the 20th.  Hopefully we'll have reached some kind of agreement by then. —Quintucket (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, I'll leave it in place. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All of You writing about Abkhazia in current situation, but i think nobody of you knows real history of this beautiful region of Georgia. If you look in history you'll understand that problems in this region (north-west Georgia) begins only after russians came there and in 1801-1810 years annexed eastern and western Georgian Kingdoms (see Georgia within the Russian Empire). Till then through centuries there was no single battle between ethnic georgians and abkhazians. All this stupidness conflicts have begun when russians came there. As written in Machiavelli's "The Prince" if you want to weaken stronger state then you must rebel weaker ones inside it, so russians did the same.-- Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svg 15:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That may be true (I do know that the Abkhaz more-or-less willingly joined the briefly-independent Georgian state after WWI, though I'd be shocked if there was no ethnic conflict prior to the Russian Empire), but Wikipedia is not a forum. We're discussing how to make the best article that we can, while adhering to Wikipedia policies. −Quintucket (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)