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:
|
The "Georgia" move discussions in a nutshell:
|
Georgia (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. | ||||||||||
|
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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Guidelines for editing the Georgia (country) article
|
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 |
Archives | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
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. |
|
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:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721030244/http://www.mod.gov.ge/2008/list/sia-E.html to http://www.mod.gov.ge/2008/list/sia-E.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—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)
- No they can't... --g. balaxaZe★ 09:33, 28 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)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article1/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class Georgia (country) articles
- Top-importance Georgia (country) articles
- WikiProject Georgia (country) articles
- B-Class Europe articles
- High-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- B-Class Asia articles
- High-importance Asia articles
- WikiProject Asia articles
- B-Class Western Asia articles
- Top-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- Selected anniversaries (April 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2013)