This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Abkhazia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbkhaziaWikipedia:WikiProject AbkhaziaTemplate:WikiProject AbkhaziaAbkhazia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Caucasia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia Europe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Asia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Georgia (country) High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Politics and law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Limited recognition Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The redirect Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 30 § Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia until a consensus is reached. kxeo  mailbox 01:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all countries recognise Abkhazia as part of Georgia. On the other hand, only a minority consider it occupied by Russia. As you can see here, most of EU/NATO countries made statements to that effect, as did Japan and Ukraine. Alaexis_¿question? 11:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That text contains a contradiction. If majority of states recognize Abkhazia as Georgia, and they do, plus there is Russian army in the territory without Georgian approval, that automatically means that the territory is occupied by Russia, it does not requires additional statements or anything. Nivzaq (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your own conclusion which constitutes original research. Alaexis_¿question? 15:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some states just don't openly call it "Russian occupied territory" because they might be far away and not want to worsen relations with Russia because of this, but recognizing the territory as Georgian autonomatically means that it is Russian occupied. Stationing army on foreign territory without approval of that state is occupation, what else might it be called? Moreover, this is not about how many states openly call it occupation or not, but about how it is in international law. Some countries acting polite because they don't want to stick in someone else's conflict does not means it is not occupation, right? Nivzaq (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a big deal but it wouldn't be right to completely ignore the agency of the local government of Georgian SSR. Khlevniuk is very clear about it

He goes on to note that this reflected a general Soviet approach at the time, but he clearly thinks that the initiative came at least partially from the local leadership. Alaexis_¿question? 15:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think right now the text in the article indicates everything fully and does not needs chage. I don't think it would be correct to talk about "initiative" and "agency" of the Georgian SSR government, since it was selected by Moscow and was obliged to act within its line, and therefore, it had no independent capacity to act and the quote also does not indicates that the policy was either drafted or created by the Georgian SSR government, rather calling it a "general policy" implemented in Uzbekistan, Lithuania, Russia and all Soveit republics, with an ultimate goal of assimiliation into the Russian-led Soviet identity (according to the cited book). The quote does not shows that the policy was implemented differently in Georgia compared to other Soviet republics because of the opinions of the Georgian SSR government. Therefore, the text does not needs edits about "agency" and "initiative" of Georgian SSR government in my opinion. Nivzaq (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with Khlevniuk's framing of these actions as a "Tbilisi's policy" (direct quote) reflecting a general Soviet approach, you need to find reliable sources that have a different opinion. Alaexis_¿question? 21:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it's better to just state the fact that Abkhazia lost its SSR status in 1931. Different scholars have different opinions about the drivers of this decision. Saparov writes that it is wrong to attribute these changes solely to Georgian nationalism and to the personalities of Stalin and Ordzhonikidze. (bold is mine) So the "Georgian nationalism and to the personalities of Stalin and Ordzhonikidze" were not the reason but a reason they certainly were. These details should be discussed in the articles about the history of Abkhazia and the Abkhazian SSR, it's too much nuance for the main article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name a reason why exactly do you call 8% increase of "Abkhazian" population in 1920s as non-significant demographic change, but 10% increase of Georgians during Stalin's era as "significant change of demographic makeup"? Based on this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Abkhazia, which has statistics copied from Soviet census, Georgian population was 29.5% in 1939 while 39.1% in 1959. How is this in any way much more significant than increase of so-called "Abkhazian" population from 17% to 28%? Your edits just suggest that you are biased in favor of pro-Russian positions and "Abkhaz" separatism, but Wikipedia should be neutral. There is no way 8% increase can be "non-significant" while 10% increase somehow warrants being called as "significant change in demographic makeup". 180.244.160.8 (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the short answer is that this is what our sources do. Can you name a single source that says that the was a significant change in the 1920s? On the other hand many sources, including the ones quoted in the article explicitly say that the Stalin-era resettlement led to a significant change.

But you're right that at first sight 8% isn't so different from 10% and it appears unjust to call the latter and not the former "significant." Let's see what the sources say

Jones, p. 617

If the change was mostly due to re-identification this would resolve the paradox. If there was a significant number of people who identified as Georgians in 1922 because it was advantageous in the independent Georgia and then identified as Abkhaz in 1926 because it was advantageous under the korenizatsiya policy, this wouldn't reflect a substantial change.

For the 1926 figures the source is the All-Union Census, there are more details in Muller's Ethno-demographic history of Abkhazia, 1886 - 1989, p. 12. For the 1922, the original source is unclear as Jones doesn't give an inline citation. A bit earlier, for the general population numbers his source is Sabdchotha sakarthvelos 10 tseli. Statisticuri krebuli (Tphilisi [sic], 1931, pp. 20-21).(Statistical Collection of 10 Years of Independent Georgia) but it's not the original source either.

Note however that Abkhaz numbered ~30% of the rural population according to the agricultural census of 1917 (Muller, p. 10). Considering that the urban population was ~10%, the Abkhaz couldn't have constituted less than ~27% of the total population. Overall, it seems unlikely that their share went from 27% to 20% between 1917 and 1922 and then back to 28% in 1926.

I think that the best way to go would be to find more sources on the 1917-1926 period. Was there a massive displacement, or immigration, or change of identity? This would give the reader a better understanding of what was going on, compared to just percentages. Alaexis_¿question? 14:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lerner's work is a master's thesis. Per WP:THESIS it's considered reliable only if "they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." It hasn't had such influence [1]. Let's use the original source used by Lerner instead. Alaexis_¿question? 20:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some information in the article is sourced to the 15th edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. For the most part it's uncontroversial, however I can't find any of it when I click on the links in the reference.^[1] Would be great if someone checked the source and updated the citation.

Alaexis_¿question? 21:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has a number of issues. The following text was added to reopen the railway line running through Abkhazia to the rest of Georgia, which became unprotected after the region's declaration of independence and was being frequently robbed.

• First, it makes it seem like the declaration of independence led to the lack of protection which in turn led to robberies. However the source (the NYT article) doesn't make this claim, instead it simply says where one of every 10 trains had been robbed, were attacked and at least 30 people were killed. This is not nitpicking, because of the
• Second reason. There was an ongoing Georgian Civil War in western Georgia. The officials who were taken hostage were kidnapped by Zviadists, not by Abkhaz separatists. As to the railway, Julie George writes (p. 116) that War broke out in Abkhazia when Georgian paramilitary groups entered Abkhazia to secure the railways taken by Zviadists in the civil war so it's also unclear who robbed the trains (possibly everyone).
• Third, there is no point in using contemporary newspaper articles when we have plenty of scholarly works published in the last 30+ years.

Considering that this is the main article about Abkhazia, I don't think we need all these details here. It's enough to say what the declared goal was and that some scholars expressed certain doubts (George: Georgia’s intentions and actions in the incursion remain the subject of some controversy; de Waal, p. 157 The operation may well have been a personal initiative by Kitovani to claim glory and loot Abkhazia.) But I'm open to other suggestions as long as they are backed by RS. Alaexis_¿question? 21:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the text suggesting that the railway became unprotected due to the region's declaration of independence was removed, because the cited source does not suggests that. However, the brief text explaining why the issue of railway became relevant should be present, because the previous version of the text suggested that the operation's purpose was to secure railway without even explaning to the readers why the issue of railway became relevant, which was confusing. The fact that the railway was being robbed (does not matters by which side) is not controverial due to chaos there, so, it does not needs necessarily a book to support this point. Whether hostages were taken by Zviadists or separatists does not matters, you can write that it was Zviadists if you want, but it is not really important - what is important is that the hostages (including Georgian Interior Minister and so on) were held in the territory of Abkhazia, which you don't dispute, is supported by sources and should be mentioned in the article because of the importance of this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35092-77 (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with mentioning robberies. Alaexis_¿question? 14:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]