Talk:Abkhazia conflict

message: I have a small problem with the article. At the end of the second paragraph of the subtitle called 'History of the Conflict', there is a word 'boevysk'. I cannot find any information about this word. I think there can be some transliteration problem while transliterating it from Russian or Georgian or Abkhaz language to Latin alphabet. Also if there is an information about this word in the article, it would be better. If someone helps me, I will be happy. I'm also interesting in Caucasian politics and Georgia specifically. I hope in near future I will make some contributions to the articles related with Georgia. Thanks for those who involved in the creation of this article.
[User: anil erdinc] 8 June 2006 11:50 UTC +2
Hi. "boyevik" is a Russian word for "militant" or "fighter" sometimes used in modern English to denote the members of rebel or unlawful military formations. --Kober 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Question

message: The article as it now is presents the war and all the major events related in chronological order. However this doesn't promote the understanding of the causes of the conflict and doesn't give any clue for the stance of the parties and the role of foreign mediators. I believe that new sections should be created under the titles "Conflict Mediation", and a short "Profile of the parties" as well as a description of the "Current 2006 situation" regarding the conflict settlement. Donnerstag 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Complete falsehood. I have studied Soviet Constitution during my studies at York. There is no single chapter on self determination by Autonomies (both republic or "oblast"). Only Soviet Socialist Republics had right to hold a referendum and determine the question of sovereignty or independence. Abkhazia has never been a Soviet Socialist Republic. She had no rights based on Soviet constitution to separate from the Soviet Republic of Georgia (CCP Gruzija). Many times Soviet leadership tried to change that article in Soviet constitution in favour of autonomies self determination but they failed to do so due to many factors (both juridical and political). Please don’t mislead the public and maintain NPOV. Noxchi Borz 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Very well. We should mention that in the justifications for independence. It sounds pretty accurate. But do you know of any reference on this (online or text, doesn't matter) so that we can give a citation? Donnerstag 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems accurate. I did a google search, see http://www.c-r.org/accord/nk/accord17/d05.shtml -Donnerstag 12:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On reworking the article

message: In order to make it more expanatory, I have tried to summarize ideas expressed from some international scholars here:
The Abkhaz Side
For the Abkhaz side collective memories of suppression from Georgian during the Soviet rule, cooperation of Georgian elements with Russian oppressions in 19th century and more importantly the element of fear that has survived after the Stalinist policies of Georgianization justify a tendency for demands of full independence. 
The maximal—and the only expressed—claim of the Abkhaz people is secession or full independence. The solution they propose is that of two sovereign states. The status of the relations with Georgia, are not clear in their proposals, but the minimum requirement of any solution is the guarantee of independence (Cornell, 2002). Back in 1991, in one of the last attempts for power sharing before the armed clashes begun, a new electoral law on the allocation of seats in the Abkhaz parliament was accepted by Abkhaz leaders and Gamsakhurdia, but soon failed. The attempt failed then because both sides never abandoned the aspiration of monopoly of control over the territory of Abkhazia. Georgians justified their claims as that of the democratic majority; Abkhazians used the argument of autochthony and the need to correct the historical injustice, to justify their claims. Gamsakhurdia never truly believed in the arrangement but accepted it in order to close an open front and concentrate his efforts on the conflict with South Ossetia. The Abkhaz authorities accepted it is a concession giving further rights to their ethnic group (Coppieters, 2001).
Both Abkhaz government and opposition oppose any reunification with Georgia under any circumstances. To them the only plausible solutions would be either full independence or at other times associate membership of the Russian Federation. Since October 1999 when they declared their independence they haven’t moved from that position. In unofficial discussions reported by Coppieters, Kovziridze and Uwe (2003) Abkhaz leaders expressed their preference for a model of distribution of competences based on the sovereignty of the units, something like the association of the Marshall Islands with the United States, that would provide Abkhazia with full international legal personality and the right to secession. In the discussions, “some Abkhaz expressed the opinion that democratization—not reunification with Georgia—was the first priority for Abkhazia. Such a reunification was viewed as rendering the task of democratization more difficult” (Coppieters, Kovziridze and Uwe, 2003). Some Abkhaz officials supported the idea that declaring independence was the last resort as the Abkhaz proposals before and after the war were met with a counterproductive stance by Georgia.
Footnotes
#Coppieters, Bruno, Kovziridze Tamara and Leonardy, Uwe. (2003), “Federalization of Foreign Relations: Discussing Alternatives for the Georgian Abkhaz Conflict, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Caspian Studies Program, Working Paper Series, No. 2.
#Coppieters, Bruno. (2001), “Federalism and Conflict in the Caucasus”, Central Asian and Caucasian Prospects, Royal Institute of International Affairs.
#Cornell, E. S. (2002), “Autonomy as a source of Conflict: Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Pespective”. World Politics, p. 245-76
Please tell me your suggestions or corrections. Donnerstag 22:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Complete falsehood. I have studied Soviet Constitution during my studies at York. There is no single chapter on self determination by Autonomies (both republic or "oblast"). Only Soviet Socialist Republics had right to hold a referendum and determine the question of sovereignty or independence. Abkhazia has never been a Soviet Socialist Republic. She had no rights based on Soviet constitution to separate from the Soviet Republic of Georgia (CCP Gruzija). Many times Soviet leadership tried to change that article in Soviet constitution in favour of autonomies self determination but they failed to do so due to many factors (both juridical and political). Please don’t mislead the public and maintain NPOV. Noxchi Borz 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Very well. We should mention that in the justifications for independence. It sounds pretty accurate. But do you know of any reference on this (online or text, doesn't matter) so that we can give a citation? Donnerstag 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems accurate. I did a google search, see http://www.c-r.org/accord/nk/accord17/d05.shtml -Donnerstag 12:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new section on the Abkhaz side

message: #BBC News. (2005), “Regions and Territories: Abkhazia”. <www.newsvote.bbc.co.uk>
#Black, J. L. (2004), “Vladimir Putin and the New World Order: Looking East, Looking West?” Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., Oxford, U.K.
#Caucaz Europe News, (2005), “Timeline of the Presidential election of Abkhazia in October 2004. <www.caucaz.com>.
#Chauffour, Célia and Francois Gremy. (2005), “Abkhazia is too frequently regarded as a devoted Russian doll” Caucaz Europe News. <www.caucaz.com>.
#Chauffour, Célia. (2005), “Abkhazia: Victory of the frontrunner Sergey Bagapsh on the elections held on January 12th, 2005”. Caucaz Europe News. On 13/01/2005 <www.caucaz.com>.
#Cornell Caspian Consulting. (2002), “The South Caucasus: A Regional Overview and Conflict Assessment, Conflict and Security Assessment”.
#Evers, Frank. (2003), “Mission Information Package South Caucasus”, Centre for OSCE Research, Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg.
#Goor, Luc, Van de and Martina Huber. (2002), eds, “Mainstreaming Conflict Prevention: Concept and Practise, CPN Yearbook 2000/01, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden.
#Hewitt, George. “Post-war Developments in the Georgian-Abkhazian Dispute”.
#International Security Network, (2005), “ISN Security Watch January 2005”.
#MacFarlane, Neil, S. (1999), “The Southeast European Challenge: Ethnic Conflict and the International Response” / Hans-Georg Ehrhart, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verl. Ges.
#---. 	(2002), “Reassessing Conflicts in the Caucasus Region”. Mainstreaming Conflict Prevention.
#Mackinlay, John and Cross, Peter. (2003), “Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping, United Nations University Press
#Sabanadze, Natalie. (2002), “International Involvement in the South Caucasus”, European Centre for Minority Issues, Working Paper # 15.
#Socor, Vladimir., (2004), “From Geneva to Sochi to Dead End in Abkhazia”, Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 1, Issue 81, September 09, 2004, Jamestown Foundation.
#Stewart, Susan. (2003), “The role of the United Nations in the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict”, Mainstreaming Conflict Prevention.
#UNOMIG. (2005), “Statement for the Press High-level meeting of the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General”, Geneva, 7-8 April 2005. <www.unomig.org/press/050408/main.asp
#---.    (2005), “United Nations Involvement”, Online background note. <www.unomig.org>
Donnerstag 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More references for future use 

message: His article said it was "crucial".
: we'll get there. We will slowly add more info on the subject. Thanks for reminding. Please review the article soon. This article missed many crutial parts. Thanks again. Ldingley 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is being edited by Donnestag, Kober and me. We will add more info as time will allow. Please do not remove reliable data from the article. If you wish to contradict the claims made in the article, please state your arguments backed up by reliable sources (primary and secondary) or/and applicable documents. Let’s keep this article as NPOV and avoid any POV statements or changes. Thanks in advance  Ldingley 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a word about involvement of Basayev? 

message: What is "not NPOV"? Wiki-linking words? Or maybe calling a paramilitary fighters by name, instead of "civilians"? (If so, do you mean civilians mentioned later among casaulties all meant a guys with grenades and machine guns?) Please explain. --HanzoHattori 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please review all Wikipedia guidlines, especially NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and POV sections (Personal Point of View) and go by the pillars of Wikipedia. You are stating POV claims (without using any reliable sources). Where are your sources for such claims? Those are your POV opinions, which are not suitable or exactable for any Wikipedia article. Do not change any info based on un-sources, POV, biased claims which contradicts Wikipedia rule on NPOV. Also please review 3RR rule which limits you to only 3 rv a day, otherwise you will be locked out for 24 hours. Ldingley 23:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd advice you to be more constructive in the discussion and not to attack other users.--Kober 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't belive that HanzoHattori is informed enough to make changes in this article. Dear friends, rv his changes on this article ASAP.  Sosomk 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck are you talking about? 

message: There must be a short outline of both Abkhaz and Georgian profiles. The previous one was full of POVs. Please make your suggestions before i draft the outline. Thanks Ldingley 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Profile of the Parties

message: All sentences about executions and atrocities must be backed by references. You promised to provide references, I know. Please start from these. `'mikka (t) 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Sir! I'll do as you said. I agree, all talk about executions, atrocities, etc, must have references. That’s why i tagged the article. Ldingley 18:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative facts require reference 

message: The article now occurs biased because it says nothing about real roots of the conflict. I don't know anything, but  frankly I don't believe that the main reason was pure separatism and Soviet manipulation.  Usually all these stories are rooted in real or perceived discrimination of a minority. The article bypasses this issue completely. I am repeating: "real or perceived". `'mikka (t) 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find a source about "minority discrimination" in Abkhazia before the war, you are welcome to edit the root cause. From all sources which I have researched, I found: 1. There was no ethnic hatred, bad blood between Georgians-Abkhaz before Soviets established their rule in Georgia. The problem started with the issue of separatism and further escalated into violent separatism. Before you say biased, please tell us how biased it is and what sources say otherwise. Ldingley 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reluctant to be involved here, but sorry man, you did your homework poorly. There was political discrimination. It looks like you have been reading mostly Russophobic sources, which is probably not your fault. `'mikka (t) 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im sorry but you make empty accusations against me. All of my sources are reliable and mainly western. Please refrain from attacking me based on your opposing views on the topic and respect NPOV. Also review sources which are available and based on proper research make additional changes and edits on Abkhazia related articles. I will keep monitoring your changes in order to comply with Wiki rules on NPOV Ldingley 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  BTW i was in Abkhazia prior, during and after the conflict. Please stop making insults and review Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks. Ldingley 21:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wrote "it is not your fault". Of course Western sources tend to be russophobic. BTW, judging from your temper, I woud think that you are rather Tengiz than Luis. Chill. `'mikka (t) 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen Mikhail, please refrain from POV statements and violating NPOV. Nobody in Tbilisi was protesting for dissolution of Abkhaz autonomy, also what nationalists? The ones who were massacred by Soviet army on April 9 and most of these massacred were 17 year old woman? This is not a place for Russian propaganda. I want to ask you again to maintain NPOV, research the topic well and present sources to support your claims. So far, you have failed to provide any source, reference and based on your edits its an obvious that you only intend to manipulate data and implement your POVs. Your comments will be rmeoved. Please see the tag aboveLdingley 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Mikhail, thats a personal attack: "judging from your temper, I woud think that you are rather Tengiz than Luis" Ldingley 22:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So are you saying that calling you Tengiz is an insult?  `'mikka (t) 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roots of the conflict 

message: Well, I'd ask all users to maintain a sort of status quo here until we find a final way how to develop the article. Let's discuss even a single word before its inclusion in the text. 
Ldingley has got a plenty of resources and documents related to the conflict and I think he is the best authority here on this particular issue. 
I'd like also to remind our Russian colleagues that this is a very sensitive area and it would be really great if they refrain from posting the comments that are offensive to Georgians.--Kober 05:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking 

message: *defend their city -> defending the city
Defening is just better grammar, their somehow imply that it was not Abkhaz. That is POV
*unrecognized region -> unrecognized state
Abkazia is recognized as a Region it is not recognized as an independent state
*result of the Military conflict was a victory of separatists, recignition could not be obtained via military victory
I have removed the following phrase Russia's aim was to create a conflict moment in order to justify its army in the soviet republic and to keep Georgia away from its Pro-EU and Pro-US political purpose to have closer relations with West not with East (Russia)., since it looks like an ungrammatical POV rant, out of place in the article and having no sense in particular. abakharev 09:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex, you seem to be more netrual than others. How do you define a state? --Georgianis 11:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Gamsakhurdia never recognized Abkhazia's independence. In 1991, he concluded with Ardzinba and Co a power-sharing agreement that granted to ethnic Abkhazs more power in the autonomous structures. This change in the election law did not satisfy either Georgians (who were in majority and thus offended by the agreement) or Abkhaz. --Kober 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By any means that "political construction" is not a state.--Georgianis 11:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging anonim version 

message: Dear Alex, from where did you get this false information? "Abkhazian separatists supported Zviadists and Zviad Gamsakhurdia at that time recognized independence of Abkhazia " Can you please provide sources and references for such a claim? Also please try to gather all available sources from various documents and when adding something to the article, refer them in the Bibliography or Notes. Please consider to use both primary sources and secondary. I understand that this issue is very sensitive for Russians but trying to implement information which is far from reality is unacceptable for any user. Thanks a lot for your valuable contributions. Ldingley 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mistakes

message: I propose you the following formulation: "Unrecognized Abkhaz authorities".--Georgianis 07:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unrecognized region -> unrecognized state 

message: It's more WP:NPOV the title like this. Actually it's about the Russian-Georgian war in Abkhazia. In Georgia, Russian support for Abkhazian separatists and its manipulation of rebellious Georgian forces under former leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia brought President Eduard Shevardnadze to his knees and compelled him, in October, to join the CIS and, in early 1994, to sign a friendship treaty with Russia. The next wide-scaled bombings of Sukhumi by Russian military aircraft has happened on February 20-th, 1993. This coincides with the intensification of political fight for power between various parties in Tbilissi. The pretext of bombing was the next provocative cannonade by the forces of junta in direction of the military seismological laboratory of Russian troops in Eshera, near Sukhumi.--Georgianis 07:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title change: '''Georgian-Abkhaz conflict''' --> '''Russian-Georgian war in Abkhazia''' რჟხ

message: The coast between Sochi (today in Russia) and Suchumi, the capital of Abkhasia, is full of sea-side resorts and beautifull long sand-strands - as well as datachas of former Soviet politicians and high military officers. Many of locally based Russian-generals disliked the idea of losing their possessions here, and this appears to have been one of main reasons for their support of Abkhasians in this conflict. This, in turn, is also the reason why the Abkhasian war against Georgia is sometimes called "The War of Datchas".Georgianis 07:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The War of Datchas"

message: The war and the associated Caucasian terrorism in Russia resulted in growing intolerance and racist violence in Russia, directed in a great part against the people from Caucasus. Even while the Russian authorities are unlikely to label attacks on people with dark skin as racist, preferring calling this "hooliganism", a report in November 2005 found that murders officially classified as racist more than doubled in Russia between 2003 and 2004 from around 20 to at least 45. 
A nationwide opinion poll in 2005 found that 61% of respondents approved of the "Russia for Russians" slogan, almost twice the 31% level recorded in 1998.  According to the 2006 poll by the Public Opinion Foundation, 12% of Russians see "positive ideas" in fascism; 24% think that people who hold fascist views do not constitute a danger to society. --Georgianis 09:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you mention this here, your xenoPOV. After kicking all russians from Georgia you telling that russians are too xenophobic. Russians are not more or less xenophobic than any other nations. But I expect even less than some nations, because we have more than a 100 nations living with peace in Russia. Alexandre Koriakine 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rise of racism and xenophobia

message: Alex, please just don't blind revert. Thank you. --Georgianis 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, taking into account increasing imperial tendencies in Russia and interests of well-known destructive forces, trying to increase their influence in the region, situation can be become more and more dangerous and harmful to the western interests also. Similar tendencies in other former Soviet republics (i.e. in Azerbaijan) shows this evidently.
Please don't blind revert. --Georgianis 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blind revert

message: [moved to a subpage a few megabytes of text, pasted from an outside source] --Irpen 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the megapaste from above to a subpage at Talk:Georgian-Abkhaz conflict/War and Secession. The reasons are explained at User talk:Georgianis#massive pasting. --Irpen 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You should read it since it's a great material. Of course it's presenting the "Georgian POV" in some view of other colleagues, that's why was moved in another place. It's too much offending for them. -- Georgianis  |  (t) 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "War and Secession" book 

message: Dear all,
There is a problem with repetition and overlapping.
As per WP:REF#How to ask for citations I have moved an uncited statement here:
"The alleged aim of Russia was strengthening it's military control on Black Sea shore, depriving Georgia it's north-western territory with the help of Moscow supported separatist forces (which were striving not to independence, but to maintaining Russian control on this strategically important region of Georgia)."
On the first clause, the point is made later so no need to be in the text. 
The clause in parenthesis is in my opinion a bold assumption, and much worse, it's unquoted. If it's an allegation of the Georgian government or somebody else it should be made clear. 
Donnerstag 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Georgians had therefore to conclude that they had effectivelly lost not only the best part of their army during the fighting in 1993, but also control over Abkhazia: while this is not recognized internationally as an independent country, it is meanwhile de-facto established as an independent territory – to a large degree due to deployment of Russian Army “peacekeepers”, who ever since control the administrative border between Georgia and Abkhazia. To make matters worse, in the late 1990s the Russians improved their relations to Abkhazia, and Moscow meanwhile brought several new laws, enabling "other countries" to become members of the Russian Federation.  This move was obviously undertaken as an offer to Abkhazia, and should was considered as quite sarcastic by many in the West, given that simultaneously the Russians are undertaken whatever they can in order bring down Chechen separatism. http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_282.shtml Georgia and Abkhazia, 1992-1993: the War of Datchas By Tom Cooper, Sep 29, 2003,
#It should be put in quotation marks. 
#The words I emphasized have been added. Tom Cooper didn't say that in his text. So it needs to be verified to stay in the article, otherwise quote only what Cooper said.
Donnerstag 23:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues concerning section Russian role in the conflict 

message: There is a whole section of the dedicated to the second fall of Sukhumi (when it was taken by Abkhazians) and to the atrocities committed in its course. On the other hand the first fall is described as follows:
On August 14, 1992, Georgian police and National Guards units were dispatched to protect railways and restore an order in Abkhazia. The fights broke out the same day. On August 18, 1992, the separatist government left Sukhumi. Georgian government forces managed to take control of most of Abkhazia. 
Meanwhile, that's just two quotes of the HRW's report about it , chapter HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN THE FIRST WEEKS OF HOSTILITIES:
Within days after Sukhumi was taken by Georgian National Guard troops, and as additional Georgian forces flowed into the city (including the Mkhedrioni), a pattern of vicious, ethnically based pillage, looting, assault, and murder emerged.62 Although some of the victims in Sukhumi were Georgian, the city's Abkhaz residents were the main victims during this period of the conflict. No one disputes that all sides engaged in high levels of criminality
...
The pattern that emerges from refugee testimony taken by Human Rights Watch is one of gross intimidation by Georgian forces for the purpose of terrorizing, robbing and driving the Abkhaz population out of their homes. 
I think that more information should be added about this period of fighting. What about splitting the "History" section to "History" itself and "First two months of the conflict"? Alaexis 15:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do assume the good faith of the other editors.Alaexis 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall of Sukhumi #1 

message: I've finally written what I wanted about the beginning of the conflict, so now there are 2 more small questions. "Maliuk" is Slavic surname, how can he be an Abkhaz? By the way, is this story from  "Annex to the Report of the UN Secretary General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia; Proposals for political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict" or from somewhere else?Alaexis 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That what was written in the UN annex. Ldingley 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Abkhaz Vladimir Maliuk? 

message: Could you provide some information about this cease-fire (preferably in the net)?Alaexis 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceasefire of September 3 

message: I was bold to change a bit this article. Now we have this article for the overall conflict and War in Abkhazia for the 1992-1993 war. Much like Ethiopian-Somali conflict and Ogaden War. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: also see on War in Abkhazia is stated: "part of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict"--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article change 

message: The paragraph in question has nothing to do with the section it was inserted to (Abkhazian War). I also don't think that this info should be here at all as it tells nothing about the Georgian-Abkhazian relations. I'd say it belongs to History of Georgia article. Alæxis¿question? 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks more or less fine at 1024*768. But the Russo-Georgian relations infobox may be moved down the article probably... Alæxis¿question? 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation 

message: The revision may have been plagiarism but it was an interesting read nonetheless. It is my belief that the articles related to Georgia's conflict with Abkhazia and South Ossetia are far too tilted towards Georgian POV. I believe we should add sourced information to this and other related articles in wikipedia that also demonstrate the POV in that revision. To remain NPOV we need to provide all POVs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my belief that the articles related to Russia's conflicts with Georgia over Abkhazia and S. Ossetia are far too tilted towards Russian/separatist POV. I believe the discriminatory policies of current regimes in these regions and Russia's own interests are downplayed in all articles related to these conflicts. To remain NPOV we should discourage POVs (e.g., his descriptions of the Georgian people as "fascists" and "terrorists") provided by trolls like user:Scandalli7 and focuse on reliable published sources rather than referring to "enlightening posts" by other users.--KoberTalk 05:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lool... I just looked through Scandalli's article and found it a refined piece of crystal balling and puerile "political analysis". We are suggested that "the process of national (the author meant "ethnic" I guess, K.) consolidation of the Georgian nation is still far from complete" and Georgia faces "Kakhetian demands for autonomy"; "Georgia's control over Javakheti" appears to be only "nominal"; Stalin is reported to have been a "Georgian lobby"; etc. If this article is supposed to be "interesting" enough to be cited in the article, then we will have to find its equivalent pro-Georgian pieces of propaganda.--KoberTalk 06:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned before, Scandalli's revision looks like a plagiarism from someplace, I would add that it looks well sourced. It does use Hewitt as one of the sources and I know your opinion on Hewitt however not everyone shares your opinion. What I found most interesting in the article is the assertion that Russia only really started to be pro-Abkhazia during Putin's time. Intellectually this makes sense as we are talking about Yeltsin here. The same Yeltsin who seemed to bend over backwards in order to appease the west and also let Nato bomb the Serbs to kingdom come without really lifting a finger. Sure there may have been arms going into Abkhazia as well as mercenaries from Russia and volunteers from the northern caucasus however that really only shows the general lawlessness in Russia at the time. This is what I find missing in wikipedia articles as wikipedia articles generally describe Russia as being the bad guy from the start and Georgia is the poor victim. Not enough emphasis is given to the neutrality or pro-Georgian behavior of Russia at certain times of the conflict as well as the rabid nationalism in some quarters in Georgia at certain times. For example, weren't the slogans at certain times "Georgia for the Georgians" as well as decribing certain ethnicities in Georgia as "guests" vs others as "hosts"? Just to add as well, I have seen other sources describe Georgia's hold on Javakheti as being partial during certain periods in the 1990's. Note that the people don't need to be in rebellion in order to for the government to have partial hold, it could very well be that perhaps there is frequent protests/rioting, strikes, refusal to pay taxes for example, or perhaps a mafia that in many ways supercedes the government. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, there were Russian military forces, Russian arms, even Russian airplanes, but somehow you want it to look like Russia was not pro-Abkhaz or anti-Georgian. If that in your mind isn't a "bad guy" then I shudder to think who is.(PaC (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I simply don't understand what you are trying to prove here Poco. You just dumped out a bucketful of anti-Georgian clichés used in Russian media. Do you think by repeating them often enough they will become less POV?(PaC (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Russian media anti-Georgian clichés might those be? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision by [[user:Scandalli7]]

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I think this needs more historical background.  The underlying conflict probably didn't start in 1992. Superm401 - Talk 12:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current conflict has its roots in the 1917-1921 conflict, and in the Soviet period there have been events (like the 1978 mass protests) that still need articles. For sources, see e.g. Derluguian http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=uciaspubs/research sephia karta 13:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found this very very useful recourse: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/heiwa/Pub/E21/contents.pdf sephia karta 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism 

message: While the text in the intro is sourced and all that, it has a fairly strong anti-Abkhazian bias and I think it needs to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. Thefamouseccles (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro needs reworking 

message: The infobox links to War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)#Russian role in the conflict, in which the Russian role in the Abkhazia war of 1992–1993 is discussed. But Georgian–Abkhazian conflict covers not only 1992–1993 events, also 2008 South Ossetia war and current events too, that make Russian Involvement in the conflict quiet clear. –BruTe Talk 09:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the problem with my latest version: 
Before 2008 it was not that simple: such facts as transfer of arms to Georgia prior to the 1992-2993 war, evacuation of civilians from Sukhumy by Black Sea Navy, economic blockade of Abkhazia after the war are well known and referenced in the appropriate articles. Alæxis¿question? 20:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

text: OK, I reverted the page back to you version, but left the current flag of the RF in the article. I think, now it's ok. –BruTe Talk 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian role in the conflict 

message: :Georgian–Abkhaz conflict →  – This is always done in alphabetical order (Arab–Israeli conflict, Chechen–Russian conflict, Georgian–Ossetian conflict, Iraqi–Kurdish conflict, Israeli–Lebanese conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, ect.).
P.S.  would also work. Charles Essie (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abkhaz–Georgian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902055417/http://www.humanite.fr:80/2008-08-28_International_Jacques-Sapir-La-Russie-a-ete-poussee-a-changer-d to http://www.humanite.fr/2008-08-28_International_Jacques-Sapir-La-Russie-a-ete-poussee-a-changer-d
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830231326/http://unomig.org:80/data/file/840/RFE_RL_INTERVIEW.pdf to http://unomig.org/data/file/840/RFE_RL_INTERVIEW.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123214158/http://www.interfax.com.ua:80/eng/main/25516 to http://www.interfax.com.ua/eng/main/25516/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607163702/http://abkhazeti.ru/pages/main/warabkhazia.html to http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/yett_caucasus/mccallion.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://abkhazeti.ru/pages/main/warabkhazia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Abkhaz–Georgian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110215012229/http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/176_abkhazia_today.ashx to http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/176_abkhazia_today.ashx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917010019/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/ga10708.doc.htm to http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/ga10708.doc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024051558/http://www.abkhazia.com/content/view/172/63/ to http://www.abkhazia.com/content/view/172/63/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?groupId=252038&uuid=9a93a8fa-c31b-f8de-82f4-b0442b45cacb. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 10:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: :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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Abkhaz–Georgian conflict →  – Well, appereantly it is not just Abkhaz-Georgian but Abkhaz-Russian-Georgian conflict since Russia is directly involved as a side and party (at least since 2008, arguably since the beginning of the conflict), not just as a supporter. Appereantly there is not just ethnic conflict but very important political conflict between Russia and Georgia which the article does not pays due attention to. So the Abkhazia conflict name illustrates situation much precisely. Moreover, we already have similar names to similar articles, such as Cyprus problem, where Turkey is involved in a similar way to Russia, and Transnistria conflict where Russia is involved in a similar way (although it is officially involved there less than in Abkhazia conflict). Moreover, there is WP:COMMONNAME rule which orders to use the most common name for Wikipedia articles. Appereantly most common version is Abkhazia conflict, it has most search results (1 300 000 for Abkhazia conflict, 164 000 for Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, 232 000 for Abkhaz-Georgian conflict), in books too (96 500 for Abkhazia conflict and much fewer for others). Additionally, per WP:CONCISE which orders to use most concise names, Abkhazia conflict is much more concise and better. Fodrid (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 November 2023