Talk:War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)

infobox issues

i have updated the commander list for both sides to reflect the actual hierarchy of the 1992–1993 conflict. i organized them by seniority: political leaders, followed by defense ministers/general staff, and then specific battalion or volunteer commanders.
note: i added {{efn}} tags to clarify these roles, but the infobox looks a bit cluttered now. i’m looking for help from a more experienced editor to perhaps clean up the wikitext (i can't find something that looks good) so the information stays but the visual layout is cleaner. please help refine the formatting rather than reverting the updated content. frankie 🍑 17:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Peachy1621, thanks for improving the article! I think that the list should be shortened to include only senior leadership. On the Abkhazian side I'd only mention Ardzinba, Arshba, Sosnaliyev and Dbar, maybe Matosyan and Basayev. Company-level commanders can be mentioned elsewhere. Alaexis_¿question? 17:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

done frankie 🍑 17:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

a bunch of people adding russia to the infobox, some non-account user has done that at least 3 times already frankie ¹⁶²¹ 18:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm removing it for now. The very source that is attached to the claim (Bennett) doesn't say that Russia was an ally or co-belligerent (Russia's increasingly transparent military support of the Abkhazis led to growing tension between Russia and Georgia... In early 1993, Russia's official policy began to mirror its evident aid to the Abkhazis.)

Also, a cherry-picked line from one source is not sufficient to add it in wikivoice to the infobox. Both Bennett and Kizilbuga note that the Russian policy was inconsistent. Russia didn't simply support the Abkhaz, it also evacuated Georgian civilians, embargoed Abkhazia after the war and let Georgia get weapons from Soviet military bases. Alaexis_¿question? 12:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

How is this cherry picking? Did you even read the source? The source says that the Russian policy was inconsistent, because Russia was officailly claiming neutrality, while the Russian military was directly aiding and participating in the conflict on the Abkhaz side. It is said that Russian Foreign MInistry led by liberal Andrey Kozyrev argued for more neutral line, but the Russian Defense Ministry and Russian military had dominant weight in formulating the Russian policy in the field. Russian military and intelligence services aided the Abkhaz side, which resulted in a gap between statements of Russian Foreign Ministry and actual actions of Russian military in the field. It is stated that the Russian military ultimately gained upper hand in formulating the Russian policy in post-Soviet conflicts, and eventually, official Russian policy began to mirror Russian military's support for Abkhaz side, as illustrated by cited statements by Bennett of Russian Defence Minister Grachev and President Boris Yeltsin, who initially declared neutrality, but had to increasingly rely on military in his conflict with the parliament and gave military free hand in post-Soviet conflict. All of this is stated in the source, if you actually read that. Only most relevant parts were quoted in the article, because entire pages can not be quoted here, this is by no means cherry picking. And it is not just one source, same is stated in Kizilbuga and other sources too. The section about Russian involvement in conflict in this article is written largely per Bennett and Kizilbuga, there is no cherry picking here. I suggest you to read that section before removing sourced information which can be deemed as vandalism.

There are numerous instances on participation of Russian military on the Abkhaz side in the conflict, while there are no instances of participation of Russian military on Georgian side. All the information is cited with sources in the article. These include:

Bombing by Russian air force of Sukhumi in November and December of 1992 and March 1993. Russian plane was shot down on 19 March 1993 by Georgians, with pilot being identified as Russian Major Vatslav Shipko.

Russian forces participated in the landing near Tamishi in July 1993. There were Russian troops from 14th Russian army, which also took part in Transnistria conflict on separatist side, but during the exchange of bodies, Russia claimed that these soldiers participated in the conflict on their own initiative because they were demobilized and sent "on vacation" prior to their involvement in the conflict. Also, Russian naval craft was used to transfer the landing force according to sources.

Statements of then Russian Foreign Minister (1990-1996) Andrey Kozyrev about the conflict. Andrey Kozyrev, who was main figure representing "neutralist" line in Russian policy during this conflict, and by the way is currently deemed as "foreign agent" by Russia, stated in his interview in 2024 that the whole Abkhaz separatism was artificially inflamed by KGB and Soviet central committee to create "counter-separatism" in the Soviet republics seeking independence. He said that Abkhaz separatist leader Vladislav Ardzinba was purposefully dispatched from Moscow to Abkhazia and appointed on high position. He also said that during the conflict, Ardzinba was in contact with Russian Defence Minister Pavel Grachev and received military support from him, but this was happening behind Kozyrev's back. Kozyrev said that he as a democrat did not wish to pursue this kind of policy, but Grachev was a Soviet general and had his own agenda, similarily to Russian military. Yeltsin knew about this too but gave free hand.

Now, your claims are either superficial or out of context.

You claim that Russia let Georgia get weapons from Soviet military bases, but this is not true and article explains this. First of all, in May 1992, before the War in Abkhazia, a treaty was signed in Tashkent between post-Soviet countries (Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, etc.), according to which post-Soviet countries divided the weaponry from Soviet arsenal. Georgia naturally got its share too. Russia only transfered weapons to Georgia under this treaty, which belonged to Georgia and was on Georgian territory, it did not transfer its own weapons to Georgia to support it in this war. On 25 September 1992, Russian Supreme Soviet led by nationralists and communists passed resolution prohibiting transfer of weapons to Georgia. Georgia only received part of its alloted share according to Tashkent agreement and only some transfers of weapons continued after this resolution, on 3 October 1992, Georgian State Council passed a resolution to take over Russian military assets on Georgian territory, which further caused tensions.

You claim that Russia embargoed Abkhazia after the war, which is true, but it happened in different context and after the war, as you yourself said, it is not relevant to this war itself therefore. In October 1993, Georgia was forced to join Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent Nations due to the Georgian civil war finally forcing then Georgian government to do so, after this, Russia did enact some Georgian-initiated sanctions policies through CIS, but this happened after the end of this war, not during this war.

You claim that Russia evacuated Georgian civilians, but this does not in any way deny that Russian supported Abkhaz side. This is barely a proof that Russia did not support Abkhazia or supported Georgia in a military sense, which was actually essential in how the conflict iself would end.

As you can see, your points are quite weak and not backed by sources. You should not remove sourced information from the article unilaterally, which directly and clearly states - Russia militarily supported Abkhazia, and by early 1993 Russian official policy began to mirror its evident aid to Abkhaz side. Not just this, but the sources, such as Bennett directly draw parellels between Russian interventions in separatists side in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Donbass and etc, which is concluded as creating a pattern of Russian security state propping up separatist entities to retain its influence in the post-Soviet sphere. ~2026-24494-80 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

We can discuss this but there is a larger issue. By any chance, was it you who made this edit? Alaexis_¿question? 21:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add it to the infobox, the onus is on you to prove that this is the consensus position. This means that the majority of reliable sources dealing with this topic should unequivocally say that this was a war between Russia and Georgia or that Russia and the Abkhaz were allies. Alaexis_¿question? 13:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

"Current literature on the Abkhaz war reveals the following arguments: Stephen Blank embraced the neo-imperialist argument completely by arguing that Russia's policies in the region were aimed primarily at restoring a sphere of political and economic influence. (Stephen Blank, `Russia's Real Drive to the South', Orbis, 29, Summer 1995,2, pp. 369-386. ) Edmund Herzig, adopted a more moderate tone and recognised the incoherent character of Russia's behaviour. However, he did not totally dismiss the neo-imperialist argument, and instead claimed that Russia exploited Georgia's conflicts and internal weaknesses in order to pressure its leadership to accept the joint defence of the external CIS borders, the maintenance of Russian bases on Georgian territory, and the deployment of Russian peacekeepers. In other words, Russia tried to keep Georgia and the entire Transcaucaus within its sphere of influence. (Edmund Herzig, The New Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, p. 49. ) Similarly, Oles M. Smolansky argued that Russia asserted its influence over Georgia and Azerbaijan by exacerbating regional conflicts. (Oles M. Smolansky, `Russia and Transcaucasia: The Case of Nagorno-Karabagh, in Regional Power Rivalries in the New Eurasia: Russia, Turkey and Iran, eds., Alvin Z. Rubinstein and Oles M. Smolansky, London, 1995, pp. 201-230. ) Dmitri Trenin also argued that Russia's policies in Transcaucasia were aimed at restoring Russia's influence throughout the region in order to prevent developments from slipping out of control and thus opening the door to outside interference. (Dmitri Trenin, `Russia's Security interests and Policies in the Caucasus Region', p. 99) Dov Lynch argued that Russian peacekeeping in Georgia was an instrument of a wider strategy aimed at advancing Russia's interests in Georgia, using means short of war. (Dov Lynch, The Conflict in Abkhazia: Dilemmas in Russian Peacekeeping' Policy, p. 3. ) Edward Ozhiganov insitead stressed the existence of differences of opinion and policy within the Russian government, and dismissed the imperialist argument. (Eward Ozhiganov, `The Republic of Georgia: Conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia', p. 385. )" (Sagramoso, Domitilla (2000). Russia's Geopolitical Orientation Towards the Former Soviet States: Was Russia Able to Discard its Imperial Legacy? (PDF). School of Slavonic and East European Studies University College London. p. 178. in references, reference N609)

Based on this, there is a consensus that Russia was involved on the separatist side.

This source is from 2000, but after advent of Putin and 2008 war, there has been more awareness about the Russian involvement in the post-Soviet conflicts.

It is very hard to find sources summerizing the literature on this topic, but there can be found many sources supporting the fact of Russian involvement on separatist side. If you want to reject this fact, the burden of proof is actually on you to disapprove this information with sources (and then there can be a comparasion on which point has more supporters within literature - that Russia was involved or that Russia was not).

Many sources have been cited about Russian involvement in this conflict against Georgian side, sources that mention that Russian involvement was "purposeful and purposefully one-sided military intervention on behalf of Abkhazian separation", sources that talk about Russian bombing of Georgian positions in Sukhumi and etc. Your demand of sources which explicitly mention that "this was a war between Russia and Georgia" is too high and unrealistic, how is the source talking about "purposeful and purposefully one-sided military intervention on behalf of Abkhazian separation" not enough? Many sources that have been cited did explicitly say that Russia and Abkhaz separatists were allies, how is "purposeful and purposefully one-sided military intervention on behalf of Abkhazian separation" not enough for this too? Or another source saying "by early 1993, Russia's official policy began to mirror its evident aid to the Abkhazis"? Or yet another source saying "Russia should be held responsible for the actions of individual active-duty members of Russia’s armed or security forces in Abkhazia. Pursuant to international law, Russia is responsible for its peacekeeping forces’ slaughter of Georgian civilians"? Your demands about sourcing are unrealistic and unjustified, this information is pretty much enough to conclude Russian involvement on separatist side. Take in mind that finding sources about anything is already quite hard, there is no justification for your demand for specific wordings, the information provided already supports Russian involvement on the separatist side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-24573-48 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe that your edits violate WP:V, WP:SYNTH and possibly other policies. Also, it's unreasonable to expect other users to check 17k characters you've added after multiple sourcing issues were brought to your attention ( "You need to challenge the veracity of each individual information, prove it wrong and maybe then remove it").

Therefore I've asked an admin to take a look at this discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Sure, if you have concerns about information included in the article, please notify which ones do you think are questionable, I can include specific quotes in the references to remove verifiability issues, and as for synthesising issues, please indicate which parts of the text do you think are unduly synthesising sources and we can discuss it. You have previously indicated 3 issues, I think they have been answered or if you think there are still issues, please indicate it in answer. I can not fix issues if I don't know what the issue is. If you find it tiresome to check all added information, I can include quote from the source in references in all instances I have added a new source, but it would take time. All information added has been human-written, AI has not been used at all, all information has been derived from sources, found on google reads and read by a real human, although there might be some errors, in general, the edits are made in the spirit of being aligned with cited sources. If you think article needs to be fixed, please indicate in a reply in what way can it be done without removing valuable additions. My edits have been specifically made to make article more informative and fix issues (such as for example some information being unsourced), so I would like to fix article as much as possible. ~2026-24769-63 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The newly added content is contentious. Per WP:BRD, I'm reverting the article to the version before the large edit on April 21. Please propose the changes you'd like to make here at the talk page or (if they are not controversial) re-add them to the article in small chunks with edit summaries.

I do think that some of the changes were beneficial and should be retained. However, I checked a few of the 60 new references and found various issues in half of those. It's your responsibility to check the sources you're using. Alaexis_¿question? 06:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

First of all, you are literally using a code to check the sources. It is quote ironic you accuse others of using AI but you yourself actually is using script to check sources. It very well might be that your code is checking incorrectly, because so far you have provided only three supposed examples of inconsistencies, while they were either some minor errors or your misinterpretations. You have also failed to provide examples of SYNTH violations. The best thing I can do is to readd information individually with quotes in references where the information would necessiate so, so there can be no more claims about verification problems. ~2026-24729-20 (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

What code??? These sources I found issues with are not publicly available online so I had to check them manually one-by-one. Alaexis_¿question? 20:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I am talking about your program you are using to check the sources. ~2026-25127-65 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alaexis:, The information has been added in small chunks with relevant edit summeries, which make edits much more clear. Moreover, quotes have been provided for all important information from sources, discarding any possible issues with verfiability. The note has been added to Russia's involvement in the infobox to clarify how was Russia involved in the conflict per sources. Every relevant information is backed by sources, sourcing issues have been fixed and veracity of sources has been strengthened. I expect you to act in good faith and respect the time it takes for other people to make such kind of thorough editing in small chunks, because Wikipedia's good faith rule commands you to respect effort and time of other people, otherwise, appropriate measures would be needed to be taken in case of abscence of good faith. It is hopeful that the situation can be managed within the boundaries of good faith behaviour. ~2026-24900-58 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for adding summaries. Unfortunately it didn't take me long to encounter further unsourced information. I could not find the number of injured neither in Wheatly (p. 57) nor in Beissinger (p. 302). They also don't say that the majority of them were ethnic Georgians. It's your responsibility to ensure that everything is supported by the sources and accurately cited. Alaexis_¿question? 20:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#War_in_Abkhazia_(1992%E2%80%931993)_disruption. Alaexis_¿question? 20:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This information and sources were present in the article before any of my edits. No, it is not my responsibility to ensure absolutely every part of article is well sourced and you don't get the right to revert all my edits because of this. ~2026-25127-65 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You've added the number of injured (137) which wasn't in the article before. Where does it come from? If it comes from the existing sources (Wheatley or Beissinger) you should've added the page numbers. If it comes from a different source you should've added it to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 08:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

First of all, here is the informationin the article, present before any of my edits, March 2026 for example:

The attack of Abkhazians and the April 9 tragedy eventually resulted in the first armed clashes between the representatives of the Abkhazian and Georgian populations that took place on 16–17 July 1989 in Sukhumi. The resulting civil unrest quickly turned into militarized clashes that, according to official accounts, resulted in 18 deaths and at least 448 wounded, 302 of whom were Georgian. In response, Interior Ministry troops were deployed to quell the unrest.

Beissinger and Wheatley are already present in the article. I did not add this information. The fact that victims mostly were Georgia is already present in the article. The injured number is already present in the article. Now, the only error is that instead of 448, the injured number is written is 137. A very slight error.

Now, where this slight error comes from - it is not because I checked sources and still wrote incorrect information, but because I have just copied information from History of Abkhazia#The Abkhazian War article. I admitt that I forgot to write attribution. As you can see in that article, literally same information is written there as in my edit, including 137 number. I just copied it and did not notice such small difference between infos.

Now, as you can see, you are mostly wrong here, you claimed that I added that majority of victims were Georgians. I also did not add the number of injured people (it was already written in article as 448, which was just changed to 137 in new edit). As a part of good faith behaviour, I expect you to acknowledge that you was wrong on these ones and that this very small difference (448 injured instead of 137) is not a justification for reverting all my contributions, when I added them in small pieces as you requested, and you could make one small edit to fix this or remove this info. You literally used this small error to revert all my edits, including other edits which contained information backed not just by sources, but even quotes from them, under the guise of "verification problems", despite all these edits being made separately, as you requested previously. ~2026-24899-90 (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Chiming in as an admin uninvolved in the content dispute: introducing 137 instead of 448 is not a "very small difference". It is a significant error, especially in the absence of a plausible explanation of where 137 came from, and it gives other editors' legitimate cause to doubt you when you try to brush it off as irrelevant. Please be more attentive to other editors' concerns. If you repeat errors like this regularly in contentious topics, you will lose editing privileges. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I did provide an explanation - the text was just copied from another article and anyone can go to that article and check it. Second, I am not actually against if they found this error and reverted it, but they reverted all 144,808 bytes of information because of this one single error in numbers. They previously made me spend three hours adding this long information in small pieces with edit summeries so they could check every bit of added info individually and then revert it individually as well, but they still for some reasons reverted all text over a single one error. I am not actually against if they reverted only the error they found, but things can not work if all my contributions will be deleted over a single error in numbers. I will not be able to add any text at all if such attitude continues. They could simply write if they found error on talk page and then things could work out, I will fix all errors. I am not actually against working with this user or anyone, but I can not contribute to Wikipedia if all my edits (including sources I added with quotes) will be just reverted entirely. All I am saying is that there needs to constructive behavior over additions of other users. I am not editing to disrupt Wikipedia or something, my intention is just to improve the article. ~2026-25075-65 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Editors are entitled to disagree with your changes, and if they do so, you are expected to justify them individually to them on the talk page in order to gain consensus. Splitting up your edits was an improvement, but you are also expected to slow down and get agreement for the changes before reintroducing them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I am more than willing to listen here on talk page to @Alaexis: about which parts of addition do they think need to revised. Sure, if number 137 is incorrect, we can remove it and that entire paragraph, reinstate the old paragraph. If there are any other things in the article he thinks need to be clarified, I am willing to listen him pointing out those parts. I will take time to fix all errors found in my additions. ~2026-25075-65 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll open a separate thread to discuss this paragraph. Alaexis_¿question? 13:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Verification problems

I'm concerned about this edit by an anonymous user which added 17k characters to many parts of the article. The changes appear to be alright at first sight but when I started checking them multiple problems emerged.

• Subtle but significant chronological error (diff of my fix). The added text mentions "pre-election" promises. The source talks about the 1990 Chairman of Supreme Soviet election while the added text was added after the paragraph about the 1991 Supreme Soviet elections.
• Verification failed (diff). Hewitt talks about volunteers from volunteers from North Caucasus, Turkey and elsewhere and doesn't mention Russian support at all.
• Source page error diff of the fix

When every other check fails, it's likely that the rest of the added content also contains inaccuracies. I don't want to speculate about the reason for them - at the end of the day it doesn't matter. I've actually started fixing the issues I found but checking all ~60 added sources would be quite onerous (some of them are not available online and are not in English). I believe that the best course of action would be to restore the previous version and re-add new content in small chunks that can be verified by other editors. Let me know what you think. Tagging @~2026-24424-91 and @Peachy1621. Alaexis_¿question? 21:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You can not just remove vast sourced information added by other people under your assumption that they are incorrect. It very well might be that your program and code is running incorrectly at times. You need to challenge the veracity of each individual information, prove it wrong and maybe then remove it. This is a proper Wikipedia procedure.~2026-24545-46 (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The contention about Hewwit source can not be accepted. Hewwit says that the aid to separatists was coming through Russian-Georgian border and that it was must for Georgia to guard it. It does not specifies whether Russian government was providing aid, but it still says that the aid was coming from Russian territory. The text in the article reflects this.

Chronological error about election promises might indeed be a slight error in placing text in the article.

Pages might have been accidently cited incorrectly, but you too affirm that the text backing the information in the article was indeed in the source (but on different page).

In overall, these slight errors can not justify removing entire addition from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-24637-52 (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Was it you who made this edit? If yes, have you used LLMs when doing it?

Let's wait for other users' feedback. Alaexis_¿question? 07:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no LLMs used here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-24573-48 (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to confirm, was it you who made the changes in question? Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I have been making recent edits to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-24767-61 (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is when you add everything all at once, it has to be undone all at once. If there is significant doubt over the accuracy of your edit and it's for feasible/reasonable for another volunteer editors to spend hours going through everything with a fine-toothed comb, it may be best to undo everything and start again from scratch.

If you concentrate on adding maybe 3-5 claims/sources for each edit, then it's easy for us to go: "the edit at 08:32 has an incorrect source, let's undo that" and we can leave the rest alone.

If they're are sixty sources, that's just not possible.

We're all volunteers here, doing this in our spare time - imagine if you came across an article with the same problem, would you be happy to spend three hours fixing someone else's work when you could be doing anything else here?

The answer is simple and easy for everyone - keep edits to a reasonable size, so other people can see what's happening and it won't cause too many problems if it's reverted.

Your edit will stay in the history, so you can retrieve it and re-add it in smaller "chunks" - make sure you check every citation before you put it back, though! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I have already done this by adding information in small pieces in single edits with edit summeries. The problem is - one user Alaexis is reverting all my edits, because he claims information which was present in the article before my edits is not aligned with the sources (I did not add those sources or those information, it was just present there, but he reverts all my edits as if I am responsible for information present before my edits). How is this fair editing from his end? I have spent 3 hours adding information in small pieces, with direct quotes, and he just reverts all. ~2026-25127-65 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: Please check this. I have spent three hours adding information in small pieces like, but user @Alaexis: just reverted all because of information and source present in the article before any of my edits not being aligned with source. I have even wrote this in one of my edit summeries, that information was present in the article before my edits. I have already asked this user Alaexis to appriciate time of other users, but he just reverts all edits and wastes my time. I am talking about this edit on my part, and this one on his part. Please pay attention to his behaviour. ~2026-25127-65 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand, apologies for misunderstanding the situation. This has been brought to a noticeboard for review, please allow a little time for us to look through it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet:, thank you for taking time and help, could you please help, what can be done against this kind of behaviour of Alaexis? ~2026-25127-65 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to join the discussion at ANI since you're second party to the dispute - the link is in the section above. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) disruption Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Adding edit summaries is a good start but it's not sufficient. I started checking the yesterday's edits and found an inaccuracy of the same kind. I don't understand how it can happen again and again. Alaexis_¿question? 08:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

This has already been answered above. Please don't make me write same information two times. This thread can be closed, because main discussion is in the thread above. ~2026-24899-90 (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

hi alaexis, it seems you have gotten to that already, but this has a lot of similarities to LLM stuff (which is banned as of march this year i think) ive seen. this article has been gutted, in a sense, by a bunch of date user accounts over a long period. i dont have the time to look into this fully now and i was just about to list a few sourcing errors I saw, but it seems you caught those as well. for now, ill request semi-protection because the user adding 'Russian and Abkhaz victory' and similar names resumed their additions immediately after the 1-week protection expired. this should help stop people from masking sketchy behavior under anonymity and hopefully curb the recent controversy. frankiethey/them (t • c) 18:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

specifically the similarities would be hallucinated citations and unsourced work frankiethey/them (t • c) 18:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! It also crossed my mind, though I wasn't 100% sure. Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Question about references

This citation () is to what I think is written by Svetlana Chervonnaya, if I read that right. My Russian certainly isn't very good, so I'm using a dictionary for my translation here⸺ and it seems to me that this citation doesn't really fit Wikipedia:Reliable sources, based off of what I can read? A sentence on the bottom of page 4 of the source reads "авторская позиция субъективна", which I think says that the author's opinion is subjective, though I don't have a lot of context. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but something about the site seems a bit off to claim specifically that the leaders of the CMPC said this: "As there is no other way to withdraw Georgian occupants' army from the territory of the sovereign Abkhazia and in order to implement the resolution of the 10th Session of the CMPC, we order: [...] 3. To announce Tbilisi as a zone of disaster. At that use all methods, including terrorist acts." Based off of the results of searching up "Svetlana Chervonnaya", I can just say that I'm not very sure who wrote this, and if this author counts as a "published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

The reason why I'm bringing this up here is because I felt like it was worth noting this source is being used to claim that the CMPC ordered their forces to commit terrorist acts directly, and the other parts of the cited article that I can understand just kind of strike me a bit odd. I currently don't have the time to check into it and make sure right now, so thanks in advance if anyone helps. Qoppa-kappa (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Chervonnaya is a real person and Абхазия-1992: Посткоммунистическая вандея is a real book. She's quite opinionated and has been criticised for treating Abkhaz movement as blind adherent of and champion of the Soviet system. It's a contemporary source and was added to the article in the 2000s when there were fewer high-quality alternatives. I think that it's worth verifying the claims backed up by this source one-by-one.

Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Sorry if I made it look like I was questioning the existence of the author and the book, I just wasn't sure about who the author was. Qoppa-kappa (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The information about CMPC ordering terrorist attacks can be found in other sources too. For example:

The President and the head of the Parliament of the CMPC also issued a special decree on the mobilization of the military forces of the confederation , stating that the headquarters of the CMPC should ensure military resistance against the " aggressors " and they should be urgently deployed on the territory of Abkhazia ; to this end , they should try their best to enter the territory of Abkhazia by any means ; the capital city Tbilisi should be declared a “ zone of misfortune ” ; all means should be used , including organizing terrorist acts there ; and all ethnic Georgians on the territory of the CMPC should be considered as " hostages . "

Rácz, András (2024). The Palgrave Handbook of Non-State Actors in East-West Relations. Springer International Publishing. p. 313. ISBN 9783031405464.

61 In particular , he ordered : “ 1 ) Facilitate movement of volunteers to Abkhazia ; 2 ) In case something prevents their movement , they are allowed to open fire ; 3 ) Declare Tbilisi [ capital of Georgia ] a zone of emergency and use all methods of fighting including terrorist acts ; 4 ) Declare Georgians on the territory of the confederation hostages ; 5 ) Detain all goods going to Georgia . "

Mironova, Vera (2026). Conflict in the North Caucasus. Oxford University Press. p. 41. ISBN 9780197759141. (in references)

The info can also be found in the Official Records: Proces-verbaux Officiels of United Nations, 1993.

References

Alleged "problems with verification"

@Alaexis:: Write down what alleged problems do you think there are concerning verification here. I will fix all alleged problems and add all information back to the article. If you fail to write down problems here, information still will be readded. I will follow through this case to the end and spend as much time as possible, I will not disengage until the edits will be added. I will spend all my time here if necessary. ~2026-25317-74 (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I've already started. I've also re-added some of the content you had added, including on the Law on Secession and the War of Laws section. Alaexis_¿question? 14:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

April 1989 clashes

“ The attack of Abkhazians and the April 9 tragedy eventually resulted in the first armed clashes between the representatives of the Abkhazian and Georgian populations that took place on 16–17 July 1989 in Sukhumi. The resulting civil unrest quickly turned into militarized clashes that, according to official accounts, resulted in 18 deaths and at least 448 wounded, 302 of whom were Georgian. In response, Interior Ministry troops were deployed to quell the unrest. ”

This is the current version. The highlighted text is in fact not supported by either Beissinger or Wheatley. The simplest fix would be to remove this passage - after all it's an overview article. I'm also fine with retaining the number of injured if we can find a source for it. Please propose the new version here and I'd be happy to add it to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 13:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alaexis: you are supposed to provide your issues with this version of the article, not the current version. Is there any issues you find in that version of the article? You adding the text to the article is not required, I will add my text myself when the your issues will be cleared out. ~2026-25163-26 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

This thread is about the events in 1989. How would you like the article to describe them? Alaexis_¿question? 14:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alaexis: The text about Gorbachev should also mention that Gorbachev did not wish to see member states to secede. It is specifically mentioned on the page - "The last thing Gorbachev wanted was to lose any part of the Soviet Union". Also, Gorbachev himself did not pass any laws. ~2026-25163-26 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I've tweaked it. But let's keep each topic to its section. Alaexis_¿question? 14:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Issues with sources

Regarding this edit, I think that better sources can be found. The books by Papaskiri and Shurghaia were both published in Georgia and may be biased. It doesn't make them unusable but let's try to find more neutral sources first. If no such sources can be found we'll need to provide both perspectives and attribute them per WP:BALANCE.

The Christian Science Monitor article was published in 1993. By now we have plenty of higher-quality sources so it would be better to use them. I'll try to find something. Alaexis_¿question? 14:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Do your issues with the article end with this one? ~2026-25310-23 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

No, it's just those I've checked so far. Alaexis_¿question? 17:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

U.S. and Russian Policymaking with Respect to the Use of Force - role of Russia

Previous version of the article contained in the "Beginning of the conflict" and "war of laws" sections contained source called "U.S. and Russian Policymaking with Respect to the Use of Force". You have bypassed this source so far without any comments. Information backed by this source is important. This source is reliable and even quoted. The information should be reinstated. I suggest to you to use this version of the article while checking to avoid missing out some sourced information which was previously present in the article. ~2026-25496-95 (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

You are mistaken, this source is not used in the Beginning of the conflict section in the revision you linked. It was a bit of a mess, with 3 citations within citation [6], this is not how citations are supposed to work. The book itself looks like a good source, I'm sure we can use it. Alaexis_¿question? 06:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this edit which added quite a lot of new information and is partially based on this book. Please don't re-add it in the meantime. Alaexis_¿question? 06:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not mistaken. This version contains following information from the source in those sections: He [Ardzinba] used the civil war that started with the overthrow of Gamsakhurdia in Georgia to separate Abkhazia from Georgia and canceled numerous Georgian laws in Abkhazia, while putting all local enterprises and organizations, including the military and the police, under the regional jurisdiction. and The constitution provided only for alliance commitments to Georgia.

• Payin, Emil; Azrael, Jeremy R. (1996). U.S. and Russian Policymaking with Respect to the Use of Force. RAND. ISBN 9780833024688.

You're right, I missed it. I re-added it to the war of laws section. Alaexis_¿question? 17:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

References

@Alaexis: Significant amount of time has passed, and you don't seem to have indicated any issues with the edits. Moreover, you seem to have switched to editing other articles. Did your issues with the edits end? If they did, I will readd the edits to article. If not, you need to indicate your issues on time. If you try to drag things out with the goal of stretch time indefinently, I would like to remind you that this is a violation of rules and approporiate actions would be needed to be taken. ~2026-26555-26 (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here. You also haven't done what I suggested you do: clearly proposing individual changes at the talk for other editors to examine them.

Having said that, I think that this edit is mostly okay. One thing I would add is the reported attacks by Georgians on Russian bases (Bennet, p. 319).

There is a larger problem that the Russian role section is bloated and rambling (this is not a problem with your additions - it's been this way for a long time). It's not supposed to be a chronological list of everything that involved Russia since it would duplicate the information elsewhere in the article. Maybe it even deserves its own article. Alaexis_¿question? 19:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Chronology

Also, it looks like the events described in the second paragraph of War of Laws section ("Ardzinba, who was a charismatic but excitable figure popular among the Abkhaz...") were happening after his election in December 1990. This happened before either Soviet or Georgian referendums. Therefore, this paragraph should be moved before the sentences about 1991 referendums. Thus, it should be moved before "Georgia boycotted the 17 March 1991..." sentence. ~2026-25496-95 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree, just fixed it. Alaexis_¿question? 06:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

result perameter russia stuff

the three linked sources state:

• WARID report: The Abkhazian victory led to its de facto independence.
• UNOMIG report: On 27 September, the Abkhaz side occupied Sukhumi and a few days later all of Abkhazia.
• RFE/RFL entry: military victory for Abkhaz separatists

if any of you think this is a "Russian and Abkhaz" victory, please provide a neutral, credible source that describes it as such. as it seems, there isn't any agreement that "Russian and Abkhaz" victory is correct, let alone that Russia was even "on" the Abkhazian side at all. frankiethey/them (t • c) 19:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming agreement in the sources on Russian participation on the separatist side. You can read all the sources cited above, although you do seem to be aware about the discussions above based on your comments there. Even more sources can be cited because of the extensive literature on this topic supporting Russian participation on separatist side. Personally I don't think either you or Alaexis are neutral and following NPOV on this subject because of tendency to just ignore the overwhelming amount of sources supporting this position. You have indicated on your page that you support "Abkhazian independence", as for Alaexis, he does have a tendency for being involved in controversial Russian-related pages in a way that has been questioned by other users: he has also tried, appereantly unsuccessfully, to remove Russian participation in Transnistrian war, he has tried to insert pro-Kremlin websites on Mariupol wikipedia page and here, he tries to claim that Russia was just innocent neutral actor (with a long history of doing so since 2007), despite all the sources contradicting him and he failing to deny information, which aligns with the Russian official attempts to deny covert participation on the separatist side in 1990s. I would strongly suggest both of you to follow the neutrality rule, stop ignoring and brushing off reliable sources which provide direct evidence to some information so that the editing can be genuine. I don't personally care that much if you write "Abkhazian victory" or "Russian and Abkhazian victory", considering that "Abkhazian victory" is Russian-backed separatist victory even if Russia is not mentioned there, but the sourced information can not be ignored. This is contradicting many Wikipedia rules and I would suggest from refraining rule violations. ~2026-26046-37 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

i’d like to ask that we focus on the content and stop making assumptions about motives.

you pointed out my userbox supporting Abkhazian independence but ignored the one right next to it stating that i want the Russian military to leave the region. nevertheless, i do my best to practice NPOV and my personal views on the "ideal" political outcome are irrelevant here; what matters is how we reflect the documented complexity of the war.

to be clear, my goal is not to omit Russian involvement. my position is based on three specific Wikipedia standard points:

• as Bennett and Herzig sources note, Russian policy was inconsistent and "shadowy." listing them as a standard co-belligerent without a note implies a formal, official alliance that didn't exist. the note is essential to explain this "unofficial" reality.
• per the UN, WARID, and RFE/RL sources i cited, the conflict is consistently summarized as an Abkhazian victory. Wikipedia's "Result" field reflects the political outcome, not a list of every party that provided support.
• acknowledging that Russia provided aid (which i agree with) while also acknowledging their official neutrality and support for Georgian territorial integrity at the time is the only way to achieve a truly NPOV.

let's move away from casting aspersions and get back to refining the text. im fine with Russia being in the infobox, provided a note is there to explain the nuance. frankiethey/them (t • c) 22:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)