Jump to content

Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Picture of a girl holding swastika sign spelling "Russia"

This pic is:

Obvious propaganda.
Doesn't tell us anything about the war.
Swastika usage makes no sense at all.
I think it's out of context. I suggest removal? 122.107.130.111 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a good replacement picture that gives more information about the war? If so, a switch would be a benefit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze, please stop edit warring~!

Where is the anthem? Where is the normal map without highlighting separatist regions? Where is the 'Russian occupation of Georgian territories' written? You're not letting me to edit and keep deleting everything I write. I am NOT biased. PUT THE ANTHEM! PUT THE UNITED MAP OF GEORGIA INTO INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS WITHOUT SEPARATIST REGIONS! PUT THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION! AND THEN YOU CAN LOCK THE THREAD! Do you get it or not? Stop this editorial war for god's sake! --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For the last time, I'm not going to repeat myself again, stop shouting or you will be ignored! Secondly, you've been the chief culprit of this edit warring and yet you have the audacity to cry wolf here, I'd strongly suggest that you read up on WP:CIVIL first before proceeding any further. Just to be clear, you were very, very close to being BLOCKED for behaving in such an impolite manner so if I were you, I would seriously watch my words from now on... as you are threading on very thin ice right now. Last warning to you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Georgia considers these territories to be under Russian occupation as it is a major determining factor in Georgia's policy towards Abkhazia and SO and its relations with Russia. So it should obviously be mentioned.--KoberTalk 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
True true, I like your edit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the map and the anthem. And just put one template of Georgian statehood. I hope everything's OK now. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I kept the anthem (not the best at copyright), but reverted the map back to one with an inset that shows areas not actually under any control by the country. The template isn't that great, the section in this article is an overview of all history, not just of different states that were present in and around what is now Georgia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And what's a problem with copyright? According to the Georgian law, the national symbols are not copyrighted. --KoberTalk 04:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
May I repeat my question: What exactly is a problem? And, also, why does only this article appear to be problematic in this regard? --KoberTalk 17:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Where is the map of UNITED GEORGIA? I DEMAND you to respect the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS without putting there conflict separatist regions! EDIT IT NOW! --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I've already DID! So don't bother yourself! --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
GeorgianJorjadze, if you insist on reverting mindlessly while shouting at other editors, you will be blocked, and fast. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze has been blocked for one week for continuing to engage in edit-warring, even after having been warned to stop. Participation on an article's talk page is supposed to be instead of, not in addition to, edit-warring on the article itself. Disputes over content should be dealt with via the accepted dispute resolution procedures, which do not include shouting or edit-warring. — Richwales (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

For comparison's sake (which may or may not be worth anything), the current infobox maps for Moldova and Serbia use a similar colour scheme (dark green for unquestioned territory, light green for disputed regions). On the other hand, the current map for the Republic of Cyprus uses dark green for the entire island and does not distinguish the disputed region of Northern Cyprus in any way. The disputed regions in Moldova and Cyprus have minimal degrees of international recognition which are comparable to that of Abkhazia and South Ossetia — whereas, of course, Kosovo has much broader support. My own inclination is to support the general idea that regions which are part of a country de jure, but not under the de facto control of the officially recognized government, should be identified as falling into an intermediate category (such as by using two different shades of green). This is (in my view) not a value judgment, but simply a neutral acknowledgment of the facts on the ground. The consensus here, right now, appears to agree with me, but I would of course accept a consensus going the other way. — Richwales (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • KEEP - Well, for the sake of consistency, I would rather go along the lines of your suggestion/comparison with Moldova and Serbia. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia so if there's no standard for us to keep to then we might have a very big problem later on. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Higher quality? A png of a large grey expanse with Georgia tucked into the right hand side? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I named a couple of problems in just that last post. To stop edit warring, stop making changes without consensus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. Would you support putting this map? --> http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Georgia_%28highlighted%29.png and if not, please do explain. I demand the respect for every country's sovereign and international borders, and Georgia here is NO exception. Do you support it now? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've opened an official "Request for Comment" on this issue, in an effort to seek additional outside perspectives on the matter. I would urge everyone to respect this established dispute resolution process and allow outsiders to express their thoughts freely. Regarding the discussion which has already taken place, I will simply suggest that honest people may reasonably differ on the question of whether de facto acknowledgment of the existence of a territorial dispute is or is not consistent with an attitude of respect toward de jure borders, and that the word "demand" may not be conducive to an atmosphere of open discussion and achieving consensus. — Richwales (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Which infobox map to use for Georgia (country)?

The generally recognized territory of the former Soviet republic of Georgia includes two regions (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) which are not under the effective control of the country's central government. In the small infobox map which identifies the location of Georgia, should these two disputed regions be shown in a contrasting colour (as, for example, in this map)? Or should the entire de jure territory of Georgia be shown in a single, uniform colour (as, for example, in this map)? — Richwales (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I support THIS map! Georgia in internationally recognized borders highlighted in ONE colour. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It would help others who might come here (without being familiar with the subject) if you could explain why you hold this view. Your opinion may carry more weight if you back it up with reasoned discussion. To quote WP:NOTAVOTE: Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. Also, everyone should please be careful here not to dominate the discussion or discourage new participants from expressing their positions. — Richwales (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Simple as that. Every sovereign state should be in its own recognized sovereign borders. Highlighting these two conflict zones into Georgia may carry double idea as if these two regions were officially "indipendent states" from Georgia. Again, it's not currently in control of Georgian central government but it was, is and always will be an integral part of Georgia. Highlighting those two regions, which is currently under Russian military occupation and actual annexation is planned, when more than 500,000 thousand Georgians are expelled from its homes from these two regions in whole, it's unacceptable to justify highlighting these two regions in different colours as if they weren't Georgian soil. That's my point of view. Georgia in its own borders should be presented with these two currently occupied regions into ONE colour, into ONE united Georgia. I do hope fellow wikipedians would support my position. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I support the current globe map. First of all, it's better than the proposed map because it shows Georgia in relation to the world instead of shoved off to some backwater in Eastern Europe. In regards to the highlighting, absolute statements like "it was, is and always will be an integral part of Georgia" show that this change of map proposal is coming from a highly biased position. On the ground the two territories really aren't part of Georgia. Their governments run completely independently from Georgia (although not independent from Russia, some may say). With the two shadings, both de jure and de facto borders of Georgia are presented. It's not like the two territories are grey. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Speaking (hopefully) a little less ominously, we do need to take a neutral, balanced position — or, more precisely, we need to give fair and balanced treatment to all significant positions that are backed up by reliable sources (see WP:NPOV for the details). Applying this principle here, we need to acknowledge both that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are disputed/occupied areas, and also that the international community (with only a few exceptions) considers these regions to be legally part of Georgia. Some compromises may be necessary, and in this case the best "middle ground" may possibly be to show the disputed areas in a different shade of green — indicating that these areas "are" part of Georgia in some way (because it's all "green"), but "not really" part of Georgia in some other way (because they're in a lighter green). When you consider that there are other people (Russians, Abkhazians, Ossetians) who would probably object that the regions in question are being shown in any shade of green, this map may be the best compromise — equally distasteful to everyone. That's how the situation appears to me; hopefully this RFC will attract comments from more people who haven't been involved here up till now. — Richwales (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I was just in a naming dispute and I was also reminded that this is an English wikipedia, as you like to highlight, and that we need to do things as it is most commonly done in English language sources. So why does not this apply here? Overwhelming majority of English-speaking countries recognize Georgia in its UN-recognized borders, and their subjects are explicitly warned to do so by the websites of their respective embassies to avoid legal problems. Then why should we care about the Russians or anyone else? Let them do on Russian-language wikipedia what is acceptable from the point of view of most Russian speakers.--Andriabenia (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
We do not follow the POV of English speaking governments, or Russian speaking governments for that matter. We present government POVs as government POVs, not fact. We also don't go by what is acceptable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The article needs to report all reliably attested views per NPOV, without taking sides. Unfortunately, the nature of the infobox is such that we can only have one map, so I believe we need to use a single map that reflects the various positions. The fact that this is the English Wikipedia means we rely primarily on English-speaking sources, but that's not the same as saying we automatically accept the POV of English-speaking countries as the truth. There are sources in English on all sides of the Georgian territorial question. — Richwales (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support map showing Abkhazia and South Ossetia in light green as per User:Richwales' argument above. This allows us to present both opposing POVs in a neutral way. The territories are green since Georgia claims them, but they are a different shade of green since this claim is disputed. Personally, I'm not a big fan of orthographic projection maps, but this is a minor point. TDL (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If it so, why is Azerbaijan shown in its full borders? Azerbaijan has territorial dispute with Armenia over Karabakh region. We're not against keeping the map of Azerbaijan like the way it is now, but is it the only case with Georgia or what? Why in Georgian case you support showing the conflict regions in different green when on Azerbaijan you don't? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It may very possibly be the case that the Azerbaijan map ought to be updated. These things are not as tightly coordinated as one might expect or want, and so we can't always read too much into the fact that something is, or is not, being done in some other article. To compare the treatment of disputed regions in the location maps in other articles:
  • The article on Moldova shows the disputed region of Transnistria in light green.
  • The article on Morocco shows the disputed Western Sahara via stripes.
  • The article on Serbia uses light green for Kosovo (which, despite a much higher level of international recognition, remains "officially" part of Serbia).
  • The article on Argentina shows the Falkland Islands in light green in its location map, even though Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands is largely rejected internationally.
  • The article on Cyprus shows the entire island (including the disputed Northern Cyprus region) in a single colour.
  • The article on Spain does not acknowledge Spain's unrecognized claim to Gibraltar at all in its location map.
I don't necessarily agree with some of the above decisions, but the problem may need to be worked out for each country by consensus amongst the people who have been working on each article. — Richwales 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
My two cents as an uninvolved editor. Both Richwales and GeorgianJorjadze have good points. This is not an obvious case. The disputed areas legally belong to Georgia. While some wikipedia articles show disputed areas in different shades others do not. In these cases, I'd make the decision based on what is the perception/affiliation of the majority of inhabitants (according to reliable sources) in these disputed territories. JCAla (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, Support two different shades of green as per User:Richwales - show the internationally recognised borders and the disputed territories so the reader can make their own conclusions. We are not here to judge the rightness or otherwise of territorial disputes, but to indicate they exist. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
@JCAla: One possible problem with trying to base decisions on "the perception/affiliation of the majority of inhabitants" is that many disputed territories have been the subject of extensive forced displacement / ethnic cleansing. This has definitely happened in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. — Richwales 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Put the map of Georgia exactly as the Azerbaijani map is done! International borders are international borders! How would you feel if someone will kick you out of your own apartment, you and all of your family and then when you'll say that that very place was indeed your place where you lived some other will say well it does not really depend what YOU say but what the others say. Wake up. It's Georgian territory, ethnically cleansed and I am NOT biased. By putting these double standard map some might think that these two Georgian regions are officially seperate and do not really belong to Georgia. That's unacceptable my friends. What would you write if you were on my position? What would you say if your country was being invaded and occupied? Noone belives untill then someones ass is kicked personally I guess. Unfortunately. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
GeorgianJorjadze evidently believes that any distinctive depiction of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the infobox map implies approval of the de facto separateness of these regions. That's not how I view this proposal, and it's not clear to me that others believe this. There is a difference between recognition of a fact and approval of the fact. I do think that if the infobox map does continue to show Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "different", there should be a text note below the map saying something like "Disputed regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are shown in light green", so the reader will clearly understand what is going on and can click on the relevant links to find more details. — Richwales 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Caption added, similar to Abkhazia's. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
@Richwales and GeorgianJordadze, you are both right. Forget my proposal in such cases - as it is the case here - where "disputed territories have been the subject of extensive forced displacement / ethnic cleansing." Didn't consider this point before. I would rephrase the caption below the map though, Chipmunkdavis. "Claimed but uncontrolled territories" does not represent properly that these territories indeed once were controlled by and legally do belong to Georgia. What about "Georgia in its legally defined and internationally recognized borders (dark green and light green). Disputed territories under Russian occupation highlighted in light green." Maybe with this caption even GeorgianJorjadze's concerns could be addressed? JCAla (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Good point JCAla. The caption as amended by Chipmunkdavis should be even clearer what the problems are in these areas. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Georgia never actually fully controlled either territory, they split off from Georgia at around the same time as Georgia split from the USSR. It did however control some areas of both before 2008, but that's more detail than I'd like to put in a simple map caption. I took the "claimed but uncontrolled" bit from the Pakistan map caption, so I'm sure it can be refined. How about "Georgia in green with separatist areas highlighted"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe different people will disagree as to whether the areas in question are separatist (seeking to break free of Georgia and appealing to Russia for aid in achieving self-determination), or occupied by Russia (via puppet states serving a Russian imperialist agenda). The areas were legally part of Georgia when it split from the USSR, but the roots of both conflicts predate that time. There should be (and, indeed, are) other articles dealing with both Abkhazia and South Ossetia / Shida Kartli in detail, and we can't possibly give a comprehensive treatment of all the nuances in a single, tiny map in an infobox. "Disputed regions" may be the most neutral term we can use here. — Richwales 15:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Disputed? Do you know what this word even means? That means that there is probablity that these two regions WERE NEVER part of Georgia. And you want to put such a wording here? That IS NOT disputed regions. These two regions are Russian occupied territiories where the ethnic cleansing happened of Georgians. How can Abkhazia or so-called South Osetia (part of Shida Kartli) be independent or may have any official government when 8 out of 10 people are expelled from these two regions. How can these two regions can have the government or authorities when 90 out of 100 have no right because of ethnic cleansing happened and they cannot vote. Abkhazia and so-called S.O. were always Georgian regions with majority Georgian population. In Abkhazia the entire population was 500.000 and 400.000 of them were Georgians which were expelled by Russian help and Russia is occuping these regions from 90s. But after 2008 it made even official and recognized these two regions for future anexation. It is UNDER Russian MILITARY occupation. Put under the map if you're not changing this map.
  • Dark Green: Georgia proper.
  • Highlited: Georgian territories under Russian military occupation.
--GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • They are not going to include Georgian territories under Russian military occupation because they do not want to offend the Russians and do not care about Georgia nearly as much as probably you do. Perhaps, you should ask for Territories Georgia considers occupied by Russia. I will support that.--Andriabenia (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And why should I care about the Russians? Are we INVADING AND OCCUPYING Russian soil? Are Georgian armed forces and its bases on the Russian territory? Why should I give a damn about how the Russians would feel about that? I totally don't care, because the truth is on Georgian side. I demand the truth to be written here. That's it. Some say it's upon the concsensus but are we really saying that the color Pink is almost like Black? Are we? Turn on some logic people. We do not demand something that is not ours. We demand our borders to be respected. That's all. It's not about offending anyone, whether they're Russians or New Zealander Kiwis. It's only all about the international law recognized by all international bodies. That's the thing. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
What about: "Georgia proper (dark green and light green). Conflict regions highlighted in light green."? JCAla (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not terribly concerned here about whether or not I offend the Russians. I am a little bit concerned about offending the Georgians, since I have some Georgian friends, but I still think we need to find a compromise position here, even if no one is 100% happy with it. Some possibilities that came to my mind this morning: "Regions not under Georgian control after the 2008 war with Russia shown in light green"; or "Areas occupied by Russian forces after the 2008 war shown in light green"; or "Portions of Georgia's internationally recognized territory not currently under its control shown in light green". I would suggest that the caption should also incorporate wikilinks to 2008 South Ossetia War and Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Topics such as the ethnic character and political status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia within Soviet-era Georgia, hostilities and population displacements in these areas between 1991 and 2008, the degree to which the overall situation may have been exploited by Russia for its own purposes, etc., etc. are important issues which need to be treated in detail, but this cannot possibly be done in a one- or two-sentence caption under a tiny map in an infobox. I believe we should make it clear to the reader that a significant "situation" exists here, and provide some links in the caption which will allow readers to find in-depth coverage elsewhere if they decide they want or need it. — Richwales 17:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Something without a date would be preferable, makes things less complicated. They were after all functionally independent even before the 2008 war. I'd be happy with a combination of GeorgianJorjadze's suggestion and yours.
  • Dark Green: Georgia proper
  • Light green: Territories not under government control
I think we should wikilink "#Autonomous republics", which directs readers straight to the appropriate section of the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Dark Green: Georgia proper
  • Light green: Georgian territories under Russian occupation
I support such wording. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: Although I was invited here by the RfC bot, I'm not sure the RfC is still live, as nothing has happened for almost two weeks.

  • The one-color map (which deprived the reader of important information about the current extent of the Georgian government's control) and the two-color map (which implied a formal rejection of internationally accepted boundaries) are both inferior to the solution now in place, with shades of green. I congratulate the editors for reaching this result.
  • As for the map caption, I agree with omitting most of the detail -- a caption is a poor place to try to cram in all the information about a complex situation like this one. The caption should not refer to these areas as "disputed areas" or the like, because that would not give enough weight to the international recognition of Georgia's boundaries. The current caption states simply that the light green areas are "outside of Georgian control", a fact that is apparently undisputed. The Russian military occupation of parts of Georgia is (properly) noted in the lead section of the article and elaborated on in the text. The article also includes the "high detail map" that covers all of Georgia but highlights more precisely the parts that the government doesn't currently control. That's a better solution than trying to explain everything in the map caption.
  • If the current compromise is considered to be stable, then the involved editors should ask that the RfC be closed. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • agreeJamesMLane's suggestion seems appropriate. It highlights the actual situation on the ground while retaining territory largely recognised as georgian within the country. More detailled coverage of what is a complex issue is better handled (as it is at the moment) in the body of the article and related ones on the releveant territories Kurtk60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

New Pictures

Hello fellow wikipedians,

Just added 3 new updates pictures so I do hope you won't mind and won't delete it. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOSIMAGES. Pictures on wikipedia articles are primarily intended to aid understanding, and there are limits to the number of images an article can have. The images you have added sandwich text, which is advised against. Would you rather replace pictures that are already there with the new ones? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Replaced them with the new pics. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I notice GeorgianJorjadze fills pages with this junk, then they get deleted and the previous images are lost. just look at the pics, they are all from the internet, who is going to clean up this junk after him? And what is with all these random images and obsession with Georgian alphabet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananabliadze (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me? What's your problem my dear? You have Georgian username but I highly doubt you're Georgian.
@Chipmunkdavis, this user above changed the pics I've put so I changed them back. I hope you don't mind. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What does this have to do with being Georgian you idiot? I see you are are sticking these images in all articles even as they are just picked up from the internet. Then they get deleted and the articles are left a mess. Commonsdelinker removes this or that, I am tired of it, go away and find another way to express your Georgianness you primitive moron. You're giving the rest of us a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananabliadze (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Shig xo ara gaqvs shen chemo kargo? aba midi moisvi erti. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please STOP CURSING and remove your internet images. The old ones where just fine. For non-Georgian speakers,what he said roughly means: "Do you have it(Penis) inside you, my dear?"(Georgian slang for "perhaps that's what's bugging you because I see no other reason") and then, "Go ahead and feel it(the genitals) with your hand to see if its in." You're such a scumbag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananabliadze (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

All parties should eliminate the vitriol. GeogrianJorjadze, how was the licensing of these images determined? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
@Mananabliadze, kidev ertxel gekitxebi shig xom ar gaqvs metqi? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Off the record from English Wikipedia, GeorgianJorjadze has been uploading a lot of questionable images on Wiki Commons without permission from them author/owners of those websites, as such he has been requested to provide it to WP:OTRS or they will be all deleted from the server. Note this is now bordering on WP:Copyrights and will be taken seriously lest Wikipedia wants to be sued for such infringement(s). Patrolling adminstrators please take note of this, thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Name of Georgia in Russian

Georgia was occupied by the USSR from 1921 until 1991. In the official language of the USSR, Russian, the name of the country is Грузия (Pronounced: "Gruz-ih-ya"). This name is used by all Georgian-Jewish folks that I have met in the US and Israel. The section of Etymology in this article does not discuss this name in Russian. The Etymology of Грузия always interested me. In that section, the following is mentioned: "According to some scholars, "Georgia" could have been borrowed in the 11th or 12th century from the Syriac gurz-ān". Could this be the source of the Russian name "Грузия" ? Please discuss.Wildrucker (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the Etymology section contains a link to the Name of Georgia article, in which you can find an answer to your question. --KoberTalk 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Kober for the very helpful information link! Wildrucker (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Wildrucker, Russian name for Georgia which they call and other Slavic countries call "Gruzya" was adopted from Persians. When Russians came into the Caucasus region they came by from the Caspian Sea side where there met Persian empire and "Country of Georges" which Persians called and still call "Gorjestan" which is a country of Gorj=George. From this Russian called in early period Georgians like Persian and Russians called us like "Gurjins". Then the form was changed into "Gurzins" and then to "Gruzins" and the country to "Gruzya" which came from "Gurjya" and "Gurzya". So thats why Russians call us that way. Most slavs do. And from Russian Japanese, Chinese, Koreans adopted and copied the form directly from "Gruzya". But as for name "Georgia" it's one of the oldest forms to have been used for Georgia and its several kingdoms. And that time when Georgia had it's states there was no such a thing like Rus or Russia at all. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 11:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

False account of Russian back-down from its 2008 invasion of Georgia

The section of the article entitled "2008 military conflict with Russia" is unreliable and one-sided. It is heavily slanted to the Russian propaganda version. E.g., the beginning of this section states that Georgia initiated the conflict on August 7th with "a massive artillery attack on the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali," without explaining that the months-old Russian invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia itself was an intrusion into Georgia and occupation of parts of its territories, and that this presence and active military support for secessionist insurgents (encouraging frequent secessionist atrocities and attacks on Georgians), already gave a causus belli to Georgia. This causus belli is one recognized in international law, even if the Russians pretended that their troops were "peace-keeping forces" backed up by the entire Russian military apparatus, including tens of thousands of troops, tanks, and the like massed on Georgia's borders and spilling over them. Allegations of Georgian acts of aggression fill the rest of this first paragraph, giving the impression that there were no prior nor subsequent Russian and Russian-surrogate (insurgent) acts of aggression: the Russians are presented as victims merely defending themselves, just as the official Russian line has it even today. The distortions continue in the third paragraph, commencing with a statement of a seemingly unilateral Russian peace-loving announcement, that "On August 12, President Medvedev announced an intent to halt further Russian military operations in Georgia." It omits however to say that the Russian operations continued unabated in Georgia after that date, and in fact the Russians advanced on Tbilisi itself. In fact, the paragraph also omits any mention of the context of this statement by President Medvedev. It reflected an attempt to deflect world criticism and the united pressure of European and American figures such as the heads of Poland, Ukraine, Estonia and Germany, and especially the French President Nicholas Sarkozy, the American President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to force Russia to desist from their invasion. Sarkozy travelled to Georgia precisely on the 12th of August to broker an agreement with the Russians to end hostilities -- but despite Medvedev's announcement, given to mollify Sarkozy on that date,the Russians did not honor their commitment. Sarkozy was even later reproached by French critics both for personally intervening to get Russian agreement and for the failure to succeed. See "Nicolas Sarkozy defends Georgia peace deal," “The Telegraph”, August 27, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2633048/Nicolas-Sarkozy-defends-Georgia-peace-deal.html On August 15, three days after President Medvedev's announcement of a halt in military operations according to this Wikipedia article, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained in Tbilisi of the continuing Russian aggression and advance towards Tbilisi, and warned that Russia must withdraw its troops behind the boundaries of the two disputed Georgian enclaves. Her intervention, with the might of the U.S. behind it, was in the end more effective, although President Medvedev kept threatening to renew the conflict. See "Condoleezza Rice forces deal on Georgia to end the war," “The Telegraph”, Aug. 15, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2566015/Condoleezza-Rice-forces-deal-on-Georgia-to-end-the-war.html, and "Georgia conflict: Condoleezza Rice toughens stance towards Russia," “The Telegraph”, Aug. 17, 2008, on-line at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2575486/Georgia-conflict-Condoleezza-Rice-toughens-stance-towards-Russia.html So it was the U.S. and specifically President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who finally forced Russia to accept a cease-fire, not something done at all spontaneously or willingly by President Medvedev as suggested in this article. In her 2011 memoir, “No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington”, and directly contrary to the tenor of this Wikipedia article, she blamed the Russians for initiating the entire war to begin with, and she repeated those assertions in subsequent interviews. See Daniel Halper, "Condoleezza Rice Blames Putin for War with Georgia," “Weekly Standard”, Nov. 16, 2011, on-line at http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/condoleeza-rice-blames-putin-war-georgia_609118.html, and Seth Mandel, "No, Condoleezza Rice Does Not Blame Georgia for the War," “Commentary Magazine”, Nov. 16, 2011, on-line at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/16/rice-does-not-blame-georgia-for-war/ She says that Russia clearly wanted to draw Georgia into a conflict to enforce its power over formerly Soviet territories and to ward off Western encroachments, such as NATO and the U.S., in "its" territories. 122.107.211.251 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific changes you think should be made? CMD (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole section needs to be rewritten to incorporate the information I presented above. There is another important item of information that should be included, since it is a significant indication of Russian motivations and attitudes in the entire conflict: in discussions with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in early August, the Russians attached various "conditions" to any agreement to withdraw their troops. One of them was a secret "condition" stated in telephone calls on August 10th, between Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, that the U.S. agree to depose Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. Rice was shocked, and responded that Saakashvili was the democratically elected president of a sovereign nation, and the U.S. would never agree with such a condition. The American Ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad, revealed this exchange in the U.N. Security Council session dealing with the Georgia crisis, the same day. The Russian representative, Vitaly Churkin, objected on the one hand that the conversation had been "misinterpreted," but on the other hand that Russia refused to have any dealings with Saakashvili, and "there are different leaders who come to power, either democratically or semi-democratically, and they become an obstacle." See John Heilprin, "US, Russian Ambassadors spar at UN over Georgia," USAToday, Aug. 10, 2008, on-line at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-10-2107303717_x.htm The U.S. accused Russia of trying to overthrow the legitimate democratic government of Georgia and replace it with a puppet government subservient to Russia. Also see "U.S.: Russia trying to topple Georgian government," CNN World News, Aug. 10, 2008, on-line at: http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-10/world/un.georgia_1_south-ossetia-georgian-government-georgian-forces?_s=PM:WORLD Also see Rice's memoir, already mentioned above, on all these matters. As for the rest, I am not interested in getting involved in edit warring over these matters, and I am moreover convinced that Wikipedia articles are generally unreliable whenever the subject is even a bit controversial and it is useless to try to change this little bit by little bit. The problems with Wikipedia and its whole structure are too massive and fundamental. That is why I merely enter these observations on the "Talk" page, just to make the defects of this article a matter of record. Do with this article what you will: I wish you good luck, but am not too optimistic given what I have seen in regard to too many articles -- some can be improved, others cannot, depending on the number of fanatics/propagandists involved. I should add that I am neither Russian nor Georgian, and merely came upon this article by chance and knew enough to know it was completely unbalanced. That sort of thing irritates me, so I wrote this up.122.107.211.251 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I note that as of the end of March, a month and a half after my earlier comment, not only have my remarks on this "Talk" page been ignored by other editors, so they are surrounded by silence, but no additions have been made to the article to rebalance it in a more accurate and neutral direction, reflecting the points made here on the "Talk" page. I am not surprised at all. Basically, Wikipedia is not a reliable encyclopaedia. This holds generally. Non-controversial articles may or may not be competently presented (scientific topics are usually very good), but almost all even slightly controversial topics get quite distorted and slanted coverage, and this is all the more certain in political and religious matters where a large population is on one side of an issue, and only a small population on the other -- to take one very obvious instance, all articles dealing with Israel and the Arab/Muslim populations around and in it, which are heavily and blatantly slanted against Israel. I notice that even slightly controversial articles, historical and otherwise, about which Christians are sensitive are also slanted, usually by Christian apologists if the topics are obscure, but sometimes by anti-Christians of this or that orientation if the topics are generally known. There is constant edit-warring over Muslim articles, which generally remain unsatisfactory. The "Georgia" article is in this unreliable category. I came back to this page not however to check on the article, about which I had no illusions, but because I read an interesting article "Medvedev Gets Caught Telling the Truth," published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, for November 22, 2011 (see http://www.rferl.org/content/medvedev_gets_caught_telling_the_truth/24399004.html). Medvedev's own recent remarks to the officers of the Southern Military District in Vladikavkaz are quoted, explaining the Russian motivation for invading Georgia, "If we had faltered in 2008, geopolitical arrangement would be different now and [a] number of countries in respect of which attempts were made to artificially drag them into the North Atlantic Alliance, would have probably been [in NATO] now." Later that same day, he is quoted as telling reporters in Rostov-na-Donu, "We have simply calmed some of our neighbors down by showing them that they should behave correctly in respect of Russia and in respect of neighboring small states. And for some of our partners, including for the North Atlantic Alliance, it was a signal that before taking a decision about expansion of the Alliance, one should at first think about the geopolitical stability. I deem these [issues] to be the major lessons of those developments in 2008." In short, Medvedev himself confirms the accuracy of U.S. Secretary of State Rice's analysis, already cited above.122.107.211.251 (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

i think russian language should be listed as some kind of official status

abkhazia and south osseitia are under russian control and the language is there official, even if the territories would go back to Georgia its so manifested now it wouldnt change that way, it should be listed as official regional language in these territories like the crimea in ukrainian article.--Alibaba445 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Under Georgian law, Russian isn't official. Georgian law is what defines Georgia's official language. Abkhazian could be added as a regional language though. CMD (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

removed - Wikipedia is not a Forum, nor is Soapboxing allowed

In this article (which is about Georgia), we should list as "official" only those languages which are declared official by the legally constituted government of Georgia. It may perhaps be appropriate to mention Russian as a de facto language used in the separatist / occupied regions, but unless it is acknowledged as official by the Georgian government, it should not be called "official" here. The situation would, of course, be different in the articles specifically dealing with the de facto governments currently in place in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. — Richwales 02:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

User CMD, do not edit war please. Recently added pictures were well fit and did not sandwiched the text. Come to the talk page before you make any more changes. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 13:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

They quite clearly sandwich the text. Clearly. In "Georgia in the Russian Empire" you've even places one left and one right at exactly the same level! Text is even overlapping with the frame of the Noe Jordania image. CMD (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
You're right about Noe Jordania, but why did you change description of Tbilsi, Svetitskhoveli cathedral and Georgia-Turkey border picture was also well fit. Also all kings were well fit. Why did you took them out? They are fit perfectly an do not sandwich anything. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 13:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Some descriptions I edited for clarity, other's I removed unsourced statements. A border picture is not very relevant to Economy, and much much less relevant than the pipe picture you replaced for it. The kings do not fit well at all. See the "Georgia in the Russian Empire" section, where you have a picture on either side of the text directly. This occurs throughout, and even my edit didn't remove all the sandwiching. CMD (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Kings are well fit. No sandwiching at all. Georgia in Russian Empire pictures can be taken out but. All the rest is looking well. What do you suggest exactly? Which pictures are not fit for you? Kings, Economy, and Religion should stay the same as it now for my opinion. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 14:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
No, they blatantly don't fit well. What screen size are you using, because I can't imagine one which doesn't show sandwiching. Sandwiching is when text is between two pictures, which happens multiple times. Most of what I suggest can be seen in the edit. Basically I have very little preference for which pictures stay, but some need to be removed. Why should those sections stay the same? You made bold edits without any justification, and I reverted them. You reverted my revert, brining us here. CMD (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Georgia-Turkey border checkpoint needs to be stayed. And descriptions of Tbilisi, and Svetitskhoveli cathedral as well. And on Kings Tamar, David and George V were very important Georgian kings and how would we put them without sandwiching? They need to be mentioned as they played huge role in our history. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 14:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Why should the checkpoint image you placed stay in the Economy section? Why do the descriptions you created need to stay? We can't put the images of every monarch. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gallery. We aren't here to show images of all the important leaders of former states in Georgia. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. Images are secondary, meaning should come from text. CMD (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The discriptions need to stay because readers need to understand in brief into the picture thumb what the picture is saying in major. Tbilisi description said it's 3rd Georgia's capital for 1500 years and a cener of caucasus. So what's the problem with that discription? Descriptions are well written on military, religion and etc. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The picture shouldn't be saying anything. It should support what's in the text. The descriptions you've placed are unsourced and not in the main text, and have weird grammar. CMD (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
What is unsourced? Tbilisi is 3rd Georgian capital and is the cultural hub of Caucasus. What's unsourced about it? Look at the other countries topics. They have big discriptions in picture thumbs. an why is Georgia is an exception or what? --Georgianჯორჯაძე 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The text without a source is unsourced. Everything about it is unsourced, as it's unsourced. Just because other countries have something doesn't make it correct; I've edited far more country articles than most editors. Do you accept that the pictures sandwich the text and that a border post picture is irrelevant to Economy? CMD (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Some more socking. Now handled.

I can't edit the article so I'm just going to say on here that if deleting images, those in the historical section should carry more weight than random shots in the economy and other sections. When you're dealing with country as obscure to westerners as Georgia,especially in the middle ages, it is necessary to have something to look at, be it portraits or old photographs. I would not say the same thing about new photos that anyone can see for themselves or find in google. The image of Tbilisi in the dark and the Turkish-Georgian checkpoint are good examples of this. I would also cut down on descriptions because they take the most space.--Maxrohan (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed one of the descriptions says "It should be noted that all ethnic Georgians are very devoted Christians." This is false as I know some Georgians who are not religious at all, even if they are nominally Christian. This is the kind of descriptions I'm talking about cutting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxrohan (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
And another example of a bad description is where it talks about Georgia's mission to Afghanistan on a photo showing Georgian soldiers in Iraq without even mentioning Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxrohan (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Its better but still a mess compared to what it was before. Some of the photos are pointless and need to be removed. For instance, photo of the parliament and photo of downtown Tbilisi --Maxrohan (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. They were causing some sandwiching. Anything else? CMD (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

kurds in georgia

hi , please write about kurds in georgia . see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds_in_Georgia) -- Baneh k (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

New Images

Don't edit war with me CMD. I've just added better images. Explain yourself. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's one explanation on the edit summary here, "Rv unexplained caption change, text sandwiching, irrelevant image", if you missed it. A key bit is unexplained. Further to that, you're hardcoding image sizes for no apparent reason. Also, again, you tell me not to edit war while somehow completely ignoring your own actions towards that, which are against WP:BRD spirit. CMD (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
What's text sandwiching about new pictures? I've added better images of Gudauri, St George and Svetitskhoveli Cathedral. First take a look at it and then revert them back. Where do you see the sandwiching? Turn on some logic please and take a look at the new images I've put where NONE of them sandwich the text. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Text sandwiching from that revert, [1]. In your last edit there's more in the economy section between the old images and the image you added of Tblisi which seems to have nothing to do with economy. I'm not convinced the new St. George one is better (the last one had nice nonlatin scripts etc.), but I never even reverted back to that image. Anyway, I've restored those. That wasn't the problem. Why not include "better image" in an edit summary? It takes a second of effort, and you seem to have no trouble giving long summaries when you want to. CMD (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue with fixing image sizes with |xxxpx| code isn't sandwiching, but because it reduces flexibility. See WP:IMGSIZE. Also, your edit summaries like Restoration is discussed. The previous caption said that, so it's not making a case for your edit. CMD (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The new parliament image is causing text sandwiching again. It's much better to have a picture of a politician, such as Saakashvili, than a building, as it is the people who are most emblematic of politics. CMD (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

CMD, you mean Presidential Palace? It's well fit I think. Let it be it's not that sandwiched. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not insignificant, and there's no compelling reason to have it at all. How does a picture of a building help readers understand the prose that's written down? We've got the President already, we don't need to add his office. The prose size of this article is 57kB, but the file size is 456kB. Pictures should compliment text, and an article should not be a gallery. CMD (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
All right then. Can we somehow increase the size of Gudauri image? It would seem more better. Maybe at least 350px? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. This is why panorama shots are bad for articles. Would it be worth creating a cropped version cutting off the right half, so the sunset is preserved and presented at a much better contrast with the text? It would also be worth, I think, moving it to Economy to replace the boring map of the oil pipeline, leaving one good picture at climate. CMD (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah totally agree about that pipeline. Can you move it please? And let's see how it would look like. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Much better I think. What do you think about cropping to focus on the sunset? CMD (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we please just crop the image and put it back to climate and put this checkpoint image in economy? And we can crop the Gudauri one and focus on sunset. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
How does that image help develop an understanding of Georgia's economy? CMD (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Gudauri won't fit in economy I think. Just because that the checkpoint is the biggest on the Caucasus and huge amouont of recourses enter and exit every day. Maybe it's worth to have it's image? How do you think? And if Gudauri's image size can be increased without cropping would be perfect. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The Gudauri caption describes it as the biggest resort, and we have a tourism paragraph in Economy, so it helps focus on that. Images shouldn't be chosen just because of their own merits, but mainly from how they compliment the text. The border image doesn't help at all with trade; there aren't even any vehicles present in the image. I'm personally not fond of extra large images, they remind me of East Asian city articles, which are just high rises and more high rises, all panoramically arranged. It does nothing but make the articles appear unprofessional and commercial. If you really think it would be an improvement though, it could be placed at the end of the economy section in a centred position. CMD (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
All right then let's keep Gudauri image where it is now. Let it be in climate. But that boring pipeline should be changed by some other image. What do you suggest if we remove that pipeline pic what can be put into its place? Can we put image of Batumi or Tbilisi as tourism destination because Gudauri's tourists is nothing compared to these two. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
A general city image isn't the best for illustrating tourism. There's a few tourism categorised photos in commons, but none that stand out to me. There's a whole host of potential images here. Any you think would improve this article? CMD (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Picture's database for Georgia is so tight and limited unfortunately. None of them seems to fit into that section. Is it somehow possible to have the Gudauri panorama in Climate section with 350px or 400px? Let's just have one pic there but with bigger size? Without cropping just if we'll increase the size of that panorama. How do you think maybe it's worth it? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It is through centring, as I noted above, but I question more and more the value of that picture to helping an understanding of climate. Why is it better there than in Economy? CMD (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's about climate and the range with snow seen on the pic. So it's better to be in climate. Can you please center it into climate? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not what the caption shows. Do we have a more climate related caption that's worth including? CMD (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
What about Georgian currency Lari in the economy section? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
If there's nothing else. The only potential problem there is that many countries have some sort of copyright on their currency designs, so they often can't be used. If there is no such issue with Georgian notes, add away! CMD (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Didgori georgian apc-2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Didgori georgian apc-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Didgori georgian apc-2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality

This article reads in wide parts like an advertising. Several sources consist of dead links or are advertisement material. In parts, the level of detail shows the interest of displaying factoids building or demonstrating national pride - is there really a legitimate interest for an article about a country to contain the information that a particular military unit of the country wears the insignia of a US military unit they served with? An informative, but also sometimes ridiculous article that needs some serious quality control. 178.200.211.126 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions in mind? CMD (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no Neutrality in NATO pedia

Under article Macedonia it says that Macedonia borders Kosovo. If so then Georgia is bordering Abhazija and South Osetia. There must be consistency. It is either one way or the other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The point about Georgia bordering South Ossetia and Abkhazian or not is very similar to a discussion about how the infobox map should show these territories. (Archive 6 contains the relevant details) I would suggest having a look for background to how this point has been viewed before.
Additionally the current introduction highlights the de facto independance status of these territories - the Russian/ossetian/Abkhazian percpective, as well as the Georgian view of these territories as occupied. While this is an emotive point for many particularly in Georgia the article accurately reflects a neutral point of view by explaining the current situation, both side of the debate and that this is a point of dispute. I would suggest this should not be changed
Also worth noting that the Macedonia article says it borders Kossovo - which it does - geographically it does not contain any comment on whether kosovo is a country. However, if you go into the kosovo article it clearly explains it's disputed status Kurtk60 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I live in Georgia. Georgia is European country, not Asian, We are Christians and Nordics and Alpines are living there. Remove Asia portal from portals of our country and add Europe portal. --Obitauri (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There are Christians in Asia, not that geographical concepts are determined by religion anyway. CMD (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about people? We are not mongoloids or arabics. We are Nordics and Alpines. There are different ways of border between Europe and Asia. We in Georgia agree that borders are at political borders of Georgia with Turkey. And if I agree with you and think that border is at the Mountains of Caucasus some places are in Europe. Georgia haves some territories in north caucasus. We are Europeans and not Asians. People are Europeans, not asians. We are ancient Christians and European people.--Obitauri (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your using circular logic with regards to ethnicity and geography there, not that it matters. Poor Turkey, I'm sure some in it want to be European too, who are you to deny it to them? Anyway, why don't you take pride in being Georgian, without needing to ascribe that to a greater group. There's nothing glamourous about being European, or Asian, for that matter. CMD (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is Great difference between Turkey and Georgia. All European countries say that we are modern European Country. I know urkey is poor because it can't be Europe. I say that Georgia if I agree with you is in continental Asia but north mountain parts are in Europe and Georgian people are Nordics and Alpines and not arabs or mongloids or indians or iranians or turks or other asian groups. Most population of west Georgia is Nordic with blond hair and blue eyes. in Mountains there are alpines and Nordics. In east there are both and in southeast there are Georgians but many azers and armenians. There is place named Tori and there is mountain with same name. There were vikings too. I say: Georgian population is European and why we have to say we are Asians? It is not true and we can't say it. The non alpine or Nordic population of Georgia are not Georgians. They are azers or armenians or others. Turks migrated to their modern territory in 1400s but Georgians are living there for a long time. We became christians earlier than most European countries. We became in 337 AD as official but there were lot of christians after 33 AD. Climate is European. There are european people, there are European plants and animals, European cluture and why we ARE asians? Ok. I agree. Most part of Georgia is in continent of asia but north mountains are in Europe. Caucasus mounts are in Europe. Some parts of Georgia are in North Caucasus. The main thing is Georgians are Europeans: Nordics, Alpines and Culture is European. I can say that I exactly know that we are Nordics because I am Nordic: tall, have yellow hair and blue eyes and light skin, Nordic facial features and I am Georgian. I am typical Nordic. I know lots of other people who are Nordics. If you think that we are asians it is only true in it that if you agree with your continent borders idea Most part of Georgia is in Asia. Just see flag of Tbilisi and Georgia, then see flag of Gori and you see that flag of Geprgia haves five cross, flag of Tbilisi is Nordic type of flag and flag of Gori is Nordic type of flag. There are many other cities with this kinds of flags. Then see flag of David The Builder and then see flag of Vakhtang I of Iberia. It looks like flag of England. Then see Battle of Sasireti where Vikings help us. When political figure visits Georgia this politician visits us around East European Tour. Georgia is one of safest country in Europe and Tbilisi is safest Capital in Europe. European Union's Ambassador to Georgia Philipp Dimitrov referred to the results of the Georgian government's fight with criminality as to "astonishing". As was reported by GHN, the European guest expressed his surprise on the matter during his current visit to Georgia at the ceremony of presenting the international experts' investigation. "We've sponsored the investigation so as to get a clear picture of what Georgia is doing to fight criminality. The result was beyond our expectations. As the investigation shows, Georgia's success in fighting criminals is simply astonishing", - the diplomat remarked. According to him, 7 years ago, the level of criminality in Georgia was rather high, while now, in Dimitrov's opinion, Georgian citizens feel much safer than the citizens of many developed European countries. According to the investigation, 98 percent of the Georgian respondents who took part in the poll remarked that they feel safe in the territory of Georgia and in Tbilisi. Thus, the country goes among the European leaders in safety level. Now you can't say that we are in Asia --Obitauri (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request August 9, 2012

Please, someone update the population data for the country.

As of January 1, 2012, Georgia has a population of 4,497,600

Reference link: http://www.geostat.ge/index.php?action=page&p_id=152&lang=eng


Daugvapils (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New move proposal

I was looking over the history, and doesn't it seem like this article is due for a new one? Really Zen (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you support a page move?? If so, please explain why. Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Primary topic, etc. I think the reasons have been laid out before. I would support it, but I'm too new to begin thinking about starting something like that. Really Zen (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You mean, you want this page moved to Georgia?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Why are you yelling at me? Really Zen (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
How am I yelling?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
More than one question mark indicates yelling or annoyance??? Really Zen (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Chess

No mention of chess under the sport section? Georgia is famous for having produced many strong grandmasters, including two women world champions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezaxa (talk • contribs) 13:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Are they notable with regards to Sport in Georgia, rather than just within chess? If so, provide a source and they can be easily added in. CMD (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Time Zone

Could someone be so kind and change the time zone to read (as per List of time zone abbreviations):

GET (UTC+4)

instead of:

UTC (UTC+4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.141.174 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done, thanks! CMD (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


Edit request (Government and Politics Section)

Please update the caption under the picture of Mikheil Saakashvili, which still says he is the current president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.5.229 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


He is.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.146.183.26 (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone be kind enough to change the sentence "Georgia is a sovereign state in the Caucasus in the region of Eurasia" to "Georgia is a sovereign state iin the region of Asia " as though to new information Georgia is now clarified as an asian country in asian borders.Scienceman2013 (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "new information" you are referring to, but this has been discussed ad nauseam in the past. See here for an example. Before making this change you will need to establish a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. You could start by provided some sources to back your argument. TDL (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

State move proposal

If you care, please see the "Washington and Georgia" section of WP:VPR, which if successful may result in moving Georgia (U.S. state) to Georgia (state). This is one of two options in the proposal; if the other one should be successful, no Georgia articles will be moved. Either way, a successful proposal won't affect the country article or the disambiguation page, except of course for the "Georgia (state)" redirect if we move the state article there. Nyttend (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Lopota incident

Hi, I'd like to show you the article that I'm continously editing for quite a long time. You might contribute to it, copyedit, create a Georgian version (I'm quite surprised there's none yet, just as how the whole story is totally ignored by practically all major English language media ever since the shootings ended), etc. --Niemti (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Map

So a little revert war has broken out over the infobox map. Seems like some folks like the standard ortho projection (inset) map, but some like the standard flat map instead. Both are standard, but are used in different contexts. I prefer the ortho for Georgia (as at least two other editors do) because Georgia, while not a tiny nation, looks tiny, and its distinctive shape seems obscured, in the flat map. The ortho provides area context, as well as somewhat zoomed-in detail, simultaneously, and is therefore IMHO more informative overall. Because this is an encyclopedia, we should err on the side of more informative. If a map is "confusing", then we should discuss why that is so, and to whom that is so. Ortho projections are very commonly used by print and broadcast news, and so should not be unfamiliar to visiting readers. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anthem

@Chipmunkdavis: Why do you keep cutting out the anthem from the article? Explain yourself please. GeorgianJorjadze 08:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As noted in Template_talk:Infobox_country/Archive_8#Can_we_add_a_small_button_to_play_the_anthem.3F, the anthem box is a large obtrusive box that doesn't add a great deal to the article and extends an already overlong infobox. Any readers who want to listen to the national anthem can find it on the page dedicated to the national anthem. CMD (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis:And why isn't it removed on all countries then? Why is it that all other countries have anthem but Georgia should not? GeorgianJorjadze 10:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you feel inclined to go through every country article and remove it and in each case check the anthem article to make sure it is located there as well? It's not a small task. In the meantime, the focus here should be making this article better, and decreasing the clutter of the infobox, which is supposed to be a quick overview, seems like a good direction to take. CMD (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Answer my question please. Why do other countries have the anthems in their articles then? GeorgianJorjadze 12:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Because editors have gone "oh look another country has this thing my country should have it too" and added them. CMD (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
See what happened when I tried to take it out from United States. — Lfdder (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Grim. That article is even longer than this one. CMD (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: CMD, explain me for god's sake why do you remove the anthem out of the article? I am not edit warring here, I am contributing only and you are not answering my question. Why in the world Georgia's anthem should be 'put out from the article or what? Put it back as it used to be. georgianJORJADZE 14:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
What part of what I noted above didn't you understand? It's unnecessary clutter, much like WP:Flagcruft, but larger and more intrusive. I've even pointed you to a general conversation on the subject, here. I also suggest you comprehensively read WP:EW and WP:BRD. CMD (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: That is NOT the answer. ALL countries have the anthem in their own articles and why don't you remove them out? Aren't they "unnecessary clutter" there? How can your argument make any logic? All countries seem to have no problems with the anthems on Georgia does? georgianJORJADZE 14:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Not "ALL countries" have large anthem boxes in the infoboxes on their mainpage. Australia for one. As I said above, it's a lot of time and effort to go through every country article, so I haven't. That doesn't mean they're not clutter there. This is, at any rate, an WP:Otherstuffexists argument. CMD (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: That's not an argument. MAJORITY of countries have and Australia has or not here is not important. All European, Asian etc. countries have them in their articles and why they are not the problem with any editors but only you? Are you the only source of knowledge here? Why do we even discuss such a simple fact here? Just put the anthem back. georgianJORJADZE 14:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm against it too. — Lfdder (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? georgianJORJADZE 15:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It's just not necessary — Lfdder (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@GJ: If you have read the link to the Infobox country discussion I've posted twice here, you can quite clearly see that, despite your hyperbole, myself and Lfdder are not the only editors who have this position. CMD (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: All right. Here is United States article. Go and remove their anthem and I'll see what comes out from that. georgianJORJADZE 16:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If you have an argument that's not based on WP:Otherstuffexists, please elucidate it. If not, there's little to discuss. CMD (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Everything is now clear for me. You're cool and strong with the newbie wikipedians with less experience but you can do nothing with other more experienced users. I am sure your edit would be reverted back in a sec if you removed that anthem from US article. Now I know. georgianJORJADZE 17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@GeorgianJorjadze: Let's calm down here, please. Debate the subject — it's OK to disagree (in a civil manner) with someone's position, but anything that even vaguely resembles a personal attack is out of bounds. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I also understand that a reader who is interested in hearing a country's national anthem can generally get to it without much difficulty (by clicking the name of the anthem). I also see a distinction here between visual material (like a national flag or coat of arms, or a map showing a country's location) and aural material.

However, I also think GeorgianJorjadze may have a valid point here. As long as some countries' articles (actually, quite a few as best I can tell) have an ogg link in their infoboxes, then including such a link (where available) in some country articles but not in others is random or arbitrary at best, and some readers and editors are sure to take an omission the wrong way and see it as violating WP:NPOV. As far as I can tell, the articles of all the countries surrounding Georgia (not counting the disputed regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) have audio links for their national anthems in their infoboxes, so (IMO) one really ought to be included for Georgia as well. Again, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I don't believe it's a sufficiently strong argument by itself for refusing to include the audio link in this case.

The alternative, I suppose, would be to prohibit anthem audio links across the board and remove them from all country infoboxes. Such a move would, IMO, require a substantial consensus going far beyond the "Can we add a small button to play the anthem?" discussion from over a year ago — and I am absolutely NOT proposing that anyone should start removing anthem ogg links from individual country infoboxes en masse to make a point. Until and unless that sort of decision is made, I would support adding an audio link for Tavisupleba to the Georgia country infobox. However, I do not want to see either GJ or anyone else adding such a link without a clear consensus to do so (something which certainly does not exist now, and which may very possibly never exist). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There have in the past been a some editors (I remember there being some IPs) who went around adding the oggs to a bunch of country infoboxes. I have no idea when they first appeared, or how they developed and spread, but they have ended up on most articles. They were never on all however, and there hasn't been a discussion to add them, although they have ended up on most articles and so became common fait accompli due to the self-reinforcing effect of becoming common. No editor has desired to make a point and en masse remove them, which is why I suppose they reached such saturation. I point to the discussion from a year ago because as far as I'm aware it's the only general one that's happened. I am a large fan of consistency, but I disagree we need to add in something the template was never designed to hold because it's on other articles. Without it there's no visual break (that keeps changing design) between the Anthem header and the name of the anthem, and the infobox cuts that much less into the Etymology section. Small points perhaps, but I don't see the inclusion as something that helps the reader learn about Georgia. CMD (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. IMO, there needs to be a general policy decision on this, one way or the other. As long as inclusion of audio links is a de facto thing, neither officially approved nor officially banned, but subject to discussion / debate / argument on an individual basis, we're begging for disputes that could easily turn into nationalist edit warring (though please understand, I'm not by any means suggesting that is your motivation here). And as I indicated before, I don't accept the "Can we add a small button to play the anthem?" discussion from early 2012 as establishing a clear community consensus — we need something a lot bigger. I was thinking of starting an RfC discussion at Template talk:Infobox country; does this seem reasonable to you, or do you think some other venue would be preferable? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of all the things that could promote nationalist edit warring, this seems one of the most baseless. Still, some sort of discussion would be useful. I agree the 2012 discussion isn't an amazing display of wide consensus, but it's all there has been to go on. The USA discussion is new, but seems to have petered out. I imagine an RfC would look similar to that discussion, and it would be useful to collect opinions somewhere central. I can't think of a better venue than the template talk page, if you intend to start one. CMD (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, these things don't always require a rational basis. Thanks for the feedback. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a request for comments on the question of national anthem audio links in country infoboxes; see Template talk:Infobox country#RFC: Audio links to national anthems. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_(country)/Archive_6&oldid=1143536792"