Talk:Abkhazia

"officially the Republic of Abkhazia"

If its de jure status is that it's part of Georgia, shouldn't official name be "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia"? What does "officially" mean otherwise? It's obviously WP:POV. Also, there are two articles on Crimea: Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea where first one refers to the general region, and the second one refers to the internationally-recognized jurisdiction. I think this is the correct and most neutral practice when it comes to territorial disputes. — 185.115.4.187 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The article about Crimea is about the peninsula itself, the administrative division articles are Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Mellk (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding on to that, the de jure Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has its own article: Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Yue🌙 21:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely right I wanted to say exactly that Vanikobar (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Fully support removal of "official". It is WP:POV. Vnar123 (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Rayfield on the post-WW2 economy

I've removed some of the information that has been added, so I'd like to give an explanation here. This is what Rayfield writes in his Edge of Empires

“ Life in Georgia was grim: there were only old men, boys and invalids to help the women work the fields and the factories. (The population in 1945, 3,232,000, was 10 per cent smaller than in 1939: it would not return to 1939’s level until 1960.) The produce of the countryside and towns went to feed and rebuild European Russia. For want of goods, or a market economy, money lost its value; inflation soared. Serfdom was now introduced into industry, as well as agriculture: from 1948 workers were deprived of passports, and leaving a job became impossible. (In 1949 Beria proposed giving workers and peasants passports and freedom of movement, but his proposal was rejected on the grounds that labour was scarce.) Reluctant workers could be deported for eight years’ forced labour in ‘remote districts’. Some 9,000 peasant households were resettled between 1947 and 1952 from the highlands to underpopulated areas – Abkhazia, the newly drained Mingrelian marshes and newly irrigated Samgori fields – and left to fend for themselves. ”

Only the last sentence concerns Abkhazia directly. The previous sentences have to do with the general situation in Georgia. The 1948 reforms affected workers (as in factory workers), while peasants, including the ones resettled in Abkhazia, had no passports even before or after that.

I think it would be a good idea to describe the economical situation in Abkhazia in Soviet times in this article, but we should use sources which discuss Abkhazia rather than the whole Georgia or USSR-wide changes, unless they impacted Abkhazia in a major way. The 1948 measures tying workers to their jobs were unlikely to impact Abkhazia since there was very little industry there. Alaexis_¿question? 15:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Coherence in terming

I see that for Kosovo, it is stated that it is a country, while, accoding to UN, it is a province of Serbia. Without entering the partisan discussion, and based on the Wikipedia definition of "country", I assume that the appropriate way to define Abkhazia, is that it is a country:

"A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.12.175 (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Abkhazia → Republic of Abkhazia – The article looks like a chaotic mix of different kind of informations about historical Abkhazia, separatist Republic of Abkhazia and Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. This looks confusing. The historical region of Abkhazia should have its own page Abkhazia (region) like Syria (region). Politically, there is separatist Republic of Abkhazia, and there is also Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. The world (except five rogue states) recognizes Abkhazia as territory of Georgia. There should not be priority given to separatist narrative. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should have its own article Republic of Abkhazia, where its history and controversy would be discussed. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should not be portrayed as heir to historical Abkhazia and the name Abkhazia should not be appropriated by it, this is violation of NPOV and FRINGE. Currently, the name Abkhazia is given to Republic of Abkhazia, because this article with the name of Abkhazia begins with the claim that Abkhazia is a partially recognized state. Why does not it begins with such text "Abkhazia is a region of Georgia"? This is violation of NPOV. Create separate article for separatist republic. This article Abkhazia should be disambiguous page, redirecting to separatist Republic of Abkhazia, Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Abkhazia (region). Most of the Wikipedia pages linked to this article are named Republic of Abkhazia: Georgian, Spanish, French, even Russian and Abkhazian wikipedia articles. Vnar123 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous comments in last RM. Common name/primary topic etc. Mellk (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly should Abkhazia necessarly mean separatist Republic of Abkhazia and not Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia? For this confusion to be avoided, the move needs to be made. Otherwise, the lead needs to be changed to be more neutral. Most of the states in the world don't percieve Abkhazia as a state, but as autonomous region of Abkhazia. Writing otherwise is violation of NPOV and FRINGE rule.Vnar123 (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Because in reality, the separatists are in control, hence most references to Abkhazia will mean this. Mellk (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

In reality, Russia is in control of affairs there. And most references don't say that Abkhazia is not Georgia. While saying Abkhazia, most of the references say that it is a Georgian region. Only small number say that it is independendent. While talking about separatist officials, they usually say "de facto Abkhazian officials" or "separatist Abkhazian officials" and such things to avoid confusion. De facto control alone does not everything since they are locked from communicating with the civilized world and are left to Russia only. They are not recognized de jure, which is notable thing. Vnar123 (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is just rehashing the same argument by the previous proposer in the last RM. If you have a new argument, then you can mention that. Mellk (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this sounds like a split request, and not a move request. WP:Proposed splits is for that purpose -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page is about Abkhazia as a territory, i.e. as described on page History of Abkhazia. Nothing prevents from creating a separate page, Republic of Abkhazia, which would be about the modern-day separatist unrecognized state (briefly described in a section of this page, Abkhazia#Republic_of_Abkhazia). My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per previous rm and wp:snow Abo Yemen✉ 18:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per previous RM. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a separate article. DrowssapSMM 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Until relatively recently something similar was practiced in the case of Kosovo where there were 3 separate articles on the partially recognised state, nominal Serbian province not in control of the area and the region itself. For some reason the practice was changed. I was not an active participants so I don't know all the details and reasoning used there but if you look further maybe you can identify relevant discussions and find something useful, applicable or relevant for this case as well.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

All the previous examples, such as Kosovo and China, were removed as they were essentially WP:POVFORKs. In those cases, and this one, the "region" was defined by the geopolitical region. CMD (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading toponym section

First phrase of the toponym section: "Abkhazia (/æbˈkɑːziə/ ^ⓘ ab-KAH-zee-ə or /æbˈkeɪziə/ ^ⓘ ab-KAY-zee-ə) is etymologized as a land of the soul" is misleading. Abkhazia isn't etymologized as a land of soul - Apsny is. Word Abkhazia is russified form of Apkhazeti which is thought to be of Kartvelian origin. Lemabeta (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section, lmk what you think. Alaexis_¿question? 20:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata links

Wikidata has one item for the Republic of Abkhazia here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q31354462 and a separate item for the region of Abkhazia here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23334

It looks like there are only 13 translations of Wikipedia (including the version in Russian, aka Русский) that have a separate article for each of those items. 160 other translations of Wikipedia (including the English version) only have a single article that covers both topics. My question is: should those 160 translations link to the first item or the second item? I'd suggest they should link to the first item, and I'd also suggest that for clarity the second item should be renamed to something like Abkhazia (region). Although I'm ok with having them link to the second item, if that's what other people prefer. But right now it looks like it's some of each. There are 16 translations of Wikipedia (including the version in French, aka Français) that only link to the first item. 135 translations (including the version in Portuguese, aka Português) that only link to the second item. 2 translations (including this version in English) that link to the first item but have a redirect that links to the second item. And 7 translations (including the version in Spanish, aka Español) that link to the second item but have a redirect that links to the first item. It looks like all the wikinews and wikivoyage translations (including the version in Portuguese) link to the first item only. - Burner89751654 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You likely have to ask this on Wikidata, figuring out how they differentiate the items. CMD (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

And don't forget d:Q2914461 which has strange English sitelink. Infovarius (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)