Talk:Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia

Georgian view

I understand that some Georgian sources question or even deny the existence of the Abkhazian SSR. I welcome any person with more information (read: sources) to add this to the article.sephia karta 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Official language

Look here at the extracts from the 1921 constitution of Abkhazia (chapter 2, article 6). For those unfamiliar with Russian I can translate it:

6. The language of the state institutions (государственных учреждений) is Russian. Note. All the peoples that inhabit Abkhazia have the right to freely develop and use their native languages both in their ethnic-cultural (национально-культурных - hard to translate) and in state institutions.

6. Языком государственных учреждений ССР Абхазии признается язык русский. Примечание: Всем населяющим ССР Абхазия национальностям обеспечивается право свободного развития и употребления родного языка как в своих национально-культурных, так и общегосударственных учреждениях.

So, strictly speaking, Russian was the only official language, however other languages have (per Constitution) basically the same rights. Alaexis 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. It's probabky best then to readd Abkhaz (and possibly Georgian), possibly with a footnote to explain the matter. sephia karta 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Alaexis 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Does this cite quoted in the article actually exist? http://www.rrc.ge/law/declar_1921_05_21_e.htm?lawid=112&lng_3=en - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move to Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic

It seems that given that the formal name for this (albeit short-lived) nation was "Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name. Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic. We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we? --Micahbrwn (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not part of USSR directly

Abkhazia joined to Georgian SSR in december of 1921. Georgia was part of Transcaucasian SFSR.

USSR was founded in 1922 (Russian SFSR + Ukrainian SSR + Byelorussian SSR + Transcaucasian SFSR).
Read this:

ДОГОВОР ОБ ОБРАЗОВАНИИ СОЮЗА СОВЕТСКИХ СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКИХ РЕСПУБЛИК
Российская Социалистическая Федеративная Советская Республика (РСФСР/Russian SFSR), Украинская Социалистическая Советская Республика (УССР), Белорусская Социалистическая Советская Республика (БССР/Byelorussian SSR) и Закавказская Социалистическая Федеративная Советская Республика (ЗСФСР - Transcaucasian SFSR: Советская Социалистическая Республика Азербайджан (Azerbaijan SSR), Советская Социалистическая Республика Грузия (Georgian SSR) и Советская Социалистическая Республика Армения (Armenian SSR)) объединяются в одно союзное государство — Союз Советских Социалистических Республик.

--89.31.88.212 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you argue that Abkhazia had the status of 'SSR' for some time? This justifies its inclusion in the SSR template. Alæxis_¿question? 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia was SSR as a part of Georgian SSR (which was a part of Transcaucasian SFSR) (1921). (before USSR was founded in 1922) --89.31.88.212 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Abkhazian SSR was part of Georgian SSR in 1921-1931 is an oversimplification. But it's irrelevant to this issue. As I've already said if Abkhazia had the status of 'SSR' for some time this should be mentioned in the template. Alæxis_¿question? 07:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

SSR not means "republic of USSR", that means kommunist power in the country. If you dont believe me, go to library and learn. --89.31.88.212 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Конституция Грузии от 1927 г. статья 83:

"Социалистическая Советская республика Абхазия в силу особого договора входит в Социалистическую Советскую республику Грузия и через нее в ЗСФСР".

(my translation)

The constitution of Georgia 1927. Article 83: "Socialist Soviet republic Abkhazia is a part of Socialist Soviet republic Georgia and through it is a part of Transcaucasian SFSR".

I've modified the template to make the status of Abkhazian SSR more clear. Alæxis_¿question? 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

“ 3. ССР Абхазия, объединившись на основе особого союзного договора с ССР Грузией, через нее входит в Закавказскую Социалистическую Федеративную Советскую Республику и в составе последней - в Союз Советских Социалистических Республик. ”

This is the quote from the 1925 Constitution of Abkhazia. It's rather interesting that "объединившись на основе особого союзного договора" ("[Abkhazia and Georgia are] united on the ground of the special treaty") was replaced by "в силу особого договора входит"("[Abkhazia is] part of Georgia on the ground of the special treaty") in the 1927 Constitution of Georgia. Alæxis_¿question? 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is no less interesting to note the 1924 constitution of the USSR (en) (ru) refers to Abkhazia as an autonomous republic. This should be mentioned in the article, no?

Btw, why are the Bukhara People's Soviet Republic and the Khorezm SSR (1920-24) omitted in this template? AFAIK, both these republics were associated with the Russian SFSR along the lines of Georgia-Abkhazia. Correct me if I am wrong. --Kober^Talk 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... I've read both articles you've given links to but I cannot say whether this situation is identical to Georgia-Abkhazia one or not. Thus I wouldn't oppose the inclusion of these republics but won't do it myself. Alæxis_¿question? 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, in case of Abkhazia it's written in the Constitution that it is part of USSR. I don't know whether the Central Asian republics you've mentioned considered themselves part of USSR de jure. Alæxis_¿question? 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Если "не знаешь", не надо редактировать статьи. Тебе пять раз написали ссылки на законы. Абхазия стала частью Грузинской ССР с 1922 года, через неё (тобишь НЕ непосредственно) вошла в Закавказскую СФСР, а позже ЗСФСР подписала закон об образовании СССР (вместе с РСФСР, БССР и УССР). Не надо пересочинять историю и впихивать в шаблон все административные единицы СССР. --89.31.88.212 (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Alæxis_¿question? 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no personal attacks (read again).--89.31.88.212 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

USSR republics template

The question is whether the Abkhazian SSR should be mentioned in this template and whether this template should be present in this article. This version of the template was supposed to make the status of Abkhazian SSR clear. Alæxis_¿question? 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's never going to be a good answer to this question. As the article states, the Abkhazian SSR's status was ambiguous, so there's no honest way to present it without going into the nuances. The problem is that nav boxes like Template:Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union are absolutely the wrong place to attempt to convey nuance - they are very much suited for "fast and dirty" information. My suggestion would be to leave it out of the nav box, but make sure that users who click on Georgian SSR or Transcaucasian SFSR have rapid access to high-level reference and links to the Abkhazian article. An alternative would be to turn the nav box into much more of a complete laundry list of SSRs, oblasts, regions, autonomous republics, etc, etc. You lose the narrow focus on full SSRs, but avoid ambiguity like this article raises. As always, this is merely IMHO. Ipoellet (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps the problem could be solved by including it at the end, and by giving it an asterisked explanatory footnote. The Transhumanist 02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why you wanna include? It's never been a republic of USSR directly (read the Constitution of USSR). It was a part (autonomus republic) of Georgian USSR and Georgia was a part of Transcaucasian SFSR before including in USSR directly. --Pianist 20:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. It wasn't an autonomous republic (see both Georgian and Abkhazian constitutions of that time) and it wasn't just a part of Georgian SSR although it was part of Transcaucasian SFSR "via" Georgian SSR. Imho giving the list of the components of the TSFSR in parentheses ("Georgian SSR with Abkhazian SSR, Armenian SSR and Azerbaijan SSR") makes the status of these entities clear to the reader. I think that the parts of TSFSR should be mentioned in the template because unlike another short-lived republic it wasn't demoted to ASSR but split into three constituent republics of the USSR. Alæxis_¿question? 09:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have told "It wasn't an autonomous republic". Look at this:

From Constitution of USSR 1923 (!): Автономные республики Аджарии и Абхазии и автономная область Юго-Осетия посылают в Совет Национальностей по одному представителю.

The autonomous Republics of Adjaria, and Abkhasia and the autonomous region of Osetia each send a representative to the Soviet of Nationalities

--Pianist 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no constitution of the USSR in 1923! Besides that constitution is not accurate in the sense that it does not actually list the individual constituencies of the republics, like the latter version of the constitution: e.g. the 1936 edition article 25: В Грузинской Советской Социалистической Республике состоят: Абхазская АССР, Аджарская АССР, Юго-Осетинская автономная область. --Kuban Cossack 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That is bill of Constitution (that should shows that Abkhazia always was autonomous Republic).

From Constitution of USSR 1924: The autonomous Republics of Adjaria, and Abkhasia and the autonomous region of Osetia, Nagornyi-Karabakh and Nakhichevanskaia each send a representative to the Soviet of Nationalities.

Constitution "is not accurate" - ROFL. Constitution is main law of USSR. --Pianist 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

user:Pianist ru

Recently created user:Pianist ru (either an SPA or a sockpuppet) has been going through and deleting only Abkhazia from articles and templates without discussion or rationale. I have reverted all such edits as POV vandalism until a valid rationale is put forth by Pianist ru. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Read constitution of USSR of 1924 a lot of times, then delete my contributions. --Pianist 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Раз неплохо знаешь русский: читай конституцию, додик, а потом уже откатывай. Есть это и в проекте 1923 года и в конечной редакции конституции СССР. --Pianist 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not a valid rationale-you must post it in your own words, explaining your own reasoning. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Посмотри наверх, лол. --Pianist 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the top of page... --Pianist 04:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion reqwest of the map "Soviet caucasus1922.png"

Some anonymous user put the map in a several articles in several languges. The map contains Ossetians in Trialeti alongside with SSR Abkhazia and South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. The last were Republics with official borders. Ossetian in Trialti is only ethnic claim. It is clear misleading. Geagea (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted border of Trialetian Ossetia from the map. Do you have any other objections to the current map version? It would be nice that you try to discuss problems and possible ways to solve these problems instead to delete my good-faith work from the articles and accuse me for "political agenda". PANONIAN 00:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that you dont have nor the knowledge to make maps and not the sensitivity to deal with dispute issues. Ostiens in Trialeti have nothing with the article about Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia. You can make ethnic map or political map. This is misleading. and the fact that you put the map in alot of articles in alot of languages is harassment. Geagea (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

First, see the source that I used: http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/84/Tsutsiev.jpg Second, what I made is a political map and my source claim that Trialetian Ossetia was an disputed territory, not an "ethnic territory", so I really do not understand what problem you have with this info when it is well sourced? Also, I hope that you noticed that this map show several territories of Soviet Caucasus from that time and it is not focused on Trialetian Ossetia, so the reason why I included this map into articles about Abkhazia and Dagestan is because map show borders of Abkhazia and Dagestan (and if you do not agree only with border of Trialetian Ossetia you have no single valid reason to remove this map from the articles about other subjects). And what "harassment" you speak about? I always put all my maps in all related articles in all Wikipedias, so again: if you have any other objection to this map, please tell me how I can improve it and I will do it. PANONIAN 00:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You only clear my point. You just trying to be "wise guy". Only for what you write her you have to remove first the maps from all the article in all the languages and discuss in tha talk pages. Anyway as I said, It is obvious that you dont have nor the knowledge to make maps and not the sensitivity to deal with dispute issues. Geagea (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not remove map from any article - map is useful and sourced and to remove it from the articles only because you say so is unacceptable. As for discussion in talk pages, I am trying to discuss the problem with you on this talk page and I asked you do you have any other objection to this map. I hope that you noticed that I corrected map in accordance with your objection about border of Trialetian Ossetia and I will accept all other constructive objection that you raise. However, attempts to insult me (claiming that I am trying to be "wise guy", that I have no knowledge to make maps, etc) or attempts to remove my work from the articles without explanation are not proper ways which one constructive Wikipedia user should follow. As soon as you start talking what you consider wrong in this map, we can solve possible problem and map can be corrected in accordance with your proposal. PANONIAN 10:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This map is clearly another anti-Georgia hysteria and plus complete violation of NPOV, its OR and biased. I will request its prompt deletion. Iberieli (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just rhetorical statement, Iberieli. Do you have any explanation why you think that this map is "anti-Georgian" or "violation of NPOV"? As for "original research" accusation, I created this map according to this source: http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/84/Tsutsiev.jpg - You will see that my map reflect data from that source and that it therefore cannot be an original research. PANONIAN 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be construed to be anti-Georgian, its just shows the historical location of the article's topic. Outback the koala (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from the map that "Trialeti Ossetia" was not a administrative entity (its borders are not marked in the way Georgian, Abkhazian etc are). It's the same situation as with Lori or Zakataly - it was a disputed territory (according to Tsutsiyev, at least). So I don't see any major problems with the map. Alæxis_¿question? 23:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I wanted to let everyone editing this article know that I have 19 photos taken in Abkhazia in 2014 uploaded to the Commons and available here should you have any need. Interlaker (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 19:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

An interesting subject matter. I'll take on the review, if there are no objections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Images:

• We need a much better PD tag for File:Lakoba Nestor.jpg than the one provided. We need to know exactly why the image is PD in both Russia and the US. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Done

It still needs a tag explaining why it is PD in the United States. Also, there has to be a sentence or so explicitly explaining why it is PD in the Russian Federation I appreciate that this is annoying but it is necessary. I'm not an expert on these things, but I did ensure that all of the images on the Vladimir Lenin article were fully sourced so you might want to take a look at some of those. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Think this is fixed now.

• File:Soviet caucasus1922.png is a nice image, but it really needs to be larger to enable the reader to appreciate it, particularly as the text in it is illegible at the current size. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a more cropped image of just Georgia, and increased the size of the image a bit, as well as modified the caption to make it clearer. Hopefully that helps make it clearer.

Prose:

In "Background:"

• "Abkhazia had been annexed into the Russian Empire in the early nineteenth century, with authority consolidated by 1864". This could read more smoothly in order to avoid passive voice. How about "The Russian Empire annexed Abkhazia in the early nineteenth century and had consolidated its authority over the region by 1864." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed

• "After the Russian Revolution, the status of Abkhazia is contested and unclear" - give the year of the revolution. Also, "is", or "was"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Added, and definitely was.

Do you think it might be improved if we added a brief few words about what the Russian Revolution was? For instance "After the 1917 Russian Revolution—in which Tsar Nicholas II abdicated and was replaced first by a Provisional Government and then by a Bolshevik-led regime—the status of Abkhazia was contested and unclear." This makes things a little clearer for those interested in Abkhazia but whom have little or no knowledge of Russian history. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Added a brief note about that.

• "Free from Russian rule in 1917 it briefly joined the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus, though this union did not last, and a so-called "Abkhaz People's Council" (APC) effectively controlled the region before it was nominally annexed by the Democratic Republic of Georgia when the latter was formed in May 1918, though Georgia never fully maintained control of the region, leaving the APC to rule it until the Bolshevik invasion of 1921". This is a very lengthy sentence and I think it woul dbe best to carve it up into smaller sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, and corrected what it said.

"Free from Russian rule in 1917 it briefly" needs a comma; probably best to put it after "rule". Also, "was formed and effectively controlled" would work better as "was formed which effectively controlled". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed this.

• "As part of Georgia, "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)," as it was written in Article 105 of the constitution, was promised autonomy for "the administration of their affairs;"[5] as the constitution was proclaimed after the Red Army invasion of Georgia in February 1921, it was an empty promise and what the autonomy would entail was never determined". Again, pretty lengthy. Worth cutting in two. I think that he first part could also run more smoothly if restructured. How about something like "Article 105 of the new Georgian constitution defined the area as "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)," and promised it autonomy for "the administration of their affairs"." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Reworded

I still think that there are problems with "Article 105 of the Georgian constitution guaranteed, "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)," autonomy for "the administration of their affairs."" In particular, there are issues with "guaranteed, "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)," autonomy", which does not read very smoothly. I think that my proposed wording works a lot more smoothly. Or perhaps "Article 105 of the Georgian constitution guaranteed "Abkhazeti (district of Soukhoum)"—as it was officially called—autonomy for "the administration of their affairs.""? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Reworded again

• "The constitution's one major achievement, however" - perhaps this is a little subjective. If it is Baluvelt making this claim, then maybe make that clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarified

"Scholar Timothy Blauvelt, however, contends" - I would get rid of the "however" and also it would be best if we specify what academic discipline Blauvelt works in (i.e. say "Historian Timothy..." or "Political scientist Timothy..." etc.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarified Blauvelt's title.

• "However the constitution was only proclaimed after the Red Army invasion of Georgia in February 1921, and so it was an empty promise and what that autonomy would entail was never determined". This could do with some tweaking, particularly in the latter third where it gets a bit clunky. How about "However, the constitution was only proclaimed after the Red Army invasion of Georgia in February 1921; the nature of the promised autonomy was never determined". Calling something an "empty promise" in Wikipedia's own words might raise some POV issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Changed this.

In "Formation":

• "The Red Army invaded Georgia beginning" - "invaded... beginning" doesn't really work. Also, we need to make clear who the Red Army are. Assume the reader knows nothing about the history of this region at all. Perhaps "The Soviet Union's Red Army launched its invasion of neighbouring Georgia on 15 February, 1921." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Took out the "beginning." However in regard to the qualifier for the Red Army, I have to note that it technically was just the "Red Army" at the time, as the USSR wouldn't be formed for nearly 2 more years. I agree it does make things confusing for those unfamiliar, but it is the proper name for the army without being anachronistic and wrong.

• The Soviet Union did not yet exist, but the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic did, so using "Soviet" would not necessarily be incorrect here. Perhaps "The Russian Red Army"? Again, I think we need to be cautious and not assume that the reader already knows too much about this period of time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I put the qualifier "Bolshevik-led" in front, as I think that may be the most accurate description for the Red Army.

• The section is flitting back and forth between American and British conventions for dates. Standardise (presumably to the British variant, as we are talking about the Old World?) Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Got the last one. Missed it in my first go over to convert to British.

• "the Revkom took" - who are they? We need to have a brief introduction at the very least. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Spelled out their name, should be clearer now.

There is now the situation where "Revkom" is mentioned in the first paragraph of this second, and then given its full name in the second. This needs to be switched. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.

• This section is very short. Is there not material in the Reliable Sources where we can flesh it out a bit more? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

::Will take a look, get back to you on that.

I did what I can, but there is really quite little to add in the formation aspect. I did combine the two paragraphs to make it look a little better, but am afraid that's about it.

• Lakoba is not mentioned in this section, so why is the picture of him located here? It would probably sit more smoothly further down. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved down.

• "would have to join" to "would join"; cut the "However". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

In Status:

• "reinforced in 1922 Georgian constitution" - a "the" is needed before "1922". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed

• "While united with Georgia Abkhazia joined" - add a comma after "Georgia". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed

• "done to consolidate control over the region". - to consolidate Soviet control? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, fixed.

• "created 1 April 1925, another right" - "created on 1 April" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed

In Politics:

• "Though he never took up a top position, Lakoba dominated the political rule Abkhazia as a personal fiefdom" - this needs some tweaking. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Reworded

In Economy:

• "considerably better than " - "better off than", surely? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed

• " Stalin visited annually" - Who is Stalin? I jest of course, but there may be readers unfamiliar with him. We need to be clearer on this: "The Soviet leader Joseph Stalin..." would be best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Linked his name and added title.

• "Only after Abkhazia was downgraded and Lakoba's death in 1936 that collectivization was implemented" - the structure of this sentence does not work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Perhaps "It was only after the death of Lakoba in 1936 and Abkhazia's downgrading that collectivization was implemented"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Reworded to be more accurate

• "a confident of his" should be "a confidant of his". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed

• When first mentioning "collectivization", include a link to Collectivization in the Soviet Union. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oops, forget that, I see that the link is already used further up the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• When we mention the Kremlin, add a link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Done

In Culture:

• "(14,045, or 7%, and Russians (6.2%).[" there needs to be a ")" after "7%" and why do we not specify the actual number of ethnic Russians, as we do for the other groups? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.

In Legacy:

• There's a big gap before the "Legacy" section which needs to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Could you clarify this

There was an actual physical gap between two sections (i.e. an area of blank space) but the problem has now been corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• "When Abkhazia declared independence in 1990, they used " - "it" rather than "they" if we are referring to Abkhazia as a nation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• " pretext for the 1992–1993 war, and the ensuing conflict" - I think that this could be fleshed out a little bit more, just to give a very brief overview of the war, who it involved etc. At present, the wording appears to assume prior knowledge on behalf of the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography:

• It would be good to have ISBN numbers when dealing with books, and DOI numbers when using journal articles. Not a prerequisite for GAN but a good addition to make nonetheless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• When including a chapter in an edited volume, it is best to include the page numbers of said chapter in the Bibliography. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

::Should be able to get the DOI for the articles, but ISBN may be an issue just due to my living situation right now (I'm about 10,000km from most of the books for the forseeable future). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Everything done here. A couple of the Russian-language books don't have ISBN's as far as I can tell. That may be a result of them being published in Abkhazia though. The Soviet encyclopedia articles as well, but that shouldn't be an issue. Everything else is covered.

More soon.

Thanks for reviewing. Should be able to go through all this in the next couple days, will let you know when I finish. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kaiser; if you could, leave me a message under each point if you disagree, or strike out my sentence if you have dealt with it. That way I can be aware of what has been dealt with and what has not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright went through and got everything except the note on expansion, which I'll take a look through what I have. Should have that done shortly though. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

After some time away from a computer, I should be back and able to take care of most of this in the next day or so. Just noting this so you don't think I just abandoned everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Got through most of the issues. Couple more to deal with. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Have now addressed everything here, and am ready for you to take another look. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede:

• Why only one paragraph? With an article such as this, we can definitely warrant at least two paragraphs, perhaps three. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Expanded it to cover everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• The purpose of the lede is to summarise the content of the article. At present, the lede does not even mention the topics covered in such sections as "Politics", "Economy", and "Culture". Ensure that there is at least one sentence in the lede that summarises each of these sections; more if necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Great work on the lede, Kaiser matias. Just a few extra points that I think would help smooth the prose in places:
  • "was a short-lived Soviet republic" - this is the first mention of "Soviet" but it not linked; it is only later that a link to Soviet Union appears. I think that the link should go at the first mention, or perhaps a link to Republics of the Soviet Union instead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Georgian SSR." - Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic? (At least on the first mention). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Throughout its entire existence" - I'd scrap the "entire". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "major producer of tobacco" - "major tobacco producer"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " for the Soviet Union, supplying over half of the USSR's supply" - the use of both "Soviet Union" and "USSR" may be confusing for some readers not familiar with the acronym. How about "over half of the country's supply"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Abkhazia was quite diverse ethnically" - "Abkhazia was ethnically diverse"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Got all those done. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Smashing, Kaiser matias - there's a few small points in the "Legacy" section that have not been addressed, but once that is completed then I will be very happy to pass this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Somehow missed those comments. Addressed them now. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: well done on all the hard work that went into this! It's an important contribution, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I should be thanking you here, not the other way. You provided some really valuable criticism, and helped to make this a decent article. Without that it would not have gotten that far, though I am quite glad its finished now. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

May 6 2020

@Kaiser matias: - can you please explain the reasons behind the rollback? As you can easily check from  the edit summary the question is not about military units, but to the entire assessment the The SSR Abkhazia was largely similar to an autonomous Soviet republic, though it retained de facto independence from Georgia, being given certain features only full union republics had, like its own military units. Which source speaks and uses the term [de facto independence]? --Melberg (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I can, but it will have to wait until later when I finish work. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume that the rollback should have also waited for that :)--Melberg (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll admit I probably shouldn't have read it better, and not done it first thing in the morning. But will be sure to address things properly. It should be in about 7 hours from this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Melberg: So I've taken a look at my sources. First I'll note that Saparov's book is key for detailing this, and unfortunately I don't have the specific chapter (the page range cited is currently blocked on Google Books, and libraries are closed). That said, looking at it I don't know if the specific phrase "de facto independence" is used by anyone, and that may have been my own wording, though I would contend it is an accurate assessment of the SSR Abkhazia. I'll quote Blauvelt from his "Abkhazia: Patronage and Power in the Stalin Era" article: On 31 March Abkhazia was declared independent from Georgia and nominally equal in status to a Union republic, a status that it retained until being joined with Georgia as a "federal republic" on the basis of a "special union treaty" (osobyi soyuznyi dogovor) in February 1922. (p. 207). Further I do have a partial quote from Saparov that furthers that assessment, in which he says that SSR Abkhazia having a coat-of-arms, military, constitution, and so on "...set Abkhazia apart from other Soviet autonomous republics, none of which had a constitution at that time. (p. 57).

The overall picture, as I have understood it from my time studying the region, is that SSR Abkhazia was given an unusually large amount of autonomy, especially in the person of Lakoba, but that was stripped away, and finally extinguished once he was killed. I realise it can be a contentious topic for Georgians and Abkhazians (and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are Georgian?), and I have no desire to take a side on the topic, but merely to present it in as clear and as informative as possible. That said if you have suggestions on how to modify the wording to improve on that, I'll certainly be interested in doing so, and welcome any efforts to better the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: to be honest Blauvelt's wording seems to be more coherent than the wording you use in the article, and I would suggest using nominal equality (since we have a source for it) instead of the de facto independence, which creates a wrong impression, especially considering that entire Caucasus was recently conquered by the Soviet red army. As for the ethnic background, I would not say that it has anything to do with this article, especially since I generally assume good faith from you and appreciate your thoroughness, even though vast usage of Hewitt in this article is regretful. --Melberg (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that may be a better word choice, and do think it would give a good description of what happened. And I certainly didn't mean anything malicious by suggesting you are Georgian, not in the least; it was more to confirm that you are someone who is more aware of the region and its history and significance, not that you have ulterior motives, so I'm sorry if I sounded accusatory. Lastly, I will agree using Hewitt is regrettable (I'm well-versed in his stance on Abkhazia and Georgia), but its an unfortunate reality that he is one of the few scholars to write on Abkhazia in English. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I fully understand that Hewitt is often the only source in English, and it is more a problem of Georgian historians than yours. I trust you to change the wording the way you find it appropriate. Feel free to get in touch if there is anything that I might be helpful with the articles regarding the region.--Melberg (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

All good. I made the change, but if there's anything else you think I'll be glad to discuss. It's nice to have someone else familiar with the subject here for sure. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)