Talk:Abkhazia

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Abkazia land of Georgia

Ok! Now listen people! My name is George and I'm from Georgia. You all must know, that Abkazia is Georgia, not independent country. Georgia is independet country and Abkazia is Georgian land. There was Russian political games in Abkazia. We was friends, but Russia did all, for war. My father was fighting in Abkazia, not for Russians, not for politacal games...he was fighting for integrity of Georgia. Noone can take, not Abkazia and not Tskinvali. As our ancestors, we will fight for integrity of Georgia. Abkazians are Georgians...I'm from Imereti and I have friend from Racha, Achara, Guria... and we all are Georgians, as people from Abkazia. And you all who wrote this article must know, that Abkazia is not independent country, Abkazia is land of independent Georgia and I'll fight for this.
P.S. Sorry for my English...
"სამშობლოს არვის წავართმევთ
ჩვენც ნურვინ შეგვეცილება
თორემ ისეთ დღეს დავაყრით
მკვდარსაც კი გაეცინება"
Gnome(G) 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? Alaexis 19:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See up --Gnome(G) 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange comments but suggesting what exactly ? Buffadren 13:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazian Air Force

Aerobird and I have created the beginning of an article on the Abkhazian Air Force based on the limited information available to us. I'm sure some of the editors here have access to better and more extensive information, and we invite your contributions! Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

<Off-topic discussion moved to new topic, "Russian propaganda?> -- Askari Mark (Talk) 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the article but strip any propaganda from it Buffadren 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian propaganda?

Askari Mark beleave me, many editors has not true information about abkazia. This article is sample Russian propagand--Gnome(G) 08:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning, Gnome(G), but having just re-read the article to see how it has evolved since I last read it, I don't think I can agree. Wikipedia is pledged to hold to a neutral point of view (NPOV), supporting neither the views of one side or the other, but outlining both. Can you show me the anti-Georgian bias in passages such as these?

• Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic within the de jure borders of Georgia, on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, bordering the Russian Federation to the north. Abkhazia’s independence is not recognized by any international organization or country and is regarded as an autonomous republic of Georgia, with Sukhumi as its capital.

• On 21 February 1992, Georgia's ruling Military Council announced that it was abolishing the Soviet-era constitution and restoring the 1921 Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. Many Abkhaz interpreted this as an abolition of their autonomous status. In response, on 23 July 1992, the Abkhazia government effectively declared secession from Georgia, although this gesture went unrecognized by any other country.

• In spite of the 1994 ceasefire accord and the ongoing UN-monitored CIS peacekeeping operation, the conflict has not yet been resolved and the region remains divided between the two rival authorities, with over 83 percent of its territory controlled by the Russian-backed Sukhumi-based separatist government and about 17 percent governed by the representatives of the de jure Government of Abkhazia, the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia, located in the Kodori Valley, part of Georgian-controlled Upper Abkhazia.

• The United States, European Union and international organizations (UN, OSCE, Council of the European Union, etc.) recognize Abkhazia as an integral part of Georgia and are urging both sides to settle the conflict over Abkhazian autonomy through peaceful means. However, the Abkhaz separatist government and the majority of the current Abkhazian population (excluding ethnic Georgians who still populate the Gali District and the Kodori Gorge) consider Abkhazia a sovereign country, even though not recognized by any party in the world.

As far as I can see, with content like this, the article appears rather even-handed. The fact that it is not pro-Georgian does not automatically mean it is pro-Russian. If you see specific statements that are anti-Georgian — not merely not pro-Georgian — then please identify them on this Talk page so that they can be addressed.

In writing the article on the Abkhazian Air Force, I myself have tried to present as even-handed a story as possible, drawing upon a variety of sources and viewpoints. This was not easy, given the scarcity of English-language references, but that is the best I can do. If you can guide me to English-language Georgian sources on the Abkhaz air force and its operations, I would be just as interested in them as any coming from English-language Abkhazian or Russian sources. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you, Abkazia is not de facto independent republic, Abkazia is de facto refublic. There are Russian and Abkazian separatists and Russia Rules Abkazia. anyway Abkazia is not independet. Maybe for this time is independent from Georgia, but not from Russia --Gnome(G) 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but Wikipedia requires us to draw upon reliable, independent sources and summarize what those sources say — and cite them. This is especially true when the topic of the article is controversial. For us to present what we believe to be the truth — especially as the one and only possible truth — is considered "point of view" (see WP:POV) and, if uncited, it is at best "original research" (see WP:OR).

I perceive that your main criticism of the article is that the Russian role — possibly to the extent that the de facto government is nothing but a Russian "puppet" government — is understated. If so, this aspect of the article can be better developed by identifying "reliable, independent" sources (preferably in English) that provide evidence supporting this theory. That would provide stronger substantiation than, say, a group of sources that are all pro-Georgian (which would be rightfully dismissed as POV, even if it were all true). Askari Mark (Talk) 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say an argument against that would be the fact that the last presidential elections were not won by Russia's favourite.sephia karta 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

askari mark I understand wat u talk about, but only one wat I want to say : i didn't say that in this article all is not true, I said that in this article some parts is not true and bigest part(de facto independent republic of abkazia)is simple russian propagand, simple russian misinformation. Why is not writen independent republic of chechenya? becouse russians never assume this. This is world free encyclopedia and this articles read whole world.
OK.. for example...do u know wat happen in abkazia? wat u know, u know from this article yes? do u know that we won this war in abkazia? and "georgian, but russian" man eduard shevardnadze said something like this : "return army from abkazia, we lose this war". there was an airport named "bombora" and there was arm and noone could enter there, but russians and shevardnadze admittance there "peace russian army", where is peace? they kill georgians in Gali. In past this war was russian political game and now this article is russian propagand

sephia, yes it's true that in last presidential elections did not won russian's favorite. there won half georgian. He's wife is georgian. He want to settle our sonflict. why? answer about this question is simple - not russia, not america, not china...shortly noone can separate georgians. only one what i want... i want that someone delete abkazia from independet countries. P.S. Sorry for my English --Gnome(G) 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But then if such a man could have become president, then surely Russia is not running the country? And you and I agree that Georgia is not running the country, so what other option does that leave than the conclusion that Abkhazia is currently de facto independent? I mean, you have the right to thoroughly dislike this fact, but to state that Abkhazia is currently indendent has got nothing to do with stating that Abkhazia should or should not be independent. sephia karta 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gnome(G), I can understand your English okay, so you don't need to keep apologizing for it. However, your limited skill may be what is leading you to believe this article is about an independent Abkhazia. It is not. It is about an Abkhazia which some people want reunited with Georgia, some want to join Russia, and some want to be independent. As can be found in the editing history for this article, every time someone has tried to add such a claim to this article, an editor has removed it. The extracts I posted above show what is truly being stated in this article — that Abkhazia is a Georgian province chiefly controlled by separatists, but which no other nation (even Russia) recognizes as an independent land.

As for myself, I study military conflicts around the world, so this article contains less than I know; however, to simply add further information I know about would be "original research". (In fact, if I had written a published article on the civil war, I personally would not be able to use it as a reference. With Wikipedia, I am limited by what sources I can find on the Internet or elsewhere in a language I can read.) That is where you could make a useful contribution to the development of this article. As I stated earlier, if you can locate sources readable by at least one of the contributing editors, post a link on this talk page. Don't worry about your command of English; other editors here can polish it. No one here is opposed to improving this article, even though we have editors who are partial to one side or another. The key is to rely as much as possible on sources not written by partisan authors. Best regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 05:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

OK...if you study military conflicts around the world, then u know what heppened in Abkazia and u know that it's not writen here. you did not answer me on this question : why is not here - independent republic of chechnya? See this please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alaexis, he is from russia, why he thinks that our president has aggressive attempts to subjugate Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whith our land's people?!(abkazia and osetia were our lands about 25-30 centuries and more, in past half georgia's name was abkazia).when our president hepls south osetia and abkazia why south osetia's "president" has aggressive attitude with his own people? do you know that poeple who live in osetia wants to come back in gerogia? but they can't say this....and after this our president is aggressive?! why they deleted your post? and who delete it, i guess russians, maybe not russian, but russian's man.
this is slide show about war in abkazia - http://www.geoarmy.info/moxalise.wmv
and this is georgian rock music about abkazia, named - we remember - http://www.geoarmy.info/weremember.mp3
yea, we remember and we'll never forget it...not only we, our children will not forget it, and their children....
this is georgian reaction on georgian, russian and english languages - http://www.reaction.ge/
i don't know if u'll can download this from georgian ip
if u'll can't download this, then i'll upload on raphideshare
wat is this ? During war in Abkhazia (province of Georgia) war criminals killed more than 6 000 georgians. 1 800 of them were killed by abkhazian criminals after war in Gali region, with help of Russian "Peacekeepers". this is fact... File:Russianazi.jpg File:Weremember.jpg Gnome(G) 06:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gnome, please look at Ldingley's userboxes [[1]] . Mine are just as biased as his (although of course you agree with his position and don't agree with mine).

Anyway, could you propose specific parts of article you want to change? If you want your change to be accepted you have to find reliable and NPOV (=nonbiased) sources. The Georgian sites you have mentioned are obviously POV. The majority of the Russian and Abkhazian sites are also biased, of course. So most of the information in the article is supported by more or less NPOV sources such as Human Rights Watch report, UN resolutions and so on.

If you want to change some part of the article please write here on the talk page what do you want to change and present some non-biased references. Good luck! Alaexis 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, Ldingley created his userboxes in response to the inflammatory ones invented by User:Dimts and quickly adopted by User:Óðinn and yourself. I tried in vain to convince the valiant opponents of "Saakashvili’s aggressive attempts to subjugate Abkhazia and SO" that the move could only be divisive. You seem to be more cooperative and I appreciate your efforts to maintain NPOV. However, I still think that one of your Georgia-related userboxes is simply irredentist ("unification of Ossetia"? I’m sure you don’t mean the unification of Ossetia within Georgia) and the other is no less offending. Do you think that it is only Saakashvili ("the puppet of Bush’s bellicose administration" as one of your compatriots once put it here) who wants to restore the territorial integrity of Georgia while other Georgians are resolutely opposed to his "aggressive attempts"? You can freely substitute those two boxes with a single one "this user supports the partition of Georgia and Russian annexation of South Ossetia". Most of other users who support separatist movements prefer simple wording such as "this user supports the independence of X", while you have chosen the most offending way to express you political opinion. I hope you understand what I mean. Respectfully, Kober 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to the subject, the article needs to be seriously reworked. First of all, it is becoming very long and some sections (e.g., Geography and Climate, and History) need to be abridged. Second, the article lacks the information about the poor human right conditions in Abkhazia, especially in the Georgian-populated Gali district where people are terrorized almost daily. The existing, but not widely publicized division among Abkhaz political leadership and the increasing tensions between the Abkhaz and Armenian communities are also overlooked. The Armenian Association of Georgia has recently reported several attacks on Armenian schools in Abkhazia. I'll try to find appropriate citations when I have enough time.--Kober 12:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

i already said what i want to change for this time. i want that wikipedia's administration delete abkazia from indefendent countries, or move in depended countries, or in de facto republics. as i know from your personal page u are russian. i don't have problems with russians. i have many, many russian friends and kinsman, i have russian cooperators and i don't have problems with them. but i have problems with russian politics.your pattern about south ossetia and abkazia...what it means?! saakashvili don't has aggressive attempts to subjugate Abkhazia and South Ossetia. if u watch free television, not federation's, or something like this...u see, that russian "peacekeepers", ossetian guardians and "naiomniki" shooting in georgian villiges. from where comes "naiomniki"? ossetia don't have not money, not army... of course from russia and don't argue about it...becouse it know u, it know me and it knows whole world.why u wrote about saakashvili and not about kokoiti, or not about someone else? if i'll tell you that chechenya is independent republic and war in chechen republic was terorism from russia, i guess u'll don't like this. i'll tell you...let about georgian lands articles write gerogians, couse we know about our country more than someone else and about other countries lets write people from other countries. yes, it's right that it's free encyclopedia, but with this article, autors insults georgian nation. i guess wikipedia don't want this, yes? correctives in this article i'll enter then, when administration will moves this article in de facto, or in defendent countries. and remember this, abkazia is not country, abkazia is province of georgia, but for now we have problems, for russian plitics and for georgian ex-politics too.i guess u don't have problems with georgia, and with georgians, but u have problems with georgian politics. so please, we don't need to insult each other, with articles. abkazia and ossia with peace, or with war also will be our, couse this provinces are our. i see that ppl in ossetia wants to come back, but russia don't let them...but abkazians....they have more and more less time to come back, or we will do this. and at last, i'm not politician, i'm not state clerk, i'm programer and designer, simple i'm student.so lets do this, here will come georgian historians and they will write article about abkazia, and if abkazians want, they will write too.. but they'll never be independent.if u want to know, i don't need peace with abkazians anymore. but it's only my consider--Gnome(G) 12:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

2Kober. I don't see any point in discussing userboxes (at least here). Mine and yours are equally biased and offending and I certainly wasn't the person who started it. If you like I can substitute 'Mikhail Saakashvili's' with 'Georgia's' ))

2Gnome. You still haven't brought any piece of evidence... Alaexis 13:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Abkazia is in the list of independent states because it is believed to be de facto independent. It is written in beginning of that article that Abkhazia is not recognised by any other coutry. If you want to remove it from that list you have to prove Abkhazia is NOT de facto independent, i. e. that it's part of Russia (de facto). It'll be quite hard because Russia has never recognised Abkhazia as one of its regions (and as independent state also, btw). The president of Abkhazia is also elected by its citizens and is not appointed like other Russian regional leaders, moreover, as Sephia Karta has written, the candidate supported by Russia was defeated in the last elections. Alaexis 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

wat piece of evidence do u want?! do u ever been in georgia? do u know wat heppened in abkazia? do u know wat heppened in tbilisi? do u know why began war in abkazia? do u know who was fighting in this war? do u know why we lost abkazia? do u know abkazia's history? do u know who are abkazians? do u know where they came from? do u know who was king when abkazians came in georgia? do u know georgian? do u know georgia's history? do u know name of old west georgia? no!!! u don't know nothing and u wrote something misinformation. u russian say me that me georgian must give u piece of evidence?! who are u for georgians? who give u permision to write this misinformation. i'll tell u who are u? u are misinformator, simple russian politician. and u said that u know more then me?! u russian know more than me georgian?! about georgia?! i'll leave this topic for now, but i'll fight for deleting abkazia from indefendent countries. it in virtual... will come day, day of vendeta. and then we'll see who is independent. --Gnome(G) 14:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

an outside opinion

Hello, as an outsider to this article I would just like to point out that the first paragraph is both lopsided and contradictory. I would recommend something a little more NPOV. Abkhazia is a disputed territory within the borders of the Republic of Georgia. Rather than claiming it is a defacto republic. I would also point out that since there is a conflict on-going in Abkhazia the page should be tagged to reflect that. On this same point I would remind users to be careful of Recentism. Please don't make an edit unless it can be verified.--Cailil 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I thoroughly disagree with you here. There is nothing contradictory in the opening paragraph, its information is factually true (according to the sources, though Gnome(G) doesn't agree with this) and it is NPOV. Stating that Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic is merely an observation about the situation on the ground, and it does not in any way qualify this situation in terms of right or wrong. sephia karta 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I'm sorry, but I think you are being too bold when challenging the internationally accepted sovereignity of Georgia over its lawful territories (in this case Abkhazia). Just a friendly advise: don't expose yourself to Ruskii propaganda for a long period of time. This will severely damage your brain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.72.136.161 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Cailil, it's rather "de facto independent republic" than "de facto AND independent republic". The latter indeed makes no sense. What on-going conflict did you write about? Alaexis 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict was probably an incorrect word - I was referring to the dispute over the territory between the governments.--Cailil 14:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you've found that this article fails to reflect this conflict (which is dormant, fortunately). Sections 'Political status', 'Politics', 'History' and 'International involvement' thouroghly cover it. Alaexis 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm being unclear. I am not referring to the rest of the article (in general I think its a pretty good analysis of Abkhazia), I'm strictly referring to the wording of the first paragraph - the header. I'm not disputing the truth of it, but as an outsider that first paragraph does not look NPOV enough. Enough weight is not given to both sides. I merely suggest that the disputed status of Abkhazia be noted with more neutrality than it is currently given. However, if there is a verifiable, objective source that backs this paragraph up, please reference it- that would probably allay any concerns I have over the paragraph.--Cailil 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest this ---Abhhazia is a seperatist region within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia that has declared itself an independent country. This de-facto independence has yet to be recognised by the international community and its sovereignty is a matter of intense conflict and dispute with Georgia. Buffadren 13:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some people here won't like the word 'yet' in your variant. Myself I think the current version is good enough and need not be changed. Alaexis 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, avoid use of the word yet and just change to this: "Abhhazia is a separatist region within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia that has declared itself an independent country. Its de-facto independence is currently not recognised by the international community and its sovereignty is a matter of intense conflict and dispute with Georgia" Pernambuco 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it better than current version ?? Alaexis 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pernambuco. Following a series of debates, a very similar intro has also been agreed upon in the Transnistria article and I find it pretty accurate and neutral: "Transnistria... is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in eastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence as a separate republic...", etc.--Kober^Talk 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly a good argument. Look at Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland articles. There the intros resemble the current one here. I'm not really against the change, I just don't see the reason behind it. I don't think changing for the sake of changing is a good idea. If anyone is unhappy with the current intro please give some arguments. Alaexis 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am forced to agree with Alaexis, he is right, there is no good argument for changing, I support Alaexis and withdraw my proposal Pernambuco 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

Kober,we all know that in 1992 Abkhazia (or at least some circles of Abkhazian politicians) proclaimed independence.Then came a war which led to the current status quo.Do you agree?

Although the independence of the Abkhazian Republic has never been recognized,it exists.You can't deny that fact.So let's use the official name of the (separatist) state.Dimts 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The current wording seems to be grammatically incorrect: it looks like there is ONE Abkhazian separatist who wants to be independent. If 'separatist' is used as an adjective the phrase 'separatist appeal' does not make any sense anyway. Even if it's correct it could confuse international readers.

The majority of Abkhazia population (as well as its government) is pro-independence, so it may be right to write "Abkhazian Republic's appeal to be recognised ...".

Consider this fragment "Russian-backed separatist government..." - there are people in Russia who do not support or back Abkhazian separatists, but Russia as a state indeed supports Abkhazia. In the same way Abkhazia as a state strives for independence. That's how I understand it. Alaexis 19:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ok...if it is not russian's and separatistes article..why someone is deleting georgians true information? Dimts proclaimed independence is not enough. if country is independent, it must be recognized. when georgia proclaimed independence it was recognized. abkazians never get recognize not fro georgia, not from world. maybe they get it from russians, couse after that abkazia will be russian teritory.

people let georgians and not only them write true information and don't delete it.Dimts do u know wat happned in abkazia? maybe u know, maybe u know only this that "Abkhazia (or at least some circles of Abkhazian politicians) proclaimed independence".if u want to know true, let us write true--Gnome(G) 20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The way you understand it, is not the way the international community interprets the events in Abkhazia. The full support of the Russian government to the separatist regime of Abkhazia within the de jure borders of Georgia (confirmed and supported by numerous UN resolutions, Security Consul Amendments, OSCE, EU, etc). Claiming and stating in the encyclopaedic article the following statement: Abkhazian Republic is definitely a non conformance approach to NPOV guidelines. There are many self designated republics and separatist enclaves in the world today, however, Wikipedia being as educational tool for the reader who has no background in abkhazian issues should find neutral and widely acceptable (with regards to international recognitions, designations and definitions) terminology. Therefore, we must not forget that de jure or de facto, the self imposed separatist wing of Abkhaz politicians who came to power thanks to the bloody ethnic war has no legal jurisdiction or has any authority according to international law to represent the population, jurisprudence/law and legal authority of Abkhazian Autonomous Republic. When or if Abkhaz separatist regime will gain recognition as legal governmental/authority (example: Palestinian Authority is a legal body governing the Palestinian affairs both internal and external) body by international community or Georgian government (under which jurisdiction and constitution the Autonomous Republic falls) we can use such terminology as Republic, Government, State or any other means ascribed to the real states. The enclaves such as Abkhazia are no states but enclaves of some regimes. I’m a firm supporter of international law, constitutional law and legality which comes with state affairs. This is not how I see it but how UN and other international organizations have interpreted and defined this issue. Ldingley 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ldingley, do you think the current version is grammatically correct? btw, as a 'firm supporter of international law' you should now about Montevideo Convention. According to it international recognition is not required for the existence of the state. Does this convention still work or is it outdated? Alaexis 07:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention is not an universal agreement and Georgia is not a signatory to it. Neither are most of the World's countries. --Kober^Talk 08:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not an universal agreement, but it was signed by US and EU also agrees with this convention in the matter of the state definition (see references in the article). Is there any alternative state definition (more widely accepted)? If there isn't one I think we should adhere to Montevideo definition. Alaexis 10:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh this conversation is going off-topic plus goes into deep political discussion which has nothing to do with the encyclopaedic articles. Alexis, I understand your passionate ideals toward separatist causes on the Georgian territory (fanny how your opinion differs when it comes to Russia and Israel) and liberation, unification of some newly enchanted “states.” Its no surprise for me. However, as I said, this is encyclopaedic web site and not political discussion forum (you may join fellow aps’wa at www.abkhazia.org or “unified” Ossetians at www.ossetia.ru) . When claiming this and that we usually use references (valid ones and not the ones from Russian websites), sources (primary and secondary) and quotes from various news headlines. It’s not wise to drag the subject on the encyclopaedic article. It’s not a propaganda tool but an educational experience for the reader who had no idea before about this issue. So let’s keep politics out and concentrate on expanding and creating articles for encyclopaedic purposes. Cheers mite! p.s Montenegro example has no similarities or implications for Abkhazia, this has been confirmed by UN and EU. Georgian territorial integrity and the international support which stands behind it is far different, from the case on Montenegro (where the Yugoslav constitution allowed Montenegro to separate) and Putins favourite example Kosovo. Another thing, Russia fears "independent" Abkhazia more than Georgia. If setting such precedent, its territorial integrity in Caucasus will break as the thin ice on the melting point. Again we are venturing into politics. Ldingley 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ldingley, what Montenegro or Russian Caucasus have to do with the problem we are discussing? Unless you can read my thoughts please refrain from writing what I think about Russian or Israeli integrity or anything else in future. I'll write what I think myself if it's related to the subject :).

Do you (as a native English-speaker) consider the current version (Abkhaz separatist appeal) grammatically correct? Alaexis 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No I don't, will fix. BTW My name is Luis. You name is Alex or Alexander? Cheers. Ldingley 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Luis. I prefer 'Alex'. Good luck. Alaexis 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is harder than I thought.Let me explain.

The article says "...Abkhaz separatist appeal to be recognized as an independent state...".Now for the first question.Who is this mysterious Abkhaz separatist?Is he a Forseman Apocalypse?Mabus from the prochesy of Nostradamus?Somebody you know?

Question N2.What state wants to be recognized?Maybe the Abkhazian separatists took over London and proclaimed it an independent state?Or maybe they want the international community to recognize the evil Empire from Star Wars?

That's why the quote "...Abkhazian Republic's appeal to be recognized as an independent state..." is the best option.Dimts 14:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but your questions (arguments?) with their Nostradamus/London/Star Wars rhetoric make little sense. Who are the Abkhaz separatists? It is becoming quite clear in the process of reading the article and the lead section thereof. What state wants to be recognized? An answer is basically the same and whether Abkhazia and fellow breakaway/occupied entities can be categorized as “states” is a subject of ongoing discussion here and elsewhere in Wikipedia.

I don’t think that “Abkhazian Republic's appeal to be recognized as an independent state” is the best option. I have to repeat myself: ethnic Georgians who still live within the de facto boundaries of the “Republic of Abkhazia” (and thus can be qualified as its population) or in the lands claimed but not controlled by this “republic” don’t want to secede from Georgia.

I don’t think that this “separatists vs. republic” issue is that big problem in the article. This is becoming just another fruitless (and typical for Wikipedia) “talk page” collision among different POVs. Folks, please stop treating the article as if reflects only a Georgian POV. In fact, is does not. --Kober^Talk 15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your questions are too comical to be bothered with. How about you read some sources, books and documents and answer your own questions? Also please lets avoid political dogma here and while maintaining NPOV, concentrate on encyclopaedic style. Ldingley 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why can't the term Abkhazian Republic be used?Dimts 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New Athos problem

wat is this?! it's name. translate name?! ok... someone transleted name...map is english...yea? if u translate novyy afon from russian it will be new afon. File:290px-Abkhazia detail mapwr.png— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

To translate all geografical names literally is not always a good idea. However in this case it might be since English is more neutral than Russian, Georgian or Abkhazian version. The argument against the renaming is that this monastery was founded by Russians as Novyy Afon. I don't have an opinion on this problem. Alaexis 07:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Alaexis. It is better to use an English transliteration in this case so as to avoid another tide of edit wars on a relatively minor issue.--Kober^Talk 08:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

btw, there is another issue with the map. The accepted English name of the territory is Abkhazia, not Abkhazeti or Apsny. So if this map is to be completely English the Georgian version of the republic's name has to be removed as well.

Another alternative is to give three-language territory name (Abkhazia, Apsny, Abkhazeti) and two-language names of the cities (Tkvarcheli, Tkuarchal; Gali, Gal). Alaexis 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so, Gali and Tkhvarcheli is acceptable geographical names of these "cities." Gal and Tkhvarchal is the separatist new designation for this old Colchian names. Ldingley 15:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Alaexis, it is impossible to reflect everything in one map. The map should use the most widely accepted English names (Sukhumi, not Sukhum; Tkvarcheli, not Tkuarchal; Gali, not Gal). It is directly in accordance with the Wikipedia policy. The above map, however imperfect, is actually made and used by the UN. It can also be found at the UNOMIG (the UN mission operating in Abkhazia) website. I think it is wise to keep it in the article until the better one is created.--Kober^Talk 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I have written more clearly. There can be two alternative policies regarding the names on the map.

1. Accepted English names only. This means Sukhumi, Tkvarcheli, Gali and Abkhazia.

2. English, Georgian and Abkhazian variants. This means three names for some entities (like Abkhazia, Abkhazeti, Apsny) and two names for most of them (Gali, Gal; Tkuarcheli, Tkuarchal) because usually accepted English version coincides with Georgian one.

In MY opinion the current map is ok. However if someone wants to make a new one s/he should adhere to one of the aforementioned policies to be consistent. Alaexis 16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. sephia karta 19:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well known?

The article states that "Abkhazia is well known for its beauty and contrasting landscapes." I take issue with that statement. Who is it well known by? By what scale is this measured? I reccomend the sentence be deleted. The next sentence is descriptive and NPOV. "The landscapes of the region range from coastal forests (endemic pine forests near Bichvinta/Pitsunda) and citrus plantations, to eternal snows and glaciers to the north of the republic." K 46R A 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's not Sleeping-Beauty Land or Switzerland. Buffadren 13:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of Georgian returnees to Gali

Alex, I’m afraid you have somewhat a strange understanding of NPOV :) Why have you selected an apparently erroneous (but more suitable for your POV) info from the document? The same pdf contains an absolutely contradictory info on the same subject which is consistent with other UN reports and similar documents. If you want, I will post direct quotations. Since you specialize in the Abkhazia-related topics, you should know perfectly well that Georgians are not allowed to freely return to the region and those who have returned are subjected to almost everyday attacks and mistreatment. I know that such things are not reported by Russian media, but check some Georgian sources from time to time. Just to hear the opposite side. Cheers, Kober^Talk 12:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any contradictions actually. The data in chapter 2 is about 1998-2004 period, while the data in chapter 3 is about 1994-1998 period. I know about some human rights violations in Samyrzakan and I was sure someone would add info about them. Alaexis 13:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The head of the Gal district of Abkhazian republic is Ruslan Kishmariya ( [2], [3] ). I gather it's a Mingrelian surname. If I'm right the phrase about predominantly Abkhaz authorities is not valid. Alaexis 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No. The information is valid and comes from the UN report cited in the article. Kishmaria is Abkhaz. Many ethnic Abkhaz have Mingrelian surnames. Don't you remember the Abkhaz writer Gulia or the former de facto prime minister Jergenia? There was also an Abkhaz butcher Papaskiri notorious for his crimes during the Sukhumi massacre of Georgians in 1993. The surname is clearly of Mingrelian origin, "skiri" meaning "a son".--Kober^Talk 13:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

About 70% of Abkhaz has Mingrelian last names while the ones wich end with "bsh" "ba" are old Laz names. Abkhaz even have last names which end in "dze" and "iani."Ldingley 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the list of the mp candidates from the Gal district [4] . They are Yuri Kereselidze, Akhra Kvekveskiri, Ramin Chekheria, Tamaz Shonia, Vyacheslav Vardania. Are they all Abkhaz? Is there any good method of determining one's ethnicity?

It seems like Abkhaz are more likely to have Russian names and seldom have Georgian ones (although this also happens). Anyway names like Tamaz, Akhra and Ramin sound Georgian to me. Alaexis 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get your point. First, Tamaz and Ramin are Persian names popular among both Georgians and Abkhaz. I've never heard of Akhra, but it sounds Abkhaz. Second, my info comes from the UN report which is a legitimate source. Third, it deals with the current authorities, not the "mp candidates" for the Gali district.--Kober^Talk 08:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's surely a legitimate source but this report was issued in June, 2004 and some things might have changed by now. Alaexis 10:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since then. If you are still in doubt, try to obtain more recent and neutral sources which would prove that Georgians also participate in the distric's governance.--Kober^Talk 11:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

""Anyway names like Tamaz, Akhra and Ramin sound Georgian to me."" The fact that it "seems so to you" shows only one sad fact - that you have no idea about what are editing. Akhra and Ramin are not used by Georgians at all, while Tamaz is used by both Georgians and Abkhazians. Pirveli 17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal insults. I can also make some nasty remark about your wiki-behaviour, English or contributions.

What about Ramin Katamadze? I've recently listened to a radio broadcast where he participated [5]. So either he's not Georgian or you're wrong. Adiós. Alaexis 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can read, what is written on the link you provide, you will see that from the very beginning that person denounces his Georgian identity. In the same way if he were Richard Katamadze, this would not make Richard a Georgian name:).

And Akhra is Abkhaz name with no alternatives or usages by other nationalities. Thats why you should check information before saying "it seems so to me" and editing the article on such "grounds". Pirveli 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have NOT edited the article on these grounds. I've put only the facts from the UN report to the 'Political Status' section. I had some doubts about the phrase about the ethnicity of Gali district authorities so I raised this issue on the talk page. Currently there is no problem at all with it - you should've noted the argument had been dormant for almost a month before your post. Alaexis 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here! It seems to me a group of Russian web brigade activists have teamed up to wage a pro-separatist and Russian neo-imperialist prop. Guys, you are too brainwashed to stay neutral when writing this article. I was just wondering why Abkhaz users don't appear on Wikipedia. It would have been more interesting to work with them rather than listen to a bunch of Russian users who pretend to be very sympathetic towards the Abkhaz "self-determination" cause, but, in reality, they regard them as a barbarian and underdeveloped people. They have simply chosen to support the Abkhaz separatist ambitions due to the fact that Russian nationalists cannot reconcile with the fact that Georgia is independent and pro-Western. This is the main reason behind the current Russo-Georgian antagonism. And this is not just my opinion. Several indepedendent observers and analysts write about an extreme anti-Georgian public opinion in Russia.

Now back to the article, why it is so surprisingly silent about the role of Russian Air Force in bombing and destroying Sokhumi? As far as I remember, the Russian defense minister and notorious Great Russian Chauvinist Grachev claimed that Georgians were bombing themselves. However, the Georgians shot down, in 1993, a Russian Su piloted by Major Shipko who had served in the Russian air forces and the UN military mission confirmed this fact.

This is correct but was the Su on a bombing mission or spying ? Buffadren 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There ARE Abkhaz users on wikipedia. Look here [6]

This is the start page of Abkhaz wikipedia [7] Alaexis 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

So I've made a small gallery of images found on WikiCommons and elsewhere. More photos are definitely needed so please feel free to upload them. One shouldn't forget about copyright of course and this stuff can be qute time-consuming :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alaexis (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Good job. The photos are much needed and look great, but I think it would be better if we included them in the corresponding articles (eg Sokhumi, Gagra), not here.--Kober^Talk 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of them are originally from other articles (i. e. New Athos ones). However I don't think we should remove anything from here. Consider Georgia, Wales or Spain article galleries. I fully agree to post them to their corresponding articles as well. Alaexis 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the galleries in the Georgia, Wales, and Spain articles are excessive as well.--Kober^Talk 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Demographics -> table

What about making a table in the demographics section merging the 1897, 1926, 1989 and 2003 censi data which is already present and adding 1939, 1959, 1970 data. Like the one here. This way the information will be more easy to read imo. Alaexis 16:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It will be better to exclude the pre-Soviet demographics info from the table. The 1890s data are very contradictory. To give a preference to one source (B&E in your case) over the rest and include it in the table while footnoting others is kind of POV. Also, your assertion that the Sukhumi district occupied about the same territory as Abkhazian ASSR in Soviet times is not true, because the Abkhazian lands north of the Bzyb river (including Gagra) were detached from this district in 1904 to form a part of the Black Sea district. The area was later reconquered by the Georgian army from Denikin's Whites and reincluded in Abkhazia in 1919. --Kober^Talk 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently there are 3 sets of pre-revolution numbers: from Encyclopedia of Islam (1881), from the B&E encyclopedia (actually based on the 1897-census data) and 1917 data. Before any further discusion could you provide reference for the latter statistics? Then we'll consider either moving all this info into table with appropriate footnotes or leaving pre-1926 numbers in the text.

About Sukhum district. The important thing is that at the time of census Sukhum district had occupied the same territory as the Abkhazian ASSR did later. Alaexis 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex, please don’t remove referenced content. Yes, the source is a Georgian book published in Tbilisi. If you don’t trust it, you should find the sources that would prove otherwise. You can go to the nearest library and verify the 1917 rural census data. The way to deal with such things is by challenging them, not by removing them. Take care, Kober^Talk 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I trust this data. You've pointed out recently that Gagra was part of Sochi district (or Chernomorski, not sure) since 1904 and till the Georgian conquest. Since the census was conducted by the Provisional Government Gagra wasn't included in Abkhazia. That's the reason behind conflicting numbers, I believe. Alaexis 07:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So this data is not very relevant - it includes only rural population of part of the present-day Abkhazia. It certainly doesn't deserve to be put into the table near the census numbers for the whole Abkhazia. Alaexis 07:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Full support on this. I am an outsider, and neutral to this, in fact I dont know too much about the issue, but when someone who is an ordinary reader is seeing this article, it is very important that the information is presented in the correct way and no undue weight to items that do not raise to that level Pernambuco 13:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you see that would be difficult judging that Mr Alaexis has frankly pro-separatist agenda here on Wikipedia. Therefore, i have relay serious doubts that he will generate any neutral information for this article. By using Russian and Abkhaz sources and ignoring the rest is definitely a POV approach and will not be constructive, in fact it will lead to confrontation between disputed parties here on Wikipedia. This topic is extremely controversial and pro-separatist or pro-Russian approach is not a solution for creation of a neutral article, on contrary. . Ldingley 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

2Luis. Being fully pro-Georgian isn't very helpful either. I haven't found any arguments in your last post so I presume you don't have anything against my proposal. Alaexis 16:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Im definitely not pro-Georgian, I’m pro-reality (being Canadian, my country has no territorial disputed with Georgia). I have nothing against your census, it’s nicely done. However, please consider using more neutral sources rather than Islamic encyclopaedia written by a Russian (god knows where he took his census) and also 1800s Russian Encyclopaedia which labels Abkhaz as uncultured. Otherwise, I welcome your hard work for improving this article . Great job on photos. Hoping some day I can visit there again. Ldingley 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Being Canadian does not make a person non-biased on all issues :).

Please don't accuse me of what I haven't done. It was Kober who found 1881 info (look here - [8]). If you don't like it you may remove it, I have no objections. Regards. Alaexis 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC

I added another statistic, it comes from Daniel Müller's contribution to The Abkhazians: A handbook. I find it to be impartial and objective, and I think he does a good job at explaining who the Samurzaq'anoans were, by cross-tabulating nationality data against mother-tongue data. sephia karta 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ldingley,can I nicely ask you to please stop inserting the 'Ethnic Cleansing' words into the article, this is not Kosovo page. I am not POVing I am trying to remove 'Ethnic Cleansing' type hysteria from this page. I trust the other editors here support this. If not please advise. Buffadren 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just done some research and there is an Ethnic Cleansing Page dedicated to Abkhazia, Could our 'Pro Reality' Mr Ldingley be right? Maybe I owe him an apology?. When I removed the 'Ethnic Cleansing' words from the main space he accused me of POV editing To me the term 'Ethnic Cleansing' have a special place in certain wars and this is not one of them. On research It appears that this editor has more than a POV on this subject. It was he that CREATED the Ethnic Cleansing page itself.. I do not want to be hard on you here but please do not RV me for POV when clearly you yourself have a very strong POV. I propose the 'Ethnic Cleansing' words to be deleted. We all accept there were tragic cilivian casulties but this was not a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing as suggested. Buffadren 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Buffadren, what are you talking about? It was exactly what an ethnic cleansing campaign is called and it is recongnized as such in the OSCE resolutions. The ethnic cleansing of Georgians was a deliberate policy aimed at changing the region's demograhic situation. Do you really think that the Abkhaz could have broken away in the presence of the Georgian majority of 300,000? What you call 'Ethnic Cleansing' type hysteria is actually a strong collection of facts. If anything, there are numerous sources for that. --Kober^Talk 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kober, not quite right. The majority of republic's poptlation was non-Georgian in 1989 and, consequently, supported Abkhaz during the conflict. Regarding the issue itself I'm neutral. The fact is that the majority of ethnic Georgians left the reptblic after the war. How to nmame it is the matter of choice. Alaexis 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Civilians get killed in wars, soilders often wipe all in their paths, but there is a difference between military conduct violations and outright Ethnic Cleansing, Even the sanctimonious self-considered OSCE would not consider itself a nuetral in the dispute. Buffadren 14:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Buffadren you have demonstrated blunt POV pushing on this article past few days. In fact, you have removed all valuable data (supported by sources) and implemented your views and biased approach to this article. You did not consult anyone before deleting and removing the information from the article. Therefore, this is considered as vandalism and inappropriate behavior. The ethnic-cleansing has been recognized officially by numerous world organizations including UN. The Hague War Crimes tribunal has also launched the full investigation and prosecution process. Therefore, stop deleting, damaging the data on this article. First, present your sources and references for any claim, than consult your fellow Wikipedians if you want to remove anything from the article. So far you have demonstrated unconstructive, inappropriate and damaging behavior which will bring further rv wars and involvement of Administrators. Vandalism is not a way to express your views. Ldingley 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There has not been a single person charged or convicted with Ethnic Cleansing in Abkhazia and if people like you with short horizon vision continue to push this here nobody ever will be. Buffadren 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Avoid any personal attacks against me and consult sources. I don’t see any point further continuing discussion with person who can’t communicate in civilized manner and engages in vandalism. I have been researching this topic since the start of the war and have traveled there numerously (including during the war). But im not obliged to prove anything to you. Ldingley 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is attacking you. I strongly urge you to listen to reason. What you are writing consitutes as an infringement of rightful due process under international law. Buffadren 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Alex, your reference #14 has a problem, it damages the footnote section. Please see if you can fix it. It happaned to me before but i cant remember how to fix it. Best. Ldingley 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do. I've tried to remove those three references but it didn't help, then I reverted to earlier edit and it still did not help :( Alaexis 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found the problem. It was my fault. I'll soon restore everytjhing. Alaexis 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done it. Alaexis 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. Ldingley 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics II

Alex, can I ask you where your 1897 figures come from? I’ve just checked B&E and it only says "…абхазцев и самурзаканцев (86%), мингрельцев (5,5%), греков (3,5%), армян (1,5%), русских (ок. 2%), грузин (около 1%), немцев и проч", leaving the cryptic category of "Samurzakanians" open to conflicting interpretations. I gather your calculations are based upon the other B&E entry which places the number of ethnic Abkhaz at 70,000. However, it doesn’t specify whether the figure refers to the Abkhaz dwelling in Abkhazia or in the Russian Empire in general. On the other hand, we know from the 1911 Britannica that "Pop. 43,000, of whom two-thirds are Mingrelians and one-third Abkhasians, a Cherkess or Circassian race. The total number of Abkhasians in the two governments of Kutais and Kuban was 72,103 in 1897".[9] (Note: Sukhumi District was part of the Kutaisi Guberniya under the Russian rule). Indeed, Abkhaz also lived (and live) outside Abkhazia, particularly in the Kuban area, Tbilisi, Kutaisi, and Adjara (where they had fled the Russian persecutions in the 1870s when Adjara was still part of the Ottoman Empire). I’m leaving the section as it is now for the time being but it definitely needs to be reworked to meet a NPOV standard and to eliminate any possible original research.--Kober^Talk 18:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason they don't write in what year the population of Abkhazia was 43,000, so I have to assume it was 1911. So they claim Abkhaz numbered 43,000/3 = 14,000 in 1911 in Abkhasia (presumably Sukhum district). If we are to believe in the first Soviet census (giving 55 th.) this number is very very unlikely (considering the revolution and civil war that happened in between).

Now let's go back to 1897 figures. Unfortunately I don't know about Abkhaz population of Tbilisi or Ajaria so I have to assume if it were significant it would be reflected in the corresponding encyclopedia article (in EB1911 or B&E). On the contrary it's written in the article 'Russia. Population: Statistics (addition)' : "К черкесской группе — кабардинцы (98561), по сев. склону Кавказа в Терской и Кубанской обл., и абхазцы (72103) — в Кутаисской губ. и другие племена (46286) в Кубанской обл." You are right that Abaza (who live in Kuban) are included in the number of Abkhaz in the encyclopedia. However they numbered only 5,000 and I have taken it into account subtacting these 5,000 from the total of 72,103. Alaexis 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t want to seem distrustful, but I’m going to need the hyperlinks to your references. I would also ask you to name the exact source about the number of Abaza. However, I still think that all these calculations are tentative. They are not supported by academic sources with the exception of outdated encyclopedias whose information is rather confusing and contradictory. That’s why I suggested leaving only the Soviet-era statistics. If you still insist on keeping the pre-Soviet figures, we will have to find something more useful in modern scholarly literature. I will probably return with some citations on the subject. --Kober^Talk 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'Abaza' article is here. The detailed list of the ethnicities of the Kutais guberniya (and of other ones) can be found here. I insist that there is no reason to dismiss the results of the 1897 census - they are just as credible as all the Soviet census figures. Alaexis 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said that we should dismiss the 1897 data even though they are far from being credible compared to the Soviet statistics. The census did not even classify ethnic groups properly (“Samurzakanians” is the most illustrative example). I just thought it would be better to move that data from the table to the text, explaining all inconsistencies across the contemporary sources. Actually, this seems to me the only way to avoid POV. A series of calculations and combinations you did can be qualified as original research. We cannot dismiss the 1911 EB either. “This number is very very unlikely” is not an argument. Britannica is an important source and it should be included in the section. The reader will decide which version to believe. Kober^Talk 14:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I added another statistic, it comes from Daniel Müller's contribution to The Abkhazians: A handbook. I find it to be impartial and objective, and I think he does a good job at explaining who the Samurzaq'anoans were, by cross-tabulating nationality data against mother-tongue data. sephia karta 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Only God knows what a mixed Abkhaz-Mingrelian identity is. Never heard of such thing. Sephia, the book you are citing is notorious for its one-sided approach and is actually a political pamphlet edited by the established anti-Georgian demagogue George Hewitt who is, btw, educated in Tbilisi and fluent in Georgian, but evidently loves her Abkhaz wife too much to stay neutral. Anyway, the section desparately needs to be balanced by more neutral sources. I’m currently working on this.--Kober^Talk 14:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A mixed Abkhaz-Mingrelian identity means that part of the people consider themselves Abkhaz, part Mingrelian, part report Abkhaz as a mother tongue, part Mingrelian, and this need not match, so you have people that report Abkhaz nationality but Mingrelian mother tongue. Nothing so strange here that only God would know. I don't care that you find Hewitt not neutral (you may very well be right), the article is written by Daniel Müller, and unless you prove otherwise (e.g. by citing passages from the article that you find biased), he is a perfectly legitimate source. It's not as though he is inventing these figures, you know. sephia karta 15:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Don’t overreact. The figures are not invented, but they are interpreted differently. That’s why I said that the section should be balanced with the information from different sources. There is not a single reference to any "mixed identity" in the Imperial Russian demographic accounts. The 1886 data contains a separate category called "Samurzakanians" (without any further details about their identity), while the 1897 census classifies them together with Abkhaz. In the 1922-23 All-Georgian Census (which included Abkhazia) Samurzakanians are also counted as Abkhaz, but in the later censuses they are classified as Georgians. Neither Muller not Hewett is the only author who has studied Abkhazia. Most scholars I have read agree that the Samurzakanians were chiefly Georgians (Mingrelians) with a minority of Abkhaz. Don’t you think that all these controversies should be reflected in the article to meet a NPOV policy?--Kober^Talk 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

2 Sephia karta. Thx for adding this info.

Kober, you are artificially making the issue more complex than it really is. The 1897 census grouped the people by their mother-language (Georgian, Mingrelian, Abkhaz; no mention of Samurzakan language because it doesn't exist). There were 59,469 Abkhaz (by mother-language) in the Kutaisi guberniya in 1897.

BE does not even state to what year do their numbers belong. Let's add something like: "EB1911 states that Abkhaz numbered one third of 43,000 sometime". Of course we cannot divide 43,000 by 3 because it would be original research :)

ps. Btw your link to EB1911 does not work any more. Alaexis 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Artificially complicating? I would rather call it striving for consistency :) The 1897 census categorizes Samurzakanians together with Abkhaz. Not on a language basis, I guess. As for 1911EB, you could think of a better solution. Just insert a verbatim quotation (don't be afraid of copyright problems; the edition is in public domain) something like this: "According to the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica,... in the early 1900s". Why to make things artificially complex? Anyway, I see no point in further arguing over the topic until I find enough time to retrieve some other academic sources and rewrite the section. --Kober^Talk 17:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing

We have already had the Ethnic Cleansing debate here and I though the matter was solved. Today Alaexis, having had nothing more to contribute to the talk page debate took matters in his own hands and having waited like a tiger in the long grass and kept low for a week, changed it again. without comment here. NOT ACCEPTABLE !!!. Buffadren 14:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comparing me(?) to a tiger :) However I don't quite underatand what do you mean. I haven't changed anything related to the ethnic cleansing in this article lately. Check the history. Alaexis 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies Alaexis you are correct it was not you and I would have been surprised if it was. but it was kober Buffadren 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Koper needs to learn to discuss things before he makes changes, will he never learn, not everyone has his point of view, some people are more neutral Pernambuco 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pernambuco, you don't even know what you are talking about. You need to learn to assume a good faith of other users and expand your rudimental knowledge of the Abkhazian conflict before posting your absolutely pointless remarks here. FYI, the issue was discussed and there was no consenus on the removal of the ethnic cleasning passage.

Buffadren, I have explained my reasoning in the edit summary. The passage doesn't state that the ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia is an undisputable fact. It only speaks about the OSCE recognition. Our opinion about this organization is not relevant here. Wikipedia requires us to report the facts. And the fact is that the OSCE resolutions contain a reference to the ethnic cleansing of Georgians. --Kober^Talk 18:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the link to a Budapest OSCE resolution. Hope it'll help. Alaexis 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Shorten This

Here is text that ends the political section and I think it is too long. I suggest reducing the wording without reducing its substance. Also it is a bit weassel worded.

The United Nations and other international organizations have been fruitlessly urging the Abkhaz de facto authorities “to refrain from adopting measures incompatible with the right to return and with international human rights standards, such as discriminatory legislation… [and] to cooperate in the establishment of a permanent international human rights office in Gali and to admit United Nations civilian police without further delay.”[11]

Perhaps this version,

The United Nations and other international organizations have urged the Abkhaz authorities to; refrain from using measures that interfere with people's right to return, not to use discriminatory legislation, and to facilitate an human rights office in Gali, and to admit UN civilian police.[11]Buffadren 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

War of Abkhazia website

So what useful informarmation does this site give to us? One major problem with it is that it's in construction.

1. The history of Abkhazia section is only half-made and does not have history of Abkhazia since 16 c.

2. The timeline of the conflict contains 5 (five) items.

Otherwise this site contains several photos of Tkvarcheli and a few articles of varying quality. Imho this site does not deserve to be put in the external sources. There is already quite a few pro-Georgian sites there. Alaexis 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alex, why have decided that you own this article and can remove everything you deem to be "pro-Georgian"? Being yourself anti-Georgian, you can hardly be impartial when assessing the neutrality of the source. I regret that I have not enough time right now to counter this Soviet-style agit-prop campaign on Georgia conflicts-related topics. -- Kober^Talk 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

you can hardly be impartial when assessing the neutrality of the source

Who can, then? You? Or probably Luis?

Besides, if you read carefully what I've written you would've noted that my problem with this site is not that it's pro-Georgian. Alaexis 14:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Together with couple of unfinished sections, this site contains a number of informative articles, links, pictures and other pieces of information concerning the conflcit. You cannot remove the link just because you don't like it. Pirveli 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not what he said, and biased links are allowed but at the same time, this particular link doesnt meet the rules for external links, if you dont know it, then see the rules here ......and one more thing, is this site Pirveli's own website or is he involved with it, or what? Pernambuco 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As for this: the rules here, You should read it carefully yourself, this site does not fall to the category of links that should be avoided. As for your last sentence, I hope you asked the question, not made a comment. Because if this is a question, I just answer NO. And if this was comment, then I accuse you of slender. If it is your habit of making sites and then putting them here, this does not mean that other people also do this. Pirveli 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

there's no need to get personal, and I am aware of the rules, now one of the rules is that wiki-pedia is edited by consensus, and you do not impose yourself, clearly theres no consensus for this link yet, so keep it out of the main article until the issue is decided here in talk and dont become an edit warrior. I dont know what slender is, but you can accuse me of it if you want, that is fine. just remember, it is best to not accuse anyone of anything but best to work in peace and consensus Pernambuco 03:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on removing this link, therefore you should not do this. And also you should not accuse me of putting my site here!! If you are really concerned you can find any information you need on that site there. Without making offending "guesses". Thats really getting personal. Pirveli 16:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You can add my voice to the growing list of those who don't want this link to clutter up Wikipedia. In addition to what the others have already said, there is also another very simply rule here: Sites which are still under construction are not eligible for listing. Wait till they finish the site. Then propose it here. Till then, it stays off. - Mauco 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This "growing" list includes ONLY those biased users, who agressively supported listing Abkhazia as a "sovereign state" without reference to the fact, that it is one of the regions of Georgia. The site is not under construction. Pirveli 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This site IS under constuction. Look at http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/abkh_geschichte.htm, http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/chrono.htm, try to click on the map of the ethnic make-up. They admit themselves that: This site is still under construction. As a result, some chapters cannot be read yet. We are apologetic for the inconvenience. Please come back later. Alaexis 03:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This site is NOT under construction. Couple of its sections are. All the others are not: http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/action_pics.htm , http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Georgia/geor_orgcrime.htm , http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/video.htm , http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Georgia/geor_mod.jpg , as well as the front page, containing informative links. This site contains UNIQUE PHOTO MATERIALS, as well as video materials about the war, which one can hardly find on the web without this site, as well as unique maps and important articles. You either have not actually looked into what the site contains, or you don't like the evidence, presented there. Pirveli 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the maps present on that site is already in WikiCommons - commons:image:Mapandersen.jpg so you could just paste it into the relevant article (like Georgian Civil War). The map that shows ethinc make-up of Abkhazia does not work. Those videos are certainly not *unique* as they are only links to youtube, googlevideo etc. Some pictures appear to be stolen borrowed from abkhazeti.ru site (look there). Imo this site does not meet the minimum quality criteria to be included here. Alaexis 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have one misinterpretation of my words, and one direct lie in your message. Misinterpretation is that I said UNIQUE concerning the photographs. And unique they are. Abkhazeti.ru does not have all the photoes from this site that you are deleting. The lie is that the photoes that are both on this site and on abkhazeti.ru are not stolen. The site has direct links on abkhazeti.ru. Besides, abkhazeti.ru has been also deleted from this Wikipedia article. Thus, you are trying to leave no source providing these pictures in the Abkhazia article. Pirveli 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Links in general

I’ve got a question to all users who don’t want unhelpful links to clutter up Wikipedia: Do you feel OK with this website, which has not been updated for ages, or with this one, which claims the name of Tbilisi, capital of Georgia, to be a word of Abkhaz origin (I especially like the title of the article Ancient Abkhazianhood of Tbilisi.)? Kober^Talk 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree to remove the www.abkhazia.org . I've also never understood why it's there.

I've checked http://abkhazia.e-caucasia.com. There's quite a lot of articles there and some of them seem to be informative (those about language, religious situation, famous people). There's also good gallery there (I especially liked the photos of frescoes in Pitsunda cathedral). Imho this link should remain. Alaexis 03:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

About external links in general, Wikipedia already has well-established guidelines in place. Our own personal opinions must always take a backseat to the rules. Now, the way to deal with nationalistic links (on either side) is to mark their bias. This can be done by "sectioning off" the links within subcategories (for instance, pro-independence / anti-independence) or it be done by marking each individual link (for instance, adding a parenthesis afterwards to alert the readers to the bias of the link). But do not remove wellestablished links which have been part of the stable version of the article for a year, or more. - Mauco 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read my post more carefully. I didn't remove the links just because they are nationalistic, but because of their unreliability. The real issue in the case is not whether they are pro- or anti-independence. One of them (abkhazia.org) belongs to a non-functional political party and has not been updated since 2004. The other contains non-scholar articles and ethnic slurs. They have been part of the stable version of the article for a year because nobody cared to check them. --Kober^Talk 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, even so, the longevity of their inclusion merits that they are not just removed point blank. Let some of the established editors of this page (you and the others) discuss it first. Don't just jump the gun. - Mauco 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think we need to have any external links at all. I know that might seem a bit radical, but most of those links don't really help the article, plus we already have enough external links in the "References" section. I say we trim all unneeded links, and keep only a small number of them. Khoikhoi 03:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's *too* radical imho. Besides there's a consensus about most of the links - there exists a controversy about only 2 or 3 of them. Alaexis 03:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just think that there are too many external links on this page. To quote from How not to be a spammer:

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)

Khoikhoi 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at them in detail:

   * President of the Republic of Abkhazia. Official site

// definitely needed; the site of the Abkhazian Autonomous Republic should also be added if it exists

   * BBC Regions and territories: Abkhazia

// contains more or less the same information as the article does presented in concise and nonbiased manner. Probably could be removed.

   * Abkhazia profile page at Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation

// contains an overview of the history of Abkhazia. Could be removed.

   * Publication of the United States Institute of Peace: Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union

// nice balanced paper by G. Starovoitova about post-soviet conflicts. I'd vote for keeping.

   * The Autonomous Republic of Abkhazeti - from Georgian National Parliamentary Library

// presents Georgian view of the Abkhazia's history; should be kept imho

   * Former Soviet war zones |The hazards of a long, hard freeze, The Economist, 19 August, 2004

//The Economist is my favourite English-language magazine, but the link is to the paid content so I'll delete it right now

   * Sun and Surf, but Also Lines in the ‘Russian’ Sand, The New York Times, August 20, 2006

// this link also requires registration, although a free one. Therefore I think this link should be removed.

   * Site devoted to Abkhazia

// see the arguments in the previous section

   * (English) Abkhazia.com Official website refugees from Abkhazia

// should be kept imho

   * (Russian) Abkhazian news

// Abkhazian news from the Georgian perspective - let's keep it

   * (Russian) State Information Agency of the Abkhaz Republic

// the same from the Abkhazian perspective. Definite keep.

   * (Russian) www.abkhazeti.ru Official web of IDPs from Abkhazia and IAG Aphkhazeti

// this could not be an OFFICIAL site because there's alredy another official site here. I think it could be removed, otherwise some similar site from the other side (like abkhaziya.org) should be added.

   * Picture Gallery - Georgian Refugees in Abkhazian War

// could be moved to the article about the war

   * (Russian) www.apsny.ru

// it's a regularly updated site about Abkhazia. I think it should remain.

   * Abkhazian language

// nonpartisan site about Abkhaz language. It's already present in the Abkhaz language article so it could be removed

   * Special Abkhazia on Caucaz.com, Weekly Online about South Caucasus

// there are no articles about Abkhazia newer than 2005. I'd rather remove it.

   * Abkhazia Provisional Paper Money

// there are two pictures of modified Soviet notes there. i don't have an opinion about this one

   * Orthodox Churches of Abkhazia

// nonpartisan site devoted to the ancient church-buildings of Abkhazia; while there are no articles about Abkhaz architecture and culture it should remain here

   * Official site of the Orthodox Eparchy of Abkhazia

// Could be moved to the article about religion in Abkhazia when there'll be one. For now let's keep it here. Alaexis 05:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The BBC link should stay because many people will check Wikipedia’s accuracy in the sources like BBC. Your arguments about http://abkhazia.e-caucasia.com are rather weak. How can you take seriously the source which claims Tbilisi to be "a Georgianized ancient Abkhaz city"? This link should be removed. Other pro-Abkhaz, pro-Georgian, or neutral sources contain enough information about the Abkhaz culture and history. There’s no need to adopt the websites with marginal POVs.

I agree. Alaexis 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The alleged "official website" of the Orthodox Eparchy of Abkhazia is another issue. An eparchy (i.e. diocese) is normally a subdivision of Orthodox Christian Church. The site doesn’t even say to which church the eparchy belongs. This is simply not serious. The Eparchy of Abkhazia (Tskhum-Abkhazeti) is a canonical territory of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the fact was officially and unambiguously recognized by the Russian Holy Synod in 2003. Then what this Eparchy of Abkhazia website means? Which church it is a member of? There are no independent or self-governing eparchies. So better remove this absurdity from the page and don’t load the article with POV links. --Kober^Talk 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'lll write my opinion about it after I'll have familiarised myself with this issue. Alaexis 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm removing that link. Reinsert it after you will have familiarized yourself with the issue.--Kober^Talk 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How about less than 10 links? Suggestion: 3 from Abkhazia, 3 for the Georgian position, and 3 which are independent/outside/neutral. Just pick the best. Instead of deleting the others, move them to the relevant forks. For instance, a site which only deals with the war doesn't need to be in the main Abkhazia article, but is suited in the separate article dealing specifically with the war of Abkhazia. - Mauco 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

I have just noticed that a reference to an ethnic cleansing of Georgian population has again been removed. Unfortunately, some users who are involved in this article promptly respond to any change deemed to be pro-Georgian, but are surprisingly tolerant to anti-Georgian POV edits and don’t even care to restore a well-sourced and vitally important passage. Kober^Talk 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not I did not notice it. Are you sure it was present in the political status section at any time? Btw the ethnic cleansing is mentioned three times later in the article. Alaexis 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it should not be included for reason listed in archives. Plus it dilutes the meaning of the phrase 'ethnic Cleansing' where it really happened and was used in the real sense. Buffadren 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Buffarden here. After all it's called 'ethnic cleansing' by some respectable international organisations. Alaexis 12:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Buffadren, how can you make such a shameless statement? Are you going to claim that there was not a deliberate ethnic cleansing campaign against Georgians? It is simply ridiculous. Over 200,000 Georgians were expelled out of their homes, leaving their family members, neighbours, and friends dead in Abkhazia. Let's don't forget that Abkhasian separatists fought under the command of Shamyl Basayev, Hero of Abkhasia, and the ruthless butcher, who later thanked Russian officers for an excellent series of lessons they had delivered to his detachment during the war in Abkhasia.

I orginally come from a small town that was ethnically cleansed by a foreign army. Every man woman and child were butchered, that's ethnic cleansing. Buffadren 11:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

no wait, i'm jewish and i think WE were ethnically clensed. the point: your personal definition is really of no consequence, and disruptions of normal life of such proportion based on ethnic lines is hardly identifiable as anything but. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.128.145 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Demographics III

I've removed 1897 census numbers, from the table since none of the references actually support these numbers. In fact, one of the references listed says these numbers are controversial, and it hardly warrants placing these numbers in a table as if they were verified and accepted facts. And, these contradict the numbers for 1886 Family Lists. Samurzaq'anians are ancestors of present day Gali region population, which is 99% Georgian (Megrelian). Counting them as Abkhazians is a blatant lie. I am also removing the blatant POV about Samurzaq'anians being of "mixed Abkhaz-Mingrelian identity". These are just quick changes. This part of the article needs further improvements. (PaC 14:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Nobody argues that Samurzakanians are mostly Mingrelians. They are NOT counted as Abkhaz in the 1897 figures. This reference supports the 1897 census figures. The Abkhaz (by mother tongue) numbered 59469 in Kutais guberniya which included Abkhazia then [10]. In this reference it's written that Abkhaz and Abaza numbered 70,000 by that time. This reference gives the total population of Sukhum district (100,000). The census carried out in Russian Empire is no less reliable than Soviet censuses and there are no reasons it could be biased. Alaexis 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a proper use of sources. Firstly, 1987 census does not provide any numbers for Abkhazia. They only give them for Kutaisi gubernia. They don't give the numbers for total population in Abkhazia, and there is no way to deduce numbers for Georgians in Abkhazia from that. Secondly, they are not counting by nationalities, just the languages the people speak. These numbers for ethnic composition are your own interpretations, and pretty bold ones at that. I actually suspect that they counted Samurzakanians as Abkhaz speaking. 1886 Family List supports that.

This reference is not a proper source. You take it out of context. If you read the caption to the picture [11], you would see that it states: "These census figures are disputed on a number of grounds including the way in which ethnic groups have been defined." Your other source lists the population of Abkhazia as 100498 in 1897. Yet it is not clear where they get their data, since your first link from 1897 census data does not have this number for Sukhum region. Was there another census in 1897? Moreover, your second source for some reason does not give a separate number for Abkhazians. They only say that Abkhazians and Samurzaqanians together constitute 86%. The number for Abkhazians is, again, just your loose interpretation.

Juggling different sources like that is not a proper way of compiling controversial demographic data especially when they are contradicting each other.

I think listing these numbers in a table as proven facts is misleading, to say the least. I will wait for you to respond before deleting these numbers. You'll have to provide the reliable source that actually contains these numbers for 1897 census, without your funny math. Otherwise it is just your speculation. I actually think we should delete the 1897 line from the table and write it up below the table. (PaC 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

How come this reference is not a proper source? It could be added to the article that these numbers are disputed and that they are based on the mother tongues. You wouldn't claim that some people with Abkhaz native language were in fact Georgians, would you?

Here it's written that "In the 1897 census the Abkhaz population was seen to be 55.3% and the Georgians rose to 24.4%. The population balance continued to change in the following years to the disadvantage of the Abkhaz people.". See also the article "Demographic Manipulation in the Caucasus (with Special Reference to Georgia)" by B. G. HEWITT, Journal of Refugee Studies 1995, Volume 8, #1. Alaexis 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ps. The 1886 numbers could also be added to the table (see my question in the end of the subsection). Alaexis 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use anything you find on the net as a reliable source. kafkas.org is not supposed to be a credible and neutral (and academic) reference especially given a pro-separatist tone of the article and, more importantly, the obscurity of its publisher. Hewitt's bias and anti-Georgian sentiments are also well-known and have been criticized by several leading experts on the Caucasus. Just have a brief look at his inflammatory abstract: The gross insensitivity on the part of nationalists in Georgia that led to the bloody wars in South Ossetia and, primarily, Abkhazia are examined and placed in the historical context that has seen mainly North Caucasian minorities subjected to frequent demographic manipulation by two of the region's imperial powers, Russia and Georgia, who have regularly acted in concert over the last 200 years. Parallels between Shevardnadze's war in Abkhazia and Yeltsin's assault on Chechenia are drawn, and the case of such minorities in Georgia as the Mingrelians, the Armenians and the Meskh(et)ians is touched upon. The West's blind adherence to the principle of ‘territorial integrity’ is criticized for abandoning minorities to the whim of the local bully.

This is politically motivated (and not only politically, in the case of Hewitt)demagogy rather than a scholarly approach to the problem. According to Mr. Hewitt the Georgianophobe, Georgia appears to be a regional imperial power (much like Russia, hehe) acting in concert with Moscow to bully local minorities especially North Caucasians (I wonder how Georgia can bully North Caucasus and manipulate their demographic situation). And Mingrelians appear to be an "ethnic minority" subjected to discrimination at the hands of "grossly insensitive Georgian nationalists". (Sickening)--Kober^Talk 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't dismiss an article in the peer-reviewed journal just because you consider its author a Georgianophobe. Besides, it's not the only proof, it's one of the multitude that support these numbers. Alaexis 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who considers Hewitt a Georgianophobe (or perhaps I'm one of those "grossly insensitive Georgian nationalists" and "imperialists acting in concert with Russia" who don't want to recognize his genius). The abstract of the article speaks for himself. --Kober^Talk 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, you still have to produce a primary source that contains these numbers for 1897. BTW, what is Hewett even saying about 1897 census in his article "Demographic Manipulation in the Caucasus ..."? (PaC 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Well Hewitt is well known Georgianophobe (thanks to his Abkhaz wife) and he has discredited himself long time ago. Actually he was a very good Kartvelogist until he met his wife. Brainwashing is a powerful tool of manipulation. Anyway, he cant be counted as neutral source, he is overwhelmingly bias. Ldingley 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone 'well-known Georgianophobe' is not a serious argument. How has he discredited himself? Alaexis 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Here’s a quote from Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus by Svante E. Cornell of Uppsala University (Sweden):

It must be noted that even the numbers are the subject of disagreement. In 1886, the Abkhaz constituted 41 per cent of the population of their present-day territory. Hence it must be noted that Abkhazia has always to a great extent been multiethnic; moreover, confusion arises from the fact that one of the largest groups in the census of “Sukhumi region”, today’s Abkhazia, is the “Samurzakanians”, their name deriving from the older name of Gali region, Samurzakano. Most of the Samurzakanians must be thought to have been Mingrelians, and a minority Abkhaz. But the figure for 1926 is 27 per cent, despite the fact that the Abkhaz population doubled from 26,000 to 56,000 in this time. By 1959, however, the Abkhaz share plunged to 15 per cent, in absolute numbers increasing only by 10 per cent in 33 years, whereas the population of the territory doubled from 201,000 to 404,000 in the same time span. Since 1959, the Abkhaz have been somewhat recovered, their population now growing relatively rapidly, but still constituting only 18 per cent of the population of the republic in 1989, 94,000 out of a total 525,000. (Cornell, Svante E. (2001), Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus, p. 156. Routledge (UK), ISBN 0700711627) --Kober^Talk 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another POV is the Abkhaz census figure included in the infobox. Here’s a quote from the International Crisis Group document called ABKHAZIA TODAY Europe Report N°176 – 15 September 2006, page 9:

"Abkhazia’s population is certainly much less than it was. De facto state officials like to quote a total population of 320,000, including 110,000 Abkhaz, but this sounds unrealistically high on both counts. In January 2005 the electoral roll, probably a more reliable guide to the numbers of those at least of voting age, comprised 129,127 individuals, suggesting an overall population between 157,000 and 190,000. In 1998 a UNDP needs assessment mission estimated the population between 180,000 and 220,000. With less than half its pre-war population, vast tracts of Abkhazia, especially south of Sukhumi, feel empty and desolate. North of that city, settlements are much more populated, especially during the summer season".

Britannica estimates Abkhazia’s population at 177,000 as of 2006.[12]. Can anyone explain why the Abkhaz mythological data are given precedence over the reliable international sources?--Kober^Talk 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a rhetorical question as you've already added those numbers. Alaexis 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a minor question: is the family lists data from Mueller's book or from somewhere else? Alaexis 16:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#About_sovereignty

By no means I can't accept POV inserted by Alaexis. As per Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#About_sovereignty there can't be a "region" called independent state. --ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ ^{(πείτε μου)} 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)