Talk:Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia/Archive 1

Adjectival form of de jure and de facto
These do not take internal hyphens when used as adjectives. They are "foreign loan words" (i.e., Latin), so they are always written de jure and de facto (and never de-jure or de-facto). Accordingly, theis article should be renamed to De jure Government of Abkhazia. Askari Mark | Talk 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling the Government of Abkhazia De Jure is an Unverified POV claim
I have added the tag to this article because it adds no evidence that this government is De Jure and recognized in the UN. Please see the talk page on Abkhazia as well Talk:Abkhazia. As mentioned it is not enough to claim that the UN supports the teritorial integrity of Georgia, therefore this government is the de jure government of Abkhazia. This could be looked upon by the international community as imposing a puppet government. Pocopocopocopoco 02:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the references inserted by Kober. The first one is clearly a bogus. The book is available online here. Page 59 only contains the following "Part 2 European Experience". Regarding the second one, it is clearly nothing, but a collection of the UN Security Council resolutions. They are all available online all the way back from 1946. So, can we just have the resolution number, allegedly recognizing the legitimacy of this entity? Óðinn 04:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I inserted the references provided by user:Taton80 in the main Abkhazia article. --KoberTalk 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I'm questioning their legitimacy. Why don't you actually have a look at the first one? Óðinn 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are enough sources which support the information in the article and the recognition of this government has been given long ago (as per references). Otherwise, please present at least two unbiased references which can question the reference claims which i attached to the article. Thanks. Taton80 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted the possible OR tag and inserted a tag that the sources have not been verified. The first source Óðinn already discredit. The second source I haven't looked at. The third source doesn't lay any legitimacy to this government, it just goes into a brief 2 page history of Abkhazia. The fourth, fifth, and sixth sources are Georgian. Pocopocopocopoco 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the OR tag as a manifestation of bad faith. You cannot call OR something that doesn't meet your political POV and wikiagenda. However, I'm leaving the other tag for the time being until the dispute is settled.--KoberTalk 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Facts are facts and you can not manipulate them due to your own bias or POV. In this case, Georgia has full legal and jurisdiction rights to Abkhazia which is recognized by all UN resolutions, SC declarations, EU, OSCE, etc. Therefore, the government of Abkhazian Autonomous Republic which is the legal authority of this territory represents the official status. Even Russia recognized Georgian territorial integrity. Therefore, you don’t have any grounds (besides your own convictions and political agenda on Wikipedia, honestly I don’t believe you are NPOV judging from your contributions) to discredit the factual reality of the status of Abkhazia and its government. Also you cant disregard Georgian sources. If so, I will remove all references and its passages from Abkhazia article which was taken from so called Bagapsh web site and inserted by some Russian user. Also I will discredit any Russian source (which is overwhelmingly biased). Please present any reference or source which will indicate that this government is not legal or was not recognized by international organizations as such. Also present sources where international organizations do not recognize Abkhazia as part of Georgia. Only than, you will have credible claims.  Iberieli 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[unindent] No, it's not a POV claim at all, but a textbook legal definition used to differentiate between disputing claimants to being the sole legitimate and authoritative goverment; the terms are assigned according to order of precedence, not upon which controls the greater percentage of territory. If the de facto government were to become generally recognized internationally or the de jure government were to be able to substantively assume control, the "victor" would then become both the de jure and de facto government – in other words, a normal government. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly correct. You have analyzed the basic concept of it and hinted the right spots. And this is NPOV analysis. When UN, OSCE, EU and Russia recognize Georgian territorial integrity and Abkhazia status within Georgia, it includes Abkhazian de jure government which existed before the war, jurisdiction (the legal authority over the territory of Abkhazia), and constitutional rights. Otherwise, according to the logic above mentioned, the so called Kadirov government is Chechnya is not legal in terms of reality (majority of people in Chechnya elected Maskhadov as the president before the war started). But Russia has the jurisdiction over the territory and the legal authority. Therefore, whatever government it appoints, it automatically becomes legal (i may not like it, but that’s the way it is). Thanks. Iberieli 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that the UN and all the worlds states consider this government to be the de jure government, but that doesn't change the fact that that is still (only) a (juridical) opinion, not a fact. So while 'de jure' is widely used, it's not NPOV, especially not because the self-declared Republic of Abkhazia contests that this is the de jure government, it of course sees itself to be that. It's rather like calling torture inhumane. It is the official opinion of the overwhelming majority of the world's institutions, but we still can't call it that here, because the description is not factual. All we can do is write that the general opinion is so and so. sephia karta 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all rhetoric. So far, not a single valid argument has been provided proving the non-NPOVness of applying the term "de jure" to what is de jure recognized by the whole world.--KoberTalk 18:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't necessarily follow that the autonomous Abkhaz government is internationally recognized as de jure just because other countries and the UN support Georgia's territorial integrity. We see with South Ossetia that the EU doesn't recognize Sanakoyev's government as legitimate . Why would this government get any different treatment. Also, to use a what if analogy, let's say the Iraqi government rigged the elections in Iraqi Kurdistan to put in people loyal to them, the international community wouldn't recognize the Iraqi Kurdistan government as legitimate eventhough they would still support Iraq's territorial integrity. I'm not suggesting that Georgia did that, but only that support for territorial integrity doesn't necessarily lead to support for the automonous government. As for the tags, nobody seemed to have a problem with the tags the first time I put them in a month ago, once user:Taton80 cited some references, I assumed good faith and thought this issue was closed. Now, legitimate questions have been raised regarding these references so the tags must be put back. Stop assuming bad faith with the tags, they are just tags intended to improve the article. Pocopocopocopoco 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The EU doesn't recognize Sanakoyev's government as legitimate because S. Ossetia as an entity does not have any legal or de jure status within Georgia. On the other hand, Abkhazia is a first-level national subdivision which enjoys de jure autonomy and shares sovereignty with the central government of Georgia. --KoberTalk 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're evading the issue. Rather than setting it aside as mere rethoric, please to be engaging my arguments. sephia karta 10:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that several editors here are confusing “de jure” with “legitimate”. They are not synonyms. In fact, the terms de jure and de facto are diplomatic terms created so that disputant governments claiming sole legitimacy could be talked about and distinguished between without having to call one “legitimate” and the other “illegitimate”. It rather undermines conducting diplomatic negotiations when you use those terms, given the inherent bias in calling one “illegitimate”. No government calls itself de jure or de facto since that would be acknowledging that they lack part of what they claim to be – and what they really want to be – the undisputed sole legitimate government. Ironically, it’s de jure and de facto that are inherently NPOV. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says "The De jure Government of Abkhazia is the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia". That sounds like the article is making a claim as to the legitimacy of this Government. Pocopocopocopoco 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence "The De jure Government of Abkhazia is the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia" is simply saying that the international community uniformly recognizes the de jure govt. as the sole legitimate govt. of Abkhazia. If Russia were to diplomatically recognize the de facto govt., then the sentence might read, “Only Russia recognizes the de facto government as the legitimate governing body; the rest of the international community recognizes only the de jure government as legitimate.”  Note how de facto and de jure clarify which govt. is being referred to, while legitimacy is applied independently. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But we need to prove via citations that the international community recognizes this entity as the legitimate government. I already provided an example where the international community doesn't recognize a sub-entity while still recognizing the territorial integrity of the parent entity and I also provided a what-if example that further illustrates my point. user:Kober did offer an explanation as to why Sanakoev's government isn't recognized however I believe it still illustrates my point. Pocopocopocopoco 03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right that is exactly what I take de jure to mean, 'legitimate', as in 'de jure', from the law. If according to you this is not what it means, please give an alternative definition, but note that at least the Wikipedia article de jure seems to support the de jure = legitimate interpretation. sephia karta 10:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article on de jure is only a Latin legal phrases stub. In international law, it takes on further meaning as a technical term – and, unfortunately, Wikipedia’s entries on international law and diplomacy are pretty weak.  A more familiar example might be the word “myth”.  In general use it means a fictional story; however, as a technical term among theologians and other religious scholars, it signifies a thematic story (like a “creation myth”) and is a neutral, rather than disparaging term.  A de jure government is the one with the eldest recognized claim to legitimacy; the de facto government is the more recent governing entity whose claim to legitimacy is newer and maintained because it physically controls the majority or all of the territory.  Foreign governments can choose which they prefer to diplomatically recognize as legitimate.  If the preponderance of nations (or of only those which matter) choose to recognize the de facto government, it can effectively become the de jure and de facto government – on other words, the sole legitimate government.


 * Now, if the editors here develop a consensus that they do not wish to use these terms, then they can be changed. This will mean returning to the old edit wars over what to call each government (throughout all related and affected articles), which typically were to call one legitimate and the other separatist, or the one a puppet and the other legitimate – and so far all other such options have been found to be unavoidably POV. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If indeed de jure has a technical meaning which does not imply greater legitimacy, then I'm happy to use it, and we should edit the de jure article to clarify the matter. I'm not yet totally convinced though, because you seem to contradict yourself. You say that de jure does not mean legitimate, but you do take it to mean "with the oldest recognised claim to legitimacy". That description suits the Georgian side just fine, but the Abkhaz consider themself to be the continuation of the Soviet Abkhaz ASSR and the current government in exile to be a mere "counter government". sephia karta 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations are clearly needed to show that this entity is legitimate or internationally recognized or dejure
It is obvious that we need citations and I'm not the only person that feels this way. Five out of the six citations have been discredited for this article. Why don't we just verify the one that hasn't been discredited so far. "Resolutions and statements of the United Nations Security Council (1946-2000): a thematic guide Wellens, Karel. p 289". Obviously this document is citing UN resolutions, so why doesn't someone post the UN resolutions that are getting cited and we may be able to verify it more easily as most UN resolutions are posted online. Until this citation is verified, the tags stay. In the current state of the article, it's not POV and it's not bad faith to have the tags. Pocopocopocopoco 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, please there is no need of polemics and heated debates. There are plenty primary sources which are most suitable as reliable sources regarding this question. Here are the following extracts from the documents:

"...Participation in the settlement of the conflict shall be defined by five subjects: the legitimate authority of Abkhazia and the Abkhazian separatist group, as participants of the conflict; Georgia, on whose territory the conflict is taking place; Russia, as an interested side; and the UN."

Source: Annex to the Report of the UN Secretary General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia; Proposals for political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. United Nations. Piter Boden, 3 May 1994.

"The Abkhazian Supreme Council and Cabinet of Ministers located in Tbilisi represent the legitimate governmental authority of Abkhazia."

Source: Memorandum by the Heads of the Commonwealth of Independent States on Maintaining the Peace and Stability in the Commonwealth of Independent States. 10 February 1995.

Also in: Annex to the Decision  taken  by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwealth of Independent States on Approval of the Regulations of the Collective Peacekeeping Force in the Commonwealth of Independent States of 19 January 1996.

"..The legitimate authorities of Abkhazia (the former Council of Ministers of the autonomous republic) changed its location several times between 1994 and 1998."

Source: Annex to the UNMIG Protocol # 17, Briefing of the United Nations Mission in Georgia (UNMIG) for the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict settlement to the European Commission (EC) and United Nations Security Counsel. 12 July 1999.

I will try to find more. There are very interesting collection of documents by OSCE aand EU Commission on Abkhazia. Sorry for my english. Thanks. MIGAbkhazeti 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have access to a lot of material. Would you be kind as to expedite my request above and list the UN resolutions from that particular citation I listed? Pocopocopocopoco 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop diverting the discussion. This passages are great and they are derived from UN documents. You further push your own bias and POV on this subject which only indicates your true intentions. Iberieli 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cease with your personal attacks and accusations of POV pushing. I have every right to be suspicious of the citations presented in the article as 5 out of 6 didn't pan out. I tried compromising by leaving only the second tag on the article but you don't even want to do that. Perhaps then I should put both tags back on the article? Again, in the interest of compromise, I will leave only one of the tags back on the article, I recommend that you don't remove it. As to user:MIGAbkhazeti's passages, I was only able to verify one of them:

"...Participation in the settlement of the conflict shall be defined by five subjects: the legitimate authority of Abkhazia and the Abkhazian separatist group, as participants of the conflict; Georgia, on whose territory the conflict is taking place; Russia, as an interested side; and the UN."


 * Was a speech by the Georgian speaker to the UN, so it doesn't prove anything other than Georgia considers this government legit. and not necessarily the rest of the world. The other two are not online so I haven't verified them. Out of nine citations that have been provided, that make 7 that are inappropriate and 2 that are unverified. Pocopocopocopoco 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you won't satisfied be even if we provide thousands of sources. You're quite ready to denounce everything that doesn't suit you POV as "unverifiable" or "Georgian". --KoberTalk 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to our Georgian friends here - it will behoove you to stop your incivility. While it is sadly a common practice for certain users to be so offended by the fact that there are those who happen to disagree with them that they find it totally irresistible to start throwing accusations of bios and POV pushing a lot, it doesn't make it acceptable. A valid concern has been expressed. There hasn't been a single primary source produced to verify the claims of the Georgians. The latest sources produced by MIGAbkhazeti look dubious. The fact that they may appear in the official UN documents does not automatically imply that this is the position of the UN. Very much like this article, which is for some weird reason is used as a reference. Despite appearing on the UNOMIG website, it is clearly stated to have come from the Georgian media and as such is hardly impartial or relevant, for that matter. Which is exactly why there is that disclaimer at the bottom "THESE NEWS ITEMS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OR POSITION OF THE UN". My point being: bring in the official resolutions. Not just a quote from the annex. The whole thing. Óðinn 03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * your vandalizing of the article is due to your anti-Georgian bias and intent. This will not be tolerated. Enough sources were provided. Enough. Iberieli 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, no. And here is my proof that the claim that this government is universally recognized as legitimate is not quite the case. This is from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "Мы не раз говорили о том, что ставка Тбилиси на марионеточные органы власти в Абхазии и Южной Осетии несовместима с провозглашенной грузинской стороной линией на выстраивание прямого диалога с Сухуми и Цхинвали." - "We've stated many times that Tbilisi's support of the puppet governments in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is inconsistent with the Georgian side's stated goal of building a direct dialogue with Sukhumi and Tskhinvali". http://www.ln.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/sps/1D097FD880B5ADDCC32572C70050FC5CÓðinn 04:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * hehe so we trust Russian sources now? Your funny man. I dont care that they think in Russia (they are directly responsible for the mess in Abkhazia) and therefore these gibberish is useless. I will start removing all references to Russian sources from all Abkhazia articles. Your logic is streit forward, no Georgian sources, than no Russians ones too. BTW UNOMIG report was not written by a Georgian. There are enough sources from UN doccuments quoted by MIGAbkhazeti, they are good enough. Your actions will be considered as vandalism for now on. Iberieli 15:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgian Ambassador's letter
Yeah, this one. Since there is a tendency here to divert attention from exposing the dubious references to the hidden agendas of those who dare to question them, we'll just have to discuss them one by one. Now, will someone please explain to me, how the letter in question is the proof of the legitimacy of this government? Because the Georgian ambassador said so? Óðinn 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, it appears what Putin's yes-men say can be cited as a valid source and everything deemed to be "(pro)-Georgian" can be unapologetically ignored? Can this also be explained by Georgians being "American tools" (©Óðinn, 2006) or have you found any other reason for that?--KoberTalk 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See, you're doing it again. Must be Luis's influence. How very unfortunate he's not around. Back to my question, though. Have you ever seen me using some statements of Russian officials as a proof of international recognition? No? Of course not. That would be asinine. So, again, what makes you think that whatever the Georgian ambassador has to say is automatically approved by the UN? Óðinn 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Luis's influence? I hope this is not a personal attack. I cited what you said as a proof of your prejudice towards Georgia. The Georgian ambassador is not the only source for what has long been written in the article.--KoberTalk 04:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the letter in question. Not my sentiments about your country. They are very far from how you see them, but frankly, I don't really care to convince you otherwise. Is it entirely too difficult for you to stay on topic? So, do I understand correctly that you have nothing to say that would justify using this particular letter as a reference? Óðinn 04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already said that the Georgian ambassador is not the only source. Could you provide even a single statements by the UN refusing to accepts the legitimacy of the de jure government? On the other hand, they do denounce the "elections" in the breakaway territories as illegal. --KoberTalk 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry, I'll get to the other sources as well. As for your question, no, I can't. And it is exactly because of that you don't see me trying to insert statements I cannot prove. As far as we know, UN doesn't formally recognize this government nor does it find it illegitimate. Oh, and I will go ahead and remove the letter from the list of references, since there were no reasons expressed to keep it there. Óðinn 05:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Article appearing on the UNOMIG's website
This one. Same question, why is it in the list of the references? It is not a work of UNOMIG, it is simply a reprint from the Georgian media by a Georgian author. Which of course does not imply endorsement by the UN. If that is not apparent enough, they even have a disclaimer underneath "THESE NEWS ITEMS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OR POSITION OF THE UN" So, why is this in the references? Óðinn 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There were enough sources from UN documents quoted by MIGAbkhazeti. For now on your action will be treated as simple vandalism and POV pushing. Also thanks for quoting Russian sources but they are invalid due to your own reasoning as of use of Georgian sources. Iberieli 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No reasoning to keep this particular article as well? I thought so. Therefore, it will meet its appropriate fate once the protection is lifted. By the way, you can save your breath and reserve your accusations for somebody who actually gives a damn :-) Óðinn 16:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your threats regarding this particular article are only slightly amusing. You cannot eliminate the legitimate article about the legitimate government just because it makes a single-purpose group of anti-Georgian users anaphylactic.--KoberTalk 16:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What reasoning is there to keep this article? Óðinn 16:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What reasoning is there to keep List of foreign ministers of Abkhazia when the entity is not internationally recognized and does not have any foreign relations? --KoberTalk 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, go ahead and try to get it deleted, if you want. Must you always steer off topic? Óðinn 17:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Legitimacy is totally irrelevant. If an entity exist, there should be an article about it. That is what it means to have a factual NPOV encyclopedia. sephia karta  18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Protected against revert war. If someone wants to make changes not related to the current dispute, please post a request with clear specification of the requested edit. `'Míkka 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Two remarks

Please provide quotations from the non-online references to prove that they support the statement


 * Federal practice : exploring alternatives for Georgia and Abkhazia, Coppieters, Bruno, p. 59
 * Resolutions and statements of the United Nations Security Council (1946-2000): a thematic guide Wellens, Karel. p 289.
 * Federal Practice- Alternatives for Georgia and Abkhazia Bruno Coppieters, pp.23-24

Please list exactly which statements from the article are disputed, to place the tags appropriately. You are not saying that the majority article is disputed, I believe. `'Míkka 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfrotunately I cannot be asked to be a mediator because many think I am Russian and therefore cannot be neutral in any political articles in wikipedia. `'Míkka 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, last, but not least, my personal favourite reference that makes no sense at all. Like I said, "Federal practice : exploring alternatives for Georgia and Abkhazia" is available here. If one did something as unthinkable as actually reviewing it, one would find that page 59 only marks the beginning of chapter 2 and contains almost no text. Pages 23-24 likewise do not tell anything about the legitimacy of the this government, talking about the history of Abkhazia within the Soviet Georgia and the events that have led to the war. I'm just dying to know how this is relevant. Óðinn 16:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why I am asking for exact quotations, because page numbers may vary in different versions/prints of the text. `'Míkka 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; we'll wait for the said quotations. Óðinn 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

International recognition
IMO the root of the current article dispute is somewhere else and in fact it is an artificial controversy here. The problem is that the used language is inapplicable to this situation. Let me start from an example. We don't say "internationally recognized mayor of Tbilisi", do we?. The point is that internationally de jure, Abkhazia is part of Georgia. Therefore its government is the internal affairs of Georgia, and international organizations and other states have no say in this issue. Any statement of recognition/nonrecognition of, say, the governor of Imereti would be interference into the internal affairs of Georgia. Therefore the phrase in qustion is neither true or false: its wording is simply invalid. You may only state that de jure Abkhazia is part of Georgia and hence this article describes its de jure government.

By the way, please confirm that
 * the first sentence "The De jure Government of Abkhazia (Georgian: აფხაზეთის ავტონომიური რესპუბლიკის მთავრობა, Abkhaz: Ари' е'иҕьуп Аҧснытәи Автономтәи Республика)" contains three literally identicla texts.


 * Georgian translation: Pratitelstvo Avtonomnoy Respubliki Abxaziya
 * In Abkhaz language: Pravitelstvo (Arieithyp) Abxazkoy (Apsnitae) Avtonomnoy (Avtonomtea) Respublika (there shoula Arespublika) MIGAbkhazeti 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * if the above is confirmed, please provide the official name of the government, since I think it would be strange that this name contains "de jure" (although I may be wrong).


 * Well these are the names above which i wrote and de jure is their status and not part of the name of the government. Just like in Chechnya: Pravitelstvo Chechenskoy Respubliki (de jure status), Pravitelstvo Chechenskoy Respubliki Ichkeria (separatist like Abkhaz) MIGAbkhazeti 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

`'Míkka 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, ideally no one would interfere with the internal affairs of a state. Is the opposite the case in reality? I mean, think of the volley of condemnations flying towards Belarus every time there is an election there. Óðinn 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Mikka the official name if Government of Abkhazian Autonomous Republic. (Russian: Pravitelstvo Abxazkoy Avtonomnoy Respubliki). Spasibo. MIGAbkhazeti 18:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Mikka is correct however I believe the problem is much more systemic to Wikipedia. Basically what has happened is that certain Wikipedians have created an unofficial, arbitrary, and POV definition of "International Recognition". The definition they've created is somewhat vague but they seem to define it as recognition by the UN and most other countries. Wikipedia officially doesn't have an article on international recognition but international recognition redirects to diplomatic recognition. The created definition seems to have come about by people who oppose these newly created states and it seems to be used in order to show these states as illegitimate. In this particular article however, this created definition has so far backfired as this "autonomous government" doesn't seem to live up to this created definition (at least based on the references quoted in the article). I question whether a concept such as international recognition even exists, and this is what I was getting at in my user page. The UN isn't the final arbiter on whether a country is legitimate or not, and countries will officially recognize or choose not to officially recognize other countries based on their interests. If I get some time, I might get an WP:RFC going on international recognition so the use of it in many articles isn't so POV. Pocopocopocopoco 02:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You assessment is just your own POV and as i noticed Georgia biased. Official recognition of Abkhazia status, its government and jurisdiction is defined in all UN resolutions. There is no need of any further explotation of the issue. refer to the resolutions and stop waisting other people time Mr. MIGAbkhazeti 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear MIGAbkhazeti, your opponents have already revealed their true intentions. Please scroll up a bit, and you will see that they simply want to destroy the article.--KoberTalk 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At least as far as I am concerned the existance of this article is not under dispute. sephia karta  19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe I made a very valid point on the use of the term "International Recognition". To answer user:MIGAbkhazeti I asked you to provide me with the UN resolution numbers that refer to this government as legit. many days ago and I haven't received them. I am in the process of reading through all the resolutions on Abkhazia but this may take a while. Note that I am just playing by your rules on "International Recognition". To user:Kober my only interest is to improve this article as well as the Abkhazia article and make them more accurate and NPOV. Please stop reverting the disputed-section tag in the De jure Government section of the Abkhazia article. When this dispute is resolved here, we will remove the tag on this article as well as the tag in the Abkhazia section. Pocopocopocopoco 21:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Mikka
I already provided significant amount of referenced from UN documents. None of them were written by the Georgian side. All of them were compiled by UN members. Mr Administrator, this is a serious case because it undermines the policy of this web site to be neutral. This attempt to discredit or delete any content from this article is very destructive. None of them have presented a source (NPOV one) which labels this government as poppet or pro-Georgian. Im sure you are aware of the abkhazia citation and the Russian role there. This de jure government is the offspring of the pre-war Council of Ministers which governed the autonomous republic and was elected by the population before 92. In 1992, small group of Abkhaz deputies which has separatist aspirations left this government and entrenched in Gudauta from where the armed conflict ignited. The rest of this government remained in Sukhumi with its head Mr Shartava and Raul Eshba. After the war when the separatists ousted majority of Georgians from the autonomous republic, the government was reduced to 7 ministers of Abkhazia (interior, economy, etc). Many members of the government fell victism to horrific atrocities committed during the fall of Sukhimi. Current authority in Kodori which is called de jure government is the remnant of that Cabinet of Ministers and the governments of the autonomous republic.

Now when we talk about the poppet government, the Russian users here should maintain dignity judging from Kadirov puppet government reality in Chechnya. Im refugee from Abkhazia and well aware of Abkhazia crisis. UN representatives (UNMIG especially) meet this government in Kodori due to the fact that Georgia has legal jurisdiction over Abkhazia. You don't need any direct quotes (i actually did provide them, see bellow) to prove that UN recognizes Georgian jurisdiction (including its government in Kodori and status of Abkhazia within Georgia) in all its resolutions by Security Council, etc. Before visiting Sukhumi, EU Council, OSCE, UNMIG and UN visits de jure government in Kodori receives their approval for visiting Sukhumi and only then proceeds to the separatist controlled territory. Russians should know that after experiencing Chechnya. But Russia is directly involved in this conflict and on the opposing side of Georgia. Its very simple. What is going on here is childish. Now for the references:

"...Participation in the settlement of the conflict shall be defined by five subjects: the legitimate authority of Abkhazia and the Abkhazian separatist group, as participants of the conflict; Georgia, on whose territory the conflict is taking place; Russia, as an interested side; and the UN."

Source: Annex to the Report of the UN Secretary General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia; Proposals for political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. United Nations. Piter Boden, 3 May 1994.


 * This Annex is written by Piter Boden, former UN representative for Abkhazia conflict. His report of conflict settlement mentioned this passage numerous times.

"The Abkhazian Supreme Council and Cabinet of Ministers located in Tbilisi represent the legitimate governmental authority of Abkhazia."

Source: Memorandum by the Heads of the Commonwealth of Independent States on Maintaining the Peace and Stability in the Commonwealth of Independent States. 10 February 1995.


 * This is a memorandum from SNG (you know about this organization) and signed by all members of SNG.

Also in: Annex to the Decision  taken  by the Council of the Heads of States  of the Commonwealth of Independent States on Approval of the Regulations of the Collective Peacekeeping Force in the Commonwealth of Independent States of 19 January 1996.

"..The legitimate authorities of Abkhazia (the former Council of Ministers of the autonomous republic) changed its location several times between 1994 and 1998."

Source: Annex to the UNMIG Protocol # 17, Briefing of the United Nations Mission in Georgia (UNMIG) for the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict settlement to the European Commission (EC) and United Nations Security Counsel. 12 July 1999.


 * UNMIG report is sent to UN almost every month. The reports are written by UN representatives in Georgia (mostly from Europe).

And the most important source is UN, OSCE, EU Council, EU, US, and even Russian recognition of jurisdiction of Georgia in Abkhazia (All UN resolutions) and territorial integrity of the Georgian state. This automaticaly recognizes Georgian governmental legitimate and legal authorities through jurisdiction and constitutional law of Georgia.

Many Thanks Mr Mikka. MIGAbkhazeti 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have located the real source of the very first references you provided. This sentence: "...Participation in the settlement of the conflict shall be defined by five subjects: the legitimate authority of Abkhazia and the Abkhazian separatist group, as participants of the conflict; Georgia, on whose territory the conflict is taking place; Russia, as an interested side; and the UN." is from The Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia on the measures of conflict settlement in Abkhazia. Óðinn 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nop. Both documents contain the same statement which originally was taken from Mr Bodens report for UN. Bodens document is widely used in Georgian documents. Even Bodens peace settlement plan is accepted by the Georgian side and used in its their own platform of conflict resolution. Please research the topic. Thanks. MIGAbkhazeti 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that is is a common practice of the Georgian parliament to "borrow" the whole sentences, word for word, without mentioning the source, and portray them as its own? Anyway I would love to research the topic if you are kind enough to provide these documents in its entirety. All the UN documents are trivially easy to locate. Óðinn 18:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

United_Nations_resolutions_on_Abkhazia
I looked through these, at least the ones that the link worked (and I fixed some of the links) and found not a single mention of this autonomous government. Interestingly, the UN resolutions mention what we call the "de facto Abkhaz authorities" as just the "Abkhaz authorities". Also interesting is the fact that earlier resolutions take a hard stand against Abkhaz independence but then seem to soften as time goes by. For instance, resolution 1096 from January 1997 says:

'Reaffirms its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia, within its internationally recognized borders, and to the necessity of defining the status of Abkhazia in strict accordance with these principles, and underlines the unacceptability of any action by the Abkhaz leadership in contravention of these principles, in particular the holding on 23 November 1996 and 7 December 1996 of illegitimate and self-styled parliamentary elections in Abkhazia, Georgia;

But in resolution 1752 April 2007:

'Reaffirms the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders, and supports all efforts by the United Nations and the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General which are guided by their determination to promote a settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict only by peaceful means and within the framework of the Security Council resolutions;'

I will see if I can dig up the ones where the link didn't work. Pocopocopocopoco 04:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great it all confirms legitimacy and jurisdiction of the georgian constitution and of the governemnt of Autonomouse republic. No need of any diging :) Thanks Iberieli 19:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How exactly does the above confirm that the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia "is the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia"? Pocopocopocopoco 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the UN recognizes "the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders" but does not recognizes the body which operates according to these principles? The resolutions explicitly state that the self-styled parliamentary elections in Abkhazia conducted after the war are illegitimate. This can only mean one thing: the international community recognizes the pre-war autonomous structures an offshoot of which is the government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia.--KoberTalk 04:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We cannot draw that inference. I don't know what the international community thinks, but it could well be that it would only recognise a government that represented the entire pre-war population, a government that currently does not exist. sephia karta  11:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? This government not only exists but functions as the legal authority. As mentioned by MIG, all diplomats and international organizations visit Kodori to attain permission to visit Sukhumi. Dont forget please, Abkhazia is officially an autonomous republic of Georgia and the government of this republic the the Council of ministers (de jure government) which was elected before the war by all ethnic groups of Abkhazia. 350,000 Georgians did not elect or took any part in separatist staged "elections" and no one recognized the "de facto" government of the separatists. According to your logic i should question all articles which you composed of Abkhaz ministries, etc. Its all original research. Consult sources and references and show me one neutral source where this government is non existant or is not legal (spare me the Russian sources please). Until than, your arguments is just another endless streams of POV. Iberieli 15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course visiters to Sukhumi would follow whatever red tape the Georgian government would tell them to follow in terms of visiting Kodori otherwise they'd be put in a Georgian prison the next time they went to Georgia (unless they had diplomatic immunity). I have already provided an example where the EU has chose not to recognize the Georgian backed South Ossetian provisional government. user:Kober may have given some reasons as to why but this illustrates that a recognition of a sub-entity doesn't always follow just because territorial integrity is recognized. Pocopocopocopoco 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, try to read more carefully. I repeat: I do not question the existance of this article. I'm merely arguing that the government cannot be said to be internationally recognised by default, that statement needs to be sourced. sephia karta  11:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

International recognition, attempt 2
Let me remind you once again my remark: any local subdivision or a state is not an international entity and hence the notion of "international recognition" is meaningless. Let me give you as an example one little known historical fact (will try to write an article sometime). After the WWII Belarusian SSR and Ukrainian SSR were given UN membership, supposedlty in recognition of their contribution in the defeat of Nazi Germany. Some time later the Soviets tried to put all 15 Soviet republics into the UN, arguing that USSR is a "union" of republics. The US said that in this case they will want to add all their 50 states to the UN, and as you may guess that was it :-). So before wasting your time any further, let us settle this basic question:
 * do you agree that the notion of "international recognition" is not applied to country subdivisions (as I explained in "" above), and if you disagree then why? `'Míkka 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in principle. I suggest we remove the sentence that this government is "the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia". Pocopocopocopoco 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One step at a time, please. If you make a truckload of requests, we'll never agree on anything. Therefore I am removing all what in not related to my question into a separate section, where I am sure a yet another political debate will sparkle. `'Míkka 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Mikka. I appreciate your efforts but I'm very pessimistic that any consensus can be reached here especially given the attempts by Odin and Poco to destroy the article. Back to your question, the notion of "international recognition" is applied to the territorial integrity of the country. The regime which defies the principle evidently becomes internationally unrecognized. The so-called Boden's document worked out by the UN expert group and already mentioned in this discussion urged for the reinstatement of the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia in Sukhumi following the internationally-monitored elections in which the current ethnic Abkhaz political parties would also be allowed to participate. Doesn't this mean that the UN considers the Autonomous Government as the only acceptable authority in Abkhazia? The question is not about the personalities but rather about the form of governance of Abkhazia.--KoberTalk 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to be joking, you and your cohorts were so intransigent that you wouldn't even allow a tag on this article saying that the citations needed to be improved. Pocopocopocopoco 01:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Poco, can I ask you to stop disrupting the discussion? --KoberTalk 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I ask you to stop being the pot that calls the kettle black. Pocopocopocopoco 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree with your statement that "international recognition" is applied to the territorial integrity. But what I am talking about is any issues of the administration within the territory of a recognized state, which is internal affairs and is not the matter of "international recognition". Some internal things may be criticized and even condemned, but they cannot be "recognized" or "unrecognized" in any sense of international law.  `'Míkka 20:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this sounds OK: "Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is the executive government body of Abkhazia, internationally recognized as an autonomous republic within Georgia, but largely out of Georgia's control since the secessionist war in the early 1990s. It is regarded by the Government of Georgia as the only legal authority in the territory of Abkhazia."?--KoberTalk 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The whole concept of international recognition is not that well defined anyway. It is clear that the US recognise France and that they don't recognise Abkhazia, but I wouldn't know whether they recognise North Korea or how we could find out. But that is besides the point here. sephia karta  11:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely irrelevant comparisons. Guys, could you be so kind to stop posting comments just for the sake of saying something?--KoberTalk 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The comparison was unnecessary, yes, but Mikka did ask us whether we agree or not with his proposal. sephia karta  09:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm getting weary of the discussion. Do you agree with my proposal above? --KoberTalk 09:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which one? That we should stick to the discussion at hand? Yes. That international recognition of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia automaticaly follows from interantional recognition of Georgia's sovereignty over Abkhazia? No, that is OR and would need to be sourced independently. And I think I agree with Mikka that international recogition is not applicable in this context. International opinion recognises Georgia's sovereignty over Abkhazia and Georgia choses to govern it through an autonomous republic, and that is that. sephia karta  10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I posted my proposal just a few lines above. I'm copying it here (in a slightly modified form) as it seems to be invisible to you:


 * "Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is the executive government body of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, internationally recognized as part of Georgia, but largely out of Georgia's control since the secessionist war in the early 1990s. It is regarded by the Government of Georgia as the only legal authority in the territory of Abkhazia, but controls..., etc." --KoberTalk 10:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, I missed that. That's fine. sephia karta  11:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think its a good start however I have a problem with calling anything the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia when the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is a mostly uninhabited gorge. Here is my draft:


 * "The Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is the government that is mostly in exile and is Georgia's proposal for reincorporation of the secessionist territory of Abkhazia. Currently this Government administers Upper Abkhazia, a territory that has 1% of the post-war population of Abkhazia and 15% of the territory of the former Abkhaz ASSR. Georgia regards this government as the only legal authority in the territory of Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco 01:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that you have problems, but what you wrote is POV. What does "mostly in exile" mean? The government is currently headquartered in Abkhazia. --KoberTalk 19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, the article already says partially in exile, we can leave it like that then. Any other comments (non-passive aggressive ones please)? Pocopocopocopoco 03:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The entity which this government governs calls itself the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, therefore it is only natural if we call it that. sephia karta  20:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia article in wiki and it just redirects to this article. Therefore you will be getting an article that redirects onto itself. Why not just say that it governs over Upper Abkhazia and leave it at that? Pocopocopocopoco 03:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why there should be an article Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia :). sephia karta 17:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? When you do a google search for "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" the only hits you get are Georgian Government press releases or documents that call the old Abkhaz ASSR as the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. It's not noteworthy because it doesn't exist unless you want to call Upper Abkhazia the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and we've already got an Upper Abkhazia article. Pocopocopocopoco 15:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The ARoA is an administrative subdivision of Georgia, and all these subdivisions have their own article, e.g. Guria, Shida Kartli and Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti, even though they may not contain that much content (currently). The issue of notably to me does not mean that we shouldn't have articles on little known topics, since Wikipedia is not paper, rather it only kicks in when several topics compete for attention, e.g. within an article. sephia karta  09:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But all these other subdivisions have the dual purpose of being both a regional article and a political subdivision article. We've already got an Abkhazia article that can do the same. Also, creating two Abkhazia articles, a regional subdivision and a political subdivision is going to be a temporary thing; if Abkhazia decides to become an autonomous republic, the articles will get merged and if Georgia gives up trying to reincorporate Abkhazia, the ARoA article will likely get deleted. Pocopocopocopoco 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

De jure & undue prominence
I also suggest we remove the description of this government being de jure unless the definition in wikipedia for de jure is modified to describe what user:Askari Mark was discussing. We should also do this in the parent Abkhazia article. I also question whether this government should be given as much prominence in the parent article as it only governs over 1% of the population of Abkhazia and this government seems to only ever appears in the Georgian, Abkhazia and Russian news and no where else. In the Georgian news it is described as the legal body of Abkhazia, in the Abkhazian news it's described as a provocation, and in the Russian news it's described as a Georgian backed parallel government and a pipe dream. Pocopocopocopoco 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an effort of a legitimate state, so the issue of prominence is mute. We have articles about governments in exile which rule nobody at all. Official positions of involved states may be cited  (but not each and every cheap insult). `'Míkka 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favour of destroying any information anywhere. What I suggest in the Abkhaz article is that there shouldn't be two country boxes, only leave the one for what some people call the "de facto" abkhaz government. Basically, this is a government in exile so they don't desire a country box in the main article. Also, as I mentioned before, the abkhaz article overuse the words de jure and de facto probably for POV pushing. We don't need to be beat over the head with these terms constantly and if you notice the UN documents, they don't use these types of terms, or at least they don't use them as much. Also, user:Sephia Karta made a good point about the definition of de jure in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco 01:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Abkhazia article there should be two infoboxes two illustrate the two rival authorities in Abkhazia. In a sharp contrast to what you are doing here, this is not POV pushing. The de jure gov't box will stay there to meet NPOV. FYI, it is no more in exile, but headquartered in the Kodori Vally in Abkhazia. As for De jure and de facto, these are legitimate terms used in scholarly sources. With all due respect, I don't consider Sephia Karta to be an authority in international law. So his/her definitions of the term cannot be accepted as a Wiki guideline. --KoberTalk 04:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The info box says that this entities capital is Sokhumi. Hence this entity is a Government in exile because it is not in Sokhumi. Furthermore, with all the talk of De Jure autonomous governments and de facto {insert just about every word} the Abkhazia related articles read like press releases from the Georgian Government and are POV. If you look at other media, the descriptions for the Government in Abkhazia read much differently. Pocopocopocopoco 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are misreading what he meant (I think). All I ever said that if de jure does not in fact mean 'legitimate', then the Wikipedia entry should be changed to reflect that. sephia karta  09:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I meant. Pocopocopocopoco 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, you want to eliminate any mention of this gov't in Wikipedia. Your suggestions are illustrative of your marginal POV. Let me assure you that this article as well as the corresponding section in the parental article will stay whether you like it or not. As for the percentage of Abkhazia's population governed by the de jure governemnt, you might have forgotten that the largest ethnic group of Abkhazia is in forced exile but loyal to this gov't. The territory of Abkhazia under its jurisdiction is almost 15% of the region.--KoberTalk 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and unless I'm incorrect the IDPs do live scattered throughout Georgia and didn't once get to elect their government since. But, criticism aside, the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia clearly exists and therefore must have its own articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia ought to be inclusive and simply describe anything there is to describe. sephia karta  12:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest the term "separatist" for the govroment in Sokhumi, as I discribe it in the Hebrew wikipedia, insted of the terms De jure and the facto. Geagea 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pocopocopocopoco/sandbox/Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia/
I would be interested in your comments. Note that this is still a draft and I am open to any changes you may recommend. I don't mind if the discussion is here or on the talk page of the article but let's try to keep it in one place. Pocopocopocopoco 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have an extremely strange understanding of NPOV. Furthermore, you engage in blatant original research and obvious propagandist attack: "This proposal may be considered irredentist as Abkhazia has had no vertical relationship with Georgia for over 15 years." This sort of formulation better suits Bagapsh's website, but has no place in a normal wikipedia article. --KoberTalk 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relax, it's just a draft. We're all reasonable people and we can come to a consensus on such things. I just happened to thing it may be useful information but I will defer to the opinion of others on this particular issue. Pocopocopocopoco 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling Georgia's claims irredentist is not that outlandish if one goes by the purely factual irredentism = "this land is rightly ours, we want it (back)" definition, but unfortunately it sounds very negative. Anyway, us saying ourself that something may be considered something (irredentist in this case) is not acceptable (because OR), we can only let sources make judgements. sephia karta  09:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have removed irredentism from the article and changed "Mass killing of ethnic Georgians and loyal subject" to Sukhumi Masscre as that is less POV. Any other suggestions? Pocopocopocopoco 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning for adding in the link to irredentism
I believe that it is noteworthy because currently the only claim that Georgia has over Abkhazia is that Abkhazia was historically part of Georgia and hence this is an irredentist claim. There is of course the matter of the IDP's however Georgia could easily secure enough foreign aide to give these IDP's a life of luxury in Georgia proper if the donors were to be assured that this would lead to a peace treaty with Abkhazia and peace in the region. Although many of the UN resolutions demand the unconditional return of the displaced persons, at this point in time this might not be realistic. Unfortunately, they may not have much to return to. I am willing to put irredentism as a "see also" in the article or leave it out completely depending on the general consensus. Pocopocopocopoco 22:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody cares or should take into consideration your political views or POVs here. Fact remains, you are biased with strong POV claims and have no authority change anything. Valid sources were provided (which doe snot suit your POV) and there is no need of any further argument. Otherwise you must present valid, solid neutral sources which would contradict the legitimacy of Abkhazian government in Kodori and Georgian jurisdiction over Abkhazia. Otherwise, you are just throwing empty words and POVs. No Sources, more arguments. Present reliable, neutral sources and only than you may claim or contradict the available data in the article. Iberieli 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Iberieli, I invite you to have a look at the latest version and offer some constructive criticism. Pocopocopocopoco 01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixing inaccuracy in draft
Pocopoco, there are several inaccuracies in your draft. First of all, "partially in exile" needs to be clarified. Second, "Georgia proposes that... this government be reinstalled as the government of Abkhazia" is principally incorrect. Georgia offers negotiations with the Sukhumi-based regime and does not exclude their participation in the future autonomous government whose structure is to be defined in the process of negotiations. Third, the assertion that "Abkhazia has not had vertical relationship with Georgia for over 15 years" is obviously excessive and POVish. I think it is suffice to say that "Abkhazia has largely been out of Georgia's control since 1993." And the last, since the actual number of Abkhazia's current population is unclear, we cannot calculate the percentage of Upper Abkhazia's population. Let's say that it has a population of c. 2,000 (2002 Georgia census).--KoberTalk 05:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK

1) I've added clarification to the partially in exile. Note that this was already in the original article and I merely moved it to the first paragraph. 2) I change the reinstalled sentence to reflect that Georgia wishes to have negiotiations involving both Abkhaz governments. 3) I've changed the vertical relationship sentence to your suggestion. 4) Regarding the 1%, I've added that it's 1% if we assume the De Facto authorities census to be legitimate. I still think it's a good idea to present a population percentage as it goes well in the article because we also present a land percentage. Note that this was also in the original article and I merely moved it to the first sentence. Any other changes? Also, feel free to modify the 4 points above in my sandbox if you believe there is a better way of expressing these points. Pocopocopocopoco 01:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I made some minor rewording and additions in your draft.--KoberTalk 05:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolved?
Please approve the follow changes, then we can get Mikka to make the changes and lift the protection.

User:Pocopocopocopoco/sandbox/Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia/

And on the Abkhaz article I'd like to change the "Autonomous" section to

User:Pocopocopocopoco/sandbox/Autonomous_Abkhaz_Government_Summary/

Big thanks go to user:Kober for his suggestions and edits in the first draft.

Note that approving the above drafts doesn't mean they are cast in stone as wikipedia is not a static encyclopedia, they just mean you approve of the wording of the Autonomous Government is the only legal government recognized by Georgia. I thank everyone for their patience in waiting for the above drafts. Pocopocopocopoco 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is the summary bigger than the article? )) ? Alæxis¿question? 06:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent question. The answer is that it was like that to begin with, ie the Autonomous Government section on the Abkhazia article was larger than the actual Autonomous Government article. My priority was to resolve the dispute rather than shorten one and lengthen the other and I wanted to minimize the possible disagreements that people might have with the article whilst resolving the dispute. I'm totally open to whatever you guys want to do, whether you want to move the articles and fix it so that the summary is a real summary later, or fix it now before moving the articles from my sandbox. Pocopocopocopoco 01:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

edit request
editprotected

Please replace this articles text with what in User:Pocopocopocopoco/sandbox/Autonomous_Abkhaz_Government_Summary/ User:Pocopocopocopoco/sandbox/Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia/


 * Please add new sections to the bottom and sign your posts. Is there consensus for this change? I can unprotect the page if the dispute is resolved. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please unprotect. There has been no disagreement expressed to my proposal for this change and similar wording was used in a section of the abkhazia article with no complaints so far. Sorry for the confusion of putting the tag at the top of the article. Pocopocopocopoco 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected in light of the duration of the protection. I'll lock again if I see that there's still warring. -- Y not? 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag
I'm not going to argue that is the flag of ARA but could someone answer what flag is it in this case? It's certainly not the flag of the Republic of Abkhazia as well. Alæxis¿question? 07:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is no more
Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia was just destroyed in the war, CNN showed Abkhazians taking down Georgian flag from the administrative building. Women and children fled at once (under fire), while the men (formal forces and ad-hoc tribal militia) remained and many were killed before they retreated with the Georgian army.

Same with the Georgian villages in South Ossetia, which were heavily bombed and the government (and witnesses according to media reports) say then brutally pacified by the Russian Army after government forces withdrew. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nop, it exists in its full force, not only it exists but is fully engaged in this crisis. Iberieli (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the authority was expelled from Abkhazia, but it can still exist in exile in Tbilisi. And I am sure that's what is going to happen, a de iure authority in exile, without any actual powers in the area. Russoswiss (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the WP:PROD template, with my reasons: 1. Defunct does not mean non-notable historically. 2. Notability established by refs and the 250,000 people mentioned. -Colfer2 (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply:
 * 1) It wasn't all that notable to begin with. It's already mentioned in the Abkhazia article, basically you have an autonomy that was a subdistrict government for a sparsely populated gorge for a year and a half.
 * 2) Refs are pretty thin and are mostly Georgian sources which would have an interest in promoting this government to the international media. The article says partially responsible for 250,000.
 * 3) Can you show me any article in wikipedia about defunct subdistrict governments that governed for a really short time? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, State of Franklin comes to mind. Even Republic of Molossia has an article. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm an inclusionist, so I am very much in favour of keeping this article. sephia karta 14:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

MERGER: This article to be merged in to the article "Abkhazia"
please discuss here Talk:Abkhazia Ijanderson (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. &mdash; MFH:Talk 14:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Photos
I wanted to let everyone editing this article know that I have 19 photos taken in Abkhazia in 2014 uploaded to the Commons and available here should you have any need. Interlaker (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)