Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

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

Encyclopedia of Islam:

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

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

@Alaexis: It is not a nuance. That's what both given references show and both are credible. -Ercwlff (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so let's use the same wording that the sources use. Alaexis¿question? 20:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But clearly, not only the early Muslim authors did refer with Abkhazia to Georgia as a whole but later ones, Byzantines and Russians, too. Reread Lortkipanidze's paragraph that starts with "As 'King of the Abkhazians' came first in the title of the kings..." -Ercwlff (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite possibly. My point is different: the definition has shifted over time:
1) The Georgian kingdom in its entirety
2) Western Georgia - Kingdom of Abkhazia
3) Land to the west of Anacopia as on Vakhushti's map
4) Territory between Inguri and Psou
These changes are notable and should be covered in the article/section about the history of Abkhazia. What I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't be in the Name section which is supposed to give a concise overview of the modern naming. Alaexis¿question? 09:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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


In the introduction it is written

Georgia, which views it as autonomous republic

but a few lines below,

the Georgian government and [UN] consider Abkhazia legally part of Georgia

which seems contradictory. — MFH:Talk 14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not at all contradictory. Georgia's definition of "autonomous republic" is synonymous with "autonomous region", i.e. a province with some limited home-rule that is ultimately subservient to the supreme sovereign state, that being Georgia in relation to Abkhazia. Georgia claims the territory of Abkhazia as the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia", defined as an internal subdivision of the Georgian sovereign state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral term to characterise the legal status[edit]

As an interesting discussion is going on Republic of Artsakh talk page about the sensitivity of the terms applied to political entities with limited recognition, wanted to check here:

1) is there a perceived difference between "self-proclaimed" and "breakaway" terms applicable to Abkhazia?

2) is there a prevailing opinion that "self-proclaimed" would be a neutral enough term to use for Abkhazia?

3) is there an appetite for an RfC to allow choosing a unified, more neutral terminology such as "partially recognised state" or a state with limited recognition"? --Armatura (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we are starting to push what constitutes a state with these articles. Abhkazia is a quasi-state at best; it has a government, economy, military all 100% dependent on Russia. It has no independence in any way shape or form, even its inhabitants nearly all have Russian passports and the region has undergone heavy russification. The article should reflect this. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many states and quasi-states are dependent on other states, that is not a defining criteria. Russian influence and passportisation is reflected, as is the economic integration. CMD (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not in the lede it is not, as I tried to rectify with this edit. Yes all states are dependent to some degree on one another, but without Russia Abhkazia would not exist in such a form, and is solely reliant on Russia, which makes it different. They have absolutely no independence or independent functions at all, which is less power than even most sub-national administrative divisions have around the globe. The term quasi-state isn't even the lead, it makes it out to be a legitimate independent state, and its very far off that by any criteria or reference applied.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead reflects the existing situation, and your assertions relating to independence and the nature of statehood are incorrect (sources on Abkhazia-Russia friction are easy to find, [ eg.). It is hard to read the lead as implying the state to be legitimate or independent, given the very first sentence points out the de facto nature and then doubles down by noting the lack of recognition. Such treatment is standard across similar articles, and reflects sources such as the one linked. CMD (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abkhazia is indeed incredibly reliant on Russia, but I believe that it has a mild degree of legitimacy (not as a sovereign entity, but as a distinctive region) due to its unique history and identity, particularly involving the Abkhaz ethnic group. Abkhaz are indeed distinct from Georgians to a certain degree. The degree of distinction is disputed. Compared Abkhazia to Donetsk/Luhansk, both of which do not possess a unique identity in relation to Russia in particular. It is clear that Donetsk/Luhansk are parts of the Russian ethno-national sphere of influence, whereas Abkhazia is notably distinct from both Georgia and Russia in its ethnicity and nationality. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: It is incorrect to compare the Republic of Artsakh to the Republic of Abkhazia. Artsakh is recognized by all UN members as part of Azerbaijan and so has no recognition at all, but Abkhazia is recognized by at least one UN member and thus has limited recognition. --Abrvagl (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not really true. Abkhazia is recognised by just five UN members, which is still not many. Five is more than zero, but that's still not a massive jump considering that there are 193 UN member states in total. Generally speaking, Abkhazia and Artsakh are frequently compared with one another since they are both successor states (with disputed statuses) of the Soviet Union. They are both regarded as post-Soviet de facto states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit of a necro, but here goes:
1) A breakaway state (republic) is a state that has ostensibly broken away from a larger state, which is referred to as the parent state. By all accounts, Abkhazia is indeed a breakaway state both in respect to Georgia and the Soviet Union. (Note: Some might argue that it is not a breakaway state in relation to Georgia, but it's hard to argue that it isn't a breakaway state in relation to the Soviet Union.)
2) A self-declared (proclaimed) state is a state that has declared itself to be sovereign or independent (note: it's not necessary for a state to declare independence per se, just that it exists as a sovereign entity). By all accounts, Abkhazia has indeed declared itself to be independent or sovereign, at least the "Abkhazia" that we consider to be the state/government in question (obviously, there are opposing forces both inside Abkhazia and inside the rest of Georgia that oppose Abkhazian independence).
Ostensibly, this means that Abkhazia is simultaneously a breakaway state and a self-declared state. As for whether Abkhazia is a state with limited recognition, that's debatable since not everyone agrees that Abkhazia is indeed a state. As someone else has pointed out, Abkhazia could be considered a quasi-state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Puppet state of Russia"[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Puppet state is not a government type, you can puppet through different forms of government. Anyway, what this article could actually use is some information on what control Russia does have on the Abkhazian government. There's precisely zero on this in the Politics section, and one sentence with no detail somewhat misplaced in the Status section. CMD (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Joshua Keating (1 January 2018). Invisible Countries: Journeys to the Edge of Nationhood. Yale University Press. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-0-300-22162-6. OCLC 1005119575.
  • Sebastian Relitz (22 July 2022). Conflict Resolution in De Facto States: The Practice of Engagement without Recognition. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-00-062300-0.
  • Alaverdov, Emilia; Bari, Muhammad Waseem, eds. (29 October 2021). Handbook of Research on Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Conflicts and Their Impact on State and Social Security. IGI Global. pp. 263–. ISBN 978-1-79988-913-7. OCLC 1263248333.
  • Nikoloz Samkharadze (18 May 2021). Russia's Recognition of the Independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. BoD – Books on Demand. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-3-8382-1414-6. OCLC 1222208046.
Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"officially the Republic of Abkhazia"[edit]

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

The article about Crimea is about the peninsula itself, the administrative division articles are Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Mellk (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding on to that, the de jure Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has its own article: Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Yue🌙 21:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]