Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Issues with introduction

There are some POV and other issues with the current introduction, which I have tried to rectify. First of all: if Georgia is reckoned in Europe (and regarding this there is no argument), it is part of Continental Europe (i.e., on the continental mainland, unlike the British Isles, Iceland, or Cyprus) and in Southeast(ern) Europe, not southeast of it. However, even if this is corrected, this assertion cannot be made at the expense of an equally valid viewpoint that Georgia is in Asia, and a number of other reliable sources (e.g., National Geographic) have been added to corroborate this. After all, that's why it's a transcontinental country. If one performs an online search (which is very basic and not necessarily authoritative but as good a gauge of frequency as any), the number of hits containing Georgia and Asia (56.4M) is just a bit more than those containing Georgia and Europe (55.3M). Thus, it is sufficient and impartial to indicate merely that Georgia is in the Caucasus region of the Eurasian landmass/continent (e.g., compare with Cyprus), with details to follow. Some of the other sources I added were reverted, which is proof-positive of the bias of the reverter and constitutes vandalism, which will hereafter be rectified without argument. Anyhow, until compelling reasons are produced as to why preference should be given to mentioning that Georgia is just in Europe, the current version should stand. Thought? Thanks! Corticopia 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When it says southeast to Continental Europe, it does not necessarily mean that it is located in Europe. Please look at the wording again and note that in different European countries the word Continental Europe has acquainted different meanings whether there is a sea or the mountainous range that separates the country from the surrounding nations.SosoMK 02:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This is totally unclear, not to mention incorrect and unsourced: Georgia may be considered to be part of Continental Europe or may not be. And if it is not a part of 'Continental Europe' (as you maintain), what part of Europe is it in? Peripheral Europe? And if it is not a part of Europe, what continent do you suppose it's a part of? Please drop the illogic and hoodwinking. Please provide a citation from a reputable publication -- none as of yet (including worldatlas.com, which places G. in Europe and is not necessarily authoritative) -- that describes the country's location so awkwardly ... and definitely not at the expense of reliable definitions which do clearly define its location in Europe and/or Asia. Until you can, there is no reason to retain an 'ass' introduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corticopia (talk • contribs) 07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Glad to see new editors on this talk page. May it become more civil. I support User:Corticopias arguments. Tamokk 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I should note that the main trouble with this article is editor Sosomk. Tamokk 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Georgia is located to southwest of Europe in the Caucasus at the east coast of Black Sea, which is mostly considered to be a part of Europe, but we will keep the current wording due to the fact that not all sources say that Georgia is located in Europe. SosoMK 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no: it is IN (part of) Southeastern Europe and part of Continental Europe and or (South)Western Asia. 'Mostly' = 'weasel word for assertion which can't be corroborated. I am still perplexed as to why you insist on retainin an unsourced, unclear introduction which only YOU support. We will keep the current wording until a consensus insists otherwise: only you have recently objected to it. Corticopia

OK: EE/WA -- as opposed to the other way around -- is fine with me. However, it should read 'juncture of EE' ... -- my mistake. :) I also inadvertently placed the locator map for Armenia; my apologies. Corticopia 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy Section

See arguments above. The section seems to be a sequence of selected facts, some of them rather missleading, while it ignores important things, like the effects of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and military conflicts of the 90s on the country's economy. Tamokk 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I made changes to the section. If anybody is uneasy with it let others know why. Blind deletion will be reverted. Tamokk 10:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

me agar mcalia samwuxarod vikipediistvis da aba taqven icit. Sosomk, ise ra mnishvneloba aqvs saqartvelo sad iqneba. shennaiebi sabchota kavshirshic qajebi iyavit, exlac qajebi xart, evropashic qajebi iqnebit da aziashic. visac uswordeba wuwnos, ogond shors chvengan.

Tamokk, ise Kober a ekimia, midi rame kai camali gamoacerine. SosoMK 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sosomk, you've made 4 (update: 5) reverts in less than 24 hours. This is the violation of WP:3RR and you could be blocked if someone files a report. Alaexis 16:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a very nice move on your part, Alex. You are not involved in the dispute and if this is supposed to be a friendly warning it should be done on Soso's talk page, not here.--Kober^Talk 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is equally good place to post a warning imho. Alæxis_¿question? 06:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that it was your indirect invitation to get him blocked. Sorry... --Kober^Talk 06:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the prior introduction has and will be restored, and edit warring regarding this and other article content will be dealt with. Corticopia 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Humans, why are u so hostile to Soso? He has contributed a lot of useful things to Wikipedia. He's now blocked, but you have also violated wikipedia's rules of 3rr and civility. I suggest elaborating a compromise version on talk page before engaging in edit wars. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, why is S. so hostile to us, humans? Now the lead section is well written, for one week... eh?! Tamokk 07:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the question should be flipped. And we did elaborate a conciliatory version on the talk page, only to have it continuously and senselessly reverted without reason. As a result, S. was just blocked for a week for edit warring. And, even now, why do editors insist on reverting to such an unclear, POV introduction which has no source? Please -- let's get on with it. I suggest added discussion and consensus before attempting to change it again/back, or said changes shall be dealt with. Corticopia 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Locator map

I restored the previous Georgia location map for a couple of reasons: 1. It is of much better quality in png format; 2. It shows both Eastern Europe and Western Asia and perfectly matches the intro in which Georgia is described as a transcontinental nation located on the border of these two regions. 3. The Wiki articles on the fellow South Caucasian states - Armenia and Azerbaijan - also use similar maps. --Kober^Talk 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I really do dislike these maps; while I won't revert the change, regarding your points: (1) this is subjective, and since these are just locator maps, such excessive detail isn't a necessity; (2) as the recent map merely exhibits more of Russia (due to the odd projection) and doesn't show the Europe/Asia border, I fail to see how these maps exhibit G.'s transcontinental status better than the prior ones; (3) While other states in the Caucasus may use these maps, this stems from a decision that wasn't arrived at through a clear consensus for EU members and flies in the face of all other countries (per the overarching Country WikiProject) which uses the 'simpler' PNG maps.

Anyhow, when I get a moment, I shall have to create new maps that cover off on all points. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corticopia (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Listen buddy, nobody realy cares what you like or dont like. Do not damage this article any further. When changing anything, consult your fellow editors. Than, find sources for your claims. Otherwise, I will remove your edits and categorize them as vandalism (example: removing the map on which the consensus was found). Don’t wage any rv wars, because it will damage the article and lead you in direct confrontation with other users who edit this article. If you fail to understand anything, consult sources and read more about the country. Ldingley 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not your buddy and also don't give a shi'ite about your dis/likes. Second, I have added more than sufficient sources to corroborate my claims, and have consulted as needed. (The map is another issue, and no one has pointed to a clear consensus regarding it.) Anyhow, you have largely added crap and are already in direct confrontation with other editors, so stop 'damaging' the article with your poor/partial edits and verbosity -- unless you have something useful to contribute, please refrain from commenting. Capiche? End communication. Corticopia 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on me and coerce language is unacceptable. Please refrain from using any aggressive language or words. It is your last warning. Ldingley 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Corticopia 15:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you are not a buddy, you are just a POV editor, and as I told you before, you chose the wrong editors to mess around with. SosoMK 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have nothing constructive to say, don't clutter the talk page with verbiage. Corticopia 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to say? So far you have only reverted and have done nothing for the article, whereas i have written quite a few things. SosoMK 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job

The territory of modern-day Georgia has been continuously inhabited since the early Stone Age. The classical antiquity saw the rise of the early Georgian states of Colchis and Iberia, which laid foundation to the Georgian culture and statehood. Christianized in the early 3rd century and unified into a single monarchy in 1008, Georgia experienced periods of revival and decline until being fragmentized into several smaller political entities in the 16th century. Imperial Russia acquired Georgian lands in a piecemeal fashion from 1801 to 1866. A short-lived post-Russian revolution nation-state - Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921) - fell to the Bolshevik military attack to be incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1922.

Very well written, who wrote this? Ldingley 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was the tag removed from religion section? Why are tags perseived to have political meaning? When I tag the section I do not express my negative attitude. Rather I think the section needs cleanup, and I invite editors to work on it. Namely, parts of the section are written with ecclesiastical language, therefore it does not meat wikipedia standards and needs cleanup. Tamokk 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any ecclesiastical language there. And there is nothing to cleanup, just add more information. 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What is this then?

Saint Stefan of the Holy Mountain relates that after our Lord's Ascension, as the Apostles and His most Holy Mother remained in Jerusalem awaiting the promised Comforter, they cast lots to determine in which country God desired each of them to preach the Gospel. When, with fear and reverence, they cast for the holy Mother of God, the destiny of the most Pure One fell on the Iberian land. [32] After the day of Pentecost She meant to set out for Iberia at once, but an Angel of God ...

And the use of capital letters (for pronouns an so on). Tamokk 07:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not against ecclesiastical abstracts or quotation, if it is indicated that they are such. I could have added sources instead of tagging, but I do not know where these passages are taken from. And if it is an original work of a wikipedia editor then it should be written with appropriate civil English. Tamokk 08:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

There's a grammatical error in the text under the flag. There's written "SMedieval flag of Georgia restored after Rose Revolution" - 83.117.225.78 10:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy section

Not a single sentence will be changes in my economy section without proving a good reasoning!!! The Tamokk version is not good, because it does not emphasize the short-run, but rather tries to show the economic failures of the last decade. The purpose of economy section to show how the scarce resources are being allocated within an economy before wages fully adapt the new price level. What about the mentioning the so-called civil war in the section? Why do economists give a crap about the conflict, which happened in the early 90s? It might have affected the economy as a whole, but it is rather a shameful historical fact and must be discussed in the history section. Also, Tamokk just removed the causes of the cost-push inflation and there is anything to say about that. TAMOKK, DO NOT CHANGE A FUCKIN SENTENCE WITHOUT PROVIDING A PROPER REASONING AND STOP MAKING PERSONAL OFFENSES ON THE TALK PAGE, BECAUSE I AM GETTING TIRED OF YOU.SosoMK 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for recent edit warring here and, upon your return, have resumed you reversions to preferred versions without any modicum of consensus or agreement. The purpose of the economy section is to succinctly overview the national economy: the breakup of the CIS had profound implications on the Georgian economy (as it did with other ex-Soviet economies), resulting in exorbitant inflation, so it deserves mention in both sections as needed. In addition, you have reverted to the ambiguous article lead, despite stability during your forced respite.

Until you can demonstrate why your reversions have merit, they will be corrected. As well, refrain from SCREAMING and swearing at editors on the talk page, as they further deprecate your position. Corticopia 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to know Georgian character: I will not retrieve against the POV editors SosoMK 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What? That's 'retreat'. Refrain from meaningless ad hominem arguments. Corticopia 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You just would not accept the fact that Georgia is in Europe and you have shown no research and knowledge about the country so far. And what about Tamokk: look at the articles he edits: Penis, Vagina, and etc. Come on. You have said: You chose the wrong editor to spar with. :) So that proves that you just want to an RV war.[1]. SosoMK 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My sparring comment was in response to yours. Anyhow, stick to content commentary on this talk page. Corticopia 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia seems to be edit warring on multiple articles pushing the same pov. I think an RFC should be initiated on user conduct.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not emphasize failures at all. 90s years conflicts have affected economy, and should be included in the section. Your version ignores this. Why? If you think it is shameful that's not a reason . The only thing I removed is the inflation thing. 10% is nothing extraordinry for Georgia. You write in 2006 inflation spiked to 10, but how could it "spike" when usualy it is 7-8% (8.2 in 2005)? Also how was it reset when we still do not have 2007 data, if you speak of annual inflation (?). Although maybe there was a little "spike" somewhere by end 2006, but that did not have a great impact on the country, neither was that something unusual for Georgia's economy.Tamokk 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don’t really think that a wholesale and somewhat a prejudiced ban on Sosomk’s changes is helpful. We can integrate both versions into a compromise one. I concur that Chavchavadze’s quotations are excessive in the economy section and the impact of the 90s conflicts should be mentioned, but Soso’s edits do have merit. Why should not we mention that Russian embargo contributed to the inflation rate but was outbalanced by foreign investments? Why the country’s Corruption Perceptions Index is being repeatedly deleted? Also, it is very strange that there is no mention of Georgia’s participation in the major Eurasian energetic projects such as the BTC pipeline.--Kober^Talk 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, energetic projects should be mentioned. I was not deleting corruption, just moving it to the government section. It would get lost through overlapping edits. I think corruption index should be in the gov section, but put it in the economy section if you insist. From Sosomks stock we can also add GDP growth. About 10% inflation I remain sceptical per the above. Tamokk 06:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

About E/A issue: I know that after independence Georgia's governments have pushed the idea that Georgia is a European country, not only politically but also culturally. But the boarder between E and A remains through the great Caucasus range, and Georiga is to the south of Caucasus. Although there are other geographical definitions, which may place significant portion of Georgia in Europe. I think the compromise here would be Georgia's "transcontinental" location and that mention of the cultural or socio-political stuff. I see that technically the other version does not imply that Georgia is necessaryly in Europe too, but agree that it is clumsy and still partial. Tamokk 07:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) is that right!

---

First, it would be really great if everyone could calm down a little. I've just found out about this dispute, and it seems to me that there really isn't very much disagreement about citable facts, just about how Russia, in particular, is presented.

I think it would help if we could agree on some things, in the context of the economy section:

• say what has happened, not what is happening - whether it's economic growth, moving up or down various index ranks, or just becoming a more service-based economy, all of those things are somewhat hard to establish until a year or two after the fact.
• say what has happened, not why it happened - in particular, in this case, I'm not sure at all how a high inflation rate is "offset" by a high investment rate; that those two things coexist might be rare, particularly in Europe, and should be mentioned.
• focus on the undisputed facts, and the basic numbers; don't assume that readers are aware of the size of Georgia's population, for example.

That said, what appears to me, and do feel free to disagree with me here, to be the basic data is this:

1. Georgia's economy is in post-Soviet transition to a market economy.
2. praise from the World Bank
3. very low per-capita GDP
4. unemployment rate
5. high inflation rate, by Western standards, of 10 % p.a.
6. 8% trade surplus.
7. GDP growth of 10% p.a./8.8% p.a. - high (which number is correct?)
8. flat income tax rate - and it's working out for them.
9. dispute with Russia over (economically significant? what's the number?) wine imports.

I think those can be spun into a short, and working, economy section that should be acceptable to everyone. Pre-Soviet statements might be more appropriate for the history section. The pipelines probably should be mentioned. I'm not sure what the point of mentioning "median income" is - compared to (other) European countries, Georgian incomes are low by any measure. Similarly, the government budget appears as an isolated number with no obvious value to the reader.

I don't think this section should focus on the political issues - that it was parliament that introduced the flat income tax rate is hardly relevant; mentioning the Rose revolution as a temporal point of reference is unnecessarily difficult for readers who can't place that event. If the wine business is to be treated as a full-blown economic crisis, it needs much more expansion; my understanding is it's primarily a political crisis.

In summary, I don't get what the dispute is about - the facts are not seriously disputed, the economic causation statements that might be disputed just shouldn't be there, and the sections also read about the same.

The straw poll below, though, is hardly worth anything. It's set up very clearly to be more about the editors than about the article's actual content.

RandomP 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to say what will be acceptable to the political POV editor Sosomk, when even the trivial issue of geographic location of the country was nothing but a political issue for him. Let us just improve the current version. The poll below does not make sense. Tamokk 05:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wine dispute is of course rather political. Economically it is less significant. Tamokk 05:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tamokk do you mean that all caucasion nations of the world who have been called caucasion after georgian, original europan people, are in fact asian? I doubt it so do you.

Voting on the Economy Section

I decided that the only way to resolve the dispute is voting. I think the economy section that I wrote is really good and the one offered by User:Tamokk is inappropriate because 1) Has limited citations and incorrect data, 2) Is not written well: meaning that it does not explain facts from the point of view of economics, as a social science (for example, when it says n 2006 Russia banned imports of Georgian wine. Russia has also occasionally cut natural gas supply to the country, harming its economy. does not explain how it affected the economy and its supply & demand. It just shows the claim and does not explain the fact. and 3) Simply is misleading.

The version which was very well liked by the Administrators like User:Aecis: Archaeological research demonstrates that Georgia has been involved in commerce with the majority of the world's historical empires largely due its location on the Black Sea and later on the historical Silk Road. Throughout Georgia's history agriculture and tourism have been principal economic sectors, due to the country's climate and topography. For much of the 20th century, Georgia's economy was governed by the Soviet command model. Since the fall of the USSR in 1991, Georgia has seen major structural reform designed to transition to a free market economy. In 2006 Georgia's real GDP growth rate reached 8.8%, making Georgia one of the fastest growing economies in Eastern Europe. The World Bank dubbed Georgia "the number one economic reformer in the world" because it has in one year improved from rank 112th to 37th in terms of ease of doing business.However, the country has high unemployment rate of 12.6% and has fairly low median income compared to other European countries.

2006 estimates place Georgia's GDP (adjusted for purchasing power parity) at US$17.79 billion. Georgia's economy is becoming more dependent on services (now representing 54.8% of GDP), moving away from agricultural sector (17.7%). After the Kremlin banned imports of Georgian wine to Russia, one of Georgia's biggest trading partners, and severed financial links, the Georgian lari's rate of inflation spiked to 10% in 2006. However, the high inflation rate was offset in part by a high investment rate (30% of 2006 GDP) and the country maintained a solid credit in international market securities.

Georgia is becoming more integrated into the global trading network: its 2006 imports and exports account for 10% and 18% of GDP respectively. Georgia's main imports are natural gas, oil products, machinery and parts, and transport equipment. However, the country also has sizable internal energy hydropower resources. In 2004, the Georgian Parliament voted to introduce a flat income tax pegged at 12%, which significantly increased tax collection, thereby reducing the government's formerly large budget deficits. Experts estimate that Georgia has in the past few years significantly reduced corruption, because Transparency International places Georgia at joint number 99th in the world in its 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index (with number 1 being considered the least corrupt nation). This is a significant improvement on Georgia's 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index, where Georgia was rated joint 130th.

The version offered by User:Tamokk:

In the 20th century Georgia's economy was concentrated on Black Sea and Caucasus mountains tourism, cultivation of agricultural products such as citrus fruits, tea and grapes, mining of manganese and copper. There was a small industrial sector producing wine, metals, machinery, chemicals and textile.

After the downfall of Soviet Union Georgia like other successor states of the Soviet Union underwent an economic collapse. The civil war and military conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia deepened the crisis. The country suffered from hyperinflation and industry output diminished. From the mid 1990s with financial help from the West Georgia began economic recovery. Centrally planned economy dominant in Soviet Georgia was replaced by market economy.

There are visible positive developments in the economy of Georgia after the Rose Revolution. The government budget has grown from 350 million to 2.1 billion USD. In 2004 a 12% flat income tax was introduced, and tax collection increased significantly. In its report "Doing Business 2007" the World Bank praised Georgia's economic reforms. The country was able to improve its standing on the Ease of Doing Business Rankings from 112 to 37. Goeriga is developing into an international transport corridor through Batumi and Poti ports, an oil pipeline from Baku through Tbilisi to Ceyhan, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (BTC) and a parallel gas pipeline, the South Caucasus Pipeline.

By 2006 estimates Georgia's GDP (PPP) is US$17.79 billion. The country's GDP growth of 10% in 2006 was one of the highest in Europe. Georgia's economy is becoming more dependent on services (54.8% of GDP), and moves away from the agricultural sector (17.7%). 2006 imports and exports accounted for 10% and 18% of GDP, respectively. The country has unemployment rate of 12.6% and considerable underemployment. The median income remains low compared to other European countries.

In 2006 Russia banned imports of Georgian wine. Russia has also occasionally cut natural gas supply to the country, harming its economy.

Voting

Please cote below:

Support User:Sosomk's version:

1. Support SosoMK 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support- Very good idea to have a chance to vote rather than have senseless confrontation. I like Soso version, it also includes sources and i think is more suitable for the article both in terms of NPOV and more informative. Ldingley 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Well written, very informative and well sourced. --VartanM 06:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - informativeץ Geagea 23:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support-i reviewed both versions, Mr SosoMk version is better and sourced. Thanks. Euskera 17:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Most say here that the version is well sourced. Did you actually see those "sources"? Almost non of those support the corresponding claims. Tamokk 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support User:Tamokk's version:

1. Support Tamokk 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support I have a slight leaning towards this version; when able, integrate historical elements from other version into this one. Corticopia
3. Support. Voting is evil, however. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussions

Please leave my name out of this dispute. This is a dispute between you, and you are gonna have to work it out. I don't favour any side or any version of the article, and I will not have people using my name and my adminship to claim support. Everything I have ever said here, I said as an editor, not as an admin. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1) My version was based on the one now proposed by S. And I left the citations unchanged except that I removed links to the commercial webpages. Like this btw misleadingly captioned. What is incorrect? 2) I think the section should not try to explain facts. Explanations of "facts from the point of view of economics, as a social science" is a complex problem, and can not be dealt in the section the aim of which is to give a short account of nation economy. Moreover, such "explanations" sometimes are driven by POV, and should be avoided. 3) What is misleading?

My arguments: As I already said my version is based on the other one. I only made the following changes:

1. Language simplifications, clearifications, order etc.
2. Removed invalid citations.
3. Removed judgemental statemens.
4. Added info about early 1990s economic colapse. This is relevant, the country still has not recovered from its impact. Also see above.
5. Removed 10% inflation thing. See my arguments above.
6. Added Georgias participation in the energetic projects.
7. moved corruption index thing to the government section. Although I do not mind it staying in the economy section too.

Everything else is unchanged. Also let me note, that Sosomk is a POV editor, blocked several times over this article for incivility and violations of other wikipedia rules, and has been warned by several administrators to be permanently blocked. Tamokk 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The only POV pusher and editor here is you. And don’t downplay on some blocking threats. You behaviour here and communication with other editors is disruptive and despicable. You also vandalize the article, of which i have been a witness before. Also you have very strong POV (admirer of Beria and Stalin) which sometimes seem anti-Georgian in nature. Your intentions are very clear, you are just here to wage edit wars, and attack other editors. This kind of approach to the Wikipedia process is unacceptable. Your personal attacks on Soso are just another indication of your disruptive behaviour and rigid POV pushing Ldingley 15:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from personal attacks. I was accused of POV only by you and Sosomk. And Sosomk was accused of POV by almost every editor who has edited the article. And administrators have not warned me of being blocked, because of my behaviour here. Tamokk 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at the latest inflation rate according to the CIA world factbook[2]: 10% (during the last fiscal year). As for the energy projects (investments that are not Greenfield), I could incorporate those in the section if you discussed it before totally changing my work. SosoMK 15:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And what? I know that inflation was 10% in 2006. I just do not think it is necessary to include this detail in the artiicle. In 2005 inflation rate was 8%. In early 1990s we had hyperinflation, and another, although less severe, by end 1990s. Even today it remains high. Why should we stick to some 10% inflation? I suspect the only reason is to magnify Russias ban on Georgian wine (btw I doubt that the ban could have caused the inflation rise, wine export to Russia does not account for so much for Georgias economy). Also I do not understand why do you want to exclude economic downfall of early 1990s, which was by far more important then this 10%. You are fact selective. This is why I blame you of POV. Tamokk 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And is this your idea of voting? Putting your version in a favorable position, as if a version approved by an administrator. That administrator could have spoken for himself if he wanted. Tamokk 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The admin has already spoken in the very beginning of the discussions section. Alæxis_¿question? 06:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tamokk: Let me note that Sosomk is offering his version as some kind of Soviet propaganda issue, where even minor edits will not be tolorated [3]. I made some edits to the section, against which he can not put a single argument, but political ones, and that's what this poll is all about. I am not offering my last edition as some kind of final version. Both versions are far from being perfect, and no polls are liable to restrict wikipedia editors from editing it. Tamokk 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what is a Sovet propaganda in my section? As for the inflation statistic, when we are writing about the economy of a country in 2007, we must use the statistics of the last fiscal year, rather than the skeptical summary of last ten years. Note that the other countries of E Europe have not had the best statistics as they are transforming. 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can't the article have both the last year inflation and the overview of the situation with it in the past? Alæxis_¿question? 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could do that but to summarize last ten years we have to write a book. Please look at the economy sections of Czech Republic, England, USA, Canada, and etc. SosoMK 17:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Today most mainstream economists emphasize the short-run rather than the long-run and as John Maynard Keynes would say in the long-run, we are all dead. SosoMK 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the inflation rate to the economy section. I hope nobody will argue about it. Alæxis_¿question? 18:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sosomk, you can't have 66% consensus. Check what does it mean - it could either exist or not. Alæxis_¿question? 13:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No polls

Assume good faith. I just made some edits to the section. If you want to add or remove something, we can discuss. Reverting the whole section is Soviet style attitude. We don't need it.

1. I question your explanations about inflation. Russias ban on Georgian wine could not have caused significant inflation. And, as also indicated by RandomP, it is not obvious that high investments offset inflation. For the first, as far as I know inflation is still high in Georiga.
2. You want to explain the tax collection increase by new tax scheme, what also is inccorect. That was because of political, rather than economic mismanagement that tax collection was low.
3. Georgias per capita GDP today is very low, comparable to those of African countries. The reader should know that unlike African countries, the current state of Georgias economy is not some natural historical legacy, but caused by the economic collapse of the early 1990s, before which Georgias economy was comparable with those of eastern European countries. Tamokk 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sosomk you better answer these arguments. No 3 or 4 for votes can restrict anybody from editing. Tamokk 02:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, your section argued that Russian ban of Georgian wine depressed economy and caused the inflation and I also mention that in the section but I am portraying that from more economic point of view, where I identify more cause-and-effect relationships, meaning that I am being specific why and how it caused the inflation. Not to mention that it is like 2 times 2 = 4 for an economist that trade barrier is going to cause inflation and depression for any country.

Just give sources for that that the inflation was caused namely be the Russian ban. Tamokk 05:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[4], [5] SosoMK 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these sources says anything about inflation caused by Russian ban

“ Its GDP continues to grow at a respectable 7 to 8 percent despite a Russian ban on Georgian wine and water—its largest exports-and a worryingly high inflation rate. ”

GDP growth rate is not directly related to inflation: in fact, the economic growth is one of the causes of inflation. What the artcle says is that all else being equal, excess supply will cause the inflation. Tamokk, I would just advise you to relax. SosoMK 16:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I quoted here what IMF has reported. IMF gives reasons other than Russian embargo for the inflation, if you can read. So I recommend you to remove the inccorect informaiton from your section. Anyway, soon I will find time and write the section anew. Tamokk 06:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is another source right here, buddy, Mainville, Michael. "Sour grapes.(Russia's ban on Georgian wine exports)." Canadian Business 79.23 (Nov 20, 2006): 28(2). and we will have to change the section after the fiscal year of 2007. As for my literacy, the literacy rate of Georgia is 100% and I edit here Kakhetian style and if you don't like it, you can take a hike. SosoMK 13:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is available online here. The inflation is nowhere mentioned there. What is this source supposed to prove? Alæxis_¿question? 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No connexion is made here.

“ "The mission welcomed efforts to secure reliable supplies of energy for the near term, but urged the government to be mindful of the macroeconomic risks still posed by strained economic relations with Russia ”

It's the only place in the second source where Russia is mentioned and again nothing is said about these strained relations causing inflation. Alæxis_¿question? 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course Sosomk can not find references. It is just inccorect what he has written. According to the CIA World Factbook, the inflation in Georgia in 2005 was 8.2% and 10% in 2006. That is, through 2006 inflation increased by 1.8% (although there has been some "spike" in mid 2006). In 2005 Inflaion rise was more drastic 2.7%, and inflation in Georgia has been on rise since 2004. [6]. These figures show that Russias embargo can not explain the inflation rise. Tamokk 01:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

“ Russia’s trade war with Georgia may cause more serious political headache for the Georgian authorities than economic problems to the country, experts say. ”

[7]

“ In a statement issued on August 18 upon conclusion of its visit the IMF mission said that “sharp increase” in inflation reflects demand pressures in the economy resulting mainly from excess money supply. ”

[8]

Form October 2006 IMF report:

“ The acceleration in inflation appears to be largely due to high domestic demand, driven by more rapid-than-programmed growth in broad money ”

Only Georgian politicians have blamed the inflation on Russia's embargo alone.

IMF reports should be useful [9] [10] Tamokk 04:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, flat tax has increased the tax revenue in Georgia[11] and I will also cite that sentence.

This mentions Georgia only once, along with other countries, as a coutnry were flat tax was introduced, and nothing more. Flat tax can not on its own cause the increase of tax collection.

Tax revenue increased, perhaps because tax collection increased, and not because flat tax was introduced. Tamokk 05:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As for your third arguments, most of the vandalism, that the article has been challenged by, argue that the country is in Asia rather than in Europe, so Georgia is definitely not an African country and the total GDP tells nothing more than the size of the economy: for example Pakistan might have higher GDP than Georgia but it does not mean that people of Pakistan are more better off than Georgians. What we can look at is GDP per capital and I also mention something about that in the section.SosoMK 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For the first I was talking about per capita GDP. And my point was not to compare the country to the African countries or Pakistan, but rather to show the scale of the economic collapse which Georgia underwent. Tamokk 05:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

offset

Sosomk, thanks for adding reference. However I'll reinsert the fact tag because it's the connexion between inflation and investment rate that needs proof. Alæxis_¿question? 17:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide your qualification in economics: are you an economist? Why should you teach me what to write? Why would I trust a guy who has a KGB logo on his userpage? SosoMK 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add Lavrenty Beria and Rudolf Hess there, man: that will make it look cool. :) SosoMK

My qualification in economics is irrelevant. You are writing the article for the reader who doesn't have (in general) a qualification in economics at all.

If the text in question is that evident you should have no problem finding a reference supporting it. Alæxis_¿question? 18:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, my qualification as an economics author is relevant: I don't hold a doctorate but I have written things about it. When one writes about economics in the magazine, they don't say that country A imposed sanction on the country B to depress the country B's economy: it is just a common sense for every economists (I mean the mainstream) that any trade barrier will hurt the both nations (especially the smaller one) and my sources also portray that idea. SosoMK 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Some may think that what medieval theologians have stated can flatly discredit scientifically referenced material, and others are quick to "harmonize" in one paragraph medieval Georgian church architecture and Rustaveli avenue in Tbilisi, still it's 21 century, (even in Kakheti I hope), and I should note that literatacy is not a great deal. Tamokk 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientifically referenced material:) LOL:) What is any scientific evidence for the etymology? As for the architecture, I wrote it and I think its looks good. SosoMK 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientifically referenced material heh yeah that was a good one (i wish all articles on Wiki can be scientifically references LOL) :) Architecture was very informative and helpful, thank you Soso for adding it. NokhchiBorz 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would advice those who engage in edit warring ad nauseam and gratuitously eliminate any mention of the adverse impact of Russian embargo on Georgia’s economics to do a preliminary research on the Internet. The International Monetary Fund described Russia’s embargo as an "external shock" [12], [13], [14] and the president of the National Bank of Georgia stated that inflation was 8.8% in 2006, 5.6% of which had been triggered by external reasons, including Russia’s economic embargo.[15]. For further details see [16]. Kober^Talk 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Write your own version or add refs to Soso's one. In fact I've urged someone to add refs to the statements in question for quite a lot of time already and I've got a bit tired of putting fact tags (especially since it has no visible effect). Alæxis_¿question? 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Economics is not my field of expertise or interest. I just wanted to point out that the personal dislike of the fellow Wikipedian should not be a reason to suppress valid information attested by a number of sources on the Internet.--Kober^Talk 18:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither it is mine. It's the editor who writes something who should bring references proving what he wrote. Alæxis_¿question? 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither it is yours? Then why don't you leave this section alone? Why are you so eager to waste my time and energy in countering your crusades against Georgia-related articles? You might be a very high-ranking officer in those Squads. :) (I don't envy you, of course)--Kober^Talk 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop revertings without discussing first. You write here only about inflation, but you have reverted the entire section. Feel free to add information about the impact of Russian embargo. About inflation: I used one particular source, the IMF report, if you have other sources (about the impact namely on the inflation and not generally the economy) add it, but remember that one source should not be given precedence over another. I do not think that revertion to the Sosomks version is a good idea. The sources there do not support the corresponding claims (not only on the inflaion). And contains factual inaccuracies (e.g it follows from there that inflation spiked to 10% in 2006 and then declined. When in the sources the "spike" refers to the increase of the inflation by mid 2006, which subsequently decreased to 10% by the end of the year, check.) Tamokk 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also what is this revertion in the lead section all about? Georgia is either entirely in Asia or partly in Asia. At least see the article Europe in the wikipedia. Tamokk 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The report by the President of the National Bank of Georgia was exactly about the impact of embargo on inflation.[17]. I'm really mystified by such a puerile stubborness to accept simple facts. As for the introduction, it was an unintentional revert on my part.--Kober^Talk 04:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have addded that. Tamokk 04:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to you too. --Kober^Talk 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A key victory for Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili

• Russia completes withdrawal from 1 of 2 remaining bases in Georgia

• Russia completed its withdrawal from one of two remaining military bases in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia on Wednesday, a long-promised move that Georgia's president has pressed for years.

Georgia's pro-Western leaders are trying to steer the country into NATO and are counting on the United States to help get them into the Western alliance. Georgia also wants Washington to put its diplomatic muscle behind its efforts to bring the pro-Moscow separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia under Tbilisi's control. --Tones benefit 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

2Rhymeless

Since you've reverted the economy section to the previous version could you provide reference for the inflation being offset by the investment. Nothing of that kind is mentioned in this FT article. Alæxis_¿question? 11:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the passage about our troops in Abkhazia. It's not sourced and is inaccurate - there are UN peacekeepers actually in Abkhazia, it's not evident that it's the main problem in Russian-Georgian relations and finally this problem is not emerging but has been there quite for a while. Alæxis_¿question? 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

UN peacekeepers???? Huh! Your troops in Abkhazia have never been granted a UN mandate. The United Nations operates there as a UNOMIG whose functions are limited to passive observance. And the Russian peacekeepers are definitely one of the main problems in Russian-Georgian relations since they are de facto piecekeepers.--Kober^Talk 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian troops are there as part of the UNOMIG, aren't they? I remember Gudauta base transferred from the Army to the peacekeepers. The main problem, in my opinion, is the general support of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia. I mean that it's the problem in Rus-Geo relations, not that it's a problem by itself. Alæxis_¿question? 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I was a bit mistaken. Russian troops act there as part of the CIS peacekeeping mission. Here is the quote from the latest UN report:

“ “The Security Council, Stressing the importance of close and effective cooperation between UNOMIG and the CIS peacekeeping force as they currently play an important stabilizing role in the conflict zone ”

Alæxis_¿question? 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are part of the CIS mission; at least on paper. The UN refused its mandate to the Russian troops in Abkhazia and angered Yeltsin in 1994. It only dispatched the so-called civilian police unit known as the UNOMIG to "supervise" the Russians. These are two separate, but nominally coordinated missions. The Gudauta base has never been inspected by the UNOMIG as the Abkhaz (read Russian) officials refused them entry. Whatever you call the Russian presence there - army, or peacekeepers - it is just a continuation of the military intervention which was legalized by Shevardnadze after his capitulation to the Kremlin's pressure in 1993.

As for the UN resolution, it also states that Georgia's territorial integrity is inviolable, but nobody (I mean Russia and its satellite breakaway regimes) cares about it. The UN's praise of the Russian troops is also a diplomatic formality and you know this perfectly well. That's why Georgians have lost their trust in the UN. The UN did not even manage to force a bunch of Abkhaz politicians to open a human rights office in Gali. --Kober^Talk 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What is not referenced is that it's THE key issue in Rus-Geo relations. Besides the status of Russian troops in Abkhazia is not clear enough from that passage.

ps. The (in)famous offset in the economy section is also not referenced. Alæxis_¿question? 17:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do not understand why do you put question like that when not only this part about inflation, nuyt the whole section is reverted without any reason. About inflation, let me clarify ones and for all. See the IMF reports for 2006 and 2007. By May inflation reached 9%. The inflation furthur "spiked" to 14% by mid 2006, and then it was "offset" agiain to 9% by end 2006. This is how differect publications use the words. Tamokk 03:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand this. I don't understand how the investment rate can offset inflation. Alæxis_¿question? 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is the POV pusher. He has insufficient sources and attacks Georgia article due to his Russian political views (anti-Georgian as it seems). Euskera 21:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Euskera that User:Alaexis and User:Tamokk are anti-Georgian POV pusher who have no academic interest in the article whatsoever. SosoMK 07:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

, It's true Tamokk and Alaexis sound like fierce anti georgian bloggers who lack knowledge of the history of this country. Besides, I just came back from there and ask me how much prosperity I noticed since mid 90s. Georgian people are beutiful, generous, with great sense of humor and great southern european culture like the rest of Caucasion/European people of the world. _ New York City

Issues

Key issue

Please present some refs proving that the presence of Russian troops is not one of but the key issue in Rus-Geo relations. Alæxis_¿question? 07:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try to reach consensus. Untill now, and give your above question either Russian trops are or not the key issue in Rus-Geo relations prove that you're on the wrong way to reach consensus. The above questions are already explained above, see above.--Tones benefit 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Troops in Abkhazia

“ Georgia repeatedly asked Russia to withdraw their troups from Abkhazia ”

This could be true but it's not referenced - the article says Russia completed its withdrawal from one of two remaining military bases (the second one is Batumi - Alæxis_¿question?) in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia on Wednesday, a long-promised move that Georgia's president has pressed for years. which is not quite the same thing. Alæxis_¿question? 07:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many citations on google about how many times Georgia asked Russia to withdraw. After all, you think they send invitation to stay?--Tones benefit 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Offset

Please present a source proving that inflation could be (and was in this case) offset by investment rate. Alæxis_¿question? 07:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally high investment and inflation may well coexist, so in this case we only need credible citations and not speculations. Tamokk 03:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Georgia and NATO

What do you say about an article like this one Georgia and NATO?--Tones benefit 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Political POV editors

I don't mind your political convictions, as soon as you keep your POV away from the article. Stop censoring the economy section. Tamokk 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are so sensitive about the inflation, I have removed the paragraph about it, although I thought it was informative, and left only the statement by the president of national bank in connection to the embargo. You can add information to the section if you think I have forgotten anything. If you decide to remove something or revert it alltogather give reasons. Tamokk 03:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this version anti-Georgian? Could you list specific issues with it like I did in the issues section. Btw you also didn't answer the questions I raised there. Alæxis_¿question? 07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of 'Georgia'

There are a few problems with this sentence:

It is conjectured that the word "Georgia" derived from the Ancient Persian word Gurj or Gorg, meaning Gorgeous in Proto-Indo-European languages .

• There is no such thing as "Proto-Indo-European languages": one either has the "Proto-Indo-European language" (the root language of all) or "Indo-European languages".
• The word given is in Ancient Persian, so one can't just assert that it means X in other languages; the word will have preserved differently in different languages. You could say perhaps that cognates of that word in other languages all mean X, or that the word derives from a root (in this case a Proto-Indo-European root) meaning X.
• The word "gorgeous" is not something I would use to translate any foreign word: it's essentially a poetic synonym for "beautiful". It is obviously included because it is thought to be a cognate of the Proto-Indo-European root which also led to "Georgia".

So, the best speculative interpretation I can make of this sentence is "It is conjectured that the word "Georgia" derived from the Ancient Persian word Gurj or Gorg, derived from a root meaning 'beautiful' in Proto-Indo-European and cognate with English 'gorgeous'."

And that would be the end of it if I could confirm this interpretation. But, yet another wrench is thrown in: my Oxford English Dictionary lists the origin of "gorgeous" in English as "Old French gorgias fine, stylish, elegant, of unknown origin".

I think we have to throw out "gorgeous" entirely since we don't even have a proven йderivation to Proto-Indo-European, or cognates in other Indo-European languages. And if we have to do that, I wonder if this whole thing is just a speculative false etymology. Can anyone offer any insights here? --Saforrest 11:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Attemmpt to merge the versions

Intro cleanup

the intro is a summary of the article, and lengthy political declarations do not belong to it. The following piece is deleted form the intro and replaced by a summary.

Georgia repeatedly asked Russia to withdraw their troups from Abkhazia and the issue of Russia’s military withdrawal from Georgia is fast emerging as the key measure of whether the two countries can overcome mutual suspicion and settle their political differences (including Russia’s economic embargo, starting from 2006). Anyway, Russia completed its withdrawal from one of two remaining military bases in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, a long-promised move that Georgia's president has pressed for years.<ref>http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/27/europe/EU-GEN-Georgia-Russia-Withdrawal.php Russia completes withdrawal from 1 of 2 remaining bases in Georgia</ref>.

The text requires serious rephrasing (e.g, the phrase "fast emerging" is good for newspaper about today, but not good for encyclopedia) and opinions in it must be attributed. `'Miikka 19:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianization

The two versions differ in the date of country Christianized: "in the early 3rd century" vs "in the early 4th century". Please explain and provide references. `'Miikka 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the date. It occured in the 4th century, c. 330. --Kober^Talk 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Congresses

The article says: 'Before the October 1990 elections to the national assembly, the Umaghiesi Sabcho (Supreme Council) — the first polls in the USSR held on a formal multi-party basis — the political landscape was reshaped again. While the more radical groups boycotted the elections and convened an alternative forum (National Congress),...

Q 1: What is the national name of the second forum? Q 2. Umaghiesi Sabcho (Supreme Council) : is this a literal translation Q 3. Was Supreme Council the structure inherited from Soviet times or only the name?

By the way, Government of Georgia, where is the article? `'Miikka 20:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A1: The National Congress was called erovnuli kongresi.

A2: Umaghlesi Sabcho is a literal transliteration of the Georgian name for Supreme Soviet.

A3: Both the name and structure was Soviet, and the elections were organized according to the Soviet constitution. Georgia was still called SSR. That's why the radical opposition boycotted the elections. They demanded immediate declaration of independence.

A4: I have just found Cabinet of Georgia which needs serious reworking. --Kober^Talk 04:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging feedback

Thanks for your efforts for merging the two versions, but if you note, you did not change anything from my section except restoring S's awkward wordings in some of the sentences. Tamokk 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Awkward wording is no big deal. We have native English speakers in wikipedia to fix this. Now, what exactly do you see missing from "your" section? Please keep in mind that this article is a summary article for the whole country, and all details must go into the articles referred to as "main" for the sections. So, rephrasing my question, what major points are missing from this summary? `'Miikka 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No major points are missing, just language is bit awkward. S. can keep it if he thinks it's more Georgian. Just watch out that he does not remove my info again. Thanks. Tamokk 06:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixing Economy section

I agree to accept points of view from totally other side of the political spectrum. However, we have to do a little work in translating it to English and merging paragraphs a bit because there are just too many right now. SosoMK 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did my best to make it presentable for people from various different schools of thought and economic ideologies. Now I leave it up to native-English speakers and non-native experts to fix any awkwardness that there is in the section. Regards, SosoMK 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the introduction

Right now, the article says Georgia[2] is a transcontinental[3] country in the Caucasus and this links to an article that virtually does not have any references. We all know that Georgia is generally an European country. However, geographic classifications from various important organization vary: for example the Oxford Reference, which belong to the World's most respected institution, says that Georgia is in southeast Europe and on the other hand, the UN says that Georgia is in Western Asia. Since two different ideas about the location exist, we can say that Georgia is located southeast to mainland Europe at the east coast of the Black Sea and that would be just fine. I just don't like seeing the word transcontinental there and anybody must be mystified by the term. It makes it sound like that Georgia is some kind of divided nation, where European Georgia is different from Asian Georgia, which is the case with Russia, for example. SosoMK 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the Etymology

Saint George's flag, which was brought back to England by the Crusaders

Etymology section is little unclear: firstly, why is it mistakenly supposed that the term Georgia comes from Saint George? There might be some historians who say that but majority of the medieval scholars refer Georgia and Georgians as graceful and warlike people who especially adore and worship Saint George. Note that the flag that Vakhtang Gorgasali used in the 5th century is called a St. George's flag in England. So, even if a well-respected scholar says that Georgica does not come from the country's patron Saint, we cannot say that it is definitely a mistake. Also, it is known that Gurg or Gorg means Gorgeous or Beautiful in Proto-Indo-European languages. Persian kings or Shahs used to move Georgians to Iran to improve their ethnic qualities. SosoMK 10:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are no modern scholars who think that Georgia got its name after St. George than we should describe this version as a medieval historian's (or historians') opinion that is not shared by modern ones. If there are modern scholars who support this version then both versions should be listed in the article, with appropriate references, of course.

The connection of the proto-indo-european word gorg with the country's name needs reference as well. Alæxis_¿question? 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is of course no reference that Goergia was derived from “gorg”, but Iranians and Turks today call Sakartvelo Gorgistan. This is how they know it, not by Georgia. Just a popular science, but makes you think about it.

Georgia WikiProject

Please check out the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Georgia_.28country.29 Chris 01:21, 19 March 2007

Interesting info: (UTC)www.iranian.com/Travelers/June97/Chardin/index.shtml

Trivia

Perhaps one could include some trivia such as the fact that people cheered for sportsmen from Georgia during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.

Are you serious? See WP:TRIVIA.--Svetovid 12:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory stats

The article offers two very different statistics for the percentages of religious minorities. One appears in the general section on the population and the next appears in the section specifically discussing religion. The second set of statistics depicts a much more robust group of religious minorities while the first set implies that they are only trace elements. Unless there's some real controversy about how these groups are counted, could someone find an authoritative source for this and give good numbers? If there is controversy, then let's say that and no offer two contradictory sets of data without explanation.Ftjrwrites (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate on Monarchy

As the information reached my ears i searched it in wikipedia and it wasn't here, so i added it. I put the reference and it's the 30th one. I hope i didn't made any aggressions to wikipedia's rules

189.32.158.41 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The debate is becoming increasingly notable and even deserves a separate article. However, the link you provided contains an inaccurate info. There were no such consultations in the Parliament of Georgia, specifically in October 2007. I'm sorry I have to remove your passage, but I'll definitely restore it in an updated and referenced form. Thanks for a great idea. --Kober^Talk 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)