Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 9

RfC Statement
Should the article and its infobox be modeled off of Crimea (current) or South Ossetia (change)? BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal & Discussion
Editors are encouraged to voice their opinions here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

The following resolution is an argument in favor of reverting to the South Ossetia based infobox and is followed by the discussion.

I. Identification of issue: Articles about Abkhazia as Georgia's autonomous area already exist. However, due to the article's current form, an article for Abkhazia as a partially recognized country (just as we have articles articles for South Ossetia, Kosovo, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh) remains nonexistent - this is greatly inconsistent (with this article's present form being the inconsistency) and should not be accepted.

This article is to be about Abkhazia: the nation state that has limited de-jure and undeniable de-facto existence. There is information to be presented about South Ossetia whether Georgia's government accepts it or not, the same applies to Abkhazia. We should present all relevant and significant information on the subject of states with limited recognition rather than allowing exceptions to prejudice against certain examples. To reiterate: it is not a factor whether or not the governments of Georgia & etc. recognize Abkhazia (per consensus of partially recognized and unrecognized articles). This necessitates reverting this article to its former version which refers to Abkhazia as a country with limited international recognition.

Note that in other languages, the version I am proposing is already the current state and has remained that way without question. (See the Kabardian, Afrikaans, Abkhazian, Arabic, Aragonese, Asturian, Guarani, Azerbaijani, Bangla, Chinese (Min Nam), Bashkir, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Bavarian, Bosnian, Catalan, Chuvash, Czech, German, Estonian, Greek, Erzya, Spanish, Esperanto, Basque, Faronese, French, Manx, Gagauz, Galician, Kalmyk, Korean, Armenian, etc. This list is incomplete. Note that nearly all languages that lack the proposed infobox are stubs which lack an infobox entirely. If citing this linguistic inconsistency among other accessible versions of the article is to be considered fallacious then you may disregard my reference to other languages though references to other English articles on the subject of partially recognized or unrecognized states still remains.)

(An additional issue, while minor, is that our current infobox, rather than displaying the flag of Abkhazia as it should in a country infobox, uses the flag-icons of Georgia and Abkhazia within it. This violates the recommendation of WP:INFOBOXFLAG, which only adds to the assertion that simply displaying the flag as it should under the "country" template as I advocate for is preferable.)

II. Points of proposal:

1. Revert the Abkhazia article to its previous form which fit with all other articles on the topic of states with limited recognition.

2. If it is desired, information about Abkhazia as a land, region, or disputed territory, should go in a new article which we will title "Abkhazia (Region)" and make accessible through a disambiguation page.

3. Per usual, keep Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia as the article that refers to it as part of Georgia and displays as such in the info-box.

(Note that while said article refers to its government-in-exile alone rather than as an existing state entity, that is most accurate. While the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has de jure status, it lacks any de facto existence and asserts no real control over Abkhazia.)

(As of 17th April 2017 I have added to this talk section the infobox as it would appear in the version I advocate for.)

III. For clarity and reiteration: I would like to remind all that the central issue of this discussion is whether to display Abkhazia as a geographic region under dispute (which negates the resolution) or to display Abkhazia as a de facto country with limited de jure recognition (which affirms the resolution). The resolution is to change the infobox as it formerly appeared (and presently appears on other languages of Wikipedia) and as all other articles in its category. In other words, my argument is asserting that Abkhazia is a "largely unrecognized state" rather than simply a "disputed geographic region" and thus should be presented as such. Note that while Western Sahara appears as a disputed geographic region, that is because its state does not refer to itself as "western sahara" but rather Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. That is not the case in Abkhazia. I instead cite the following:

Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,  Northern Cyprus, Republic of Logone,  Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic,  Somaliland,  South Ossetia, 🇹🇼 Taiwan,  Transnistria, Wa State. All have infoboxes which per the reasons I've stated above, are most viable for Abkhazia.

All articles in this category left unmentioned are either historic entities, independence movements that have not materialized, movements that do not control any territory, or are referred to as "proto-states."

I ask that good practices are used when refuting arguments in the discussion. Please respond to arguments with supporting evidence and counterarguments. (does not refute the argument) (does not refute the argument, responds to the editor) (encouraged as it offers refutation with counterargument)
 * Delete: argument A is invalid and argument B is better
 * Delete: argument A is invalid because editor only has X amount of posts
 * Keep: argument A is invalid because reason 1 is contrary to the presented argument; argument B is more viable because reason 2

More specifically, I must remind all editors that we are not discussing our positions on Abkhazia and de jure status is not a factor when discussing unrecognized or partially recognized states. The negation of the resolution is not arguing against Abkhazia itself. The negating resolution is arguing against the style of infobox and thus how to most accurately represent the article. Please avoid soapboxing and avoid the following lines of argument: (georgia claims south ossetia, moldova claims transnistria, china claims taiwan, serbia claims kosovo, etc.) (see "Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states") (soapboxing) (soapboxing)
 * Delete: the resolution is invalid because georgia claims abkhazia
 * Delete: the resolution is invalid because abkhazia has limited recognition
 * Delete: the resolution is invalid because abkhazia is illegitimate because there used to be more georgians than abkhaz people there and making the article present them as legitimate would support ethnic cleansing
 * Delete: the resolution is invalid because abkhazia because russia was the first to recognize them

In summary: please keep all debate civil, relevant, and to the point.

IV. Notes to editors:

I strongly urge any editors of this article to reply. If a significant period of time passes (such as a full month) with no replies, the consensus would be 1:0 in favor and I would have an obligation to make the change. Whether you support or oppose reverting the article to the version I am advocating for I request that you state your position as to limit opposition if and when the reversion is made. If the consensus demonstrates that users would not support such a change, the change will not be made. Per WP:BOLD it will be done if it appears favorable.

The links provided to the previous version may inaccurately link to the present version; I will provide a link to a screenshot of its infobox here

Originally posted: 8th April 2017. Most recent update (to original post): 1st May 2017

While Wikipedia is not a vote, the current consensus appears to be 2:2.

This consensus count is not incremented by the lower end of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

When responding, please keep in mind that polling is not a substitute for discussion. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:


 * I'm mostly in favour as significant changes have been made clearly without a consensus having been reached. Alæxis¿question? 16:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed. Rationale outlined above is largely flawed. Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is an article on a government body, not an administrative or political entity. An equivalent article on the de facto authorities would be Government of the Republic of Abkhazia. The current article should discuss the disputed territory in general. No need to create POV forks.--KoberTalk 15:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose from me as well. Agree with Kober and in near past we already had discussion about it. Also such proposals by newly appeared user with 150 edits of global contribution makes me think about single-purpose accounts.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  16:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Kober, Since the creation of Georgia as a sovereign nation-state, Georgia has *not* had any de facto control over a region. If it is actually valuable to represent the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia as an entity then such an article could be created to fulfill this purpose. However, per reason the reason stated above, such information only belongs as a footnote of the Abkhazia article. The Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia does have de jure existence, but lacks any de facto existence; it is not an opinion to say that the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" does not exist. Is it a POV fork to have an article on South Ossetia which is in a nearly identical position with a nearly identical history? This is not another Crimea. To elaborate, from the dissolution of the Soviet Union to the 2014 annexation by the Russian Federation, Ukraine had both de jure and de facto control over the peninsula. However, from the dissolution of the Soviet Union to the present-day, Georgia lacked control over Abkhazia. Abkhazia declared itself to be sovereign from the Soviets a year before Georgia did and declared its sovereignty again (this time from Georgia) a year after the Soviet dissolution. The only POV fork would be to treat Abkhazia differently from South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, I need sources for this statement: "Abkhazia declared itself to be sovereign from the Soviets a year before Georgia did and declared its sovereignty again (this time from Georgia) a year after the Soviet dissolution. " Then we will continue our discussion... --KoberTalk 19:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in the infobox to the right, but if you'd like sources that support this, here's, , and . Abkhazia declared sovereignty on 25th August, 1990. On 18th November 1991, Georgia declared its independence from the Soviet Union. For clarification, declarations of independence and sovereignty are not necessarily identical and I apologize if my original wording was misleading. I will add that the Georgian SSR declared itself sovereign in 1989. However, I must remind you that this does not relate to the points of discussion (the infobox). Our recognition of, our opinions on, our views of the legitimacy of, and our biases towards or against partially-recognized states are not factors. Abkhazia is a country with limited international recognition, and that is exactly what this article should reflect. Its infobox in its present form is, as described in the discussion from 2016, is based on that of the Crimean peninsula, which per the reasons stated in my previous reply, is not viable. With that, I have proposed instead making it modeled off the infobox of South Ossetia. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Giorgi Balakhadze, That response went against WP:DNB, WP:ATTP, and WP:NPA. Please attack my arguments, not my character, post count, or join date. Referring to me as a "single-purpose account" was an unjust attack on me. The diversity of my contributions throughout my eight months editing for Wikipedia discredits the attempt to depict me as a puppet account created solely for this discussion. As of now, you don't have an argument. Your reply lacked any substantive justifications. I request that you respond to my arguments themselves and refute their central points using defensible claims to support your opposition. Resorting to name-calling is never acceptable in formal discussion. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote my opinion, and the fact that must be mentioned, if the fact makes someone (logically) think about something it is not a "personal attack". Thoughts and assertions are two different things.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  22:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Giorgi Balakhadze A personal attack is constituted by use of ad hominem; your statements were directed at me, not at my argument. I again cite WP:DNB, WP:ATTP, and WP:NPA. I again request that you offer a substantive argument directly related to the points of the original post. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , please fix this RfC in accordance with WP:RFC. If you want to know why, check out how it appears at - although 15,325 bytes were added to that listing, only a tiny bit of text, plus that infobox, is actually displayed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying the correct format. I've now separated the 15K byte argument from the RfC to preserve its neutrality and keep the request itself short. Please let me know if this is still not in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines and I will make another change. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If anything, it's worse - the effect of your changes is . The thing is, picks up everything from the  template (exclusive) to the next timestamp (inclusive) and copies that to the RfC listing pages, so if there's a lot of text between those two points, a large entry will be added to the listings; and if certain markup occurs in this entry, the listing can actually be broken, as has been happening here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @ ✅ BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Crimea precedent is more suitable for this article, since both Ukraine's and Russia's definition of the political boundaries of Crimea coincide. Georgia recognizes the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia as legal governor of Abkhazia. The territory of the Republic of South Ossetia does not correspond to any administrative division of Georgia. South Ossetia assumed control over Ossetian-inhabited parts of the several administrative divisions of Georgia.
 * Other-language Wikipedias are not the best examples to follow, since other-language Wikipedias may not have the same level of activity as en.wiki does, so their articles are grossly outdated and inaccurate. Other-language Wikipedias often follow the examples set by en.wiki. Other-language wikis have different sets of editors with their own agendas. I noticed that the Swedish Wiki has three infoboxes separately for the entire region, the Georgian administrative division and the Republic of Abkhazia.
 * The previous infobox implies that Abkhazia is undisputed territory of the Republic of Abkhazia. This is simply not true. Abkhazia as a whole did not declare itself independent. It was the Republic of Abkhazia that declared its independence after the 1992-1993 war and the expulsion of half of the pre-war population of Abkhazia opposing the independence of Abkhazia. The current infobox is neutral and reflects both the de facto and de jure situations. The previous infobox gave WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to one side of the dispute.
 * The arguments that Abkhazia declared its sovereignty before Georgia and Georgia never controlled Abkhazia are both invalid. Georgia first became independent in 1918 and Abkhazia became part of Georgia. No Republic of Abkhazia existed before 1921, when the Soviet occupation of Georgia began. Georgia's declaration of sovereignty took place on 9 March 1990.  Georgia based its 1991 declaration of independence on the 1918 declaration of independence. Modern Georgian state is a legal continuation of the 1918-1921 Georgian state. Georgian government controlled entire Abkhazia in 1991-1992 before the war. Even after 1993, Georgian government controlled part of Abkhazia.
 * If the RfC creator wants the article on the "largely unrecognized state" of Abkhazia, then he should create the article on the Republic of Abkhazia. The article in question is about Abkhazia as a whole, not just the self-proclaimed state. The title of the articles reflects this, since the article is named Abkhazia instead of the Republic of Abkhazia. Articles both about the geographic/historic regions and the states/governmennts exist for Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh and Taiwan. Abkhazia is the region widely recognized as sovereign Georgian territory, however, it is currently controlled by the Republic of Abkhazia with limited recognition. The current infobox gives due weight to both views. 166.164.37.64 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Abkhazia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfRHMbz2nuU
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/287861%2Creport-blames-georgia-for-starting-war-with-russia-newspapers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080903000000/http://www.parliament.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=98&info_id=20047 to http://www.parliament.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=98&info_id=20047
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19330
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105025948/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D1CBBFA0-4833-4AA5-B13D-7065DE6A769F.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D1CBBFA0-4833-4AA5-B13D-7065DE6A769F.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917010019/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/ga10708.doc.htm to http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/ga10708.doc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140624083638/http://www.smr.gov.ge/docs/doc216.pdf to http://www.smr.gov.ge/docs/doc216.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213142423/http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2009/CDL%282009%29004-e.asp to http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2009/CDL%282009%29004-e.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b176fd64-7292-11dd-983b-0000779fd18c%2Cdwp_uuid%3D70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html
 * Added tag to http://mosnews.com/news/2006/08/22/lugarspeaks.shtml
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ajFHstLY?url=http://www.cancilleria.gob.ni/publicaciones/r_abjasia.pdf to http://www.cancilleria.gob.ni/publicaciones/r_abjasia.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202183029/http://apsnypress.info/news/6859.html to http://apsnypress.info/news/6859.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209185131/http://apsnypress.info/news/5084.html to http://apsnypress.info/news/5084.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120524211325/www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/8226.cfm to http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/8226.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716042951/http://www.loc.gov/law/help/russian-georgia-war.php to http://www.loc.gov/law/help/russian-georgia-war.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Abkhazia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222171833/http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/south-caucasus/georgia/176-abkhazia-today.aspx to http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/south-caucasus/georgia/176-abkhazia-today.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/287861,report-blames-georgia-for-starting-war-with-russia-newspapers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211032705/http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29521 to http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29521
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928080939/http://www.abkhaziagov.org/ru/president/press/news/detail.php?ID=5972&phrase_id=12832%2F to http://www.abkhaziagov.org/ru/president/press/news/detail.php?ID=5972&phrase_id=12832%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531165158/http://www.unomig.org/media/headlines/?id=10173&y=2008&m=02&d=21 to http://www.unomig.org/media/headlines/?id=10173&y=2008&m=02&d=21
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907173938/http://www.paltelegraph.com/world/asia-news/2139-russias-build-up-in-the-black-sea to http://www.paltelegraph.com/world/asia-news/2139-russias-build-up-in-the-black-sea
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924001426/http://russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-09-16/georgian-trespasser-ships-abkhazia.html to http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-09-16/georgian-trespasser-ships-abkhazia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331144318/http://mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=59&info_id=17401 to http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=59&info_id=17401

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Year of cessation
Is there an official date when the self-proclaimed Republic of Abkhazia declared independence? There article lead and infobox seems to lack any date that I can find. DA1 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abkhazia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202161044/http://www.worldreview.info/content/washington-shames-moscow-over-occupied-abkhazia to http://www.worldreview.info/content/washington-shames-moscow-over-occupied-abkhazia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402131545/http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=2245 to http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=2245

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead is not neutral
Although Abkhazia is a disputed region, the lead paragraph describes it as the partially-recognised state, thus giving WP:UNDUE weight to the Republic of Abkhazia. Wikipedia describes other post-Soviet territories, such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Donetsk Oblast, as regions internationally recognised respectively as Azerbaijanian and Ukrainian, but currently controlled by separatist states. This article places the majority opinion after the minority opinion. It seems that editors of this article are striving for the Republic of Abkhazia, not for neutrality. Also omitted is the fact that Abkhaz rebels did not control 100% of Abkhazia before 2008.


 * This follows in line with similar articles about partially recognized states. The lead makes it clear that Abkhazia is overwhelmingly recognized as a part of Georgia under Russian occupation. The state de facto exists, however, and the current treatment in the lead is appropriate.
 * Also, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes in the future. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Abkhazia is de-facto controlled by the Republic of Abkhazia - this would belong in the lead even if there was no recognition - this has ramifications on entry/exit, defense, police and judicial enforcement inside the territory, taxes, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If this article is about a partially-recognised state, why does not the article use the state's full official name as its name? Where is article about the area in question? Nobody denies that the area is governed by the Republic of Abkhazia. I have never demanded complete deletion of any reference to the Republic of Abkhazia in the lead. Not everyone agrees that Abkhazia is a state. Abkhazia is disputed by two political entities, but the non-neutral lead assigns it to a single entity. Any region must be described as a region until it gains full independence. 46.87.104.17 (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While there are competing claims - a single entity controls the territory. That's the reality on the ground at present - which should be described prior to describing claims and recognition.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Icewhiz you are repeating and repeating that "single entity controls the territory" but what is a reliable source of your claims? If you really wanted to neutrally represent the reality you could say that the region is under Russian military occupation (see reliable sources here ► Occupied territories of Georgia) mixed with puppet "Abkhaz-Russian government" (see reliable sources here ► (IN)DEPENDENCE: GLIMPSE INTO SURKOV FILES). If you are against the term puppet state and puppet government see the definitions of them which very accurately describe "Republic of Abkhazia on the ground"
 * Puppet state — A puppet state is a state that is supposedly independent but is in fact dependent upon an outside power. A puppet state preserves the external paraphernalia of independence like a name, flag, anthem, constitution, law codes and motto but in reality is an organ of another state which created or sponsored the government. Puppet states are not recognized as legitimate under international law.
 * Puppet government — a government which is endowed with the outward symbols of authority but in which direction and control are exercised by another power.
 * So I think I've made it clear what is RoA in reality, and take in mind that I used not my words (or prejudice) but reliable sources, definitions and facts from there.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  10:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the degree of "puppetnees" of the Republic of Abkhazia is somewhat contested (at least by the Russians) - however regardless of the degree it is a puppet (which could be perhaps expanded in the lead if adequately sourced) - this is the entity that actually controls the territory.Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And again I'll repeat the only entity that really controls region of Abkhazia (facts are above) is the Russian Federation (with tons of military equipment, soldiers and etc).-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  11:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then maybe Russian involvement should be expanded in the lead (though we do not do that in the lead for Nagorno-Karabakh (as an Aremenian proxy/puppet)) - regardless of who is backing/propping/controlling the Republic - it is there.Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a stretch, although I see where you're coming from. While there are Russian soldiers in Abkhazia on peacekeeping missions and Russia generally cooperates with them, it's hard to say where the line is between "sphere of influence" and a puppet state. I wouldn't consider Estonia a NATO puppet state even though many foreign soldiers are deployed throughout the baltics. Maybe you would, I don't know. The lead seems to be very matter of fact and I don't see it giving any undue influence at this time. This page simply presents the situation as it is today and the claims from both sides - but we are not drawing any conclusions for the reader because we are an encyclopedia not an international court. Outback the koala (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Outback the koala your mistake number 1) Russian soldiers in Abkhazia on peacekeeping missions — there are no peacekeeping missions ; mistake number 2) it's hard to say where the line is between "sphere of influence" and a puppet state — click my linked articles above and you will find, read and understand a difference between them; mistake number 3) This page simply presents the situation as it is today and the claims from both sides — the opposite side isn't only secessionists but Russians(90%) + Secessionists(10%) mixed side.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  21:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand you have some very strong views on this subject, however, we have, what I believe as an encyclopedia, is an obligation to present our readers with both sides of the argument from an unbiased position as much as we can. I respect your perspective very much and I think it's fair to say that either side of this international situation has radically divergent opinions on the matter and they are reflected in the article and elsewhere. To be honest, I think we have struck for the most part a fair balance that offers fair representation of reality. Everyone here is here to constantly try and make it even better. Outback the koala (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, unbiased position is to represent full situation and not only "partly recognized position". I really suggest to read the articles above, it is not "my position". Not a secret anymore that Russians use tactics of hybrid warfare and confrontation (Examples in Georgia (1991-93, 2008), Ukraine (2014), Montenegro (2015–16), US (2016) and French elections and etc.). It's not a coincidence that all conflicts in post-soviet region appear when a post-soviet country aims to western integration and tries to escape from Russian influence. We should represent all layers of the situation not only "open" but "hidden" and (leaked) "secret" ones as well. Disclaimer: The third and the fourth sentences here are not my personal views but based on many researches and reports. -- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  10:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Outback the koala, I don't want to be interpreted as questioning your genuine interest in encyclopedic approach to what you are referring to as reality, but your confidence in a "fair representation" invites a humble question: what is your source for assessing the reality on the ground? What I know for sure is that Russian involvement in Abkhazia goes far beyond just stationing troops in the territory and this is not denied by the Russians/Abkhaz themselves. So, comparing Abkhazia with the sovereign member states of NATO is naïve at least.--KoberTalk 12:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. FYI, there are no Russian peacekeeping troops in Abkhazia. The "peacekeeping" status was revoked by Russians themselves back in 2008. --KoberTalk 12:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was incorrect on that point and misspoke. I apologize and I don't deny in anyway the strong relationship between the Abkhaz and Russians. Outback the koala (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that Abkhazia is indeed treated differently from other disputed post-Soviet territories since Abkhazia is described as a partially recognized state in the first sentence of the intro unlike other post-Soviet territories controlled by the breakaway entities. It is astonishing that the intro of Russian article describes Abkhazia as a region on the Black Sea coast, not as an independent state. One would think that biased Russian Wikipedia would treat Abkhazia as de facto independent state while neutral English Wikipedia would treat Abkhazia as disputed region. The problem is that English Wikipedia is edited by biased people.2600:1003:B00A:59A1:54B:C0CB:770D:E181 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of similar articles, the article about Northern Cyprus, where the situation is very similar with one side claiming that the region is occupied by Turkey and another that it's a separate state, says "Northern Cyprus is a partially recognised state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus."
 * Also, we have quite a few sources in the article that used the words de facto state or something similar (as in A Survey of Attitudes in a De Facto State, also refs 7,8,9,10 in the current version). So it's not just Russian/Abkhazian official sources referring to Abkhazia as a state or country. This is btw not to deny Russian influence there, but then there are many UN-member universally recognised countries that depend on other countries to a very large extent. Alaexis¿question? 18:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article Northern Cyprus says that a "political state" controls the territory of the island. The article does not say that "the political entity" and the geographic region are the same entity: Northern Cyprus is a partially recognized state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. The current discussion focuses on the difference of Abkhazia's article from other post-Soviet territorial articles. Northern Cyprus is not the post-Soviet territory and the Republic of Cyprus has no such administrative division named "North Cyprus". Abkhazia is a disputed region internationally recognized part of Georgia, but the first sentence of the biased lead declares it as a property of the RoA. Abkhazia ≠ RoA.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  10:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Map in the Infobox Appears to be Incorrect
Am I mistaken, or does the 'Georgian map' positioned within the info box that purports to show where the disputed Abkhazia and South Ossetian areas are within the state of Georgia actually cover the entire state of Georgia? As best as I can tell the orange tinted section is supposed to indicate the boundaries of Abkhazia and the grey tinted portion is supposed to represent the boundaries of South Ossetian, but combined these appear to cover the entire country? I'm just checking in before correcting to make sure I'm not missing something here. Syr74 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, I answered my own question here but this has led to the discovery of another problem. The phrasing in the caption below the map is awkward to put it mildly and could easily be misleading. Either the map needs to be changed to make the phrasing clearer, the inclusion of South Ossetia in the comment needs to be removed for the sake of clarity, or somebody needs to figure out how to reword this caption to make it clearer without turning it into a novel. And as mentioned at the outset, I'm not sure the latter is actually doable with the current map and the inclusion of all three entities within that caption. Syr74 (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

New RFC
The dispute is whether to include the infobox featuring the symbols of the Republic of Abkhazia (such as the flag), which are normally included on all country articles. Abkhazia is a partially-recognized country. Those wanting the infobox in the article argue that it should be in the article because other partially-recognized countries (such as South Ossetia and Artsakh) currently have an infobox. Also, the Abkhazia articles in other languages have the infobox. The argument is that an exception should not be made for Abkhazia (i.e. it shouldn't be the only partially-recognized country without an infobox). Those opposing the infobox say it puts too much weight on the Republic of Abkhazia. But the question then is, where does the infobox go? (Onto a new article titled "Republic of Abkhazia"?) A previous RfC was started on this issue, but that RfC had no consensus. Currently the infobox keeps being added and then reverted by multiple editors. See also the section "Splitting the Abkhazia article" above, which has not resolved the issue so far. 01:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternative formulation of RfC
Which infobox should this article use? —DIYeditor (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  without Republic of Abkhazia at the top
 * 2)  with Republic of Abkhazia and flag at top

Survey

 * Include infobox. The reality on the ground is that the unrecognized country exists. If you were to drive through Abkhazia (allegedly committing some violation), you would be stopped by an Abkhazian policeman, thrown into an Abkhazian jail, and tried in an Abkhazian court. The infobox should be there while duly noting that outside of Abkhazia most countries do not recognize it as a legitimate country.Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Preserve the consensus infobox featuring both de facto Republic and de jure Autonomy. South Ossetia infobox is a bad example as this entity hardly even exists in de jure Georgian subdivision system, while Abkhazia is an autonomous republic with its established borders and constitutionally guaranteed self-rule according to the Georgian legislature.-KoberTalk 16:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Include infobox (the one featuring the Republic of Abkhazia). The current power in the Abkhazia region is the Republic of Abkhazia, a country recognized by 4 countries. While the Georgian autonomous entity is de jure according to most countries, it is sitting in exile and is not the current authority in Abkhazia. Therefore, having an infobox with both the Republic of Abkhazia and the Georgian entity could be misleading, and the infobox should only feature the Republic of Abkhazia. Also, other partially-recognized countries like South Ossetia and Artsakh continue to have their infoboxes. (To be consistent, it would thus make sense for the Abkhazia article to have the infobox representing the partially-recognized Republic of Abkhazia). And also, the Spanish Wikipedia Abkhazia article, the French Wikipedia Abkhazia article, the German Wikipedia Abkhazia article, the Portuguese Wikipedia Abkhazia article and just about every other Abkhazia article in other languages has the Republic of Abkhazia infobox. The English-language Wikipedia Abkhazia article seems to be the only one without the Republic of Abkhazia infobox. It's worth noting that in other languages, within the Republic of Abkhazia infobox, some of the articles have in small text phrases such as "see also: [Georgian autonomous entity]" or "sovereignty disputed" -- but the main part of the infobox still includes the Republic of Abkhazia's flag, coat of arms, etc. LumaP15 (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Include the infobox containing the Republic information. The de facto republic should be included, as that is the fact on the ground. I would also support including the autonomous republic information as well, but in that case I would say the republic should come first. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Include the infobox for the republic of Abkhazia. The long long standing policy is to default to the de facto a situation and remain neutral in the dispute. This seems like a no brainer, we present the information as it accurately exists in the world today, along with recognition, we do not take a position on the legality of claims. Outback the koala (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Include the infobox, but note limited recognition. If the Principality of Sealand can have an infobox, Abkhazia deserves one as well. Billhpike (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Include the infobox for the republic of Abkhazia. per Koala above. Edaham (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Preserve the old infobox all arguments here are just perhaps 5% of the arguments discussed during the previous RFC, you say nothing new and those arguments met their counterarguments there. I do believe that in wikipedia doing RFC in every few months about the same subject but without consideration of other let's say more legitimate (with wider user involvement) discussion isn't ok. This RFC has no real power to overcome the previous RFC until it won't be discussed as widely as the previous one. And User:Outback the koala please revert your last controversial edit because the RFC hasn't finished yet and User:LumaP15 since the RFC was requested by you do proper job and invite all users from the previous RFC because you strive to override their consensus. -- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  20:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't invited anyone to this RFC. The RFC is itself supposed to get other people's opinions on the subject (so invitations are not necessary). The previous RFC had no consensus. LumaP15 (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This is another example of an utter nonsense nationalist dispute wasting people's time on Wikipedia and tainting the project. Is Elbonia a country or is it not? In the end it doesn't matter which way the infobox is and I question the neutrality of anyone who has strong opinions on this (or suspiciously hails from the region in question). Is the reader better served by either version? No, they each work as well. Indeed this is a malformed RfC: it does not ping the users from the prior 2016 RfC that it is trying to override, it isn't phrased as a simple neutral question, and it doesn't offer diffs of the infoboxes in question (although this is easily determined by wasting more time and looking at the page history). This is shoddy, and borderline disruptive, editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Include infobox, it may only be recognized by a few countries, but it has recognition. But note limited recognition in the infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Qualified include infobox I note that whilst Artsakh has "Status - disputed", and details, as the first item in the infobox text, on this infobox, the disputed nature is in small text at the bottom of the box. This is surely the key piece of info about Abkhazia and omitting it, or footnoting it, implies that we are dealing with a recognised state. The infobox is a summary of key information, and just as the status of a country would be in 'pole position' in the lead, so should it be in the infobox. I am neutral as to whether both 'claimants' should be in the infobox, but the nature of the dispute is key information. I sympathise with DIYeditor, it would be good if we had a standard practice to deal with partially - or barely - recognised states. Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Abkhazia is a contested area between the largely-unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia, which de facto controls the territory, and the Republic of Georgia. The territory originally belonged to Georgia and the majority of the international community sill takes Georgia's side. The Republic of Abkhazia has failed to gain any significant international support for its claim. Georgia does not recognise not only the independence of Abkhazia, but also the institutions of the Republic of Abkhazia as the legitimate government of Abkhazia. The current infobox is neutral since it does not take sides. The replacement is not neutral since it takes side and equates the area of Abkhazia with the Republic of Abkhazia. A clear distinction needs to be made between the territory and the largely-unrecognised state. The only place where the inclusion of the infobox of the Republic of Abkhazia would not cause any controversy is the currently non-existent article about the Republic of Abkhazia. Perhaps it would be better if the article on Abkhazia was split and the sections about the recognition, politics and government, administrative divisions, military and economy were moved to the Republic of Abkhazia article. The article on Abkhazia must portray the area as the subject of the dispute, not as the participant of the dispute. Wikipedia already makes distinctions in similar cases: between Artsakh and Nagorno-Karabakh, between Crimea, Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea. 91.64.57.30 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Per WP:UNDUE we shouldn't treat the same the Republic of Abkhazia and Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, as it was done here, as the latter is just a shadow administration that has no influence in Abkhazia itself or elsewhere. Having said that, the infobox should make clear that Abkhazia is recognised only by a handful of coutries and that Georgia considers Abkhazia as its constituent part. Therefore, include with modifications Alaexis¿question? 15:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Include the infobox It has been standard practice to use the country info box for unrecognized and partially recognized states for years now. This article should not be the exception to the rule, as there is no difference between the status of Abhazkia and that of South Ossetia. Anasaitis (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Include the infobox as the situation is quite different from Crimea, which were a real Ukrainian region for twenty years (thus geographical article Crimea and two political articles Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea), while Abkhazia were not controlled by Georgia after USSR dissolution (so Georgian political fiction Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia should be a separate article, while Abkhazia and Republic of Abkhazia as a successor of USSR subrepublic should be in the same article). Wikisaurus (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is barely an argument and I think it's lack of competence. Don't you know that Georgia (nowadays) is officially successor of Georgian SSR? And what is more important Abkhazia's autonomy existed even in Democratic Republic of Georgia and if you don't know at that time Georgia was fully controlling that area. So from 1918 to 1921 (democracy period) and from 1921 to 1993 (communism period) the region of Abkhazia officially and practically was under Georgian control. In the end we can say that Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has a history of many decades. And take in mind that Georgia is a country with a history of thousands of years and that region was not created yesterday, and it has a long history under Georgian control than in any other position. Only fiction here is to write such "arguments" like yours.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  20:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Include the infobox - Regardless of whether it's recognised or not the article isn't a stub so however you look at it an infobox would be beneficial to our readers here, Include. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether to have an infobox at all but which infobox to have. This RfC fails to make a simple statement of its intent, and how the responses are formatted is misleading. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - Ah right sorry, Would've been helpful if the nom said "Here's 2 infoboxes, pick one" .... In that case I've struck the entire comment - Can't be bothered to trawl through the history and all that, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * DIYeditor what do you think about adding a text above the "New RFC" to tell people that this is malformed RFC and has no sense.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  19:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point it's a little late but I will put a note at the top showing how I think an RFC should've been phrased. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Include infobox I would like to apologize in advance for how messy my attempt at an RFC a year ago. I was very new to Wikipedia and truly didn't know how any of this worked. With that aside, I do maintain many of the arguments that were used in it, notably support for a split between an article on "Abkazia" as a self-declared state and "Abkhazia" as a region in dispute. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Note to closer and comment: I have offered an alternative formulation of the RfC. This is the sort of simple, neutral statement or question WP:RFC was looking for. The person who starts the RfC can give their explanation or opinions in an initial !vote below there (usually in a "Survey" section). This formulation also makes it clear what exactly the !voter is supporting since with the original RfC they would have to search the page history and guess which is in question. I think this RfC was problematic for these reasons and I think 's understandable confusion illustrates this. If this infobox dispute were a critical issue I might go as far as to suggest starting the RfC over but I'm not sure how this sort of thing is usually handled. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Splitting the Abkhazia article
The current Abkhazia article is about the region of Abkhazia, giving equal weight to both the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (the government-in-exile) and the current de facto Republic of Abkhazia. The problem is that the government-in-exile has an article, but the Republic of Abkhazia does not have an article. For this reason, the current Abkhazia article should be split, so that the current article about the region remains, and a new article specifically about the Republic of Abkhazia is created. The new Republic of Abkhazia article would contain the Abkhazia infobox that was removed several months ago (i.e. with the green and white flag, etc.) LumaP15 (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article is the same as it was before, the only difference is in infobox which now is more neutral and shows both sides. Your claims are pointless. We even have a separate article about the de facto government ► Government of the Republic of Abkhazia. There is no reason for splitting.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  09:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a WP:POVSPLIT. The article doesn't warrant a WP:SPINOUT split, and the historical 'region' and de facto government are inexorably linked. This should continue to be reflected in maintaining balanced content as is the current situation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article is to remain the same, then the infobox of the Republic of Abkhazia should be put back into the article. It doesn't make sense to have an Abkhazia article without the de facto government's inbox somewhere in the article. The Abkhazia infobox currently is not on any English-language Wikipedia article, while the Abkhazia articles in other languages continue to have it. In addition, other partially-recognized countries such as South Ossetia continue to have their infoboxes. Not having the Republic of Abkhazia's infobox on any English-language Wikipedia article could itself be viewed as POV. One option would be to put the infobox on the Government of the Republic of Abkhazia article instead of the Abkhazia article, while renaming the Abkhazia article Abkhazia (region) LumaP15 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I support putting the infobox back on like Lumap15 suggests but I oppose splitting it. SausageSpirit (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The infobox should be brought back to the article. The Republic of Abkhazia is the current power in the region, even if it does not have much recognition. Also, other partial-recognition countries such as South Ossetia continue to have their infoboxes, so why should Abkhazia be singled out and not have an infobox while all other partial-recognition countries (South Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, etc.) continue to have infoboxes? That is inconsistency. To keep things consistent with other articles, the "Republic of Abkhazia" infobox should not be removed from the article. LumaP15 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I support putting the infobox back, as well. It is ridiculous that this largely unrecognized state is treated differently from the others. If we are not going to split the article, then the infobox should be brought back. Anasaitis (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried putting the inbox back, but it was reverted. One of the claims made is there is a consensus that the infobox shouldn't be there -- that isn't true. Multiple people think the infobox should be in the article if it isn't going to be split. There is no reason to make an exception for Abkhazia while all other partially-recognized countries (like South Ossetia) continue to have their infoboxes. LumaP15 (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - read WP:POVSPLIT, this simply wouldn't be one; the claim that it would be was never substantiated. As is consistent with every other partially-recognized country article, the article of the primary subject (the country) is to inform readers about the country and its history. We don't require Kosovo to give equal weight to claims that it is a region of the Republic of Serbia because roughly half of the international community views it as Serbian territory, information about the regional government in exile and the geographic region itself goes into Kosovo (region). This allows Kosovo to simply be about the country Kosovo. Not a single UN member recognizes  Transnistria, but that doesn't mean that the article is to be split between Transnistria as a country and Transnistria as part of the Republic of Moldova or as a disputed region, instead there is the article Transnistria (geographical region). I support creating Abkhazia (region) for appropriate text because this is both neutral and objective as well as being a common, well-established way to provide the reader with information about the disputed region. If anything, to assert that there should be only one article with no differentiation between the self-declared republic and the disputed geographic region is the POV-motivated position as it intentionally singles out Abkhazia as being an exception whose article should be approached differently from Kosovo, Artsakh, Northern Cyprus, Logone, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria, and Wa with no particular reason offered. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Abkhazia is a de facto state which is partially recognised, is this in dispute at all?
Abkhazia is a de facto state that is partially recognised. This has been reverted from the lead for some reason in favour of the vague term “territory”, which isn’t really applicable. Outback the koala (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Abkhazia≠Republic of Abkhazia. This was said so many times that your actions look like mere POV pushing in favor of separatists. -- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  19:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that’s an interesting argument, let us then move Italy and make it strictly about the geographic region. When we refer to Abkhazia we are referring to the entity and region which, for the moment, are indeed one. Outback the koala (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comparison about Italy is a nonsense, Italy is not a geographic region. Abkhazia at the same time is a geographic region, historical region, administrative region, Autonomous Republic and de facto "RoA". If you wish, go ahead and create a new article about RoA as it is done with Crimea.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  08:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This is the only country article that is dealt with this way. Your description could apply just as much to Kosovo or Canada. All of these points should get a section is the article to deal with these subjects BUT first and foremost we usually identify a country by its political entity. Abkhazia is currently fully controllled by its de facto regime and is de jure recognition by some un members and not by others. We don’t make such distinctions for Tiawan - please justify why this article should be treated differently from all others. Outback the koala (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The proper way to change the established wording in such an article is to propose it on the talk and seek consensus, and failing that, get outside view. Here no arguments have been presented prior to the change. Alaexis¿question? 20:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Alaexis, the most important part of the WP:BRD process is the discussion of course, but to suggest that Outback is doing something wrong by boldly implementing the change before discussion occurs is nonsense, as that is the order of BRD; boldly taking the action draws the attention of editors to the talk page, and clearly that worked as intended. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 11:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Outback the Koala. This is the ONLY country article that we deal with this way, and with absolutely no explained rationale for doing so. The same holds true for how this was, for roughly an entire year, the ONLY country that doesn't even get to use the Country Infobox displaying basic information such as the flag and population. Abkhazia is not a geographic region. The subsection on geography is no different from the kind of geography section you'd read about on literally any article regarding political borders; if Abkhazia is a geographic region, literally all political entities double as geographic regions with no exceptions. The same is true for Abkhazia as a "historical region" and "administrative region." The Italy comparison isn't actually bad; if we apply the same kind of logic used here, it would sound like this:
 * Italy, like Crimea, is a peninsula with interesting geography. Italy is a historic region with its roots in the ancient "Italia" region of the Roman Empire. Italy is an administrative region governed by the Italian Republic and the European Union. When people talk about Italy, they might not be talking about the political entity that exists there. They might be talking about the geographic region which is shared not only by Italy but also San Marino and Vatican City! They may also be referring to historic city states that existed in the region. Move Italy to "Italian Republic" and move "Italian Peninsula" to "Italy" so the readers can find information about the Italian Republic, Vatican City, and San Marino because the IR is not the primary topic.

I use this not as an attempted strawman, but rather to put in perspective why I find Giorgi's arguments to be nonsense. The political entity that actually controls the area ''' is the WP:PRIMARY. ''' The only exceptions to this are obvious. Macedonia =/= Republic of Macedonia because the region known as Macedonia is beyond the Republic's borders. The same is not true with Abkhazia. Western Sahara =/= SADR because the region of Western Sahara is larger than the actual territory controlled by the political entity known as Western Sahara. The entirety of "Abkhazia" is controlled by "Abkhazia." It's the primary topic without question. There's literally zero reasons to compare Abkhazia to Crimea. It makes less than no sense. To tell editors that they need to create a "Republic of Abkhazia" article if they really think there should be an article specifically about the state with limited recognition, even when all practices (and policies) clearly show that this is the article name for that, is unacceptable. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, I find the version proposed by Giorgi where we refer to Abkhazia as a territory rather than a de facto republic to be problematic as it gives undue weight to a government that, in reality, doesn't exist. The word territory based on the Wikipedia article territory suggests that it is a province, and to say that in the lead of the article when the primary subject is the country, something we have never done on any other country article or even disputed country article, an edit more problematic than the one Giorgi wrongfully outright declared Outback the Koala to be a POV-pusher for. I understand that perhaps the intent was to consider the land a disputed territory between Georgia and Abkhazia, but this is the article to cover the de facto self-declared state per WP:PRIMARY per our approach to every other state with limited recognition. Consider this excerpt from territory:
 * Territory: A territory is an administrative division, usually an area that is under the jurisdiction of a state. In most countries, a territory is an organized land controlled division of an area that is controlled by a country but is not formally developed into, or incorporated into, a political unit of the country that is of equal status to other political units that may often be referred to by words such as "provinces" or "states".

In other words, outright saying in the lead of the article that "Abkhazia" doesn't refer to a republic, it's a territory of another country. WP:PRIMARY applies, and the government in exile is clearly not the primary. I mean no ill will towards you and I apologize sincerely if this sounds like a personal attack in any form, but I have noticed a trend that every time an edit conflict arises between Koala, Giorgi, and myself, each and every time we propose doing with Abkhazia what we do with every other limited recognition country we're immediately and explicitly labeled "pro-separatist POV-pushers" which very much violates WP:NPA. This has happened several times by now, and I'd like to link to the humorous essay WP:BADFAITH as it seems to be relevant. We're not a handful of malicious POV-warriors just for desiring consistent practices across partially recognized country articles. Please take this into consideration. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 11:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. The purposeful obfuscation here makes any meaningful discussion impossible to conduct. Outback the koala (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What does "seemingly" mean?
At least two sentence use the word "seemingly" in a way that seems wrong, and I'm not sure what was actually intended:


 * Georgia signed a treaty with Russia for protection against the Ottoman Empire in 1773 and was seemingly absorbed, …
 * Russian forces had to evacuate Abkhazia and Prince Michael (1822–1864) seemingly switched to the Ottomans.

As written, this is saying that it looked like Georgia was absorbed but that appearance was deceptive, and that Michael looked like he switched sides but he really didn't. Neither of those is what happened. The fact that these were written by two different authors (Allforinfo on 19 Sep 2015, an anon IP on 3 September 2008‎) makes me think that maybe there's a word in Abkhaz or Russian or Georgian that's commonly mistranslated to English? Unfortunately, neither author provided a source. And I can't figure out what word they might have been intending here that would make sense. --157.131.201.206 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

1773 Russo-Georgian treaty?
Looking at the sentence I just quoted:


 * Georgia signed a treaty with Russia for protection against the Ottoman Empire in 1773 and was seemingly absorbed…

What 1773 treaty is that? From the context, it sounds like the [Treaty of Georgievsk], but that's off by a decade, and it's not a very good description of the outcome, so… maybe there's an important 1773 treaty that I don't know about. If so, I think it should be linked to an appropriate article and/or cited. Or maybe whatever's being referred to here isn't even particularly important to the history of Abkhazia and can just be left out? (Plenty of major East Georgian events from that era aren't covered here, like the 1790s Persian invasion, presumably for exactly that reason—important in Georgian history, but not in Abkhazian history.) --157.131.201.206 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Abkhazia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Abkhazia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Abkhazia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Article main name
Hi everyone! I am sysop of abwiki and want to help you. This article indeed about "Republic of Abkhazia", but not about Abkhazia. Therms Abkhazia and Republic of Abkhazia have different meanings. Officially it calls itself "Аԥсны Аҳәынҭқарра" which into Russian is "Республика Абхазия", it means "Republic of Abkhazia". Distinguish between ABkhazia and Republic of Abkhazia is big. for example Abkhazia have big history with a lot of centuries, but Republic of Abkhazia about 25 years. It means that if we wish to clear explain somebody what about this article is, we must find right way and give this article right name. If you have any other questions ask to me. For example there also dejure - Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, which comes to this article too. If you wish that this article should be about just Abkhazia with its big story, so you shouldn't write in the beginning "Abkhazia (/æbˈkɑːziə/ (listen), /æbˈkeɪziə/;) is a self-declared sovereign state...". So leaving this article in this form we will be shamed, because it means that we cant provide right and logical information. Thanks!Surprizi (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting quote from Mariam Lordkipanidze's article
This is a quote from the article of Mariam Lordkipanidze :

"According to Vakhushti Bagrationi, the Abkhazian Kingdom consisted of eight administrative units or saeristavos (eristavates). The saeristavo of Abkazeti and partly that of Tskhumi were inhabited by Abkhazians proper, while the remaining six were populated by Kartvelians: Egrisi (centre; Bedia), Guria, Racha-Lechkhumi, Svaneti, Argveti (centre: Shorapani), and lowland Imereti (centre: Kutaisi)."

Does the statement in bold come from directly from Vakhushti? Unfortunately there are no references in the article. Alaexis¿question? 20:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It can't come straightly from Vakhushti. Description of the Kingdom of Georgia 's chapters 15 and 16 (as numbered on the link) are the ones that give information about the region. Unfortunately I couldn't find a translation. Seems there is none. The 15th chapter is about what Vakhushti's contemporary western Georgia was like. It's section named as "for Apkhazeti" is the only part of the text that can be counted as describing ethnic situation. Here he mentions that the vernacular language of Apkhazeti is not Georgian. As for what he means behind Apkhazeti check his map File:Map of Georgia by Prince Vakhushti Bagrationi.37.jpg. this is the russian version and has border between Apkhazeti and Odishi in Anacopia. the 16th chapter is only about the history and both chapters talk about the duchies' history but not their historical population (the time of duchy of Tskhumi, that you are interested in). other than that Lortkipanidze's work's Georgian version give the reference to Vakhushti after the corresponding sentence to this (According to Vakhushti Bagrationi, the Abkhazian Kingdom consisted of eight administrative units or saeristavos (eristavates).) not to the other. ( end of the fifth page) -Ercwlff (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know that he drew a map as well! So what do you think is the source for the highlighted statement? Alaexis¿question? 09:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's what I tried to say. Vakhushti doesn't give information about populations in accordance with duchies. How Lortkipanidze gave the reference shows that she didn't claim this information to come from Vakhushti. It must be Lortkipanidze's own analysis that Tskhumi Saeristavo had Apsua/Abkhaz -Ercwlff (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood that, I'm wondering what this analysis is based upon - after all there were no censuses asking about language and ethnicity. Alaexis¿question? 09:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Military bases map
This map is unsourced for two years already. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but can someone provide the source for it? Alaexis¿question? 12:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Mingrelian origin of the name
, do I understand correctly that the links that you added are to dictionaries? We would need a scholarly source explicitly saying that this is the origin of the name Apkhazeti. Also, I have never seen such etymology in English-language books and articles on Abkhazia. How widespread and accepted is it in Georgian historiography? If it's commonly accepted we probably should add it with attribution, otherwise it would fall under WP:FRINGE. Alaexis¿question? 19:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * First source used is English dictionary for Mingrelian language, Second source is explicitly for Mingrelian word "Apkha", third source is Georgian dictionary for Mingrelian language. All of those sources claim one thing that Apkha word means shoulder or back.--Lemabeta (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a source that makes this connection specifically for the etymology of Abkhazia, otherwise it's WP:Original research. Alaexis¿question? 19:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral term to characterise the legal status
As an interesting discussion is going on Republic of Artsakh talk page about the sensitivity of the terms applied to political entities with limited recognition, wanted to check here:

1) is there a perceived difference between "self-proclaimed" and "breakaway" terms applicable to Abkhazia?

2) is there a prevailing opinion that "self-proclaimed" would be a neutral enough term to use for Abkhazia?

3) is there an appetite for an RfC to allow choosing a unified, more neutral terminology such as "partially recognised state" or a state with limited recognition"? --Armatura (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we are starting to push what constitutes a state with these articles. Abhkazia is a quasi-state at best; it has a government, economy, military all 100% dependent on Russia. It has no independence in any way shape or form, even its inhabitants nearly all have Russian passports and the region has undergone heavy russification. The article should reflect this. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many states and quasi-states are dependent on other states, that is not a defining criteria. Russian influence and passportisation is reflected, as is the economic integration. CMD (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not in the lede it is not, as I tried to rectify with this edit. Yes all states are dependent to some degree on one another, but without Russia Abhkazia would not exist in such a form, and is solely reliant on Russia, which makes it different. They have absolutely no independence or independent functions at all, which is less power than even most sub-national administrative divisions have around the globe. The term quasi-state isn't even the lead, it makes it out to be a legitimate independent state, and its very far off that by any criteria or reference applied.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead reflects the existing situation, and your assertions relating to independence and the nature of statehood are incorrect (sources on Abkhazia-Russia friction are easy to find, eg.). It is hard to read the lead as implying the state to be legitimate or independent, given the very first sentence points out the de facto nature and then doubles down by noting the lack of recognition. Such treatment is standard across similar articles, and reflects sources such as the one linked. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD] (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Abkhazia is indeed incredibly reliant on Russia, but I believe that it has a mild degree of legitimacy (not as a sovereign entity, but as a distinctive region) due to its unique history and identity, particularly involving the Abkhaz ethnic group. Abkhaz are indeed distinct from Georgians to a certain degree. The degree of distinction is disputed. Compared Abkhazia to Donetsk/Luhansk, both of which do not possess a unique identity in relation to Russia in particular. It is clear that Donetsk/Luhansk are parts of the Russian ethno-national sphere of influence, whereas Abkhazia is notably distinct from both Georgia and Russia in its ethnicity and nationality. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is incorrect to compare the Republic of Artsakh to the Republic of Abkhazia. Artsakh is recognized by all UN members as part of Azerbaijan and so has no recognition at all, but Abkhazia is recognized by at least one UN member and thus has limited recognition. --Abrvagl (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not really true. Abkhazia is recognised by just five UN members, which is still not many. Five is more than zero, but that's still not a massive jump considering that there are 193 UN member states in total. Generally speaking, Abkhazia and Artsakh are frequently compared with one another since they are both successor states (with disputed statuses) of the Soviet Union. They are both regarded as post-Soviet de facto states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A bit of a necro, but here goes:
 * 1) A breakaway state (republic) is a state that has ostensibly broken away from a larger state, which is referred to as the parent state. By all accounts, Abkhazia is indeed a breakaway state both in respect to Georgia and the Soviet Union. (Note: Some might argue that it is not a breakaway state in relation to Georgia, but it's hard to argue that it isn't a breakaway state in relation to the Soviet Union.)
 * 2) A self-declared (proclaimed) state is a state that has declared itself to be sovereign or independent (note: it's not necessary for a state to declare independence per se, just that it exists as a sovereign entity). By all accounts, Abkhazia has indeed declared itself to be independent or sovereign, at least the "Abkhazia" that we consider to be the state/government in question (obviously, there are opposing forces both inside Abkhazia and inside the rest of Georgia that oppose Abkhazian independence).
 * Ostensibly, this means that Abkhazia is simultaneously a breakaway state and a self-declared state. As for whether Abkhazia is a state with limited recognition, that's debatable since not everyone agrees that Abkhazia is indeed a state. As someone else has pointed out, Abkhazia could be considered a quasi-state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the introduction it is written
 * Georgia, which views it as autonomous republic

but a few lines below,
 * the Georgian government and [UN] consider Abkhazia legally part of Georgia

which seems contradictory. &mdash; MFH:Talk 14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not at all contradictory. Georgia's definition of "autonomous republic" is synonymous with "autonomous region", i.e. a province with some limited home-rule that is ultimately subservient to the supreme sovereign state, that being Georgia in relation to Abkhazia. Georgia claims the territory of Abkhazia as the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia", defined as an internal subdivision of the Georgian sovereign state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)