Template talk:Abkhazia note

Recent pro-separatist POV pushing issue in the template

All users please take in mind that the template's content is very sensitive and any change of 8-year stable version needs wider discussion and very strong arguments. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 20:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You reverted this version -

"Abkhazia's status is disputed. It is a de facto sovereign state based on the declarative theory of statehood, but is not a member of the international community and has limited recognition from UN members, making it de jure part of Georgia based on the constitutive theory of statehood. In Georgia's official subdivision it is an autonomous republic, whose government sits in exile in Tbilisi, while the de facto republic's government is based in Sukhumi."

Please explain how this is unbalanced. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: I don't know where you saw that separatists meet "Declarative theory" criteria. I will underline very important part —

According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force.

• "Was not gained by military force" now lets check history - Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 20:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Note the following: "By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states" A war was fought, but the last point of the declarative theory is why we exclude entities such as ISIS and even the DNR+LNR from the list of states with limited recognition; Abkhazia fighting a war does not disqualify them, but we do exclude groups considered terrorists or insurgencies. See List of states with limited recognition. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging recent editors for thoughts: Wiz9999 Outback the koala. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the sensitive nature with any line of text relating to a state with limited recognition, and the potential for bias due to the addition of new POV statements in any edit, it seems to me that the most logical course of action with regards to changes made to a descriptive statement, such as this, is to make as minimal a change as possible. Remember, as the old saying goes, "if it works, don't fix it". However, this is Wikipedia, and change is not only welcome, but encouraged, as change is keeps Wikipedia progressing forward.

Consequently, the addition of the terms: "de facto sovereign state" with regards to the way the separatist government sees itself in the second sentence seems to have been accepted by current editors as an acceptable compromise to the edit war that was occurring between @Giorgi Balakhadze and @Outback the koala. Now having personally noticed previous edits by @Outback the koala with regards to 'states with limited recognition' I do not believe that his attempt at adding a statement to the article was merely to push some independence agenda, but was out of a genuine attempt at improving this statement template, which is used on many other articles on Wikipedia. However misguided his edit attempts were, it seems now he has accepted the compromise, as has @Giorgi Balakhadze.

Nevertheless a second edit war broke out when an attempt was made by @BrendonTheWizard to completely reword and rewrite the statement based on definitions of 'declarative theory' and 'constitutive theory' of statehood. I would caution that this course of action is reckless, as the peace between editors is already tenuous, and seeing as each word in the sentence is already so sensitive it would be best not to so casually overhaul a statement that is used on nearly 100 articles across Wikipedia. Rather come to a consensus here on the talk page with any small change that is to be made to the statement. The other editors do have a point about the declarative theory having a restricted application when military force is used. As this is one way of looking at the situation. (Arguments could be made from either perspective if this aspect applies in the case of Abkhazia, depending on your point of view and perspective on the situation of course). Thus the most neutral thing to do (remember WP:NPOV matters here) would be to not so drastically overhaul the statement, but rather propose a small change. Additionally, I do not support the attempt to make sentences about the 'declarative theory' and the 'constitutive theory' in this template, as the template's statement is meant to be about Abkhazia, not these two theories on state formation. Thus it would be better to keep the statement about Abkhazia primarily (the original wording did so adequately). Remember; "if it works, don't fix it". - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Brendon’s edit was slightly more accurate in that Abkhazia simply is a de facto state. The de jure status is what is the disputed portion. While that might seem like splitting hairs, accuracy is what we strive for. No I don’t have a particular POV in this matter, I just have quite an interest in this field, amongst others. Outback the koala (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Wiz9999's position.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 06:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I do see Wiz9999's criticisms and agree with part of them; though I don't think it's that necessary to go into detail about the two conflicting theories of statehood, I actually think it's relevant. The declarative theory is intimately related to de facto states because it is the theory that sovereignty can be self-declared so long as a de facto status is achieved, while the international community functions on a constitutive basis believing that sovereignty is given by others and requires recognition. Despite that, I'm willing to compromise by completely excluding any mention of the two theories so long as we also don't compromise accuracy by implying that Abkhazia doesn't have de facto existence and that it is only claimed. Abkhazia's claim is that they are a country period, no government's official position is that they only exist de facto and aren't a real constitutive country like the rest of them. It would be a POV violation if we went with that official narrative and simply referred to Abkhazia as a country the same way we'd refer to any other country. What is true is that they are a de facto country, but not a de jure one, and that is what we should display without any weasel words or WP:CLAIM concerns. Abkhazia, Georgia, and the rest of the world can agree that Abkhazia technically exists (de facto) but they're not a member of the international community and they are legally recognized by most countries as part of Georgia (lacking de jure status). We're sacrificing both accuracy and a neutral POV if we imply that Abkhazia does not exist de facto. A POV in favor of Abkhazia would be ignoring that they're not a de jure state, a POV in favor of Georgia would be ignoring that they are a de facto state. Lastly, I believe we should link to both the government in exile and the government in practice, as my version did. I'd also like to keep some mention of Abkhazia as a state with limited recognition because this directs the user to relevant information on the subject. Where I disagree with Wiz9999 is the implication that I sought to fix what I didn't believe to be broken; per the reasons I've described I found parts of it problematic and believed other parts should be expanded on. If I didn't think it needed improvement, I wouldn't seek to make sweeping changes to an already controversial subject, but I also don't think these changes were very sweeping. It's a rewording of the de facto part, an elaboration on de facto vs de jure / declared vs recognized, a mention of states with limited recognition, and the inclusion of both governments. It's an update to the existing version, not a complete overhaul of the previous version. TL;DR: I'm okay with removing the declarative/constitutive theories, but mention that Abkhazia is a de facto state (not that it claims to be a de facto state), describe it as a state with limited recognition, and mention both governments that claim the area - not one without the other. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: while talking about Abkhazia's de facto statehood, please don't close eyes on its history, Russia's involvement and other de facto facts.

I've already written this text on another talk page and will paste it here:

• The region is under Russian military occupation (see reliable sources here ► Occupied territories of Georgia) mixed with puppet "Abkhaz-Russian government" (see reliable sources here ► (IN)DEPENDENCE: GLIMPSE INTO SURKOV FILES). If you are against the term puppet state and puppet government see the definitions of them which very accurately describe "Republic of Abkhazia on the ground"
• Puppet state — A puppet state is a state that is supposedly independent but is in fact dependent upon an outside power. A puppet state preserves the external paraphernalia of independence like a name, flag, anthem, constitution, law codes and motto but in reality is an organ of another state which created or sponsored the government. Puppet states are not recognized as legitimate under international law.
• Puppet government — a government which is endowed with the outward symbols of authority but in which direction and control are exercised by another power.

Each word from the sources are copy/paste and not my interpretations, and I think they clearly place under question even Abkhazia's de facto statehood.

• The template's current view is acceptable and doesn't need additional changes.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That's quite a long SOAPbox so I'll make this short and simple: It's not contested by any party, even Georgia, that Abkhazia exists de facto. It is contested whether or not Abkhazia constitutes a puppet state. That's also a very clear red herring argument, but I'm going to humor it: let's say Wikipedians and WP:RS sources all had a unanimous agreement that Abkhazia was a puppet state just as Warsaw Pact Poland was a puppet of the Soviets; that doesn't change the fact that it is a fact that they exist. That's all "de facto" statehood means: it is a fact that they exist, despite lacking recognition. Even if there was an overwhelming and uncontested consensus that we should refer to Abkhazia as a puppet, that argument concedes the conclusion that said puppet exists. Even your wording of "other de facto facts" implicitly conceded that we all agree that Abkhazia exists de facto, but you instead insisted that if we mention unambiguously something that virtually all sources and Wikipedians agree on (that Abkhazia exists at all) that we should also label Abkhazia a puppet state in the process. These arguments bleed with POV and resort to soapboxing and fallacies. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: Abkhazia's de facto existence doesn't equal to de facto statehood.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 06:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Please do read the article Statehood. "A state is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory.[1][2] ... Some states are sovereign. Some states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state.[3] The term state is also applied to federated states that are members of a federal union, which is the sovereign state.[4]" Note that "some" states are sovereign. The sovereignty of Abkhazia is disputed because there are two conflicting theories of sovereignty (whether it can be declared or whether it must be granted) and the extent to which Abkhazia is sovereign could be contested too as you hold the position that they are a puppet and therefore not fully sovereign, but what's not disputed is Abkhazia's statehood as a de facto state. Abkhazia is in fact a state, and it exercises de facto control over its claimed territory, regardless of whether or not it has a large amount of recognition and regardless of whether or not they're under the influence of the Russian government. I'd like to remind you that you've referred to Abkhazia as a de facto, too. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: as I showed above we can say that Abkhazia is a de facto puppet state but not(!) de facto sovereign state. Even your quote about Statehood says A state is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory. Abkhazia is under Russian military occupation and this is a fact for the majority of the world, UN and etc., everyone knows that Abkhazia doesn't "maintain a monopoly".--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And once again I'll reaffirm, the template's current view after Wiz9999's changes is ok and it doesn't require additional changes.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 10:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: Your latest reply leads me to believe you have not read the entirety of what I just said. Whether or not Abkhazia is a puppet is contested, whether or not Abkhazia is sovereign can even be contested, but whether or not Abkhazia is a state can not be contested. Please reread the excerpts I've highlighted: some states are sovereign, while for some states sovereignty actually lies in another state. We don't have to agree that the Abkhaz government's sovereignty lies in the Kremlin to agree that it's a state at all. Despite that, I think we've reached enough common ground to produce an agreement. The original proposal read as follows:

"Abkhazia's status is disputed. It is a de facto sovereign state based on the declarative theory of statehood, but is not a member of the international community and has limited recognition from UN members, making it de jure part of Georgia based on the constitutive theory of statehood. In Georgia's official subdivision it is an autonomous republic, whose government sits in exile in Tbilisi, while the de facto republic's government is based in Sukhumi."

Perhaps you would agree to this?

"Abkhazia's status is disputed. It is a de facto state that considers itself to be sovereign, but is not a member of the international community and has limited recognition from UN members, making it de jure part of Georgia. In Georgia's official subdivision it is an autonomous republic, whose government sits in exile in Tbilisi, while the de facto republic's government is based in Sukhumi."

We agree that they exist, we disagree that they are sovereign, but we don't disagree that they claim to be sovereign. Is that better? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn’t agree to that. Why not model this note on a nearly identical situation by copying Template:Kosovo-note? Outback the koala (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a much preferable idea:

Abkhazia is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of Georgia. The Republic of Abkhazia unilaterally declared independence on 23 July 1992, but Georgia continues to claim it as part of its own sovereign territory. Abkhazia has received formal recognition as an independent state from 5 out of 193 United Nations member states.

This idea simply provides a brief and neutral history of how this dispute came to be, what both parties claim, and how many countries recognize it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I’d say that looks perfect and neutral while remaining consice. Great work Brendon; keeps to the facts. I hope others agree? Outback the koala (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's good to see that this discussion is resulting in agreement; I will add it per BRD and I hope that this new proposal will satisfy the concerns of other editors. As always, Giorgi, Wiz9999, and any other editors that may be interested are welcome to voice their concerns, but I'd like to think that this version should be ideal as it's analogous to the template that this note is based off of. This version simply mentions facts and allows the reader to draw conclusions on their own, without using Wikipedia's voice to draw conclusions for them. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

While I have no problem in principal with basing the statement of this template from the template of Template:Kosovo-note, (after all that template is also a well established, and has usage across over 1000 pages without must controversy) I do however have an issue with the removal of the two functional templates contained in that template {{Numrec}} and {{UNnum}} when this new wording was drawn up. Both of which would work currently in this newly reworded template, as there is a provision for Abkhazia already under {{Numrec/Abkhazia}}. Now I know that at present {{Numrec/Abkhazia}} will return a value of 7 instead of the anticipated 5, but I assure you this is simply due to inconsistency in the way we are reporting states that have recognised other claimed "states" across wikipedia itself. I have raised a discussion at Template talk:Numrec#Withdrawn Recognition Currently not Subtracting from the Number of Recognitions to attempt to address this inconsistency. Please feel free to add your comments to the discussion there. Nevertheless, I see no reason why we should not include {{UNnum}} at present instead of "193", and I will implement this change immediately. If there is an objection to the use of this second template, please revert my edit and explain your actions here. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

E.g. ...an independent state from {{Numrec|Abkhazia|spell=N}} out of {{UNnum}} United Nations member states.
= ...an independent state from 7 out of 193 United Nations member states.
- Wiz9999 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you that the lack of template use was not intentional, and was instead a product of how I copied the text. I do agree that we should be using whatever templates we can, though. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: as a sign of compromise I can agree with your last formulation. But I won't agree with @Outback the koala: just to duplicate Kosovo template. Post-soviet conflict regions and other conflict regions are two different parts, cases and etc. Even their recognition is believed to be a result of bribery of such poor countries like Venezuela, Nauru, Nicaragua, Syria (just to mention as a fact Assad regime has recognized those two regions after 10 years since the war, only then, when Putin helped him).--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Despite using similar wording to the Kosovo template, the latest version doesn't contain any words that would suggest that the histories of Abkhazia and Kosovo are comparable, so this should hopefully be free of any POV concerns as it doesn't try to draw any conclusions for the reader. Thankfully, most editors involved seem to agree that this version is not bad in principle, and therefore we've finally achieved a consensus. I'd advise against any phrasing that would tell the user what to think about the situation: for example, if we were to use wording that emphasizes how Abkhazia, unlike many other states with limited recognition, is not a completely unrecognized country, that would be a problem because we'd be suggesting that Abkhazia is more legitimate than states such as Somaliland and therefore it would be a pro-Abkhaz POV. Likwise, we shouldn't use wording that emphasizes how only 5 out of the 193 UN member states is such a small number and the overwhelming majority of the UN does not recognize them, therefore suggesting that the reader should believe that they are wholly illegitimate. The reader can draw that conclusion on their own if they wish to by simply looking at the numbers. In order to provide the most accurate and neutral information, it is best that we simply mention that 5 out of the 193 UN member states currently recognize Abkhazia and leave it at that. Thank you for your thoughts and cooperation throughout this controversial discussion. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(←) I think the confusion is in interpreting the two theories. Declarative either is or isn’t, an entity either fits the criteria or it does not. How and when an entity fits this criteria is where the debate lies. With Constitutive it’s all a matter of states legal interpretation, (i.e. it’s a matter of preceptive; the preceptives of states). In the case of Abkhazia only the constitutive is in question where some states says it is a state and others do not. That’s how the theory works. The question of how many states choose either position is of no consequence to us. Why? Because as an encyclopedia we are neutral and we do not give weight to some international opinions over others. That’s how the encyclopedia works. Outback the koala (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation of neutrality is weird at best and not convincing at all. The question of how many states choose either position is just the statement of the well-established fact. Let the reader decide whether these five "recognizing" states are just a handful of rogue regimes or a heroic minority.--Kober^Talk 16:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)