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)


– The rationale behind the proposed move is as follows:

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

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)

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)
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)
I am not sure I understand what you mean, can you explain further? FFMG (talk) 05:30, 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)
  • 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)
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.
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)
  • Could you clarify what you mean by "volume of information"? - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 09:53, 23 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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)
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

NO
Based on 2 to 1 oppose, see also Template_talk:Infobox_country NE Ent 11:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Survey

(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)
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[1] p.2

References

  1. ^ http://www.eeas.europa.eu/enp/pdf/2014/country-reports/georgia_en.pdf
"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."

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk 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.
- Mikaberidze, Alexander (2015). Historical Dictionary of Georgia (e.d. 2). Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 978-1442241466 page 3
- Hock, Hans Henrich; Zgusta, Ladislav. (1997) Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies. Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978-3110128840 page 211
- 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. —МандичкаYO 😜 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? —МандичкаYO 😜 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). —МандичкаYO 😜 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk 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:

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk 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)
More