Talk:Georgia (country)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Several proposals have been made concerning these pages. Before making a new one, please review these discussions.

Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", 2003: Opposed. Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", May 2004: Opposed. (Discussion archive) Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Republic of Georgia", May 2005: Opposed. (Discussion archive) Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", July 2006: No consensus for move. (Discussion archive)

Guidelines for editing the Georgia (country) article

• Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
• Only external links pertaining to Georgia as a whole, or official government of Georgia links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Wikipedia guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
• All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
• Please provide references when adding new information.
• Please use the correct citation format when adding references. If you are not sure which one is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.

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

Comments

Georgia WikiProject

Please check out the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Georgia_.28country.29 Chris 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues with introduction

There are some POV and other issues with the current introduction, which I have tried to rectify. First of all: if Georgia is reckoned in Europe (and regarding this there is no argument), it is part of Continental Europe (i.e., on the continental mainland, unlike the British Isles, Iceland, or Cyprus) and in Southeast(ern) Europe, not southeast of it. However, even if this is corrected, this assertion cannot be made at the expense of an equally valid viewpoint that Georgia is in Asia, and a number of other reliable sources (e.g., National Geographic) have been added to corroborate this. After all, that's why it's a transcontinental country. If one performs an online search (which is very basic and not necessarily authoritative but as good a gauge of frequency as any), the number of hits containing Georgia and Asia (56.4M) is just a bit more than those containing Georgia and Europe (55.3M). Thus, it is sufficient and impartial to indicate merely that Georgia is in the Caucasus region of the Eurasian landmass/continent (e.g., compare with Cyprus), with details to follow. Some of the other sources I added were reverted, which is proof-positive of the bias of the reverter and constitutes vandalism, which will hereafter be rectified without argument. Anyhow, until compelling reasons are produced as to why preference should be given to mentioning that Georgia is just in Europe, the current version should stand. Thought? Thanks! Corticopia 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When it says southeast to Continental Europe, it does not necessarily mean that it is located in Europe. Please look at the wording again and note that in different European countries the word Continental Europe has acquainted different meanings whether there is a sea or the mountainous range that separates the country from the surrounding nations.SosoMK 02:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This is totally unclear, not to mention incorrect and unsourced: Georgia may be considered to be part of Continental Europe or may not be. And if it is not a part of 'Continental Europe' (as you maintain), what part of Europe is it in? Peripheral Europe? And if it is not a part of Europe, what continent do you suppose it's a part of? Please drop the illogic and hoodwinking. Please provide a citation from a reputable publication -- none as of yet (including worldatlas.com, which places G. in Europe and is not necessarily authoritative) -- that describes the country's location so awkwardly ... and definitely not at the expense of reliable definitions which do clearly define its location in Europe and/or Asia. Until you can, there is no reason to retain an 'ass' introduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corticopia (talk • contribs) 07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Glad to see new editors on this talk page. May it become more civil. I support User:Corticopias arguments. Tamokk 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I should note that the main trouble with this article is editor Sosomk. Tamokk 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Georgia is located to southwest of Europe in the Caucasus at the east coast of Black Sea, which is mostly considered to be a part of Europe, but we will keep the current wording due to the fact that not all sources say that Georgia is located in Europe. SosoMK 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no: it is IN (part of) Southeastern Europe and part of Continental Europe and or (South)Western Asia. 'Mostly' = 'weasel word for assertion which can't be corroborated. I am still perplexed as to why you insist on retainin an unsourced, unclear introduction which only YOU support. We will keep the current wording until a consensus insists otherwise: only you have recently objected to it. Corticopia

OK: EE/WA -- as opposed to the other way around -- is fine with me. However, it should read 'juncture of EE' ... -- my mistake. :) I also inadvertently placed the locator map for Armenia; my apologies. Corticopia 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy Section

See arguments above. The section seems to be a sequence of selected facts, some of them rather missleading, while it ignores important things, like the effects of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and military conflicts of the 90s on the country's economy. Tamokk 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I made changes to the section. If anybody is uneasy with it let others know why. Blind deletion will be reverted. Tamokk 10:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

me agar mcalia samwuxarod vikipediistvis da aba taqven icit. Sosomk, ise ra mnishvneloba aqvs saqartvelo sad iqneba. shennaiebi sabchota kavshirshic qajebi iyavit, exlac qajebi xart, evropashic qajebi iqnebit da aziashic. visac uswordeba wuwnos, ogond shors chvengan.

Tamokk, ise Kober a ekimia, midi rame kai camali gamoacerine. SosoMK 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sosomk, you've made 4 (update: 5) reverts in less than 24 hours. This is the violation of WP:3RR and you could be blocked if someone files a report. Alaexis 16:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a very nice move on your part, Alex. You are not involved in the dispute and if this is supposed to be a friendly warning it should be done on Soso's talk page, not here.--Kober^Talk 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is equally good place to post a warning imho. Alæxis_¿question? 06:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that it was your indirect invitation to get him blocked. Sorry... --Kober^Talk 06:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the prior introduction has and will be restored, and edit warring regarding this and other article content will be dealt with. Corticopia 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Humans, why are u so hostile to Soso? He has contributed a lot of useful things to Wikipedia. He's now blocked, but you have also violated wikipedia's rules of 3rr and civility. I suggest elaborating a compromise version on talk page before engaging in edit wars. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, why is S. so hostile to us, humans? Now the lead section is well written, for one week... eh?! Tamokk 07:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the question should be flipped. And we did elaborate a conciliatory version on the talk page, only to have it continuously and senselessly reverted without reason. As a result, S. was just blocked for a week for edit warring. And, even now, why do editors insist on reverting to such an unclear, POV introduction which has no source? Please -- let's get on with it. I suggest added discussion and consensus before attempting to change it again/back, or said changes shall be dealt with. Corticopia 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Locator map

I restored the previous Georgia location map for a couple of reasons: 1. It is of much better quality in png format; 2. It shows both Eastern Europe and Western Asia and perfectly matches the intro in which Georgia is described as a transcontinental nation located on the border of these two regions. 3. The Wiki articles on the fellow South Caucasian states - Armenia and Azerbaijan - also use similar maps. --Kober^Talk 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I really do dislike these maps; while I won't revert the change, regarding your points: (1) this is subjective, and since these are just locator maps, such excessive detail isn't a necessity; (2) as the recent map merely exhibits more of Russia (due to the odd projection) and doesn't show the Europe/Asia border, I fail to see how these maps exhibit G.'s transcontinental status better than the prior ones; (3) While other states in the Caucasus may use these maps, this stems from a decision that wasn't arrived at through a clear consensus for EU members and flies in the face of all other countries (per the overarching Country WikiProject) which uses the 'simpler' PNG maps.

Anyhow, when I get a moment, I shall have to create new maps that cover off on all points. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corticopia (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Listen buddy, nobody realy cares what you like or dont like. Do not damage this article any further. When changing anything, consult your fellow editors. Than, find sources for your claims. Otherwise, I will remove your edits and categorize them as vandalism (example: removing the map on which the consensus was found). Don’t wage any rv wars, because it will damage the article and lead you in direct confrontation with other users who edit this article. If you fail to understand anything, consult sources and read more about the country. Ldingley 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not your buddy and also don't give a shi'ite about your dis/likes. Second, I have added more than sufficient sources to corroborate my claims, and have consulted as needed. (The map is another issue, and no one has pointed to a clear consensus regarding it.) Anyhow, you have largely added crap and are already in direct confrontation with other editors, so stop 'damaging' the article with your poor/partial edits and verbosity -- unless you have something useful to contribute, please refrain from commenting. Capiche? End communication. Corticopia 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on me and coerce language is unacceptable. Please refrain from using any aggressive language or words. It is your last warning. Ldingley 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Corticopia 15:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you are not a buddy, you are just a POV editor, and as I told you before, you chose the wrong editors to mess around with. SosoMK 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have nothing constructive to say, don't clutter the talk page with verbiage. Corticopia 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to say? So far you have only reverted and have done nothing for the article, whereas i have written quite a few things. SosoMK 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job

The territory of modern-day Georgia has been continuously inhabited since the early Stone Age. The classical antiquity saw the rise of the early Georgian states of Colchis and Iberia, which laid foundation to the Georgian culture and statehood. Christianized in the early 3rd century and unified into a single monarchy in 1008, Georgia experienced periods of revival and decline until being fragmentized into several smaller political entities in the 16th century. Imperial Russia acquired Georgian lands in a piecemeal fashion from 1801 to 1866. A short-lived post-Russian revolution nation-state - Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921) - fell to the Bolshevik military attack to be incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1922.

Very well written, who wrote this? Ldingley 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was the tag removed from religion section? Why are tags perseived to have political meaning? When I tag the section I do not express my negative attitude. Rather I think the section needs cleanup, and I invite editors to work on it. Namely, parts of the section are written with ecclesiastical language, therefore it does not meat wikipedia standards and needs cleanup. Tamokk 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any ecclesiastical language there. And there is nothing to cleanup, just add more information. 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What is this then?

Saint Stefan of the Holy Mountain relates that after our Lord's Ascension, as the Apostles and His most Holy Mother remained in Jerusalem awaiting the promised Comforter, they cast lots to determine in which country God desired each of them to preach the Gospel. When, with fear and reverence, they cast for the holy Mother of God, the destiny of the most Pure One fell on the Iberian land. [32] After the day of Pentecost She meant to set out for Iberia at once, but an Angel of God ...

And the use of capital letters (for pronouns an so on). Tamokk 07:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not against ecclesiastical abstracts or quotation, if it is indicated that they are such. I could have added sources instead of tagging, but I do not know where these passages are taken from. And if it is an original work of a wikipedia editor then it should be written with appropriate civil English. Tamokk 08:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

There's a grammatical error in the text under the flag. There's written "SMedieval flag of Georgia restored after Rose Revolution" - 83.117.225.78 10:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy section

Not a single sentence will be changes in my economy section without proving a good reasoning!!! The Tamokk version is not good, because it does not emphasize the short-run, but rather tries to show the economic failures of the last decade. The purpose of economy section to show how the scarce resources are being allocated within an economy before wages fully adapt the new price level. What about the mentioning the so-called civil war in the section? Why do economists give a crap about the conflict, which happened in the early 90s? It might have affected the economy as a whole, but it is rather a shameful historical fact and must be discussed in the history section. Also, Tamokk just removed the causes of the cost-push inflation and there is anything to say about that. TAMOKK, DO NOT CHANGE A FUCKIN SENTENCE WITHOUT PROVIDING A PROPER REASONING AND STOP MAKING PERSONAL OFFENSES ON THE TALK PAGE, BECAUSE I AM GETTING TIRED OF YOU.SosoMK 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for recent edit warring here and, upon your return, have resumed you reversions to preferred versions without any modicum of consensus or agreement. The purpose of the economy section is to succinctly overview the national economy: the breakup of the CIS had profound implications on the Georgian economy (as it did with other ex-Soviet economies), resulting in exorbitant inflation, so it deserves mention in both sections as needed. In addition, you have reverted to the ambiguous article lead, despite stability during your forced respite.

Until you can demonstrate why your reversions have merit, they will be corrected. As well, refrain from SCREAMING and swearing at editors on the talk page, as they further deprecate your position. Corticopia 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to know Georgian character: I will not retrieve against the POV editors SosoMK 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What? That's 'retreat'. Refrain from meaningless ad hominem arguments. Corticopia 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You just would not accept the fact that Georgia is in Europe and you have shown no research and knowledge about the country so far. And what about Tamokk: look at the articles he edits: Penis, Vagina, and etc. Come on. You have said: You chose the wrong editor to spar with. :) So that proves that you just want to an RV war.[1]. SosoMK 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My sparring comment was in response to yours. Anyhow, stick to content commentary on this talk page. Corticopia 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia seems to be edit warring on multiple articles pushing the same pov. I think an RFC should be initiated on user conduct.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not emphasize failures at all. 90s years conflicts have affected economy, and should be included in the section. Your version ignores this. Why? If you think it is shameful that's not a reason . The only thing I removed is the inflation thing. 10% is nothing extraordinry for Georgia. You write in 2006 inflation spiked to 10, but how could it "spike" when usualy it is 7-8% (8.2 in 2005)? Also how was it reset when we still do not have 2007 data, if you speak of annual inflation (?). Although maybe there was a little "spike" somewhere by end 2006, but that did not have a great impact on the country, neither was that something unusual for Georgia's economy.Tamokk 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don’t really think that a wholesale and somewhat a prejudiced ban on Sosomk’s changes is helpful. We can integrate both versions into a compromise one. I concur that Chavchavadze’s quotations are excessive in the economy section and the impact of the 90s conflicts should be mentioned, but Soso’s edits do have merit. Why should not we mention that Russian embargo contributed to the inflation rate but was outbalanced by foreign investments? Why the country’s Corruption Perceptions Index is being repeatedly deleted? Also, it is very strange that there is no mention of Georgia’s participation in the major Eurasian energetic projects such as the BTC pipeline.--Kober^Talk 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, energetic projects should be mentioned. I was not deleting corruption, just moving it to the government section. It would get lost through overlapping edits. I think corruption index should be in the gov section, but put it in the economy section if you insist. From Sosomks stock we can also add GDP growth. About 10% inflation I remain sceptical per the above. Tamokk 06:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

About E/A issue: I know that after independence Georgia's governments have pushed the idea that Georgia is a European country, not only politically but also culturally. But the boarder between E and A remains through the great Caucasus range, and Georiga is to the south of Caucasus. Although there are other geographical definitions, which may place significant portion of Georgia in Europe. I think the compromise here would be Georgia's "transcontinental" location and that mention of the cultural or socio-political stuff. I see that technically the other version does not imply that Georgia is necessaryly in Europe too, but agree that it is clumsy and still partial. Tamokk 07:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) is that right!

Voting on the Economy Section

I decided that the only way to resolve the dispute is voting. I think the economy section that I wrote is really good and the one offered by User:Tamokk is inappropriate because 1) Has limited citations and incorrect data, 2) Is not written well: meaning that it does not explain facts from the point of view of economics, as a social science (for example, when it says n 2006 Russia banned imports of Georgian wine. Russia has also occasionally cut natural gas supply to the country, harming its economy. does not explain how it affected the economy and its supply & demand. It just shows the claim and does not explain the fact. and 3) Simply is misleading.

The version which was very well liked by the Administrators like User:Aecis:

Archaeological research demonstrates that Georgia has been involved in commerce with the majority of the world's historical empires largely due its location on the Black Sea and later on the historical Silk Road. Throughout Georgia's history agriculture and tourism have been principal economic sectors, due to the country's climate and topography. For much of the 20th century, Georgia's economy was governed by the Soviet command model. Since the fall of the USSR in 1991, Georgia has seen major structural reform designed to transition to a free market economy. In 2006 Georgia's real GDP growth rate reached 8.8%, making Georgia one of the fastest growing economies in Eastern Europe. The World Bank dubbed Georgia "the number one economic reformer in the world" because it has in one year improved from rank 112th to 37th in terms of ease of doing business.However, the country has high unemployment rate of 12.6% and has fairly low median income compared to other European countries.

2006 estimates place Georgia's GDP (adjusted for purchasing power parity) at US$17.79 billion. Georgia's economy is becoming more dependent on services (now representing 54.8% of GDP), moving away from agricultural sector (17.7%). After the Kremlin banned imports of Georgian wine to Russia, one of Georgia's biggest trading partners, and severed financial links, the Georgian lari's rate of inflation spiked to 10% in 2006. However, the high inflation rate was offset in part by a high investment rate (30% of 2006 GDP) and the country maintained a solid credit in international market securities.

Georgia is becoming more integrated into the global trading network: its 2006 imports and exports account for 10% and 18% of GDP respectively. Georgia's main imports are natural gas, oil products, machinery and parts, and transport equipment. However, the country also has sizable internal energy hydropower resources. In 2004, the Georgian Parliament voted to introduce a flat income tax pegged at 12%, which significantly increased tax collection, thereby reducing the government's formerly large budget deficits. Experts estimate that Georgia has in the past few years significantly reduced corruption, because Transparency International places Georgia at joint number 99th in the world in its 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index (with number 1 being considered the least corrupt nation). This is a significant improvement on Georgia's 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index, where Georgia was rated joint 130th.

The version offered by User:Tamokk:

In the 20th century Georgia's economy was concentrated on Black Sea and Caucasus mountains tourism, cultivation of agricultural products such as citrus fruits, tea and grapes, mining of manganese and copper. There was a small industrial sector producing wine, metals, machinery, chemicals and textile.

After the downfall of Soviet Union Georgia like other successor states of the Soviet Union underwent an economic collapse. The civil war and military conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia deepened the crisis. The country suffered from hyperinflation and industry output diminished. From the mid 1990s with financial help from the West Georgia began economic recovery. Centrally planned economy dominant in Soviet Georgia was replaced by market economy.

There are visible positive developments in the economy of Georgia after the Rose Revolution. The government budget has grown from 350 million to 2.1 billion USD. In 2004 a 12% flat income tax was introduced, and tax collection increased significantly. In its report "Doing Business 2007" the World Bank praised Georgia's economic reforms. The country was able to improve its standing on the Ease of Doing Business Rankings from 112 to 37. Goeriga is developing into an international transport corridor through Batumi and Poti ports, an oil pipeline from Baku through Tbilisi to Ceyhan, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (BTC) and a parallel gas pipeline, the South Caucasus Pipeline.

By 2006 estimates Georgia's GDP (PPP) is US$17.79 billion. The country's GDP growth of 10% in 2006 was one of the highest in Europe. Georgia's economy is becoming more dependent on services (54.8% of GDP), and moves away from the agricultural sector (17.7%). 2006 imports and exports accounted for 10% and 18% of GDP, respectively. The country has unemployment rate of 12.6% and considerable underemployment. The median income remains low compared to other European countries.

In 2006 Russia banned imports of Georgian wine. Russia has also occasionally cut natural gas supply to the country, harming its economy.

Voting

Please cote below:

Support User:Sosomk's version:

1. Support SosoMK 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Support- Very good idea to have a chance to vote rather than have senseless confrontation. I like Soso version, it also includes sources and i think is more suitable for the article both in terms of NPOV and more informative. Ldingley 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Support User:Tamokk's version: