Talk:Georgia

English speakers are guilty of this.

... and French speakers, and German speakers, and Greek speakers (who'd rather call Sakartvelo "Georgia" istead of the old Greek name "Iviria" (Iberia)) and so on. Basically there is a standard in all these languages, for a reason that I fail to understand to call Sakartvelo "Georgia". Why? Apart from considering St. George protector of Sakartvelo, Sakartvelo never made any claim that they are the "real" Georgia and not the US state. They basically accepted the international situation, in which their state is called "Georgia".

What they specifically DON'T like though is to be called Gruzins and their country Gruzinya using Russian words. So basically if US Georgians want to solve this, it's simple: English is your leanguage: stop calling Sakartvelo "Georgia" and start calling it "Sakartvelo". Why did you call it Georgia in the first place I find hard to imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right. However, English WP needs to cater to English speaking Americans too :p The thing boils down to whether an English-speaking USA guy will recognize (or probably tolerate) Georgia as a country across the Atlantic. It seems not! 118.90.85.8 (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The country across the Atlantic is called Sakartvelo, as the user pointed out. Why would an American want to call it Georgia? Are we so vain that we now call other countries after US states? Hmm, the Greeks don't liek the country of Macedonia being called that, so let's call it Montana. And we can call, England - New New York, Germany can be Pensylvania, Sweden can be California, and so on. That way we won't be intolerant, and want to use the names in our country only for places in our country. Makes a lot of sense. - BilCat (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would an American want to call it Georgia? Are we so vain that we now call other countries after US states?

Are you under the impression that this is the American Wikipedia? It's isn't. It's the English-language Wikipedia, and "Georgia" is the country's official English-language name. —David Levy 06:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you under the impression I'm so stupid as to not know that? Evidentlyv not so. And English is not the country's official language. If it were, you'd have a point. - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I haven't questioned your intelligence, but I'm unaware of your degree of knowledge on this subject. You pondered "Why would an American want to call it Georgia?" and referred to the concept of "call[ing] other countries after US states," and that's what I'm addressing.

2. The language spoken in the country is irrelevant. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and the country is called "Georgia" in the English language. Our goal is to guide our readers to their intended destinations, and many people typing "Georgia" seek the country's article. —David Levy 07:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was writing a tongue-in-cheek response to the previous post. The user said, "The thing boils down to whether an English-speaking USA guy will recognize (or probably tolerate) Georgia as a country across the Atlantic. It seems not!" As an American, I have no problem with another country being called Georgia! - BilCat (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for clarifying. —David Levy 07:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Their own English name for themselves is Georgia. See also their constitution (Article I: 'Georgia shall be the name of Georgia.') or the fact the suffix on all those websites is .ge. Relax. -LlywelynII (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is Georgia's constitution in English? Yclept:Berr (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's obviously a translation. I had expected it would be an official translation even if carrying no legal weight but it appears I was mistaken:

Text was provided by the Technical Information Institute “Techinform” which bears responsibility for the accuracy of the translation.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

State of Georgia

The weird thing is that the official name of the U.S. state isn't actually Georgia, but the State of Georgia. So we're disambiguating a country whose name is Georgia (in English & like Germany & Japan is different from the 'native' name) with an entity that isn't even officially called Georgia. The only other parallel AFAIK where a country has been disambiguated (but even in this case to an entity that actually has the same name) is Ireland, but that is a case where the name of the island and the country are intrinsically connected anyway as well as Ireland having an act describing the place as the Republic of Ireland. To disambiguate a country when another (major) place with the same name doesn't actually exist seems strange to me. 203.196.81.163 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The former British colony of Georgia has had that name in English since 1732. It was named after King George, the ruler of Hannover and the British Empire.

Until the country of Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, very few English-speaking people worried too much about the existence of that country. A few were aware that it was where Joseph Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria came from; though most English-speaking people mistakenly thought that they were Russian. Georgia as a country is small and economically unimportant.

Logically Georgia, the long established former British colony is the major use of the name Georgia. The recently independent tiny country in the Caucasus would seem to be a minor use of the name Georgia.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Very narrow perspective there. The Beatles were well enough educated to write a clever line about it when they created Back in the USSR. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The "clever line" in Back in the U.S.S.R. was "and Georgia's always on my mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mind"", a reference to the US song Georgia on My Mind, and a pun on multiple meanings of Georgia: girl's name, the former British colony, and the place in the Caucasus.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The country existed about 700 years before the State of Georgia. Histories of countries are not erased prior to when they were colonized. The fact of the matter is a country called Georgia (in English) exists, a state called Georgia doesn't exist. Only the State of Georgia. In other words, there's a viable alternative to Georgia (U.S. State): The State of Georgia. This would be similar to the case of using Republic of Ireland (the official description of the country) to prevent a disambiguation. 203.196.81.163 (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument about using an official name contradicts the overall Wikipedia policy stated at WP:COMMONNAME, that common names are preferred over official ones. IIRC, that was pointed out on the Ireland discussions, but consensus eventually was to have this compromise: separate articles on Ireland, the island, as the primary topic; one on the Republic of Ireland, the sovereign country; and a third article on Northern Ireland, the constituent country of the UK. The situation with Georgia is different because you do not have a common physical feature like the island of Ireland. Nor does it fully address all of the central issues about why Georgia should or should not remain a disambiguation page, or why or why not Georgia, the country, should become the primary topic. Only renaming Georgia (U.S. state) to something else still does not address one of the repeated central arguments about keeping Georgia a disambiguation page: there is no clear evidence that the Eurasian country is significantly more commonly searched for than the U.S. state. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"State of Georgia" is the official "formal" name of the state, but "Georgia" by itself is no less official, and appears that way on many official state and federal documents. Also, "State of Georgia" is not as viable as the IP thinks, as some have argued that the Eurasian country is also a "state"! - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That is also another reason why we try to avoid ambiguous official names like "State of" because it could mean, especially in this case, either a U.S. state or a sovereign state. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

While "state of Georgia" could mean the country, but it generally doens't. This slight possibility is no reason to change the redirect from Georgia (U.S. state) to this article. "State of Georgia" is the US state's formal official name, and that is not ambiguous. The country of Georgia's official name in English is just "Georgia". - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the country's name is not "Republic of Georgia', or we could move the article to that title, and end this long-running dispute. It's simply "Georgia". Also, US state has a republican form of govenment per the US Constitution, so it could also be called the "republic of Georgia." :) - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late here, but State of Georgia is not the name of the state, in the sense of a location. It's the name of the state, understood as a governmental entity.

That is to say, the State of Georgia might be a plaintiff or a defendant in a lawsuit or habeas proceeding. But if you're asking where Atlanta is, it's in Georgia, not in State of Georgia.

The same remarks apply to, as far as I know, all US states, with the exception of the ones that style themselves Commonwealth of; I think those are Massachusetts, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. For those, same remarks, mutatis mutandis. --Trovatore (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Index of archived arguments

(Feel free to edit this. Perhaps this section can be spun off to a subpage or the Georgia talk header? Also, can someone go through the "Substantial discussions" 1/11, 2/6, 2/14, 2/16 and the move proposals M4 and M5 and index them?)

References are in the format Archive no./section no. "M" stands for "Move discussion". Examples:

• "1/12" is archive 1, section 12
• "M4/5" is Move discussion 4, section 5

The enumeration of this list is not intended to indicate the strength or importance of the points but simply to make references to this list easier. Points may be repeated depending on the context in which they appear in the archive.

1. Pro country
   1. WP:CSB and "Georgia" in English (1/1 Irpen, Carl Kenner WP:CSB, 1/3, 1/4, 3/6 and talks about but does not mention WP:CSB, 3/4, M2 Joffeloff mentions WP:CSB), US centrism (1/13).
   2. WP:NC general audience: the US state is a specialist topic. (3/4)
   3. The Caucasian Georgia is a sovereign state/raises status of US state to sovereign state. (1/2, 3/4)
   4. English WP is out of step. (1/7)
   5. WP:IAR (2/12)
   6. Importance (M2 SJK)
   7. Pro-US side are holding this page to ransom (1/11)
2. Pro US state
   1. Economy, population etc. larger., country is obscure. (2/9, 3/1)
   2. "There would be no net benefit from the proposed move". (3/3)
   3. "Georgia" in English (1/3, 1/4, 1/11 The User Formerly, 3/6, 2/11), more US readers (1/1 StarryEyes, Raggaga, 4.89.243.64 and more)
   4. "On an English-language wikipedia, an English-language jurisdiction with a larger population should not be subservient to a country that has only been independent for 15 years and doesn't speak English. A disambiguation page is an appropriate compromise." (1/1 Kirjtc2)
3. Keep the dab page
   1. M2 Earthliberator
   2. WP:NPOV if both topics are of equal magnitude, WP shouldn't say which is more important. (1/2 radiojon, 1/11 zoney)
   3. Let users find what they are looking for (1/2)
4. Other (for either side or none)
   1. WP:STAT, Notability, traffic data, WP:GOOGLETEST (1/5, 1/11, 1/12, 2/5, 2/10, 2/11, 3/4). (WP:GOOGLETEST not explicitly mentioned on those pages.)
   2. "Georgia" in English. (1/1 raggaga, 1/3, 1/4, 1/15)
   3. WP:IAR (2/12)
   4. WP:NC titles not based on subjects' importance. (2/11 agrees, 2/14 disagrees, 3/4, 3/7)
   5. WP:PLACE (in general) (1/2)
   6. WP:PLACE and Comparable cases: Macedonia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Turkey, China, Formosa (compared with Argentina), San Marino, Azerbaijan. (1/1 Llundun, 1/17, 2/2, 3/6, 3/7, M2 Bkell et al. Luxembourg, Azerbaijan, WP:PLACE, 3/8 touched at 3/4)
   7. WP:NC common name. (3/6)
   8. WP:DAB is (just) a guideline. (2/14)
   9. Leave it as it is (2/13), dead horse. (3/6 talks about but does not mention WP:LETGO)
   10. The "correct name is just Georgia, so any additional text should clearly be disambiguation text" (M3 Michael Z)
   11. The choice is not a statement on the value of the two Georgias (M2 Sosomk)
   12. The country is indeed more important, but that doesn't mean that the country's page on WP should get priority naming (1/11)
5. Miscellaneous Wikipedia-dependent issues
   1. Hatnotes etc. (2/8)
   2. "[[Georgia (country)|]] is easier than [[Republic of Georgia|Georgia]]" (M3 Henrygb)
6. Substantial discussions 1/11 (particularly difficult), 2/6, 2/14, 2/16 No Consensus

As an aside, this debate has been going on for about five years now. 118.90.57.67 (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't a clue how to interpret the above. Anyway, I'm now conviced it's time to propose that the state be the primary topic, as it clearly is. See the "Georgian" article on the state proof that even the Georgians accept it. - BilCat (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"References are in the format Archive no./section no.", e.g. "1/12" is archive 1, section 12. 118.90.111.248 (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just link to the sections? That would make it easier to use, wouldn't it? BilCat (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. 118.90.111.248 (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! - BilCat (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the list is proving its worth already: the conversation below contains absolutely no new arguments :D. 10... 20... 30 GOTO 10 ! 118.90.38.95 (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So, basically

Arguments pro-country:

• Georgia is a sovereign state, that way it has more importance than a subdivision.
• Georgia has a 3000 year history, and it has been a nation much longer than the state.
• Historically, Georgia has been very important on world scale, unlike the state whose international importance has been tied to the overall importance of the United States.
• Georgia has more hits and page views than the state.
• Georgia would counter the Systemic Bias present in Wikipedia.

Arguments pro-state:

• Georgia is bigger and has more population.

Just placed my little piece of sand. --186.136.40.74 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty one-sided, typical of proponents of the country not actually called Georgia in it's own language, and typical of systemic anti-US bias. Laughable - BilCat (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Next, we'll have people from other countries telling Americans they can't call themselves Americans, cause it's also the name of a (double) continent they are from. Wait, they already do that! - BilCat (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Historically, Georgia has been very important on world scale" I'm just curious, 186.136.40.74, what exactly do you feel made Georgia so very important on a global scale??? As far as I can tell, Georgia's been something of a back-water for most of its history - at the margins of (and often a province of) larger empires and outside any of the major historical centers of civilization. 84.138.199.46 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, and the state of Georgia has ever been such a dominant global power, has it? :) Please think in the best interest of the Wikipedia. Stats show that Georgia (country) is clearly more sought after than the state, and it should be made the primary topic. That's all we're here for, not to pass judgement on who is better than whom. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The user was inquiring about the validity of a specific assertion. Even if there were absolutely no doubt that the country, rather than the state, should be the primary topic, there's nothing at all wrong with asking "Is this a true statement about the country's importance?" It must be very easy for you to make your decisions if you never question anything you're told. Propaniac (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainspace talk pages are not the appropriate venue to discuss arbitrary perceptions of "importance", nor are they an appropriate place to attack users. Please remain civil and on topic. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WACRH, nobody was being un-civil or off-topic or, by any stretch of the imagination, making a personal attack. Rather, the specific assertion that the country known in English as Georgia "has been very important on world scale" was called into question. This assertion was put forward as an argument for moving the country article here, so the validity of that statement is quite relevant. As far as I can tell though, nobody has yet put forth any evidence to support the idea of Georgia being "very important on world scale." 84.138.236.205 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Culture of Georgia spans 5000 years, and it is of utter imporance because of spreading christianity on the Caucasus and central Asia. Please read History of Georgia. However, how does the state of georgia been important at a world scale? --190.226.50.130 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The above would be relevant if "subjects' importance" were included in our article name criteria (which it is not). —David Levy 20:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so basically -- "Is there a primary topic?"

There is no consensus on which use of Georgia is the primary one. Hence this disambiguation page and years of debate, voting etc .. All the relevant (and not so relevant) arguments have been made, but apparently some folks dont bother to read the colored boxes on this page (above) to see the many move proposals and archived discussions, nor even the nutshell summary (above). So it's worth repeating what another editor quoted in Archive 3, from WP:DISAMBIG > WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic." PrBeacon (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm from the U.S. South. Everyone must remember that Wikipedia (even in the English language) is an international site; it should never favor one country over another. In my view, both the nation and the U.S. state have a rightful claim to primacy; since both nations and U.S. states are normally listed in Wikipedia without a modifier, IMO their claims are equal. (And even if the nation isn't called "Georgia" in its own language, that's nothing new; Germany is called "Deutschland" in German. The government calls itself "Georgia" in English, and unlike Burma & Macedonia there's no national or international naming dispute.) Though the nation is greater in terms of sovereign authority (thus it's properly listed first on the disambig page), the overall volume of U.S.-related traffic favors the state (even if the nation's page may have more traffic from time to time). Thus, the disambig page should be primary. --RBBrittain (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Conversation needs more numbers, less US/anti bias

As of 21 Feb 2010, wiki has 12776 articles linked to Georgia (country) and 23251 to Georgia (U.S. state). Via this. Google trends shows general English language usage isn't even close. Meanwhile, people seem to look at the Georgia (country) page more often (presumably because they're less familiar with it:) assuming [1] is a reliable source, you get

Georgia_(U.S._state) has been viewed 99243 times in 201001. This article ranked 3728 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org

Georgia_(country) has been viewed 130885 times in 201001. This article ranked 1934 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org

So, yeah, I'd say it's fair to say they're both very common and there's no primary topic. -LlywelynII (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost twice as many articles link to the state as to the country? All other factors being near equal, I'd say this is a clear tipping point in the state's favor as being the primary topic here. After all, the links in other articles are the main use of the article titles. Btw, the Google trends chart means absolutely nothing to me. Can you summarize? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the internal links are important, but all other factors aren't equal. There are good enough arguments on both sides. Repeated move requests and rejections count for something, like past consensus. PrBeacon (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. No primary topic, so main article is a disambig page. The only reason it rankles is that the same logic is not applied to New York and Washington - clearly no primary topic exists there, but in those instances the "state trumps city because it's a higher order entity" folk win out - what's the difference between those cases and this? SteveRwanda (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree but sometimes striving for consistency can be counterproductive. Another editor makes a strong case against having a disamb.page for New York: Talk:New_York/Archive_3#Lack_of_primary_topic_does_NOT_necessitate_a_disambiguation_page and I think the same would apply to Washington. Why it doesn't apply to this case (U.S. state & another country) is more subtle and, perhaps, subjective. PrBeacon (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am coming at this from a slightly different angle, the need for consistency across Wikipedia for naming conventions on nation-state articles. I have kicked off a discussion about it at the project page and would welcome views - my reaction to the bit in the header of this talk page about primacy is that it is wrong, because Georgia the country clearly rates higher than other Georgias and so this should trump sillinesses like Google search counts in a grown-up cyclopedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Georgia the country clearly rates higher than other Georgias" - thanks, feels nice to hear that although I know that it is not true. Georgia the state has the larger economy (by far), has more people, arguably its cultural, economic and political influence as a state is higher. Georgia the country has a longer written history, albeit it was usually at fringes of empires (unfortunately). Georgia the state has a shorter written history, but might have made more impact globally. What rates higher - the state or the country - is very subjective and depends entirely on the interests of the reader. Btw, the name of the country is Sakartvelo anyway and not Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.229.183 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot be serious

That is all. I can't be bothered to rehash the arguments for giving the country primary topic status, which have been made ad nauseum. I just think it is ridiculous that so many American editors of Wikipedia think the clash of names with their country's internal subdivision merits the demotion of an article on a country to a parenthesized title. I expected better. I say this not as some anti-American that many people reading this comment no doubt imagine me to be: I came to this article after reading about the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which I admire greatly and just used on a talk page to argue against an example of censorship on Wikipedia. To my dismay, I found that that article has a redirect from First Amendment (unqualified), as if no one else has amended their constitution. The other countries of the world are not really so important, I guess. Trust me: this kind of bias looks really amateurish and stupid. Wikipedia can do better than this! Terminal emulator (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you don't wish to rehash the arguments, why did you post the above (which adds nothing new to the proceedings)? —David Levy 18:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As a piece of feedback from a disappointed reader, which ought to be a data point for Wikipedia editors considering what to do with this page. Terminal emulator (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how such commentary can accomplish anything other than reigniting arguments that have been thoroughly covered many times over. —David Levy 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This will be my last post on this topic because what I had to say has clearly gone in one ear and out the other. The point was that I, as a reader, think you editors have come to the wrong decision about this page, and wanted to tell you this as a piece of feedback that I hoped you would find somewhat useful. Evidently you don't consider it to be of much consequence and have made up your mind about the dispute. That's that then! Terminal emulator (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way about Wikipedia. The only thing that your commentary does is basically rehash one of the frequently raised arguments here that the title "Georgia (country)" with the disambiguating word in parentheses "demotes" that article and make it "less important". But the reality here on Wikipedia is that those who argue against that here, and those who did support that renaming of the First Amendment page, seem to want to strictly enforce the rules on Wikipedia:Disambiguation regarding primary topics - only topics that are highly likely -- much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined -- to be the subject being sought by readers should get titles with no disambiguating word in parentheses. To them, it is all about helping the reader to search and find topics when they use the search box. Issues about the perception that "topics are being demoted or promoted" by the parentheses in the article titles are irrelevant to them. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)