Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Puppet state of Russia"

Despite recent political refutations by Sukhumi of proposals from Moscow (specifically a Russian proposal to annex Abkhazia in the future), it is generally accepted that Russia has immense influence over Abkhazian affairs. However, what is not generally agreed upon is how to label Abkhazia's status as "state" that is heavily connected to and reliant on Russia. Is it a puppet state like Vichy France was of Nazi Germany? Or is it a satellite state like the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was of the Soviet Union?

An anonymous user recently changed the parts of the lead and infobox to describe Abkhazia as a "puppet state". Whether or not this descriptor is valid is not up to editors to decide unilaterally as it would be original research, so I looked at the sources given to verify the change.

The first source provided is from thecommentator.com, a blog site, clearly not a reliable source. Even if it was, however, it does not describe Abkhazia as a "puppet state"; rather, it uses even harsher wording and describes Abkhazia as a Russian-occupied area of Georgia. The second source, a book by Céline Francis, actually speaks to the debate and uncertainty among scholars as to how to describe Abkhazia. In the page given, there is no mention of "puppet state" or "quasi-state"; Francis instead opts to use the term "de facto state" in her book, explicitly stating such. The third source from the BBC is not a news article by a journalist or the news team; it is a featurette of a photographer who travelled to Abkhazia. The only mention of a "puppet state" is from the photographer, not an academic or expert on the matter. Finally the fourth source is a blog post by a Russian thinktank, and the only mention of a "puppet state" actually contradicts the edit: "It is not fair to argue that de-facto Soviet states like Abkhazia are 'a Russian puppet state' ..." Regardless, this source would hardly qualify as a reliable source anyways.

If "puppet state" or "puppet government" is a common descriptor for Abkhazia, then it should not be difficult to find reliable sources that state such. The sources provided thus far by the anonymous user are either (or a combination of all three) unreliable, flat out contradict their edits, or just generally state what I mentioned in the first paragraph, the fact that Russia exerts great influence over Abkhazia due to the latter's geopolitical and historical circumstances (but not how this fact should be labelled).

For this reason I have reverted their edits and am asking them to provide reliable source(s) and/or a direct quote(s) verifying their changes from the one reliable source they provided, the book by Céline Francis. Yue🌙 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Puppet state is not a government type, you can puppet through different forms of government. Anyway, what this article could actually use is some information on what control Russia does have on the Abkhazian government. There's precisely zero on this in the Politics section, and one sentence with no detail somewhat misplaced in the Status section. CMD (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Joshua Keating (1 January 2018). Invisible Countries: Journeys to the Edge of Nationhood. Yale University Press. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-0-300-22162-6. OCLC 1005119575.
• Sebastian Relitz (22 July 2022). Conflict Resolution in De Facto States: The Practice of Engagement without Recognition. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-00-062300-0.
• Alaverdov, Emilia; Bari, Muhammad Waseem, eds. (29 October 2021). Handbook of Research on Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Conflicts and Their Impact on State and Social Security. IGI Global. pp. 263–. ISBN 978-1-79988-913-7. OCLC 1263248333.
• Nikoloz Samkharadze (18 May 2021). Russia's Recognition of the Independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. BoD – Books on Demand. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-3-8382-1414-6. OCLC 1222208046.

Moxy- 14:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Name

@Ercwlff: I'm not sure that the Encyclopedia of Islam really supports the statement in the Name section: Statement:

In various medieval sources the term "Abkhazia" was generally used in the meaning of Georgia.

Encyclopedia of Islam:

For all practical purposes the term Abk̲h̲āz or Afk̲h̲āz , in early Muslim sources covers Georgia and Georgians (properly Ḏj̲urzān , q.v.). The reason (cf. below under 2.) is that a dynasty issued from Abk̲h̲āzia ruled in Georgia at the time of the early ʿAbbāsids. A distinction between the Abk̲h̲ăzian dynasty and the Georgian rulers on the upper Kur is made by al-Masʿūdī, ii, 65, 74. The people properly called Abk̲h̲āz is possibly referred to only in the tradition represented by Ibn Rusta

So the source only says something about early Muslim sources (and then lists a couple of exceptions) which is not the same thing as 'medieval sources' in general. Considering that it's the Name section of the main article about Abkhazia, this seems to be unnecessary detail - we certainly can't describe all the usage nuances of the name of Abkhazia since the early medieval times in this section. I'd suggest to move this to the History of Abkhazia article. Alaexis_¿question? 17:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alaexis: It is not a nuance. That's what both given references show and both are credible. -Ercwlff (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so let's use the same wording that the sources use. Alaexis_¿question? 20:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

But clearly, not only the early Muslim authors did refer with Abkhazia to Georgia as a whole but later ones, Byzantines and Russians, too. Reread Lortkipanidze's paragraph that starts with "As 'King of the Abkhazians' came first in the title of the kings..." -Ercwlff (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Quite possibly. My point is different: the definition has shifted over time:

1) The Georgian kingdom in its entirety

2) Western Georgia - Kingdom of Abkhazia

3) Land to the west of Anacopia as on Vakhushti's map

4) Territory between Inguri and Psou

These changes are notable and should be covered in the article/section about the history of Abkhazia. What I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't be in the Name section which is supposed to give a concise overview of the modern naming. Alaexis_¿question? 09:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you calling our places “Abkhazia” “Tbilisi” “Batumi”. Use “Apkhazeti”, “Thbilisi” and “Bathumi”. It is phonological correct and, in my opinion, a very reasonable one. I am Georgian, we are calling them like that (Like, I understand not everybody is familiar to the way we are calling them, but if Kiev became Kyiv, Lvov became Lviv and Kharkov became Kharkiv, why won’t you do it now? ლუკააა (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And plus it was in 2014 when all started to call by autonym and not by exonym. It’s not right, because in August war, nobody was calling us as “Saqarthvelo” or calling our cities like “Thbilisi” “Bathumi” “Quthaisi” etc.

You were keep calling our countries as “Georgia” (alright, you can argue that every single european nation calls us by exonym Georgia because greeks told you about us (which are also european) ) “Tbilisi”, “Kutaisi”, “Batumi”, “Sukhumi” (but you were using names that russia was calling us to this day! You can’t argue on that!). ლუკააა (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Why you ignored us in the first place!? ლუკააა (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S:August war (2008) started before Russo-Ukrainian war (2014) ლუკააა (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are irrelevant. The relevant policy regarding name choices on Wikipedia is WP:COMMONNAME; i.e., whatever names are commonly used in the English language is what is used on Wikipedia. You are demanding that Wikipedia conform to one Georgian's specific preferences instead of the other hundreds of millions of English speakers. Yue🌙 05:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2023

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Schierbecker (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Abkhazia → Republic of Abkhazia
• Geography of Abkhazia → Abkhazia

– Like Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea, and Nagorno-Karabakh and Republic of Artsakh. The we need article about geographic area. Panam2014 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have updated the request to have the second line (Geography of Abkhazia → Abkhazia), as requested by the nominator below. SilverLocust 💬 11:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• We already have an article about the geographic area, at Geography of Abkhazia. CMD (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis: Geography of Abkhazia should be renamed Abkhazia and keep the article for Republic of Abkhazia alongside Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Geography of Nagorno-Karabakh and Geography of Crimea are redirections to Nagorno-Karabakh and Crimea. Panam2014 (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  It should not, in line with the practice across every relevant article. There have been similar discussion, eg. Talk:Taiwan/Archive 24#Requested move 11 December 2016. The examples you refer to in your initial post are broader concept geography articles, like Micronesia/Federated States of Micronesia, not polity geography articles. CMD (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  There are no separatists in Taiwan. Nor of war. There was the flight of an internationally recognized government to the island, a government which subsequently lost its international recognition. And now that it has lost this recognition Taiwan does not want to become Chinese and some countries support it, becoming a de facto independent state. For Abkhazia it is exactly the same as Artsakh or Crimea. Abkhazia is not just the separatist republic. Not only is it only recognized by a few countries allied with Russia, but the notion is also that of a disputed geographical territory.. Panam2014 (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  The articles you mention are not polity geography articles, as I noted, but if you do not appreciate the Taiwan discussion (some bold claims there) then you might instead appreciate the slightly older Talk:Kosovo/Archive 30#Requested move and Talk:Kosovo/Archive 30#Merge?. They cover the pointless duplication and other issues that can occur when article structure and setup is created for reasons other than the article contents and what helps readers. CMD (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is clearly incomparable. For Kosovo, I am not against two articles but the merger was made because Kosovo, although not a member of the UN, is recognized by a hundred countries. Here it is totally different. Panam2014 (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• (Autonomous) Republic of Crimea does not cover the entire peninsula. The breakaway state is probably also the primary topic, not the geography of the region. Mellk (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Solution looking for a problem, and unlike Crimea there's no ambiguity that we need to add extra verbiage for...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Mellk and Amakuru: See Republic of Artsakh and Nagorno-Karabakh. Panam2014 (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are different precedents, so this should be decided by its merits. It has not been demonstrated that the geography is the primary topic - something that the average reader wants and expects to see when searching for Abkhazia. Alaexis_¿question? 14:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's always a complex topic whenever a geographical region has the same name as an administrative/political entity, and it gets particularly tricky for Wikipedia when that administrative entity is not universally recognised. My main reflection is that geographical regions stay, while administrative entities come and go throughout history. It's perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion here, but I'd prefer to have, as a matter of principle, geography as separate from administration as possible. Crimea is a good example. Another example would be Catalonia: let's imagine Catalonia declares independence as some sort of Republic of Catalonia which doesn't get wide recognition. What should be the primary topic of Catalonia article: the geographical region on the Iberian Peninsula or the new political entity? I guess most editors would opt to keep these two topics separate, with the region being the primary topic. Same for the imaginary independent Scotland I guess. Par analogiam, I think that Abkhazia as a geographical region should be separate from any political entity that may be formed on its territory, and that the geographical region is the primary topic of the term "Abkhazia". — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Abkhazia isn't a geographical region, it's political. Its borders are defined by politics, not geography. The complexity in the geographical/administrative matters in this regard are the same as any polity, like the geographical entities of New York City, KwaZulu-Natal, and France. CMD (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  So, borders of what regions other than islands are not defined by politics? Catalonia, Scotland, Nagorno-Karabakh... their borders are a result of as much geography as politics. For reasons of neutrality, especially important in case of entities with limited recognition, I'm all for differentiating between these administrative constructs and respective geographical regions. That's how we have differentiated between Nagorno-Karabakh and Republic of Artsakh, among others. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally, Abkhazia is very much a geographical region. It's a precisely the region on the Black Sea inhabited, since antiquity (see Apsilae), by people self-identifying as Abkhazians and traditionally speaking the Abkhaz language. Whether the region formed part of the Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union or Georgia, it was called Abkhazia by the people living there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  There are a variety of potential geographic bodies, but the point is we don't differentiate in the suggested way between Scotland, Catalonia, France, Tokyo, Rio Grande do Sul, and so on, and their "respective geographic regions". If you want to talk of "among others", that is the normal way to handle these articles, see also the Taiwan and Kosovo discussions I linked above. Nagorno-Karabakh claims to cover a wider area than the very small Republic of Artsakh. As for the second comment, I don't understand it. People's language and identity aren't generally considered to be geographical features. Even if they did, the argument would similarly apply to Scotland, France, etc. CMD (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis: Nagorno-Karabakh and Republic of Artsakh have separate articles since years (before 2020). Panam2014 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  And here is the first edition from 2002, where the article separates the Republic's "most of the region" from the wider region. CMD (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think most references to "Abkhazia" are for the republic itself, rather than a geographical region. "Crimea" typically refers to the entire peninsula but the subdivisions themselves do not cover the entire peninsula. Mellk (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — Per WP:COMMONNAME. When a source references "Crimea" in the political sense, it may not be clear to readers if they are talking about the de jure Ukrainian government or the de facto Russian government. This is because up until recently (in the grand scheme of things anyways), the former was the governing body and thus there is significant coverage of the former. This is the same with Taiwan; when a source says "Taiwan condemns China" or something along those lines, there is no confusion as to which government is being referenced. When a source says "Russia meets Abkhazia counterparts", it is clear that the barely mentioned autonomous Abkhazian government under Georgia is not being referenced. Yue🌙 00:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  The proposer failed to mention it in the header, unfortunately, but they have simultaneously proposed to rename Geography of Abkhazia as "Abkhazia". — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Kashmiri and Panam2014: If Panam2014 would like to propose both moves at once, I can fix the template here to have multiple requests. For technical bot reasons, two requested moves cannot be opened regarding the same page (namely, in this instance, Abkhazia). SilverLocust 💬 08:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. They mentioned this second proposal in one of their comments above. @Panam2014? — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Kashmiri: I support the proposal. Could you do it? I am not good. Panam2014 (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  @SilverLocust, could you help? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Kashmiri and Panam2014: Done. SilverLocust 💬 11:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rather than using WP:OR to claim equivalence between distinct situations based on arbitrary standards, Wikipedia is supposed to solely rely on how most RS refer to a subject on a case by case basis. This means that the proposer does not give a reason for the move that is based on any policy or guideline. Also, neither Republic of Crimea nor Autonomous Republic of Crimea covers the entire Crimea region, which also includes Sevastopol and northern part of Arabat Spit as part of Henichesk Raion in Kherson Oblast. StellarHalo (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per Taiwan and Crimea cases. Both the Republic of Abkhazia and Georgia claim this area, Abkhazia, and we should show both claims in a balanced manner. --Whitekocher (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose — Per WP:COMMONNAME.... zero indication that people would be looking for a geographical area. Moxy- 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above comments. Mellk (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Further discussion of the claims that the proposed title better comports to WP:NPOV is required. Specifically, evidence of how reliable sources refer to the Republic of Abkhazia; do they refer to it without qualification, or do they make it clear that the region is disputed? BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: requesting more comments based on policy — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Abkhazia has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Georgia (country) has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and per @Moxy Abo Yemen✉ 16:27, 17 August 2023 (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.

History section

The history section is far too long for SUMMARYSTYLE and it duplicates (literally) the content in the article History of Abkhazia. The text needs to be condensed to meet SUMMARYSTYLE.  // Timothy :: talk  01:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Worked on Abkhazia#Early history and Abkhazia#Within the Roman / Byzantine Empire. Significant unsourced content, tagged since August 2021, should be removed unless sources are provided per WP:V, WP:BURDEN.