Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Move request 19 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. All arguments for or against the proposed move must be in line with Wikipedia:Article titles, our naming policy. (Several were not.) Multiple users asserted that the country has a higher pageview total than the state (a criterion for primary topic), which is patently untrue (although not by an enormous margin; certainly, even if the figures were reversed neither one could claim primary topic). Many users argued that the country is more important simply because it is a country; apart from showing perhaps a lack of understanding of what a U.S. state is (those who called it a "region" are particularly incorrect), simply having a vote in the United Nations does not concede automatic primary topic to a country here at Wikipedia (see Ireland, a geographical feature with no UN vote, which has primary topic over Republic of Ireland, a sovereign country with a UN vote). The argument of "It's surely better that the link goes SOMEWHERE" as pushed by User:Wikidea (and in line with WP:TWODABS) was much more compelling and in a closer case could have carried the day; nevertheless, given the large number of other possible targets for "Georgia", even though they are far less likely, the consensus here is that we cannot declare the country to be the primary meaning of the word "Georgia". (non-admin closure) Red Slash 15:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

---

• Georgia (country) → Georgia
• Georgia → Georgia (disambiguation)

– The rationale behind the proposed move is as follows:

• Countries come first and regional entities second if not last. So countries should take precedent over sub-national, sub-regional units.
• Georgia has its name Georgia way longer than the US State of Georgia which was just named in 18c after British monarch George II.
• Georgia is way more important globally and has an impact on the rest of the world where US State of Georgia is just part of US and it does not.
• Georgia is more read on wiki than US State of Georgia.
• Georgia is UN member country.
• Georgia has history of several millenniums.
• Georgia has more UNESCO places than US State of Georgia.
• And last Georgia is a sovereign, independent country and nation and US State of Georgia is just a region within US.
• So because of this I suggest to move Georgia (country) to Georgia. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: Posted on the behalf of GeorgianJorjadze. Note that I have no comment regarding the request. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support as nominator. This is totally insulting to see that a regional entity is equal with a sovereign country. There is only one Georgia and it is in the Caucasus. georgianJORJADZE 18:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It must be noted that the nominator, whose opinion of the matter is found immediately above this comment, has canvassed this discussion quite broadly. While the notification is neutral, I see no evidence that the list of editors selected for canvassing is. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And what is the problem here? This issue should be solved once and for all. Current status-quo which is frozen up like this insulting way that an ancient nation and country has to have a text next to it like country is just unacceptable. Since when the regions became the important than the sovereign states? There is only ONE Georgia and it is the country where I am from. georgianJORJADZE 18:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming this article "Georgia (country)" is no more or less "insulting" than naming the other article "Georgia (U.S. state)". To most Americans and Canadians, "Georgia" means the US state, and references to "Georgia" (meaning your country) are simply not likely to be readily understood by those readers unless qualified in some way that would probably irritate you (e.g., "former Soviet Georgia"). If you were to do a comprehensive check of reliable sources in English which refer to "Georgia", I am quite confident that the majority of them would turn out to be references to the US state bearing that name — and per our Article Titles policy, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." You're just not going to be able to win a prestige contest on the basis of "your" Georgia being a country and "the other" Georgia being a political subdivision — a subdivision, BTW, which has twice the population and twice the land area of the country Georgia. So, meaning absolutely no disrespect here (and I think you know me well enough by now to understand that I am absolutely not inclined to show any disrespect to your country), I strongly believe the only workable solution here is to keep things as they are, with "Georgia" remaining as a disambiguation page. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rich, US State of Georgia has a fake name which is named after its colonial master from the UK. Georgia the country where I am from was on the planet earth quite some time not even comparing it to the US state of Georgia. It is as fake as Rome, Indiana. Why don't you rename the Italian city into Rome (Italian city) just because someone called the town in the US just by that name? What would you say if the State of Georgia was the Mexican State of Georgia in the United States of Mexico? I know and appreciate you as a user and have no doubt in your honesty but you should understand the cause I am talking about here. georgianJORJADZE 19:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The name of the US state is no more "fake" than the name "Georgia" being applied to the country--which, in the native language is "Sakartvelo". "Georgia" is derived from what the Persians called it.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This is an old story, which was one of my biggest Wikipedia worries back in the 2004-2006 era. Here's a question:

Are there some people who know that the country is called Georgia but who might speculate that the U.S. state has a name like West Carolina?? (For clarification, West Carolina is simply a name I'm using as an example of a name someone might speculate is the name of the U.S. state.) Georgia guy (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• While personally, as a European, I hear about the country more often than the US state, I am not certain that "Georgia is more read on wiki than US State of Georgia." Per the page view numbers, the page on the country has had 138,877 visits within the last month. The page on the U. S. State has had 170,364 visits within the same period. Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to change the system of disambiguation for these two equally important entities, which has worked for years. I think it is POV to consider a regional entity to be less important than a country, especially in Georgia's case where the US state outranks the country in area and population and has a larger economy than it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. All of Elockid's GeorgianJorjadze's points have been considered before (except "Georgia has more UNESCO places than US State of Georgia", which is novel but not a criterion for primacy). The consensus is that there is simply no possible consensus as to a primary topic. As the proposal does not offer any reason to reconsider this consensus, we should stick to the present arrangement. I would note that the US state of Georgia has a history of several tens of millennia; it has not been called "Georgia" for all of that lengthy period, but neither has the country been called "Georgia" for millennia. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. This proposed move would not be appropriate without a clear showing that the unqualified name "Georgia" is used by most of the reliable English-language sources as meaning the country and not the US state — something which I do not believe a careful search of sources would in fact show. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep Georgia as the disambig page to spot incorrect links much easier. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would sooner move Georgia (country) to Sakartvelo. bd2412 T 17:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't mind such a move. I think it would solve future move battles here (though the US state would still suffer from such) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There should be no unqualified "Georgia", it must have a reference to avoid confusion. I just went through this with Georgia (U.S. State) so I know what the party line is on this name. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 17:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - Given the propensity of contributors to link to "Georgia" without thinking about the ambiguity, it's important to keep that page for disambiguation. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, minor point, but this should have been proposed as a multi-page move request rather than having a separate request at Talk:Georgia#Move request. older ≠ wiser 18:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing new from the previous discussions to show that the current arrangement needs to be changed. older ≠ wiser 18:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, While I support the move for all the reasons given in the request, Wikipedia is primarily managed/administrated by US editors. As such, and as bizarre as it sounds, US bias will keep a state before a sovereign country. FFMG (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, it has been this way only because of the US-centricity of Wikipedia. bogdan (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support This article is clearly the WP:primary topic in terms of long-term significance, and arguably in terms of usage (although I expect this view wouldn’t find consensus). Omitted from the move request are that Georgia is the native land of the ethnic group Georgians, and of the Georgian language and Georgian alphabet, which also serve as literary language to related peoples. —Michael Z. 2013-08-19 19:37 z
  • The country is defintely not the primary topic.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I was asked to vote here; I assume due to my previous vote (back in 2006 or whenever the issue was last raised) in favour of the proposal. I choose not to vote now but draw attention to possible biasing of the vote through selectively drawing attention to the issue. - 94.170.82.27 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You chose to comment anonymously, so it is a bit hard to verify your statement.

My apologies - I wasn't logged in. - Neil (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is quite a strong accusation to make here, it is not impossible that many contributors, (from both sides of the discussion), have been asked to comment here. How do you know that only one side was canvassed? FFMG (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not hard to verify all the supports here are users notified by User:GeorgianJorjadze probably because of their previous vote in support. Somebody should go back and inform past oppose users as well to make this more fair. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, I was notified by GeorgianJorjadze though I have consistently opposed moving in past discussions. Looking at his contributions in user talk namespace, I recognize several of the names as having opposed moves previously. older ≠ wiser 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And I was notified even though I've never participated in any discussions of the subject whatsoever, as far as I can remember. I believe my only activity on this talk page was a notification that I'd proposed moving Georgia (U.S. state) to a different (but still disambiguated) title. I suspect that GeorgianJorjadze decided to notify everyone who'd edited this talk page recently and perhaps not-so-recently, and that's a great way to avoid votestacking while notifying a lot of people. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I'd tend toward thinking that the country was more important than a state, even though a lot of people might disagree who are from the US. It's surely better that the link goes SOMEWHERE. Our American friends should just suck it up and deal with it! Wikidea 20:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If all you want is for the link to go somewhere, then we can just point it to Georgia (U.S. state). Rreagan007 (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The simple fact is that both topics are highly significant, and neither is itself deserving of the disambiguated title. You might say the same thing about Mercury. Chemical elements are the building blocks of everything, and much more significant than faraway planets! Humans have known the planet since time immemorial, while modern chemistry is a few centuries old! Etc. etc. etc. If I were US-biassed, I'd urge that the state be un-disambiguated. Propose that move, and I'll oppose it as strongly as I'm opposing this one. Finally, we had a similar discussion not long ago at Talk:Georgetown, Guyana. Going there and seeing the position that I advocated will enable you to understand my viewpoints/biasses more clearly. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no WP:primary topic. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support A country is definitely more important than a subdivision of a country (US or not US, doesn't matter). --Երևանցի ^talk 23:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Orlady. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for two reasons. First, the state, as noted, has a larger population and economy than the nation, although the nation is more important in a Great Chain of Being. Second, having the unqualified link be a disambiguation will result in less confusion than a link that is meant to be to the state going to the nation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - In testing a particular computer application, I verified that there could be two records for Georgia for the country and the state. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you mean, can you explain further? FFMG (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The U.S. state is very well known, probably at least as much worldwide as the country, and is certainly more well-known in North America.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any references to support your statement? Or are you suggesting that because the Georgia State is better known in the US than the Country Georgia, the state should take some kind of preference? FFMG (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I agree with the proposer that nations are generally more important than regions, and notwithstanding that Georgia the country is somewhat more prominent in my own awareness than GA, USA, it clearly is not as dominant as the primary-topic policy requires. There is no implicit insult to Georgians; we have to deal with the consequences of this accident of onomastic history in the best interest of our readers—who seem about equally likely to be after information on either topic.—Odysseus1479 01:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand GeorgianJorjadze's patriotic frustration here, but there's just no way the country beats out the state in terms of how likely people are to search/link the term by a large enough margin to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not on English Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I will stipulate that in general, countries are more prevalent than regions and should be treated as such, but if nothing else, this is a case where ignoring all rules applies. The disambiguation page received 16,631 views last month, Georgia (country) received 158636 views last month, and Georgia (U.S. state) received 189716 views last month. My point in sharing these numbers is not to say that we should make decisions solely based off of them, but to share that it means the disambiguation page has worked, as it has about 10% the views of the other two pages ... people find what they are looking for and then go there, and those who type in Georgia make their choice and move on. This is precisely what is outlined in the guide on disambiguations. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Go Phightins! 01:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. In terms of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines of disambiguating pages and determining primary topics, there has been no consensus that current internationally recognized countries should automatically take precedence over sub-national units like a U.S. state. The long-standing Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, and Macedonia (Greece) naming debates come to mind, where consensus felt is was best to leave Macedonia as a disambiguation page. The Georgia naming issue has also been long-standing, and it is also best to leave Georgia as a disambiguation page. If anything, the article should be renamed Republic of Georgia, similar to the consensus of both the heavily debated Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Ireland naming discussions. Furthermore, the traffic page stats Dimadick and Go Phightins! cited shows there is no page that is significantly more viewed than the others. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although I also feel that countries are more prominent than states, people would be just as likely to search up the state as the country. It could also lead to issues regarding links. ZappaOMati 03:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose it'd make much more sense to move the US state, since that place speaks English, and this one doesn't, so there's much more likely to be publications about the US state in English, thus being more prominent in English. But I'm not going to argue for renaming the state, though clearly it is more likely than the country (and larger, and more populous, and has more relevance in English) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Neither has an overwhelming advantage over the other, so disambiguation is best pbp 04:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Richwales and Orlady.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons stated by the move proponents eventhough I think US users will definitely tip the scale the other way. Georgia, the country meets both of WP:PTOPIC 's criteria, it has especially long-term significance since the existence of that country predates the discovery of the American continent and its contributions to the history of the western Asia. As for the other criterion (usage), i believe that the current naming of the article is drawing away a lot of page views from it since the regular user will be searching for Georgia SPECIFICALLY and not Georgia (country). If the articles name would have been simply Georgia I believe it would have gotten more pageviews. -Eli+ 04:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • @Elie plus:, I have a question. You said that you believe if the country of Georgia had the article name Georgia that it would have more page views. Wouldn't by that same logic mean that if the the US state article was named Georgia that it would have more page views, because users would be searching for Georgia specifically and not Georgia (U.S. state)? GB fan 10:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the nominator that the name 'Georgia' should be reserved primarily for the country. There are similar examples: Azerbaijan vs. Azerbaijan (Iran) and Luxembourg vs. Luxembourg (Belgium). Why should Georgia be treated any differently? Parishan (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Because the US state of Georgia is far more likely to be a search or link target than either the Iranian province of Azerbaijan or the Belgian province of Luxembourg. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

    A side point, not as important but one that most commentators don't seem to have noticed: US states are not actually comparable to sub-national units of most countries. They have much more autonomy, even a limited form of sovereignty. For example, almost all law regarding person-on-person crime in the US is at the state level. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Countries come first when the sources and other factors support it, and that is not the case here. There is no primary topic for the word "Georgia" in the English language. The move would create unnecessary problems with incoming wikilinks, as Lugnuts pointed out. The page views do not show that readers are looking for this topic over other uses at all, so I don't see it being the case that readers are looking for this topic more than others, nor is there any evidence that sources refer to this topic more than any others. There is no benefit to Wikipedia editors or readers to move this page to Georgia (in fact it creates unnecessary problems), and the current disambiguation policy does not support such a move. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 05:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: disambiguation ought to be based entirely on readers' interests. While page views can be manipulated, they show the American state holds somewhat more interest to readers of the English Wikipedia; the facts that it's been part of the English-speaking world for 280 years and has a larger population, land area, and economy than the Eurasian country are consistent with that. Status as an independent country ought not to matter, but—if Republic of Georgia (1861) is to be believed—the American state did experience a brief period of sovereignty. Of course 1961 isn't recent, is it? —rybec 07:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose not yet I'm actually sitting in Georgia as I write this, but I'm not convinced per current useage that we should change this yet. When it comes to economy, population and encyclopaedic topics generally then the country's greater history and past land area make it a much bigger topic for an encyclopaedia than the state, only by comparing their current stats could you make a case for the state being more important than the country, but that would be an inappropriate way to evaluate encyclopaedic importance, and comparing one at its 14th century peak to the other today is not entirely practical. It would be relevant to compare populations if we were talking about democratic representation and economies if we were talking UN subscriptions, but we aren't so it isn't. However I'm saying not yet because I think we will be able to make a convincing case for this move in the future. Wikipedia currently has a huge institutional bias towards recentism, the technosphere and the anglosphere, we are working to resolve those biases and cultural shifts are helping us. Young Georgians are now taught English rather than Russian as their second language, and over the next few decades that will move Georgia to the edge of the anglosphere. Computers and especially home broadband may well be relatively rare in Georgia, but mobiles are becoming ubiquitous and if we crack mobile editing then we can expect a very different pattern of coverage and correspondingly useage. ϢereSpielChequers 07:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Philosophy and history aside, neither is clearly the primary topic in English, which is how we decide such things. — kwami (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I've expanded the "move discussions in a nutshell" summary (at the top of this talk page) to mention the pro-move concern over US-centric bias and the anti-move concern over wikilinks to plain "Georgia" that need to be identified and disambiguated. I believe I have done this in a manner that fairly and accurately summarizes the two positions without favouring one or the other, but if people disagree with my wording here, the text in question is at Template:GeorgiaRMArchive. Please note that this summary template text absolutely must be strictly balanced and neutral, not favouring either side of the issue. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose — disambiguation is best.  –
   – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 09:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree that the country is the primary meaning of "Georgia", with the state only secondary, I still feel there is much room for confusion among the en.wiki population. The worst option would be for Georgia to default to the state. My second favorite preference would be for Georgia to default to the country. But the best solution is the one we have; for Georgia to default to a disambiguation page. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• While I would personally Support that, in general, a country should be the primary topic if there's a subnational entity with the same name (we don't add "(country)" to Luxembourg and Niger because of Luxembourg (Belgium) and Niger (Nigeria)), I can understand that to English speakers, a U.S. state may be more well-known than an Asian country with less than half its area and population, seeing as over 60% of English speakers lives in the U.S.. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Um, what do you mean by "over 60% of English speakers lives in the U.S."? Yes, the table says that the USA has more than twice the number of speakers than any other country, but India + Pakistan + Nigeria is 292 million, i.e. 25 million more than the USA. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Per nom.--Kober^Talk 12:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I am neither European nor NorthAmerican (U.S.), so I come here without an agenda (and, for the record, I was not canvassed). It is, however, a fact that the bulk of editors in the English Wikipedia are from the U.S., thus a higher support for "oppose" would be natural, and must -of necessity- be considered when judging the responses. It is also interesting to note that a significant number of editors opposing the move are coming to the defense of Georgia (US state)...and, yet, a move (should the move being herein requested take place) wouldn't affect at all the title of the Georgia (US state) article.

It is incorrect to state that "Georgia is more read on wiki than US State of Georgia", just as it is incorrect to state that "Georgia (the US State) is more read on wiki than Country of Georgia". According to THIS and THIS, there is a greater number of hits (but arguably not significantly greater - as in a 2:1 ratio for instance) for hits to Georgia (US state) vs. hits to Georgia (country) (571,620 vs. 482,105, when I viewed it). Some 18% more readers looked at the US State article as readers who looked at the Country article and, to editorialize a bit, to me these figures, if correct, do not provide enough credence to the "primary topic" argument (when defined in terms of numbers): neither the US state nor the Country wins this popularity contest hands down. Statistically, there is just no clear "winner."

But ultimately, I Support the move because English Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia. I support it because its English readers, American or not, need to move away from the Americanization of the English Wikipedia and treat it as the universal encyclopedia that it is. English is not just an American languague, it is a universal language, and, on this basis, moving the article from Georgia (country) to Georgia is the right thing to do per our premier policy of policies: namely, WP:IAR. The disambiguation page, meanwhile, appears functional and fair the way it, and should not be modified. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Visitors to Georgia and Georgia (U.S. state) don't see any notice about this discussion, whereas those who view Georgia (country) do. Hence it is biased in favour of Georgia (country) as the primary topic.76.65.128.222 left notices on the other talk pages, but A neutral place to hold this discussion would have been at the disambiguation page. I see seven requests to declare Georgia (country) the primary topic, but none to make Georgia (U.S. state) the primary topic. Where's the Americanisation? —rybec 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be any requests to make Georgia (U.S. state) the primary topic: that would be abnormal - it's the underdogs, and not those in power, the ones that could reasonably want any change. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

In fact, both this talk page and Talk:Georgia (U.S. state) have banners insisting that any move request should be held at Talk:Georgia - for precisely this reason. Nobody pays attention to the banners, though. It's hard to fault the nominator for ignoring what everyone else also ignores. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"...for precisely this reason" - WP:SPECULATION, unless of course you added those banners yourself and you knew your own motives. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• Oppose. My just-completed check of the 30-day page-view statistics showed 139,350 views for Georgia (country); 171,190 for Georgia (U.S. state). Clearly, there's no primary topic from the standpoint of usage, as described at WP:PTOPIC. It's difficult to come up with a corresponding number to test whether there's a PT from the long-term significance standpoint; but note the adverb in "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". One might argue that one topic or the other has more enduring notability and educational value, but there are reasonably strong arguments on both sides: length of history and national vs. sub-national entity for Tbilisi, and relative population and size of economy for Atlanta. The fact that neither side has all the good arguments means, to me, that there's no primary topic.

In addition, Orlady's point about casual Wikilinking of "Georgia" by US-based editors strikes me as dispositive. If we adopt this proposal, we're going to wind up with lots of people named Bubba described as living in the Caucusus. Ammodramus (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wikipedia should reflect what people are looking for and strive to be useful. The current arrangement, with "Georgia" as a disambiguation page, makes the most sense, imo. -- Hux (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons given. The colony was named by the British after a British king, so it can hardly be called an "American" term. Rjensen (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As noted above, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the relevant guideline. It reads in part A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. That favours the country, which is what many other editors above have been getting at I think, perhaps not very clearly. The size of the two is not significantly different, and the usage statistics quoted are as you would expect, given the greater web prominence of the USA, and so aren't very helpful, but the significance criterion is relatively clear. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The US state has 3x the area of the country, 2x the population, 7x the GDP per capita (or 15x the GDP). That's not relatively the same -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree that the GDP figures are significantly different. So? Disagree that they have any relevance to the long-term significance in terms of the policy, are you suggesting that they do? (The GDP per capita figure is a particularly irrelevant statistic in this context.) The land area and population figures are not sufficiently different to have any bearing. When the US state applies for a seat on the UN, it may be a contest. But no time soon. (Georgia was the last of the formerly Soviet states to be admitted I think, on 31 July 1992.) Andrewa (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Although it contributes to long-term significance, being part of the UN is not the determining factor in finding long-term significance by any means. UN status contributes towards significance, but so does population, size, economic considerations, or being a US state. Being part of the UN is significant, yes, but not so significant that it is the only consideration. Nobody is arguing that the country is not significant, only that in the English language it is not the primary topic associated with the word Georgia, which has no primary topic as defined by Wikipedia's definition. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 09:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Agree that UN membership is not the determining factor or the only consideration, it was just an example, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. My claim above is that a primary topic exists when all relevant factors are considered. But we do need to be selective in the indicators we consider, and rank them a bit. UN membership, being a US state, heritage listings, area, population and overall GDP are all important (as are others listed in other discussion), but GDP per capita has no relevance whatsoever in this case, nor in very many cases overall (it's hard to even see how it could be relevant unless it were notably high or low, which hasn't been suggested and is not the case). A similar healthy cynicism needs to be applied to much of the argument above. Andrewa (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm certainly not suggesting that being a US State is on the same level as being in the UN, only that if you look at overall significance, this topic isn't more "significant" than the US State, at least not to the point that it suggests a clear primary topic. I also agree with Capitalismojo about what the end result of determining a primary topic should be though. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 01:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As I understand the policy, our role here is not to decide which is more important (or has the greatest GDP, largest land mass and population, has a longer history, etc.) The goal and policy is to make it easy for Wikipedia readers world-wide to quickly and easily find the specific subject they are looking for, a goal which it seems the current naming achieves. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Very well put. I've reached the opposite conclusion obviously, but agree 100% with the methodology. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose per well stated reasoning above by User:Quadell, User:Nyttend, User:Orlady, and others.
  This issue is really about the issue of disambigulation and the frequency of incorrect linking. I see 15,394 page views in the last 30 days for Georgia. I notice there are currently four articles (James Beverly, Doug Stoner, Margaret Kaiser, Spencer Frye) incorrectly linked to Georgia instead of to the U.S. state. Having Georgia as the disambigulation entry makes it obvious when there is an incorrect entry.__SBaker43 (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Sigh Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Importance of both articles too closely matched to give either primacy. Setting either as most important will result in an everlasting POV debate. Keep the disambiguation page in place. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose Not even the slightest hint of a primary topic in either article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: the deciding issue should be how many hits each ultimately receives, and according to those there is a rough parity between people wanting to read about the state and those wanting to read about the country, so the current settup meshes with that. Should the percentage of readers seeking out the country increase greatly in the coming years, to the point it far outweighs searches for the country, then we could very well end up making the country the primary hit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: In terms of volume of information, the country outweighs the state. - Francis Tyers · 09:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Could you clarify what you mean by "volume of information"? - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 09:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support: The only example of English Wikipedia! In Country articles, stated that the country is unnecessary. Already, it is specified U.S. state. This can be really humiliating for Georgians. Maurice07 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you mean that Georgia is currently the only country with a disambiguated name in all of English Wikipedia, is that correct? Good point if so, we should be consistent, shouldn't we? But I think if I were a Georgian I could find it funny rather than humiliating. For even more laughs, see what we make of state university, or outside of Wikipedia, perhaps ask why Kazakhstan has a country code top-level domain of .kz rather than .ka. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No idea what the OP meant, but it is not true to say there is no other country with a disambiguated name in all of English Wikipedia. Consider Macedonia, as well as Ireland or Congo, for example -- which although using natural language disambiguation are nonetheless disambiguated from what readers might expect to find at the simple name. older ≠ wiser 02:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Macedonia is an excellent example, agree, and puts the skids on the consistency argument (pity). I'm not sure what he means either, that's why I was asking. Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Opposite While logically it is absolutely right that countries should have priorities over sub-national entities there is no denying that english-speaking sources will never permit, due to the natural American inherent bias, to give an edge on the issue. Also, Orlady's point on the problem of false positives is serious; and last of all, we have an enormous amount of regular North American readers, not so many Caucasian ones.Aldux (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I am not that convinced that it is logical that countries should have priority over subnational entities. If someone for example had decided to name the state California (pop 38 million) San Marino (pop 38 thousand) instead, it would not have been a priori logical that the small independent state would have priority over the state with 1000 times the inhabitants, economy and land surface. So giving the property "being a country" infinite weight might be somewhat over the top in this fictitious example.

In fact comparing Georgia state (pop 10 mill) with Georgia country (pop 5 mill), similar land area, with the US state having much more economy. So it seems the country fact of Georgia country does indeed weigh heavily, as without that it would be obvious which would have priority, and it would be the state.

While I am not happy with the American centrism on much of Wikipedia, in this case there are several logical arguments that would make it fair to put those two at a similar level of importance. Arnoutf (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope you mean Caucasians as in people from the Caucasus ; otherwise a lot of your regular north american readers could also be called Caucasians, as in of white European ethnicity. Also, I am not aware of any "natural American inherent bias". A lot more countries than just USA speak english. It's the english language wikipedia, not the "United states of america wikipedia". The argument, "more north americans use the english wikipedia so we should give topics more closely related to the US priority" is not given any evidence here, and neither is it in the global spirit of the encyclopedia. Lesion (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Absolutely 100 per cent. This is not a PRIMARYTOPIC for the transcontinental country and keep the dab page alone. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: per nom. Countries are more important than regions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not a Primary Topic. – Michael (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support-- The name should go to the country not a part of another country. Simple logic. Lesion (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Simple logic requires a set of assumptions that are not questioned, which combined result in an undeniable conclusion. Can you please give the assumptions that will stand scrutiny as well as the logical inference made to come at your conclusion (or if you can't refrain from claiming logic) Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Um ... no? I'm afraid your just going to have to put up with me saying simple logic above, apologies =D Lesion (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

So there is no logic, only a bluff. Just like I thought. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think accusing someone of a bluff constitutes AFB? It was not a bluff, just a manner of speaking. My interpretation of your behavior, if I were to similarly stoop to AFB, would be that you have a personal gripe against people using the word "logic" in everyday language, outside of a strict definition, and you chose my comment to advertise this. Or perhaps you feel the need to try and show others to be less clever than yourself? Insecure of something my friend? It's not relevant to this discussion. Lesion (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

When there are no arguments and your bluff is called, resolve to personal attacks? Indeed nothing to do with the discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was making a point that it is not nice when people assume bad faith, e.g. by saying some common piece of language is bluff because it does not meet some esoteric definition. As I said above, your side comments here are not relevant to this discussion at all. I am busy editing other pages, so I do hope you find someone to talk about the true usage of the word logic with, bye =D Lesion (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Bit of advice Lesion (talk), When you are in a hole, it is best to stop digging
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This is English Wikipedia and there is no primary topic for "Georgia" in English. If anything, "Georgia" is more commonly known as the U.S. state than the country by English speakers due to the large number of English speakers being located in the United States. Wikipedia is clear that when there is no primary topic, the proper thing to do is to have a disambiguation page pointing to articles of the same name. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anyone have a "Russian" world map?

Most of us are probably pretty familiar with world maps showing places like Taiwan and Kosovo as independent countries. Any one got an official (not Wiki) world map doing likewise for Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Source / Internet link sought. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Separately, re the discussion above; hard luck Georgians though I think the move was a good idea. A U.S. region shouldn't be treated the same way as a sovereign country etc. But at least the Georgians don't get stuck with a name that isn't theirs as is the case of the Irish. There the country is labelled "Republic of Ireland" on Wiki even though that's not its name nor a term its Government like to use! Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Great idea for a request! Also, Georgia (U.S. state) is about as much of a "region" as Northern Ireland is. Red Slash 01:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

100% agree, NI and U.S. Georgia are equivalent. Both regions of their respective countries, however they be styled. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Replacing the Map of Georgia which is currently viewed on this page.

I request to the author/moderator of this page to kindly upgrade the main map which is on the page of Georgia (country) by this one :

File:Georgia on the European continent in Dark Blue and light blue are the areas of Abkhazia and the South Ossetia..png

Georgia on the European continent in Dark Blue and light blue are the areas of Abkhazia and the South Ossetia.

This map is more of the European standards (such as France, Germnay, UK).

This map more precisely shows the exact and more nicer look of the Georgian location on the Globe. Some one sitting in the west of in the US if wishes to visit Georgia and sees the wikipedia page which most of the people do, this map will attract them much more than the current map, It shows the exact location with reference to the Europe and the European union countries.

European council and united nation considers (for reference and general purpose) the country of Georgia to be on the "Europe". Here is the reference page which shows Georgia under the 'list of European countries by population/area'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_area

Kindly amend the main map. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal.Tasleem (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A map in which Georgia is tiny, shifted off to one side, and hard to distinguish from the Black Sea it borders, is not a nicer map. Neither is it more precise, as they both show the exact same place. Furthermore, this website isn't a place to promote tourism from the western USA, not that a map where you can hardly see Georgia will encourage it. CMD (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I brought this up before, along with my explanation of my preference. There was no discussion there, so no apparent agreement with changing away from ortho. My reasons for opposing any flat map in the infobox are as follows. The ortho map shows where Georgia is on Earth, and the inset shows where it is in the region. Clicking on it zooms way up, so it is not hidden, or diminished in any way. --Lexein (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Replacing the MAP (two more options)

Here are the attached two more options for the Georgian map. It is not about the attraction of tourism, it's more of showing the exact location of the country on the European continent.

Malta on the European continent.

Cyprus on the European continent.

These are the two examples of European countries who we could "Hardly see". But they are still showed in a 'nicer' way with entire continent in the background, if Malta and Cyprus which are way smaller than Georgia (in area) can be shown this way instead of being 'zoomed in'. Then why not Georgia be shown with the full continent resolution level???

Here are two more options for the Georgian maps which could be updated where it will be more 'visible' as the color scheme is more visible even without clicking and opening the image.

File:Georgia on the European continent.png

The map shows the location of Georgia on the European continent.

File:Georgia on the Eeastern Europe.png

The map shows the location of Georgia in the Eastern Europe.

I do respect the old author and it's work/efforts of putting the map by zooming on the country from a different angle but if an other option is available which shows more precisely the location with reference to the other European states, I do not see any harm in replacing it.

You can keep the old map where it is, and add this map just beneath the old one. That would be enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark

See the example of "Denmark". It has two maps, one same as we have on our Georgian page and the other one is somewhat similar to what I submitted, boht of them are available and work preety well. Kindly reconsider the amendment of the current map keeping in consideration the presentation and outline of the countries location on the continent. Regards.

Faisal.Tasleem (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Both Cyprus and Malta are EU states, and are shown on EU maps due to this, and Denmark has two maps to show both the EU map and Danish Realm. The current map shows Georgia in relation to the world, at an entire world resolution level, and it's shown in its exact location. There's no reason to limit the map to a certain area. CMD (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Again, oppose, per my prior opposition here and here, and in agreement with Chipmunkdavis. The suggested maps add very little. Suggestion: instead of proposing replacing a map, please try proposing adding a map which helps readers understand Georgia better, in its regional and geographical context (mountain ranges, desert, swamp, aquifers, oil/gas deposits, what have you). It is a harder challenge, but it may be more rewarding, and may result in a more informative map. You may wish to discuss, and request advice/assistance, at WP:WikiProject Maps. --Lexein (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; The current locator map matches that of Azer. & Armenia and does what a locator map should do: not distract but locate the subject in a neutral fashion (many sources from World Factbook to Nat'l Geographic to UN Statistics place Georgia geographically in W. or SW Asia). Yes, why not instead add a thematic map as Lexein suggests above. DLinth (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose whilst Georgia is a member of various European bodies, it historically was considered to be in Asia with the Caucasus mountains as the continental border in that area, and further west the Dardanelles and Hellespont. Of course Europe and Asia are only separate continents by historical/cultural useage, in reality the physical geography is that Europe is a subcontinent of Eurasia. The current map sidesteps the issue by showing where Georgia actually lies. Extending a map of Europe to just include Georgia but not Iran or Iraq would not be an improvement, and in the context of Dmanisi and Georgia's current fame as the site of the earliest known hominid fossils outside of Africa, we really would be better with the current map than either of these proposals. ϢereSpielChequers 10:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Independence vs. Formation and independence

County description says:

-     "Independence
- 	from Russian Empire	May 26, 1918 
- 	Soviet re-conquest	February 25, 1921 
- 	from Soviet Union Declared Finalized April 9, 1991 December 25, 1991"

But history section of the country says:"early Georgian states Diauehi (XIII BC) of Colchis (VIII BC), of Sper (VII BC) and of Iberia (VI BC). In the 4th century BC a unified kingdom of Georgia – an early example of advanced state organization under one king and an aristocratic hierarchy – was established". Morover, there are articles about old georgian states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diauehi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Iberia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Georgia Therefore Georgian State was before "Independence" in XX century. I think there should be "Formation and independence" instead of Independence in the article. see armenia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia

-      Formation and independence
- 	Traditional date	2492 BC 
- 	Nairi	1200 BC 
- 	Kingdom of Ararat	840s BC 
- 	Orontid Dynasty	560 BC 
- 	Kingdom of Armenia formed 190 BC
- 	First Republic of Armenia established 28 May 1918
- 	Independence from the Soviet
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Goletiani (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 

The many many historical kingdoms and similar were completely different states. None of them became what is now Georgia. There's a direct lineage of the modern republic through the Soviet republic which was formed from the conquered Democratic Republic. Kingdoms prior to that are part of the history of the area, and many of the Georgian culture and people, but they aren't precursors to this state, which first took some sort of form upon the destruction of the Russian Empire. CMD (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. That makes sense, But Please see case of Armenia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia. Do you think that "Kingdom of Ararat 840s BC" and "Orontid Dynasty 560 BC" became what is now Armenia? Do you realy think that there is a direct lineage of the modern republic (Armenia) through Kingdom of Ararat? However in article about Armenia above mentioned Kingdomes are listed in section of Formation and independence. Could you explane that?D.Goletiani (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no lineage whatsoever between the Kingdom of Ararat and the Republic of Armenia. There's a common attraction for many people to attach modern countries to older ones, often ones that shared roughly similar boundaries or were based in the area. This is for many reasons, such as making the modern country somehow grander, or providing some arbitrary justification for existence. This sort of historical revisionism is flawed and misleading. It creates the impression of a strict narrative that didn't happen so simply and gives no insight into the history around this cherry-picked narrative, for example by ignoring the existence of other countries controlling the area. In the Armenia infobox it appears the Kingdom of Armenia formed in 190BC and lasted till it became a republic in 1918. Adding end dates is a solution to this, but makes it blatantly obvious there's stuff missing.

There's a difference between the history of political states and other histories, such as that of people, cultures, and languages. They are of course linked, as all history is, but shouldn't be conflated. The infobox here focuses on the topic of this article, which is modern day Georgia, a particular political unit. The history section provides the insights and context for all events leading up to this political unit, such as the people who lived there, and former countries in the area. The Armenia article has conflated the two, and just because one article does something, does not mean other articles have to follow. CMD (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism / CENSORSHIP by Chipmunkdavis?

There are several issues with recent edits made by Chipmunkdavis comparison between my and his edit

• I don't agree that changes made by me are against BBC article. I have actually checked carefully BBC article and none of my edits are against the facts mentioned in BBC article. In fact, even the article says Georgians avoid calling the region "South Ossetia" and implying that North Ossetia is sole Ossetia.

• Adjaria didn't gain autonomy under Aslan Abashidze. Even the sourced BBC article doesn't say that. In fact Adjara gained autonomy in 1921. Check yourself Adjar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Neither does the article say that military base was built during Aslan Abashidze's rule. Check 12th Military Base.

• The removal of WP link Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence is unexplained.

• By removing subsection Occupied territories of Georgia you are violating WP:Undue weight. Specifically Undue weight is given to Abkhazian and South Ossetian side of story (struggle for independence), while Georgian and International side is denied to be accessible to readers. That can also be classified as CENSORSHIP. Article about Israel contains subsection Israeli-occupied territories yet nobody has yet removed it by the same reason you are implying.

• Georgia isn't only one that denies the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. So I chose better wording. Check Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. --Zgagloev (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

BBC noted that Georgia deliberately wanted to break the tie with Northern Ossetia. Your original reword (ie. the one that I actually reverted rather than the one you're justifying here) was "to avoid calling it "South Ossetia" which is legacy name from Soviet era", which doesn't mention North Ossetia at all. Your new reword is indeed different, and is now in agreement with the BBC article. Controversy is not a main article for the section, it's a very specific topic, and really should be a subset of the international recognition page, since it's the controversy that causes the dispute over recognition (and really I don't think it's fair to say all of Georgian history post the war can be summed up with opinions on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as our current main tag does, but that's a different matter). The subsection "Occupied territories" gave nothing to readers other than 1) the note Georgia considers them occupied, which is already covered by the article (it's in the lead in fact), and 2) details about a specific law, which doesn't appear to convey any additional information about any position. We note that Georgia considers the areas part of sovereign Georgia, and that the areas remain majority unrecognised. Which bit of the Georgian position is supposedly being censored? CMD (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Again this edit tries to hide some facts about Georgia. Can anybody explain what is wrong with stating that Georgia has law regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia and describing this law? Article about Israel covers Israeli-occupied territories in detail. So why can't article about Georgia contain information about the territories in Georgia that is considered internationally as Russian-occupied, and the law regarding these entities? Why don't anybody delete that subsection about Israeli-occupied territories from Israel? That suggests that Wikipedia is against Israel and calls Israel occupying force, while at the same time Wikipedia is pro-Russian and avoids mentioning some facts that may show Russia in negative aspect. --Zgagloev (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How is it notable that Georgia has laws about its territories? All that text on the law said was Georgia considered them occupied (which the article already does), and details the Georgian travel restrictions with regards to them, which is not that important for a general summary article. CMD (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not title the article just Georgia?

Why was this article titled "Georgia (country)"? And why at the top there is a disambiguation link to Republic of Georgia but not to the U.S. state of Georgia? We have to do titling right, I'd expect to find a disambiguation link to both the Republic and the state of Georgia, and I'd expect to find the country article under the name of just Georgia without any parentheses. Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See the list of move requests at the top. — Lfdder (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Rfc: Georgian anthem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Georgian anthem be added to the article? Jaqeli (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added couple of days ago the Georgian anthem to the article but it was removed by the user Chupmunkdevis. All countries have their anthem respectively on their own article pages and Georgia should not be an exception and the anthem should be definitely added. So I want to ask the fellow wikipedians should the anthem be added back again? Jaqeli (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Talk:Georgia_(country)/Archive_6#Anthem. (Jaqeli is GeorgianJorjadze.) — Lfdder (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 9#RFC: Audio links to national anthems — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nominator. Jaqeli (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per statements I made in the above discussion linked by Lfdder, and by (what I see as) the general, albeit with not the largest total sample size, trend of the subsequent Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 9#RFC: Audio links to national anthems. Infoboxes are meant to be concise summaries of countries, containing very basic facts and figures. An audio of the anthem does not help the readers understand Georgia, or provide any information about Georgia (aside from what the anthem sounds like, but that's quite minor). Readers interested in the anthem can find the recording (including a pure instrumental one), along with original lyrics, a translation, and much more through the link Tavisupleba, which is included in the infobox (in the Georgian script), just as they can explore any topic in greater detail per wikipedia's summary style.

(TLDR) In summary, I feel that the anthem is cruft similar to wp:flagcruft, in that it doesn't contribute to the readers understanding of the topic. CMD (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (I am the user Jaqeli mentioned in the lead, under the moniker Chipmunkdavis, not Chupmunkdevis as spelled above)

• Weak oppose. I wouldn't really object heavily to having a more prominent mention of the Georgian national anthem (including an audio link). However, when the general question of anthems (including audio links) in country infoboxes was discussed last August/September, there was no real consensus either way. I understand the concerns of people who don't want infoboxes to become unmanageably large, and I would also note that someone who wants to know more about the Georgian anthem can click on its name and reach an article which discusses it in some detail. So I don't see a compelling need here to change the status quo. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map Update

The map does not include South Sudan, it needs to be updated. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

UN Georgia locator map

In this case I think, that Wikipedia has no its own cartography school, and we may consider all maps in commons as wikipedia's, but still it's very obscure what means 'wikipedia's map'. So in this situation UN maps and their uses in infoboxes have nothing inadmissible. Moreover there are other articles where also have been added UN map and still no one removed them, e.g. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Angola, Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Finland ant etc.. --g. balaxaZe✰ 19:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The infobox here is so long it extends past the Etymology section (and that's with the bloated ToC). It does not need to be longer. Furthermore, the locations of various cities is interesting, but without any explanatory criteria, it doesn't help the reader's understanding of the country as a whole. It could be somewhat useful in the existing Largest Cities and Towns box, although it shows 12 not the 10 we have in the table. CMD (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sidebox information

Does the information such as GDP, land area, and ethnicity given in the sidebox (not sure if right term - the box on the page that starts with the country's name, flag, and coat of arms) reflect Georgia's internationally recognized borders, or solely the territory the government controls, excluding Abkhazia and South Ossetia? I presume the latter because Abkhaz and Ossetian aren't listed in spoken languages or as ethnic groups, but clarification would be helpful; it's not stated outright and the footnotes point to a source that isn't that clear on it either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.166.24 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Political system changed to parliamentary

Georgia is not a semi-presidential republic any more but a parliamentary one. As of 17 November 2013 it has a new constitution which marked its transition to the parliamentary system p.2

References

• That source is not primary, according to the Constitution of Georgia, Article 69, "1. The President of Georgia shall be the Head of State of Georgia." and Article 79, "1.The Prime Minister shall be the head of the Government".

• "Semi-presidentialism is a system of government, in which a president exists along with a prime minister and the Cabinet, with the latter two being responsible to the legislature of a state. It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected head of state who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead."

• Article 69.

"2. The President of Georgia shall lead and exercise the internal and foreign policy of the state. He/she shall ensure the unity and integrity of the country and the activity of the state bodies in accordance with the Constitution.

3. The President of Georgia shall be the higher representative of Georgia in foreign relations."

• So it is really semi-presidential republic. --g. balaxaZe✰ 07:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Reminder of WP:SOAPBOX

Please remember the that the Talk Pages are used for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article's contents, and not for any POV-agenda or statement of one's personal opinions or original research. Thank you.

Okay - now where would that fit?: Due to the re-emergence of Saakashvili in Kiev as a contractor (about yesterday) I sort of pottered around and found that the wikipedia article on minimum wages still lists only US$ 54 per month (2013) for Georgia, or less than $ 2/day. Even considering that not all wages would be minimum, and some would be somewhat higher (double = $ 4/day!), this is a shattering result of the reforms or not? When does one evaluate reforms and say they were a success or not, in Georgia and elsewhere? 58.174.224.91 (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lets make Georgia a Good Article

Gamarjoba, chemi sakheli Melih. Me var turketshi. Although i have Georgian ancestry, i cant speak Georgian really well but thats not the matter, anyone fancy helping me to make Georgia a good article? kazekagetr 18:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We are History Project Georgia: A student-led initiative to encourage Georgian high school students to increase awareness of their country in the outside world. We would like to use our student's contributions to enrich this page in whatever ways possible.Historyprojectgeorgia 21:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name of the article simply be Georgia, and not Georgia (country)? Then why not "Luxembourg (country)"?

Georgia in USA is just a subdivision of a country, while this one is a country. For instance, the name of the article Luxembourg (country) is "Luxembourg", not "Luxembourg (country)", though there is a canton in Belgium called "Luxembourg" as well.Charrock (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read one of the templates at the top of this talk page completely. Georgia guy (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No. This adds clarity so that the disambiguation links help a reader who may be unfamiliar that "Georgie" is both a state, and a political province within the country of the U.S. Also, this issue was beaten to death not so long ago - read the archives. The consensus for moving the name is resoundingly NO. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The necessity of 'country' is easily established when googling Georgia. All you get without the 'country' is entries about the US State Georgia. If the country of Georgia had wanted to make it easier for everybody, they would have chosen the more unique name Grusinia/Grousinia. 58.174.224.91 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Georgia has a smaller population than the US state of Georgia but I think that people often refer to states with inclusion of the word state. When people refer to countries I think that they are more likely to simply make direct use of the country's name. GregKaye 22:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I just did a Google search and of the 12 results, 3 related to the US state, and the other 9 to the country. The 3 for the US state were its Wikipedia page (which was below the country's one), it's .gov website and a news article.

I think the results depend largely on where you are, and the US certainly has no priority over anywhere else! It is only Americans (who are known for lack of geography skills) are unaware of the country.

Uamaol (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this is the English language version of Wikipedia, we cater to the English speaking population of the world. The Georgian-speaking population has its own Wikipedia, where this debate belongs. Rjensen (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Surely enough the Wiki standard for the "English speaking world" is for that which is the official standard for a region. As British English is the standard for Europe (particularly the EU and Council for Europe), which is what Georgia is widely seen to be a part of, then this article should therefore be treated accordingly. As a result of this, regional variations should be taken into account. Uamaol (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Georgia is part of Europe these days--not yet! (it was not admitted to NATO or EU.) Actually the debate is whether UK will remain part of EU. Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised that an apparent academic knows so little about the world. Membership of the EU (or NATO for that matter) does not make or break a country's status as a part of Europe. In fact some EU countries are not in Europe, take the Spanish enclaves in Africa or Guiana in South America. Those who legally live there are EU citizens, and Cyprus and Malta (both have have traditionally been seen as European).

The debate on UK membership of the EU wont happen any time soon, I can assure you of that first hand. Even if it does, British English will still remain a language of the EU as it is an official language in both Malta and Ireland, and is spoken by the majority of the population in the Netherlands, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, and is used as lingua franca in Belgium (lots of Walloons refuse to learn Dutch and Flemings, French), Switzerland and those Nordic countries previously mentioned (they share a similar language, but the dialects can cause problems). Uamaol (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of Europe, and I've spent a few days in Georgia as well, where I lectured on history at the Georgian National Academy of Sciences. And no I do not think it is historically, culturally, religiously, socially, economically, or politically a natural fit with Europe. They wanted in NATO --that's the "North Atlantic" organization-- only to protect themselves from Russia. They wanted in Russia in 1800 to protect themselves from Persia. The professors I met very hospitable and very well-informed on world history. As for the UK Debate on EU membership, I expect a referendum will take place in two years. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

2 Years isn't exactly "soon" like you implied. Anyway, that's maving away from the point here. Lots of Europeans countries don't fit with all the points you just said, yet are still included as Europe. Turkey wants to join the EU, but has far less in common with the rest of Europe than Georgia does. I find it interesting how you talk about religion, however especially when considering that the name itself derives from St George, and its flag is an amalgamation of the same saints flag and the Cross of Jerusalem. Religion is one of the things which make Georgia more European than Asian and has had a strong affiliation with the West since the middle ages. Talk of "natural" fits is a little silly considering Georgia's neighbour, Russia, is hated by most European states. Uamaol (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you are all beating a dead horse. As the links in the header templates indicate, this has been settled by consensus numerous times and your "arguments" are nothing new. Instead of wasting valuable time and effort focusing on the title, I suggest diverting your efforts to actually improving the article. Its total size is 501kb (9733 words of "readable prose") and yet is not even a WP:Good article. Your efforts will be much more fruitful and satisfying (not to mention less frustrating) if you focus on content.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

English, please

Can anyone tell me what the following sentence from the Antiquity portion of the History section is supposed to mean? "The acceptance as well made the religion of Zoroastrianism slowly but surely decline,[23] which, until by the 5th century AD, appeared to have become something like a second established religion in Iberia (eastern Georgia), and was widely practised there.[24][25]" --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080108095512/http://www.foxnews.com:80/wires/2008Jan07/0,4670,GeorgiaPresidentialElection,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan07/0,4670,GeorgiaPresidentialElection,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111119094909/http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/FIW_2011_Booklet.pdf to http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/FIW_2011_Booklet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511110424/http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/geo/geo_geography.htm to http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/geo/geo_geography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090328225817/http://caucasus-spiders.info:80/introduction/checklists/ to http://caucasus-spiders.info/introduction/checklists/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930072453/http://www.imf.ge/view2.php?lang=1&view=290 to http://www.imf.ge/view2.php?lang=1&view=290
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100626105604/http://www.investingeorgia.org:80/sectors/tourism to http://www.investingeorgia.org/sectors/tourism/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150722220827/http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:21725423~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html to http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:21725423~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100628104040/http://www.investingeorgia.org:80/about_us/faq to http://www.investingeorgia.org/about_us/faq/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141019125512/http://web.worldbank.org:80/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20398986~menuPK:64133163~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html to http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20398986~menuPK:64133163~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120229115503/http://www.evolutsia.net:80/kutaisis-airport-georgias-opportunity/ to http://www.evolutsia.net/kutaisis-airport-georgias-opportunity/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2015

In first para population should be almost 4 million instead of 5 million. 92.31.221.117 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

"Georgia is a representative democratic semi-presidential republic, with the President as the head of state, and Prime Minister as the head of government. The executive branch of power is made up of the President and the Cabinet of Georgia. The Cabinet is composed of ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, and appointed by the President. Notably, the ministers of defense and interior are not members of the Cabinet and are subordinated directly to the President of Georgia. Giorgi Margvelashvili is the current President of Georgia after winning 62.12% of the vote in the 2013 election. Since 2013, Irakli Garibashvili has been the prime minister of Georgia." Should be changed to "Georgia is a representative democratic parliamentary republic, with the President as the head of state, and Prime Minister as the head of government. The executive branch of power is made up the Cabinet of Georgia. The Cabinet is composed of ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, and formally appointed by the President. Giorgi Margvelashvili is the current President of Georgia after winning 62.12% of the vote in the 2013 election and has very ceremonial roles. Since 2013, Irakli Garibashvili has been the prime minister of Georgia.", because the amendment of constitution of Georgia, adopted in 2013, constitutes a new form of political system, where the President has no power in executive branch.

Gigi giorgadze (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I was able to find this source in the article Constitution of Georgia (country), however, it does not say that the president is no longer part of the executive branch, only that most power now resides with the PM. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Diplomats

In the spree of *ahem* NPOV edits, how is this material in its entirety in any remote way due for a general countries' overview?.... I believe anyone with a sense of knowledge regarding Georgian history can understand that this is cherry-picking at its finest;

(...) "various Georgian monarchs sought aid from Western Europe to no avail. A notable episode of this type of effort was spearheaded in the early 1700s by a Georgian diplomat Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani, who was sent by his former pupil, King Vakhtang VI, to France and the Vatican in order to secure assistance for Georgia. Orbeliani was well received by King Louis XIV and Pope Clement XI, but no tangible assistance could be secured.[37] Lack of Western assistance not only left Georgia exposed but sealed the personal fates of Orbeliani and King Vakhtang - pushed by the invading Ottoman army, both were eventually forced to accept the offer of protection from Peter the Great and escaped to Russia, from where they never returned.[38] In modern-day Georgia, the story of Orbeliani's diplomatic mission to France would become a symbol of how the West neglects Georgian appeals for protection. "

- LouisAragon (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a well documented theme in the Georgian history and indeed an important one in the Georgian discourse and consciousness, evidenced by its presence in a large number of Georgian and foreign literature on the subject. I have pointed out elsewhere that your work on various Caucasus articles appears focused on the promotion of Persian/Iranian subject matter primarily in a positive light and the portrayal of Caucasus entities as essentially nothing more than offshoots of the Persian realm. Perhaps that is the reason why you find the mere notion of Georgia seeking Western assistance against Persia unpalatable. It is nevertheless an important fact. I have added additional sources and adjusted the wording to account for the fact that Georgians have been involved in such Western outreach efforts since the mid-15th century.--Damianmx (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

Pope Clement XI did not rule over Vatican City, which as a state was only founded in 1929. Clement ruled over the substantially larger Papal States. Dimadick (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. In several of the cited sources Vatican appears to be used synonymously with Papal authority and jurisdiction, since at the time of their authorship (20th century to present) Vatican had already taken on that meaning. It is for this reason that whenever I mentioned Vatican in the article text, I linked it to the Holy See, which is not the same as Vatican City State.--Damianmx (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

Name of Georgia

I recently edited the section about the etymology of "Georgia" to reflect the fact that there is no definitive theory as to the name's origin. My changes were reverted and now the section is back to the version with questionable assertions and weasel words, such as "probably", "may be", "clearly", "presumably", etc. It is not the prerogative of wikipedia editors to create a synthesis of different theories to reach a single "probable", "clear" or "presumable" conclusion. For this reason, I would like to rework the section in the following way, which I think is appropriate given the divergence of theories. Any additions or suggestions are also welcome.

"A definitive origin of name Georgia has not been established, but there are a number of unconfirmed theories as to its provenance. Jacques de Vitry and Franz Ferdinand von Troilo have explained the name's origin by the popularity of St. George (Tetri Giorgi) among Georgians. [10] Another theory, popularized by the likes of Jean Chardin, semantically linked "Georgia" to Greek γεωργός ("tiller of the land"). The supporters of this explanation sometimes referred to classical authors, in particular Pliny and Pomponius Mela, who mentioned agricultural tribes called "Georgi", (Pliny, IV.26, VI.14; Mela, De Sita Orb. i.2, &50; ii.1, & 44, 102.) so named to distinguish them from their unsettled and pastoral neighbors on the other side of the river Panticapea.[11] Alternatively, several modern scholars have theorized that "Georgia" was borrowed in the 11th or 12th centuries from the New Persian gurğ/gurğān.

--Damianmx (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

Nope. Regardless of the previous version being weasel-ish (as you claim), your revision is completely ridden with WP:POV. It now presents travellers and theologians as on par with historians, which is most certainly not allowed per WP:RS. The supposed theories that tell that the name(s) originate from Greek Georgos and St.George, are nothing more than lore-based stories. No credible historian or linguist (who are the only ones that can make verdicts on this matter) has ever presented these stories as being the actual origin of the name Georgia/Georgians. Right now, these "popular stories" made by the likes of Jean Chardin are put on par with 20th/21th century historians, which is total nonsense. At the same time, the Persian theory (that states its root stems/derives from gurğ/gurğān) was downplayed, which is actually supported as the most credible theory by most historians and linguists.

• 'Popular theories also purport that the term Georgia/Georgians stems either from the widespread veneration of St. George, who is considered the paton of Georgia, or from the Greek georgos (farmer) because when the Greeks first reached the country they encountered a developed agriculture in ancient Colchis. However, such explanations are rejected by the scholarly community, who point to the Persian gurg/gurgan as the root of the word.'

- Mikaberidze, Alexander (2015). Historical Dictionary of Georgia (e.d. 2). Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 978-1442241466 page 3

• Georgians; add at the end: Ultimately from Persian gurg "wolf."

- Hock, Hans Henrich; Zgusta, Ladislav. (1997) Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies. Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978-3110128840 page 211

• The Russian designation of Georgia (Gruziyd) also derives from the Persian gurg.

- Boeder, et al. (2002) Philology, typology and language structure. Peter Lang ISBN 978-0820459912 page 65

- LouisAragon (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

None of these terms are definitive and they are all theories, which the article makes clear. I understand how much you love spamming articles with Persia-related materials, but there's no reason why it should have more weight than any other. Determining which one of these theories is more plausible is not the job of wikipedia and is precisely what I would call POV. Remember, we're not here to Right Great Wrongs --Damianmx (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

OH! I see! Just ignore what "you" don't like and Wiki-label anything that threatens "your" beliefs. Got it. Then I see no need to continue a dialogue with someone that refuses to accept what reliable sources state and simply pick and choose what suits their own personal POV. Picking folklore stories propagated by travellers and theologians (aka non-authoritive people), simply and only because it favours an European point of view, and putting them on par with what actual modern-day historians and linguists actually tell. Interesting! I literally quoted numerous sources here written by historians, linguists and philologists that debunk this POV (esp. the first source thats written by a well known historian of this time, who specializes in Georgian history -- an ethnic Georgian nota bene), and we get answered that its just "spamming articles with Persia-related materials". Just epic.- LouisAragon (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you have taken such offense to my remarks but everyone knows at this point that most of your edits here serve to promote Persia/Iran related topics with WP:UNDUE emphasis. Just going through the history of this page it is clear you have been called out on that behavior more than once. And for your chosen "notable" Georgian historian, Mikaberidze is an unknown 38 year of lawyer/assistant professor who has written a few books and somehow got a promotional article on wikipedia overnight. That's the definition of WP:CHERRYPICK. Whatever the case, I would like to repeat that looking at different theories and rendering a judgement on which is better than the other is not Wikipedia's job.--Damianmx (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

@Damianmx: I'm disgusted you would stoop so low as to propose deletion of Mikaberidze's article because you got pwnd in this argument. I have made dozens of articles on Wikipedia and never, ever had a single one deleted. (Only ones deleted have been ones I've requested deleted myself, such as mistake articles). I have also never, ever made any "promotional" articles and have no interest in doing so. I have no connection to Mikaberidze or reason to promote him. Mikaberidze meets GNG and I'd be happy to add additional independent sources if you're really going to be so petty about it. Btw, you also failed to alert me that you had proposed my article for deletion. If you truly feel he fails notability, then take it to WP:AFD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because your cherished article was brought to my attention as a result of a related discussion does not mean that my nomination was bad faith. In fact, I've had a few article nominations these past two weeks, none related to you or this argument. And FYI, Tbiliselebi and Kviris Palitra are tabloids and not by any means WP:RS. Just shows how desperately you are trying to make this nobody Mikaberidze into somebody.--Damianmx (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

No, it shows how desperate you are to delete the article because you don't want him considered as a reliable source because you lost this debate. I told you, take it to AFD if you seriously think he fails notability, but prepare for more pwnage. Total bad faith nomination, particularly considering you did not notify me like you were required to do, and added petty CN tags. And WTF are you even talking about how this article appeared "overnight"? Do you think articles are supposed to be cultivated slowly over the course of six months, being fed by committee, before they magically appear on Wikipedia? Where is the place to report people for adding articles to Wikipedia while Damianmx is sleeping? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimandia, I'm sorry you feel so entitled that you can't imagine that an article of yours could be deleted on legitimate grounds, perhaps it is time for you to get off your high horse. The fact that Mikaberidze is an unknown author with a desperate, tabloid-ridden bio page on wikipedia is only incidental to this debate. In fact, now I regret adding that deletion tag because now this thread went off topic and became part of your ego game and narcissistic disbelief of how you could have possibly created an article failing notability grounds. Perhaps you really have nothing to do with Mikaberidze, maybe he's just your favorite author, but that does not make him notable. If you're such a fan, perhaps you can stop fighting here and instead join Mikaberidze's Napoleon "society" of Georgia, ahem..., shabby online portal. --Damianmx (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

I think it has been long time for you to stop trying to game the system here, and accept the fact that your alleged self-made POV theories on multiple articles and what should be done with them, is being brought to an end. Wikimandia is completely right; the first thing you did after your ramblings were totally destroyed here by the shown references,(18:52 - last comment here) your very first next edit was to AfD the article about Alexander Mikaberidze.(18:57) You were caught redhanded with once again a disuptive dishonest spree of editing, and the lamest thing of it is, is that you're once again trying to evade the consequences of your acts by now telling that it "wasn't your intention" and that you "regret the fact that due to your tag this debate is becoming off-topic". - LouisAragon (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The only reason you're even referencing these hand-picked sources is because they allege a Persian origin of something. Everyone knows here that for a long time you've been narrowly focused on promoting Iran/Persia by arbitrarily inserting items related to this topic into various Caucasus articles. A few examples of this manic behavior from not so distant past: [1] [2] [3]. Your sources may well be right, I don't dispute them, in fact I never removed them. What I'm against is that you insist that your sources stand above all else in this article, which you have no right to insist on.--Damianmx (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

You're the one who needs to get off your high horse Damianmx. Tabloid-ridden bio page my ass. Yeah, because tabloids just love writing about historians specializing in the Napoleonic era. They just can't get enough of them! I don't give a FF that you now regret tagging for deletion - you should regret it because it was a boneheaded move. Maybe in the future you won't tag random bios for deletion because you want to get your way in an argument, and you think nobody will notice the prod and it will go your way. If you truly think he fails notability then take it to WP:AFD and let's see how well you fare, otherwise stop claiming he is not notable and stick to the topic at hand (like you supposedly want). —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In case you don't know how to read Georgian, those tabloids were interested why one of his books was so expensive, not that he's someone of great consequence. With that logic every author on Amazon.com with expensive books qualifies for a wiki article written by you, hopefully with a lot less vulgar vocabulary than you use here.--Damianmx (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

The fact that Damianmx's editorial pattern is rampant is pretty clear. Admin Ymblanter further stated about him on this particular matter; "After ispecting the artile and the talk page, I must conclude that Damianmx still have serious difficulties understanding WP:RS, and their behavior at the talk page is borderline disruptive." This case is done. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I know you have struggled with English grammar before but the reason Ymblanter uses plural tense is because he was apparently unhappy with both of our comportment. I do not agree with it, but not sure what's there to celebrate for you in particular.--Damianmx (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

No, I used plural becaluse it is gender-free. I mean specifically you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511102808/http://www.tempus.ge/EDUCATIONAL%20SYSTEM%20OF%20GEORGIA.html to http://www.tempus.ge/EDUCATIONAL%20SYSTEM%20OF%20GEORGIA.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511102805/http://www.tempus.ge/georgian%20high%20education%20institutions.html to http://www.tempus.ge/georgian%20high%20education%20institutions.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130525201655/http://www.1tv.ge/news-view/37425/en to http://www.1tv.ge/news-view/37425/en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing "Territories Claimed" to "Occupied Territories"

I have requested a change from "areas outside of Georgian control but claimed as part of its sovereign territory shown in light green" to "occupied territories shown in light green" to accurately reflect international designations. By stating that Georgia merely "claims" that the Abkhazia and South Ossetia is part of its sovereign territory gives undue legitimacy to illegal Russian, Abkhazian and Ossetian occupations. The UN has issued statements confirming Georgia's territorial integrity while UN general votes have been conducted affirming Georgia's territorial integrity. Lukakach (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

Please change the description of Georgian occupied territories from "areas outside of Georgian control but claimed as part of its sovereign territory shown in light green." to "Occupied Territories". If this is not done, legitimacy to the occupiers (i.e. Russia) is given. Furthermore, by stating that it is "claimed" by Georgia has a connotation that the dispute is valid. Under Georgian, US and International Law, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are occupied territories which are under legal jurisdiction of Georgia. Lukakach (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Lukakach I think you are right it is more juridical things and it is very important to define correctly what users will read about that situation. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Staunch American ally"

The concept of a "staunch American ally" is American-centric, and the sort of concept that engages the Pentagon. the implication is of a alliance like that of the "allies" of Ancient Rome - i.e. colonies in all but name. Georgia is not an "American ally", it is a member of the Western allies.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721030244/http://www.mod.gov.ge/2008/list/sia-E.html to http://www.mod.gov.ge/2008/list/sia-E.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Checked. CMD (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Mistake

There's a mistake in this paragraph in the summary. I don't have an account and don't care enough to get an auto-confirmed one to edit it, but this is little effort.

After independence in 1991, post-communist Georgia suffered from civil unrest and economic crisis for most of the 1990s. This lasted until the Rose Revolution of 2003, after which the new government introduced democratic and economic reforms. After restoring its independence once again in 1991, post-communist Georgia suffered from civil and economic crisis for most of the 1990s. This lasted until the peaceful Rose Revolution, when Georgia pursued a strongly pro-Western foreign policy, introducing a series of democratic and economic reforms aimed at NATO and European integration. The country's Western orientation soon led to the worsening of relations with Russia, culminating in the brief Russo-Georgian War.

As you can see the first two sentences are repeated later in the text and I suggest removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.159.99.68 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing that out! CMD (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts on expanding the template

The template about discussing whether this article should be at the un-disambiguated "Georgia" says:

The basic debate has been whether the article on the Eurasian country should be the primary topic, and therefore does not need any parenthesised word in the title. Those in favor of such a move often argue that internationally recognised countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the U.S. state, though there are other suggested reasons for primary topic. Some proponents of a move have also argued that the current failure to recognize Georgia (the country) as the primary topic displays a U.S.-centric bias.

This paragraph reveals 2 common reasons. Any thoughts on whether to expand the paragraph to include a third common reason; which I believe is that some people dislike having this article being the only article where a country name is dis-ambiguated. Any thoughts on expanding the template to include that reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That seems to me an elaboration of the first rationale, viewed from the descriptive or empirical side instead of the prescriptive or theoretical, rather than an entirely separate argument.—Odysseus1479 00:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-adding of materials

@Chipmunkdavis: As it was advised in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#Question_about_blocked_editor ("As well as allowing an editor to revert the edits of a blocked editor, we also allow other editors to restore the material that had been reverted, if they feel the material is worthwhile, and they are prepared to take responsibility for it") by User:SilkTork I am going to restore materials about military of Georgia and will try to enlarge it further.--g. balaxaZe★ 05:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to work on military, would you mind finishing the discussion above on whey a vehicle is a better image than actual soldiers? CMD (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

CMD As I told you showing soldiers is not so important or more significant than showing a certain country made military products, soldiers in the army is nothing new. But military industry is rear and it is more important it is an upper level.--g. balaxaZe★ 08:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please keep that conversation above, where I have replied to that point. Regarding this conversation, the materials you added did not follow the sources, was incorrect at points, and had very clearly incorrect accessdates. I have had to rewrite them. Please make sure the material you add is good material. CMD (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

motto

what is source of motto?

Military image

Given keeping an image in the military subsection, why is it preferable to show a parade car rather than actual Georgian forces in a situation referenced in the text? CMD (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Same question to you why it is bad? Soldiers show nothing special about Georgian military as every country has soldiers but military vehicle shows that this country has certain level of a military industry development. --g. balaxaZe★ 22:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Any country can make vehicles, so that doesn't show much. To answer your question I refer you to my initial post, where I note that the image of the military shows actual active forces, and illustrates a point mentioned in the text. CMD (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No they can't... --g. balaxaZe★ 09:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, taking as a premise that some countries can not make vehicles, how is that image more helpful than an image showing active forces illustrating quite a notable moment for Georgian forces? CMD (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Images in question: File:33rd LIB Georgia leaving for Afghanistan, 2011 (A).jpg, File:Didgoribtr.jpg. CMD (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

I want to edit infobox because it's one mistake in "Capital" field. Tbilisi is a capital & largest city in Georgia (country).

Pachidensha (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Some sources have referred to Kutaisi as the legislative capital. We may be giving it a bit too much prominence, but I'm not sure it's entirely a mistake. CMD (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)