Talk:Georgia (country)

An event in this article is a April 9 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Economy

In the "economy" section, I found an unusual statement: "However, revived investment could spur higher economic growth in 2000, perhaps up to 6%". Since 2000 is long since past, shouldn't it be updated? Ralphael 18:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move - May 2004

Hey AllI have added a poll to the Talk:Georgia regarding the moving of Georgia (country) to Georgia. Please go vote, non binding, all the rest. I am simple seeing who out there is still interested in this topic and I don't want to do something preemtively. 24.68.208.246 21:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Hm. Should the titles here be moved to "Blah of Georgia", ignoring the ambiguity with the US state Georgia? -- April

Georgia the country is an independent political entity, Georgia the state is nothing more than an internal political subdivision of the US. Plus, Georgia the country has been called that since long before the state even existed. Georgia the country is the more important meaning, internationally, and hence if there is an ambiguity conflict preference should be given to the country. -- SJK

Are you sure?? The country began in 1991 and the state began in the eighteenth century, which ended in 1799. 66.32.69.62 22:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... weak argument. History of Georgia states, "The recorded history of Georgia dates back more than 4,000 years and the Georgian language is one of the oldest living languages in the world."

That is as may be, but which will be the number one search subject? That's the important question. -- Zoe

Searching for 'Sakartvelo' does not find this page (as it should). -- ignatios

I agree that ambiguity conflict preference should be given to the country. However, vis-a-vis the relative "importance of meaning", it behooves me as an immigrant to the U.S. state of Georgia (from the U.S. State of New York) that the state is 60% more populous than the country and WAS declared a Free and Independent State along with the remainder of the original 13 in 1776. Also it's a close call as to who produced the most famous native (I.V. Dzugashvili v. J.E. Carter)...

I think I.V. Dzugashvili had a slightly bigger impact on history than J.E. Carter... :-) -- ChrisO 09:54, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suggest moving Georgia (country) to Georgia and the disambiguation page from Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation). Whether we do so or not, the U.S. state will still be at Georgia (U.S. state); if someone is looking for information on the U.S. state and searches for "Georgia", they will still have to click an extra link. As a precedent, consider Luxembourg, which isn't called "Luxembourg (country)" despite the existence of Luxembourg (province of Belgium). —Bkell 09:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, Azerbaijan (both a country and a province of Iran). It's a good point. The US state should clearly be subordinate in hierarchy to the country. Your proposal sounds very sensible. -- ChrisO 23:17, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion at Talk:Georgia -- User:Docu

Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Hierarchy_of_place_names_and_disambiguation_guidelines for a proposed rule on disambiguation hierarchies - if adopted it would provide a consistent basis for what to call identically-named geographic areas of differing levels of status (including the two Georgias). -- ChrisO 11:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have to concur here with the consensus. Georgia (country) is the preëminent political entity, cultural contributor, and influence on world history, when juxtaposed with Georgia (U.S. state). It'd be ignominious to overlook that and place them at parity as if the former weren't those things. I propose, as others have, the establishment of a Georgia (disambiguation) page. That way, access to either page will not be curtailed, but neither will Wikipedia be forced into neglecting its responsibility to providing the more pertinent search (Georgia (country)) the priority it deserves. In short, I'd prefer the Georgia search criterion to result in a redirect to the Georgia (country) page. the neoteric Georgia (disambiguation) page would then be an option listed atop Georgia (country), and from thence, one could select Georgia (U.S. state). Earthliberator 00:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree with Earthliberator to make the Georgia search criterion to result in a redirect to the Georgia (country) page. I would like wikipedians to realize that this is just an issue of a technical usage of theonline encyclopedia than comparing the cultures or histories of two Georgias. It is understandable that this is an English wikipedia and most American users prefer a dab page. However, according to statistics more than 2,000 users per month read the article about the country of Georgia and the state of Georgia gets around 800 readers per month. I don't believe that the cultural and historical aspects should be compared of two Georgias, because there is nothing to compare. The country of Georgia is an ancient hitorical country, has more UN world heritage sites than the State of Georgia, has its own language which is different from all the other languages in the world and etc. This discussion is not a cultural discussion. Making the Georgia search criterion to result in a redirect to the Georgia (country) page is not an underestimation of another beautiful State of Georgia.Sosomk 07:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

National anthem

About the national anthem, is it Sakartvelo as stated in the article or Dideba zetsit kurthelus? I just ran across this article and was wondering. Dori 05:15 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I apparently can't read, nevermind. Dori

Yesterday (May 20, 2004) Georgia adopted a new anthem (music by David Kechakmadze, text by David Magradze) and coat of arms (which should be pretty close to the previous one, judging by its description here, in Russian). I can't finnd anything on it but we need at least a new image -- apoivre 16:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

UPDATE The new coat of arms hasn't been approved by the Parliament yet but you can see the project here, behind Saakashvili & Co - [1]. The new flag and the new anthem have been approved. -- apoivre 09:09, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

comment

I'd just like to say that I like the words "...Russia increased their pressure by deploying Security Council secretary Igor Ivanov..." since Ivanov really is a weapon used against Georgian leaders... Hah! --Oceanhahn 04:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

copyedit

I've copy-edited paragraph 1 of the section 'History'. This looks as though it has been written by someone whose mother tongue is not English. I'm not questioning the accuracy of the information given, but perhaps someone who knows more about the subject than me (i.e. anyone who knows the basics of Georgian history) might like to review this paragraph to check that my changes have not intorduced errors. Thanks, Arcturus 21:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Georgia COA

the COA in the main page is not similat to the COA in the "full size"!!! 83.130.27.45 18:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

European country?

Just to state that there is an open poll in here regarding the fact of Georgia being or not being in Europe and if it should figure in the template.--Joao Campos 17:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

mistake

i don't know if i should be writing this here, but in the fact box in Georgia (country) it gives the American Georgian capital not the correct one.

Requested Move - May 2005

Why don't we just change this to Republic of Georgia and the state to State of Georgia? - 68.72.133.233 01:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. (just in case this sneaks in under the radar) –Hajor 04:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose because it would mean more typing: [[Georgia (country)|]] is easier than [[Republic of Georgia|Georgia]], i.e. Georgia is easier than Georgia. --Henrygb 10:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, because the correct name is just Georgia, so any additional text should clearly be disambiguation text (although I would be in favour of moving it to Georgia). —Michael Z. 2005-05-26 18:54 Z

Template:Notmoved violet/riga (t) 10:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Cut-paste move

About an hour and a half ago, somebody cut-pasted the Georgia (country) article. Anything to say?? Georgia guy 14:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. C&P moves are evil. –Hajor 14:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[Title]

Dzvirpaso tanamemamuleno da KARTVELEBO,

Dges aris mtsdeloba wikipedias entsiclopediashi kartuli istoriis gakalbebisa. bagrationta samepo dinastiis web gverdze moikares tavi zogiertma dzalebma, romlebits tsdiloben tsarmoadginon es kartvelta samepo dinastia somxebat. es xalxi mizandasaxulad (rogorts chans) uarkops kartul mepeta istorias da ganzrax gamokavt kartveli mepeebi somxebat (vitom ragats dasavluri tekstebis mixedvit). tu gakvt raime resursi an dzala rom amas tsin agudget, gtxovt imokmedot.

--Promethe 7 Noemberi 2005

Georgian Military Spending

It says here in the Military of Georgia that we are spending 23 million a year .59% of GDP, can someone correct that because im sure it is about 300 million right now according to the news agencies as well.

false "references" on the "annexation" of Georgia by the Russian empire

-You should give sources instead of the politized references

-You should prove, that the Georgian tsar George XIII did not ask emperor Paul about incorporation of Georgia into Russia

- You should prove, that Russian troops (after incorporation of Georgia) did not protect Georgia against Persian invasions, as for example in 1805 Ben-Velvel 23:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

History vs Soviet-era mythology

-David M. Lang is considered one of the most authoritative authors on the Caucasus history; before removing the reference you should prove that his work is politized and give you own sources. I've also given a Russian source which cannot be politized.

-Indeed, George XII asked Paul about incorporation of eastern Georgia into Russia provided that the country's autonomy, the local dynasty and autocephalic Georgian Orthodox Church would be preserved. The manifesto of 1801 was a direct violation of the agreement. This was met by several rebellions led by the Georgian princes, e.g. 1804 Mtiuleti uprising of Prince Julon, 1812-1813 Kakheti uprising of Alexandre Bagrationi, etc. Do you think they were fictional characters? Unfortunately, there's a lack of English-language sources on that events. However, David M. Lang provides valuable information about the Georgian opposition to the annexation.

-I don't want to seem uncooperative, but, in spite of some positive effect of the union with Russia, the tsarist Empire was never considered as a savior of Georgia, but just another conqueror. The fact that many Georgians fought in the Russian armies against the Ottomans and Persia can be explained by a strong desire to revenge for the 16th-18th centuries devastations. However, an influential group of Georgian nobles led by the popular prince Alexander fought alongside the Persians during their 1805 offensive against Tbilisi. Kober 22 December 2005

Dear Kober!

I willingly believe, that Georgians wanted only the help of Russian army, but they in addition also have received Russian government. But anyhow Russian army has rescued Georgia from a genocide and assimilation by islamic Persians and Turks which possessed repeatedly superior forces than Georgia. Please respect Russian soldiers which died in fights against Persian and Ottoman empires, protecting Georgian people.

ps. It not is mythology of the Soviet era, it is the real history of Russia and Georgia, described in many books long before October revolution Ben-Velvel 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You should be naive to think that Russian advances into Caucasus was motivated by a desire to rescue their orthodox "brothers": Georgians. If you follow the same logic Russia also rescued Chechens, Abkhazs, Cerkezs and other north caucasians from their muslim brothers - Turks. More logical explanation would be that Russia was simply extending its empire to south and would eventually get into Georgia whether it was populated by Orthodoxs or Buddhists. Russia often used religion to advance its politics in the region but it does not mean they really cared about the fate of their religious brothers. Georgians and Armenians suffered significantly from it on a number of occasions.

Yes, under Russian occupation Georgians got access to more modern Western culture and education system. Escaping assimilation, might be ... But these were more externalities that Georgians happened to benefit from. Saying that Russian soldiers died for Georgians in any of their wars with Turkey or Iran is an overstatement. Georgian fighting alongside Russians might be …

As for the literature – to analyze or reconstruct any particular historical development more or less objectively one should consider all sources including Georgian, Armenian, Turkish and Iranian. Unfortunately, they are less accessible to general audience than Russian ones.

BJS

bjs

Incorporation of Georgia and Armenia within Rissian Empire substantially had character of protection of coreligionists. It did not give any economic gains to Russia. (When for example England annexed Ireland it meant English colonization and mass confiscation of the land from native Irish). Russians did not colonized Georgia and Armenia and not confiscated the land from Georgian and Armenian landowners. In days of Empire traditional social structure of Georgia and Armenia practically did not changed. As to Northern Caucasus, Russian should occupy mountain Caucasus for good safety communications with Transcaucasia, Georgia and Armenia.Ben-Velvel 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To understand the extent of Russian ‘respect’ to Georgian orthodox church, you should visit Stevitskhoveli, a 12th century Cathedral in Mtskheta, the main cathedral of Georgian orthodox church. The original fresco paintings of the church building was painted over with write paint by Russians and they kept horses inside when they entered Georgia.

Later they abolished the autocephaly of the Georgian church, removed the Georgian patriarch and put a Russian exarchos to govern the church, even though Georgian church was much older than Russian. Priests were forbidden to serve in Georgian and Georgian children were forbidden to study in their own language until the end of the 19th century. Economic gains - how can you measure that? They did not take land from Georgian landowners, and neither did Turks, Iranians, Mongolians, Arabs or any other previous occupiers did. They controlled the country, its black sea coast, trade and military routes, did collect taxes, call Georgians to military service. And, again Georgia was not the end game or target for Russians and they were not going to stop there had not been a strong British opposition to their advancement plans to further South to Turkey and Iran, and eventually India. On the recent your edit – there were ethnic Russians, both cozaks and servicemen, fighting against Georgian troops alongside of North Caucasians. Basaev emerged as a leader from the abakhazian war, but he was not known before that. There were more important players that might need to be mentioned and given a credit to for the massacre and ethnic cleansing, the Russian minister of defense at that time, Gen. Grachov, for instance. BTW, Basaev at time was called a hero, both by Abkhaz seperatists and Russian mainstream media, not a terrorist or a warlord. Also, Abkhazs would not accuse Georgians in ethnic cleansing because Abkhazia currently is controlled by Abkhaz militias and Russian troops stationed there. And almost no Abkhazians lived in the other parts of Georgia. So, I removed that sentence. Expelling of Ossetian families is mentioned in the article. Bjs 21:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems, you do not know when the war in Abkhasia occured. It occured in 1992-1993 (instead of in 1995, data in the article is false). At this time the Chechen Republic was independent republic, not controllable by RF. The Chechen volunteers are not Russians. You also have no proofs that tiny group of people naming "cossacks", carried out ethnic cleansings of 250.000Georgians. The troops of the Russian army did not participate in military actions in Abkhazia. At this time Russia itself was in full chaos and a diarchy. Russian mainstream media did not call Basayev the hero. Basayev was already known as the terrorist, in 1991 he has hijacked russian airplane, in 1991-1994 he participated in reprisals against the ethnic Russian population in the independent Chechen Republic. Ben-Velvel 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make the argument that Russian troops did not participate in the war in Abkhazia. They did participate in it and there are lots of facts that tell the truth. Even President Shevardnadze who is considered a pro-Russian in Georgia tells that the war in Abkhazia was a conflict between Georgia and Russia and annextion of Georgia by Russia. Let us say something about the earlier history. The only dream of King Heraclius II was to make an alliance with other European countries. He welcomed every guest from the Western Europe and also Catholic missionaries. His quote is that Georgia had to catch up with the Western Europe and the best way to rule the country was the way that Werstern Europe was going with. In addition, he was fighting with the three conquerors. Firts with Persia, then with the Ottoman Empire and Dagestan and other mountainous people of the Caucasus. Historians say that there was not a week that Heraclius spent without a battle against one of them. He thought that the only way that would connect Georgians with other Europeans was going through Russia. Georgia and Russia signed a treaty of Georgievsk and Heraclius was left alone in the very first battle that Georgia fought against Ottoman Empire. Russia and its general Totlteben were hoping that their Orthodox brothers would die off in the battle and they could get the territory easier. After that Heraclius even tried to abolish the traty of Georgievsk, but it was too late. Russian soldiers were marching Georgia acting the way they wanted, raping as much women they wanted and stuff like that.
I also admit that Russian domination of Georgia helped Georgians to develop a better European culture and come close to European countries and advance in many ways, but the religion did not play a big role in politics, it was just a social thing that connected Russia and Georgia. Look at Soviet Union, did they treat Ukrainian and Georgian independence movements different from the ones in Afghanistan? No, We had Russian tanks ruuning through the city and shooting the gas to the people with Orthodox candles in their hands. That sounds similar what they did in non-Orthodox countries and they would do in Chechnya and places like that.
Sosomk 11:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gurji

The article says that perhaps Georgia´s name came from this persian word, but what does it mean after all?!... -- NIC1138 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"George" is a Greek name and it means a "farmer". Georgia means a "farmland". Historically Georgia was known as a great farmland, because its climate. Persian and Arab conquerors used to call Georgia "Gurjiestan" and Georgians "Gurjs". In Turkish language the word "Gurjiestan" is still used to address Georgia, but the name Georgia does not come from Persian ot Turkish, because history of Georgia goes further back in the antiquity.
Sosomk

Eastern Europe or Eurasia?

I noticed User:Sosomk just changed Eurasia to Eastern Europe, as the location of Georgia. While I personally don't care much about exactly where the border between Europe and Asia lies (a notoriously vexed question), I would only like to point out that the current wording does not match the definitions of Europe or Eastern Europe given in the Wikipedia and implied by most of its articles. Pasquale 23:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Kober's footnote, 70.65% of Georgia lies on the European (northern) slope of the Caucasus and 29.35% on the Asian (southern) slope. This will surely come as a surprise to anyone who's ever looked at a map of the area. I support Chaldean's reversal to Khoikhoi's version. There is no need to discuss where the border between Europe and Asia lies in this article, since that topic is already discussed ad nauseam elsewhere. As for Soso's points below, what is there to say? Geography has nothing to do with culture or politics, or are we to consider the United States, Australia, and Israel also European countries? With all due respect, Soso's rantings make absolutely no sense. Soso seems to think that a geographic location in Asia is somehow dishonorable, even communist! Now why is that? Sure, the ancient Greeks knew about ancient Iberia and Colchis, but they placed them squarely in Asia, since Asia began at the Bosphorus and Hellespont. In fact, many important ancient Greek cities were situated in Asia, e.g. Miletus. What else? The Japanese are extremely fond of Beethoven's 9th symphony. Does that make them European? I must say I am a little mystified. I thought the Wikipedia was supposed to stick to reality, not emotion. Pasquale 18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pasquale,
I know that we have stopped discussing this issue, but I just have to comment on yout post on Kober's wall. You tried to prove that Kober's notes that 70% of Georgia being in Europe were incorrect. Well, if you simply go to the world atlas web site, the web places Georgia and whole Caucasus region in Europe. File:Eunewneb.gif File:Asnewzzz.gif


The web site does not place Georgia is Asia at all. In, fact it does place Turkey in Asia, even though Turkey is about to become a part of European Union.

In addition, you cited National Geographic Society, which is basically an US based organization. It would be nice to consult some European points of view about the continent. The profile of Georgia on the BBC web site tells us that Georgia is fully part of Europe. So, please let us just end the argumet, because I am willing to compromise and I think that Eurasia is also a correct geographic term to use in the article, when it really should be Europe. Sosomk 00:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is that there is no clear line between Europe and Asia as the borders are arbitrary and realistically they'd be considered one continent as they share a landplate as well. However, culturally Europe is generally a region of its own (as are many parts of Asia for that matter as well as the divide between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa) and Georgia, due to its being Christian and a part of prominent empires etc. of Europe (Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, even the Ottomans, and of course Russia/Soviets) makes it very tough to not (I believe that without them we would be stronger today and we would be bigger country in Europe, so it really does make it harder to include)Sosomk 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC) include it in Europe. I think though that the term Eurasian needs to be used simply because of the ambiguity of the region itself and not because Georgia is not European in most ways that really count. Russia, for example, is also Eurasian as is Turkey and even Cyprus in this regard and there isn't really a big problem as people with half a brain should be able to understand that geography alone doesn't define a region, country, or people but numerous other factors. Until there is a more universal view of Georgia as solely European, the term Eurasian is actually quite accurate. Alternatively, one could leave out any mention of continents and simply say that Georgia is in the South Caucasus as well. I've read that quite often in various books as well. Tombseye 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Soso. Thank you for pasting those two maps, by the way. I find them both fascinating. The second one puts European Russia in Asia, and both put Cyprus in Europe and the Sinai Peninsula in Africa. Oh, well! Obviously, this is all a matter of opinion, not of science. (And, Tombseye, what you are saying is obvious, but we were talking about continents here, not of "a region, country, or people".) Pasquale 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I was merely point out the obvious in order to extricate the people from the geographic dimension which I agree is somewhat hazy since reference books vary as some place Georgia geographically in Asia and others in Eastern Europe. Since this ambiguity exists, using the term Eurasian makes sense until such time as Georgia is universally regarded as GEOGRAPHICALLY European. I don't think there is much debate that the Georgians are European by culture though. Tombseye 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you to keep Eurasia. I just don't want to underestimate Georgia's culture, history and location. We are proud of our heritage and ancient culture. At least we can say that the city of Kutaisi is older than the city of Rome. :)).Virtus vera nobilitas (Virtue is the True Nobility) Inquinat egregios adjuncta superbia mores. (The noblest character is stained by the addition of pride.) Sosomk 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Soso, but don't forget Rome is not really a very old city. In Italy alone, there are hundreds of historically attested cities that are considerably older than Rome. One more thing, I don't believe your habit of editing other users' contributions is acceptable. I have removed your edits from a previous contribution of mine above. If you need to make comments, please make your own contributions and don't strike out what others have written.
And, Tombseye, continents are merely physical constructs and do not have a culture of their own. Regions, countries, peoples may have cultures, but not continents. So, your notion that the physical continents may shift with time leaves me, once again, a little mystified, unless you are referring to the Continental drift, of course! :-)
Seriously, what I am trying to say is that social, cultural, or political considerations do not affect the merely physical constructs referred to as continents. Please refer to Transcontinental nation for a discussion. For example, membership in the European Union has nothing to do with geographic placement in the continent called Europe. Thus, according to the article on Transcontinental nation, Cyprus, a EU member state, is universally considered part of the continent called Asia, but that did not prevent it from joining the EU.
Pasquale 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pasquale, I don't think we need to discuss Rome and Kutaisi, because I think Rome had little bit more power than Kutaisi did:))). In addition, more people know about Rome than Kutaisi too. Thank you for the link. That's very interesting. It actually supports Kober's figures that 70% of Georgia is in Europe. Geography is considered a Social Science and from the social science prospective it is impossible to prove something, but it is easy to disprove. None of us can prove that Georgia is Europe, but I think I already disproved that it is not Asia. Well, I am not an expert in Geography, so I won't spend hours in trying to prove it. By the way, it is so interesting that you are interested in Folk. I am trying to come up withthe article "Georgian Folk" ort "Georgian Folk Dance" and describe the Folklore of Georgia, which dates back in antiquity also. Even Xenophon described the love of music of Georgians in his writings. I am gonna try to get my hands on some good sources and I will try to come up with a good article. By the way, Pasquale, I was just wondering what was your nationality. I would say Italian, but according to your profile I would assume that you are French, probably from Corsica. I know that people of Corsica have names which are similar to Italian. For example, Bonaparte sound Italian to me but he was French from Corsica, just like Iosef Stalin sounds Russian, but he was Georgian from Gori:)) (Even though he did not that much for Georgia.) Sosomk 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Soso, however I don't know about geography being exclusively a social science. I would say it's both a social science and a natural science. Certainly, geology, volcanology, the Continental drift, and physical geography in general, are more of a natural science. But the organization of earth's landmass into continents remains a matter of dispute, even though it is presumably based on physical geography. And that's partly because people are trying to inject social, cultural, and political considerations into it. Kober had gotten those figures precisely from that article (Transcontinental nation) and he had provided the link. However, if you read the article carefully, you will see that it espouses a minority view regarding that particular point. On the other hand, to its credit, that article tries hard to stick to strictly physical considerations. The Folklore of Georgia is well-known and extremely interesting, and certainly deserves an article. I hope you can do a good job with it. I am 100% Italian, although I have lived in the United States for several decades. But you are right, Corsica was culturally and linguistically Italian until it was sold by the Republic of Genoa to France. The Corsican national hero, Pasquale Paoli, a friend of Napoleon Bonaparte's father, led an unsuccessful war of independence first against the Republic of Genoa and later, after the sale, against France. Napoleon himself was born one year after the island's sale to France, so he was born a French citizen, but his older brother Giuseppe wasn't. Pasquale 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

GEORGIA IS EUROPE!!!

Hi. My name is Soso and I am from Tbilisi, Georgia. Dear User:Pasquale and User:Khoikhoi, please read this first (http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/APFeaturesManager/defaultArtSiteView.asp?ArtId=352). Historically and culturally Georgia belongs to Europe. Even ancient Greeks mentioned Iberia and Colchis, which are the mysterious ancestors of Georgian tribes. Various German scientists find connections between Georgian tribes and Etruscans and if is not valid enough, according to Archeological findings of head bones, Georgians are the oldest inhabitants on the European continent. I don’t see the reason why should I be proving the thing that is so "self-evident" on this wikipedia page. The country which is considered the second oldest Christian nation should be considered as the part of Europe too. The head bones say that Georgians lived in the Caucasus long time before Indo-Europeans even got there. Our language is unique and has not mixed into Latin language a lot, but we have some influence from Greece. When we move to middle ages, on of the biggest monarchs of Georgia was Queen Tamara in 1160, when any major Western European country would not even think of having a female ruler. After all, I was brought up in Georgia and I have seen European mentality with my own eyes. We waive European flags ad sing Beethoven's 9th symphony. It is just a result of having a weak economy after all the Soviet oppression and a bad ideology in the country that I have to prove these ridiculous things to you. However, Georgian people are talented and are willing to work and rebuilt the nation, like German rebuilt the country after World War II. President Saakashvili mentions nearly in every speech that Georgia should thrive towards EU. In fact, I don't see why we should not be in EU if countries like Turkey are going to enter it. If you guys read lots of Russian Marxist - Commie philosophies about Georgia you can still keep changing Eastern Europe to Eurasia, but I will l stand up to that and change it back every single time you change to Eurasia, like I would stand up against Commies. Let that be another step for Georgia's integration to EU.

Gamarjoba Soso. Historically and culturally Georgia is indeed an European nation. However, the term Eurasia is of pure geographic meaning and is probably the best solution out there. According to the UN classification of the world regions, Georgia is in Western Asia though our country is a member of COE. Until the pure geographic boundary between Europe and Asia is finally defined, I think Eurasia is a convenient term to use. All the best, Kober 07:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise. Georgia is not 100% European. —Khoikhoi 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I will just wait until the EU and UN update their definitions and maps of

I provided a Georgian POV on the page and tried to explain the culture of Georgia, which is not very well known in today's societies, because of the history of the past several decades. I understood that you took it seriously defining the border between Europe and Asia. I agree with Kober that UN world classification states that Georgia has only 70% percent in Europe. However, the final border between Europe and Asia is not really defined yet. I am really hoping that the growth of democracy and capitalism in Georgia will lead the country to successfully make an integration in Europe and I will be happy to edit the article within several years and finally say that Georgia is Europe geographically as well as culturally. I dont’ subscribe to Khoikhoi's point of view about percentages. Well I will just wait until the EU and UN update their definitions and maps of Europe.
Sincerely
Soso

In addition, googling the continents, one rarely sees the Caucasus included, although culturally it is an extension of Europe. Due to the ambiguity of the region the term Eurasian is applicable for geographic purposes as Kober and Khoikhoi correctly point out. Tombseye 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Title (the brackets)

Why is this not in Georgia alone? It's a country for gods sake. Skinnyweed 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Skinnyweed. Totally agree with you, but please follow this link. Kober 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Iberia and Imereti

The article mentions that the ancient name of the country Iberia and the name of one of its western provinces Imereti may be etymologically related. Although not sure about this, as a native Georgian speaker I assume that Imereti is derived from Georgian im meaning that and eri meaning nation, compared to amereti (am this + eri), by which eastern Georgia is sometimes referred to, and that that applies to western and this to eastern Georgia possibly explained by the fact that the east was historically political center of Georgia. Tamokk 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

Reasons given are :

• Missing citations.
• LEAD doesn't follow the WP:LEAD guidelines.
• Colchis, known to its natives as Egrisi or Lazica ... is a statement that should state a paper that talks about that.
• ... often saw battles between the rival power of Persia and the Byzantine Empire, both of which managed to conquer Western Georgia from time to time. should be more specific or re-written because it is a bit on the vague side.
• For, This made it easy for Arabs to conquer Georgia in the 7th century., please cite a source.
• As a result of wars against the neighbouring countries the population of Georgia was reduced to 250 000 inhabitants at one point ., from a population of what? ... the population wasn't mentioned before.
• The region of Svaneti was gradually annexed in 1857–1859. should be reformulated.
• Needs a throughout copyedit. Lincher 02:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy section: NPOV

I have reviewed the "Economy" section in all country articles on Wikipedia; unfortunately, many of them have NPOV issues, and by my reading, this article is one of them.

Common issues with this section include:

• verbatim quotes from the CIA world factbook
• describing a country's economic policy as "sound", "unsound", "imprudent", etc.
• assuming a link between economic health and low inflation
• using expressions like "the GDP improved" (should be increased), "beneficial levels of inflation" (should be low levels of inflation), etc.
• postulating cause-effect relationships that seem controversial.

Issues in this specific article are:

• World Bank and IMF described as reasons for "increasing GDP growth", even though not even a number for that is given
• "slashing inflation" described as "economic gains"
• implied suggestion that it was privatization of the electricity company that led to improvements now seen

This note will stay up for a week before I'll make any further changes. Please feel free to be bold and fix the article yourself, though! I'll also be monitoring this discussion page, and will try answering any concerns.

If you want to discuss the entire project, you can do so on my talk page or at the talk page for this specific prject.

(Note: this is the fourth country page I'm trying this on, and I haven't gotten any comments so far, so please let me know what you think about the idea.)

RandomP 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We are European

I was born and raised in Georgia. Both of my parents,are Georgian (Western Georgian). My grandparents and greatgrandparents were absolutely Gerogian. I've lived in the US for past few years and I do not remember anybody doubting if I was European ( I do not mean Eastern European) or not. I am New York City resident and I meet people of various backgrounds and I find Georgians have more in common with German, Itanlian, English, Polish or French rather than any other people of the world.

My question is how do Georgians look like to you. Do you associate them with Asian?

If Georgia was Asia do not you think it's geographical location would influence appearance of Georgian people over past 4000 years of it's history?

I think it would be very interesting if more Georgians could add information to this disscusion forum about their experience in regards with this subject to help people to understand who we are.

I do not have anything against being Asian, I think Asian people are very beutiful and I wish I had shiny hair like them and could tan as beautifly as they do. But my Asian friends and employees find it funny and rediculous when I say the country I come from is called Western Asia by some organizations. Inga

Requested move - July 2006

• Georgia (country) → Georgia … Rationale: Countries should take precedent over sub-national units. —FrancisTyers · 12:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a perennial point of contention. There has been an open-ended poll at Talk:Georgia for some time now, which has shown no consensus to give priority to either the country or the state. Rather than begin a new poll and rehash all of the same old arguments, pleast review that page. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and closed that poll as no-consensus. It had been going on for way too long. Of course if anyone objects, I'm happy to have my actions reviewed on WP:ANI. This poll will be open for the standard amount of time per WP:RM, so 5 days in order to get a consensus of 60%. Of course if it remains at 50/50 we can see about extending the amount of time when it occurs. - FrancisTyers · 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Or you could simply accept that there will be no consensus to change anything, and simply leave the status quo. Otherwise, it smacks of just revoting over and over again until someone gets the result they want. FCYTravis 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to say that the last poll was hardly following the standard procedure (unless it was for the era — 2004). I suppose one day non-USians will outnumber USians and then the name will be changed. Lets see if thats now :) - FrancisTyers · 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just being knee-jerk anti-American. It is hardly the case that this is "USA vs. non-USA." You might notice that the very first Oppose vote is from a non-US citizen. FCYTravis 22:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've spoken to you on IRC about the former. I'm afraid it is very much the case that it is USA vs. non-USA, Telex's vote can be explained by the fact that he doesn't want a precedent set that countries take place over regions with regard to names, because of the ongoing dispute over the Republic of Macedonia and Makedonia. The people who are voting support come from a much broader national background than the people voting oppose. Although as always I am prepared to be proven wrong. - FrancisTyers · 22:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What my point is that this issue has nothing to do with the nationality. People who are reading the article about Georgia are probably in most cases American. Another thing that I would like wikipedians to realize is that this is not an Europe vs.USA or some ignorant statement like that. Making the move is not an underestimation for the state of Georgia, because making one more click is not going to harm the article, but Georgia (country) is definitely a ridiculous title and all the other titles such as "Republic of Georgia" and etc are not acceptable by the Constitution of Georgia. Thanks.Sosomk 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support

1. Support as nominator. - FrancisTyers · 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support bogdan 12:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak support We should however keep and expand the "Georgia (country)" use in categories for people, landmarks etc., as many American contributors seem not to notice what it is about unless you make it THAT obvious. Dahn 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Georgia the country has an impact on the rest of the world, whereas Georgia that state doesn't (seperately from the rest of the US, at any rate) Damburger 13:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support More people seem to be interested in reading the article about the country of Georgia than the state of Georgia and there is not a real reason for keeping the dab page.Sosomk 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Following some hierarchy it only makes sense to have Georgia as the country, with a disambig on the top. --dcabrilo 16:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support.--Kober 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Countries taking precedent over non-countries with regard to Wiki article naming makes the most sense. "Georgia" should point to the country, with a disambiguation link at the top. -- Hux 18:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support —Michael Z. 2006-07-05 18:43 Z
10. Support The country is of global relevance, the US state only within one country. --Latebird 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when was Georgia, the home of the 1996 Summer Olympics, of relevance only to one country? FCYTravis 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It's a question of degree. A country is by definition more relevant in an international context. --Latebird 11:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - one is a member of the US, the other is a member of the UN. Zocky | picture popups 22:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Eggric 00:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Rebecca 00:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. We had similar issue with Azerbaijan the country and Azerbaijan the province of Iran. The article named Georgia should be about the country, as the subject of international law. Grandmaster 09:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Tēlex 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Wikipedia is used by the whole Internet population which is well over 1 billion people. Thus of course Georgia should point to the country, since as a subject of international law it takes precedence over other Georgia's. When we think of Paris, Moscow or St. Petersburg, we don't think of the namesakes in the state of Florida, but in France and Russia. Likewise, at least 3/4th of the internet population probably thinks of the country of Georgia, not the US state. --AdilBaguirov 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    But even Americans who hear the unqualified word Paris think of the city in France. Georgia guy 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    I would challenge you to qualify that statement with proof. In my experience the country of Georgia is relatively unknown compared to the state of Georgia. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

17. Support. Countries should have priority in using a generic name. Now, if Georgia (state) also decides to secede... then maybe this discussion would become more viable... :) Cheers all. Alsandro 14:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Just put disambig links on the top of both pages.--Eupator 14:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Not that I'd care terribly much either way, but as a matter of principle I'd say it's slightly more correct this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Strong Support I agree with Alsandro and Adil points. Ldingley 19:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. US-centric to have otherwise. If the move request is not supported, it will merely be showing up Wikipedia's editor makeup; a reason why Wikipedia is not ever going to be NPOV or accurate, majority rule rather than referring to academic authority. zoney ♣ talk 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - other national/subnational naming conflicts have taken similar routes. Wikipedia should reflect a global viewpoint in its naming conventions, not give precedence to an American state over an internationally recognised country. --Sam Pointon 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
23. Support - giving equal weight to a subnational entity over a country, just because it is more common, is a perfect example of Wikipedia's systemic bias. --FlavrSavr 23:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
24. Support - I would hate to see "Armenia (country)" All countries should be treated equal--we don't say "Lebanon (country)" just because there is such city in US.--TigranTheGreat 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - Georgia (U.S. state) has almost twice the population of Georgia (country), and it's a monopolisation. Francis's assertion that country status takes precedent over anything with the same name (even if it is twice the size) is his POV. --Tēlex 12:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (changed to support --Tēlex 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

• Disambiguation makes no judgements about importance, only about two things: what people are likely to want when they type "Georgia" into the search box and what usage incoming links are likely to refer to. Only if there is a supermajority for one usage, or possibly if that usage is the one after which the others are named, shall we use primary topic disambiguation. The second criterion is just as important as the first, as it affects not only our workload in fixing links but also whether a reader is confused. If an article says "The Coca-Cola Company is headquartered in Georgia", someone with only a vague idea of what each Georgia is will assume it is the country if the country's article is at Georgia. Yes, this is in theory something to be handled behind the scenes, but it is a lot harder to fix such links if we have a number of articles that should link to Georgia. --SPUI (T - C) 12:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - The country is not necessarily more noteworthy than the state just because it's a country. They are equally valid searches so the disambiguation page at Georgia is necessary. Jay32183 13:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, Georgia the country is both less populated and less known in the English speaking world. Seeing as this is an English language encyclopedia Georgia the state should take precedence over the country. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Georgia should remain as a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. State and country are about equally well known; Georgia should be a dab page. Eugène van der Pijll 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Country being more important is irrelevant, in the English-speaking world, Georgia the state is on at least equal footing in terms of what people think of when they hear the word. This is the English pedia, we reflect the Anglosphere. --Golbez 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Status quo should remain. FCYTravis 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - based on the wikimedia stats below, the two articles are of the same order of magnitude in terms of access and so Georgia should remain a disambiguation page. --Polaron | Talk 22:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose - When there are two or more clearly important things with the same name, a disambiguation page is used. There exact relative prominence is irrelevant. Rmhermen 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, per Rmhermen. Both are important. Also: debates like this are divisive, which is not good for the Wikipedia community. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-06 08:05 (UTC)
10. Mild oppose. This is unnecessary divisive, and both sides have their valid arguments. I don't see particular reason to disrupt the status quo. Duja 08:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    Actually I think the poll appears to be the opposive of divisive :) We have Armenians and Azerbaijanis both agreeing with each other :) A rare event indeed. - FrancisTyers · 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose, this debate is one of the most famous Wikipedia debates there are, and I doubt a consensus will ever be reached. These articles are of similar magnitude on Wikipedia. Disambiguation pages are an excellent way to increase the world-view of contributors and users. Someone looking for the state will see there's a country by that name, and vice-versa. -newkai | talk | contribs 10:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    Someone looking for the state would see that there is a country from the page, someone looking for the country would see there is a state from the page, because the disambiguation would be noted in the disambig note at the top, e.g. "For the US state of Georgia, see Georgia (U.S. state, for all other meanings, see Georgia (disambiguation)." It really is 0 extra clicks for those trying to find the state, and -1 click for those trying to find the country. - FrancisTyers · 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    However, in such a setup it is MUCH more difficult to disambiguate links to the articles. Editors (new and old alike) continue to link to Georgia for both country and state. The misplaced links to this page are gone through systematically on a fairly frequent basis using What links here to properly disambiguate the links. Such a process becomess immeasurably more difficult if the term is no longer a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Neither entity is so much more important than the other as to warrant being placed at "Georgia". I believe it was inappropriate to suggest this; given the obvious division over this matter, there is little to no chance that 80% or so would be in favor. I am also dismayed by the overt anti-American agenda communicated by the nominator in his opening statements. — Knowledge Seeker দ 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    The second time I've been accused of being Anti-American. I really am surprised :( - FrancisTyers · 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose It shouldn't matter what their prominence is on the world stage, it matters what most en.wikipedia users are looking for. And neither Georgia is sufficiently head and shoulders above the other in that regard to make Georgia anything but a dab page. Kirjtc2 19:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose per older/wiser. Septentrionalis 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose - we have a disambig page because there is no clear-cut Georgia search topic in the english-language wikipedia. If we did, then one unit would be subordinated to the other. As is, leaving the disambig page is the best solution. --Vengeful Cynic 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Telex, anyone would think you are concerned about the move having an influence on Macedonia related issues. However this is not the case. The Macedonian issue is significantly more complicated and cannot be resolved on this basis alone (e.g. the Country vs. Sub-national region). Primarily this is because both the RoM and Makedonia inhabit the same region, have very similar history, etc. Georgia the country and Georgia the state do not share either of these and so the argument is much more simple. I would oppose moving Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia and I hope you will reconsider your vote based on this. - FrancisTyers · 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to vote on this until someone can explain why countries should take precedence over subnational units. That seems no stronger an argument than that population size should be determinative. (Another factor, perhaps: this is the English language Wikipedia.) Thanks in advance. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-05 12:53 (UTC)

The English language Wikipedia is de-facto the international encyclopaedia. The country of Georgia has a much longer history, more importance, a more distinct culture, etc. , maybe not a greater population, but this isn't rule of the majority. Besides, for those USians who aren't aware that the country exists, it will be a nice learning experience. - FrancisTyers · 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For those outside the US that are only vaguely aware of either, it will cause confusion, as I describe above. --SPUI (T - C) 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is understandable that this is an English wikipedia and some users prefer a dab page. However, according to statistics more than 2,000 users per month read the article about the country of Georgia and the state of Georgia gets around 800 readers per month. I would like wikipedians to realize that this is just an issue of a technical usage of theonline encyclopedia than comparing the cultures or histories of two Georgias. In addition, the populations have nothing to do with this. I don't believe that the cultural and historical aspects should also be compared of the two Georgias, because there is nothing to compare. The country of Georgia is an ancient hitorical country, has more UN world heritage sites than the State of Georgia, has its own language which is different from all the other languages in the world and etc. This discussion is not a cultural discussion. Making the Georgia search criterion to result in a redirect to the Georgia (country) page is not an underestimation of another beautiful State of Georgia.Sosomk 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, where did these statistics you cite come from? older ≠ wiser 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming those figures are true, that's 28% wanting the state - too many for primary topic disambiguation. --SPUI (T - C) 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mintguy provided these figures last year. I don't think the statistics changed very much. You can contact Mintguy for more stats.

Ah yes, you're absolutely right Francis, it's not the rule of the majority - which means that if we go by guidelines instead of how many people line up to support or oppose this move, the primary topic disambiguation page is entirely appropriate and we might as well close this debate now. Thank you for acceding to my point. FCYTravis 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to antagonise you here, I realise you think Georgia, as in the state in your country is very notable, but what I'm trying to say is that the country with a >2,000 year history is more notable. - FrancisTyers · 08:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what you think is more notable. What matters is that there is substantial confusion over which place the term Georgia refers to. Thus WP:DISAMBIG guidelines state that the term should be a disambiguation page. "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page."

Clearly, Georgia (country) is not "well-known" as the primary meaning for the term Georgia and there is no consensus that this is so. In fact, if one were to just look at inbound links (as WP:DISAMBIG suggests) I'm pretty sure that Georgia (U.S. state) would have far more - due, of course, to an Anglocentric systemic bias which we both agree exists. Therefore, I agree that Georgia should be a disambiguation page, rather than be the U.S. state. I'm not trying to be antagonistic either, but it seems to me that this move request has all sorts of justifications, but completely fails to take into account what the readers of Wikipedia are looking for. This is, in fact, precisely the sort of situation that the disambiguation page was designed for. We have two highly notable subjects with the same name. Thus, we disambiguate. FCYTravis 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hits for March 2004 ( http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200403.html - WARNING THIS IS A 43mb FILE)
  • Georgia (country) - 2312 hits
  • Georgia (U.S. state) - 1335 hits
  • Georgia [unqualified] - 763 hits

• Hits for April 2004 ( http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200404.html - WARNING THIS IS A 43mb FILE)
  • Georgia (country) - 1606 hits
  • Georgia (U.S. state) - 821 hits
  • Georgia [unqualified] - 441 hits

• Hits for May 2004 ( http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200405.html - WARNING THIS IS A 43mb FILE)
  • Georgia (country) - 2380 hits
  • Georgia (U.S. state) - 853 hits
  • Georgia [unqualified] - 675 hits

Mintguy (T) 21:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sosomk 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I really think using two-year-out-of-date statistics is pretty well irrelevant. This is July 2006, not May 2004, and the encyclopedia has grown exponentially since then. It might even have grown exponentially toward the country - but we just can't know. But I'm quite sure there's now more than 2,380 hits per DAY on Georgia. FCYTravis 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Per disambiguation guidelines, "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page." There is no consensus of the editors of the articles Georgia (country) and Georgia (US state) and therefore there should be no primary topic page. A "requested move" is irrelevant in this case.

Also to quote from the guidelines, "Confusion - Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?" Given that both entities have substantial worldwide recognition, it's presumptuous for anyone to say that they are expecting to view either one. Thus, we create a disambiguation page. This attempted move is preempting common sense. FCYTravis 01:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd have to say that the country has more worldwide recognition and representation than the sub-region in the US. - FrancisTyers · 08:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What my point is that this issue has nothing to do with the nationality. People who are reading the article about Georgia are probably in most cases American. Another thing that I would like wikipedians to realize is that this is not an Europe vs.USA or some ignorant statement like that. Making the move is not an underestimation for the state of Georgia, because making one more click is not going to harm the article, but Georgia (country) is definitely a ridiculous title and all the other titles such as "Republic of Georgia" and etc are not acceptable by the Constitution of Georgia. Thanks.Sosomk 10:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Let the user decide which Georgia is more notable. Where's this "anti-disambiguation" war coming from all of a sudden? No user is going to turn red with anger over a disambiguation page. Us editors are the only ones wasting our precious time with questions such as which Georgia is more important or which Syracuse is more important. No one is asking that Georgia go to the U.S. state! It's a disambiguation page! It does a great role at showing the extent of global Wikipedia coverage for the term Georgia! -newkai | talk | contribs 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Question (for anyone)

Do you think it is possible to have an encyclopedia that is worldwide NPOV?? I say the answer is no, because the United States and Europe have too many differences in points of view that there is no way they can converge. Georgia guy 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note

Note: there is an ongoing voting at Talk:Georgia. However, it has lasted for 2 years already, and still attracts voters. I'm not sure what would be the proper procedure to resolve the "forked" voting. Duja 14:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, personally I think that poll should probably be closed as no consensus. It's been open 2 years already. I'm not about to take unilateral action though :) - FrancisTyers · 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there we are, I decided to go ahead and do it. If anyone disagrees, please mention it on WP:ANI or WP:AN. - FrancisTyers · 17:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there will ever be a consensus unless we split into two separate Wikipedias; one for Americans and one for Europeans. Georgia guy 14:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you not mean one for USians and one for the rest of the world? - FrancisTyers · 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, let's go back to the "what does America mean" war raging on Talk:America! -newkai | talk | contribs 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, Georgia the country is both less populated and less known in the English speaking world.

Oppose this statement, English speaking world is not only the USASosomk 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

By "English speaking world" do you mean the United States? Or are you including all the countries that speak English? - FrancisTyers · 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Which of the two entities is home to globally known multi-national corporations like Coca-Cola? Which of the two has held the Olympic Games? Which of the two has the busiest airport in the world and the largest airline hub in the world, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport? I daresay in the English-speaking world, the state has by far the greater prominence on a global stage. Primary disambiguation is called for. FCYTravis 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So yes, the United States. - FrancisTyers · 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you just totally ignore my statement? Are you claiming that the busiest airport in the world, Coca-Cola and the Olympics are all some sort of parochial American phenomena that are ignored once you step off a plane in London or Toulouse or Beijing or Sydney or Sao Paulo? That's utterly absurd. FCYTravis 21:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Coca-Cola is a symbol of the US (cf. Cocacolonization), the busiest airport in the world, for how long? So the Olympics was held there one year, its been held in a lot of sub-regions in a lot of countries. Was the Olympics widely advertised as in Georgia or in the United States? - FrancisTyers · 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Coca Cola is a symbol of the US. It has also become part of the global pop culture. Whether that is good or bad is debatable, but its massive global impact (perhaps more widespread than any other corporation) is undeniable. One cannot simply wish away our nation's impacts on the world, or pretend that these things are irrelevant. The history of Coca-Cola's spread is inextricably intertwined into America's history of international relations (bottling plants opened up to serve World War II troops, for instance). Are you to claim that somehow we should ignore these facts because it's inconveniently American? FCYTravis 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The history of Coca Cola is interesting, you're right, but it is interesting not relation to Georgia, but it is interesting in relation to the United States (Which is the point I was trying to make). Coca Cola *bam* United States, America and not Coca Cola *bam* Georgia. Do you still think I am being anti-American? I'm disappointed about that frankly. But if I'm unable to convince you otherwise, and it is sad that I can't think of anything that would persuade you of the fact :( - FrancisTyers · 09:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid it is turning into a cultural disscusion again, but the discussion does really make any sense. Ok. I do admit that the Unites States has a great potential in business as well as in politics and this is one of the main reasons that U.S. is the strongest country in the World and has more Assets than EU and Japan combined. Coca-Cola is indeed 100% American and it is based in the state of Georgia, but why does it matter in this case? The value of business is 0 without its international business relations. If we talk about the political significance, the country of Georgia is a very important country politically and geographically. I would advise to keep up to date with latest political events concerning Georgia: by the way the president of Georgia met with with the US president two days ago. In fact, we also do have lots of Coca-Cola factories in Georgia, Georgia also donated the most troops in Iraq if we consider its population and Georgia already ruined its landmark by the the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pineline which is going to benefit the US and Western Europe as well as all the countries involved in it. Personally, I like Pepsi better but that also does not mean anything. It is just my personal opinion.Sosomk 09:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible parallels

As User:Grandmaster noted, there's a similar case with the name of "Azerbaijan". We have the country of Azerbaijan and the region of Azerbaijan in Iran. The region has a larger population (~10 mil) than the country (~8.4 mil). bogdan 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your point is valid, but it is a rough comparison. You can go ahead and change it on English wikipedia without much resistance from the Iranians, because their native tongue is not English. What my point is that this issue has nothing to do with the nationality. People who are reading the article about Georgia are probably in most cases American. Another thing that I would like wikipedians to realize is that this is not an Europe vs.USA or some ignorant statement like that. Making the move is not an underestimation for the state of Georgia, because making one more click is not going to harm the article, but Georgia (country) is definitely a ridiculous title and all the other titles such as "Republic of Georgia" and etc are not acceptable by the Constitution of Georgia. Thanks.Sosomk 10:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not the Iranians, its the Azerbaijanis, are you suggesting that there would be few complaints if we moved Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan (country)? - FrancisTyers · 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my point. For example, if there was an issue of moving Azerbaijan (country) to Azerbaijan on Persian wikipedia, there would be lots of Iranian jingos who would fight over it. I don't see any real reason why the Georgia (country) should not be removed. Sosomk 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Current disambiguation

The current disambiguation should in any case be Georgia (state), not Georgia (country), as the name refers not just to a country, but a sovereign state. There is no difference for Georgia, but there is for other places. Ireland the country is the whole island, while Ireland the state is only five sixths of the country. Scotland, England and Wales are countries, but not states. Georgia on the other hand, is, and the state should take precedence over the country. zoney ♣ talk 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it would have to be Georgia (Eurasian state). --SPUI (T - C) 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be noted that "state" is a better term than "country" for a sovereign entity. "A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern a society, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory." -State ...But of course, it's used in the U.S. as a province-type meaning. It's all a mess. -newkai | talk | contribs 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The US usage is fine too, just that US states are federal states, not sovereign states. zoney ♣ talk 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine. Hence it's a mess :) -newkai | talk | contribs 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)