Talk:Abkhazia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abkhazia article.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Archive
Archives
Wikipedia CD Selection Abkhazia is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.


Contents

[edit] Name

"Unrecognized" is not part of the self-declared name, and so should be ommitted. Ybgursey 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sokhumi name

According to Britannica: "Sokhumi, formerly Sukhumi, city, capital of Abkhazia, Georgia. It lies on the site of the ancient Greek colony of Dioscurias on the Black Sea coast. Sokhumi's seaside location, beaches, and warm climate made it a popular Black Sea resort, with many sanatoriums and holiday camps.....

I also found other sources (National Geographic) where they mention that Sokhumi is an official name of the city and Sukhumi is its formal name (Used during USSR). Do we change the name? Please advice Noxchi Borz 21:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a National Geographic atlas, and is spells the city Sokhom. I'll double-check when I find it. —Khoikhoi 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Khoi its a first time i hear the name "Sokhom" :) You must be mistaken. Turks called the city "Sukhum Kale" and so did Russians, "Sukhum". In Abkhaz its "aq'wa" , in Georgian "tskhumi" and officialy after 1991 "Sokhumi." During USSR it was Sukhumi due to Rusification of the name. But Please double-check National Geographic. Britannica has good info too. Thanks Khoi :) Noxchi Borz 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, actually, it's Sokhum, not Sokhom. Incidentally, the map also uses the term separatists. ;) —Khoikhoi 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, here's an interesting ethnic map of the Caucasus (also National Geographic, but is a Feb. 1996 issue, the map below is from the 2005 Atlas.) This one is pretty good as well, but it's not NG. —Khoikhoi 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sokhom.png

Well Khoi, you should work for NG. Where do you get all those rare articles from NG? :) They should hire you. Ok, both of the maps which you had links to have "Sokhumi" the one here is "Sokhum." The name "Sokhum" is a mistake for sure. Its definately not Abkhaz, Russian, Turk, Arab or Georgian. They forgot to include "i" in the end. Here is what the city is called in following languages: Abkhaz: "aq'wa (trans. water), Georgian: "tskhumi", Turk: "Sukhum Kale", Arab: Sukhum, Russian: "Suxum" and "Suxumi" and Mingrelian: "tskhuma." I sent you more photos, check your gmail :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ldingley (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 May 2006.
Well, I think I heard somewhere that Sukhum/Sokhum is the name used by Abkhazians when the speak Russian. I also heard that they dropped the "-i" suffix because it's characteristic of Georgian names, so the Abkhaz see it as offensive. Yes, I got the email, outstanding as usual. :) I'll reply to it soon. —Khoikhoi 01:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, NG should definitely hire me. ;) —Khoikhoi 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Khoi, NG is a great source but not always accurate. I’d far prefer Sokhumi (the correct name of the city), but Sukhumi is also OK even though it’s a Russificated form. However, we must add the note explaining that the official name of the city is Sokhumi frequently transliterated as Sukhumi. Sukhum is an old Turkish name which was reestablished by Abkhaz nationalists in order to eliminate everything Georgian. However, both Abkhaz separatist officials and Georgian authorities continue to use Sukhumi when they give interviews in Russian. Most international sources also use either Sukhumi or Sokhumi. Here are my results of googling (excluding wikipedia):
Russian Google:
I totally agree with Kober. I don’t think Wiki articles should be written in the way not to offend some individuals. The importance of "official" status is very crutail for truthfulness and accuracy of Wiki articles. I actually met Abkhaz who did not find any offences in that name. The articles should represent in the way Britannica represents, an officially known and recognized material. Officially it’s Sokhumi and there are tons of un-official names of the city (every city has them), but what are we promoting here? Why is there a tendancy to promote pro-separatist agenda on these articles? That map Khoi which you attached to this page is very funny. They have maintained Georgian names on all the cities (Tkhvarcheli, Ochamchire, Gagra, Gudauta, Gali, Bichvimta, etc) but took away "i" from the Sokhum. If they want to be pro separatist, it should be: Sukhum, Tkhvarchal, Gagr, Gudaut, Gal, Ochamchir, Putsunda, etc :) BTW Bichvinta is purely Georgian name which definitely offends Abkhaz :) Wow. Another interesting thing, The color of those regions are almost same as Russian Federation :) Also somehow Chechnya's borders are not shown (its like they don’t exist) and the borders of other N Caucasian Republics also, thats amzing. Also Karabakh borders are totally wrong. This map is perfect in sense of propaganda and limited knowledge of the issue/geography which the author had when he was chopping off those territories. :) I think we should have Sukhumi or Sokhumi (official name). But I respect all oppinions and welcome all suggestions.Noxchi Borz 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys—I never said we should move the page to Sukhum/Sokhum. I personally would prefer Sukhumi over Sokhumi, as it conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). We had a similar dispute, should the page be at Kyiv or Kiev? As you can see, the English name for the article is used today. Besides, Sukhumi is by far the most common name. Anyways, there were no bad intentions. When I get the job with NG I’ll fix the place names. ;) —Khoikhoi 15:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Khoi, trust me they don’t pay well. :) Their best photographers still have financial problems and they usually go by with the help of commercial websites. That’s capitalism for you :) Sure, lets keep Sukhumi. Noxchi Borz 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool, btw, have you seen this? —Khoikhoi 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
BS my dear Khoy, the last thing Georgia wants is war. Only through peaceful means they will be able to achieve settlement, and they know it better than anyone. Don’t trust whatever Kokoit is declaring from Moscow. Moscow told him to say so but nobody believes in that crap. Yesterday in Moscow they started to deport all Georgian nationals and placed many posters on the street: "Respect yourself and your country, Dont drinks Georgian Wine." This all reminds me of Third Reich and SA operations. It’s disgusting. Noxchi Borz 17:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh! It’s a typical propaganda machine. Do you think Georgians are so mad to initiate a new war when the country has just begun to recover and is but slowly improving? The new peace proposal by the Georgian government has just received an international support. Kokoity relocated to Moscow a few months ago and said that the Russian capital is the best place to run the government in Tskhinvali – the most ridiculous words I’ve ever heard from a politician. The fact is that common South Ossetians are being increasingly convinced in necessity to return within the Georgian state. This is the reason for such claims. The Russian military bases are finally leaving Georgia. The country is going to withdraw from the CIS and is moving closer and closer to NATO. Now, guess who wants the war… Kober 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoi go here its a different NG map with Sokhumi: http://www.ngmapstore.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=185&itemType=PRODUCT&RS=1&keyword=georgia
BTW those maps are not official geographical NG maps. All atlases have same content. Kober you are 100% correct. Noxchi Borz 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
http://mapmachine.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/searchandbrowse.html?task=getSearchPlace&place=abkhazia
Search Results:
There are 27 Available Maps for "Abkhazia, Autonomous Region, Georgia". Noxchi Borz 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Given the context of the article, I understand how fruitfully the Kremlin's propaganda machine works. Very sad. Kutaisi, Georgia. June 09, 2006

[edit] de facto separatist

Hi Tasc before editing, please review the archived discussion about attaching separatist to the de facto term. Based on numerous sources, we have all agreed that current so called "government" and regime in Abkhazia is separatist. Please try to avoid POVs and let’s stick to NPOV. Otherwise state and present sources which contradict separatist status of Abkhazian regime. Thanks. Noxchi Borz 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the term de facto without further clarification is much confusing as the legal government of Abkhazia still continues to exercise both de facto and de jure control over the southeastern corner of the region known as the Kodori Gorge.--Kober 17:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree. You need definite clarification of so called de facto rule of Abkhazia which was taken by separatist forces. Noxchi Borz 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaah, Bless...

Clearly many of the contributions to this article have been made by people whose first language is not English. Articles don't exist in Eastern European languages and the concept is difficult to grasp - should one correct the grammar? How can one do so? This is one of probably thousands to which this comment applies, it's probably going to change over time, and one would not wish to discourage people from contributing just because their English is not up to scratch. Any suggestions? I could change the grammar, but can't contribute materially to the facts.

[edit] Recent edits

The ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia is a well-documented fact. With all due respect, tasc, you have a strong anti-Georgian POV. I've seen it before on the Sochi talk page. --Kober 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, unfortunately, Tasc has strong bias towards Georgian articles and he jeopardises the integrity and truthfulness of Wiki articles. I only hope that he will stop implementing personal or nationalistic agendas on Wiki and respect the main pillars of Wikipedia, NPOV. So far he has demonstrated otherwise. Ldingley 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
tasc, if you add the tag, you should make a note on the talk page explaining your reasoning.--Kober 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Recent changes to the stable version of article initiated by anon ip led to highly pov version. Threats of some editors made it impossible to edit page and maintain NPOV. -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stable doesn't mean neutral. The text shouldn't be unbalanced and blatantly pro-separatist. Perhaps you would like to point out what specific part of the article you find non-neutral?--Kober 17:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It was stable and it was neutral. -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Tasc, you are undermining the NPOV of the article by adding your own POVs. You have proven before on other articles (ex. Sochi) to have anti-Georgian bias and as I noticed you are slowly implementing your own ideas into articles which are related to Georgian events. I highly recommend you to maintain NPOV regardless of your Russian background and start a constructive co-operation with other editors like Kober who have contributed to Wikipedia tremendously. Pro-separatist, nationalist POV will not be tolerated on any post-soviet conflict articles. Take a look at Nagorny-Karabakh, a good example of co-operation and respect for NPOV. Ldingley 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't have anti-Georgian bias. I just don't see why politcs should be put in every hole. Could you please explain why your edits are not pov?-- tasc wordsdeeds 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you mix politics and show hidden national agenda on Abkhazia article. My contributions are always supported by sources both secondary and primary. Please consult and look into sources. I can provide list of sources you can review. But i will ask you again to drop the POV pushing and maintain NPOV. Thanks. Ldingley 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather drop my contribution. Will be telling people what to trust and what not on wp. Go ahead. Right whatever you want. None will read that rubbish anyway. -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Im very sorry you feel like that. All the best. Ldingley 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reworking

Hey Noxchi. It’s a pity to see that there are only a few users interested in this article. Yet we can cooperate to improve the quality of the current version. First of all, I think we should abridge the history section which is becoming too long and create a separate article on the History of Abkhazia. For the sake of compromise I agree to change the words like "massacre" with more neutral expressions, or at least we can use the wording how the UN and OSCE describe the events. Tell me what you think. Thanks, --Kober 17:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kober, great idea. We can start working of History of Abkhazia article with the help of sources from western scholars (Lang, Wardlop, Allen, Andersen, Mc'Killen, Blair, etc). As for massacres. Please review the book by Chervonnaia, Svetlana (Russian journalist witnessing the events). She called those crimes as massacres and also Human Rights Watch. "Georgia/Abkhazia: Violations of the Laws of War and Russia's Role in the Conflict." Published March 1995. I will also gather all UN and OSCE resolutions on Abkhazia like they did on Nagorno-Karabakh article. But its up to you, you may change the term "massacres" but judging from many reports, they were massacres (specially in Sukhumi and Gagra). Cheers. Ldingley 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Noxchi. Then I will start the History of Abkhazia article and put it on wiki in a few days. I'm not well-versed in the legal issues and it will be really great if you can focus on that. If most sources consider those events massacres (and they really do) we should obviously keep exactly this sort of description. Thanks again - respect. --Kober 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthem

Abkhazia's anthem should be listed in the article. Badagnani 23:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is too long

We need to shrink the article. Its becoming too big and it would be good if we transferred the chapters like "Abkhazia Today" and "Future of Abkhazia" into the Politics of Abkhazia article. Also we will have separate page for History of Abkhazia. Please make your suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ldingley 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you OK with the current size? It is 34K. This is about average for many other "Country"-type articles. However, a History of Abkhazia is a must and I have now made one. I just moved the text. Someone else should not shorten the section in the main article. - Pernambuco 14:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I can try and shorten it, but I prefer someone who knows more about the history to pick what the main points are. For the summary to keep in the article. I am just a newcomer to these unrecognized countries. I am still learning. - Pernambuco 23:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics at the beginning of the century

It is stated that Georgians constituted a majority in Abkhazia at the beginning of the century, and this is backed by information from the EB from 1911 detailing the ethnic composition of Sukhumi. The one does not necessairily follow from the other however, urban centers generally show a larger percentage of people of 'foreign' origin than a country overall does. Thus if one merely looks at the composition of Riga one might be led to believe that there are more Russians in Latvia than Latvians. There aren't. Of course it is not given the Georgian population actually was concentrated in the urban areas, but due to the uncertainty of the statistical relationship (also considering the small size of Sukhumi at the time) I will adapt the text accordingly. Sephia karta 15:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there IS statistics dating to 1897. The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary gives the following data about Sukhum district: Население округа состоит из абхазцев и самурзаканцев (86%), мингрельцев (5,5%), греков (3,5%), армян (1,5%), русских (ок. 2%), грузин (около 1%), немцев и проч. In English that would be:
The district population consists of abkhazians and samyrzakanians (86%), mingrelians (5.5%), greeks (3.5%), armenians (1.5%), russians (about 2%), georgians (about 1%), germans etc. Since georgians and mingrelians now are considered as georgians that would give the following abkhaz/georgian proportion: 86/6.5. The Sukhum district of that time occupied pretty much the same territory as Abkhazian ASSR. This is the link to the online version of the B&E encyclopaedia [1]. It's in Russian because I don't think there is online B&E in English.Alaexis
That is definitely a POV data gathered from a Russian web site which is completely unreliable. First of all, Mingrelians are not a separate nation from the Georgians. Georgians did not move into Abkhazia during Stalin. Please use reliable and valid sources and also it would be better if they are in English. Thanks. Ldingley 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This data is from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. Why would the encyclopedia published in the imperial Russia be biased to (or against) Georgians? The Russian language is of course a problem but I don't think this evidence should be discarded for this particular reason.
Mingrelians are indeed are now considered as Georgians, but that was not the case at the time the encyclopaedia was published. That's why I added 5.5 to 1 and wrote that there were 6.5 % of Georgians.
The Stalin's demographic policy should be dealt with separately. I've found something on the site of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management of the University of Maryland [2]
"An enormous influx of non-Abkhaz occurred throughout the Soviet period, encouraged by Stalin, who was an ethnic Georgian, and his lieutenant, fellow Georgian Beria".
Thanks. Alaexis
Please provide primary sources and secondary sources for this claim. The scholarly work of Dr Andersen, Lang, Blair contradict your claims of Georgian mass migration to Abkhazia. Stalin's ethnicity has nothing to do with Georgians or Georgia. This kind of bias and POV statement should be avoided. Try to see things in the perspective of NPOV. Also do not quote he sources which are from the Russian web sites, as we see today Russia is the conflicting side in this issue even far greater than the Abkhaz. Also with one source from Maryland Uni, provide a secondary opinion to support their claims of which references must be valid and reliable. Thanks. Ldingley 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
What is this scholarly work of Andersen, Lang, Blair? Would you please give the exact reference
What do you mean by the secondary opinion to support their claims?
Again about the validity of Brockhaus. Consult with Georgians who know Russian whether pre-revolutionary encyclopedia is biased to Georgia. The accuracy of the web-version of the encyclopedia, to which I give reference can easily be checked by any person who knows Russian.Alaexis 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Andersen, Lang and Blair are Western scholars and authors of most valuable works on Georgia published in English. I don't know why Brockhaus is supposed to be more accurate than 1911 EB or other sources available on Abkhazia. Furthermore, Samurzakanians mentioned by the Brockhaus dictionary have never been classified as a separate group. Actually, "Samurzakanians" is a collective terms for the inhabitants of Samurzakano (modern Gali district in south Abkhazia) and most of them spoke (and speak) a local dialect of Mingrelian. The name Sa-murzakan-o itself is typically Kartvelian (Georgian/Mingrelian) meaning the "[land] of Murzakan" after the early 18th-century Abkhaz-Mingrelian prince of the Shervashidze family. For a comparison, see Sa-kartvel-o (i.e. "[land] of the Georgians), Sa-megrel-o (i.e., "[land] of the Megrels/Mingrelians), etc. Respectfully, --Kober 06:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Kober, thank you for a good point about Samurzakanians. They are indeed the Mingrelians who lived in Samurzakan. One can only wonder why they were united with Abkhazians rather than Mingrelians in the B&E.
Nevertheless the number of Abkhazians can be estimated too. The population of Sukhum district was 100498. The total number of Abkhazians was 'about 70000' [3](including Abaza, who live to the north of Caucausus, who numbered 5000 [4]). That gives us 60000-65000 of Abkhazians in Sukhum district (60-65%).
Brockhaus is NOT supposed to be more (or less) accurate than 1911 EB. Probably something like that should be written: "According to the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia, published in 1890-1906 in Russia Abkhazians and Georgians composed 60-65% and 25-30% of the Sukhum district population respectively in 1897'. Information from the 1911BE should also be added.Alaexis 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alaexis, thank you for your cooperativeness. Can you please provide the exact date of the B&E edition that estimates the number of the Abkhazians at 60,000-65,000? The Encyclopaedia of Islam article "Abkhaz" by Vladimir Minorsky says:

In the thirties of the 19th century the population of AbÕ9§zia was estimated at about 90,000, and the number of all Abkhaz (i.e. including those living in the north outside Abkhazia) at 128,000 souls. After 1866, the population of Abkhazia was reduced to c. 65,000... in 1881 the number of Abkhaz was estimated at only 20,000. No statistics on the Abkhazians in Turkey are available. [5]

Also, Georgian authors frequently cite the 1917 statistics (I’m sorry, I don’t remember the exact primary source) according to which the population of Abkhazia consisted of 74,846 Georgians (42,1 %), 38,121 Abkhaz (21.4%), 20,893 Russians (11.7%), 20,673 Greeks (11.7%), 18,219 Armenians (10.2%) and 5,087 of other nationalities (2.9%).

IMHO, the best solution here is to compile all these versions, mentioning that the figures vary and indicating the corresponding sources. Regards, Kober 08:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Ah, sorry. I see the B&E statistics date to 1897. However, it seems somewhat implausible that the ethnic Abkhaz populaton increased threefold from 20,000 in 1881 (as per Minorsky) to 60,000-65,000 in 1897 (according to B&E), doesn't it? --Kober 09:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem strange. Maybe some of Abkhazians returned from Turkey (as dfar as I remember that was the case in the novel "Sandro from Chegem" of Fazil Iskander) as the Caucausus became nore peaceful. But of course this is just my speculation.
Some kind of compilation should be done indeed. Maybe I'll write what I have proposed in my previous post and you would write the stuff from the islamic encyclopedia and 1917 statistics?Alaexis 14:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is another source of ethnic make up of Abkhazia [6] Ldingley 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is data from the 1979 census. I do believe it is true and I have never argued with it. The figures of 1992 and 1997 are also plausible. However, it has nothing to do with the "Demographics at the beginning of the century".Alaexis 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
2Kober (or someone else). Please add the appropriate references to the figures I've given in the demographics section of the article. I took them from your post on the talk page. However the Islamic Enciclopaedia link doesn't work and you did not provide the link to the 1917 statistics at all.Alaexis 17:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atrocities committed by the two sides

The article states that the atrocities committed by the Abkhazian side were worse than those committed by the Georgian side and this is supported by a link to a book. If possible I would additionally like to see reference to reports from international (human rights) organisations, as this is a very bold statement. Sephia karta 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No comparisons of atrocities. 10 killed babies is not better than 1000 killed babies. This was already discussed in the main article in the topic: Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. `'mikka (t) 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separatist vs de facto

The problem here is that de jure gov of Abkhazia (-in exile) now exercises both de jure and de facto control over the northeast of the republic. Georgia took full control of the upper Kodori Valley in August 2006, and now there's kind of diarchy in Abkhazia, with separatists in control of Sukhumi and most of Abkhazia, and de jure gov ruling in Kodori or the Temporary Administrative District of Upper Abkhazia, as the area is officially styled by Tbilisi. --Kober 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We must not forget or leave out that Sukhumi based de facto government is radically separatist. As for de jure, which is composed of many ethnic Abkhaz and Georgians, has different views on the status of Abkhazia. That government is officially recognized by international community as legal. In Kodori, which is part of Abkhazia this de jure government now controls big chunk of north-western Abkhazia and planning to set up the government there. Therefore, it’s becoming de facto for Abkhazia as well. Ldingley 16:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be best to use "separatist" and "recognized" to distinguish between the governments, then? I agree with Khoikhoi's edit summary that "de facto separatist" is redundant, and the control by each government over different parts of the region does make using "de facto" and "de jure" somewhat inaccurate as well. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
David, it’s simple. So called de jure government was the real body which controlled Abkhazia and administered that territory before the war. In it, there was significant number of pro-separatist members. That government had executive powers and was elected to represent Abkhazian Autonomous Republic just before the war. The elections were fair and recognized because every ethnic group of Abkhazia had a chance to vote equally. When war started, the separatist wing of that government left the capital and joined up the armed groups in Gudauta which launched a full scale country-attack on Georgian forces and the government of Abkhazian autonomous republic. Those rebel separatist former members of Abkhaz government managed to take over Sukhumi, expel majority of Abkhazia’s inhabitants (mainly ethnic Georgians), killed many members of the government (some managed to escape and form government in exile, just like Tibetan one) and pronounced a formation of new government of “sovereign” Abkhazia. World organizations, states, UN, OSCE, EU, EU parliament has condemned such action and did not recognize any of such government or election of it, where the majority of the population did not vote for it and was expelled. Just recently, Hague also spoke out and added that some of those members of that de facto Abkhaz government might be indicted in war crimes. So the western media labeled current separatist regime as de facto government (which factually controlls that territory) and the exiled one de jure (which has jurisdiction authority and international recognition as being official government of that territory). De jur egovenment was legally elected and represents not only the 300,000 Georgian IDPs but also the entire population of Abkhazia which their jurisdiction dictates. Now, this year the de jure exiled government managed to dislocate from Tbilisi to Kodori, the north-western region of Abkhazia populated by ethnic Georgians (Svans). That’s the simplest way to put it :) The so called de facto government is the separatist wing of that de jure government which governed Abkhazia since the creation of Soviet Union. De jure govenment has many abkhaz (Akishbaia, Marshania, etc) georgian and armenian members, while the de facto has only radical separatists and extreme nationalists in their club :) Ldingley 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
In the interests of absolute accuracy it is important to call it as it is . To refer to de-facto or de-jure is clearly better than using emotive terms such as 'separatist' or 'recognised'. The Abkhazia would not consider themselves 'separatist' but 'separate'. There is a difference. So I suggest you refer to it in a scientific way rather than a politically sensitive manner. MarkStreet 20 Oct 2006
I think this article about Ablhazia is becoming very long… and somehow imprecise, because after the 2006 Kodori crisis Abkhazia, in a manner similar to Cyprus, has two governments: one formally and theoretically internationally-recognized (unionist and vinculated to Georgia) and other internationally-unrecognized (separatist and vinculated to Russia). The first controls around 30% of the territory Abkhazia, the other 70%. And there’s also the Georgian-populated Gali district, that is just partially-controlled by the separatist government.
So the article should reflect this divisions — in the way that is today, the article treats Abkhazia as a 100% unified and independet country, and this is really not the case. I think even tha main table should reflect this, showing both the flags and cat-of-arms of the separatist and unionist governments of Abkhazia.
Well, maybe it should be there another option: to separate the georgaphic place from the governments controlling the place — like the Korea and China articles.--MaGioZal 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding length: I made History of Abkhazia. See above. Now someone needs to shorten the main part. To make it shorter. I have no comment on the rest. But someone has to make history shorter. Now that it has a separate Main Article. This will therefore also make the over-all article shorter. - Pernambuco 06:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling?

On the top of the page it says: "Russian: Абха́зия Abhazia". Is the transcription really correct? Doesn't "х" usually become "kh" (instead of just "h") in English? (218.228.195.44 09:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Yes, "х" is usually transliterated as "kh" in English. Askari Mark | Talk 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, "х" transliterated as "kh" if "x" goes after vowel, to indicate that russian "x" ("ha") sounds a little harder than english "h". If "x" goes after cosonant, then it should be transliterated simple as "h", because cosonant already implies harderness of next sound. But I should notice, that most people pronounced transliterated russian words wrong because of that transliteration - they pronounce it too hard, making accent on 'k'. 'Nikita Mikhalkov' - was pronounced so bad on Oscar movie avards, I remember.

Sorry for my English.

No apology needed ... your English is far better than my quite limited Russian. "Абха́зия" probably should be transliterated as you describe, but I've always seen it rendered as "Abkhazia". I don't know why this is so. Perhaps because some native English speakers would be tempted to mispronounce it as "uh-BAHZ-uh" or "ah-BAY-zyuh". "Abkhazia" gets pronounced as close to correct as is likely without learning Russian pronunciation and syllabication. Spasebo! Askari Mark | Talk

[edit] Mistake

There is no evidence that Russia wants to incorporate Abhazia.I'll edit that section.Dimts 12:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Dimts

Hi. Don't you rememeber the passionate statements by by the State Duma memebers and the 2005 attempt to pass a law on admission of new subjects of the RF? However, I agree to temporarily remove the passage until the proper references are found. Regards, --Kober 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillics in Wikipedia

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Escaping the ethnic cleansing

This is what is written now:

In the chaotic aftermath of defeat, almost the entire non-Abkhazian (mainly ethnic Georgians) population fled the region by sea or over the mountains escaping a large-scale ethnic cleansing initiated by the victors

For a person unfamiliar with this issue it may seem like Armenians, Russians, Jews and other non-Georgian and non-Abkhazian inhabitants of Abkhazia fled fearing the ethnic cleansing by Abkhazians. As far as I know that was not the case and the main reason for the departure of Russians and other people was the economic hardships. Anyway, I would like someone to provide the appropriate reference to the sentence in question.Alaexis 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That was my interpretation. It sounds like everyone left except for Abkhazian population. Was that not the case? if so, improve on it! I don't know a lot about this subject. - Pernambuco 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It definitely was not. The non-Georgian and non-Abkhazian population (mainly Russians and Armenians) as a rule supported Abkhazians against Georgians during the war. I suppose they rather wanted to be part of Russia than Georgia. After the end of the war Abkhazia obviously expirienced very hard times in economic sense. The Russians who were mainly city-dwellers and did not have the advantage of family (clan) support were hit the hardest. So quite naturally a lot of them emigrated to Russia (as well as many Armenians and Abkhazians). The exact after-war statistics is unavailable with the figures varying greatly. By now I don't have time to provide the necessary references so I'll just change a bit your contribution.Alaexis 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New main table

Hi,

As I said before, I thought that the table of Abkhazia was going pretty confuse. So I changed from the old one (to the right) to the new one (to the left).

In fact there’s not so much new infos on the new table; the main difference is the presence of the national symbols used by the Unionist Government nowadays. And the former infos were rearranged in a neater form, separating the geographic aspects from the political ones.

Well, that’s it. Feel free to discuss, and eventually edit it.--MaGioZal 08:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Аҧсны/აფხაზეთი
Apsny/Apkhazeti
Flag¹ Coat of Arms¹
¹ Used by the de facto government

Official languages Abkhaz¹ ², Russian¹
Georgian²
¹ Used by the de-facto separatist government
² According to the Constitution of Georgia
Political status De Facto: Independent
De Jure (internationally recognized): Autonomous Republic within Georgia
Capital Sukhumi
Capital's coordinates 43°00′N 40°59′E
President¹ Sergei Bagapsh
Prime Minister¹ Alexander Ankvab
¹ De-facto separatist government in Sukhumi
Chairman of the
Supreme Council²		 Temur Mzhavia
Chairman of Cabinet of Ministers² Malkhaz Akishbaia
² De-jure Government of Abkhazia in Upper Abkhazia
Independence
 – Declared
 – Recognition		 From Georgia
 23 July 1992
 none
Area
 – Total
 – % water
 8,600 km²
 Negligible
Population
 - Total (2000 est.)
 - Density
 250,000
 29/km²
Currency Russian ruble, Georgian lari
Time zone UTC +3
Аҧсны/აფხაზეთი
Apsny/Apkhazeti

Area
 – Total
 – % water
 8,600 km²
 Negligible
Population
 - Total (2000 est.)
 - Density
 250,000
 29/km²
Time zone UTC +3
Abkhazian Separatist Government
Flag Coat of Arms
Official languages Abkhaz and Russian
Political status De facto independent
Capital Sukhumi
Capital's coordinates 43°00′N 40°59′E
President Sergei Bagapsh
Prime Minister Alexander Ankvab
Independence
 – Declared
 – Recognition		 From Georgia
 23 July 1992
 none
Currency Russian ruble
Abkhazian Unionist Government
Flag Coat of Arms
Official languages Abkhaz and Georgian
Political status Autonomous Republic of Georgia
Location Upper Abkhazia (formerly known as Kodori Valley)
Chairman of Cabinet of Ministers Malkhaz Akishbaia
Chairman of the
Supreme Council		 Temur Mzhavia
Independence
(within Georgia)
 – Declared
 – Recognized		 From Soviet Union
 
 9 April 1991
 25 December 1991
Currency Georgian lari
Great! You have a very good point and your suggestion is worth to be discussed. The article needs to be seriously updated. I'll try to shorten the history section ASAP. Thanks, --Kober 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separatist/De facto and Unionist/De jure

I think the terms “De facto” and “De jure” to designate the Sukhumi-Russian-backed and Kodori-Georgian-backed governments respectivelly are nowadays outdated, because of two factors:

01. The Abkhazian separatist government in Sukhumi does not control the entire territory of Abkhazia. The Gali district is conttrolled by Sukhumi and UNOMIG, and the region North of the Kodori valley is nowadays fully controlled by the government of Georgia, which already installed a government that is, theorically, the internationally-accepted one.

02. So, call the separatist government as “De facto” and the unionist government as “De facto” for me is POV. I think other sections in this article and other articles about Abkhazia and Abkhazian politics should be altered to reflect the current realities.--MaGioZal 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The terms "de facto" and "de jure" are legal terms and are used by most governments and international organizations (such as the UN), and not taken as POV. Nor is it necessary for a governmental entity to control 100% of its claimed territory to qualify for status of being the de facto government; it need only control the major portion. I would deprecate use of the terms here, but for different reasons.
First, the average reader is often unfamiliar with these terms (as they are "technical" and foreign [Latin]), and they form awkward, confusing adjectives for identifying a particular governing body — it's hard to keep straight which is which. Secondly, if Georgia attacks Abkhazia to regain control and is successful, at some point in the conflict the "de facto" government will change from the secessionist government to the Georgian government.
I believe that "secessionist" and "unionist" are much clearer; what is necessary is to identify these terms, when first used, as "de facto" or "de jure" and wikilinked so those unfamiliar with them can learn more. Askari Mark | Talk 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. - Pernambuco 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

Someone using a Turksih ISP has altered the “Official language” status of the separatist government in Sukhumi to just “Abkhazian” because in its stating “(russian language is not official according to CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ABKHAZIA ( http://www.abkhaziya.info/GOS/GOS3.htm ))”. Well, let’s check it:

ARTICLE 6. The official language of the Republic of Abkhazia is Abkhazian. The Russian language as well as the Abkhazian language shall be recognized as the language of the government, public and other institutions. The state shall guarantee all ethnic groups living in Abkhazia the right to use freely their own languages.

So, as we can read the conclusion is that yes, the Russian language has a co-official status in the Abkhazian separatist-controlled territory. And as we can see in a lot of websites and many testemonials, the “De facto” main language of Abkhazia, used by the government and the people that remainded there after the war in 1993, is Russian.--MaGioZal 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trifurcation of this page?

I suggest this page be split into 3 parts. One for the Republic of Abkhazia, one for the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and one for all things general to Abkhazia that don't directly relate to either of the two governments. Sephia karta 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If no one has anything to comment I will go ahead with this and expect such an edit not to be reverted immediately. Sephia karta 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for replying late. Your proposal does have merit but it I'm afraid it will create a great confusion for readers. --Kober 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
How so? How would this be more confusing than similar set-ups with Western Sahara, Korea and Taiwan? All 3 articles would start with a short explanatory note linking to the other two articles. If anything, this would introduce more clarity, keeping things separate that are separate and following the practised principle of Wikipedia to devote seperate articles to seperate political entities. Sephia karta 13:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links to Combat Films & Research videos

We at Combat Films and Research believe that these episodes of our weekly CFR-TV are relevant and informative. We request that an unbiased editor have a look at our episodes to verify that it relates to this page, and if it is found relevant, for an external link to our content to be placed on the article. This page is static and there are no plans for it to be changed.

http://www.combatfilms.com/cfrtv_archive_0011.asp http://www.combatfilms.com/cfrtv_archive_0012.asp

I have replaced this for a reason. Several people keep attempting to add links to this company's films. So that the editors here don't have to constantly revert them, please explain here — as a matter of record for later archival purposes — why these links are inappropriate for this article. While it may be spam for Combat Films to post a link to its own site here, this is not necessarily true for other editors. Askari Mark | Talk 04:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

The term "de-jure" and sseparatist are extremly subjective in a situation when the whole area was devolved from the Soviet Union based on imposed boundaries. The "de-jure" government may in fact be internationally recognized, but it's hardly a "government" at all and is generally regarded by those of Abkhazian nationality as collaborationist.

This article should mention both points of view from a neutral position. I have therefore added a POV tag. Scott Adler 07:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. "De facto" and "De jure" are not subjective names, but legitimate terms used by the UN. There are two infoboxes in the article: one for the de facto authorities, and the other for the de jure government. Furthermore, the "de facto" one goes first. Doesn't this mean that the both sides are represented from a neutral position? --Kober 07:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I also deprecate the POV tag. The issue of "de facto/de jure" and "separatist/unionist" has been discussed here at length. I invite you to withdrawn the POV tag until you have at least read the relevant commentary. If you then still feel these terms are unwarranted, please recommend others which you feel are NPOV before adding a POV tag to the article again. Askari Mark | Talk 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another POV: Equal weight

Not very active here, so this is for the experienced editors to discuss: It is POV to give the two governments equal weight if that isn't the reality in Abkhazia. My understanding is: One has control of 99% of the area. The other one has a small village in the gorge. In the article's infobox, these two are listed next to each other on the same basis. This is POV because of the weight. The right thing to do is to revert to the infobox which was there before, and then put a link on it: "See also: De facto government of Abkhazia". To a separate page. Please discuss. - Pernambuco 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, the de jure government enjoys an international recognition and controls not only a small village, but almost 20% of Abkhazia though this territory is scarcely inhabited. Secondly, I don't think that the two governments are given equal weight in the article and the "de facto" infobox goes first. The article's intro explicitly states that the secessionist authorities control most of Abkhazia including the regional capital. Elimination of the infobox for the de jure government wouldn't make the article more neutral, IMHO. Thanks, --Kober 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Kober. The presence of the two infoboxes does not imply POV through "equal weight" so much as it admits to there being a complicated state of affairs in Abkhazia. Having both a "legitimate" de jure and a "legitimate" de facto government is certainly just that. Furthermore, trying to explain the history and reality of this fact would require more than 1% of the article. Balance here should not be measured by "weight of text" so much as "evenhandedness in approach". -- Askari Mark | Talk 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I asked about this exactly one month ago and it looks like there are no objections or strong opinions on this, so I am o.k. with the current approach and will not change it, it was just something that I wanted to point out and let others discuss. And I thank you for doing so, thanks. Pernambuco 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you provide a reference?

Could anybody provide a reference which proves that theMeanwhile the Russian State Duma is looking for legal ways to incorporate this region into Russia quote is true (because it sounds like 100% anti-Abkhazian POV).Thank you.Dimts 13:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The State Duma’s failed attempt to pass a bill on "the admission of new federal subjects into the Russian Federation" in the spring of 2005 comes to mind. Given the Abkhaz separatists’ frequently voiced desire to become "an associated member of the Russian Federation", I don’t think that the statement is particularly "anti-Abkhazian POV". As an opposer of "Georgia’s aggressive attempts to subjugate Abkhazia", you should do some more research on the issue before deleting the text from the article. Best, Kober 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Still, this statement is infelicious. It suggests that the absence of such 'legal ways' are currently the main hurdle for anything like associate relations between the two states, whereas in reality it is totally dependend on political will. Russia would first have to recognise Abkhazia and it does not want to do so at the moment, for whatever reasons. But if/when it does, all that is needed is 2 laws passed by resp. the Russian and the Abkhazian parliaments.Sephia karta 17:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kober,Abkhazia,unlike Transnistria,does not seek to unite with Russia.It prefers to become an independent member of CIS (you should do more research yourself).Secondly,you said it yourself that the attempt to pass that bill failed.So,the statetment has no ground beneath it.It has to go.Dimts 09:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the bill was discussed and failed means that the Duma is looking for legal ways to incorporate this region into Russia though without any result. I agree that this is due the absence of a political will, but that is another story. Whatever the reason behind it, the fact remains the fact.
As for the Abkhaz separatists's aspirations to become part of Russia, try to use a pretty simple and effective way to get information called Googling. Here are just a few results: [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. --Kober 10:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Abkhazia has had past experiences too unhappy with Russia for it to want to give up independance and join Russia. Rather, its politicians have in the past voiced desire for 'associated membership', similar to the relationship between Micronesia and the USA. Whether Abkhazia will still want this if/when their independance is internationally recognised, is another matter. Sephia karta 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this what is called Associated state? There was a link to it from the Transnister page where I sometimes also hang out, it is a way to have a closer relationship without giving up independence..... Pernambuco 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Sephia karta 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adjectival form of de jure and de facto

These do not take internal hyphens when used as adjectives. They are "foreign loan words" (i.e., Latin), so they are always written de jure and de facto (and never de-jure or de-facto). The related article De-jure Government of Abkhazia should be renamed accordingly. Askari Mark | Talk 16:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

What's this about the Kosovo-Abkhazia? --PaxEquilibrium 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

This map presents Abkhazia as a separate state (most location maps are dedicated to the separate states) which Abkhazia is not officially. It’s definitely POV map which is not needed on this controversial article. Otherwise, all separatist enclaves should be shown separately on the location maps like Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. If you need to locate Abkhazia, this map can be used to identify the northern part of this Georgian Autonomous republic [11]. Thanks. Ldingley 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Location maps are for any area where it might be useful to show where in the world the area you are discussing is located, showing the area on a world map doesn't necessarily imply the area is independant, it just shows what area you are talking about - Currently there is nothing in the article to establish that for readers that aren't already familiar with Georgia. I'll welcome suggestions for a non-POV way to show that. Kmusser 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I fully concur with Kmusser. Location maps such as these may be found in news articles, National Geographic, etc. They are an aid to locating a place — and it need not be a country; it can be a province, region, a country that existed long ago, etc. Such maps are value-neutral. There is nothing in it suggesting that Abkhazia is or is not separate from Georgia. It merely illustrates for the benefit of the reader where Abkhazia is located ... something probably 99% of the world likely has no idea. In fact, it would seem to me an excellent idea for such maps to be added to articles on other poorly known places like Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. The map you linked to only shows Georgia, and using it would suggest that all of Georgia was Abkhazia! Abkhazia exists, it has a location, and showing where it is located is NPOV. If there were a title to the map suggesting Abkhazia was an independent country, you'd have a point about POV, but it doesn't and I'm afraid you don't. Unless someone can show how this map is clearly POV, it should be allowed to remain. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry but I don’t agree with you Askari. This map does show Abkhazia as a separate state. Only this region is highlighted in green and its borders are outside of the de jure borders of Georgia. If the region would have been green in the Georgian borders than I would understand the point which you and Kmusser were making. But separating it physically from the rest of Georgia is definitely a POV. And I do have a point in that. You cant have the locator maps for every region in the world. Than you should start with Russia, a place where many different republics exist and 99% of the people in the west do not know about their location. However, im certain that the Russian users would not allow it. Therefore, this map (although many thanks to author for considering the interests of the reader) should be modified so we don’t get any wrong impressions. Make a locator map where the whole Georgian borders appear, and you may separate Abkhazian Autonomous Republic by different colour. That way the official recognition and de jure status is respected. Again, im not accusing anyone, as I told to Kmusser I admire his dedication and consideration for the interests of the people who came to Wiki to learn about this subject. I made a valid point and it should be considered by the author of the locator map. However, I will find it hard to let this map endure on this article based on the controversy which surround this issue and in terms of NPOV integrity. Many Thanks Ldingley 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Ldingley. Consider removing the white line between Georgia and Abkhazia as these lines designate state boundaries on the map. Unfortunately Abkhazia is not de jure independent yet.Alaexis 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are many unfortunate things, like the still or yet non-existant Independent state of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital. We all have our own views and political wishes but the reality differs :) Its all up to the author to make the decision on the map. Ldingley 15:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I should hope that it is up to us all to make that decision (whoever the author might be you are referring to). And as for 'reality', I don't know about you, but for me the reality is that I would need an Abkhazian visa to visit the republic. Sephia karta 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It would seem to me that either representation of Abkhazia on a map (highlighted within the wider region vs. highlighted within Georgia) presents a certain POV. It seems to be impossible to have a map that is NPOV, or it would have to be one where both Abkhazia and Georgia are seperately highlighted from the wider region, to present the disagreement about the relationship between the two entities.
Another approach would be what I proposed before, to trifurcate the article into one general article, one article for the Republic of Abkhazia and one for the Autnomous republic of Abkhazia, where the two latter articles could have maps resp. showing Abkhazia as a seperate state and as within Georgia. Sephia karta 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, right now there's two maps up there, one showing Abkhazia within Georgia and one showing it within the region. This seems to be a balanced approach and in any case, if one map goes than the other should too. Sephia karta 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You may make visa regimes anywhere where possible, in this case massacring anyone who does not agree with your separatist drive and expel 300,000 of its rightful citizens. It’s a regime, a separatist regime which came to power by force and dirty war. Similar self designated republics have sprung up and in vain. International recognition of the statehood is more important than your claims of being mono-ethnic republic attaining power through utter violence. To split this article into self proclaimed/imposed so called Republic of Abkhazia of the separatist mono-ethnic/ideological regime and into Autonomous Republic which is internationally recognized via numerous UN resolutions is senseless. Than why not split Nagorno-Karabakh into Azeri republic and Armenian? Tibet? Palestine as its capital in Jerusalem (in terms of de facto, Arabs claim that and live there), Kurdistan? Etc. I’m sure many articles about different republics within Russia would spring up as separate Republics. This is off topic and has nothing to do with the map. I made my point so the author would take it into consideration. But if you want somehow to legalize the notion of glorious and victorious separatist regimes in any country and self designated Republics and Presidents, fell free to indulge but lets not deviate from the topic. Ldingley 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at revising the map, let me know what you think, I'm welcome to other ideas. Kmusser 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) version 1 version 2

Thats a true NPOV version. Many thanks Kmusser again for designing these much needed maps. Best regards. May i also suggest to make similar maps for Chechnya and other republics of Caucasus region? It would help a lot. Thanks againLdingley 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ldingley. The current one seems fine to me. The topic is already controversial. Let's don't inflame another POV dispute. --Kober 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Kmusser's revised map is perfect. And, yes, Ldingley, you can have a locator map for any region, province, etc. — as long as it locates the subject of the article. A map cannot be inherently POV if it just shows a location; you need labels on it to do that. The white border you saw was an artifact of how the map was made, not some intent to push a POV. While the subject of this article is indeed contentious, I think we need to remember to assume good intentions. Not everybody who tries to contribute to this article is trying to push a POV. A better way to have handled this contribution would have been to address anyone's concerns here on the talk page, not automatically deleting it before only a couple of people got the chance to even view it. Letting Kmusser know what concerns some people had with the original map allowed him to come up with a version that satisfied everyone (I think). That's a much more constructive process and encourages more people to make positive contributions to this article. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/k/Talk%7EAbkhazia_cbfe.html"