Talk:Georgia (country): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:11, 13 September 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Georgia (country) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 7 days

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Not moved, 19 August 2013, Discussion
RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia, U.S., Withdrawn, 24 July 2014, Discussion
RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (state), Not moved, 23 November 2016, Discussion
RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (American state), Not moved, 5 January 2018, Discussion
RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (state), Not moved, 6 April 2019, Discussion
RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Not moved, 11 July 2021, Discussion
RM, Georgia → Georgia (disambiguation), Procedural close, 17 January 2022, Discussion
RM, Georgia → Georgia (disambiguation), Speedy close, 24 April 2022, Discussion
RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Not moved, 29 September 2023, Discussion

Older discussions:

RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Opposed, 2003
RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Opposed, 6 May 2004, Discussion (Poll)
RM, Georgia (country) → Republic of Georgia, Opposed, 23 May 2005, Discussion
RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, No consensus, 5 July 2006, Discussion
RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, No consensus, 11 July 2007, Discussion
RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, No consensus, 15 March 2008, Discussion

The "Georgia" move discussions in a nutshell:

On Wikipedia, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is primarily used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set that the article's subject is a part of.
The basic debate has been whether the Eurasian country should be the primary topic, and therefore does not need any parenthesised word in the title. Those in favor of such a move often argue that internationally recognised countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the U.S. state, though there are other suggested reasons for primary topic. Some proponents of a move have also argued that the current failure to recognize Georgia (the country) as the primary topic displays a U.S.-centric bias.
Opponents of such a renaming note that under Wikipedia's guidelines, the primary topic can be determined based on which one is significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings as well as which one is more important or significant. They generally dispute that the U.S. state of Georgia is any less important; in fact, given the significantly greater size of its population, economy (especially its film industry), geographical area, and main airport, many argue the U.S. state is actually more important despite sharing some of its sovereignty with the United States federal government and not having a seat in the United Nations. They have also argued in the past that since the Eurasian country was (at the time of the above linked discussions) being actually slightly less searched for than the U.S. state, the former should not be the primary topic. Based on all of the foregoing factors, some contend the U.S. state should be the primary topic with no qualifier in its title. Some opponents have also argued that having Georgia as a disambiguation page is a better way to catch cases where an article contains wikilinks to the bare name "Georgia" that should be disambiguated.

Georgia (country) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 21, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Countries B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Post-Soviet states article edit by anon

Please process this issue (confirm, add refs, rewrite the paragraph historically, etc.). `'Míkka >t 00:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Processed" to the best of my ability on 8 September 2008. --Zlerman (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Article comparing Georgia and Kosovo.

Interesting article here.

Georgia shows Canada was rash on Kosovo ON TARGET By SCOTT TAYLOR - Tue. Sep 2 - 5:36 AM

(Quote) BACK ON March 18 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada would recognize Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence many decried this decision as a violation of the United Nations charter.

It was without a UN mandate that NATO had intervened in the clash between Serbian security forces and Albanian separatist guerrillas in 1999. However, it was UN Resolution 1244 that brought a ceasefire to the disputed province, and although NATO troops were to replace Serb forces in providing security, Kosovo was to remain the sovereign territory of Serbia. (MORE @ LINK)

Kinda true, shouldn't South Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to breakaway if they want too?

CaribDigita (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen alot of comparisons of Kosovo and S. Ossetia, superficially they seem similar but the history of alignment is very different. In the most generalized terms-

South Ossetia and Abkhazia have traditionally been in the family of kingdoms that repeatedly came under Georgian control, often by their own choosing for collective protection. This goes back well over 1000 years. Historically they have closely associated themselves with the Georgian Identity.

Kosovo, on the other hand, spent 500 years under Ottoman rule, entrenching Islam amongst these Albanian people. Christian Serbia, while also under Ottoman control for a couple hundred years as a quasi-independent principality, remained the domain of the Hapsburgs, with intermittent full independence and was dominated by Austrian influences.

I'm not making any judgments on S. Ossetia or Abkhazia and their bid for freedom, I am just pointing out they are not like Kosovo. Miglewis (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps all you are writing is correct. However, I do not think that it helps to analyze these details when trying to set up a global solution to this and related issues. Try to find some objective arguments on which basis we can distinguish such cases. Based on this, we might be able to establish objective guidelines for the past and future cases that global history provides. You are welcome to contribute here. Keep in mind that we try to find a general guideline and arguments should be formulated in a generic way; abstain from specifics for individual cases.

Just to give an example: If you tried a generic formulation for your above reasoning, it would be along the lines how closely were the entities aligned in the past? Such a qualifier has apparently many problems as it is subjective how close will be defined and evaluated, and also how far back or enduring was the past? Well, that's (on an abstract level) what makes me reluctant to take your above comment into consideration. Tomeasy_{T C} 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about map and de facto indepence started on Country project

Hi all, as the discussion here has been about how to deal with the de facto independence on maps, and since different examples from different cases has been presented, I think this issue has a lot to do with consistency within Wikipedia. Therefore I have opened a thread at WikiProject Countries to discuss how this issues should be dealt with for all similar cases within Wikipedia. I suggest we discuss the map issues there, and accept whatever Wiki wide consensus is achieved there. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity in name between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state)

I've been having fun joking about this similarity. AFAIK the names aren't actually related: there was a massive coincidence (the etymologies were entirely different, with the US Georgia being named after one of the British kings by the name of George and the Asian one perhaps having to do with farming). 204.52.215.14 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 I've been having fun joking about this similarity. AFAIK the names aren't actually related: there was a massive coincidence (the etymologies were entirely different, with the US Georgia being named after one of the British kings by the name of George and the Asian one perhaps having to do with farming). [[Special:Contributions/204.52.215.14|204.52.215.14]] ([[User talk:204.52.215.14|talk]]) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
-== This is dumb, you guys are dumb. ==
-South Ossetia is now part of Russia. Including it on the Georgia map is dumb. [[User:Xizer|Xizer]] ([[User talk:Xizer|talk]]) 06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-:Seriously it's like throwing Minnesota in as part of Canada. Dumb dumb dumby dumb! [[User:Xizer|Xizer]] ([[User talk:Xizer|talk]]) 06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-::Maybe we should throw in the Mexican state of Chihuahua with the map of the United States. [[User:Xizer|Xizer]] ([[User talk:Xizer|talk]]) 06:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-:::Or how about adding California to Mexico's map. After all, there's probably more Mexicans in California now than Americans. [[User:Xizer|Xizer]] ([[User talk:Xizer|talk]]) 07:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-Neither Russian nor Georgian law support your idea. End of debate [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 07:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)