Jump to content

Talk:Abkhazia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by X Ray Tex (talk | contribs) at 12:15, 26 September 2008 (→Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPCD-placesTemplate:Releaseversion

Archive
Archives

Not 'de facto independent' but 'partially recognized'

A country is not a 'de facto independent' since at least one other state of UN recognizes its sovereignity, but 'de jure' independent state. This is an international Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia were recognized by a UN member Russian Federation. Here is a quote from the 'de facto' article of Wikipedia: '...a nation with de facto independence, like Somaliland, is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises absolute control over its claimed territory.' We may use the 'partially recognized' characteristic as appropriate both here and in South Ossetia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.148.66 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua decision

Removing Nicaragua as the Parliament of that country has not ratified the decision yet so it is not yet effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.103 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

This is the most ridiculous comment I have ever read on wikipedia. It's a talk of a 6 year old child. This sort of language is abusive. Zone 00:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. You have reaffirmed my impression that almost every article related to communism and russian policy on wikipedia is skewed by blatant sympathist propaganda. I hope you serious wikipedia editors realize that most intelligent users realize the discussion page is the most fundamental page on any subject of your encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.167.11 (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me George, what is integrity of Georgia? sending troops to university killing students because they are Apsuwa? No you father didnt fight Russians for Georgia's integrity, he fought for enslaving millenia old traditions, language. He fought to kill my cousins with a great joy he did, as your great uncle Stalin did 60 years ago. This is the question, will world clean Stalin's mess and learn from it, or will they bury the evidences and repeat. Russians chose the first, west chose the second. Tbilisi, is still same as Stalin left it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus79 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 BATTLE of KODORI

Abkhaz separatists strike disputed Georgia gorge

Posted 11 hours 29 minutes ago

Abkhazia has said it has launched an operation to drive Georgia out of a disputed gorge, possibly opening a "second front" in Tbilisi's battle to retain fractious breakaway regions.

The separatist foreign minister Sergei Shamba said Abkhazian artillery and warplanes struck Georgian forces in Kodori, a narrow gorge which cuts deep into the Abkhazian territory and is an ideal route for any invasion in the region.

The attack came less than 48 hours after Georgia sent troops to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia, triggering an invasion of Russian forces dispatched to restore the status quo.

"Abkhazian forces, in response to the Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, have started a military operation the Kodori gorge to clear it from illegal Georgian troops," Mr Shamba told Reuters.

Mr Shamba said at midday (local time) Abkhaz warplanes launched airstrikes at the Tbilisi-controlled upper part of the Gorge and artillery was pounding the area.

"Today was only the initial part of the operation by heavy artillery supported by aviation," Mr Shamba said.

Georgians denied an all-out Abkhaz attack and said they were ready to face down any aggression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.40.8 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgians denied and lost, this only shows Tbilisi is a bad liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus79 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russias role

Does not Russia recognize Abkhasia? --Oddeivind (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Óðinn (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Bachforelle (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? No one else will... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.237.253 (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soon Turkey will have to recognize, when abhazia send first battleship to Istanbul, Turkey wont have a choise according to montreu treaty of Turkish straits. Also they can fire on Abkhaz ship, due to substantial Abkhaz population in Turkey. And One by one many countries will have to recognize else instead of Abkhazia they have to run diplomacy over Russia. Sea means freedom, I wonder if the west thought this while recognizing Kosovo, ops they have no sea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus79 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because Abkhazia and SO are sovereign independent states from the moment they are recognized by at least one UN member.

Updated info

I have updated details of the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. That section was far too long and I have shortened it as there is already an underlying article that gives more detail. I have removed the infobox for this government as it is defunct and hence should not have an infobox in this article otherwise we are giving a defunct government too much weight. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Defunct?? Just because Georgian government lost control over the Kodori gorge does not necessary mean that the autonomous government of Abkhazia has been dissolved!!! I think it is better to keep the Autonomous Republic's info box under the breakaway state's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.143.50 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? this remids me the Kurdish debate of Pan-Turanists, they were yelling "Kurds are in fact montain Turks" then when this was opposed they came with "Kurds were setteled to Anatolia after Turkish conquests". They tend to forget historical recodrs, as same happens with georgians. Tbilisi in Abkhazian language "means with hot waters", a proof who founded Tbilisi. Also Herodotus informs about Abkhaz people. So take your fascist propaganda to one level down please, this is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus79 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Table in demographics section list Georgians in the first place and Abkhazians in the second. Since Abkhazians are titular native nation of the area, they should be listed first in this table. 81.18.62.141 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with you, but I guess columns should be listed not in terms of titular nation, but in terms of current population . Taamu (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recognition

It is incorrect to say that ALL countries in the United Nations consider South Ossetia to be in the Territorial Integrity of Georgia. The position of the United Nations is that its members agree to respect the Territorial Integrity of every country. This Territorial Integrity does not hold a higher status than the right to Self Determination of peoples within national territory. Tommyxx (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


About recognition. I think that all information about recognition have to be presented in wikipedia. Belarus plan to recognize this country [1], so it is necessary to add this information in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, but now I do not want to register. There are the hot news [2]. UN member Nicaragua have recognized Abhazia and S.Osetia. So,somebody who is registered user of Wikipedia, please delete this sentence "No other UN member state recognises Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states." and add information about nicaraguan recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/engnews/id/1228082.html
  2. ^ http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/229515,nicaragua-joins-russia-in-recognizing-south-ossetia-abkhazia.html
ip address concern rectified..dubious phrase removed ..see edit summary named(nicaragua recognised)Cityvalyu (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some or all

Regarding this edit may I ask you what source says that Russian recognition of Abkhazia was condemned by all UN member states? Unless this is the case it's more appropriate to write that some of them did it. Alæxis¿question? 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China has not made any statement yet. PrescottRU (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus was actually in support. Zazaban (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did Belarus actually formally support it? I know some MPs expressed support, but that doesn't constitute official support. 132.170.33.101 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only MP. Official representative of Belarus said that Belarus will support recognition [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/engnews/id/1228082.html

International law

Also, which source mentions international law? Alæxis¿question? 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one: "The Russians cannot invoke international law only when they feel like it." [1]. Iberieli (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have added this reference to the article (even though Civil.ge is not a perfect source, being from one of conflicting sides). Alæxis¿question? 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Civil.ge is a neutral source as it is operated by an European NGO. Try to look through its articles. They are written quite evenhandedly. --KoberTalk 04:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on Wednesday said Russia's decision to recognize South Ossetia and Georgia as independent broke international law." [2]Iberieli (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split the infoboxes

I think that in the interest of NPOV, the article should not have a merged infobox. Kosovo article should be used as a reference. Óðinn (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up at #Infoboxes. Khoikhoi 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Funnily, when we discussed infoboxes at Kosovo, Abkhazia (which had two infoboxes at that time) was chosen as the role model... I would profer having two infoboxes as well. Khuft (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then Abkhazia had two infoboxes because 17 % of its territory was controlled by Georgia and administered as Abkhazian Autonomous Republic (similar to Northern Kosovo, I believe). Alæxis¿question? 10:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering the same thing. Why does Kosovo have to have three info boxes so that everybody and their brother can claim it while Abkhazia gets to be free and clear, even though it's only recognised by 2 countries and is still claimed by Georgia? Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that parts of Kosovo are not controlled by Kosovo authorities. Until recently this was the case for Abkhazia also. However now the government in exile doesn't deserve a special infobox imho. Transnistria, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland have only one infobox as well, btw. Alæxis¿question? 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split article?

On other breakaway country issues, Wikipedia often divides the article so as to avoid POV. Examples of this include:

It would be editorially prudent for us to apply the same precedent here. By distinguishing between the geographic region of Abkhazia and the proclaimed Republic of Abkhazia, we can avoid any determination one way or another as to whether or not Abkhazia is an independent nation, a rebellious province or whatever else POV warriors may wish to call it. This outcome has worked extremely well in the other instances the community has implemented it. It would be the responsible NPOV choice to make for this article as well. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed above and it was decided that it wasn't necessary for this article because all of Abkhazia is controlled by the Republic of Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary indeed. Geographically speaking, the region of Abkhazia and the Republic of Abkhazia are identical. Óðinn (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, you've forgotten about Transnitria, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland. Articles about these unrecognised states aren't split. And Northern Ireland is not an unrecognised state, afaik. Alæxis¿question? 05:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Abkhazia is not a 'proclaimed' country, it is in legal function. the term 'proclaimed' is reserved for claimant governmentsl.Tommyxx (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua

According to RIA Novosti, this country is going to recognize, but has not officially completed the necessary procedure:

Nicaraguan Deputy Foreign Minister Manuel Coronel Kautz said on Wednesday: "We have started preparing all the necessary documentation for an official recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia following instructions issued by the president."

The article needs to reflect the present status. --Grandmaster (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Nicaragua has already recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, see the following references:

Nicaragua recognizes independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia
Nicaragua recognises South Ossetia, Abkhazia
Nicaragua joins Russia in recognizing South Ossetia, Abkhazia
Nicaragua recognizes Georgian regions after Russia

-Raphaelhui (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NATO POV

references are us( or nato nations)/ georgian.. abkhazian references/ russian blanked out to insignificant portions.. neutral references (say from non aligned movement nations) missing..

This is really disturbing sometimes. But this is English Wikipedia, and, of course, the editors use mostly Western media. They just do not have other sources to use, as next to noone speaks non-Western languages in Europe/US and there are no sites that provide any information free from US corporate interests. Well, maybe some Egyptian sources, some Chinese do write in English. Maybe some from Middle East like Al Jazeera may have been quoted more frequently, just to give an independent POV sometimes. However, most people in the West think Western medias are neutral during the conflict and just do not ask questions about pro-Georgian POV in Wikipedia links, both medias and NGOs. Of course, if you analyse the discourse of these articles, most are absolutely pro-Georgian. But what can be done about it? We have only one media system, and if most medias are controlled by US corporations, we just do not have much choice.

recent slant

intro and first two third of article has recent slant although seperatev articles exist for those headersCityvalyu (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify how it is biased? This has been the consensus version for the past few months, and while it is always good to be bold, such unilateral changes need to be properly discussed first. Khoikhoi 10:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
obvious omissions are rectified as and when necessary..may i humbly remind you to practise what you preach..you dont have a consensus to remove kosovo precedent...what do you gain by hiding the prime reason for "russia's international recognition"? i hope you are not a believer of nato nations' propaganda...i hope you can tolerate truth better..rectifying the glaring omission as it it is cited ..double standards?? you call your reversion as "consensus"-hypocrisy?? Cityvalyu (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cityvalyu, if there's a stable (more or less) version then you need a consensus to change it. Alæxis¿question? 11:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there was a ever a clear consensus to add this information. I don't see why it needs to be mentioned in such detail, we already have a main article for that, don't we? The information about international recognition can all be mentioned in more detail on that page, this article should mainly serve as a summary. And I am not a believer in any type of propaganda, we must both respect NPOV and try to come to an agreement before we drastically change the shape of this article. Khoikhoi 11:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NATO propaganda people dont have a consensus to revert back to an ignorant, naive, biased, unbalanced, (and wp:undue georgia/nato propaganda importance) violating article version too ... if georgian propaganda and nato propaganda and insignificant NATO opinions(is usa a neighbour? or is it god father?!!) can sneak in, then why must balanced, referenced, neutral and important content be left out..?Cityvalyu (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but can you please outline your specific concerns about this article rather than labeling other users "NATO propaganda people"? Khoikhoi 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly right. People are making huge and very questionable changes without discussion and consensus. I reverted this to last stable version.Biophys (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the use of the term "international community" in the article. International Community "is a vague term": "States thus often refer to 'the will of the international community' to strengthen their own point of view, while in reality they are referring to the will of a small group of states or even only themselves." Since the term is meaningless and self-serving, we need to replace it with something more precise. -- NonZionist (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "nato nations, osce chairman , european council".."many" changed to "some" till 50 nations or more oppose..Cityvalyu (talk)

wp:point and wp:undue violations

  1. no mention of kosovo precedent
  2. no mention of stalin's move to forcefully integrate abkhazianSSR to his native geoergia
  3. NO MENTION OF georgia's unilateral act of abolishing autonomy
  4. rights of abkhazian people to determine their future as enshrined in un resolutions consciously omitted Cityvalyu (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Rabid nationalism in Georgia at the time that Abkhazia declared independence.
  6. The Georgian government of the time trying to shut down the only university in Abkhazia because "Abkhazian's don't need a University".Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Russian nationalistic agit-prop:
  1. Kosovo should be mentioned#It was Stalin who detached Abkhazia from Georgia after the invasion and partition of the country in 1921. And Stalin's native country was the Russian Empire, FYI.
  2. Georgia has never abolished Abkhaz autonomy. That's ignorance.
  3. The rabid nationalism in Abkhazia when Georgia declared independence.
  4. No. The Georgians wanted to open a separate Georgian university while keeping an Abkhaz one. The Abkhaz nationalists opposed it because "Georgians in Abkhazia don't need a university" and looted the school which was to accommodate a new Georgian university.--KoberTalk 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KoberStalin's native country was no more the Russian Empire than James Joyce's native country was the British Empire. Native country in English usage never refers to political empires, but denotes a specific geographical area. Stalin was born in the Тифлисская губернiя of the R.Empire, the Tbilisi governerate was a Georgian area. Universally in the biographical literature he is referred to as a 'Georgian' because his father was a Georgian and Georgian was his first language.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the current version of the article, Kosovo and Stalin are both mentioned: Does this mean that the dispute has been resolved?-- NonZionist (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
stalin's georgian origin and beria's georgian ethnicity weeded out..so not resolvedCityvalyu (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Stalin and Beria articles indicate Georgian ancestry. However, I don't see what context permits mention of that ancestry HERE. Without an RS, it would be OR to state that Stalin's ancestry was his reason for annexing Abkhazia to Georgia, and I don't see what other bearing that ancestry has. -- NonZionist (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant by the abolition of autonomy? -- the 1992 constitutional change? Please elaborate (here in talk) and provide a source. The role of nationalism, I think, should be addressed or assessed -- nationalism on both sides -- along with the role of economics, if WP:RS sources can be found. Tell me why the information belongs here, instead of in Georgian-Abkhaz conflict.-- NonZionist (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abkhazia unilaterally proclaimed independence after independent Georgia abolished Abkhaz autonomy reference: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9479/abkhaz.html Cityvalyu (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't think this source meets WP:RS. The only possibly RS source Google turns up is this: http://www.springerlink.com/index/kwpn8u41x2577026.pdf
CHAPTER IV: TOLERANCE, NEUTRALITY AND GROUP RIGHTS
Thus, for example, Georgia revoked the autonomy of Abkhasia and Ossetia and Serbia the ... In addition to abolishing the. requirement to translate laws into ...
-- NonZionist (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It seems like the university conflict is addressed in 1989 Sukhumi riots, the neutrality of which is not questioned (no tags). -- NonZionist (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rr violated by user: kober brazenly

this "experienced" child keeps reverting my edits although they were done step by step with adequate edit summaries..how come i amadvised to talk here when he is free to revert all my edits en masse without discussing them on the talk page!! is wikipedia racist? or is wikipedia a NATO stooge?Cityvalyu (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

verifiable referenced content deleted to keep wikipedians blind

come on this is not georgia tv or nato propaganda machine..allow neutral views hereCityvalyu (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet constitution

Article says:

Invoking the right of secession under an interpretation of Articles 70 and 72 of the USSR Constitution,[14] in 1992 the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia.

The way this is worded suggests that there was such a right under the USSR constitution, when a reasonable interpretation of the document does not support that view. The quoted articles, 70:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multinational state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.

and 72:

Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.

(Quoted from reference cited in article, namely this.)

Now, article 70 says nothing specifically about secession. At best, one could argue that the principles such as "free self-determination" and "voluntary association" imply a right to secession, but that is very arguable. As to article 72, it explicitly mentions the right of secession, but specifically for Union Republics, not ASSRs such as Abkhazia. So, Abkhazia has no right to succeed under article 72; and article 70 nowhere mentions a right to secession. In fact, one could argue, that insofar as article 70 implies a right to secession, that implied right is expressed by article 72; the fact that a right to secession is mentioned for Union Republics, but not for ASSRs, can be taken to mean that ASSRs had no such right under the Soviet consitution.

-No one denies that abkhazia did not have the right to secede from the USSR under article 72. However, the interpretation is based on the fact that Abkhazia was from 1917 to 1931 a SSR, and did have the right to secede legally from the USSR, up until 1931. Stalin took this right away from the Abkhazian people, without their consultaion. This is more than Kosovo ever had, as far as I know, they never had the right legally for independence. Also, Abkhazia and South Ossetia lived as separate subjects under the russian empire for centuries prior to being incorporated into Georgia in 1931.Guitar3000 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course, I am assuming through all of this the English translation referenced above is reasonably accurate, since I don't speak Russian. But, since this translation was published in 1985 by a Soviet publisher, I assume that amounts to official endorsement by the Soviet government.)

So, here we have an article, claiming that the Soviet constitution says things which it doesn't appear to say, and not even referencing who makes these claims. So I think this sentence has to go. --SJK (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also questioned this change, and I agree with you. I've restored the original wording. Khoikhoi 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since the removed text depicts the position accurately without ambiguity (see:Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.), may i point out to kho khoi that he lacks the consensus to change the long standing "status quo"..i oppose the removal of referenced consensus text UNILATERALLY(vandalism?)..Shall restore status quo till consensus is arrived at talk page..Cityvalyu (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the status quo, as I've pointed out, it was only changed very recently. "Practice what you preach". ;-) Khoikhoi 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is the article from the 1990 USSR law on secession (and my approximate translation of it) and not from the 1977 Constitution. Indeed according to this law a separate referendum had to be held in an autonomous republic if its parent union republic wished to secede from USSR. Alæxis¿question? 07:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Here's another link to the external site. Alæxis¿question? 06:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Many thanks. --Zlerman (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia's (latest) declaration of independence upon which Medvedev extended his recognition dates to 1999. I don't think that any of the Soviet legal acts was valid at that time. --KoberTalk 13:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think between 1992-1999, Abkhazia's constitutional status (from its own perspective) was quite confused. I don't know whether it considered itself independent. The UN secretary general reports say that Abkhazia did not consider itself to have any constitutional links to Georgia. We would have to have a look whether its parliament passed any relevant acts during or shortly after the war. sephia karta 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm opposed to mentioning all these legalistic claims and counter-claims in the lead section. --KoberTalk 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia: second paragraph in lead section

As an impartial outside reader (I am neither Georgian nor Abkhazian) I am frustrated by the recent edit-warring between Cityvalyu and a group of other editors. Two observations:

(a) The resolution of the Georgian Parliament cannot be dismissed as an unreliable source. It is an official state document in English and specifically uses the word "occupied". By putting "Russian-occupied territory" in quotation marks we indicate that we are quoting from this document, and it is not permissible to change a direct quotation to a free construction, such as Russian-administered territory. The second citation is from a Georgian news agency and can be dropped as biased. Its main contribution, however, is the use of the adjective "non-binding" in reference to the Parliamentary resolution. I think this is highly significant and actually goes to show the lack of Georgian bias in this news item.

(b) The insertion of Kosovo in the first sentence of the paragraph looks odd and inappropriate. If there is a need to discuss analogies between Abkhazia and Kosovo, this should be done properly and comprehensively in a separate sentence or paragraph, but somewhere else in the article – not in the lead.

I am correcting the wording of the second paragraph in line with these thoughts. To me it now reads balanced and NPOV. I appeal to you most strongly to stop this edit-warring: please consider the general user of Wikipedia who needs stable authoritative information, without daily or even hourly reversals. --Zlerman (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil.ge is generally a very good source, because it just presents who said what, from all sides. sephia karta 17:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased statements in 4th paragraph

I find the following sentences objectionable: "During 2008 South Ossetia War in August 2008, Russian and Abkhazian forces attacked the Georgian police units located in the region, and occupied Kodori Gorge which had never been under the Russo-Abkhazian control before. The majority of the population was forced to flee the gorge and to move Western Georgia." The statement that the population was "forced to flee" is dubious. Most accounts indicate that the civilian population panicked when the Georgian forces packed up and left, and did the same. The article that is cited is no longer available, and I have not seen any other articles indicating that this was a forced expulsion. A more impartial sentence would be: "The majority of the population fled the gorge and moved to Western Georgia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.178.52 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

on this edit. I tried to separate statements with different levels of credibility. The first tells us that many Abkhaz left/were expelled and that various new peoples were settled in Abkhazia by the Tsarist government. I've brought one ref for this but I don't think anyone would dispute it. So here I've removed "Modern Abkhaz historians maintain" as it's in reality a mainstream version of events.

The second statement is that Georgian tribes inhabited Abkhazia since the times of Colchis. As far as I understand it's a mainstream view among Georgian historians so it should be attributed like 'according to Georgian historians' Here I haven't changed anything besides moving the ref and doing a minor rewording that did not alter the meaning.

In the third statement another theory is described according to which Abkhaz are the descendants of 16th-century migrants from North Caucasus. Unlike the previous one this theory is marginal - we have a reference telling that it has little support among Georgian academics. So the words "According to these scholars" were clearly misleading and I've changed them to "Some Georgian scholars even claim". Alæxis¿question? 13:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NATO intervention

Can anyone add any new information onto the article regarding a possible time when NATO will strike and remove the Russians and restore the region into Georgia where it legally belongs? Nobody hnestly still believes this rubbish about Russian imperialism being effective any more and all it's European former states have joined NATO, the UN, the EU, the world bank and the common market, and abandoned Russia. Russia should have learn from the mistakes made by it's one-time ally the now dead (thankfully) Slobodan Milosevic. When that evil butcher tried to decimate the population by killing off the non-Serbs and starting the Yugoslav Wars, he soon learn that that ain;t the thing to be done, the US kicked his ass and liberated the other states. Nobody thought NATO would strike in Kosovo, that's the reason Milsevic carried on trying his luck, as Russia and the Abkhaz rebels are doing aswell. Is NATO likely to strike over the next month? Will there be a ground incursion to remove the "Soviets" who can't accept they LOST the Cold War? X Ray Tex (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abkhazia&oldid=241110486"