Misplaced Pages

Talk:Georgia (country): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:57, 21 July 2016 editLouisAragon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers71,872 edits +← Previous edit Revision as of 10:13, 21 July 2016 edit undoGiorgi Balakhadze (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,428 edits Topography MapNext edit →
Line 110: Line 110:
::::"temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia"? That is very much POV pushing. No matter what you want to call them, they are at the moment breakaway regions de-facto independent from Georgia obtaining partial recognition. No, they are not currently officially recognized by Georgia or most other countries but they are still there which is why the borders are dashed meaning they are disputed. That is in fact, the reason they are present on most other maps that include political divisions of Georgia such as the main map on this article and the location map. I assume from your name and attitude towards this issue that you are Georgian. If I am correct then I would just like to ask you to respect NPOV and not POV push in regards to these disputed regions. I am not pushing for a map that shows them as sovereign countries with solid borders. The map that I proposed has dashed disputed lines which are most neutral. --] (]) 05:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ::::"temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia"? That is very much POV pushing. No matter what you want to call them, they are at the moment breakaway regions de-facto independent from Georgia obtaining partial recognition. No, they are not currently officially recognized by Georgia or most other countries but they are still there which is why the borders are dashed meaning they are disputed. That is in fact, the reason they are present on most other maps that include political divisions of Georgia such as the main map on this article and the location map. I assume from your name and attitude towards this issue that you are Georgian. If I am correct then I would just like to ask you to respect NPOV and not POV push in regards to these disputed regions. I am not pushing for a map that shows them as sovereign countries with solid borders. The map that I proposed has dashed disputed lines which are most neutral. --] (]) 05:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::I concur with {{u|Turnless}}; were not here to ]. Looking at Giorgi Balakhadze's long-term continuous POV pushing and, unfortunately, rather nationalistic disruptive editing regarding the matter of Abkhazia/South Ossetia (even right here, e.g. "temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia", or prime example). He can totally have those ''opinions'', obviously, and I fully understand that he as a Georgian feels strongly about this (rightfully so), but we here should not deal over and over with his personal grief and dissatisfaction regarding these political matters. If this happens again, given that it's seemingly pretty structural, I suggest bringing this Arbcom for preliminary sanctions. Bests - ] (]) 09:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC) :::::I concur with {{u|Turnless}}; were not here to ]. Looking at Giorgi Balakhadze's long-term continuous POV pushing and, unfortunately, rather nationalistic disruptive editing regarding the matter of Abkhazia/South Ossetia (even right here, e.g. "temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia", or prime example). He can totally have those ''opinions'', obviously, and I fully understand that he as a Georgian feels strongly about this (rightfully so), but we here should not deal over and over with his personal grief and dissatisfaction regarding these political matters. If this happens again, given that it's seemingly pretty structural, I suggest bringing this Arbcom for preliminary sanctions. Bests - ] (]) 09:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:For you if someone is Georgian it is the best and easiest to blame. But this is a relief map based on sources and which replaced another map with big mistake. Also I can say the same that you are pushing separatists POV, don't not miss single line to put everywhere your pro-separatist view. Sorry but you need more knowledge to understand what means imagined lines, because those disputed borders are only on the map and in reality nobody knows where "borders" go, they are not demarcated. Not only Georgians think like that but all international community supports Georgia except some editors in wiki and russian purchased voices.--<big>]</big>] 10:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


== Re-adding of materials == == Re-adding of materials ==

Revision as of 10:13, 21 July 2016

Georgia (country) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Skip to table of contents

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Discussions regarding the titles of the articles Georgia, Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) should be held at Talk:Georgia.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (state), Not moved, 23 November 2016, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (American state), Not moved, 5 January 2018, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (state), Not moved, 6 April 2019, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Not moved, 11 July 2021, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia → Georgia (disambiguation), Procedural close, 17 January 2022, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia → Georgia (disambiguation), Speedy close, 24 April 2022, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Not moved, 29 September 2023, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Republic of Georgia, Not moved, 10 April 2024, Discussion
Older discussions:
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Opposed, 2003
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Opposed, 6 May 2004, Discussion (Poll)
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Republic of Georgia, Opposed, 23 May 2005, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, No consensus, 5 July 2006, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, No consensus, 11 July 2007, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, No consensus, 15 March 2008, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Not moved, 19 August 2013, Discussion
  • RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia, U.S., Withdrawn, 24 July 2014, Discussion
The "Georgia" move discussions in a nutshell:
  • On Misplaced Pages, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is primarily used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set that the article's subject is a part of.
  • The basic debate has been whether the Eurasian country should be the primary topic, and therefore does not need any parenthesised word in the title. Those in favor of such a move often argue that internationally recognised countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the U.S. state, though there are other suggested reasons for primary topic. Some proponents of a move have also argued that the current failure to recognize Georgia (the country) as the primary topic displays a U.S.-centric bias.
  • Opponents of such a renaming note that under Misplaced Pages's guidelines, the primary topic can be determined based on which one is significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings as well as which one is more important or significant. They generally dispute that the U.S. state of Georgia is any less important; in fact, given the significantly greater size of its population, economy (especially its film industry), geographical area, and main airport, many argue the U.S. state is actually more important despite sharing some of its sovereignty with the United States federal government and not having a seat in the United Nations. They have also argued in the past that since the Eurasian country was (at the time of the above linked discussions) being actually slightly less searched for than the U.S. state, the former should not be the primary topic. Based on all of the foregoing factors, some contend the U.S. state should be the primary topic with no qualifier in its title. Some opponents have also argued that having Georgia as a disambiguation page is a better way to catch cases where an article contains wikilinks to the bare name "Georgia" that should be disambiguated.
Former good article nomineeGeorgia (country) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGeorgia (country) Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country)
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEurope High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAsia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCaucasia (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia
WikiProject iconEastern Europe (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe
Template:WP1.0
Caution

Guidelines for editing the Georgia (country) article

  • Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
  • Only external links pertaining to Georgia as a whole, or official government of Georgia links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Misplaced Pages guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
  • All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
  • Please provide references when adding new information.
  • Please use the correct citation format when adding references. If you are not sure which one is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. April 9, 2004, April 9, 2005, May 26, 2005, May 26, 2006, May 26, 2007, May 26, 2008, May 26, 2009, May 26, 2010, May 26, 2011, May 26, 2012, and May 26, 2013
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Georgia (country) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 7 days 

motto

what is source of motto?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Military image

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

Same question to you why it is bad? Soldiers show nothing special about Georgian military as every country has soldiers but military vehicle shows that this country has certain level of a military industry development. --g. balaxaZe 22:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Any country can make vehicles, so that doesn't show much. To answer your question I refer you to my initial post, where I note that the image of the military shows actual active forces, and illustrates a point mentioned in the text. CMD (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No they can't... --g. balaxaZe 09:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright, taking as a premise that some countries can not make vehicles, how is that image more helpful than an image showing active forces illustrating quite a notable moment for Georgian forces? CMD (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 08:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Mistake

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

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

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

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

Any thoughts on expanding the template

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

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

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

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

Topography Map

Giorgi Balakhadze, Hebel, You have both reverted my edits regarding the topography map of Georgia. I have already talked to Giorgi about this but since there are now two users reverting, it makes sense to move the discussion here. I strongly think that the map showing the disputed boundaries should be used for the sake of Neutrality WP:NPOV. In regards to Giorgi's claim that this is not a political map, it does indeed show political boundaries and internal divisions so the disputed borders are very relevant. Yes, it's aim is topography, but that does not make entirely a non-political map as it indeed shows political borders. As per Hebel's comment on the fact that he does not believe showing "internationally recognized borders on any map is POV". The removal of disputed boundaries from maps is indeed POV pushing as it is not neutral. The fact that an overwhelming majority of the world's countries do not recognize the breakaway states is an undoubted fact but that does not mean that they are not disputed regions. There are still countries that recognize those states, the list is very limited in its number but nevertheless it does in fact exist. The regions are also not currently under the de-facto control of the current Georgian government, so not showing the disputed boundaries is also misleading. Showing disputed boundaries on any maps is the best way to achieve NPOV and avoid any type of controversy. The main map of Georgia on this article shows the disputed areas as does the location map. Once again, for Giorgi, I encourage you to go to Commons and inform someone on the incorrectly drawn or omitted internal border that you are talking about. You say that because you are a geographer, you like for details to be correct on maps so I am surprised that you have still not done that. I am sure that there are many users on Commons who can fix that issue so I don't understand why you don't want to contact someone about that. Either way, I do think that it is important to show the map that includes the disputed borders in order to achieve NPOV. --Turnless (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

For me my made map is better and I don't see need in other maps or changes. Sorry but it is nonsense to put those disputed areas on every map of the countries. Mostly Georgia is recognized in those borders and no need to politicize all maps. It is a physical map not political and in physical maps accent is on relief not on disputed borders. Readers already have maps where those territories are shown and it is redundant to put them everywhere.--g. balaxaZe 04:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No it is not nonsense or redundant, it is NPOV. A map that has political borders should not leave any of them out. In this case, the ones left out were the disputed areas which is always a very controversial topic which is best avoided by showing disputed boundaries. --Turnless (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Turnless they are not official borders and they are not demarcated they are temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia and it is redundant to put those lines on every map (maps have different types, content and needs).--g. balaxaZe 05:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia"? That is very much POV pushing. No matter what you want to call them, they are at the moment breakaway regions de-facto independent from Georgia obtaining partial recognition. No, they are not currently officially recognized by Georgia or most other countries but they are still there which is why the borders are dashed meaning they are disputed. That is in fact, the reason they are present on most other maps that include political divisions of Georgia such as the main map on this article and the location map. I assume from your name and attitude towards this issue that you are Georgian. If I am correct then I would just like to ask you to respect NPOV and not POV push in regards to these disputed regions. I am not pushing for a map that shows them as sovereign countries with solid borders. The map that I proposed has dashed disputed lines which are most neutral. --Turnless (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Turnless; were not here to right great wrongs. Looking at Giorgi Balakhadze's long-term continuous POV pushing and, unfortunately, rather nationalistic disruptive editing regarding the matter of Abkhazia/South Ossetia (even right here, e.g. "temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia", or this other prime example). He can totally have those opinions, obviously, and I fully understand that he as a Georgian feels strongly about this (rightfully so), but we here should not deal over and over with his personal grief and dissatisfaction regarding these political matters. If this happens again, given that it's seemingly pretty structural, I suggest bringing this Arbcom for preliminary sanctions. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
For you if someone is Georgian it is the best and easiest to blame. But this is a relief map based on sources and which replaced another map with big mistake. Also I can say the same that you are pushing separatists POV, don't not miss single line to put everywhere your pro-separatist view. Sorry but you need more knowledge to understand what means imagined lines, because those disputed borders are only on the map and in reality nobody knows where "borders" go, they are not demarcated. Not only Georgians think like that but all international community supports Georgia except some editors in wiki and russian purchased voices.--g. balaxaZe 10:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-adding of materials

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

If you're going to work on military, would you mind finishing the discussion above on whey a vehicle is a better image than actual soldiers? CMD (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
CMD As I told you showing soldiers is not so important or more significant than showing a certain country made military products, soldiers in the army is nothing new. But military industry is rear and it is more important it is an upper level.--g. balaxaZe 08:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Please keep that conversation above, where I have replied to that point. Regarding this conversation, the materials you added did not follow the sources, was incorrect at points, and had very clearly incorrect accessdates. I have had to rewrite them. Please make sure the material you add is good material. CMD (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Categories: