Talk:Georgia (country)

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)

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

This discussion has been archived to Talk:Georgia (country)/Requested move - May 2004.

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

This discussion has been archived to Talk:Georgia (country)/Requested move - May 2005.

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

Can anybody translate this? Nick Fraser 09:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

The Georgians I know often speak of themselves as the 'first and last of Europeans', surely their self-definition as Europeans counts for something. The EU also considers the Georgians as potential long-term (20+ years ahead) entry candidates for EU membership.

On a personal note, I bought travel insurance recently and all 3 of the countries in the Caucasus region (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan) were included in the policy's definition of Europe as a geographical entity. Nick Fraser 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah these kids are not European at all, they look very Asian indeed. Ldingley 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Georgian kids.jpg

Georgian kids in Svaneti

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. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.173.225.111 (talk • contribs) 6:29 UTC (UTC)

Georgians definitely do not consider themselves 'Asian'. Nick Fraser 09:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most people in Russia wiil not call Georgians "Europeans". In fact the country slightly europeized during the Soviet rule (so it has something in common with other former Soviet republics), but in fact they culturally, menthally, linguistically and especially racially differ from Europeans.--Nixer 19:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it is a linguistic outlier but you could say that of a number of countries in Europe (e.g. Malta, Hungary). I'm not aware of a common European culture or mentality (compare Ireland, Bulgaria, Portugal, Finland for evidence of that) . Culturally I would say it is more similar to certain southern European countries, e.g. Italy, Greece (much more so than the UK or Sweden is to either of those countries). Whether Russians think of Georgians as Europeans is immaterial, I think most Georgians would hardly regard Russia as a disinterested party in the debate over Georgian identity. Nick Fraser 21:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is no "common European mentality" then we cannot say a country "mentally close to Europe". In fact, many Asian former Soviet republics closer to European mentality then Georgia. For example, Kazakhstan or Tajikistan is close in mentality to Belarus. Though all the former Soviet republics have something in common. The fact is also that Georgia also racially separated from Europe. All the Caucasus nations have something in common in their race and look. If you place Greek or Englishman or Irishman or Italian in Moscow and if they knew Russian, they will be hardly to distinguish from other Russians, but a Caucasus-dweller will be easily distinguishable from first look. Even some Asians racially less differ from Europeans. The country is also not a member of European linguistic union, to which belong all non-caucasian European languages regardless their origin.--Nixer 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the phrase "mentally close to Europe" is so vague that it is meaningless. I'm not sure about your racial argument, being a maritime trading nation and lying on important ancient trade routes from Persia into Europe, Caucasian genes are likely to have spread far and wide. I've met several Georgian (and Armenian) people and in appearance to my eyes they are often difficult to distinguish from southern Italians, Turkish people, Corsicans, etc. I'd say that Georgians self-definition as "European" is the most factor to consider. The modern definition of European is perhaps best defined as countries which have the aspiration to share common European values (e.g. those defined in European Convention on Human Rights), the Georgians I know see themselves as sharing (or aspiring to) many of these core European values. Nick Fraser 09:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, in fact Azerbaijan is racially and culturally close to Turkey and I cannot consider Turkey a European nation. Rather I'll consider Caucasus nations having much in common dispite differences in religion and political disputes. Caucasus is a cultural sub-region just like Central Asia. About the European convention on Human Rights, I think you'll without trouble can find nations that support such values in Asia, particullary in Central Asia. The Caucasus is much more influenced in cultural perspective by Persia rather then Rome. Most European langueges for example have considerable part of their vocabulary borrowed from Latin or Greek. English for example has about 70% of its words borowed and Russian probably from 50% to 60%. This cannot be said about Caucasian languages, though Turcic and Persian borrowings are frequent in languaged of the region.--Nixer 22:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Georgians are as European as Bulgarians are. I cannot see much difference there. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Ghirla. Thanks. It's a pity to observe that in some cases political differences between Russia and Georgia degenerates into almost racial stereotypes.

I don't think, however, that most people in Russia care much about whether Georgia is an European nation or not. I think Nixer is at least slightly biased when talking about Georgians' identity. He is absolutely incorrect stating that Georgia "slightly europeized during the Soviet rule" (Huh! Whom shall we, Georgians, thank for that? Lenin, or Stalin?). Ghirlandajo is perfectly right in that religion did determine Georgia's orientation to Europe amid the incessant political and cultural struggles between the Byzantine and Sassanid empires as early as the 4th century.--Kober 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Russians themselvs are not purely europeans, I live in spain and evryone takes me for a spaniard. In spanish they have a nice expression for russians: El hocico asiatico (the asian snout) that you can find in spanish history books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.34.68 (talk • contribs) 22:16 UTC (UTC)

Yeah these kids are not European at all, they look very Asian indeed. BTW Georgians are more European than Russians. Ldingley 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Georgian kids.jpg

Georgian kids in Svaneti

Requested move - July 2006

All discussion relating to this proposed move has been archived at Talk:Georgia (country)/Requested move - July 2006.

Request to split page

According to the edit screen, this talk page is 167 KB in size -- far, far too large for a single page. I propose that we split off the recent requested move debate (including all the ensuing sections) into a new page, something along the lines of Talk:Georgia (country)/Requested move - July 2006. As the debate is closed, there is no need for it to take up so much space on this page, making it harder to add more pressing concerns. Also, a recent editor was apparently unclear about the move status and added an "Oppose" comment; I believe that would be less likely were these sections split out. Please voice any thoughts here. --SuperNova |T|C| 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, should have mentioned the relevant guideline at WP:ARCHIVE. It appears to be long overdue w/r/t this page. --SuperNova |T|C| 22:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with archiving. Prolonging the discussion will be unhelpful, in my opinion. You may use "Archive 1" or "Requested move" or whatever you like as the title of the archive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. With stuff dating back to 2004, this talk page is way overdue for an archive. Obviously the proposed move and related stuff should probably have their own section, but you might also want to archive the old threads that nobody has responded to in 6 months into another archive and thus clear things up a bit. --Vengeful Cynic 13:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I finally got around to archiving all three move proposals and discussions on this page. They are linked to from their original subheadings as well as from the "Proposed moves" box near the top of the page. I have not archived any other discussions from this page yet, and would welcome any help in doing so. --SuperNova |T|C| 08:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this page needs a major cleanup. It is complex enough for a native speaker of English to be confused as to where to post their comments, never mind second language speakers of English. Nick Fraser 09:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

renaming

Let us rename. But not the article but the country. This would solve all problems. Tamokk 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

...to... Georgia guy 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your sense of humour Tamokk. Nick Fraser 09:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No consensus?

I'm confused. How can there be "no consensus" when 54 people are in support of moving "Georgia (country)" to "Georgia" and 47 (including Fadix) are not? -- Clevelander 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus means that it must get 60% in favor in order to move. PPGMD 19:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Attaching percentage threshholds implies voting, rather than consensus. Determining consensus in an open community is difficult at best, hence the practice of supermajority voting sometimes mascarades as consensus here. At times, 60% or even a simple majority might be acceptable in a move that did not involve assigning a primary topic for disambiguation. But when assigning a primary topic, the theshhold is higher--both in terms of evidence demonstrating that one use is predominant and that the primary topic assignment is acceptable to the community. older ≠ wiser 20:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to vote in the poll but apparently it's now closed, I wonder how many other people have been in this situation. I just wanted to add that I came here looking for the country and am shocked to reach a disambiguation page. Reading through some comments on this page, this one of the most blatant examples of US centrism in Wikipedia I've encountered. The status quo is really quite offensive and needs to be changed urgently. It obviously conflicts with wikipedia NPOV policy, see [2].

There is a very real prospect of war/serious conflict between Georgia and certain third parties (e.g. Russia) in the coming weeks due to geopolitical tension, this was the reason I searched for Georgia. It's very likely that the number of searches for Georgia will substantially increase if trouble does come to the Caucasus region. Let's imagine there that there were a U.S. state called 'Lebanon', do people think a disambiguation page similar to this current one would be tenable under those circumstances?

Finally, I think it would be interesting to know how many of those people who voted for the status quo in the original polls are not from the US. I suspect very few. I think if we measured 'consensus' by international representation we would come to a very different conclusion as to whether indeed consensus had been reached on the proposed changes. Nick Fraser 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page."

That is the guideline that has been applied here. A majority of links point to the U.S. state, not the country. Your suggestion to exclude people from the United States for measuring consensus, or to count them as a single entity, appears to be nothing more than an effort to stir up anger, but it is probably irrelevant as consensus would not be a sufficient condition for making the proposed move, as the other condition is not met.

It is interesting to note that these sorts of arguments only seem to occur when European political entities are not in the most prominent possible position, regardless of what any relevant objective criteria would justify. See Talk:Syracuse for another example. --dreish~talk 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You measure primary meaning by reference to a highly US centric resource (wikipedia), I would argue that using wikipedia alone and in isolation to establish "primary meaning" conflicts with NPOV policy itself. The "primary meaning" of 'Georgia' judged by any reasonable international analysis (and let's remember wikipedia is supposed to be an international resource) is that of a sovereign country. I am only arguing for parity with every other sovereign country that has secondary meanings (e.g. Chad, China).

I am not arguing that all US voters should be treated as single entities, I just think that the nationality of voters should be considered as a factor in determining whether consensus has been achieved. We could imagine a situation in which 100 voters from every continent in the world voted for change, and 100 predominantly US voters go for the status quo. To say that consensus has not been achieved when the weighted population representation would be 95% (non-US population of world) of world versus 5% (US population), would surely be a pure example of US-centricism.

Your comment about 'European political entities' is not relevant, sovereign countries wherever they are in the world should not direct to dab pages. Syracuse, Italy is a provincial capital (the equivalent of Atlanta, Georgia) - you're saying there is some equivalence between a dispute over a provincial capital of a subnational unit and dispute over the wikipedia entry for a sovereign country?

For the record I am from the UK and am thus, to some extent, part of the 'anglocentric problem' of the English language wikipedia. Nick Fraser 07:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse, Italy and Atlanta are two completely different things, as are Siracusa and the state of Georgia. Your calling them "equivalent" suggests to me that you are attempting to impose some sort of simple concept hierarchy on the encyclopedia when none exists. My point was that this effort to circumvent the rules in order to give a European entity maximum prominence is not an isolated case. --dreish~talk 15:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of your arguments were stated in the discussions above. None of them settled the debate, and despite your protestations, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that addresses discounting the votes of any group of people to determine "consensus". The debate has been closed now for some time; I suggest that instead of continuing to beat a dead horse, you instead review Wikipedia's rules, policies and guidelines for future reference. This issue has been raised four times, about once a year, and each time there has been no consensus for a move. If this continues to offend your sensibilities, you should consider proposing another move in about a year; however, do not expect to succeed any more than any past proposals have.

Thanks for speaking your mind. However, at this time, I wouldn't expect your arguments to really get much accomplished. --SuperNova |T|C| 08:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The debate continues because of the disproportionate influence of US wikipedians and the palpable absurdity of the status quo. Nick Fraser 09:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You may posture as much as you like about how intolerable the situation is, but the fact remains that Georgia (country) is not the clear primary meaning of the word "Georgia" in this encyclopedia, both in how it is written and in how it is used. This is caused by primarily Anglo-American reader and contributor populations, which is also the cause of the Anglo-American point of view, but those are two different things. One is simply organizing articles in a sensible way based on how they are accessed and by whom, and the other is a problem with the content of articles themselves.

Note that one solution to what you perceive to be a problem would be to organize an effort to write more articles about topics related to Georgia (country). --dreish~talk 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

NATO and Georgia

Can anyone help me with some material on this topic? --Georgianis 13:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added some material on this topic. -- Georgianis | (t) 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

GUUAM and Georgia

Need some help on this topic. I need to expand it. Thank you. Georgianis | (t) 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Independence

After being elected Chairman of Parliament in November 1990, Gamsakhurdia continued his anti-communist, nationalist course, as a consequence of which Georgia boycotted the All-Union Referendum on the future of the USSR in March 1991. It held instead its own referendum on state independence two weeks later, in which an overwhelming majority voted in favor of independence. On 9 April 1991—exactly two years after the massacre in Tbilisi—the Supreme Council declared officially the independence of Georgia.

In the following, Gamsakhurdia tried to expand his power position: he introduced the constitutional office of the President on 14 April 1991 and won the competitive presidential polls held the following month with 86.5% of the votes. However, Gamsakhurdia's leadership was soon perceived as too nationalist and aggressive even by his closest allies, and won him an increasingly severe opposition. On 22 December 1991 the conflict took on violent traits: the armed forces, led by ex-Premier Tengiz Sigua, the former Head of the National Guard Tengiz Kitovani and the leader of a paramilitary unit Jaba Ioseliani, attacked the parliament building and forced the President and his remaining acolytes to leave the country. On 6 January 1992, the new power holders installed a provisional government (Military Council). The following month, the government reintroduced the historical Constitution of 1921, whereby a “pure” parliamentary system was established without any kind of presidency. In order to reinstate public control, the coup leaders invited Eduard Shevardnadze, former Secretary of the Georgian CP and Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, to chair the State Council, a provisional representative body in which political parties willing to collaborate were co-opted. -- Georgianis | (t) 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tbilisi massacre

In 9 April 1989, a peaceful demonstration in the Georgian capital Tbilisi ended in a massacre in which several people were killed by Soviet troops. Georgianis | (t) 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Such incidents are not usually called "massacre"--Nixer 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, how do you define "massacres" ? Ldingley 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely called a massacre. Georgianis | (t) 17:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

US-Russia

The massive military help to both sides (400mio for Georgia) gives the two sides the convidence that they will win the next seperationist war. Declaration to be indepent and the establishing a offical exiled government of Abkhazia in Georgia on the other hand adds another point of conflict. The caucasus was a violent area for very long, but representative wars to get influence and access to the stratecically valuable area does not help the area at all. But within near future we will have another war there.--Stone 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Russia's leaders, dismayed at Russia's loss of status as a superpower, seek to have Russia be at least a regional power. What's wrong with this paragraph? It's the reality we talking here. Everybody knows that Russia lost its status as superpower and now is just a regional one. It shouldn't be reverted. Georgianis | (t) 14:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested any deletion! US leaders try to fill the gap the loss of status of Russia opened. The now regional power Russia is surrounded by the forposts of US and Nato and tries to stopp the loss of influence while US ties to gain as much influence as possible. The list of this little games ending in a lot of dead people is endless: Angola, Kuba, Vietnam, Korea.......--Stone 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you didn't, other user had...can you restore please? -- Georgianis | (t) 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Stone, oh yeaah? How about Russian/Soviet butchery in Afghanistan, Chechnya, helping sides in bloody Karabakh war, supporting Abkhaz separatism, arming Iran with Nukes, selling weapons to Chavez, etc? Ldingley 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kuba= Soviets send missles -- US tries invasion Angola= Every side sponsors the killing of the other side Afganistan= Soviets invades --US creates the Taliban Venezuela= Russia sends weapons -- US stages a coup Chile= elections went wrong US coup Hungary= government does something wrong Soviet invasion The list is incomplete and 60 to 90% of all contries of the world can be added. I like both sides for making the last 60 years to the most interesting periode in history.--