Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 2

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

message: Hi Tasc before editing, please review the archived discussion about attaching separatist to the de facto term. Based on numerous sources, we have all agreed that current so called "government" and regime in Abkhazia is separatist. Please try to avoid POVs and let’s stick to NPOV. Otherwise state and present sources which contradict separatist status of Abkhazian regime. Thanks. Noxchi Borz 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the term de facto without further clarification is much confusing as the legal government of Abkhazia still continues to exercise both de facto and de jure control over the southeastern corner of the region known as the Kodori Gorge.--Kober 17:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Totally agree. You need definite clarification of so called de facto rule of Abkhazia which was taken by separatist forces. Noxchi Borz 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  de facto separatist 

message: The ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia is a well-documented fact. With all due respect, tasc, you have a strong anti-Georgian POV. I've seen it before on the Sochi talk page. --Kober 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, unfortunately, Tasc has strong bias towards Georgian articles and he jeopardises the integrity and truthfulness of Wiki articles. I only hope that he will stop implementing personal or nationalistic agendas on Wiki and respect the main pillars of Wikipedia, NPOV. So far he has demonstrated otherwise. Ldingley 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  tasc, if you add the tag, you should make a note on the talk page explaining your reasoning.--Kober 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Recent changes to the stable version of article initiated by anon ip led to highly pov version. Threats of some editors made it impossible to edit page and maintain NPOV. -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stable doesn't mean neutral. The text shouldn't be unbalanced and blatantly pro-separatist. Perhaps you would like to point out what specific part of the article you find non-neutral?--Kober 17:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was stable and it was neutral. -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Hey Noxchi. It’s a pity to see that there are only a few users interested in this article. Yet we can cooperate to improve the quality of the current version. First of all, I think we should abridge the history section which is becoming too long and create a separate article on the History of Abkhazia. For the sake of compromise I agree to change the words like "massacre" with more neutral expressions, or at least we can use the wording how the UN and OSCE describe the events. Tell me what you think. Thanks, --Kober 17:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Kober, great idea. We can start working of History of Abkhazia article with the help of sources from western scholars (Lang, Wardlop, Allen, Andersen, Mc'Killen, Blair, etc). As for massacres. Please review the book by Chervonnaia, Svetlana (Russian journalist witnessing the events). She called those crimes as massacres and also Human Rights Watch. "Georgia/Abkhazia: Violations of the Laws of War and Russia's Role in the Conflict." Published March 1995. I will also gather all UN and OSCE resolutions on Abkhazia like they did on Nagorno-Karabakh article. But its up to you, you may change the term "massacres" but judging from many reports, they were massacres (specially in Sukhumi and Gagra). Cheers. Ldingley 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, Noxchi. Then I will start the History of Abkhazia article and put it on wiki in a few days. I'm not well-versed in the legal issues and it will be really great if you can focus on that. If most sources consider those events massacres (and they really do) we should obviously keep exactly this sort of description. Thanks again - respect. --Kober 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking 

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

message: We need to shrink the article. Its becoming too big and it would be good if we transferred the chapters like "Abkhazia Today" and "Future of Abkhazia" into the Politics of Abkhazia article. Also we will have separate page for History of Abkhazia. Please make your suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ldingley 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you OK with the current size? It is 34K. This is about average for many other "Country"-type articles. However, a History of Abkhazia is a must and I have now made one. I just moved the text. Someone else should not shorten the section in the main article. - Pernambuco 14:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can try and shorten it, but I prefer someone who knows more about the history to pick what the main points are. For the summary to keep in the article. I am just a newcomer to these unrecognized countries. I am still learning. - Pernambuco 23:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too long 

message: The article states that the atrocities committed by the Abkhazian side were worse than those committed by the Georgian side and this is supported by a link to a book. If possible I would additionally like to see reference to reports from international (human rights) organisations, as this is a very bold statement. Sephia karta 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No comparisons of atrocities. 10 killed babies is not better than 1000 killed babies. This was already discussed in the main article in the topic: Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. `'mikka (t) 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atrocities committed by the two sides 

message: There is no evidence that Russia wants to incorporate Abhazia.I'll edit that section.Dimts 12:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Don't you rememeber the passionate statements by by the State Duma memebers and the 2005 attempt to pass a law on admission of new subjects of the RF? However, I agree to temporarily remove the passage until the proper references are found. Regards, --Kober 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

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

message: This is what is written now:
In the chaotic aftermath of defeat, almost the entire non-Abkhazian (mainly ethnic Georgians) population fled the region by sea or over the mountains escaping a large-scale ethnic cleansing initiated by the victors
For a person unfamiliar with this issue it may seem like Armenians, Russians, Jews and other non-Georgian and non-Abkhazian inhabitants of Abkhazia fled fearing the ethnic cleansing by Abkhazians. As far as I know that was not the case and the main reason for the departure of Russians and other people was the economic hardships. Anyway, I would like someone to provide the appropriate reference to the sentence in question.Alaexis 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my interpretation. It sounds like everyone left except for Abkhazian population. Was that not the case? if so, improve on it! I don't know a lot about this subject. - Pernambuco 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It definitely was not. The non-Georgian and non-Abkhazian population (mainly Russians and Armenians) as a rule supported Abkhazians against Georgians during the war. I suppose they rather wanted to be part of Russia than Georgia. After the end of the war Abkhazia obviously expirienced very hard times in economic sense. The Russians who were mainly city-dwellers and did not have the advantage of family (clan) support were hit the hardest. So quite naturally a lot of them emigrated to Russia (as well as many Armenians and Abkhazians). The exact after-war statistics is unavailable with the figures varying greatly. By now I don't have time to provide the necessary references so I'll just change a bit your contribution.Alaexis 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escaping the ethnic cleansing 

message: Hi, 
As I said before, I thought that the table of Abkhazia was going pretty confuse. So I changed from the old one (to the right) to the new one (to the left).
In fact there’s not so much new infos on the new table; the main difference is the presence of the national symbols used by the Unionist Government nowadays. And the former infos were rearranged in a neater form, separating the geographic aspects from the political ones.
Well, that’s it. Feel free to discuss, and eventually edit it.--MaGioZal 08:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! You have a very good point and your suggestion is worth to be discussed. The article needs to be seriously updated. I'll try to shorten the history section ASAP. Thanks, --Kober 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New main table 

message: Someone using a Turksih ISP has altered the “Official language” status of the separatist government in Sukhumi to just “Abkhazian” because in its stating “(russian language is not official according to CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ABKHAZIA ( http://www.abkhaziya.info/GOS/GOS3.htm ))”. Well, let’s check it:
 ARTICLE 6. The official language of the Republic of Abkhazia is Abkhazian. The Russian language as well as the Abkhazian language shall be recognized as the language of the government, public and other institutions. The state shall guarantee all ethnic groups living in Abkhazia the right to use freely their own languages.
So, as we can read the conclusion is that yes, the Russian language has a co-official status in the Abkhazian separatist-controlled territory. And as we can see in a lot of websites and many testemonials, the “De facto” main language of Abkhazia, used by the government and the people that remainded there after the war in 1993, is Russian.--MaGioZal 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: I suggest this page be split into 3 parts. One for the Republic of Abkhazia, one for the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and one for all things general to Abkhazia that don't directly relate to either of the two governments. Sephia karta 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one has anything to comment I will go ahead with this and expect such an edit not to be reverted immediately. Sephia karta 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for replying late. Your proposal does have merit but it I'm afraid it will create a great confusion for readers. --Kober 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? How would this be more confusing than similar set-ups with Western Sahara, Korea and Taiwan? All 3 articles would start with a short explanatory note linking to the other two articles. If anything, this would introduce more clarity, keeping things separate that are separate and following the practised principle of Wikipedia to devote seperate articles to seperate political entities. Sephia karta 13:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trifurcation of this page? 

message: We at Combat Films and Research believe that these episodes of our weekly CFR-TV are relevant and informative.  We request that an unbiased editor have a look at our episodes to verify that it relates to this page, and if it is found relevant, for an external link to our content to be placed on the article.  This page is static and there are no plans for it to be changed.
http://www.combatfilms.com/cfrtv_archive_0011.asp
http://www.combatfilms.com/cfrtv_archive_0012.asp
:I have replaced this for a reason. Several people keep attempting to add links to this company's films. So that the editors here don't have to constantly revert them, please explain here — as a matter of record for later archival purposes — why these links are inappropriate for this article. While it may be spam for Combat Films to post a link to its own site here, this is not necessarily true for other editors. Askari Mark | Talk 04:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links to Combat Films & Research videos 

message: The term "de-jure" and sseparatist are extremly subjective in a situation when the whole area was devolved from the Soviet Union based on imposed boundaries. The "de-jure" government may in fact be internationally recognized, but it's hardly a "government" at all and is generally regarded by those of Abkhazian nationality as collaborationist. 
This article should mention both points of view from a neutral position. I have therefore added a POV tag. Scott Adler 07:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get your point. "De facto" and "De jure" are not subjective names, but legitimate terms used by the UN. There are two infoboxes in the article: one for the de facto authorities, and the other for the de jure government. Furthermore, the "de facto" one goes first. Doesn't this mean that the both sides are represented from a neutral position? --Kober 07:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also deprecate the POV tag. The issue of "de facto/de jure" and "separatist/unionist" has been discussed here at length. I invite you to withdrawn the POV tag until you have at least read the relevant commentary. If you then still feel these terms are unwarranted, please recommend others which you feel are NPOV before adding a POV tag to the article again. Askari Mark | Talk 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Not very active here, so this is for the experienced editors to discuss: It is POV to give the two governments equal weight if that isn't the reality in Abkhazia. My understanding is: One has control of 99% of the area. The other one has a small village in the gorge. In the article's infobox, these two are listed next to each other on the same basis. This is POV because of the weight. The right thing to do is to revert to the infobox which was there before, and then put a link on it: "See also: De facto government of Abkhazia". To a separate page. Please discuss. - Pernambuco 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. First of all, the de jure government enjoys an international recognition and controls not only a small village, but almost 20% of Abkhazia though this territory is scarcely inhabited. Secondly, I don't think that the two governments are given equal weight in the article and the "de facto" infobox goes first. The article's intro explicitly states that the secessionist authorities control most of Abkhazia including the regional capital. Elimination of the infobox for the de jure government wouldn't make the article more neutral, IMHO. Thanks, --Kober 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with Kober. The presence of the two infoboxes does not imply POV through "equal weight" so much as it admits to there being a complicated state of affairs in Abkhazia. Having both a "legitimate" de jure and a "legitimate" de facto government is certainly just that.  Furthermore, trying to explain the history and reality of this fact would require more than 1% of the article. Balance here should not be measured by "weight of text" so much as "evenhandedness in approach". -- Askari Mark | Talk 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I asked about this exactly one month ago and it looks like there are no objections or strong opinions on this, so I am o.k. with the current approach and will not change it, it was just something that I wanted to point out and let others discuss. And I thank you for doing so, thanks. Pernambuco 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another POV: Equal weight 

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

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

message: What should we write in other articles about or mentioning places in Abkhazia, about where they are located. Are they in Abkhazia, or in Georgia, or in Abkhazia, Georgia’s breakaway region, or in Georgian autonomous republic of Abkhazia, or defined some other way. All those have been used on Wikipedia city articles, I can see. How to write in city articles? How to write in lists of places or in articles about people where we don't want a too long definition. Probably a controversial issue. -- BIL 23:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Since it is such a controversial issue, we have to have too long definitions to maintain NPOV, imo. For the sake of neutrality, we should mention both de facto and de jure statuses of Abkhazia. Regards, --Kober 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Abkhazia, Georgia’s breakaway region" is ok, imho. I can't think of any shorter term. Alaexis 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "Abkhazia, Georgia's breakaway republic", since that's what it is, a republic, and I don't believe that there is serious dispute about its being a republic. Sephia karta 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I find acceptable any of "Abkhazia, Georgia's breakaway republic", "Abkhazia, de jure part of Georgia" and "Abkhazia, de facto independent" sephia karta 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to write in other articles about or mentioning places in Abkhazia 

message: My goodness, have certain "unbiased" editors done a number on wikipedia. Wow, what they lack in skill, they make up for in SPAM. First off, this is an article about Abkhazia, not the political status of Abkhazia, which is de-facto Russian and de-jure Georgian, (in fact it's Russian but on the map it's part of Georgia). If you guys want, start up an article on the politics of Abkhazia/Georgia and spam away. But seriously, claiming that "Georgians and Abkhazians live in peace and then come the meany Russians and wreckie wreck everything" is pathetic, especially when Abkhazians are pointing out that they were opressed by Georgians. Also, this article is about the land of Abkhazia, not about Mr. Saakashvili or about his "feelings" towards Abkhazia. It's like that dumbass who wrote about Politkovskaya's murder when discussing Russian Duma elections of 2004. It's not related! This isn't a political article. So I have a suggestion: take the politics out, and make that a new article; that way when someone wants to invest in Abkhazia and check it's Demographics, he doesn't have to read all the bullshit you, "honest" editors wrote. Thank you.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.32.85 (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abkhazia land of [insert something here] 

message: * Has Wikipedia become the mouthpiece of Mr. Shakashvili ?  Why are you deleting the POV immediately, without trying to convince us about your definition of labelling people as "secessionist" just because they have preferred "independence" from Georgia in democratic elections; since Georgians have tried to assimilate them since the rule of famous (!) Georgians Stalin and Lavrenty Beria ? What are you trying to hide in this 21st century ?
*This article is clearly biased. Why are you using the word "secessionist" throughout the article for people who want to be "independent" ?  The ABKHAZIAN people do not want to live under Georgian control and they have proven this fact in democratic elections time and again. Who can blame them if they are fed up with Georgians like Stalin and Lavrenty Beria ?
*They have seen how Georgia has cancelled autonomy of another previously autonomous region, ie. Adjara, after their elected leader Aslan Abashidze was removed from power after Georgian intervention. \\mk
ABHAZIA, LAND OF GEORGIA. 70% OF POPULATION- MEGREL (GERGIAN). EVEN BAGAPSH'S (HEAD OF SELF PROCLAIMED REPULIC)IS MARRIED TO MEGREL. IT IS NOT ABOUT ETHNICITY, THIS CONFLICT IS ABOUT CAPITALISM OR COMMUNISM? GOT IT?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.14.58 (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abkazia land of Abkhazians 

message: Aerobird and I have created the beginning of an article on the Abkhazian Air Force based on the limited information available to us. I'm sure some of the editors here have access to better and more extensive information, and we invite your contributions! Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest we keep the article but strip any propaganda from it Buffadren 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abkhazian Air Force 

message: Hello, as an outsider to this article I would just like to point out that the first paragraph is both lopsided and contradictory.  I would recommend something a little more NPOV.  Abkhazia is a disputed territory within the borders of the Republic of Georgia.  Rather than claiming it is a defacto republic.  I would also point out that since there is a conflict on-going in Abkhazia the page should be tagged to reflect that.  On this same point I would remind users to be careful of Recentism.  Please don't make an edit unless it can be verified.--Cailil 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I thoroughly disagree with you here. There is nothing contradictory in the opening paragraph, its information is factually true (according to the sources, though Gnome(G) doesn't agree with this) and it is NPOV. Stating that Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic is merely an observation about the situation on the ground, and it does not in any way qualify this situation in terms of right or wrong. sephia karta 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy, I'm sorry, but I think you are being too bold when challenging the internationally accepted sovereignity of Georgia over its lawful territories (in this case Abkhazia). Just a friendly advise: don't expose yourself to Ruskii propaganda for a long period of time. This will severely damage your brain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.72.136.161 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cailil, it's rather "de facto independent republic" than "de facto AND independent republic". The latter indeed makes no sense. What on-going conflict did you write about? Alaexis 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm surprised you've found that this article fails to reflect this conflict (which is dormant, fortunately). Sections 'Political status', 'Politics', 'History' and 'International involvement' thouroghly cover it. Alaexis 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I suggest this ---Abhhazia is a seperatist region within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia that has declared itself an independent country. This de-facto independence has yet to be recognised by the international community and its sovereignty is a matter of intense conflict and dispute with Georgia. Buffadren 13:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think some people here won't like the word 'yet' in your variant. Myself I think the current version is good enough and need not be changed. Alaexis 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, avoid use of the word yet and just change to this: "Abhhazia is a separatist region within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia that has declared itself an independent country. Its de-facto independence is currently not recognised by the international community and its sovereignty is a matter of intense conflict and dispute with Georgia" Pernambuco 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is it better than current version ?? Alaexis 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pernambuco. Following a series of debates, a very similar intro has also been agreed upon in the Transnistria article and I find it pretty accurate and neutral: "Transnistria... is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in eastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence as a separate republic...", etc.--KoberTalk 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is hardly a good argument. Look at Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland articles. There the intros resemble the current one here. I'm not really against the change, I just don't see the reason behind it. I don't think changing for the sake of changing is a good idea. If anyone is unhappy with the current intro please give some arguments. Alaexis 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am forced to agree with Alaexis, he is right, there is no good argument for changing, I support Alaexis and withdraw my proposal Pernambuco 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  an outside opinion 

message: The article states that "Abkhazia is well known for its beauty and contrasting landscapes." I take issue with that statement. Who is it well known by? By what scale is this measured? I reccomend the sentence be deleted. The next sentence is descriptive and NPOV. "The landscapes of the region range from coastal forests (endemic pine forests near Bichvinta/Pitsunda) and citrus plantations, to eternal snows and glaciers to the north of the republic." K 46R A 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, it's not Sleeping-Beauty Land or Switzerland. Buffadren 13:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well known? 

message: So I've made a small gallery of images found on WikiCommons and elsewhere. More photos are definitely needed so please feel free to upload them. One shouldn't forget about copyright of course and this stuff can be qute time-consuming :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alaexis (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. The photos are much needed and look great, but I think it would be better if we included them in the corresponding articles (eg Sokhumi, Gagra), not here.--KoberTalk 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of them are originally from other articles (i. e. New Athos ones). However I don't think we should remove anything from here. Consider Georgia, Wales or Spain article galleries. I fully agree to post them to their corresponding articles as well. Alaexis 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the galleries in the Georgia, Wales, and Spain articles are excessive as well.--KoberTalk 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: :::: Ldingley,can I nicely ask you to please stop inserting the 'Ethnic Cleansing' words into the article, this is not Kosovo page. I am not POVing I am trying to remove 'Ethnic Cleansing' type hysteria from this page. I trust the other editors here support this. If not please advise. Buffadren 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have just done some research and there is an Ethnic Cleansing Page dedicated to Abkhazia,  Could our 'Pro Reality'  Mr Ldingley be right? Maybe I owe him an apology?. When I removed the 'Ethnic Cleansing' words from the main space he accused me of POV editing To me the term 'Ethnic Cleansing' have a special place in certain wars and this is not one of  them. On research It appears that this editor has more than a POV on this subject. It was he that CREATED the Ethnic Cleansing page itself.. I do not want to be hard on you here but please do not RV me for POV when clearly you yourself have a very strong POV. I propose the 'Ethnic Cleansing' words to be deleted. We all accept there were tragic cilivian casulties but this was not a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing as suggested.   Buffadren 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Buffadren, what are you talking about? It was exactly what an ethnic cleansing campaign is called and it is recongnized as such in the OSCE resolutions. The ethnic cleansing of Georgians was a deliberate policy aimed at changing the region's demograhic situation. Do you really think that the Abkhaz could have broken away in the presence of the Georgian majority of 300,000? What you call 'Ethnic Cleansing' type hysteria is actually a strong collection of facts. If anything, there are numerous sources for that. --KoberTalk 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Kober, not quite right. The majority of republic's poptlation was non-Georgian in 1989 and, consequently, supported Abkhaz during the conflict. Regarding the issue itself I'm neutral. The fact is that the majority of ethnic Georgians left the reptblic after the war. How to nmame it is the matter of choice. Alaexis 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Civilians get killed in wars, soilders often wipe all in their paths, but there is a difference between military conduct violations and outright Ethnic Cleansing, Even the sanctimonious self-considered OSCE would not consider itself a nuetral in the dispute. Buffadren 14:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There has not been a single person charged or convicted with Ethnic Cleansing in Abkhazia and if people like you with short horizon vision continue to push this here nobody ever will be. Buffadren 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Avoid any personal attacks against me and consult sources. I don’t see any point further continuing discussion with person who can’t communicate in civilized manner and engages in vandalism. I have been researching this topic since the start of the war and have traveled there numerously (including during the war). But im not obliged to prove anything to you.  Ldingley 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Nobody is attacking you. I  strongly urge you to listen to reason. What you are writing consitutes as an infringement of rightful due process under international law.  Buffadren 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Alex, your reference #14 has a problem, it damages the footnote section. Please see if you can fix it. It happaned to me before but i cant remember how to fix it. Best. Ldingley 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to do. I've tried to remove those three references but it didn't help, then I reverted to earlier edit and it still did not help :( Alaexis 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've found the problem. It was my fault. I'll soon restore everytjhing. Alaexis 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done it. Alaexis 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, thanks a lot. Ldingley 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Here is text that ends the political section and I think it is too long. I suggest reducing the wording without reducing its substance. Also it is a bit weassel worded.
:The United Nations and other international organizations have been fruitlessly urging the Abkhaz de facto authorities “to refrain from adopting measures incompatible with the right to return and with international human rights standards, such as discriminatory legislation… [and] to cooperate in the establishment of a permanent international human rights office in Gali and to admit United Nations civilian police without further delay.”[11]
Perhaps this version,
::The United Nations and other international organizations have urged the Abkhaz authorities to; refrain from using  measures  that interfere with people's right to return, not to use discriminatory legislation, and to facilitate an human rights office in Gali, and to admit UN civilian police.[11]Buffadren 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten This