Talk:Kingdom of Georgia

Untitled

The present article claims that the kingdom was established in 888, 975 and 1008. Any idea of what is the correct one?--Menah the Great (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Language

As regards the caption beneath the map portraying the peak territorial expansion of the Kingdom of Georgia, what do people feel is more appropriate for Wikipedia from a language perspective:

"Kingdom of Georgia in 1184-1230 at the peak of its might"

or:

"Kingdom of Georgia in 1184-1230 at the peak of its territorial expansion"

I think that "at the peak of its might" is severely unencyclopedic, and weirdly nationalistic and politically biased. I do not see any argument against the far more accurate and appropriate "at the peak of its territorial expansion" - please do not revert, rather demonstrate what that argument might be and wait for a consensus here. thanks. Bdog Drummond (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the burden of "gainning consensus" is on you, since you want to change a stable version of the article, but let's wait for other contributors opinion (however, i've seen that you added back your edit without consensus). Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani - I think you'll find that not only was it a different user who made the original edit this is a reference to, but also a different user who "added back [the] edit without consensus" as you put it. Your edit war is being held with somebody else entirely, thankyou very much, and I accept your apology. Bdog Drummond (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i know this was another editor, but quite strangely, you made (partly) the same changes. Anyway, as i said above, just wait and see, if this edit is endorsed by other editors then it's perfectly fine for me. Also, you should take a look at my comment, for now, i did not present any "appology". regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not that strange that we've both reached the same conclusion; I'm sure we'd both agree that an apple was different to an orange as well, or that red and blue are different colours. Also, just to clarify, you've made two eccentrically spelled quotations above ("gainning" and "appology") which seem to incorrectly imply that it was I who misspelled those words. Was this a mistake on your part or did you intend it to be a sleight? Regardless, I do accept your "appology" and you're very welcome. Bdog Drummond (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

it's just a typo because I have a lot of screens in front of me. Also, i have no comment about your "apple and oranges" babble. regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who originally changed "peak of its might" to "peak of its territorial expansion" for reasons that Bdog talks about. The second one is more neutral, "might" implies other things besides size.--Bencemagyar (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of User:Studiawschodnie

And i'm the one who said above that if your edit is endorsed by other editors, then it would be perfectly fine for me. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Eurasian

There are some tiresome edit wars going on here that are transparently politically motivated. The Kingdom of Georgia (much like the country of Georgia today) was both European AND Asian, it was not either European OR Asian. The term Eurasian is the perfect descriptor and should be included initially in the lede to establish this fact and to dissuade any misleading, politicised efforts to paint the picture as being entirely European or entirely Middle Eastern (and this includes weasel words, structure and context). The lede should make it clear that the Kingdom encompassed both Eastern Europe (and Eastern European culture) and the Middle East (and Middle Eastern culture), and should not imply that it is merely one or the other, or that it is predominantly indicative of one or the other. Bdog Drummond (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Text already says that Georgia stretched from Russia to Iran, so it is clear that it was on both continents. But if you want to be specific and say that it was both in Eastern Europe and middle east, that is also ok.--Bencemagyar (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of User:Studiawschodnie

Conrad Grünenberg COA

User:Vif12vf please stop edit war and removing credible COA by Conrad Grünenberg.

Simply linking to an article about a historical person is not attributing a source. Also neither of these CoA are wrong, but there is no need for a change unless it is a modern version of the CoA already in place. If you really want that other CoA in the article so bad then put it somewhere else in the article! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Conrad Grünenberg was a person famous for his armorial as this person was dedicated and working on them. Not the case with Prince Vakhushti. Conrad takes precedent over Vakhushti as his armorial is more credible in all senses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B417:1BFA:7D20:8A62:19DB:BC2 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This sounds highly like POV and seems almost completely irrelevant. The current CoA will remain in place! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

" The current CoA will remain in place! " - it shows clearly how biased and noncompromising you are. Your behavior will be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Georgiano User:Giorgi Balakhadze User:LouisAragon User:Kober Please take a look at this article. User above is absolutely noncompromisingly biased and pushing fraudulent information and ignores a credible European armorial by Conrad Grünenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment : IP, instead of canvassing other editors and edit warring (could lead you to a block), please provide reliable sources for your edit. Also, please focus on content, not users. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikaviani Stop removing the COA. It is sourced which you can easily access in its description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

IP, again, there is not a single source for your edit in the article, stop it before being blocked, please.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

IP, on my request, this article is now protected by an administrator. However, if you're able to provide sources for your edit, please ping me here and i'll edit the article for you if you want. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What part of my question you cannot understand.? See the source information in the image'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.37.81 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Vif12vf

User:Vif12vf You are a vandal and stop removing the sourced information! Stop vandalism! See the pages presented in the article. Also there is summery in English! User:Georgiano User:Kober Please stop the vandalism of this user! User:Wikaviani I've provided the source but this user is vandalising again. Please see the source. Thanks

Sorry but the source doesn't back it. The CoA on pages 5-6 are similar but not identical. Keep in mind that various states have used different version of the same CoA, this is not uncommon. Also, there is no reason to change the CoA already in place! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you even read the source! It is the SAME COA. It is the oldest dated COA for the kingdom. Stop vandalism and removing sourced content!