Talk:Georgia (country)

motto

what is source of motto?

Too long

This article is way too long, each section should provide an essential overview of the topic. In this article my attention is particularly drawn to the History, Geography, and to a lesser extent the Economy sections. They need to be cut, that much information is enough for a whole article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

that change looks better. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the reason I bring this up here is that some editors objected earlier to me simply removing pictures. The gutting of the article I am now proposing may seriously be objected to, yet it probably needs to be done. I've perused through the History of Georgia (country) and all the relevant information on this page seems to be there. Additionally, it has the same picture glut problem. A second opinion about the duplication of information would be good, I don't want to accidentally delete information here that isn't on the History page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to comment without knowing what exactly you want to cut, how your are going to cut and how big your imagined final state article would be. If you want to be careful, you could set up a draft page in your user space. Or else, simply cut ahead and wait for reverts. Whoever reverts will have to say what he dislikes about the new version. --Xeeron (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well right now I'm just asking for other opinions on length. It just seems like its much too long, especially compared to featured country articles like Australia and Indonesia, which have much shorter sections. Probably what needs to be done is each current subsection neatly summarized into one or two paragraphs, without that much detail. An overview of the History doesn't need detailed information on each king. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It can clearly be cut in length. Since you seem to be worried about objections, I should warn you that the recent history (especially the wars since 1991) are controversial topics, bound to elicit edit warring. In some cases certain sentences have only been arrived at after lengthy back and forth. That being said, I still feel that you should just go ahead with the work and then have others have their say later. --Xeeron (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Georgia = Gujaristan ???

The following recently added claim that "Georgia was known locally as 'Gujaristan'" needs to be reconciled with the text at Gujjar which says that "there is little evidence for such claims" — or else the comment should simply be removed here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

disorganised gobbledygook

i wanted wikipedia to tell me, as first thing i read in the main body of text:

Georgia is a sovereign state in the Caucasus region of Eurasia.

instead it told me:

Georgia (Georgian: საქართველო, sak’art’velo IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ( listen); English pronunciation: /ˈdʒɔrdʒə/ ( listen)) is a sovereign state in the Caucasus region of Eurasia.[7][8]

Seriously, is this meant to be intelligible English? Please move the gobbledygook into the sidebar. If this needs to be recommended elsewhere, beyond the realms of this mere 1 article, then please forward it to the necessary people. honestly, who can not see that this jargon does not belong at the top of the main section of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.78.238 (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede again

I don't believe I have to say this, but 1) I did not revert indiscriminately, I looked over what I was reverting (for example including Sophievonanhalt's edits) 2) I have not at all violated WP:3RR, and I'd like to know how that conclusion was reached. 3) It takes more than one to edit war, and per WP:BRD I was following process. I mean seriously, "so technically you are the one who's edit warring"? Anyway, there has been continuous debate about the lede in the past, and Eurasia was a valid compromise between Europe and Asia and the whole dispute about continents. It should not have changed without consensus, and especially not after being reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

When I said you reverted indiscriminately I had this in mind [27] line 287. The previous paragraph was vague and the notation "WHEN?" was there for a very long time. Clearly, it had to be restructured and someone did his/her best to do so. You reverted everything, including this necessary change and this is what I had in mind. As for the three revert rule, I see that you have reverted the changes made by the IP three times on January 8. I reached that conclusion by looking at the history page.--Polgraf (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On line 287, the edit in no way resolved the "WHEN?" tag, giving no date, but simply changing the wording. The tag still applied. In addition it added unsourced information about apparent lack of procedure, which I feel is POV enough to need a source. Reverting 3 times does not break 3RR, reverting more then 3 times breaks it.

Note I did not perform more than 3 reverts, I actually checked before making the last reversion if I had already made 3. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, perhaps while looking through the history page I miscounted how many times you have actually reverted the user in a single day. This does not change the fact the you reverted some good faith edits. The tag WHEN does not still apply as you argue because the paragraph does not seem to refer to a single negotiation but rather a process of negotiations. Since the conflict officially began in the early 90s, there have been at least a dozen attempts to negotiate. The process of Russian military involvement did not have a single date either. Rather, it happened over the course of the past few decades. This makes me think that restructuring the paragraph to make it more general was advisable given that a concrete date was not found for such an extended period of time. Regardless, I must again apologize that I did not count your reverts well--Polgraf (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah nothing to worry about the 3RR thing, as long as it's cleared up. I have reverted good faith edits, but I did so with reason and not indiscriminately, and have given my argument. Restructuring may be a good idea, but that doesn't justify the POV about passports. Anyway, what is your opinion on the lede? I'm hoping the IP will join discussion here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Russian passport information that I provided is not a POV and there are various news sources which I will add —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.134.249 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede is as it should be.There is definitely an overwhelming amount of serious sources that place georgia in europe. Some cited asia sources are also important but I honestly think that simply noting them should be enough in the face of evidence from multitude of intergovernmental organizations which have been listed. --69.142.134.249 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

1. In all fairness it was me who added the Asian placement sources back after you completely removed them. Now you are saying that they should be noted in the article so I view that as a progress in your way of thinking.

2. I reworded your addition to the separatist enclave paragraph and made the sentence on Russian passport distribution more neutral. Although what you wrote appeared true, the tone of the writing was still not in line with the standards of Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter.

3. Because I realize the seriousness of the European placement sources you provided as well as aware that most Georgians themselves would never link their country to Asia either politically or geographically (their education books and historians are clearly unambiguous in this regard), I think the most appropriate notation is Europe. I remember a somewhat similar dispute with the name Georgia. Georgians from the state of Georgia as well as some ill-informed Europeans have pushed for renaming the article. The dispute was not settled until someone provided an explicitly-worded Georgian constitution article 5 to establish the name as it is. I do not see why an official statement from the Georgian government - combined with these sources - should not be enough to keep the article as it is. --Polgraf (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Europe/Asia thing is a contentious topic, and has been debated previously. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 There are others too, but the arguments seem back and forth

By the most common definition of the border between Asia/Europe, Georgia is divided between the two. Stating unequivocally in the lede that it is part of the "Caucasus region of Europe" (Europe has a caucus region?) is not NPOV, as it does not justify this at all. The previous lede never said it was in the "Caucasus region of Asia", it struck middle ground, rather like Georgia does between Europe and Asia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What I see is that there is an overwhelming evidence to support the Europe notation. While there are some sources that place the country in Asia, this evidence is only enough for the Asia notation to be noted if someone gets curious and nothing else. The importance of even these few sources has been overblown as it is the case of the UN reference. While noting that the UN website placed Georgia in Asia, no one mentioned that this was only the UN statistics department preference and that most other UN organizations as I have listed do consider the country to be in Europe. I understand that Eurasian compromise would seem reasonable but when dealing with already an obscure country, would one want to further confuse the readers by ambiguous placement such as Eurasia?(one third of the world?). I think the existence of a couple of legitimate sources such as UN Stats Department, Factbook, and Britannica does not warrant this compromise in the face of a much greater number of supporting evidence. My argument is that a simple notation should be enough. By writing anything besides Europe, we will imply that these couple of sources at least two of which are encyclopedias, have as much weight as the abundance of evidence including those from the EU, Council of Europe, as well as major worldwide organizations - they do not --69.142.134.249 (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Georgia has territory in Europe (at least by the usual definition of the border) and thus gets into European organisations. It is transcontinental (if you consider Europe and Asia continents) and so the organisations you cite have simply chosen one over the other. The UN statistics division chose Asia, UNESCO chose Europe, etcetera. Saying the country is Eurasia is not ambiguous at all, especially since the previous few words specify it is in the Caucus region. It's not a question of sources saying it's European or saying it's Asian. There is a reason that Georgia is on both the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe and the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I see no reason in that at all, that is just the way wikipedia does things. Note well that for a long time Georgia was not included in Europe on wikipedia at all. It was included only after someone made a noise about it and provided legitimate sources a couple of years ago as I recall. Citing wikipedia listings to determine that "there is a reason" to any of this does not suffice. 2. Georgia is in Europe and that is why it gets into European organizations. Kazakhastan "has territory in Europe" as well, why does not it become a member of Council of Europe and get listed by such multitude of organizations as European? Apparently having a land somewhere is not enough. In fact in many of the sources I provided, Armenia is listed as European even though none of wikipedia versions consider Armenia even partially European. Europe is a sociocultural and political construction and whether Georgia is divided into two continents by a river or a mountain is irrelevant because it is completely arbitrary. Why this river and not that? Why this mountain and not that? Why this watershed and not some other? If people themselves view their country as European, they should not need an arbiter at Britannica or wikipedia to decide it for them with such insolence --69.142.134.249 (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should write that it is in Europe while noting - in sentence and not through a notation - that the country is also sometimes considered Eurasian because of its placement in the periphery.--Polgraf (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kazakhstan probably hasn't applied to join these organisations, how am I to fathom the minds of the Kazakh leaders? Noting Georgia's disinclusion in Europe would support my argument, but as it's irrelevant that doesn't matter. Europe is commonly defined as a continent, and thus has borders. In fact, wikipedia has information on it, if you'd care to read. If I was to take your "If people view their country as European" argument to its logical conclusion, I could also say that if South Ossetians view their country as independent then they should not need an arbiter like Mikheil Saakashvili.

To Polgraf, saying it is considered Eurasian after saying it is in Europe would be redundant. All countries in Europe and all countries in Asia are Eurasian. Eurasia was in the lede to reflect the fact that Europe was sometimes placed in Europe, sometimes in Asia. Eurasia in unequivocally correct, whereas saying Europe and Asia requires qualifications. Perhaps a section in Geography explaining the situation? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The south Ossetia example has nothing to do with this situation and was not helpful. By providing that example you are implying that Georgians want to be officially European even though they are not and I do not find that acceptable because I do not see a reason why they would do that. As for the opening sentence, we can note that Georgia is sometimes placed in Western Asia because of its peripheral location if one finds Eurasia redundant. --Polgraf (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The South Ossetia example was simply used to show the type of argument being used was flawed. I'm not using it to make a political statement or anything. I don't understand what you mean I'm implying, but I assure you I didn't mean to make any personal insults or similar. Sorry if I did. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Eurasia is unequivocally correct"? Perhaps we should just state that it is a country on planet Earth, that would also be unequivocally correct as it encompasses all it possibly can. --69.142.134.249 (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I see your point IP, your cynical attitude is not helpful. Here is what I propose:

• Georgia (Georgian: საქართველო, sak’art’velo IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ; English pronunciation: /ˈdʒɔrdʒə/ ) is a sovereign state in the Caucasus region of Europe, sometimes considered Western Asian because of its peripheral location. --Polgraf (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the situation isn't clearcut enough to simply give a clear statement in the lede. That's why there have been so many discussions in the past, with the settling on Eurasia with footnotes explaining the situation. I'm not sure the new suggestion is much of an improvement (And noting here per WP:BRD the old lede should still be in place), saying it has a peripheral location is vague. We know it means peripheral location in Europe, but the reader may not. Additionally, there is no "Caucasus region of Europe". The main Caucasus article even has This article is about the geographic region in Eurasia. in a hatnote.

As for the IP's argument about Planet Earth, he did what I did in terms of taking an argument to its logical endpoint, but I'd like to note it's not analogous as I actually went to the smallest uncontroversial descriptor, whereas the IP decided to just go large for no reason.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, then I guess we can remove the Caucasus wording and include it somewhere later. The Caucasus article naturally talk about Eurasia because the country articles mention it and not for any other reason. --Polgraf (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)