Talk:Georgia (country)

motto

what is source of motto?

Which infobox map to use for Georgia (country)?

The generally recognized territory of the former Soviet republic of Georgia includes two regions (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) which are not under the effective control of the country's central government. In the small infobox map which identifies the location of Georgia, should these two disputed regions be shown in a contrasting colour (as, for example, in this map)? Or should the entire de jure territory of Georgia be shown in a single, uniform colour (as, for example, in this map)? — Richwales (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I support THIS map! Georgia in internationally recognized borders highlighted in ONE colour. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It would help others who might come here (without being familiar with the subject) if you could explain why you hold this view. Your opinion may carry more weight if you back it up with reasoned discussion. To quote WP:NOTAVOTE: Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. Also, everyone should please be careful here not to dominate the discussion or discourage new participants from expressing their positions. — Richwales (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple as that. Every sovereign state should be in its own recognized sovereign borders. Highlighting these two conflict zones into Georgia may carry double idea as if these two regions were officially "indipendent states" from Georgia. Again, it's not currently in control of Georgian central government but it was, is and always will be an integral part of Georgia. Highlighting those two regions, which is currently under Russian military occupation and actual annexation is planned, when more than 500,000 thousand Georgians are expelled from its homes from these two regions in whole, it's unacceptable to justify highlighting these two regions in different colours as if they weren't Georgian soil. That's my point of view. Georgia in its own borders should be presented with these two currently occupied regions into ONE colour, into ONE united Georgia. I do hope fellow wikipedians would support my position. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I support the current globe map. First of all, it's better than the proposed map because it shows Georgia in relation to the world instead of shoved off to some backwater in Eastern Europe. In regards to the highlighting, absolute statements like "it was, is and always will be an integral part of Georgia" show that this change of map proposal is coming from a highly biased position. On the ground the two territories really aren't part of Georgia. Their governments run completely independently from Georgia (although not independent from Russia, some may say). With the two shadings, both de jure and de facto borders of Georgia are presented. It's not like the two territories are grey. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• To add to Davis' viewpoint, the regular editors of the article page are also regular contributors to those of other countries' as well, please note that we are editing from a WP:Neutral point of view and we intend to keep it firmly that way as it is one of the five important pillars of editing on Wikipedia. Gentlemen, especially those from Georgia, please keep your nationalistic sentiment to yourselfs and bear in mind that this is English Wikipedia, where English-speaking editors from all around the world are here to build an encyclopedia, we are not here to fight with you. If you continue to treat this place as a battleground to pursue your own agendas then we can guarantee you 100% that you will not last long in here. Take a big step back and think about it before you continue any further, for it maybe your last because although you can be bold, that doesn't mean that you can be reckless. Seriously, if your competency is lacking then I'd strongly suggest that you better leave before we BAN and/or BLOCK you, lest you want to bring a bad/foul name to the very country you think you're representing. That is all, best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking (hopefully) a little less ominously, we do need to take a neutral, balanced position — or, more precisely, we need to give fair and balanced treatment to all significant positions that are backed up by reliable sources (see WP:NPOV for the details). Applying this principle here, we need to acknowledge both that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are disputed/occupied areas, and also that the international community (with only a few exceptions) considers these regions to be legally part of Georgia. Some compromises may be necessary, and in this case the best "middle ground" may possibly be to show the disputed areas in a different shade of green — indicating that these areas "are" part of Georgia in some way (because it's all "green"), but "not really" part of Georgia in some other way (because they're in a lighter green). When you consider that there are other people (Russians, Abkhazians, Ossetians) who would probably object that the regions in question are being shown in any shade of green, this map may be the best compromise — equally distasteful to everyone. That's how the situation appears to me; hopefully this RFC will attract comments from more people who haven't been involved here up till now. — Richwales (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just in a naming dispute and I was also reminded that this is an English wikipedia, as you like to highlight, and that we need to do things as it is most commonly done in English language sources. So why does not this apply here? Overwhelming majority of English-speaking countries recognize Georgia in its UN-recognized borders, and their subjects are explicitly warned to do so by the websites of their respective embassies to avoid legal problems. Then why should we care about the Russians or anyone else? Let them do on Russian-language wikipedia what is acceptable from the point of view of most Russian speakers.--Andriabenia (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not follow the POV of English speaking governments, or Russian speaking governments for that matter. We present government POVs as government POVs, not fact. We also don't go by what is acceptable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to report all reliably attested views per NPOV, without taking sides. Unfortunately, the nature of the infobox is such that we can only have one map, so I believe we need to use a single map that reflects the various positions. The fact that this is the English Wikipedia means we rely primarily on English-speaking sources, but that's not the same as saying we automatically accept the POV of English-speaking countries as the truth. There are sources in English on all sides of the Georgian territorial question. — Richwales (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support map showing Abkhazia and South Ossetia in light green as per User:Richwales' argument above. This allows us to present both opposing POVs in a neutral way. The territories are green since Georgia claims them, but they are a different shade of green since this claim is disputed. Personally, I'm not a big fan of orthographic projection maps, but this is a minor point. TDL (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If it so, why is Azerbaijan shown in its full borders? Azerbaijan has territorial dispute with Armenia over Karabakh region. We're not against keeping the map of Azerbaijan like the way it is now, but is it the only case with Georgia or what? Why in Georgian case you support showing the conflict regions in different green when on Azerbaijan you don't? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It may very possibly be the case that the Azerbaijan map ought to be updated. These things are not as tightly coordinated as one might expect or want, and so we can't always read too much into the fact that something is, or is not, being done in some other article. To compare the treatment of disputed regions in the location maps in other articles:

• The article on Moldova shows the disputed region of Transnistria in light green.
• The article on Morocco shows the disputed Western Sahara via stripes.
• The article on Serbia uses light green for Kosovo (which, despite a much higher level of international recognition, remains "officially" part of Serbia).
• The article on Argentina shows the Falkland Islands in light green in its location map, even though Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands is largely rejected internationally.
• The article on Cyprus shows the entire island (including the disputed Northern Cyprus region) in a single colour.
• The article on Spain does not acknowledge Spain's unrecognized claim to Gibraltar at all in its location map.

I don't necessarily agree with some of the above decisions, but the problem may need to be worked out for each country by consensus amongst the people who have been working on each article. — Richwales 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My two cents as an uninvolved editor. Both Richwales and GeorgianJorjadze have good points. This is not an obvious case. The disputed areas legally belong to Georgia. While some wikipedia articles show disputed areas in different shades others do not. In these cases, I'd make the decision based on what is the perception/affiliation of the majority of inhabitants (according to reliable sources) in these disputed territories. JCAla (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, Support two different shades of green as per User:Richwales - show the internationally recognised borders and the disputed territories so the reader can make their own conclusions. We are not here to judge the rightness or otherwise of territorial disputes, but to indicate they exist. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@JCAla: One possible problem with trying to base decisions on "the perception/affiliation of the majority of inhabitants" is that many disputed territories have been the subject of extensive forced displacement / ethnic cleansing. This has definitely happened in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. — Richwales 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Put the map of Georgia exactly as the Azerbaijani map is done! International borders are international borders! How would you feel if someone will kick you out of your own apartment, you and all of your family and then when you'll say that that very place was indeed your place where you lived some other will say well it does not really depend what YOU say but what the others say. Wake up. It's Georgian territory, ethnically cleansed and I am NOT biased. By putting these double standard map some might think that these two Georgian regions are officially seperate and do not really belong to Georgia. That's unacceptable my friends. What would you write if you were on my position? What would you say if your country was being invaded and occupied? Noone belives untill then someones ass is kicked personally I guess. Unfortunately. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze evidently believes that any distinctive depiction of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the infobox map implies approval of the de facto separateness of these regions. That's not how I view this proposal, and it's not clear to me that others believe this. There is a difference between recognition of a fact and approval of the fact. I do think that if the infobox map does continue to show Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "different", there should be a text note below the map saying something like "Disputed regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are shown in light green", so the reader will clearly understand what is going on and can click on the relevant links to find more details. — Richwales 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Caption added, similar to Abkhazia's. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@Richwales and GeorgianJordadze, you are both right. Forget my proposal in such cases - as it is the case here - where "disputed territories have been the subject of extensive forced displacement / ethnic cleansing." Didn't consider this point before. I would rephrase the caption below the map though, Chipmunkdavis. "Claimed but uncontrolled territories" does not represent properly that these territories indeed once were controlled by and legally do belong to Georgia. What about "Georgia in its legally defined and internationally recognized borders (dark green and light green). Disputed territories under Russian occupation highlighted in light green." Maybe with this caption even GeorgianJorjadze's concerns could be addressed? JCAla (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point JCAla. The caption as amended by Chipmunkdavis should be even clearer what the problems are in these areas. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Georgia never actually fully controlled either territory, they split off from Georgia at around the same time as Georgia split from the USSR. It did however control some areas of both before 2008, but that's more detail than I'd like to put in a simple map caption. I took the "claimed but uncontrolled" bit from the Pakistan map caption, so I'm sure it can be refined. How about "Georgia in green with separatist areas highlighted"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe different people will disagree as to whether the areas in question are separatist (seeking to break free of Georgia and appealing to Russia for aid in achieving self-determination), or occupied by Russia (via puppet states serving a Russian imperialist agenda). The areas were legally part of Georgia when it split from the USSR, but the roots of both conflicts predate that time. There should be (and, indeed, are) other articles dealing with both Abkhazia and South Ossetia / Shida Kartli in detail, and we can't possibly give a comprehensive treatment of all the nuances in a single, tiny map in an infobox. "Disputed regions" may be the most neutral term we can use here. — Richwales 15:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed? Do you know what this word even means? That means that there is probablity that these two regions WERE NEVER part of Georgia. And you want to put such a wording here? That IS NOT disputed regions. These two regions are Russian occupied territiories where the ethnic cleansing happened of Georgians. How can Abkhazia or so-called South Osetia (part of Shida Kartli) be independent or may have any official government when 8 out of 10 people are expelled from these two regions. How can these two regions can have the government or authorities when 90 out of 100 have no right because of ethnic cleansing happened and they cannot vote. Abkhazia and so-called S.O. were always Georgian regions with majority Georgian population. In Abkhazia the entire population was 500.000 and 400.000 of them were Georgians which were expelled by Russian help and Russia is occuping these regions from 90s. But after 2008 it made even official and recognized these two regions for future anexation. It is UNDER Russian MILITARY occupation. Put under the map if you're not changing this map.

• Dark Green: Georgia proper.
• Highlited: Georgian territories under Russian military occupation.

--GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• They are not going to include Georgian territories under Russian military occupation because they do not want to offend the Russians and do not care about Georgia nearly as much as probably you do. Perhaps, you should ask for Territories Georgia considers occupied by Russia. I will support that.--Andriabenia (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• And why should I care about the Russians? Are we INVADING AND OCCUPYING Russian soil? Are Georgian armed forces and its bases on the Russian territory? Why should I give a damn about how the Russians would feel about that? I totally don't care, because the truth is on Georgian side. I demand the truth to be written here. That's it. Some say it's upon the concsensus but are we really saying that the color Pink is almost like Black? Are we? Turn on some logic people. We do not demand something that is not ours. We demand our borders to be respected. That's all. It's not about offending anyone, whether they're Russians or New Zealander Kiwis. It's only all about the international law recognized by all international bodies. That's the thing. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What about: "Georgia proper (dark green and light green). Conflict regions highlighted in light green."? JCAla (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not terribly concerned here about whether or not I offend the Russians. I am a little bit concerned about offending the Georgians, since I have some Georgian friends, but I still think we need to find a compromise position here, even if no one is 100% happy with it. Some possibilities that came to my mind this morning: "Regions not under Georgian control after the 2008 war with Russia shown in light green"; or "Areas occupied by Russian forces after the 2008 war shown in light green"; or "Portions of Georgia's internationally recognized territory not currently under its control shown in light green". I would suggest that the caption should also incorporate wikilinks to 2008 South Ossetia War and Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Topics such as the ethnic character and political status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia within Soviet-era Georgia, hostilities and population displacements in these areas between 1991 and 2008, the degree to which the overall situation may have been exploited by Russia for its own purposes, etc., etc. are important issues which need to be treated in detail, but this cannot possibly be done in a one- or two-sentence caption under a tiny map in an infobox. I believe we should make it clear to the reader that a significant "situation" exists here, and provide some links in the caption which will allow readers to find in-depth coverage elsewhere if they decide they want or need it. — Richwales 17:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Something without a date would be preferable, makes things less complicated. They were after all functionally independent even before the 2008 war. I'd be happy with a combination of GeorgianJorjadze's suggestion and yours.

• Dark Green: Georgia proper
• Light green: Territories not under government control

I think we should wikilink "#Autonomous republics", which directs readers straight to the appropriate section of the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Dark Green: Georgia proper
• Light green: Georgian territories under Russian occupation

I support such wording. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: Although I was invited here by the RfC bot, I'm not sure the RfC is still live, as nothing has happened for almost two weeks.

• The one-color map (which deprived the reader of important information about the current extent of the Georgian government's control) and the two-color map (which implied a formal rejection of internationally accepted boundaries) are both inferior to the solution now in place, with shades of green. I congratulate the editors for reaching this result.
• As for the map caption, I agree with omitting most of the detail -- a caption is a poor place to try to cram in all the information about a complex situation like this one. The caption should not refer to these areas as "disputed areas" or the like, because that would not give enough weight to the international recognition of Georgia's boundaries. The current caption states simply that the light green areas are "outside of Georgian control", a fact that is apparently undisputed. The Russian military occupation of parts of Georgia is (properly) noted in the lead section of the article and elaborated on in the text. The article also includes the "high detail map" that covers all of Georgia but highlights more precisely the parts that the government doesn't currently control. That's a better solution than trying to explain everything in the map caption.
• If the current compromise is considered to be stable, then the involved editors should ask that the RfC be closed. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • i agree Bouket (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • also agree. I also was invited here by the RfC bot and JamesMLane's comment ("outside of Georgian control", caption, etc.) sounds eminently sensible. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• • agreeJamesMLane's suggestion seems appropriate. It highlights the actual situation on the ground while retaining territory largely recognised as georgian within the country. More detailled coverage of what is a complex issue is better handled (as it is at the moment) in the body of the article and related ones on the releveant territories Kurtk60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

New Pictures

Hello fellow wikipedians,

Just added 3 new updates pictures so I do hope you won't mind and won't delete it. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOSIMAGES. Pictures on wikipedia articles are primarily intended to aid understanding, and there are limits to the number of images an article can have. The images you have added sandwich text, which is advised against. Would you rather replace pictures that are already there with the new ones? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaced them with the new pics. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I notice GeorgianJorjadze fills pages with this junk, then they get deleted and the previous images are lost. just look at the pics, they are all from the internet, who is going to clean up this junk after him? And what is with all these random images and obsession with Georgian alphabet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananabliadze (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me? What's your problem my dear? You have Georgian username but I highly doubt you're Georgian.

@Chipmunkdavis, this user above changed the pics I've put so I changed them back. I hope you don't mind. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with being Georgian you idiot? I see you are are sticking these images in all articles even as they are just picked up from the internet. Then they get deleted and the articles are left a mess. Commonsdelinker removes this or that, I am tired of it, go away and find another way to express your Georgianness you primitive moron. You're giving the rest of us a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananabliadze (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Shig xo ara gaqvs shen chemo kargo? aba midi moisvi erti. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please STOP CURSING and remove your internet images. The old ones where just fine. For non-Georgian speakers,what he said roughly means: "Do you have it(Penis) inside you, my dear?"(Georgian slang for "perhaps that's what's bugging you because I see no other reason") and then, "Go ahead and feel it(the genitals) with your hand to see if its in." You're such a scumbag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananabliadze (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

All parties should eliminate the vitriol. GeogrianJorjadze, how was the licensing of these images determined? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@Mananabliadze, kidev ertxel gekitxebi shig xom ar gaqvs metqi? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Off the record from English Wikipedia, GeorgianJorjadze has been uploading a lot of questionable images on Wiki Commons without permission from them author/owners of those websites, as such he has been requested to provide it to WP:OTRS or they will be all deleted from the server. Note this is now bordering on WP:Copyrights and will be taken seriously lest Wikipedia wants to be sued for such infringement(s). Patrolling adminstrators please take note of this, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just to inform the regular editors here, GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs) has just been BLOCKED again (his third BLOCK in less than one months), this time for two week duration, due to his edit-warring and disruptive editing behaviour. That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• He cursed me out again before being blocked: "I'm asking you again, do you have it inside you?" Hope he stays blocked, baboon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananabliadze (talk • contribs) 15:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Leave him be, for more please read WP:ROPE. What a shame! Even my kids behave and/or act better than he does in public. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• As another aside, I find that disruptive editors (such as GeorgianJorjadze and Mananabliadze) log-in to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of creating drama and causing mischief. Gentlemen, may I remind you all that the world is watching and that what you say or do here has an impact elsewhere on this planet. And if I were you, I would paraphrase Nikola Tesla (who was "equally proud" of his "Serbian origin and Croatian homeland") when others tried to co-opt him into ethnic and other conflicts in Yugoslavia, his reply was simply: "Long live all Yugoslavs. If your hate could be turned into electricity, it would light up the whole world." PS: Take your time to ponder over this for a change. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Name of Georgia in Russian

Georgia was occupied by the USSR from 1921 until 1991. In the official language of the USSR, Russian, the name of the country is Грузия (Pronounced: "Gruz-ih-ya"). This name is used by all Georgian-Jewish folks that I have met in the US and Israel. The section of Etymology in this article does not discuss this name in Russian. The Etymology of Грузия always interested me. In that section, the following is mentioned: "According to some scholars, "Georgia" could have been borrowed in the 11th or 12th century from the Syriac gurz-ān". Could this be the source of the Russian name "Грузия" ? Please discuss.Wildrucker (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the Etymology section contains a link to the Name of Georgia article, in which you can find an answer to your question. --Kober^Talk 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kober for the very helpful information link! Wildrucker (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wildrucker, Russian name for Georgia which they call and other Slavic countries call "Gruzya" was adopted from Persians. When Russians came into the Caucasus region they came by from the Caspian Sea side where there met Persian empire and "Country of Georges" which Persians called and still call "Gorjestan" which is a country of Gorj=George. From this Russian called in early period Georgians like Persian and Russians called us like "Gurjins". Then the form was changed into "Gurzins" and then to "Gruzins" and the country to "Gruzya" which came from "Gurjya" and "Gurzya". So thats why Russians call us that way. Most slavs do. And from Russian Japanese, Chinese, Koreans adopted and copied the form directly from "Gruzya". But as for name "Georgia" it's one of the oldest forms to have been used for Georgia and its several kingdoms. And that time when Georgia had it's states there was no such a thing like Rus or Russia at all. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 11:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

False account of Russian back-down from its 2008 invasion of Georgia

The section of the article entitled "2008 military conflict with Russia" is unreliable and one-sided. It is heavily slanted to the Russian propaganda version. E.g., the beginning of this section states that Georgia initiated the conflict on August 7th with "a massive artillery attack on the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali," without explaining that the months-old Russian invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia itself was an intrusion into Georgia and occupation of parts of its territories, and that this presence and active military support for secessionist insurgents (encouraging frequent secessionist atrocities and attacks on Georgians), already gave a causus belli to Georgia. This causus belli is one recognized in international law, even if the Russians pretended that their troops were "peace-keeping forces" backed up by the entire Russian military apparatus, including tens of thousands of troops, tanks, and the like massed on Georgia's borders and spilling over them. Allegations of Georgian acts of aggression fill the rest of this first paragraph, giving the impression that there were no prior nor subsequent Russian and Russian-surrogate (insurgent) acts of aggression: the Russians are presented as victims merely defending themselves, just as the official Russian line has it even today. The distortions continue in the third paragraph, commencing with a statement of a seemingly unilateral Russian peace-loving announcement, that "On August 12, President Medvedev announced an intent to halt further Russian military operations in Georgia." It omits however to say that the Russian operations continued unabated in Georgia after that date, and in fact the Russians advanced on Tbilisi itself. In fact, the paragraph also omits any mention of the context of this statement by President Medvedev. It reflected an attempt to deflect world criticism and the united pressure of European and American figures such as the heads of Poland, Ukraine, Estonia and Germany, and especially the French President Nicholas Sarkozy, the American President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to force Russia to desist from their invasion. Sarkozy travelled to Georgia precisely on the 12th of August to broker an agreement with the Russians to end hostilities -- but despite Medvedev's announcement, given to mollify Sarkozy on that date,the Russians did not honor their commitment. Sarkozy was even later reproached by French critics both for personally intervening to get Russian agreement and for the failure to succeed. See "Nicolas Sarkozy defends Georgia peace deal," “The Telegraph”, August 27, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2633048/Nicolas-Sarkozy-defends-Georgia-peace-deal.html On August 15, three days after President Medvedev's announcement of a halt in military operations according to this Wikipedia article, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained in Tbilisi of the continuing Russian aggression and advance towards Tbilisi, and warned that Russia must withdraw its troops behind the boundaries of the two disputed Georgian enclaves. Her intervention, with the might of the U.S. behind it, was in the end more effective, although President Medvedev kept threatening to renew the conflict. See "Condoleezza Rice forces deal on Georgia to end the war," “The Telegraph”, Aug. 15, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2566015/Condoleezza-Rice-forces-deal-on-Georgia-to-end-the-war.html, and "Georgia conflict: Condoleezza Rice toughens stance towards Russia," “The Telegraph”, Aug. 17, 2008, on-line at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2575486/Georgia-conflict-Condoleezza-Rice-toughens-stance-towards-Russia.html So it was the U.S. and specifically President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who finally forced Russia to accept a cease-fire, not something done at all spontaneously or willingly by President Medvedev as suggested in this article. In her 2011 memoir, “No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington”, and directly contrary to the tenor of this Wikipedia article, she blamed the Russians for initiating the entire war to begin with, and she repeated those assertions in subsequent interviews. See Daniel Halper, "Condoleezza Rice Blames Putin for War with Georgia," “Weekly Standard”, Nov. 16, 2011, on-line at http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/condoleeza-rice-blames-putin-war-georgia_609118.html, and Seth Mandel, "No, Condoleezza Rice Does Not Blame Georgia for the War," “Commentary Magazine”, Nov. 16, 2011, on-line at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/16/rice-does-not-blame-georgia-for-war/ She says that Russia clearly wanted to draw Georgia into a conflict to enforce its power over formerly Soviet territories and to ward off Western encroachments, such as NATO and the U.S., in "its" territories. 122.107.211.251 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific changes you think should be made? CMD (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole section needs to be rewritten to incorporate the information I presented above. There is another important item of information that should be included, since it is a significant indication of Russian motivations and attitudes in the entire conflict: in discussions with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in early August, the Russians attached various "conditions" to any agreement to withdraw their troops. One of them was a secret "condition" stated in telephone calls on August 10th, between Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, that the U.S. agree to depose Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. Rice was shocked, and responded that Saakashvili was the democratically elected president of a sovereign nation, and the U.S. would never agree with such a condition. The American Ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad, revealed this exchange in the U.N. Security Council session dealing with the Georgia crisis, the same day. The Russian representative, Vitaly Churkin, objected on the one hand that the conversation had been "misinterpreted," but on the other hand that Russia refused to have any dealings with Saakashvili, and "there are different leaders who come to power, either democratically or semi-democratically, and they become an obstacle." See John Heilprin, "US, Russian Ambassadors spar at UN over Georgia," USAToday, Aug. 10, 2008, on-line at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-10-2107303717_x.htm The U.S. accused Russia of trying to overthrow the legitimate democratic government of Georgia and replace it with a puppet government subservient to Russia. Also see "U.S.: Russia trying to topple Georgian government," CNN World News, Aug. 10, 2008, on-line at: http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-10/world/un.georgia_1_south-ossetia-georgian-government-georgian-forces?_s=PM:WORLD Also see Rice's memoir, already mentioned above, on all these matters. As for the rest, I am not interested in getting involved in edit warring over these matters, and I am moreover convinced that Wikipedia articles are generally unreliable whenever the subject is even a bit controversial and it is useless to try to change this little bit by little bit. The problems with Wikipedia and its whole structure are too massive and fundamental. That is why I merely enter these observations on the "Talk" page, just to make the defects of this article a matter of record. Do with this article what you will: I wish you good luck, but am not too optimistic given what I have seen in regard to too many articles -- some can be improved, others cannot, depending on the number of fanatics/propagandists involved. I should add that I am neither Russian nor Georgian, and merely came upon this article by chance and knew enough to know it was completely unbalanced. That sort of thing irritates me, so I wrote this up.122.107.211.251 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

i think russian language should be listed as some kind of official status

abkhazia and south osseitia are under russian control and the language is there official, even if the territories would go back to Georgia its so manifested now it wouldnt change that way, it should be listed as official regional language in these territories like the crimea in ukrainian article.--Alibaba445 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Under Georgian law, Russian isn't official. Georgian law is what defines Georgia's official language. Abkhazian could be added as a regional language though. CMD (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Alibaba445, it's not Russians or these two puppet regimes who make the rules in these two regions, but Georgia and Georgians. They may take whatever rules out there, but it won't EVER have a legal basis. Sooner or later, these two regions will be under full Georgian control once again when Georgia's unity will be restored and we will make rules from the beginning as we did thousands and thousands of years. Georgianჯორჯაძე 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)