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) (Poll archive) Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Republic of Georgia", May 2005: Opposed. (Discussion archive) Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", July 2006: No consensus for move. (Discussion archive) Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", July 2007: Being discussed. (Current discussion)

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

Interesting info: (UTC)www.iranian.com/Travelers/June97/Chardin/index.shtml

Tskhinvali

There's a contradiction in the administrative division section of the article. Tskhinvali is listed among the raions of Georgia while the map to the right does not show such raion. Am I right to think that the map is right and the list is wrong? Alæxis_¿question? 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Am I right to think that the map is right and the list is wrong?" , hehe. Why i’m not surprised that you made this assumption. Just a question though. Did, even for a fraction of a second, it occur to you it could be otherwise?

(aaah....i hate replies like this one, but just couldn’t resist)

The map is evidently worng. It doesn't show Tskhinvali and some other raionis of Georgia.--Kober^Talk 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

unlike Abkhazia, south ossetia is not an autonomic republic since it was renounced by the government at the biggining of 1990s. so I think there is nothing wrong with the map --Polscience (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

What are you doing? Thanks for your interest in Georgia, but you can not write here everything you have read somewhere. This is not a forum. At least you will have to go to the history section. After awhile I will revert all the recent changes, and don't accuse me in some POV. Tamokk 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the blanking, but nothing was better then such lead section. Unfortunately it has to be written anew again. Or just restore the last consensus version. Tamokk 05:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Perhaps one could include some trivia such as the fact that people cheered for sportsmen from Georgia during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.

Are you serious? See WP:TRIVIA.--Svetovid 12:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the article

I'd like to have this article flagged for biased content. For one thing, it does not site the Orthodox Church's heavy involvement in the Rose Revolution incidents. For another, it says that religious discrimination is practically unknown in the country, when several religions are banned or persecuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronMaidenRocks (talk • contribs) 04:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed the line about Protestants in the religious section. But it is still contradictory to say in one line that Protestants are met with heavy opposition, and that there are no religious conflicts in another. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No religion is banned or persecuted in Georgia. The radical Orthodox leaders who encouraged hatred against other religions were cast in prison shortly after the Rose Revolution. --Kober^Talk 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting line of comments, since someone seems to have deleted any reference to Protestants. They may or may not be persecuted in Georgia, but someone wanted them purged from this article! Also, someone with good source materials needs to edit the section on the history of Christianity in Georgia, which is not at all objective. It states obviously legendary material as factual. The article ought to take a neutral position on whether the mantle of Christ is really in Georgia and simply say that there is such a claim.Ftjrwrites (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the Religion section that describes the well documented physical violence that occurred in Georgia against Protestant denominations. I have sourced my material well, and the material contains additional sources. Please do not remove them. If you have evidence that this violence has stopped occurring please give me links and the paragraph will be worded in past-tense. The articles about Georgia religion will also need to be edited to reflect this paragraph. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Department of State's 2007 reprt:

The status of respect for religious freedom by the Government continued to improve during the period covered by this report, and government policy continued to contribute to the free practice of religion in most instances… Attacks on religious minorities, including violence, verbal harassment, and disruption of services and meetings, continued to decrease… Past incidents of abuse were committed by or attributed to a small group of GOC extremists, who were subsequently repudiated by the GOC or successfully prosecuted. The GOC excommunicated Paata Bluashvili, and on May 30, 2007, he was convicted of abuse, but when released on bail he did not return to custody. Two other extremists, Mkalashvili and Ivanidze, remained in prison. Other reported extremists remained at large and unprosecuted but did not commit any known violent acts during the period covered by this report.

International Religious Freedom Report 2007--Kober^Talk 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I like your username, btw. Yes, they rock. :) --Kober^Talk 12:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I believe that the current wording of the paragraph should be rephrased if necessary to indicate that major mob violence has ceased. The report you linked to indicated that religious hostility and freedom of religion is still an issue in Georgia. Before my edit, religious oppression was blatantly said to be "unheard of". The article, and subsidiary articles about Georgian religion, needs to reflect that religious hostility exists there to a degree. Edit: Oh, I see you already did that. Thanks for your help--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory stats

The article offers two very different statistics for the percentages of religious minorities. One appears in the general section on the population and the next appears in the section specifically discussing religion. The second set of statistics depicts a much more robust group of religious minorities while the first set implies that they are only trace elements. Unless there's some real controversy about how these groups are counted, could someone find an authoritative source for this and give good numbers? If there is controversy, then let's say that and no offer two contradictory sets of data without explanation.Ftjrwrites (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate on Monarchy

As the information reached my ears i searched it in wikipedia and it wasn't here, so i added it. I put the reference and it's the 30th one. I hope i didn't made any aggressions to wikipedia's rules

189.32.158.41 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The debate is becoming increasingly notable and even deserves a separate article. However, the link you provided contains an inaccurate info. There were no such consultations in the Parliament of Georgia, specifically in October 2007. I'm sorry I have to remove your passage, but I'll definitely restore it in an updated and referenced form. Thanks for a great idea. --Kober^Talk 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reformist government?

What is meant by a reformist government? Especially when considering the anti-democratic behaviour of the government recently, it is very obscure, if not propagandistic - I suggest that it simply read pro-Western, applied to/joined Nato, without any claims about implications for improvement of the society - that is for future historians to decide. 204.83.135.219 (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A reformist government may engage in anti-democratic behaviour, there's no contradiction here imho. Alæxis_¿question? 18:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories

What are the criteria for this questionable category? From time to time, it appears in this article, but Russian is neither an official language in Georgia nor it is a native tongue of any substantial minority in the country.--Kober^Talk 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a political statement just some useful info, Sakartvelo has only one official language - Georgian but Russian is known and will still be known for some time in Georgia. Most Georgians are so fluent when interviewed by Russian commentators, this applies to most politicians as well. I will have trouble finding an adult urban Georgian without some knowledge of Russian, unless he is adolescent. Don't be shy, it's good to be multilingual. Wishing you well. EDIT: I hope the disagreements between Russia and Georgia will soon be over. --Atitarev (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not shy at all and I also speak Russian without any major difficulty, but I don't think that Georgia can be described as a Russian-speaking country. Btw, Abkhaz language has also an official status in the Constitution of Georgia. I also hope that disagreements between Russia and Georgia will be over, but not as soon as we might wish. Thanks and also wish you well, --Kober^Talk 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Categories are generally used for uncontroversial grouping of articles. In this case a list of the countries with significant number of Russian-speakers would be more appropriate, imho (the statistics would be rather interesting). Alæxis_¿question? 13:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

georgia is a georgian speaking country and what other language they speak is completely irrelevant. Alaexis you better go back and finish working on your abkhazia pages and then do the russia propaganda. its not an appropriate page to do that.--Polscience 27 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 11:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Europe or ASIA

can not you make the intoduction little less ambiguous ? we dont need that much information. its confusing people

for example: "Georgia is a Eurasian country in the Caucasus located at the east coast of the Black Sea. It is bordered on the north by Russia, on the south by Turkey and Armenia, and on the east by Azerbaijan. It is a transcontinental country, located at the juncture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia - in other words, located in the transitional, mountainous Caucasus region of Eurasia.[3] ". At the beggining it already mentions that it is in caucasus. and by mentioning that it is in both asia and europe by itself means that it is Eurasia.This i just tooo much I think.,

here is also link to the European Union Website that lists member and non-member European States. I dont know what else is needed.

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/georgia/index_en.htm

--Alexuss (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. that will be a nice thing to do. and by the way I checked all the references provided and found out that for example CIA world factbook does not explicitly state that Georgia is in Asia. it just shows it on the Asian map which can be explained by the size and location of Georgia, sometimes it can appear in asia, europe and even on african map if it shows some nearby territories.for example Ukraine, and baltic states are shown on the Asian map as well and many other countries too. I think it kind of disqualifies CIA reference as it does not explicitly state that it is in Asia. However it does say that it is on the juncture.

--Harland1 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by this discussion. First, all the stuff about various sources putting Georgia in Europe or Asia is in a note, and cannot possibly confuse a reader. Second, it is explicitly written in CIA World Factbook that Georgia is in Southwestern Asia. Alæxis_¿question? 09:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I am sorry. I did not notice what it was saying on the top, I just looked at the information below it. it does actually say western asia.Anyway, I think the introduction still has to get better. when this previous user was talking about confusing people he probably did not mean the notes. he was talking about mentioning, Eurasia, Caucasus and transitional more than necessary in the into.It repeats the info over and over or at least thats how it sounds to me.

"Georgia is a Eurasian country in the Caucasus located at the east coast of the Black Sea. It is bordered on the north by Russia, on the south by Turkey and Armenia, and on the east by Azerbaijan. It is a transcontinental country, located at the juncture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia - in other words, located in the transitional, mountainous Caucasus region of Eurasia.[3] ".

I think introduction is very important and you have to agree that this paragraph definitely can get better--Harland1 (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)