Talk:Reprua River

Please, note, that Abkhazia is internationnaly recognized part of Georgia... Fernando magellan (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svg 19:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(!)
This article is full with Abkhazian&Russian POV, where is a neutrality of wiki? I am asking to the editors and admins who reviewed this article. As another user wrote above this territory Gagra District and Abkhazia is de-jure part of Georiga. This recognize whole world except one occupant Russia, and its marionettes bribed by money. I demand to revert this edits ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgi Balakhadze (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 June 2013‎ (UTC)
 * The article currently notes the disputed status using Abkhazia-note, which seems to be an appropriate note on the status. "Demanding" to do something is not how Wikipedia works. Also your statement about "marionettes bribed by money" indicates you have a strong WP:POV on this issue. Reliable sources indicate that Abkhazia is de facto an independent state, which is de jure claimed by Georgia as part of its territory, which Abkhazia-note establishes in the article. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I have and what? Am I adding this ("marionettes bribed by money") in the article? I think and you must to agree that I'm not! I have a right to have my own view, but I am adding in the article only neutral view! -- Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svg 19:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What you'll write about this " ?, and this ? and also about this  ? Are they neutral point of view or Pro-Russian&Pro-Abkhazian ?? -- Balakhadze  Flag of Georgia.svg 19:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also as you can see above, this article has written within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), but I can't read even one word about Georgia in this article, may I guess... Hmm perhaps because this article is full of Abkhazian&Russian POV? Isn't it?
 * That is because the stub sorting and river categories reflect the de facto status, as is WP:CONSENSUS. If you with for those to change, you need to discuss that at the project level, not the individual article level. Regardless of the status of the territory, Abkhazia does exist, so saying it is "in Abkhazia" is correct - the note explains the dispute sufficiently. Also, please note that writing in bold is considered shouting.- The Bushranger One ping only 19:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a note to the main text of the article to direct to the note about the territorial dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But you didn't answer about last question (WikiProject Georgia (country)). I think you won't be against if I add  in the infobox, this article is about WikiProject Georgia (country) and must be mentioned something about it.-- Balakhadze  Flag of Georgia.svg 19:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned as being in the scope of a WikiProject doesn't mean the subject of the WikiProject necessarily needs to be mentioned in the text of the article. That said, however, if the infobox country line read, say, Abkhazia Georgia (disputed), assuming nobody else objects, that would seem reasonable. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bushranger why are you so pro-abkhazian pov? Self-proclaimed and recognized by several, as I wrote bribed by money UN members, doesn't mean that this unit (Abkhazia) is equal to sovereign country. Georgia can't has dispute with it, because officially it's Georgia's territory. -- Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svg 20:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not pro-Abkhazian or pro-Georgian, I am pro-Wikipedia. Regardless of 'bribes' (and are there reliable sources for that?) De facto the Reprua River lies within the territory of Abkhazia, and Wikipedia reports things as they are (de facto). The fact that Georgia claims the territory is noteworthy, and that is what Abkhazia-note is for, to make it clear that the territory is disputed. However Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and must be neutral; stating " is a pro-Georgian POV and is not neutral, as it gives precedence to the Georgian claim. I believe (and I am not infallible, I admit!) that my proposal, provides the most neutral way of handling it, by listing both the de facto and de jure claimiants to the territory the river runs through. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is neutral it's really 40% pro-Georgian and 60% pro-Abkhazian. I think that because I suggested this  and not somebody else you think that it's pro-Georgian, but frankly speakin I even don't like that what i suggested, because pro-Georgian will be this ►  and nothing more. I ask You to agree with this solution, I suggested this because it's real compromise and was in other same kind situations.-- Balakhadze  Flag of Georgia.svg 20:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. It has nothing to do with who the suggestor is. However, your proposal does not work, as "Georgia, Abkhazia" suggests that the river is located in a place called Georgia inside Abkhazia, which is not the case. However the Georgia, (Abkhazia ) that you have added to other rivers may be acceptable in this case, pending further discussion? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK.-- Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svg 22:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Shortest river in the world conflict with Tamborasi River
Both Reprua and Tamborasi rivers claim to be world shortest named river. Is it possible to confirm both lengths and get a winner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.185.18.29 (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)