Talk:Sukhumi/Archive 1

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was not enough support for move. Jonathunder 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Sukhumi → Sokhumi – Most reliable sources n the world call it Sokhumi as well other well known encyclopedias. [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]]. CIA, National Geographics and all these sources call it Sokhumi. Please move it to the proper link. Sosomk 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Strong SupportAny resistance against the move is meaningless. Sosomk 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use English (see mikka's reasons below). —Khoikhoi 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. While Sukhumi is indeed the most frequently used form in English, precedence should be given to more authoritative sources such as iBritannica, Encarta, etc. As far as I know it is directly in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions.--Kober 17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support based on sources from Britannica (which is one of the most respected encyclopaedia) the name should be Sokhumi if we follow the encyclopaedic style just like Britannica. However, if we prefer to sympathize with separatist regime, we should call it Aqwa, Sokhum or Sukhum or even Apsuastan.Ldingley 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We should have also Sukhumburg and Sukhumgrad. BTW We also should respect Turkish Ottomans and also concider also Sukhum-Kale :) Ldingley 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Khoikhoi.--Aldux 21:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, my points are listed in this page. + also google test 3:1 for "u"/"o" . `'mikka (t) 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I have never seen this city spelled "Sukhumi" in any English language source. I think "Sokhumi" is far more widespread. 192.240.93.54 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Ricky
• Oppose. Sukhumi is the name traditionally used in English (as Google results attest). Let's not start another Kiev/Kyiv debate... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Grafikm.--Pan Gerwazy 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article should be moved to Sukhum. That's how its inhabitants call the city in foreign languages like Russian. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How about tens of thousands of the natives of the city who are deprived their right to return to their homes due to the demographic fears of the Apartheid-type regime in Abkhazia? --Kober 08:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Girla, refrain from discriminatory remarks and insults against Georgian users. Sukhum is unacceptable for numerous reasons. Its biased, pro-separatist, and strong POV pushing. I also recommend you to change your tone and start behaving respectfully and civil towards other users. Ldingley 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sukhumstan or Sukhumgrag is never gonna happen. Sosomk 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sukhumi is much more common in English. I see no need to open this particular can of worms. Rebecca 12:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

A question: if the Abkhaz name for the city is 'Аҟəа' (Aqwa), then how is 'Sukhum' the "Abkhaz variant"?

It's the name used by the Abkhazians when they speak Russian, I believe. Nevertheless, I was just thinking that if Sukhumi is perceived as being "offensively Georgian", someone should probably go through and change every instance of "Sukhumi" to "Sukhum" in the text of the article. thefamouseccles 01:19, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Although this being an English language article, Sukhumi (which is actually not the Georgian spelling - that's Sokhumi), Sukhumi is the widely accepted spelling for the city in question, n--not Sukhum. Actually most Russians outside of Abkhazia also refer to it as 'Sukhumi' as well.

The United Nations use Sukhumi in their resolution 1716. I'd say this should definitely settle the question at hand. Errabee 11:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

User:El C must be reprimanded for blatant page move: first: he killed page history; second; he did not talk to anybody (OK; he was bold; but could have thought better; it is not, like, typo fix).

Now, please don't do any rush moves. Talk first. mikka (t) 07:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already talked extensively with Papa Carlo about this. Why are we using the Georgian name if it's no longer offical? What about the Abkhaz name? --Khoikhoi 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Where? mikka (t) 07:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My four points:

1. This is English encyclopedia; English preference is Sukhumi. This is a notable town, not Мухосранск or Flyshitburg. Eg., we had a very long and heated Kyiv/Kiev dispute.

• Nope, [[6]] , [[7]]. You are Mistaken.
  • No I am not.
    • Yes, you are. Brittanica knowns more English than you.

2. georgian is "still" de-jure official

• What??????

• • Yes, sir, de-jure Abkhazia is nowhere recognized internationally
    • No, sir, I have no idea what the heck does your ststement mean. I understand the content, but I don't understand the context in which it s used.)

3. Sukhumi is Russian name, not Georgian (or, rather a mixture of russia and georgian)

• Oppose: Why don't we have a correct name than making any mixtures of languages. This is an encyclopia and you've gotta cite it.
  • Oppose to what?
    • Why do we have to have to it spelled in Russian way when Abkhazia is officially part of Georgia. Because you and Bagapsh want that way?

4."Sukhum" is not Abkhazian name

• Oppose Do you speak Abkhazian?
  • Do you? If not, then read wikipedia article.
    • Yes, I know some but not enough to start an ecyclopedia. Why don't you go ahead and start Chechen encyclopedia if you are that much concerned about te minorities in the region.

If you ever going to vote, please count mine for Sukhumi (English preferece). I have nothing elese to say. mikka (t) 07:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

5. Soso, don't vandalize the talk page with silly pictures. This is disruption of normal work, and you may have troubles. `'mikka (t) 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aw, whatever. I guess I did so much work for nothing. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We all do it all the time, I guess. mikka (t) 07:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. --Khoikhoi 08:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys don't know what the hell you are talking about. I have lived in Georgia for most of my life and it turns out that I don't even know what the city is called. heh, :)Sosomk 17:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New version

Ghirla, would you be so kind to explain what do you mean by "free of Georgian imperialism"? With all due respect, I'm afraid what you consider imperialistic is just something that doesn't particularly agree with the Kremlin's view of Georgia and the Georgians. However, I do appreciate that you finally reverted back to my version. Kober 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Move should be made

Please don't talk against the move. What can you cite against my sources? Pravda Newspaper? Sosomk 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I was asked to put in a view on this as a (completely) uninvolved admin. First, everyone calm down... there are alot of different ways to look at this which are reasonable and don't mean that someone is pushing a particular political agenda;

1. Call it what the majority of people living there call it... This makes some sense, but I don't think there is a strong precedent for it in Wikipedia. For example, virtually everyone living in Germany calls it Deutschland, but Wikipedia uses the English term.
2. Call it what most English speakers call it... There is a stronger case for this, but it is difficult to determine. Google shows Sukhum and Sokhumi about even and Sukhumi around three times as common. But Google results can be misleading and that's not an overwhelming disparity. Aqwa gets more links than Sokhumi, but less than Sukhumi... but alot of those appear to be for things which are completely unrelated.
3. Call it what English language 'authorities' call it... There is some precedent for this, but again it isn't entirely consistent. Sukhumi and Sokhumi both show up often in different sources.
4. Use a common name nobody objects to... Is there one? Removal of the '-i' is 'non Georgian' and inclusion 'pro Georgian'.

The 'So' vs 'Su' seems to be entirely a transliteration issue, right? Just the same vowel sound written two different ways in English? If so then I don't think it much matters either way - either spelling will get you to the right page. While the '-i' is favored by one nationality over another, it also is for now definitely more common in English language sources. If there were an absolutely clear case for either 'Sokhumi' or 'Sukhumi' being the 'standard English usage' I'd support that, but they both seem to be used fairly often... so I suppose it should come down to what most participants prefer. Though note that a change may require double redirects to be cleaned up. Also, the article itself should probably be updated to make it clearer that the current government (while separatist / disputed) uses the name pronounced 'Aqwa'. --CBD 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks Mr. Dunkerson, I agree wit you. In addition people should keep in mind that Cntral Intelligence Angency of the United States is more important than Bagapshs de facto govt in Abkhazia. Keep in mind that there is also de jure govt in Abkhazia who calls it Sokhumi and Abkhaz are not even a majority in the region. Even if they do call it Sukhum, wikipedia should use the english term which is as well used by Nationla Georgraphics, CIA, Brittanica, Encarta. Sosomk 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Russian vs. georgian Spelling

I am just wondering the Sukhumi is a 100% Russian spelling and Sokhumi is a Georgian spelling, which i sused by the most sources.Sosomk 20:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it is also the most common English spelling (see WP:UE) it also a compromise with Abkhasians who request Sukhum. Alex Bakharev 23:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, really? amazing! Obviously National Geographics, Brittanica, Encarta and all those guys do not know what they are doing. I will let it drop, b/c I don'r believe that wikipedia will ever be neutral, considering the fact that anybody can edit it. SosoMK 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that they do not seem to be entirely neutral about it :/ In Sukhumi the main language is de facto russian since many many years.

SUKHUMI is wrong if you want to be wrong then so be it. all major universities say that wikipedia is not a reliable source. there is no russian vs. georgian, there is only one name SOKHUMI. it is the same if Georgians say MOSKOOOW and then somebody writes it in wikipedia like this, read history.

Ethnic cleansingS

There's mention of the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in the article. Let's add for the sakeof neutrality that there was ethnic cleansing of non-Georgians by Georgians in the first part of the conflict. Look for example in the Human Rights watch report, section HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN THE FIRST WEEKS OF HOSTILITIES.Alaexis 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous human right abuses by all parties in the conflict, but Georgians have never resorted to ethnic cleansing. The HRW document did not use the term to characterize the Georgian activities in the first phase of the conflict, while the OSCE has recognized the massacres and purges organized by the separatists and their allies as "ethnic cleansing" which was incomparably larger in its scales than the alleged one conducted by Georgians. --Kober 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kober, OSCE officially twice recognized the mass murder of ethnic Georgians as ethnic-cleansing. In the war, people do die from all sides of the front, however, systematic murder of one particular ethnic/religious group is considered otherwise. The examples are in Srebrenica Bosnia, Vukovar, Khojaly, etc. OSCE, UN and other world organizations have carefully studies the evidence and allegations of ethnic cleansing committed in Abkhazia and the conclusions were made in support of OSCE convention in Lisbon and in Budapest which recognized the events as ethnic cleansing. Abkhaz side did not suffer the same fate as 300,000 Georgians and 30,000 murdered people who were rounded up and killed due to their ethnic background. The skirmishes and war crimes always occur in any conflict; however, cases like Rwanda, Abkhazia and Srebrenica are treated differently. You cant not label the actions of any side as ethnic cleansing just because some people died in the initial phase of the war. Ldingley 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SUKHUMI is wrong if you want to be wrong then so be it. all major universities say that wikipedia is not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.122.125.226 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorising as a capital city

Isn't categorising this as a capital POV? Computerjoe's talk 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Jerusalem article has Category:Capitals in Asia, although the majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Besides, a "capital" just means "the principal city or town associated with a country's government". Khoikhoi 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But is Abkhazia a sovereign state? Computerjoe's talk 20:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

According to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, yes. Khoikhoi 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, Abkhazia's current status doesn't meet the 4th criterion ((d)capacity to enter into relations with the other states). Furthermore, I have not read in any convention that the way to independence is through ethnic cleansing[8] and terrorism[9][10]. As for Abkhazia's sovereignity,it is guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia, but the region, as an autonomous republic, shares its sovereignity with the central government in Tbilisi. Neither de jure nor de facto status makes Abkhazia a state though.--Kober 04:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia maintains relations with Russia; it is economically dependent on it. The ethnic cleansing and terrorism is irrelevant. For example, Nazi Germany committed ethnic cleansing during World War II, but it was still a sovereign state.

According to List of unrecognized countries, Abkhazia "is a self-declared and partially functioning independent state" (not recognized by any country). What's so disputable about that? Khoikhoi 05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia's relations with Russia are not inter-state relations. As for Germany, is was a fully functioning and recognized state long before the Nazis came to power. It was a change of the government, not a secession. I don't dispute that Abkhazia "is self-declared and partially independent". My point is that referring to an internationally unrecognized regime as a "state" is POV. IMHO, it is no less POV than to say, eg., that Abkhazia is an ethnocratic entity flourishing as a Russian proxy. Sounds not very neutral, I guess. --Kober 05:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This just doesn't seem to be how is on Wikipedia, however. You said that Abkhazia isn't a state, but according to a BBC report back in 1997, "the Abkhaz side runs itself as a de facto state". Most importantly, the List of sovereign states article states off with, "this is an alphabetical list of the sovereign states of the world, including both de jure and de facto independent states". And indeed, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria are all there. I just think we should be consistent throughout all of Wikipedia, that's all. Khoikhoi 05:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Khoi, I partially agree with you, but I think the name or structure of that list should be changed. I have no time and eneregy to request it and get involved in the dispute, however. --Kober 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Anyways, let's get back on topic:

(moving back to the left) Your point is that Abkhazia is not a sovereign state and thus including this article in Category:Capitals in Asia and Category:Capitals in Europe is POV. I respectfully disagree, because de facto-wise, the authority lies in Sukhumi. The rest of the world however says it's in Tbilisi. Maybe as a compromise, we could create a Category:Capitals of unrecognized countries? What do you think? Khoikhoi 06:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Err… to be honest, I have no particular problem with including Sukhumi in the Category:Capitals in Europe. I just reacted to calling Abkhazia "a state". :) Your proposal has a merit. It would be an acceptable compromise. Alternatively, I would suggest adding a note to the Category:Capitals in Europe page explaining that the category comprises the capitals of sovereign states as well as unrecognized entities, autonomies and dependent territories. See, for example, how the Template:Europe topic is organized. Best, --Kober 06:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should categorise Sealand as a capital city then? I agree with Khoikhoi's comprimise. Computerjoe's talk 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Sukhumi is not the capital of the autonomous republic, just the unrecognised one. At least according to Abkhazia. This should be stressed in the article. Computerjoe's talk 16:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As for Sukhumi's de jure status, it is still officially the capital of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. --Kober 19:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sukhumi is the capital of the autonomous republic. Britannica says, "city, capital of Abkhazia, Georgia". Encarta also states that Sukhumi is the "capital of Abkhazia". Khoikhoi 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to the point: thoughts on the proposed comprimise? Computerjoe's talk 20:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that we've established that Sukhumi is the capital of both de facto and de jure Abkhazia, and Abkhazia is on the List of sovereign states article...do you think it's still necessary? Khoikhoi 04:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess not, but I still think you're pushing it by classing it as an sovereign state. Computerjoe's talk 13:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I have just noticed that Sukhumi is the only separatist capital included in this category. We should either categorize the capitals of all these unrecognized entities or not. Personal preferences are not acceptable, IMHO. The List of sovereign states is not a legitimate source. It is just a Wikipedia list (even not an article) composed by ordinary Wikipedians, like you and me. Can I ask you, guys, to consider my proposal above? --Kober 15:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I say not, or we'll have Sealand amongst others included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computerjoe (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Micronations are treated differently than unrecognized countries on Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Sealand might be a micronation but it's also an unrecognised country. Surely? Computerjoe's talk 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask. However, on Wikipedia, we don't have a list of micronations and unrecognized countries in the same article. Khoikhoi 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is Abkhazia is an unrecognised country. It is surely best to keep their capitals outside the same categories as those like Paris or Tokyo. Computerjoe's talk 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha Tokyo was a bad example! Computerjoe's talk 22:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Third or fourth?

Bagrat's fortress

Could someone clarify who exactly built this fortress in Sukhumi? Alæxis_¿question? 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bagrat III of Georgia. This fortress in known as bagratis tsikhe and the image shows the wester wall (toward the direction of the red bridge in Sukhum of what remained of this fortress. Iberieli 15:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know where it is. Thanks for an answer. Alæxis_¿question? 15:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Any time. Iberieli 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thread for discussion

If you'd like to discuss what image to include in the citybox you can do it here. There's no difference for me which one is chosen (although the Government house pretty much dominates the city, I have to say). Alæxis_¿question? 05:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it in the same state of disrepair as when you were last there? If so, we can leave it as is. Pocopocopocopoco 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looked exactly this way this August. Afaik it's in such a state that restoration is all but impossible. Alæxis_¿question? 19:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think keeping the current image is ok with me. A possible alternative would be [11], it has an overview of the city and the Government house in the background). sephia karta 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

de facto

Countries can recognise (or not recognise) other countries. We can't and shouldn't add 'de facto' in front of every institution and title in Abkhazia. Besides, are there any other mayors of Sukhumi? Alæxis_¿question? 20:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that Mayor is not officially Mayor Alex, most of Sukhumi's population has been expelled with its de jure government or authorities. That so called Mayor was appointed by De facto authorities and therefore he is not more than just another de facto representative with no legal jurisdiction or rights to be mayor in that city. The recognition has nothing to do with it, you have to understand the what rule of law means (anybody can claim to be so and so) and anybody can claim to be a mayor or President, the question is how legitimate he or she is and under what official sets of law doe sits authority fall. Therefore, we must be consistent and clear on every article which has to do with dubious de facto "states." Unless you have sources which support that current so called Mayor is legitimate under the law of Georgia (of which de jure Abkhazia is part of), was elected as such officially or had been recognized by de jure authorities, we can remove "de facto" Iberieli (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Map of Abkhazia

This map is more NPOV because abkhazian-georgian border is marked not like russian-georgian and russian-abkhazian borders - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Abkhazia_detail_map2.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestalex (talk • contribs) 13:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any difference in border markings between these two maps. --Kober^Talk 13:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And why is the color different between Georgian proper and Abkhazia? Your intention is clear here and nobody is fooled. That map is a perfect example of POV and your actions as POV pushing. Iberieli (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems you dont cease POV pushing and dont even want to co-operate. You only engage in "rv wars" here and POV pushing, nothing else. That map will be removed until you start co-operating. Iberieli (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"And why is the color different between Georgian proper and Abkhazia?" - Because subject of this map is ABKHAZIA, independently it is autonomy or independent state. More so, I don't correct border line (border between Abkhazia and RF is another than border between Abkhazia and Georgia!). And so I don't see POV in my map. --Bestalex (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you dont see POV in your Russian map, it does not mean its not POV. Iberieli (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In case of the article about Abkhazia it seems logical to highlight what it is about... Alæxis_¿question? 19:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Iberili, you don't answered main point of my question. What do you think bad that subject of this article is marked more noticeably? --Bestalex (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

POV edits by User:Kober

User:Kober keeps on deleting the "partially recognized" Abkhazia definition and inserting the "de facto" one.

One of his edits included deletion of five reliable sources references which were claiming that Abkhazia is partially recognized.

Though I understand his/ her motives very well, I can not agree to the users actions: they are definitely in contradiction with WP policy on

1. WP:NPOV - as he/ she represents one POV and keeps on deleting the other, even including sources, and
2. WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability - as he/ she is pushing in a piece of an original research, claiming Abkhazia is not recognized, and not citing any sources corresponding to his/her claims Abkhazia is still a de facto state since August, 2009.

To make the terminology more clear:

De facto means not officially, de jure, recongnized, as per WP de-facto article: "a nation with de facto independence, like Somaliland, is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises absolute control over its claimed territory."

"Limited recognition" is a more broad concept, which includes both de facto states and states which were recognized by "at least one other generally recognized nation". As quoted from the WP List of states with limited recognition article: "Firstly, there are entities with complete or partial control over their claimed territory which are de facto self-governing and have stated a desire for full independence. Secondly, there are entities which do not have complete control over their claimed territory, but have been recognized as having a de jure claim to that territory by at least one other generally recognized nation." Abkhazia is included in the Recognized by at least one UN member group.

My proposal to stop the edit warring in the article:

I propose to Kober to give any references to the reliable sources claiming Abkhazia is not recognized de-jure by other UN states. then, if the user provides them, we should mention there is a POV (Georgian, or whatever other) claiming Abkhazia is not a recognized de jure state. If the user fails to provide them, we should regard Abkhazia a state with limited recognition, just like the authors of Abkhazia WP article do. FeelSunny (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is misleading. You’re missing several important points.

• The recognition by two rogue UN states is not the reason to eliminate any mention of Georgia in the lead, something you are so vigorously pushing for. Let me remind you that Abkhazia’s recognition is a minority view and should be placed as such in the article.
• All other UN states regard Abkhazia as part of Georgia, which, hence, is a majority view and should not be removed just because of your ethno-political sentiments. Kosovo is recognized by dozens of UN members, but care to read how Wikipedia describes Pristina.
• On the other hand, Abkhazia is de facto independent from Georgia, which is the fact. The current version of our article does not go into its reason according to the Georgian law: the military occupation by Russia. This already tilts the text away from Georgian POV, and even NPOV. Let me remind you that Georgia is also a UN member state. If the UN state Russia’s version of Abkhazia’s status is mentioned, then why should we remove the UN state Georgia’s vision of it? Just because you don’t like it? --Kober^Talk 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

General notice: I do not care about what you think is truth. So, the main point about verifiability in this article is still: give sources that support your POV that Abkhazia has been a "de facto" state since August, 2009.

On Abkhazia: I will answer your arguments, please answer my "rethoric" from the first post - that's what they call a civilized dialogue, and not a "POV pushing".

1. "The recognition by two rogue UN states..." - The international law knows not of "minorities" and "majorities". It also does not operate terms like "rogue states" and "torches of democracy" - unlike J.W.Bush, and you. Kosovo, for example, is recognized by a clear minority, still noone cals it "de facto".
2. "All other UN states regard Abkhazia..." - see point 1, ok?
3. "On the other hand, Abkhazia is de facto independent..." - see my explanation in the post before why "de facto" is not used for Abkhazia anymore anywhere but in Georgia.

So, to sum up: 1) Please give verifiable reliable sources supporting your POV. 2) Answer my arguments.FeelSunny (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FeelSunny, your intro fails to mention Georgia in any way. This is not the case with Abkhazia, Pristina and Kosovo articles, so I think this is not right. I don't see major difference between writing 'partially recognised' and 'de facto independent'. Alæxis_¿question? 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Alæxis, the problem is that the wrong definition of the area is simply a factual mistake. It contradicts other articles you named, and sources Kober has deleted. There is a difference b/w de facto and partially recognized - I have explained it before, in the first post. I do not care if the article includes or not any mention of Georgia, I object against the unsourced POV definition of Abkhazia. FeelSunny (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

After two weeks of Kober not answering, I'm going to get the article back to the last source supported version, i.e. before Kober's edits.FeelSunny (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been answered by two users who have radically different opinions of the Abkhazia issue. It is not Kober's fault that you are unable to understand WP:NPOV and to engage in a result-oriented discussion, "I don't care" being your strongest argument.--Kober^Talk 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I engaged in the discussion, but none of my arguments from the first or the second posts were answered either by you, or one (can't see the two you are talking about) users. As a result, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth I demand verifiability in this article.
• Kober, you definitely can read and understand the following phrase: "give sources that support your POV that Abkhazia is a de-facto and not a partially recognized state". It's been 10 days since my first message, more than enough to find them. So - where are the sources?.FeelSunny (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "de facto" definition, but let me assure you that your attempts at removing Georgia from the intro will lead nowhere.--Kober^Talk 11:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

FeelSunny: I have no time to participate in this discussion, but: Abkhazia is both a state with limited recognition and a de facto independent state. De facto just means "in practice". sephia karta | di mi 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, Kober! Just to make sure my point is clear at last: I did not plan to remove Georgia from anywhere. I do not mind mentioning of Georgia in the lead. The only reason for this discussion is I do not see any reasons for a factual mistake in the lead, esp. a factual mistake that is not supported by sources and contradicts every other major page on Abkhazia.

sephia karta: Well, for some countries Abkhazia is only de facto a state. Just like China and Slovakia are. But consider calling China a de facto state then?

A state can not be universally regarded de facto state if any single UN state recognizes it. Every other UN state must not recognize a state for it to be a de facto. Just like Nagorno Karabakh or Somaliland or Transdniester.

A state with limited recognition is much broader, and it perfectly describes the situation. Just like with Kosovo or South Ossetia or PRC or Slovakia. You can write on my talkpage if you need any further information on this. FeelSunny (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree about the pragmatics involved here, but since the dispute seems to have been resolved I'll leave it at this.sephia karta | di mi 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Name: Sokhumi

Let us change it to Sokhumi. Recent info (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This issue was discussed a few years ago, pls see the first thread of this talk. What has changed to warrant a name change? Alæxis_¿question? 14:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sukhum has changed its name to "Sukhum" from "Sukhumi" years ago. This article should be named "Sukhum" Andrew Gunner (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Twin town of Sokhumi (Italy/Turkey)

• First of all Turkey and Italy do not recognize Abkhazia as sovereign country, thus officials of those countries or towns or etc. can't sign something with Abkhazia, in any case it is illegitimate . Second, in case with Italy source says it was signed memorandum about friendship between them and not document about twinning. Third, about sources, pro-separatist media sources are not quit trustable is there any other source which relate about twinning with turkish town? — as references showed no. --g. balaxaZe✰ 16:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It isnt agreement between states, but between cities so it hasnt anything in common with recognization of Abkhazia, this agreement will be there even if Georgia conquere Abkhazia, because Abkhazia dont play any role in this agreement. For example Stepanakert capital city of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was twinned with american Montebello though USA dont recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as sovereign country. Protocols of friendship and cooperation is twinning it is only another terminology. There are other sources about Sukhumi twinning with Side.http://www.ved.gov.ru/exportcountries/ab/ab_ru_relations/ab_news/6486.htmlhttp://www.vestikavkaza.ru/news/Abkhaziya-polagaetsya-na-svyazi-s-Turtsiey-dlya-vykhoda-iz-izolyatsii.html--Dag13 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)