Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

New lead content

The proposed lead changes devote about a sixth of the lead history to wine, in quite a travel-guide style prose. They also reduce the specificity of the HDI for no clear reason, add corruption issues for which the only mention in the article is replacing an entire police force due to corruption, add a lot of detail on cannabis which is almost certainly undue, and duplicates already mentioned NATO aspirations. That other country articles are not good is not a reason to make this article worse to match. CMD (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Several observations why I think lead should not be changed like you suggest:

• It is overly simplistic to say wine is "travel-style". Wine-making is essential part of Georgia's identity, culture, and also worth mentioning in history due to its ancient tradition, which makes it noteworthy in the history paragraph.
• Your other reasons keep changing and not really supported by what you claimed. For example, after I rearrange some images there was no longer any sandwiching, at least in the section where you removed them. Also, you mention accessibility, but if something can be come more accessible (like providing a description), you are free to make improvement and help out, instead of just deleting. This is not very constructive and very frustrating for people spend time on it.

You mentioned WP:LEDE, which I just read and it says "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Nothing you removed is really meeting this criteria so much that it worth fight over.

• Most important, it seems capricious that you seem intent on having problem with such content on Georgia article and not other countries. For example, you recently edit Denmark but did not have problem with this "A developed country, Danes enjoy a high standard of living and the country ranks highly in some metrics of national performance, including education, health care, protection of civil liberties, democratic governance and LGBT equality." I think this is one of those situation where someone has decided that a small poor country cannot have anything nice said about it in the article and nothing more than personal bias, I don't see good reason for it and those policies you cited do not prohibit this information as far as I can tell. Most of it is discuss to some extent and not in violation of policy--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Travel style refers to the way something is written. In this case it's written much like a brochure, selling an oldest country claim and touting UNESCO status. As for the lead content, I specifically pointed out the various unsupported items in my post, which you haven't covered. Regarding images, sandwiching remained, noticeably around the United Georgian monarchy subsection. ACCESS in this case relates to ensuring images are in a relevant section. For example, one of the recent edits put a picture of various foods in the Media subsection, to which it does not add much clarity. As for your Denmark analogy, you are welcome to fix that article, I do not heavily edit every country article. CMD (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Your dismissive tone just confirm what I said above, which is your personal bias against Georgia. It is not "selling" or "touting" anything, it is noting an archaeological fact that Georgia is "one of the oldest" wine producing countries, which is referenced and definitely notable. Cultural aspect of it is also notable if you know anything about Georgia. There are no violations of any policies, it is your personal bias that is against it because it is a small poor country and it bothers you that something not depressing can be said. If something in lede was not discuss at length per policy, you could have also contributed by expanding or ask someone else, we should not do harm and go easy way of delete.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, the issue is the way the text is written, not the underlying archaeology. Do you have any comments on the specific points I mentioned in th eopening post here? CMD (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

the way text is written? then how should it be written, perhaps provide suggestion instead of easy way out of deleting. my response was already detailed. I don't think it's undue to say its one of the first countries to legalize cannabis. I don't think its undue to say one of the earliest wine producing countries in the world. anything that's "one of the...in the world" is notable and fair to say. also just because something reads like "positive" does not mean it is "selling" or "touting". It is written in fairly neutral tone and no policy is violated by it.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis I remember we also had the similar issue, when you preferred to simply remove all useful sourced edits by Damianmx, we could preserve most of them, but you removed all of them and it was damaging for the content. I am here for years and it is rare when someone really puts big effort to make the article better. I see that Leontina tries to enrich topics about Georgia and instead of being destructive (again) and deleting, you could easily cooperate with her to make this article even better. I support Leontina in this case.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 10:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Appeal to long-term banned user is an odd argument. You are also welcome to comment on the issues raised at the very beginning which are so far unaddressed. CMD (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"you preferred to simply remove all useful sourced edits... we could preserve most of them (useful edits), but you removed all of them... instead of being destructive (again) and deleting" I don't see here appeal to the banned user, I appeal to the fact, that you keep doing similar destructive changes.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 11:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Maintaining article quality is not destructive, nor were they changes I was making. CMD (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong, I remember that back then the only argument was that the user was banned, there were no requirements for deletion neither by wikipolicies nor by the quality of the article, but you did it with great enthusiasm. So please try to be fairer, more cooperative and concessive. After your replies, Leontina has made some improvements and at the moment the article looks pretty good in terms of quality. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 13:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This is off-topic here, but banned users are banned, and their edits are not welcome under policy. If you want to change the banning policy, you need to do that at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, not here. I appeal again, hopefully, for discussion of the actual content as I raised in the initial post. CMD (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, what you linked it is off-topic here, it was not an issue of WP:BMB. It was issue of WP:BANREVERT, which clearly says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)." You were reverting just because they were made by a banned editor. It was a fact and you even didn't hide. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

But anyway, I hope we won't continue in this destructive manner and will work together to further enrich the article, and maybe one day we will nominate it as good article.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This is another matter but I personally would also keep information on riot added by User:ThrakianPretense because this was very big event, many journalists beat up, somebody died and another journalist lost eyesight. Its absurdity when human rights section talk about some minor protest from decade ago, but information about major riots is removed as "undue". Also, others contribute to that paragraph on riot and so that contribution is now also just erased indiscriminatively, including content and photo I take time to contribute, which is waste of time.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Returning to original issue, I remove some information about UNESCO from the wine sentence to make shorter and less "touristy" because of such accusation. I also remove repeated sentence about NATO, which was also part of complaint. As it look currently, what problematic about other content? It all read very harmless to me and not against policy.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ThrakianPretense is another blocked sock. You are correct that the minor protest is undue; in the same vein a recent protest would also be undue. Including it here would on the major country page would be WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. For the other issues with the content, I again point to the first message on content not covered by the body. The wine tone remains a bit touristy and anachronistic, countries do not produce wine and Georgia was not around 8,000 years ago. It also in general brings the issue of expanding history in the lead, in a situation where the history portion of the lead needs to be shorter to create room for neglected aspects of the article. CMD (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ok so what do you recommend as better wording for wine? base on what you said, and based on language used elsewhere on wine articles, perhaps something like this is more acceptable? "Archaeological evidence indicates that Georgia has been the site of wine production since at least 6,000 BC; due to this ancient tradition, winemaking continues to be an important part of Georgia's national identity." Or some shorter version of the same sentiment if better suggestion is found.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement, but I would first be interested if there are any general (not wine-specific) sources that give such prominence to wine within 1/2 paragraphs of history. The Georgian government doesn't mention wine in its even longer history summary. Britannica mentions wine only briefly in their Georgian Industry page. CMD (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily including it as first line to give prominence, I just think it makes sense for it to be there because that paragraph is mostly chronological and this concern 6,000 year BC history. I checked that britannica link and it is not just industry where it talk about wine, it also speaks about it in more detail elsewhere, for example "The vineyards of the republic constitute one of the oldest and most important branches of Georgian agriculture and perhaps the best loved. Georgian winemaking dates to 300 bce; centuries of trial and error have produced more than 500 varieties of grapes." So it speaks to the ancient nature of this tradition in Georgia (even though dates have not been updated since later discoveries) and it mentions it is "perhaps best loved", I don't think this is insignificant. But as I said, this information is not placed in the beginning of paragraph necessarily because its more important than what follows, but also because of chronology.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It is the being added to the lead that is the adding of prominence, and we don't have sources that corroborate this. The sentence you quote is from Britannica's Georgia industry page, which would be equivalent to the article body here not the lead. Are there sources which allocate it the prominence your edit gives it within the scope of history? CMD (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

the quote I provided is not from industry section, that's a different section where it also mentions wine. But its beside the point, whether particular source mention wine in second paragraph or seventh paragraph is an arbitrary criteria. For example, in introduction Britannica skips classical antiquity entirely and jump straight to middle ages, it only mentions Colchis further down in a very obscure section called "Relief, drainage, and soils". Surely that does not mean Colchis and Iberia are not important? I think criteria of looking where such information is positioned in particular source is arbitrary, organizing this article chronologically is fine and we do not required to follow format/order of another source.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE is not an arbitrary criteria, it is part of official policy. Your framing is mistaken. The question is not whether something is "important" at all. The question is how important it is relative to all other potential information. To answer my question above, I suppose we do not have any sources then that provide such weight. CMD (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

We clearly have a source that says winemaking in Georgia is both ancient and "best loved" tradition of Georgia. And the fact that it traces as early as 6000 BC, one of the oldest in world, makes it significant. I can't understand your fixation on the physical order of things. As I say, source you linked does not even mention certain topics that have important placement in this article, i.e Colchis, Iberia, which is why I am confused about fixation on location. In chronological text that is also what decides location. So if we have five topics of varying importance in chronological order (because its history), it makes sense that earliest come first, though I don't have preference for that in specific.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I also cannot understand a fixation on physical order, as this is yet another item which I have never mentioned. I think the discussion would be more fruitful if you could please engage with the statements I actually make, including specific links to policy? This discussion is also still awaiting response to the other lead issues mentioned in the first paragraph, along with the ACCESS and Sandwiching issues that were also put back in. CMD (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing real information about first inhabitants ....should replace wine info with info about peoples.Moxy- 13:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Moxy, first inhabitants I think trace back to over million years so not sure that is practical.

CMD, I read that policy you link and see that location is also part of "weight" placed on something, but as I say, here extenuating circumstance is that list is chronological. If you have better placement suggestions please suggest--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, with access and sandwich issues, I addressed some of that by removing/rearranging content/images and also now Moxy rearranged/removed image to address that. What other sandwiching is there? would be helpful to see specific example instead of talking about the whole article in general terms.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in my immediately previous message, the physical order/placement within the lead is not the issue for the addition you want to make. What I have specifically asked for is whether wp:reliable sources assign it the weight within history that you want to assign it. So far, zero sources have been found that do, and two have been found that do not. Here is another one, Historical Dictionary of Georgia by Alexander Mikaberidze has a chronology from pages xxvii to lii. Wine is not mentioned within that chronology once, and that is far more than what should be a single paragraph in the lead here. On images, I identified some specific issues in my second post of this discussion. CMD (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ok here is what you said in your second comment regarding images

Regarding images, sandwiching remained, noticeably around the United Georgian monarchy subsection. ACCESS in this case relates to ensuring images are in a relevant section. For example, one of the recent edits put a picture of various foods in the Media subsection, to which it does not add much clarity

I looked over United Georgian monarchy subsection just now and see no sandwiching as shown on WP:SANDWICH. Regarding access, Moxy just moment ago went through images and moved them to correct sections, did that not fix it? --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I see sandwiching between the Gelati and Tamar images, and a slightly wider screen would also have sandwiching between the Tamar and the armour photo (which itself pushes the Vakhtang article down out of position on wider screens). I have not reviewed Moxy's edits in full, but checking the specific example I mentioned it does seem they have reverted the shift of the cuisine image out of the cuisine section as well as reverting the move of the Gelati photo out of the United Georgian Monarchy section, so at least those two instances are indeed fixed. CMD (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ok I remove the photo of armor and move others around, I think it is looking fine now?--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It also looks better on my devices. Are there comments on the other issues I raised? If this is going to be a response on an issue by issue basis, it might be easier if you proposed each change you put in through the edits, as it seems my attempts to bring the conversation back to them is ineffective. CMD (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

the remaining question is this and I already talk as much as I can on it

"Georgia is a developing country with "very high" Human Development, high levels of economic freedom, and low corruption. It is one of the first countries in the world to legalize cannabis for both recreational and medical use, becoming the only former-communist state in the world to do so."

I'm open suggestion on this one but I don't believe it violates any policies. contrary to what you say earlier cannabis is not undue because as I say, when something is "one of the...in the world" it is notable. I've seen similar example on other pages (Uruguay, Estonia etc). I know you will repeat that what happens on other pages is not your problem and that is your opinion, but having this content does not violate any policies.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the cannabis legalisation but I believe that low corruption level is very notable and I would definitely include it in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 10:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Another possibility is also to add non "positive" information, like poverty, to have more balanced and reduce space taken by legalization, like this:

"Georgia is a developing country with "very high" Human Development, high levels of economic freedom, and low corruption, although poverty remains a significant challenge. It is one of the first countries in the world to legalize cannabis, becoming the only former-communist state in the world to do so."

--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely the wrong approach to evaluate the text per your opinion of what may be positive or negative. Articles are guided by the views of reliable sources. To repeat what I said in the very opening post, you are adding things to the lead that are not at all covered in the article, without any references or assessment of due weight. If you insist on defining this as a "violation" or not (which is not the correct approach), the text goes against WP:LEAD, WP:DUE, and WP:V. Your addition of poverty is the same issue of WP:Lead fixation that does not match the article. Poverty has a single sentence in the article, and that sentence does not suggest it is a "challenge". CMD (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

understand, but to repeat what I say before, WP:LEAD which you continue to cite actually says this:

"Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

it does not say everything must absolutely be covered in depth in text. so now question is if these measly two line addition are such "significant" information that they must not be present there unless text goes in depth. I don't think they are and going after them is just not reasonable. I'm going to try what Alexis did some time ago on different page and do RfC so we hear opinion other than yours.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Punctuation edit needed in very first sentence of the etymology section

<<The first mention of the name spelled as “Georgia” is in Italian on the mappa mundi of Pietro Vesconte dated AD 1320,[14] At the early stage of its appearance...>> That comma should be a period. Maybe someone with the credentials to fix this should fix this, as I do not. Thanks. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, best, CMD (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for section on science and technology

Hi, just a suggestion, many country articles have sections for 'science and technology', this could be a section on this article as well.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC on lead content

1) Should the last sentence of the lede contain basic information pertaining to Georgia's level of development, such as human development index, corruption, economic freedom and poverty?

2) Should the last sentence of the lede contain information about legalization of cannabis in the country? --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

1) There were opinions expressed that this basic information should not be included for various reasons, such as being WP:UNDUE and because topics not discussed at length in the body per WP:LEAD, which states "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

2) There were various opinions expressed that mentioning cannabis legalization is undue or that it is appropriate because something that is "one of the first" in the world is notable. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Economic indicators

• Yes, this information is almost always included in the ledes of articles about other countries. In case of poverty, it's not discussed in the article itself, so assuming it's an issue, it should be described first in the article and then added to the lede, as the lede should summarise the article. Alaexis_¿question? 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

One thing that confuse me is how WP:LEAD says "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". It does not say everything must without exception be covered in depth in article text, so where does someone draw the line of what is significant and basic? Are these bits of information "significant" or are they "basic" mentions.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the problem with adding this information to the article too? I think it will take less time than has already been spent here at the talk. FWIW, the WP:FA? also say that the lede summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, so even if it's not an requirement it's a good practice. Alaexis_¿question? 17:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I can certainly add more information into text (already added some), but it is the principle that matters here, I just concerned that WP:LEAD is being used as justification for removing this info from lead, when it is not really required. To me the language of WP:LEAD does not read so strict and this information is not "significant" based on that wording. I think interpretation of WP:LEAD is very strict for Georgia, when it is not so strict in reality, so it is the principle I care about and need clarification for. I dislike when different standards are applied depending on situation and contributors.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I just added more information on these points in text.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sources are needed There have been no sources provided which assert that these various topics are significant. In the cases of corruption and poverty, the new lead additions contradict the existing article text. Not a single source was provided in the above conversation to support these various points. The quibbling over lead is equally odd, surely if something is basic and fundamental, it must be pretty significant. CMD (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: thanks for feedback, I took closer look and add more info/sources in text for this topics. It now mention poverty and also more updated and detailed information on progress against corruption.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, it (a) would be highly unusual to put such in a lead, (b) it would be WP:UNDUE prominence as coverage mentioning Georgia does not go there, and (c) it is not suitable per WP:LEAD guidance since these are not a significant part of the article — not even *in* the article? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

How can you say it is not in the article when most of it is now clearly added in text with references? also what basis is to say this content or placement is "unusual" when so many other country article seem to have exactly such content. I recommend you also read over WP:LEAD again, it does not say info in lead has to be significant part of article, it says you can't include significant information in lead if it is not discussed in article, which does not mean the same thing.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Just stating facts is how I can say it.

First, the apparently false claim information is “almost always” included in the ledes of articles about other countries fell apart when I tried a dozen and none had it.

Second, Googling gives me a count of all hits and extracts them — and the proposed lead items are just not frequent nor prominent.

Third, WP:LEAD guideline *does* say it should be about things that are a major amount of the body text - when MOS:LEADREL says both lead and body should reflect due weight, and if they do not then match then “seek to resolve the discrepancy.” These topics that have little or nothing in the body... should not be in the lead . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not suggest that this information is "almost always" included, that was somebody else's interpretation. I say it is often included and there are certainly country articles with this content, so there is precedent. Your other point about covering these topics in text no longer seems relevant because in response to other feedback I already include much more new information.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes per Alaexis --Andrei (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it might. Some of these indicators are quite relevant for new readers/introducees into the country/subject, considering where the country is coming from less than 2 decades ago - to give new readers a sense of its recent development in a few words. My reservation would be in the use (or style) of the current qualitative adjectives (ie "low corruption" and "very high development" and the selective use of quotes). Both examples are relative and prone to nuance. To illustrate that: Georgia has done remarkably in such a short period of time to beat corruption in daily life issues and interaction between government agencies and citizens. Without specifying which administration was primarily responsible for that, the fast development is absolutely worth mentioning in the lede, as it stands out - internationally as well, and should be addressed more elaborately in the article if not done so. Based on its TI CPI ranking it consistently ranks in the top 50 out of 180 countries over the past 5 years, beating a handful of EU member states. With distance it has the best CPI of the former Soviet Union states (outside of the Baltic EU member states), and in the region. But does the score of 56 points mean "low corruption"? Not really. It is very hard to justify the qualification "low", as there still is plenty - yet not as plain-in-your-face visible. So there are two angles to this. Yes, Georgia did great in beating aforementioned type of corruption, while stagnating on progression in recent years, and it certainly is not "low" by any international standard. "Low" would give the wrong impression here to the uninformed and new reader to the subject. I would use a different wording to describe the track record (of development) on these indicators that are of interest and worth mentioning in the lede. My 2cents, hope you get my point on this. And I hope this does not incite a discussion about the level of corruption and so on. Just my "but" on the use of the qualitative adjectives Labrang (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC).

@Labrang: good points. base on your feedback, I incorporate more information in the article. For example, I add qualifier to corruption statement and also provide more information in text to show that some more complex/subtle corruption situation remains to better explain. Does this address your concern?--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva: Yes it does. "relative low corruption" is a perfect nuance for the lede and the explainer is all just fine in the main paragraph in the article on corruption. Commenting on that, recent concerns re backsliding have also been addressed in subtle words. Labrang (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC).

• Yes, the material in the lede looks acceptable to me, but corresponding / expanded / sourced material needs to be in the body as well (i.e., these points cannot occur only in the lede). I can't currently see anything at all in the article body regarding human development, for example, and the lede's claim of "low corruption" seems to be contradicted by current statements about corruption in the body. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Richwales: thank you for feedback. good observation that article mostly talk about need to eliminate corruption in police but did not provide more recent updates. I added now more information to explain in more detail, does this address your recommendation? (also, I don't feel strongly about HDI, it can be remove, I just think it's a "basic" fact that per WP:LEAD don't necessarily need in depth discussion since its "basic").--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Great improvement w/r/t discussion in the body of the current corruption situation. I still say that there needs to be something more in the body about the Human Development Index (HDI) to substantiate the claim in the lede that Georgia's human development is "very high" — especially considering that the lede comment is using "very high" as a quoted phrase. I do see this issue is touched on in the infobox, but that's not enough IMO; calling it a "basic fact" doesn't fly in my book; either add at least one sentence about this to the body (with inline citation to the UN report), or else remove it from the lede. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Richwales: ok, I found some additional context for HDI and include that with sources, it explains not just current score but progression over years and some underlying factors as well. I hope this sufficient for what you had in mind? (P.S. I did not include HDI originally, from what I can tell HDI was there in lead very very long time and no one had problem with it, I only added to it)--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The treatment of HDI in the article body looks OK to me now. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, considering the relatively long length of the intro the mention of HDI and corruption fit in well and are well worded as they are. They are also basic information about the country that I expect many readers are expecting to find on the first page. Hentheden (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes agree with @Hentheden, this is useful at first glance. I see the argument against it, but here all presented well, useful & informative, without overloading the lede Hundnase (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes; I don't see why not. I'm frankly surprised this is even up for an RfC. If the problem is that those topics which are introduced in the lead are not expounded in the body, then surely, the solution is to add content to the body that would do so. The goal is to improve WP by adding article content if unavailable, not to remove content because there is no corresponding detailed account. If this issue needs to be signalled to other editors so that someone can take up that issue, then a maintenance template should be used. Tstcikhthys (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis

• Comment, I don't have a strong opinion. It's not the Guiness book of records, so being one of the first in something doesn't automatically make it suitable for the lede. If it's included, I'd suggest to trim it down: even the lede of the Netherlands article only mentions "liberal drug policy." Alaexis_¿question? 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sources are needed demonstrating significance. Is there any other source which treats this as something to be mentioned in a four-paragraph summary? CMD (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, because it its an exception in Asia and Post-soviet block --Andrei (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't have a clear opinion on this. Yes, it is worth mentioning for reasons given by Andrei above, but as a suggestion: not as a stand-alone remark but preferably as part of a sentence to summarize Georgia's relative liberal attitude on various topics. Yes, it has its conservative flexes, but at the same time has historically had its liberal undercurrents which - for example - goes back to its Democratic Republic days when universal and women suffrage was adopted and so on. So, in a wider political-cultural context it might be worth mentioning. But I wouldn't consider it ultimately crucial. Not everything can be mentioned. At some point adding something means either condensing or removing something else. Is that worth it for some details? Labrang (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes because as Alaexis mentions this is something mentioned in the leads of other articles, but also because it's an interesting fact that doesn't take up too much space that provides information on the country. Hentheden (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Not lead worthy at all. NO other country article covers this in the lead.....not even Canada....that covers this in the culture section.Moxy- 01:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy:, it's not actually true that no other country article covers marijuana it in lead, for example Uruguay mention cannabis in lead and it even talk about abortion, which by the way is also legal in Georgia. In case of Georgia cannabis legality is even more significant because of it being only country in communist/post-communist space with this status.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes on balance I think this does set Georgia apart from its peer group, and can stay (arguments against also plausible). In my view, additional sources would be good. Hundnase (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• No inclusion in lead. Many more social liberal policies are much more important then pot smoking. Nor is it a major economic viable product.204.237.3.153 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"many more social liberal polices"? such as? what other liberal policies significant enough to say Georgia's the only in the post-communist world to have? more specificity needed to seriously consider. And by the way, it seems very dismissive to say like this is just about "smoking pot", as article explain in more detail, legality of cannabis here has more profound significance than smoking pot, it is about loosening harsh drug policies and not filling prisons with people who are not dangerous criminals.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Very misleading statement .....as "Authorities maintained harsh drug laws (except for marijuana) " World Report 2021: Georgia | Human Rights Watch.--Moxy- 17:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, as WP:UNDUE; while the policies might be worth mentioning in the body, the subject in relation to the country as a whole simply isn't significant enough to warrant space in the lede; indeed, I can think of very few specific legal policies that would be of sufficient note to include in the lede, and drug legalization status is not one of them. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• No per BilledMammal Sixdown (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes à la Uruguay. If a country is notable for a significant policy decision, then it surely deserves a mention. As for whether it should be in the lead, I think so given that this is fairly standard practice and a reader would likely expect to get a synopsis of a country's significant qualities by reading the lead. Tstcikhthys (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2014 Tbilisi, Sobór Trójcy Świętej (17).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Georgia (country)"

Template:Largest cities of Georgia (country) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Move suggestion

I suggest that we move this page to Sakartvelo and move [[Georgia (U.S. state) to Georgia. We are an AMERICAN SITE. We should use AMERICAN TERMS. --2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548 (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"We" are not an "American site", and your proposal is directly contradictory to WP:COMMONNAME. Largoplazo (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Just no.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

We are not an AMERICAN SITE. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based in Florida, so yes, we are an American site. --2A01:36D:1201:606:C192:16DF:2E57:781B (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless the site is operated in the middle of the ocean or in Antartica, it's going to be operated out of some country, but it is by no means an American site in the sense that it's intended to be particularly for Americans or done in an American way or from an American outlook. Not in any sense that justifies a chauvinistic American user bellowing "This is a MURRICAN SITE, do things our way, reflect things from my point of view, use MURRICAN WORDS, dammit!". And the site has plenty of guidelines and even templates that make that clear. Largoplazo (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That was actually a Hungarian making fun of the "ignorant American who failed geography" stereotype. --62.165.250.204 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close, move discussions should be held at Talk:Georgia, and the initiator is a blocked sock. CMD (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Georgia (country) → Georgia – First of all, being a country, it has the highest of all priviledges, not to have a one noun defination alongside, here, "(country)". Secondly, Like when someone types "Jordan", Wikipedia doesn't re directs the user/visitor to the company or something else. If it is not done, then it would be partiality. उत्कर्ष555 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC) उत्कर्ष555 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean really, who types "United States (country)", or "India (country)". This is not logical. Even when you type "Imran Khan", it redirects you to prime minister of Pakistan, instead of disambiguated list. Please, take notice of this. उत्कर्ष555 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• There are no other definitions of "United States" that someone would expect an article titled United States to be about. So the United States can get an article without dis-ambiguation; it's clearly the primary meaning of that phrase. Georgia guy (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per my arguments last time. Perhaps Jordan should be a DAB as the name is also common though the country gets many more views (103,666) than the name (2,474). Georgia, the name may be less common but its not unheard of. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Good faith nomination, but please check out our naming guidelines. I'll accept that we're probably doomed to rehash this every six months or so (it looks like the last one was in July). There is no primary topic among common usage in English language sources, and arguably none among long term notability. Disambgiuation is designed to aid reader navigation -- in this case, it would do the opposite. If this was a matter of having no choice but to pick one topic, contrary to our guidelines, then I can see it being logical we would pick the country. But in this case, it does not meet the incredibly high disparity we expect from a primary topic. --Yaksar (let's chat) 17:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• To the nominator though, who appears to be new and this appears in genuine good faith: Wikipedia's page naming guidelines can admittedly be complicated! I would check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation for a general sense of how we make these sort of decisions, which can involve assessing multiple factors. --Yaksar (let's chat) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, I do think the country is more significant by page views and long-term significance. Side not, I really wish Sakartvelo was more used in the west to be honest.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2022 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Change "Georgia applied for EU membership on March 3, 2020" to "Georgia applied for EU membership on March 3, 2022" under Foreign relations headline. The year is currently wrong. Utl94 (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Georgia joined the Eurovision Song Contest in 2007. 2A00:23C6:538E:2200:84B0:B77B:F7EC:D621 (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close, move discussions should be held at Talk:Georgia per the banner at the top of this talkpage. (non-admin closure) CMD (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Georgia (country) → Georgia – This is the only article that is needing a noun to be described as a unique article. The same doesn't happens with other nations like Jordan despite having itself a more disambiguation. I think it is better to remove the noun. Think from a layman's point of view: A nation needing a noun alongside to be titled, which is sandwiched between Aisa and Europe. Please think over it. Again. Utkarsh555 10:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

First move that "disambiguation page", then take action on this one. Utkarsh555 10:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per last time, no primary topic in English. Per WP:ATDAB a noun or other qualifier is needed if its not primary which it doesn't appear to be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in view of all the reasons summarized from previous discussions (including one about the same proposal as yours less than a year ago) at the top of this talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2022 (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.

Accuracy of "Constituent Republics" for USSR

The section on the time after the 1917 revolution states that Georgia was part of the "fifteen constituent republics" of the Soviet Union in 1922. This is not correct: In 1922, the Soviet Union only had 6 member republics (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan). Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan joined in 1924, Tajikistan in 1929, Kirgistan and Kazakhstan in 1936, and the three Baltic republics plus Moldova in 1940. This is confirmed by the link under "fifteen constituent republics". Suggestion: Change to "six constituent republics". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klausson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the number, which seems the best solution given the changing number over time. CMD (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Good solution. Labrang (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

New lede material?

• "... is a country located in the Caucasus, at the intersection of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, identifying itself as European.[10]"

How exactly are the words in bold, added by user:Labrang,[1]-[2] relevant to the very first sentence of this article? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The cited opinion piece (not Carnegie's own stance) states some interesting things which I will leave here, for the record:[3]

• "Most Georgians enthusiastically think of being European as a positive attribute. According to the Carnegie-Mikeladze survey, 78 percent of them say they believe that joining the EU is a good idea because “Georgians will become more European.”"[4]

• "These perceptions have also nurtured an illusion that the West bears a moral duty of solidarity toward Georgians as inhabitants of an ancient Christian nation. One strain of Georgian thought takes pride in the country being on the periphery of Europe, visualizing it as an outpost and defender of European civilization. In seeking to overcome a peripheral fate, Georgian political elites have frequently reassured themselves, ordinary Georgians, and Western partners alike that they are “the most ancient Europeans,” in the words of scholar Giorgi Maisuradze."

• "In other words, some Georgians believe that Georgia can compensate for lagging behind the West in terms of modernization by possessing ancient and Christian traditions. They assert a more conservative, backward-looking notion of what it means to be European than would be recognizable to most Western Europeans, with their predominantly secular values. Yet this Christian and European conception of Georgia also is meant to distinguish the country from its regional neighbors. Georgia’s Western aspirations are not premised only on the idea of escaping from a destructive Russia. These aspirations also imply a distancing from the neighboring, mostly Muslim ethnic groups in the mountains of the North Caucasus and from Azerbaijan and Turkey, whose Islamic traditions are overlaid with a comparatively secular culture."

• "Overall, it seems that general support in Georgia for European integration stems more from expectations of economic prosperity than an endorsement of European values."

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Historian Stephen H. Rapp Jr wrote some stuff about this too:[5]

In 2007, the Department of Tourism of the Georgian Republic unveiled a flashy campaign emblazoned with the slogan “Europe Started Here.” An expression of post-Soviet globalization, the multimedia extravaganza was crafted by the New York–based advertising firm Saatchi and Saatchi. Commercials and advertisements celebrated Georgia’s long history, its ancient connections to “Europe,” and its status as a gateway to the “East.” “Europe Started Here” is an intriguing index of the Georgian self-imagination and its transnational redeployment at the dawn of the 21st century. Elements of this image are recent inventions, but others have deep, meandering historical roots. Indeed, Georgia’s representation as a beleaguered outpost of Christian Europe ultimately stems from the medieval and late antique periods, when the Georgians’ entangled ties to the Byzantine, Iranian, and Islamic worlds were interpreted in a variety of ways. By contrast, the idea of Georgia’s innate attachment to “Europe” springs chiefly from the national awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries, an age when European, Christian, and imperial identities were ompacted into a master narrative celebrating a privileged “Western Civilization.” (...) Not surprisingly, Georgia’s rich history has been investigated from a (Christian) European perspective ever since. Relegated to the edge of Europe, privileging visions of ethnocentrism, presentism, and the nation-state have further contributed to the historiographical distortion of Caucasia.

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As this (Carnegie) and other literature also indicate, Georgia has long identified itself as a European country rather than an Asian country. This is not about any theoretical exercise about "European values", which typically is related to the EU treaty values. Are Belarus or Russia not European countries because they do not relate to the EU values? Georgia has ever since the Georgian Democratic Republic considered and explicitly declared itself European, even before the concept of "EUropean values" was invented. I will henceforth look for other material if you think the Carnegie piece is not strong enough. The reason to add this was the construed attempt to make Georgia more Asian country than it is. It interacts with its neighbours, but it certainly doesn't identify itself as Asian, nor is it a member of any pan-Asian organisation, but is it of the relevant pan-European and aspires it membership of the EU. Again, this is about continental focus and national orientation as part of its national identity outside of the (liberal) "values" debate. I am open to any appropriate place elsewhere in the page, but since there is no other proper section on foreign association (at politics) the lede seemd the best place to add, as all the supranational relations are there too.. Labrang (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead is not the best place at all to add more facts. I would say national identity fits well into culture, given it is a strong aspect of national culture. I would add it there. Georgia has joined some Asia-focused institutions, but for the most part that's somewhat irrelevant to identity issues. What was the construed attempt to "make Georgia more Asian country than it it", and what does it mean to be an Asian country? That said, I'd just remove that bit from the lead, just say it's in the Caucasus. CMD (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Chipmunkdavis. It does not belong in the lede, but I guess it can be added to the culture section. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Will change it. Not entirely happy with the result yet, but will have wider look later.Labrang (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

add to following line, link to the corresponding event in Wikipedia records: "Russian invasion of Ukraine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine MichaelAndel (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology here is contradicted by that on Wiktionary at wikt:Georgia, perhaps due to confusion with the Farsi word گرج (gurj, 'Georgia'). Note that there's a historical Arabic term كُرْج (kurj) borrowed from the Farsi گرج but the etymology given for the modern Arabic جُورْجِيَا (jorjiyā) is Imitating a European language, compare English Georgia: there is no جورج or جرج (jorj) in Wiktionary relating to the country (only the former, as a transcription for the name George).

Wiktionary mentions with influence from (sānctus) Geōrgius ('Saint George') and goes on to state that گرج is from Middle Persian 𐭥𐭫𐭥𐭰𐭠𐭭‎ (Wiruz-ān, 'Iberians, Georgians'). The term's further history is unknown; it may ultimately be a derivation from Middle Persian 𐭢𐭥𐭫𐭢‎ (gurg, 'wolf'), though that would be phonologically challenging; compare Parthian 𐭅𐭉𐭓𐭔𐭍‎ (Wiruž-ān), Old Armenian վիր-ք (vir-kʿ), Old East Slavic гурзи (gurzi). — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=GE << this is the number of population in Georgia, not 4.9 million like it is edited. please change it Pozvoniati (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Some people still think the CIA World Factbook is a great and reliable source. I have pointed out before it is not re population data. And I would call for its ban from Wikipedia as a reliable source. In any case re Georgia. I don't have a problem with the CIA but I do with sloppy work, which this is. Labrang (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I would recommend to use the Georgian national statistics Geostat data. World Bank gets it from there anyways Labrang (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Put back the earlier (and true) 2022 estimate as published by the National Statistics Office of Georgia (Geostat) that I added myself before summer. Also, put the census attributes back as these are still valid (next census 2024). Labrang (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Some upd & twks

Dear colleagues, I have updated and tweaked little bit with more recent images, etc. Please let me know if there’s anything you have questions or concerns. I appreciate your feedback. Best regards, An emperor /// Ave 01:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, Emperor! I have no concerns with your updates. I was doing my Pending Changes Reviews tonight, and noticed that two IP editors had removed some of the image descriptions and had announced that Georgia was now part of Europe geo-politically. I did not accept those changes. IP editors then reverted me (!!!!) telling me that I was not well informed. When I do pending changes review, I use different criteria than when editing an article. If the changes made by IP editors are appropriate, they are of enough significance that discussion is warranted on the talk page first, before going live. I'm not sure how IP editors are able to revert me on a page with page protection!--FeralOink (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you FeralOink for your work and addressing it promptly. Best regards, An emperor /// Ave 09:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's very unfair that relevant, useful information I have added is being removed and no one is even engaging in a discussion with me. Meanwhile, you mostly just inserted a bunch of random pictures that there isn't that much space for. I don't see how this is an update or improvement, just superficial changes. Thanks to you, we now have a picture of a wolf and a golden cup (which are hardly essential) but the relevant points I raised, which are much more current and relevant, are being erased.--2600:1700:20:1D80:A14C:ACC:C1C5:7CD7 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Since there are so many small edits I really have to crawl behind the laptop to check. But from what I can see quickly on my phone it looks fine, and check the comment of the above anonymous user. Labrang (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Unclear and biased information

What is so unacceptable about clarifying that the country is geopolitically treated as part of Europe? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_(country)&diff=1123171305&oldid=1123171077 This is frequently on the news especially since the war in Ukraine and Georgia's EU application. I have provided plenty of information that I think is self-explanatory but it keeps being repeatedly wiped clean without any evidence to the contrary. I think this is pretty basic information that should be included.

Also, there seems to be a political campaign directed against the President with some biased information being inserted, which you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_(country)&diff=1123171798&oldid=1123171305 I think calling presidency "ceremonial" is quite inaccurate and disparaging even in a parliamentary country. The fact that a photo of the Presidential Palace was removed also suggests that there's an effort to perhaps diminish and erase Georgia's first popularly elected female president. It is in fact the Prime Minister who is "ceremonial" because he is actually a manservant of the billionaire oligarch Ivanishvili. Just search local news if you don't believe me. Someone should pay attention to this on here. 2600:1700:20:1D80:A14C:ACC:C1C5:7CD7 (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT, WP:DIS, WP:CNH. Best regards, An emperor /// Ave 09:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Please engage the substance of my specific arguments and concerns, instead of dropping some irrelevant links. I'm providing concrete references and reasoning. My treatment so far has been at best condescending and non-specific. I don't see anything in this information that runs counter to what I've described above.--2600:1700:20:1D80:A14C:ACC:C1C5:7CD7 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, 2600:1700:20:1D80:A14C:ACC:C1C5:7CD7. On your first point; I don't think the point is absent from the article as it stands, but I see nothing wrong with your edits on this point. They were, as you say, cited (if the point is controversial and there are sources pulling the opposite way, that means the point should be briefly raised (in a note?).

On the second point: I don't think the image of the palace is overly important (though I'd prefer to see it restored) and I don't think removing it amounts to a "political campaign" of erasure. After all there is still an image of Zurabishvili at the top of the section (as there should be).

There is a big problem with the section "Recent political developments" - it is describing things that should be discussed in the "history" section, alongside the recent changes to the constitution, leaving things very unclear. It is hard, but the account of elections and power transfers should be separated from the description of how politics in Georgia work now. Ivanishvili's anomalous status should be mentioned (it is at the moment). Furius (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to actually read what I wrote and provide substantive comments.

Regarding the first point, I think there is indeed controversy regarding Georgia's geography; however, my reference is specifically about geopolitics. Georgia's geopolitical association with Europe is clear and not being up front about it is a missed opportunity in giving readers a complete picture. (See for example the case of EU-member Malta, which says that it is "often considered a part of Southern Europe" even though some might argue it is actually part of Northern Africa). I think this type of context is important for readers, especially in view of recent developments of further approximation with the EU. We must state how things are in practice, instead of only providing legalese about the "intersection" of continents and tectonic plates.

With regard to the President, I understand that there is much to be improved in the political section overall and I don't know that I have a solution for all of that. What I find the most discouraging, however, is that I was not even allowed to add a note questioning the current verbiage (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_(country)&diff=1123171798&oldid=1123171305) Everything I added is gone. Change must start somewhere and if I am not even allowed to add a note here and there, how will anyone know these issues are being questioned? How will anyone even know we are having this conversation here right now? Questions and change should be welcome unless there's clear indication that what I added is unsupported and that's not the case here.--2600:1700:20:1D80:A14C:ACC:C1C5:7CD7 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

(I only now saw that you added my note back, so thanks for that. I didn't see it before posting.--2600:1700:20:1D80:A14C:ACC:C1C5:7CD7 (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC) )

I just gave an example of Malta above but having taken a closer look, I think Armenia is an even better example. Despite Armenia being arguably entirely in Asia, the page notes that "it is generally considered geopolitically European" (which is true). My point is that these types of clarifications are common and necessary for the readers' full understanding of the topic/country. Georgia, which is at the very least transcontinental, and which the EU has clearly treated as part of geopolitical Europe, should be noted as such to preempt any confusion sooner rather than later.--2600:1700:20:1D80:A14C:ACC:C1C5:7CD7 (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Labrang (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears to have been missed somehow in the discussion so far, but there is already coverage of this geopolitical orientation, in the third paragraph following mention of the Rose Revolution. CMD (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to frame this in terms of "orientation". Being regarded/treated as part of Europe and being "oriented" toward Europe are not the same thing. In some ways Morocco is "oriented" toward Europe and even tried to join the EU but was rejected because it was not deemed a "European state". This is not about what organizations Georgia is a member of or the intricacies of geographic boundaries, which have varied over time. It is about what common geopolitical space the country belongs to, how it is treated in practice, outside the bowls of wikipedia. There is value in this being apparent to readers from the start, not buried somewhere in fine print. If we can do it for a country like Malta, I see no reason it can't be done for Georgia. I get a sense that some people here are just contrarians, hence the million caveats and unwillingness to call a spade a spade.--2600:1700:20:1D80:A14C:ACC:C1C5:7CD7 (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, how do the sources tend to phrase it? We should follow their lead. (I think "Georgia strongly pursued a pro-Western foreign policy" is a different thing; one could say the same of Taiwan, S Korea, and Japan, but they're not treated as part of Europe/America) Furius (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Furius: good point about these other countries. As far as phrasing on Georgia, the first referenced source was unambiguous about how Georgia is regarded and the context in which it sees it, stating "...pursuant to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – like any other European state – have a European perspective and may apply to become members of the Union..." Considering this was drafted by the European legislature, and was passed with overwhelming majority, I don't think this clear and incisive phrasing was accidental.

The second more recent source, from just earlier this year, stated "The European Council is ready to grant the status of candidate country to Georgia..." This further buttresses the first source because Georgia must have necessarily met the minimum standards set forth in Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty, which confines EU membership only to "European" countries, otherwise Georgia would have been rejected at this stage like Morocco once upon a time.

These are authoritative sources based on decisions of leading European heads of state and government (27 country leaders had to agree to the second decision in order for it to be issued). I don't know what further confirmation is needed that geopolitically Georgia is regarded as part of Europe, no ifs or buts. This speaks louder than "orientation" or "self-identification", which doesn't mean that much by itself if others don't accept it.--2600:1700:20:1D80:DD8E:2326:8E91:278F (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, here's some bonus content from the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: "...I want the people of the Western Balkans, of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia to know: You are part of our family, your future is in our Union, and our Union is not complete without you!"[6] Nobody in Europe talks like this about Israel or Kazakhstan (even though the latter actually has territory in Europe larger than many European countries themselves). I don't know how it can be any more obvious which collective space Georgia is regarded as being part of.--2600:1700:20:1D80:DD8E:2326:8E91:278F (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful, but not quite the right kind of source. Better would be comments in academic articles or books (ie secondary sources), rather than statements from governments/officials (which are primary sources & in using them one runs the risk of engaging in WP:OR). Furius (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

To your point, the aforementioned geopolitical realities are well reflected in academic sources as well. For example:

• "History and geography strongly influences and shapes Georgia's geopolitical identity...As a Black Sea and southeastern European state, the country considers itself historical, geographical, political, and cultural part of greater Europe..." (Dr. Carlo Frappi, Gulshan Pashayeva. Cooperation in Eurasia: Linking Identity, Security, and Development. Ledizioni: 2018)
• "The Association Agreement between the European Union and Georgia is a comprehensive treaty...The political and economic objectives of the Agreement are fundamental for the future of Georgia as an independent and secure European state." (Dr. Gabriella Margherita Racca, Christopher Yukins. "Administrative Law: Volume 27. Joint Public Procurement and Innovation, Lessons Across Borders", Bruylant: 2020)
• "Georgia, together with Armenia, was the first European state in which Christianity was introduced as a state religion. In so far as Christian values are considered to be a necessary component of a European identity, Georgia could be said to have made a significant contribution to Western civilization." (Bruno Coppieters, Alexei Zverev, Dmitri Trenin. "Commonwealth and Independence in Post-Soviet Eurasia", Taylor & Francis: 2022)
• "The Association Agreement recognized Georgia as an Eastern European country and only a European state 'may apply to become a member of the Union...' (Dr Ileana Tache. "The European Union and the Challenges of the New Global Context", Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 2015, p. 102)
• "Hence, the Association Agreement recognizes that Georgia, an Eastern European country, is committed to implementing and promoting these values and that Georgia shares historical links and common values with the [EU] Member States." (Valentin Naumescu, Dan Dungaciu. "The European Union’s Eastern Neighbourhood Today: Politics, Dynamics, Perspectives", Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015, p. 147)

--2600:1700:20:1D80:DD8E:2326:8E91:278F (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022

Requested change: place "POV-Section" tag under "Government and politics" and place next to the word "ceremonial".

Reasoning: User:Emperor of Emperors again inserted the word "ceremonial" to describe the role of the Georgian president. He did so after being questioned about the appropriateness of this description on the discussion page and after having this excessive text rightfully removed by another user.

User:Emperor of Emperors has failed to engage in meaningful discussion. He claims to have provided a source but the so-called source is the Constitution of Georgia, which is too nonspecific to support this very specific claim. In fact, the Constitution actually proves the opposite because it clearly indicates that the President retains important functions, such as being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, having the right to issue pardons, empowerment to "represent Georgia in foreign relations", amongst other things. In view of these facts, the use of the word "ceremonial" is misleading and it needlessly diminishes the true functions of the President as envisaged in the Constitution. 2600:1700:20:1D80:1D24:D504:C51E:E97B (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You are very likely this WP:LONG WP:SOCK as rightfully suggested by colleague User:LouisAragon. An emperor /// Ave 04:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? You've been presented with specific issues on several occasions and your response is always to redirect to some irrelevant links and guidelines in a very patronizing manner. And for what it's worth, this message was not intended for you, but for some responsible editor who will see that the information you have added is a distortion of reality. The fact that you refuse to engage in discussion with anyone suggests you have nothing to back your claims with.--2600:1700:20:1D80:1D24:D504:C51E:E97B (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I am annoyed to find that my "citation needed" tag has been removed. If a fact is queried, it should be possible to provide a citation for it. This is how we get to the point where all facts are cited. Furius (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, the entire paragraph is unsourced so I don't think there's a particular text-source integrity issue here. Did some looking around for scholarly assessments (made difficult by the multiple constitutional changes), and found this article by an Associate Professor at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs which states "In this sense, the president is only vested with ceremonial powers in Georgia, taking into account the constitutional standards typical for classical parliamentary republics." This civil.ge article gives a quick list of changes from the 2010 constitutional system to the 2018 one. CMD (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks (I think the fact that the whole para is uncited is a problem, but I can see how election dates etc might be considered obvious facts that don't need a citation...) . "in this sense" would normally imply another sense that was different. But is that not how the scholar uses the phrase? Furius (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, CMD, Furius, the Constitution of Georgia which is the supreme document for the nation states it very clearly dozens of times that ...Government of Georgia is the supreme body of executive power...; ...Government shall consist of a Prime Minister...; ...Prime Minister of Georgia is the head of the Government...; ...martial law, by the orders of the Prime Minister...; ...upon recommendation by the Prime Minister...; ...martial law shall be made by the Prime Minister... etc. The president has nominal procedural functions and has extremely limited if any power in the country. Regards, An emperor /// Ave 11:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Constitutions are primary sources, interpretation needs secondary sources. That said, most sources I've found agree that the Presidency was heavily neutered through both sets of constitutional overhauls. (Re Furius, The "in this sense" appears to refer to the previous parts of the paragraph, although I agree that in isolation it is suboptimal wording.) CMD (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

CMD, thank you. Just added sec. source too. Regards, An emperor /// Ave 14:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Religions Pie Chart

Percents in chart and discussion do not match pie chart. 142.120.176.214 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? They look aligned. CMD (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting comments on geopolitical placement

Do you support revising the introduction of this page as following?

"Georgia (Georgian: საქართველო, romanized: Sakartvelo; IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ) is a transcontinental country located at the intersection of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Geopolitically, it is regarded as part of Europe. Situated in the Caucasus region, it is bounded by the Black Sea to the west, by Russia to the north and northeast, by Turkey to the southwest, by Armenia to the south, and by Azerbaijan to the southeast..."

2600:1700:20:1D80:68E0:803D:494B:216D (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

References

I am adding this request based on a suggestion from another user who recommended gathering additional responses. I think it is important for Georgia's geopolitical placement to be clear from the beginning in order to prevent recurring questions or confusion on this topic. For example, Malta already makes such a statement at the beginning. Even Armenia, which is arguably entirely outside of Europe geographically, states that "it is generally considered geopolitically European" (which is true).

I believe there is value in being upfront about this with the readers to help understand how things are in practice, rather than relying on obscure continental demarcations or tectonic plates. As you can see elsewhere on this page, plenty of other sources can be found on this matter but I'm intentionally adding just a few in order to avoid overwhelming readers. I am also intentionally avoiding using the words "orientation" or "self-identification" because they don't tell the full story. For example, Morocco was "oriented" toward Europe and even applied for EU membership but was disqualified due to not being a "European state". Orientation is not same as being regarded/being treated as part of something. 2600:1700:20:1D80:68E0:803D:494B:216D (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, revise to clarify geopolitical placement for reasons cite above.2600:1700:20:1D80:68E0:803D:494B:216D (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, but as with the Malta and Armenia examples, I'd prefer a qualifier - "often or generally regarded as part of Europe" Furius (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with this, they are culturally European but not "continentally" whatever that means. Ortizesp (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, article Boundaries between the continents of Earth explains that not only geopolitical orientation but even its "transcontinental" status is not a firm statement. And by all means Georgia is regarded as a European country [not only geopolitically].

...The modern border between Asia and Europe is a historical and cultural construct [not geographical in any sense (!)], and for that reason, its definition has varied... [7]

...Due to historical, cultural, religious, and political reasons, the country [Georgia] is regarded as a European country...[8]

You proposal is better than what we have now, but I would prefer:

"Georgia (Georgian: საქართველო, romanized: Sakartvelo; IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ) is a country in Eastern Europe." Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, none of the sources mention what it means for something to be "geopolitically" in Europe. Nor is it evident what specific relevance this has. This is a mixture of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, stretching the mentioned sources to say something they don't. The world is not carved up into specific "geopolitical" locations, and there is no "in practice" about the proposal. The proposal is inventing a definition in order to push a particular viewpoint, which is not something that informs readers. Search "Georgia" and "geopolitic*", and the most common space would be the Caucasus, and the most common geopolitical element mentioned is the competing spheres of NATO/EU and Russia, which is not a Europe/notEurope dichotomy. (Unless you want to interpret "Europe" as the "EU", however there is wide consensus against this on en.wiki.) CMD (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you oppose? Is Georgia an Asian country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:9CE7:E700:10D0:334C:E36:4086 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, but I like this wording more as one suggested above. "Due to historical, cultural, religious, and political reasons, Georgia is regarded as a European country". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:9CE7:E700:10D0:334C:E36:4086 (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC) <--- IP's very first edit was to voice support for the proposal
• Oppose Per CMD's sound rationale. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. The sock who started this RfC is in fact a LTA.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. The proposer treats Europe as something essential whereas it's a cultural construct which had different meanings 1000 years ago (with Georgia being on the periphery of the Byzantine world straddling modern Europe and Asia), 300 years ago (with Georgia being a vassal of Persia) and now. Of course it's notable how Georgians see themselves and how they are perceived by others, so I'm for incorporating this in the article, but probably in a qualified way (e.g. "Georgia is considered by EU and by ... to be part of Eastern Europe"). Alaexis_¿question? 15:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  The EU position is already included in the article. The cultural information is sadly not, although that is indicative of the need to greatly improve the Culture section. CMD (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It just seems odd to me to see Georgia (& Armenia) as included as part of Europe, when they are further east than countries commonly accepted as part of West Asia, such as Turkey, Syria & Jordan. Further, I had been taught one Eastern boundary of Europe is the Caucasus Mountains, which are to the north of Georgia. Regardless of how this RfC is wrapped up -- & despite my two points, I actually have no strong opinions about the matter -- this article should contain a section explaining why it is considered a European country. Just to prove to ill-informed people like me that there is a serious school of thought that places it as part of Europe. -- llywrch (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Georgia Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Name

Propose to change the main name to Sakartvelo to avoid confusing with US state and other things, and that is also what the natives themselves ask. --95.24.60.6 (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The Georgian constitution uses the name ‘Georgia’ in the English version, not the transliteration of საქართველო as ‘Sakartvelo’: ‘Georgia’ is the name of the state of Georgia The word ‘state’ here refers to the more common, non-US-specific usage. Tvquizphd (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

We use WP:COMMONNAME, and the country is undoubtedly known in English as Georgia, not as Sakartvelo. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

David IV of Georgia

please add image of this king in history section. he is the most important king in Georgian history. I see queen Tamar is included but David IV is not. please add him. it is important. 2603:7000:3700:87E3:5477:DE99:89DB:21D9 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello?? anyone want to address my request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:5477:DE99:89DB:21D9 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The section on the united monarchy already has two images. Adding another on would be an overkill layout-wise. Alaexis_¿question? 18:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

king David iv

maybe you can replace the church picture or have king david's picture merged in one like president and primeminister is? David builder was the most important person in Georgias history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:5477:DE99:89DB:21D9 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

From the aesthetic point of view I think that a church and a monarch look better than two monarchs - especially since it's not just a random church but one of the most important ones built by no other than David IV. I've mentioned him in the caption of the image. I'll let others comment on this as I don't have a strong opinion here. Alaexis_¿question? 19:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean church and king into one image code please. thank u for mentioneing king David in the picture but his image is so so important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.145.43 (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Which image and what information would it provide to a reader? CMD (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

this picture please. he was responsible on Georgian gold age. his deeds made Georgia great power in Middle Ages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87e3:a918:ef6:513e:775b (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that image informs the reader of much. CMD (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The image should underline and say fact that he was responsible for Georgias gold age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:A918:EF6:513E:775B (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

please address my request???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:78FC:19EE:B2C2:7B52 (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please make a change: Stalin DID NOT lead Red Army that invaded Georgia

11th Red Army that invaded Georgia in 1921 was led by Anatoly Gekker, NOT Stalin. Nalbjs (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed these words as I don't think it's important enough for inclusion in this article. Of course, while Stalin did not lead the army, he had engineered the whole thing. Alaexis_¿question? 20:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis, how got? It was in 1921, mind you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

gurǧ – Κολχίς (Colchis)

Colchis, though described as the Greek name for Egris, an ancient subdivision of Georgia, looks or sounds like a phonetic variant that may have the same root as "gurǧ". K/G is also found with Κελτοί (Keltoi)/Galli. R/L is found with peregrinus/pilgrim, Argel (Spanish)/Algier. And ǧ [dʒ], is a palatalization of g (like in English).--Ulamm (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"Transcontinental" and "and" in the lead sentence

I had removed "transcontinental" from the lead sentence with the stated rationale If we're already naming two continents it covers, then the ten-dollar word "transcontinental" is redundant. The final clause is really a "but" rather than an "and": it's physically in both continents, but in some ways it's considered just plain European. User:Trenaliv restored it, reasoning in their edit summary ... the sentence is more well structured in its previous form. It’s not uncommon for the transcontinental nature of a country to be mentioned, as well as the continents it lies within. It’s already apparent in the sentence that the geographical and cultural/geopolitical identity is separate, so I don’t think there is need for “but” rather than “and”. (User:Moxy has now re-removed it.)

The first part of this appears to amount to "other articles also use the redundant and show-offy word in their lead sentences so we should strive to emulate that practice", which I disagree with, and which is addressed by WP:OTHERSTUFF. (Indeed, I've removed it from Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Russia; someone restored it to Russia but another editor removed it again, remarking on the discussion mirroring this one that I'd already initiated at Talk:Russia.) The word adds nothing, so including it makes it seems as though being transcontinental is a Really Big Deal that merits special emphasis. But it doesn't. So some countries' territory happens to overlap continental boundaries that are largely only defined by convention anyway. So what? To me, it looks like cruft.

Should we describe Hungary as "a unicontinental country located in Europe"?

As for the "but" versus "and" question", yes, it's apparent. What's apparent is the sort of situation where "but" applies. "And" implies "in addition" without any necessary relationship between the second thing and the first thing. "But" is used in cases where a contrast is being drawn, which is exactly what's happening here. Trenaliv's rationale, if applied consistently, would eliminate any purpose for the word "but" in the language. Largoplazo (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

My comment which accompanied my edit was not meant to be confrontational, so I apologise if it came across that way.

I feel Moxy’s edit took your point on board but just fits better into the lead, not to cause offence, I see on your user page you have made great contributions to Wikipedia.

The way in which you’ve explained the exclusion of the word transcontinental here is perfectly logical. I still don’t agree with the use of “but” as you used it😆 *but* I’ve already expressed my opinion on that, so there’s no need to repeat myself.

I am not a frequent Wikipedia user (and also a new user), whilst I share the goal of all users for Wikipedia to be well-rounded and informative, I perfectly respect the edits of others, and understand my opinions aren’t more important nor superior to others, Wikipedia is a community project after all!

Regards! Trenaliv (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't feel you were being confrontational. I'm sorry if I seemed to be reacting as though you were—I get kind of formal and wordy in laying out my reasoning for things, as though I were setting out a mathematical proof. That I even began this thread was simply the proper course of action for me to take in the face of the reversion. The goal here (though I forgot explicitly to say this in my initial comments), besides hopefully getting your response as I have, is to see what others think as well.

And, welcome to Wikipedia! Largoplazo (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2023

change Farsi to Persian (Persian is the English word for the language. 'farsi' is the name of the language in Persian.) 192.19.223.252 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Persian is also known as Farsi in English, so there is no reason to change it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please fix typo

“etymlogically” 82.36.70.45 (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Largoplazo (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)