This subject is featured in the Outline of Abkhazia, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is about the place Abkhazia as a whole. It isn't only about the self declared de facto entity the 'Republic of Abkhazia' which is only recognised by 5 UN states. I propose we have a second infobox underneath the current infobox to provide our audiences/ readers with details of the exiled 'Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia'. The current Infobox status quo has been achieved by WP:STONEWALL and is biased and it only portrays the nationalist unrecognised separatist Government of Abkhazia when the article is about Abkhazia as a whole. Now I have no issue with providing this information but it is unfair only providing this information and not information about the Autonomous Government which is be default recognised by the vast majority of the world. The current situation is giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to one side of the dispute and is therefore WP:POV. It is POV to show our readers that the separatist government's flag and Coat of Arms are the Flag and Coat of Arms of Abkhazia but the flag and oat of arms of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia aren't. It'd be more neutral to show both sets. This is why I propose a second infobox showing information relating to the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. This will stop the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT which is currently given in the article and will provide information of both sides of the dispute instead of one which is currently biased. Your thoughts please! IJA (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:STONEWALL is "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution" and is hardly applicable here, as there has never been a community consensus regarding the necessity of second infobox. Last time this issue was discussed here in June 2013 and several changes to the infobox were implemented. Because nothing on the ground has changed since then there are no new reasons in favour of adding it.
Undue weight is probably given to the Government of Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, as now it does not control any territory at all and does not govern in any meaningful way any people, including the Georgian refugees from Abkhazia. Alæxis¿question? 20:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It is extremely biased to say that the separatist flag and CoA is the flag of Abkhazia because only five countries in the world agree with that. Yes the people currently living in Abkhazia would agree with that, but the 200,000+ people who were born in Abkhazia but now live outside of Abkhazia because they were expelled would not agree that with agree with the separatist symbols. We can't just show one side of the dispute because that is biased.
Also WP:STONEWALL has three meanings, I notice you selectively chose just one of the meanings. One of the other definitions of WP:STONEWALL is "Bad faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised." Therefore it is very applicable here. IJA (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't recall what concessions have been made and then withheld, so I found the second meaning even less applicable:)
This page serves as a one-sided promotion of separatist enclave rather than informative article about Abkhazia. Despite of my several attempts to suggest second side of the story it's been rewritten every-time. This article clearly parades Illegally operating attributes instead of symbols representing Abkhazia.  Abkhazia is recognized as an occupied territory since Russia maintains effective control over it through military forces. The whole world, 99% of worlds states together with int. institutions such as UN, EU, NATO, OSCE, and almost every authoritative body recognizes it as part of Georgia while this article only provides radically different statements.
First of all change the title of the article (Republic of Abkhazia) and make it Georgian autonomous republic of abkhazia or to avoid any political implications leave only Abkhazia without definition of its status.
Second please remove illegal flags and emblem as it does not represent that region especially after ethnic cleansing when majority of population are abandoned and place instead flags from legitimate sources or don't put any.
Third remove the separatist leadership and it's quasi legislation as an evidence of it's sovereignty. Nobody on earth recognizes that except Russia. Abkhazia has it's legitimate government and you may refer to that  or again erase this issue entirely to avoid speculation from anyone.
Hopefully admins of this page will be able to restore accuracy and defend it from further attacks and constant changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgianstar (talk • contribs) 08:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer in regards to material that may be considered illegal and censored in some countries. From Wikipedia's point of view, displaying the state symbols of an unrecognized or a partially recognized state serves a clear encyclopedic purpose. NPOV is maintained in that general non-recognition is clearly stated in the lead section, but the fact that all these unrecognized or largely unrecognized states do exist and have been in control over their claimed territory for some time makes Wikipedia prefer them when framing corresponding articles over project governments that don't. --illythr (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There are several issues with series of recent edits made by Chipmunkdavis. See comparison
"Georgia accuses the Abkhaz secessionists of having conducted a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing of between 200,000 to 240,000 Georgians" This part is inconsistent with another part of the article, subsection "Ethnic cleansing of Georgians". The subsection says that "Roughly up to 250,000 ethnic Georgians were expelled from their homes. Slightly over 200,000 Georgians remain displaced in Georgia proper." There are also sources given for verification.
Hamshemin Armenians is incorrect spelling. See Hemshin peoples for alternate spellings.
"Russians also moved into Abkhazia in great numbers". The sentence before this sentence already mentions Russians, so the word also isn't needed any more from pure Grammatical standpoint.
Why did you remove from See also puppet state? Abkhazia can sometimes be considered a puppet state, so it would help readers to read that article too.
Please don't try to jeopardize my edits again. --Zgagloev (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
These were part of reverts, not bold edits I made. Of the remaining, the estimate range of 200,000 to 240,000 is much better than an "up to" statement, as it gives an upper and lower bound, rather than just the higher one. There's no indication the 200,000 in this statement and in the other section are the same value. I removed "puppet state" and "self-determination" because the See Also isn't a place to push the occupation and independence arguments. CMD (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Tuvalu takes back recognition of independence of Abkhazia
As WP:INFOBOXFLAG uses this article as an example of where the infobox should not have a flag, I've removed it. Obviously it should not be replaced without an agreed change to our guidance. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I note that the MOS has been changed, which is fine. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)