Talk:Abkhazia

Official languages

This silly edit warring over languages is getting tiresome.
This article must maintain a neutral point of view. NPOV is a keystone of Wikipedia. Abkhazia must be represented as being both a part of Georgia, and an independent state, with no preference given to either view. Therefore the official languages given in the article must be those recognised by both independent Abkhazia and by Georgia. We can add notes to indicate which entities recognise which languages if necessary. Bazonka (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Can someone provide a reference that shows the official languages of Abkhazia from the Georgian point of view. Then the info box should list them all, not relegating any to a footnote; and the lead should give the name of the country in all the official languages. —Coroboy (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tricky situation. The infobox should really have the full name of the state in it, which it currently only has in English. There wouldn't be an official Georgian name for the state at all. As much as we try to accomodate all views, NPOV is also about not overstating certain views. Abkhazia exists. The government in control of it is not the Georgian government. On a side note, independently of this page, a Georgian official name should be placed on Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the constitution of Georgia: official name of the entity is the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Official languages in the region are Georgian and Abkhaz (p. 3, Article 8).--Kober^Talk 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Abkhazia exists..." Well, that's definitely not the fact Georgia denies. "The government in control of it is not the Georgian government" - this is not the reason to remove the Georgian name from the lead section. --Kober^Talk 13:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Abkhazia as in the country. Anyway, Georgian is still in the lead section as a translation for Abkhazia. The infobox as I said should have longform names, of which there wouldn't be a Georgian one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That is, POV stays there. Congrats! --Kober^Talk 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

That means that although the word "official" is applied directly only to the Abkhazian language, the Russian language is also an official language of Abkhazia. If we are quoting this constitution as our source, both languages should be listed as official in the infobox; neither should be relegated to a footnote. —Coroboy (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The official languages of both independent Abkhazia, and Abkhazia within Georgia must be mentioned, in order to maintain NPOV. It does not matter if Georgia has no control, or if the Abkhazian government is illegitimate, both points of view must be given. So, as I understand it, we should list Abkhazian, Russian and Georgian. Bazonka (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We have the Georgian name in the lead to show that title. Even if we accept that the opinion of an entity that has not controlled anything more than a tiny sliver of land in Abkhazia for about two decades should be presented as equal to the government that has controlled it, just having a name in another language doesn't make any particular POV assertion, and there is no proper name for the Republic of Abkhazia in Georgian. What would make better sense would be to combine the first three paragraphs of the lead to present all the views there, but far more concisely than they are now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Err, I thought we were talking about the official languages, not the name of the country. But in any case, I'm sure the Georgians have a name for Abkhazia and a word for Republic - just because they don't recongise its legitimacy, it doesn't mean they can't say "Republic of Abkhazia". Bazonka (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Likewise; I was addressing only the point of what languages are "official", not the names of the country/region. And I was addressing the fact that Russian was not being listed despite a reference from one POV showing that it is an official language. As Bazonka said above, Georgian should also be listed from the other POV that Abkhazia is part of Georgia. —Coroboy (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of the languages in the infobox is to show the countries official native names. It's weird we haven't got a long form for Abkhaz or Russian (if someone can find them that'd be good). At any rate, I would have thought having a Georgian translation of "Republic of Abkhazia" would be a huge POV against Georgia, as no doubt some would construe it grants legitimacy etc. The best place to have the Georgian translation is in the first sentence of the lead (the very start of the first sentence) where important translations are given. Georgian, a very important translation, is shown here properly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Include all three as all three are considered official according to different bodies. Also having "Republic of Abkhazia" in Georgian doesn't legitimatise Abkhazia's independence, that's ridiculous and non-logical. IJA (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at some of the logic I've seen at various articles like this. Mixing up two points of view in an infobox is not a good idea in terms of clear information presentation. We've established very clearly that Georgia claims Abkhazia, and that Abkhazia's recognition is very limited. It would be impossible for readers to miss this (and even in the infobox there's still the map which shades Georgia in). With that in mind, having the facts as they lie on the ground in Abkhazia seems perfectly reasonable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Abkhazians in Turkey are almost exclusively Sunni Muslims."

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

"thousands of Abkhaz, known as makhadjiri, fled Abkhazia for Ottoman Empire "

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

Recognition of Abkhazia

this is total vandalism, i will contact to administrator. Abkhazia is recognized as Georgian region by Europian union, and by total majority of world except of Russia nikaragua, venezuela, nauru, vanautu, tuvalu. i have made changes with sources from UN webcite, European parliament's webcite, BBC webcite and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your changes were against WP:MOS and were designed to push a POV. Wikipedia is not a political entity, and does not 'recognise' countries or follow a particular political viewpoint. CMD (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is Not political! Abkhazia is recognized as Breakaway Region of Georgia by EU, UN, NATO, and every single Country of the planet not including Russia, Nauru, Vanautu, Nikaragua, Tuvalu. I had written it from sources of EU, UN, BBC, and i can make lots of sources where it is said that Abkhazia is a breakaway Georgian region. I warn u last time, to make something about it, or i will inevitably make a complaint about it. Wikipedia is world wide dictionary and it MUST contain only True information from official and internationally recognized sources. And this kind of misinformation must be corrected because it is someones personal view! Wikipedia is not a diary or someones peronal views cite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia must give a balanced view, showing both sides of the debate. So we cannot say that Abkhazia is definitely part of Georgia, or that it is definitely an independent state - we have to use neutral wording like "X claims that it is Y". Bazonka (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

balansed view is cool, but whole world and all of the world wide organizations recognize abkhazia az Part of GEORGIA. i can maka milions of citations from any part of the world not including Russia, Vanautu, Tuvalu, Nauru, nikaragua and other comic countries. if Wikipedia is Going to support separatism than its reputation as world wide dictionary will become under question. i hope for quick solve of this problem. Or i will inevitably contact to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and they will make wikipedia to solve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is the problem? The article states that Abkhazia is a disputed territory - you cannot deny that this is true. It then states that it considers itself to be an independent state, and this is also recognised by Russia etc. Whilst your view is that it is not independent, you cannot deny that this is what Abkhazia (and Russia) claims. The article then states that Georgia and most of the rest of the world considers it to be part of Georgia. This is giving a balanced view, so what's the problem? Bazonka (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Non-UN member states:

Republic of Kosovo: partially recognised state

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic: partially recognised state

Taiwan: state

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

I do not really understand you but... Anyways, the word "partially" leads to ambiguity (1 as well as 192 is "part" rather than nothing (1) and entireness(192) respectively) and also your edit does not show that there is a dispute.

Also 3% (6 out of 193) doesn't make a territory state.

Besides, changing a TOTALLY and flawlessly correct sentence with a kind-of correct one is an obvious sign indicating someones' separatistic/vandalistic/provocative or i-have-some-free-time-but-dunno-what-to-do-istic purposes of their actions.

So, just after you finish reading of this post, calm down and revert your edit. BTW, rethink before you change the very first sentence of an article.--Dixtosa (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, do not use straw man methods (detaching a part of the post and then putting it under intentionally biased heading).

"Partially - in part; in some degree; not wholly."

Kosovo, SADR, Taiwan (last one might or moght not be an exception) - would you change their label to 'disputed territories'? Isn't there a sign of someone's "separatistic/vandalistic/provocative or i-have-some-free-time-but-dunno-what-to-do-istic" views on those pages, judging by your words?

P.S. No rude words, all-caps or exclamation marks were present in the post. As calm as it could be. --37.99.37.203 (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that would be the best solution. And the reference points for future Wikipedia pages of same nature. --37.99.35.156 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That has always been contentious there, and was rejected here (albeit in a much more limited discussion). It just created massive duplication in the desire to achieve political correctness. CMD (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrase «disputed territory» is formally correct, but not exactly describes the situation. There is a number of disputed territories, but only a few of them can be considered as non-recognized or partially recognized states. As for «disputed territory», it is a territory which belongs to different states on a different point of view. This situation is not exact: one point of view defines Abkhazia as a state, and another as a part of its state. This is completely fit the phrase «partially recognized state». Disputed territory may be left in parentises. 77.73.142.121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

infobox

The infobox presents the Republic of Abkhazia as the legitime Abkhazia. Definitely not saying we should do this but the article says "the majority of the world's governments consider Abkhazia a part of Georgia's territory" so per WP:WEIGHT it would make more since for the infobox to present that POV. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It presents the Republic of Abkhazia as being the de facto situation on the ground. Whilst this will not please the pro-Georgians, it is reflecting reality (although arguably not the legal reality). I agree that this is not entirely neutral, but it is a tricky situation and very difficult for us to be properly NPOV. Some suggestions to address this: we could either add a second infobox, or follow the Kosovo methodology, where the Kosovo article is purely about the geographical area, and there are separate articles on the competing political entities of the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. This approach has not been entirely popular, but it certainly quietened the edit warring once it was adopted. Bazonka (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

According to West Bank#Legal_status Israel conceders the West Bank disputed, which is it's de-facto status, but the international community rejects Isreal's claim to the West Bank and calls it "occupied" so we call it "occupied". I don't think we should go that far here tough, partly because the ROA claim to Abkhazia has more registration then the Israeli to the WB.

The infobox can present both situations mostly just by adding the info at Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia infobox. For example we can add Georgian to the list of official languages with a note that it's an official language of the AROA, not the ROA. This article is about Abkhazia, the Republic and the Autonomous Republic, it should reflect both. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Russian and Georgian versions

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