Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Misprint

I would like to underline the misprint about Georgian writing as it was invented in 4th Century B.C. not A.D. during the reign of King Parnavaz, the first king of Unified Georgia! It is very firmly stated in Georgian Historians of antiquity!

Georgian Language

I have recently put up a request for someone to create an article on the Georgian language. From what I understand it is a real linguistic anomoly and mystery. It is not related to any nearby languages and some have tried to link it to Japenese....I could be wrong but I figured here would be a good place to request it... -Bob —The preceding comment was added by 219.86.167.87 (talk · contribs) 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Georgian (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be really great to create an article on Georgian language.

Georgian Wine

Referring to Georgia as the original site for winemaking is difficult to substantiate. The reference in the fourth paragraph which includes the origins of wine (see http://www.selectwinesllc.com/repofgeor.html) is actually a commercial website with no substantiating evidence. The next reference, which I placed there, is somewhat better but we still need hard facts to support this assertion. (I have sent a request for their sources.) Right now the region, per se, is considered the birthplace of wine making but the most readily available source of any serious scholarly repute places the oldest known evidence for wine in Persia in the Zagros Mountains (see University of Pennsylvania website for Museum of Archeology and Anthropology at http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/exhibits/online_exhibits/wine/wineintro.html).

Meantime, every time I go to Tblisi I am told that they have evidence of the oldest wine making in the world--but no one seems to be able to produce these sources.

Malangthon 19:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The evidence for the oldest wine making is a discovery of carbonized grape seeds on the sites of the Shulaveri-Shomu culture (Arukhlo and others, 5th-6th millenium BC). How reliable is this evidence...mmm... nobody really knows. But there are serious claims, and it can be mentioned.ZMatskevich 04:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

IF THE FATHER OF ANTHROPOLOGY J.F.BLUMENBACH STATES THAT SOUTHERN SLOPE OF THE CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS PRODUCES CAUCASIAN (EUROPEAN) RACE AND THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY OTHER SCOLARS TOO, WHY WE SHOULD ARGUE ABOUT IT. I GUESS IT IS THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF GEORGIA THAT FORMS THIS EUROPEAN NATION. WE READ IN ENCARTA "Blumenbach, a pioneer in the field of comparative anatomy and a collector of human craniums, based his racial classification scheme primarily on observed differences in skull size and shape as well as in skin color. Blumenbach proposed that all people descended from an original human type, and that the people of Georgia, in the Caucasus Mountain region of eastern Europe (now considered part of western Asia), were the closest living representatives of this original type. Thus, Blumenbach used the term Caucasian to describe a race of white European peoples. He believed the other races had “degenerated” from Caucasians. According to some accounts, he developed this theory after deciding that a skull of a Georgian woman was the most beautiful he had ever seen. Implicit in Blumenbach’s classification scheme was that the original humans were created in God’s image, making Caucasians closer to divine perfection and superior to other races." [no offense to any other races, nobody is superior, all races are equally beautiful] As you see Georgia used to be called "a region in Eastern Europe" but someone changed with "Western Asia". Can we do some research on this subject? Who changed it and why, who wanted Georgia to be called Asia? - Jan 14, 2007.

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) Hi Nick, this man is saying that somebody made up stories about background of Georgian royal dynasty and readers might think our royal dynasty was pretty much Armenian. This person is very much concerned and is asking us to provide resources and documents to object to it. On a personal note, Nick, thank you for being interested in our issues and we really appriciate your contribution to this discussion forum. - Legendary Georgiana [hopefully someone will find time to correct the mistakes this person is talking about]

OTHER INTERESTING ISSUES Unwritten law of Georgia:

Georgians are very strict about marriage for mental and phisical health purposes. We never marry any kind of relative, anyone that shares our last name, our mother's, grandparents' greatgrandparents maiden names. We never marry our godparents syblings or children in order to ensure spiritual/mental strenghth. This is an unwritten law in Georgia that has been practiced throughout the existence of this nation. I guess this is one of the reasons we are not as many as other nations, but it gives healthier generations.

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)

To add from a reader's perspective: there is no context for the stated facts, which in turn seem to be carefully selected to support one particular point of view. Given the politicized title there should be at least an attempt to present a more complete picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.40.38 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Russian Protection Against Persia

What I usually hear in Georgia is that the Russians did the same thing in the late 18th to Georgia they did to Poland in the final year of WWII. They let the agressor (Persia for Georgia and Germany for Poland) rampage and plunder and massacre--and then they made a move to take over a devastated country. The article here reads as if Russia immediately moved to protect Georgia against Persia whereas most of my sources in Tblisi say they waited for Persia to lay waste to much of the country. Which version is supported by the facts?

Malangthon 19:34, 13 October 2006 (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.

Comment

Actually, this took place in many churches. The frescos are often blackened with deliberately set fires, the horse manure remains (virtually petrified in some places), relics and artefacts were lifted (I went to a small church in the southeast where the remains of St.Stephan were kept--they disappeared when the Russians left the area.) When Russia took over in the early 19th century, I am informed by Bishop Nikoloz (His Emminence Metropolitan Nikoloz), the Russian Orthodox hierarchy abolished the Patriarchate and most if not all Georgian bishops were replaced by a very small number of Russians. The Russian Orthodox Church has a lot to answer for in the Black Sea region including the seizure of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine

Malangthon 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I wanted to it noted that this article seems to have propangda issues, first oof all Georgia was Part of the Iranian Empire...here is even more proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golestan_Treaty on your website. It basically states that the Iranians lose all claim to Georgia... so how come on wikiapedia you have two contraditory statesments and fatc? This article is Ambigious at most about georgia past. Also about Wine actually patrick McGovern discovered the oldest wine production in Tepe Ali Gosh Western Iran dating 5,500 BC which predated Georgia and not proof for georgia producing Wine at this time. Please correct!

Yeah, where is Iranian wine today? They do not make it anymore? :) eh, ego,ego...

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

AFAIK the name refers to a prevelance of the cult of St. George. Ybgursey 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ybgursey. You are right. Gurj means George and Gurjistan means St.George's country............not :)

Origin of the name

Everything I have read about the origins of the name Georgia indicate that this name came from a mistake. Gurjistan, if I recall correctly, was the Persian name for the country, coming from the Persian word for mountain. English speakers came into contact with this name from the Turkish Gürcistan. They then mistakenly thought that this name was Greek in origin and derived from the national patron saint, St. George. Hence, the information under this subheading is wrong and should be changed. I would do it myself, but I am hesitant because I don't know off hand what the original Persian word was that led to this etymological history. I would appreciate it if someone would clear this matter up. But in any rate, I am 95% sure that the current information in this article is incorrect. Treemother199 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bull....... please.....how come you know better than us what we are called and why? Georgia is Sakartvelo and no middle eastern country can give it a name. And you cannot change anything unless you provide a historical document that indicates Persians knew Georgians before Greeks. I do not think Greeks, masters of languages could mispronounce the word, but I do not know any middle eastern that would pronounce my first name correct.

Sorry if I was unclear. I was neither arguing that Persia somehow gave your country its name nor that I know better than you what you are called. I agree, that the real name of Georgia is Sakartvelo. If anything, I was actually arguing that english-speakers were mistaken in referring to Sakartvelo as Georgia, since that name is based on a Persian denomination. And I'm not sure I understand your point about the Greeks. --Treemother199 06:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Treemother199's observations are basically correct. There are many theories about the origin of Georgia's name. As far as I know, the Persian "Gurj" means "a wolf". David Marshall Lang authored an interesting article on the etymology of the word. I'll try to find it. The section (and the entire article, I guess) could be organized better than it is now. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 06:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In the beginning the was no Turkey between Georgia and Greece. Georgia - is a greek word and means country of agriculture. Muslim nations found their own definition for Georgia gurjistan -country of wolves {maybe because of the strong Georgian wariors)? some think it comes from the word Gorge. Armenians call Georgia Vratsia, Russians Gruzia and it seems everybody has its own definition for this country like for Germany - deutchland, Allemagne and so on. But Georgia cannot be called something+stan because despite the domination it always remained a christian country.

Stan is the Persian word for "country," it does not denote religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.219.70 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Article about where the name came from is very well written. It talks about all possible influences and there is no need to change anything.

I think the article would be more robust if it was based on cited work. I'm very interested in this issue and the wikipedia article, as it stands, is not particularly helpful because it seems based on hearsay. DM Lang writes:

As often occurs with ethnic terms, foreign nations have applied to the Georgians names which have no relation to their own collective name of Kartvel. Thus, the Armenians and Ancient Persians called the Georgians of the Eastern region Virk or Wyrshn respectively, the vir element giving rise to the name Iveroi or Iberians, used by the Greeks and Romans.... The Arabs and modern Persians call the Georgians 'Kurj' or 'Gurj'. From these forms the Western Europeans coined the name 'Georgians', which they went on to explain, quite incorrectly, as derived from that of St. George, the country's patron and protector.

Similarly:

The Georgians call their homeland Sakartvelo, the land of the Kartvel-ebi or Georgians; both these names are linked with that of Kartli, the principal province of central Georgia, in which Tbilisi is situated. The European name--'Georgian', 'Georgia' (Russian: Gruzin, Gruziya)--has a different origin, being connected with Arabic and Persian Gurji, Gurjistan. The Islamic names are to be compared with Syriac Gurzan, Middle Iranian Wyrshn and Armenian Vir-k, the equivalent of the Iveroi or 'Iberians' familiar to the ancient geographers. In spite of popular belief, the country's name has nothing to do with that of its patron, Saint George, whose cult Georgia shares with England.

Unfortunately, Lang did not reference this information, so it is difficult to verify his claims. I know of no trustworthy sources that make a different case, however, and would be very grateful if someone would produce one. Clearly, Γεωργία does mean agriculture/farming in Greek, making the Greek derivation hypothesis plausible, albeit undefended with evidence. An astute, but unreferenced, comment here states the case quite clearly. There seem to be two competing theories of the derivation of the English word Georgia--it either comes from the Greek Γεωργία or from the Arabic/Persian kurj/gurj. In any rate, this appears controversial among scholars and it should not therefore be stated as fact that it does derive from Γεωργία. If someone could point me towards a credible source that has since resolved this controversy, I would be most grateful. But for the time being, I am going to remove the statement in the introductory blurb and revise the section Origin of the name. --Treemother199 01:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? Is it a Persian language wikipedia? Gurj is the name that Eastern World knows Georgia with, but nobody knows what that means. Kober said that Lang thought that maybe Gurj is a wolf, but this is just an assumption. Another theory is that Gurj in ancient Persian means beautiful. Note, that Greeks contacted Georgians 2000 years before Persians did. If you take any books which deals with the origins of the name, it will say that George is a Greek name and means a farmer. So, please do not edit this section again, because without the first sentence the flow does not make any sense. SosoMK 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Soso. I was recently tracking down meaning of an English word GORGEUS and came to an interesting point [will include the link soon]. As I found this word has persian origin and derived from word gurj, which means beautiful. Wolf is not gurj it is gorg and King Vakhtang the vth was called Gorgasalle which in persian means wolf head. So this is where everybody is making a mistake. Gorg is different from gurj. The English knew about this word and used it, but never accepted it as a name of an antiant country Georgia, since they knew and studied Georgia through Roman and Greek historians.

You are exactly right my friend. Wow! Excellent etymology, I will look forward when you update the Origin of the name section and we can also get rid of the other assumptions, which might lead people to confusion. Cheers! SosoMK 01:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 AGAIN THE TITLE SECTION IS WRITTEN VERY WELL. NO CHANGES PLEASE. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT OTHER NATIONS CALL IT. GEORGIA HAS BEEN KNOWN TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY AS GEORGIA, NAMED BY GREEK SCHOLARS, GREEKS EVEN FOUNDED CITIES GALIA, PITIUNTI AND CXUMI IN WESTN GEORGIA BEFORE AGES AND THESE CITIES, TODAYS POTI, GALI AND SOXUMI ARE STILL THERE. I HAVE ASKED MANY TURKISH AND PERSIAN PEOPLE WHAT DOES GURJI MEAN AND BELIEVE ME OR NOT THEY DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY. THEIR ANSWER IS IT MIGHT MEAN SAINT GEORGE'S PEOPLE SINCE OUR WARIORS CALLED THEM GIAURO, GIA'S PEOPLE, GIA IS A SHORT VERSION OF GEORGE WHICH IS WIDELY USED IN GEORGIA. SOME ANSWER MIGHT MEAN WOLF BUT WOLF IS A GORGA AS MENTIONED IN THIS SECTION, SOME SAY IT MIGHT MEAN A MOUNTAIN BUT MOUNTAIN IS GORGE AND SOME SAY IT MEANS BEAUTIFUL WHICH WAS USED BY FRENCH AS GORGAI 9BUT FRENCH ETIMOLOGY SUGGESTS THAT IT COEMES FROM LATIN THROAT) SO THERE ARE MANY VERSIONS BUT THEY ARE NOT DOCUMENTED. THE ONLY DOCUMENTED THEORY IS A GREEK THEORY AND WE CANNOT RENAME THE COUNTRY BECAUSE ALL SO SUDDEN SOMEONE FOUND HYPOTHESIS THAT IT MIGHT COME FROM A MISTAKE. GEORGIANS CALL ARMENIA SOMXETI. CAN THIS WORD BE USED BY INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY TO IN REFFERENCE WITH ARMENIA OR DOES ARMENIA PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA EXPLAIN WHAT OTHERS CALL THIS COUNTRY?

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)

Treemother199 who are you a russian spy?

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 don't understand this being plessed by Greek influence on a countrie's culture or history and take this as a proof of being European. Culturally Europe!? but when did European culture emerged? Is it only Greek(Ellas) culture regarded European? Then Scandinavia should not be culturally European. Even religion is only 300 years older than Islam. Religious unity is also can not be European because Elas(geek) culture was not christian for thousand years. If Georgia(Kertvelebi) and Armania(Hayastan) is regarded European becasue of their political, historic and cultural links with Europe, all those countries were part of Ottoman Empire which was then Europe. Ottoman Empire had more direct political, historic and cultural bonds with Europe for centuries. Like attacking Spanish armada in favour of English, patrolling and ruling mediterranean sea and trade, cultural trade with Venetians, etc. Also geographically there should no mention of Euroasia without including Anatolia. (anadolu, mainland Turkey) If it is language, there is more Greek(Elas), Armenian(Hayastan) and Latin influence in Turkish language too. This special pointing of European is either unnecessary or pretentious. Or I suggest we have to add it to Turkey page which has been cultural, historical and political secondary center of Europe for decades. If being Christian makes you European then Lebanon is European or Christian Asian countries, if Greek influence is making you European then again Lebanon and Persia is European. Persia even have linguistic bondage with European languages. By the way we should stop using Greek names for country origins. That is actually misleading. If we call Georgia as Kartvelebi and Armenia as Hayastan, Greece as Ella, it will be more constructive and less political. The original names will also show the ethnic differences better and it must be dishonorable to be known by different name rather than your own original country name...

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

Dear Luis, you have got a good point. I am not trying to make some ethno-nationalist statement, but I have to say that ancient Greeks did not influence us, but they robbed us (that bastard Jason:)). They regarded Georgia as the place, which produces the most beautiful people. Eve Englsh laguage testifies that "Caucasian" in English is referred to an European race according to the Bluembachs 19th century research of races. For all purposes Georgia would be European in any classification you might want to choose. In addition, I dont give a crap about the UNs definition of Europe, because my country has more history than the UN and the terms Kartli and later Sakartvelo are older than the term Europe itself. SosoMK 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Gamarjobat, please try not to see Georgia through the eyes of Russian and Middle Eastren but through the eyes of intelectuals from all over the world, through the eyes of great scientists and reputable historians.

Dear Tombseye, Greek culture and philosophy has influenced not only Gerogia, but the whole world. I do not know a nation that has not embraced Socrates, Hipocrates, Aristotele, but it does not mean that we are Greeks because we appriciate their great cultural heritage. Greek culture seems more exotic than Gerogian to me. Georgia has always been fasinated with exotic cultures, names and concepts, but it never turned this nation into someone else. Georgia has always been a playground of rivals of ottomans and shahs, emperors and soviets, but it's never lost its identity. Ironically, intruders could never resist strength of this nation and very often just left it alone finding it very difficult to rule this caucasian country. Instead of turning Georgian into themselves, they turned up to be very much influenced by this nation. As for Sakartvelo or kartveli, you can use anytime you want, we are more than happy, like Germany can be called Deutschland and Germans Deutsch and I'm sure Germans would not mind if you use these words.

Let me make it straight again. We don not need to say the word Europe to make ourselves feel better. Georgia has a history as a nation-state of more 4,000 years since the kingdom of Kartli (or Iberia) was formed and the country also has an unique ancient christian, literary and artistic tradition. In contrast with other Europeans who say Europe all the time to make them feel important, we don't do it that way. Sakartvelo is more ancient term than Europe. BTW what the heck is Europe? We don't need to argue about the thing that we can't even define. So those of you who are trying to be smart-asses in saying that Georgia may not be a totally European country, you don't even know what the heck you are talking about. I am afraid you have to do more research or just stop editing this article. SosoMK 11:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.173.226.251 (talk · contribs), 4.173.227.21 (talk · contribs), 4.173.227.40 (talk · contribs) & 66.108.44.193 (talk · contribs) between 22:49, 1 July 2006 & 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

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

No they do not neither do famous scholars, doctors and historians see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

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)

'HI, WE DO NOT CONSIDER YOU EUROPEAN EAITHER. WHO CARES WHAT RUSSIAN SAY? RUSSIAN WILL NOT SAY ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT US. THIS NIXER BLOGGER IS CLEARLY ANTI-GEORGIAN. YES GEORGIAN IS DIFFERENT, AS WELL AS BULGARIAN, HUNGARIAN, ROMANIAN. - WHY RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ASIGNED SHEVARDNADZE AS FOREIGN MINISTER FOR SO MANY YEARS? WHY RUSSIA WANTED SHEVARDNADZE TO REPRESENT USSR? I GOT YOU, DID NOT I? LOOK AT SHEVARDNADZE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Shevardnadze AND NOW LOOK AT BREZHNEV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev YES GEORGIAN HAVE DIFFERENT CULTURE FROM RUSSIAN. RACIALLY? I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT PLEASE READ WHAT GERMAN DOCTOR JOHANN FRIENDRICH BLUMENBACH (1752-1840) WROTE ABOUT GEORGIAN, ABOUT CAUCASIAN RACE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race and see also: encarta encyclopedia Blumenbach's reasearch http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576599_2/Race.html. [We do not discriminate anyone on racial basis at all. Russians keep downsizing Georgian nation and we want to let them know that we know the truth, we always knew who we were, but we never imposed it on anyone] I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS: BEAUTIFUL CHARMING COMPLEXIONS, YOU CANNOT FIND BLANK FACES, DIFFERENT SHADES - FROM VERY LIGHT-PALE-TO TAN, HAIR FROM BLOND TO DARK BROWN - legendary georgiana Jan. 10 2007':: 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)

Nixer, you might need to travel more, read more, do more research, your argument is very poor and you sound more like a Russian Boevik rather than an intelectual Russian. You might need to find some other hobby, your mental ability to understand caucasian Race is very limited.- A German Scientist Jan.10 2006

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)

Comment

When referring to racial characteristics, I would have to say that in traveling the length and breadth of Georgia on various occasions, the genetic mix is extraordinary. In the same family you will see people who look eastern Mediterranean and their siblings who look Scandinavian. I think that in all that time, with all that intermixing through war and commerce for thousands of years, the genetic mix has created a profoundly deep gene pool

Malangthon 20:18, 13 October 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

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)

It is not the case of political differences. Why religious criterion should overweight racial or linguistic ones? I am not biased against Georgians and the current politics worth nothing. I think it is not offensive to be Asian. Stalin was definitely not European by his origin. He never weared European suit and never weared a tie. Neither did Beria (unlike Lenin, Molotov, Krushchev, Brezhnev and others). They did bring Asian methods in Soviet politics.--Nixer 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

' Liar, Nixer or whatever your name is, please stop spreading desinformation about Georgia and Georgians or you will get sued. Here is the proof that Beria used to wear a suit and no matter how much he harmed his own nation, I must say he looked pretty European http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSberia.htm and by the way, this web site has been created by UK not GE. Also here is the proof that Stalin, who was unfortunately half Georgian, was a very Russian soul and he had grand plans for Russia not for Georgia. Here is the fact: http://englishrussia.com/?p=286 I have not found any picture where stalin would wear anything else but Russian military uniform. Can you please provide the fact were he wore any kind of Asian suit? - legendary georgiana/mean ge girl, January 10, 2007

What country's location has to do with human looks? --Pudeo (Talk) 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing really, Georgia is 70% europe 30% Asia, Russia is 50/50. In fact, America is not a caucasian land it's malay red, but majority of population is white/caucasian. Why is everybody trying to hide the truth Georgian origins. Are you afraid that Georgians will become superficial? They are proud people anyway, so no matter you call them asian or european they will tell you that the fact is that they are who they are.

Requested move - July 2006

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

Hi everybody Gamarjobat

In my opinion the topic above is quite actual for many Georgians. There happen to be lots of discussions about Georgians are Europeans or not in everyday life og many Georgians. There are various ideas, opinions and conclusions and all of them are based on specific facts and beliefes(and there is a big variety of such facts people are based on in desiding whether ... or not). There are several points: 1. Georgian culture is a mixture of European and Asian cultures (for me it's clear when observing different regions of the country: western ones and eastern regions). Also this fact has its causes that come from Georgian historical roots. 2. One part of Georgians preffer to be Asian, while another one European. It' quite important to realize the self-identification of the nation. 3. The tendency is to integrate more with West than with East and it's not just the desicion of the government, but also of majority of population. 4. ////// 5. ////// And we can count lot of points that influence the desicion whether Georgia is European country or not. I think I'm more European than Asian and not because Europeans are better guys that Asians:) I just identify myself more with Western civilization and culture. cincerely

Troy

Gamarjobat,I do not understand why do we have to argue with people, that have no clue about our history, about who we are. How retarded and anty-Georgian it is to say Kazakh and Uzbeck are closer to Eeropians than us. Stalin and Beria were millitary and and wore Russian uniforms, Beria did wear very nice suits (see above). What did Shevardnadze wear? Who looked more european Shevardnadze or Brezhnev (see section above - WE ARE EUROPEAN)? What about Balanchine (Giorgi Balanchivadze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Balanchine He was the son of well known Georgian composer Meliton Balanchivadze, founder of American Ballet Theatre. It is up to the EU nations to decide if they want us to belong to EU. We are doing everything to reach high standards and if we are not be accepted we cannot do anything about it. There is no way towards Russia, especially after the ethnic cleansing.And what do you blame us for? - for suffering attacks from Muslims? What we could do if they were killing us just for being Christian. I think you should thank us for preserving the initial form of the religion. You are facing the same thing now. What we should say? - you are Arab, because they are attacking you today? And when you say we are mixed with them that's bull... Eastern Georgian are slightly darker than western that's all, but they look edqually charming, equally caucasian. And besides, we have large population of different ethnic groups. You might notice that many of us has a concerned look because of the crisis we've been through, but people that work out, have better life conditions and better posture look more confident, balanced. Please study Caucasian Nations, Caucasian Races, before you make any remarks about us.

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)

No consensus means Americans dominate Wikipedia, Clevelander. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.122.209.106 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

The country is much more important, every country has its own page. Be reasonable please and put the Georgia link where it belongs (the country). --Sergio.correia 10:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So does every U.S. state. Just look at any U.S. state article and look at a template at the bottom. All the U.S. state links are live. Georgia guy 14:47, 17 December 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).

As yet another user who thinks this status quo is ridiculous (how come Luxembourg isn't a disambiguation page, following the same logic?), I would say that I'm fairly sure it's only US users for whom the US state of Georgia is the "primary meaning". I would imagine that for most British, Australian etc anglophones, the sovereign state of Georgia is the primary meaning. Palmiro | Talk 19:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourg is not a disambiguation page because, by the metric used in this encyclopedia, the country is the clear primary meaning. Far more pages in Wikipedia link to the country than to the province or any other thing called Luxembourg. The same cannot be said of either Georgia. The U.S. state does have more links, but not by an overwhelming majority, and there has been no effort to make it the primary page. The rules and guidelines developed for Wikipedia do not currently include special exceptions for particular categories of articles such as countries. They're designed solely to help people find information quickly and easily, not to satisfy egos. --dreish~talk 17:31, 3 October 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)

Look here:Bloody Sunday (1905) this is not called massacre while the number of killed counts in thousands.--Nixer 06:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Is not 23 dead girls and elderly women enough?

Also, "at the same time, the term "massacre" is used more widely to refer to individual, civil, or military mass killings on smaller scales, but having distinct political significance in shaping subsequent events." (see massacre). --Kober 06:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is POV language, yes?--Nixer 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a definition: Massacre-slaughter: the savage and excessive killing of many people; to kill a large number of people indiscriminately; "The Hutus massacred the Tutsis in Rwanda" [3]. Bloody Sunday 1905 was, by any definition, a massacre. Killing a number of people who can not even defend themselves should put this matter to rest. Malangthon 01:53, 9 November 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.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Political relations" section

This really belongs in it's own article: Foreign relations of Georgia. We don't want this article to get too long. Perhaps we can give a 1-paragraph overview but include the details in a sub-article. Compare to the FA Pakistan. —Khoikhoi 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct as usual Khoi, but who has time for that? Actually the whole article is a mess :( Ldingley 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In the "Soviet Period" section, "Falsity and dissimulation of the state political level morally corrupted the Soviet society." This is both POV and very badly written. Or should we have a Wiki article called Moral Corruption: A History, and include a section on its instance in Soviet Georgia? The bad ( or non-) English continues: "Since the 60s, in Georgia and other USS Republics, there was a widely set "Shade Economic", which was the result of ignorance of the economical objective rules under the administrational governance system." This is absolutely non-informative to the lay reader, and moreover it implicitly introduces an opinion, by way of the word "ignorance." It truncates an implicit argument rather than summarizing facts.

In the next paragraph, discussing dissidents, we hear that "the most devoted and spiritually strong person was Merab Kostava." Come off it! This man might be a Georgian hero, and might rightly be one, I neither know nor care, but I fail to see how any objective measure can be taken of the strength of his spirituality! Where's the Godometer? How much kharma equates to an ablution? In short, the POV issues in both of these paragraphs portray to my mind a rather trite and sentimentalized picture of Georgian history, embossed in a hackneyed style of language, although, in truth, this style is often rather more aimed for than achieved.

Finally, in the next paragraph, I do not see how "multiparty system" gains anything from the adjective "vigorous." Are we invited to compare this with lethargic multiparty systems? Kindly send this journalistic, cliched phrase back to the particular abyss from which it sprang! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.158.67 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Charecter set?

I am not able to see the spelling in the original language, such as Georgia above the image of the flag and coat of arms. I tried unicode and some other viewing options, and none of them works. I am using Safari on Mac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.249.47 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues

This article is very biased. It tries to push American influence on Georgia. Look at the edits and the writting. By the way in Georgia all the political opposition is being arrested and attacked by the government. Georgia is becoming more and more totalitarian everyday with American help. The whole issue with Russia was a smoke screen for the elections fraud supported by the U.S.A> in Georgia. I hope the world will wake and see what is happening. The U.S.A. is also trying to use Georgia against Russia and Iran. Georgia's military budget has skyrocketed and it is the fastest militarizing state in the world (in proportion to its capita). - 69.196.164.190 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

YES IT DID AND GOD BLESS AMERICA! STRONG GEORGIA CAN GUARANTEE SECURITY IN THE REGION FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD! GEORGIA IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE WEALTHY WITH THE HELP OF RIGHT POLITICS, STRONGER CUSTOMS, ANTY CORRUPTION POLICY AND WEALTHY BUSINESSMEN AND WITH THE HELP OF EU AND USA OF COURSE!

Dubious assertion in the lead

"Georgia is a . . . liberal democratic nation-state . . . ." However, according to Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Committee is concerned about Georgia’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

The Committee’s concerns included: “widespread and continuing” torture and ill-treatment of prisoners; lack of rights for detainees; an increase in religious intolerance; lack of effective rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; discrimination against conscientious objectors; lack of women’s rights; harassment of non-governmental organizations, especially those defending human rights; and limitations on the powers of the Public Defender. [4]

Human Rights Watch is similarly worried about the state of human rights in Georgia, particularly judicial independence and media freedom:

Constitutional amendments adopted in 2004 increased the president’s influence over the judiciary, further eroding judicial independence. In April 2005, after months of uncertainty, a presidential decree changed the Tbilisi court structure and led to the dismissal of significant numbers of judges. . . . major television channels are biased in favor of the government in their news and current affairs coverage. Journalists, NGOs, and representatives of international organizations have told Human Rights Watch that the government uses its influence with the owners of the major television channels to control the content of their programs.

All these grave human rights violations are incompatible with the concept of liberal democracy. Freedom House, which is focused on promoting liberal democracy, agrees: in its Freedom in the World 2006 report, it described Georgia as being only "partly free."[5] Thus, because the assertion that Georgia is a liberal democracy is discredited by several reputable sources, it should be removed from the lead. -- WGee 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. They are concerned. So what? That is not the measure of Georgian democracy. I spent a number of years studying and witnessing the lack of compliance that Japan had with these covenents. Anyone here dispute that Japan is a democratic state? I am witnessing first hand the back door dealings and very non-democratic means by which various groups and individuals control large parts of New Zealand. Anyone want to state they are not a democratic state? Amnesty and Freedom House have a right to a perspective. They are not, however, the ultimate standard for judging whether Georgia is one kind of state or another. Put in the links to the sources. Inserting 'dubious' here presumes the authority to judge and that is just arrogant. Provide the counter-point and let the reader judge. Malangthon 03:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, citations are nice, but can you define what is a liberal democracy then? Why is the Uk a liberal demcracy? Sosomk 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Are human rights directly related to the political ideology? Kibbutz in northern Israel is a socialist state, as well as North Korea, so what does it say? Both of them have socialit ideologies, but in N Korea human rughts are being abused and in Kibuts it is not that way. Sosomk 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be very careful, while discussing the broad concepts like freedom and democracy. Sosomk 21:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

One source saying that Georgia is a liberal democracy does not make it so. "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." (WP:V) And clearly Georgia's status as a liberal democracy is disputed by the sources above, especially Freedom House, which deems it only "partly free". Moreover, it's ironic that you're asking me what a liberal democracy is and to be careful while discussing such a broad concept while you are the one who insists that the statement should remain.

But to answer your question, here are two sites describing what a liberal democracy is: [6] and [7]. The former source states, "Judges must be independent, that is the government or anyone else must not try and tell them what to do, or threaten them." The latter source says that a liberal democracy requires "Checks and balances, such as the separation of legislative, executive and judicial power . . . ." And since the sources noted above, and many more, do not believe that Georgia has an independent judiciary, the country cannot be unassailably defined as a liberal democracy.

By the way, as long as the veracity of the statement is disputed, the {{Dubious}} tag must remain.

-- WGee 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Something strikes me as odd: Why does the lead say that Georgia is a liberal democracy in the first place? Most articles for developed nations do not tout their subjects' status as a liberal democracy, because it is implied. If you need to state it in the lead, with a source immediately following, it must be a contentious assertion (most likely a false one), and for good reason. As I understand it, the term is usually used to refer to Western democracies; likewise, I find it hard to believe that any developing nation in the world today is a liberal democracy. It seems like an attempt by Georgian nationalists to glorify their country. -- WGee 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this bit of arrogance "By the way, as long as the veracity of the statement is disputed, the {{Dubious}} tag must remain."

Disputed by whom and with what evidence? Another human rights group that has not got a clue. No, this is 'guilty until proven innocent' nonsense. The 'dubious' tag is deletrious and denigrating. I can do that on any article here and by that criteria the tag would have to remain. For example, George Bush did not actually win the election against Gore. We was robbed. Now I go to the article on Bush and right after his title of "President,' I insert 'dubious'. He went AWOL from the National Guard, so he is a criminal and should have served time in a military prison. You think not? Show me the record of his time served the last two years he was in the National Guard. Emperor Valens defeat at the hands of the Goths at Adrianople was reported by only one person who was not there to see it happen more than a thousand years ago. So every assertion in the article gets a 'dubious tag. On and on it goes.

You have an axe to grind, fine. Prove the point. The dubious tag needs to go. Here is a first hand, non-Georgian, eye witness report from a registered Wikipedian: Georgia is very liberal and very democratic. Dispute ended. Tell the so called "Freedom House" they need to make the case. Take the tag off or we go to mediation. This is flat out a case of vandalism. Malangthon 03:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(I have moved your comment to preserve the conversation thread. Please be careful when you insert your comment into older conversations.)

Just FYI, this is a content dispute, not vandalism. Read that policy carefully so that you may avoid sabotaging your own arguments when you are under the eyes of mediators. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Read it carefully. Some advice--ask the question before making the assertion. 2. You are saying that it is unmistakeably only that meaning which you infer? Either qualify, in my humble opinion, as bordering on editing abuse.

Here is what you do. Explain the policy carefully so that we can know what YOUR personal inferences are. Then, if there is a dispute, we actually have an issue to discuss. Thus far, we have cryptic references and vague assertions about meanings we can only guess at

Meantime. Vandalism: Wanton destruction for the sake of destruction. In Wiki terms it is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

To illustrate, Putin and Bush on the stage at a news conference. Every time Bush makes a statement, Putin inserts “Yea, right,” or “Sure it is,” or “In your dreams.” This is what is happening here. And then Bush does the same. What a fiasco that would be for them and a welcome change for folks who have no idea what they are talking about but are keen for any provocative news at all.

This insertion of ‘dubious’ and the ad hoc reliance on the afore mentioned dubious sources is deliberate, it definitely changes the content and definitely compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. The ‘dubious’ insert is itself more contestable than the claims made for its veracity. The inserter is only able to call upon dubious sources with very political POV who in turn claim to be able to judge the whole of mankind. In other words, the support for this wanton destruction is even more dubious. That is very definitely Vandalism. The issue is politics. The dispute is content. But the act of inserting 'dubious' with such dubious' support is vandalism

If you have time, go over to the Japanese pages (e.g. paleolithic article) and see how a pro deals with questions of veracity. I do not engage in vandalism and start inserting "dubious" even though I have extensive knowledge of the politics of Nihonronism which have very defintiely been employed there. Malangthon 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok:), I am not sure what is your point and I would argue about the validity of your sources my friend. Why does wiki have to follow Australian politics or fnf.org.za. As far the broader definition of liberal democracy, I think it is a kind of a common sense, I would say it is the government which posit a the highest good of society the ability of the members of that society to develop their individual capacities to the fullest extent. Please do not attack me personally by calling me a nationalist, when I asked why the UK was a liberal democracy I was offering a different opinion, which is a very good thing in an argument. The United Kingdom is a great nation, which gave great examples of seeking freedom to the world.

As far as separation of branches, Georgia does have a Constitution, which separates the branches and judges are also very clean, I think.

Once again, if your point s that Georgia is a developing nation, where people get abused a lot I can also make argument in so-called Western Governments (I am not totally sure what that means, but since you used it I can use it also I guess, despite the fact it is a vague term and modern political scientist tend not use it). For example, the nation of yours, the United Kingdom, inspired the World by Magna Carta, but later colonized and abused human rights in American and Indian colonies. The United States of America, according to George W. Bush, wrote a grat constitution and enslaved people for 100 years. So, do you think that Britain and America were not liberal democracies for that time? Indeed they were and Magna Carta and the US constitution say so.

As far as the attitude of Georgian people towards democracy, we have already inspired other to seek freedom by Rose Revolution and we are on our way like, the Uk, the Us or any other democratic nation of the world.

The fact that England has more experience as a democratic state does give you right to cynically address Georgia as a developing nation. As far as including the fact that Georgia is a liberal democracy, I think it should be there , because it just flows well with the rest of the articleSosomk 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you a nationalist; rather, my comment was an allusion to the Georgian nationalists who have traditionally been attracted to this page, who probably inserted the statement before you got involved in the article.

Anyway, I can assure you that those sources are factually accurate. In Canada (I'm from Canada, not the UK) students learn the definition of liberal democracy in Grade 10 Civics class (when they're 14), and the definition they learn is in accordance with that of the two sources I provided. Your proposed definition of liberal democracy, apart from being orginal research, is too simplistic and vague. A liberal democracy requires several specific circumstances—not just a general ideal—and judicial independence is one of them. Thus, since Georgia does not have an independent judiciary according to reputable human rights observers, we should not call it a liberal democracy. Like I said before, that one academic does not represent the entire academic community, so we should not give undue weight to her disputed assertion—and since her assertion is evidently disputed, it would be dishonest to assert it as an irrevocable fact.

-- WGee 23:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to write about Georgia's status as a liberal democracy, go to the Politics of Georgia article, where the differing viewpoints can be discussed in detail. Contentious assertions, such as the one I'm disputing, do not belong in the leads of articles. -- WGee 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The definition of liberal democracy, which I provided is according to Prof. Shively and his book is used at University of Virginia, one of the oldest state colleges in the United States, founded by Thomas Jefferson, 3 rd president of the USA. I don't know about the school system in Canada and I can't make any judjements, what I can say is that the textbook used at UVA is probably more accurate than any high school textbook. The definition of liberal democracy needs to be very broad, because democracy is not similar in different cultures.

In fact, I am the one who wrote that paragraph itself and I don't care about your accustion, nationalism also is a very broad and complex political term, which can be interpreted in different ways. I am free to think whatever I want about the democratic governments of te world and make judjements whether they seem democratic enough to me, but I will keep the idea to myself and off the wikipedia. Sosomk 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Contentious claims do not belong in the lead—period. They belong in the main prose of an article wherein the opinions of their detractors can be discussed. Please do not try to assert the veracity of certain opinions that you find agreeable; that is a violation of WP:NPOV.

You left a message on my talk page:

I think POV discussion must end, because, for example I am free to think that Cuba is an authoritarian dictatorship, but that does not give me a right to start a POV battle and change socialist republic to tyranny, which is a classic Aristotle’s definition of the kind of regime that governs Cuba right now.

First of all, it is my right and duty to continue the discussion as long as I feel that this statement is dubious. Second, I am not disputing the veracity of the statement because of my own opinions about Georgia but because of the opinions of several reputable sources; thus your analogy is incorrect. Finally, you still haven't explaned why we should maintain the status quo in light of the sources I've provided; all you said was that the statement should remain "because it just flows well with the rest of the article," which is a lame excuse. Somehow I don't believe that that is your primary reason for including it.

-- WGee 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is there really to say? I made my point and I am waiting for ur response. SosoMK 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded above! Contentious claims do not belong in the lead—period. They belong in the main prose of an article wherein the opinions of their detractors can be discussed. Please do not try to assert the veracity of certain opinions that you find agreeable; that is a violation of WP:NPOV. I cannot continue to discuss things with you until you've read and understand WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:V. Please make an effort to understand what I'm saying before you engage in a revert war. -- WGee 04:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And this statement of yours indicates that you do not understand the essence of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia that operates according to consensus. Discussing articles, in order to foster a consensus, is not a form of debate; there are no winners or losers. -- WGee 04:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to follow NPOV policy SosoMK 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not making sense. You haven't even justified the inclusion of this statement considering the several sources that disagree with it. Instead, you rely on proof by assertion. -- WGee 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, calm down, please. Although there are still some problems, Georgia is considered (along with Ukraine) the most liberal and democratic post-Soviet nation within the CIS. We can (and should) mention this in the human rights or politics section. If you find the statement in the lead so disputed, let's change it into something like this: Georgia is a presidential representative democratic republic, with a pluriform multi-party system. I think this is a more accurate and neutral definition. Kober 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that democracy takes different course in every country and your opinion about it is not essential. Georgian democracy is not same as Canadian democracy, BRW Georgia is not a monarchy and we have a separation of branches and independent legislature, which is constituted by the written Constitution. SosoMK 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

At least we have a written Constitution, for god's sake.SosoMK 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, that Georgia is not a liberal democracy is not my opinion but the opinion of reliable sources, which are the essence of Wikipedia. That said, your strong emotional attachment to Georgia, and your idiosyncratic definition of liberal democracy, is not reason enough to state that it is a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy requires more than just a written constitution that guarantees human rights; otherwise, virtually every state would be a liberal democracy, including Cuba. -- WGee 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Kober: Goergia is the most liberal of the former Soviet Republics, but it is still only an emerging democracy that lacks several components of a liberal democracy (as noted above). Your proposed change, while neutral, will not fit into the lead very fluidly. I suggest, therefore, that we omit entirely from the lead Georgia's status as a democracy. Considering that Georgia's formal state structure is already noted in the infobox, that shouldn't be a problem. -- WGee 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguing about loaded political terms like "democracy" is stupid and a waste of time. In fact a democracy has nothing to do with judicial systems or other arbitrary criteria set by various "qualified" organizations. Athens was a democracy. The whole body of citizenry were the government. Today a democracy is simply any country that is viewed favorably by a particular country's foriegn policy. For example military-ruled Pakistan is a "democracy" to the US while Iran is not, even though the people elect their president (which Americans do not!) and legislature in multi-party elections. The UK is a "democracy" governed by a monarch. That's fundamentally contradictory. But if I removed the precious term democracy from the US or UK pages people would get upset. Liberal democracy means absolutely nothing, so just let it drop.Giordano Bruno 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of reigniting wikipassions, I'd like to weigh in on this point. The term liberal denotes ideology. Moreover, it is not a binary quality (i.e., liberal or illiberal?), but rather a quality measured by degree (i.e., how liberal?). Therefore it is too unnuanced (and therefore non-encyclopedic) to assert that any country is liberal or not. The term democracy is similarly loaded. Democracy means "rule by the people." This term is used for political purposes to assert the popular legitimacy of a given government. Neither of these qualities are very measureable and this is why they are generating such controversy. I would argue that they would not belong in the description of any country's government on wikipedia. I fully endorse Kober's recommendation to only include objective, formal terms in the description. I believe what is important is that Georgia's government is presidential, elected, republican, and multi-party. On a related note, I'm a bit confused by the statement "Georgia is... unitary." What does this mean and why is it included? --Treemother199 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Academic Article

The Rose Revolution represented a victory not only for the Georgian people but for democracy globally, [It] ... demonstrated that, by aggressively contesting elections, exercising basic freedoms of speech and assembly, and applying smart strategic thinking, a democratic opposition can defeat a weak semi-democratic kleptocracy. Mitchell, Lincoln. "Georgia's Rose Revolution.(Brief Article)(Author Abstract)." Current History 103.675 (Oct 2004)192.240.93.66 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Georgia: A liberal democracy? (new header, same topic as above)

This insertion of ‘dubious’ and the ad hoc reliance on the afore mentioned dubious sources is deliberate, it definitely changes the content and definitely compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. The ‘dubious’ insert is itself more contestable than the claims made for its veracity. The inserter is only able to call upon dubious sources with very political POV who in turn claim to be able to judge the whole of mankind. In other words, the support for this wanton destruction is even more dubious. That is very definitely Vandalism. The issue is politics. The dispute is content. But the act of inserting 'dubious' with such dubious' support is vandalism.

Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Committee, Human Rights Watch, and many other sources of similar repute are dubious? What is their alleged political bias? I could find several more sources that contend that Georgia is not a liberal democracy if you'd like—ones that suit your taste. Your premise seems to be that the academics who assert that Georgia is a liberal democracy are neutral: a highly moot premise indeed. Do you believe that scholars are somehow immune to the illogic of nationalism or that they don't express their personal political viewpoints in their writing? Do you believe that those three academics represent the entire academic community?

Furthermore, don't accuse me have of "having an axe to grind", for you know nothing about my political viewpoints. Although you allude to my wanting to deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, you also know nothing about my intentions (hence editors are called to assume good faith). Have fun trying to find an administrator who believes that my edits were vandalism: your claim is ridiculous.

1. Read it carefully. Some advice--ask the question before making the assertion. 2. You are saying that it is unmistakeably only that meaning which you infer? Either qualify, in my humble opinion, as bordering on editing abuse.

Why should I ask somebody else whether or not a statement is controversial? Am I not allowed to do my own research and present the opinions of reliable sources? Am I incapable of doing it? And it's quite hypocritical of you to demand that I ask questions before making assertions while you assume that my edits are vandalism, asking neither me nor an administrator. Moreover, have I ever attempted to impose my viewpoint on the article? Have I ever proposed that the article be revised to say that Georgia is not a liberal democracy? Absolutely not. I've merely said that the assertion should be removed from the lead because it is contentious (as demonstrated by several high-profile sources with opposing opinions), whereas only facts belong in the lead.

I can do that on any article here and by that criteria the tag would have to remain.

No. The tag would only be legitimate if the veracity of the statement was disputed by reliable sources, as this one is.

Here is a first hand, non-Georgian, eye witness report from a registered Wikipedian: Georgia is very liberal and very democratic. Dispute ended. Tell the so called "Freedom House" they need to make the case.

You unilaterally proclaim that the dispute is ended as per your "infallible" anecdotal evidence yet you accuse me of arrogance? Your anecdotal evidence is subjective and irrelevant; Wikipedia only relies on published, reliable sources.

-- WGee 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, your inflammatory accusations suggest that you might not understand my argument, so I'll break it down:

1. Liberal democracy necessitates judicial independence (i.e., the rule of law) and the protection of fundamental human rights. (premise)
2. Several high-profile reliable sources state that Georgia does not have an independent judiciary and that it fails protect certain fundamental human rights on a large scale. (premise)
3. The assertion that Georgia is a liberal democracy is disputed by several high-profile reliable sources. (concluded from the premises)
4. To assert as a fact that Georgia is a liberal democracy is to ignore the opinions of several high-profile reliable sources. (concluded from 3)
5. To assert as a fact that Georgia is a liberal democracy is to violate WP:NPOV. (concluded from 4)
6. The assertion that Georgia is a liberal democracy should be removed from the lead. (concluded from 5)

-- WGee 03:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Subtropical

There appears to be some disparity between the use of 'subtropical' to describe the climate of the Black Sea coast area of Georgia (see intro and climate sections) and the Wikipedia article on subtropical, which suggests that such zones are generally between 23 and 35 deg lat. Georgia is too far north, surely, at between c42 and 44 deg lat, to be considered subtropical? Or is there another climatological rather than geographical use of the word that isn't alluded to in the main article? Jasper33 15:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Map

I have to say I have a little problem with the map. Basically, this map of Europe with Georgia on the right near the edge seems politicized -- an attempt to bias the viewer towards considering Georgia to be a European country rather than an Asian one, when most geographical definitions consider it to be the latter. I'm noticing what almost seems a concerted effort on wikipedia to bias readers into considering certain geographically Asian countries (namely Armenia and Georgia) as European ones, and I must say I'm deeply skeptical at what motives might be at work here. Why not a map with Georgia toward the center, as most countries' articles have maps with the country in the center, instead of what's really a standardized map of Europe used in all the articles for European nations that seems to imply Georgia simply as a frontier region of a Greater Europa? 66.99.1.205 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've checked many web sites to see where Georgia stands and in almost in every single map Georgia is on the European continent. Georgia has been quoted as Asia mostly by Russian which is wrong. Like Russia, Georgia is situated right on the border (which is drawn on Surami Range) so part of Georgia is on European continent and another, much smaller one, is on Asian

Most articles dealing with nation-states use the standard "location" map that in the past had been used, I believe, for all such articles on wikipedia, but in the recent past there seems to have been a change in the articles for "European" countries, with the same map of Europe for all of them with the country itself highlighted, instead of the country positioned near the center of the map within its region as in the "location" maps. To point out what I feel is a strange and unacceptable contradiction here, the article for Turkey still uses the "location" map, while the articles for Georgia, Armenia, and even Azerbaijan use the "Europe" map. In my opinion, it's ludicrous to give Azerbaijan a map orienting it as part of Europe while not doing the same for Turkey, given the linguistic affinities between those two countries and Turkey's much closer (and, indeed, somewhat overlapping) geography with Europe. My honest suggestion is to scrap this new Europe map altogether and return to the policy of using the "location" maps for all nation-state articles. Why should there be a special map for European countries (bringing along some ambiguous nations as well) while the entire rest of the world uses another type of map? 66.99.1.205 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with a better argument, I'm going to revert to the previous maps for the three Caucasus countries. Adlerschloß 20:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do I detect sockpuppetry around here? Anyway, the maps are not shaded, are clearer, are of a significantly higher quality than the alternatives, and do not imply that the countries are in Europe. I don't know if you were here when we had the shaded maps which did show the countries as part of Europe (I'm just being tactful, I know you were here...) - the present maps seem to be a reasonable compromise. If you can provide a map of equal quality, then I have no objection with using that.--Euthymios 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Independence

The infobox says March 11, 1990; the text says April 9, 1991. I think the latter is correct. What is the basis for the 1990 claim? Biruitorul 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Second oldest country to declare Christianity as official state religion

I was looking at this articel and Ethiopia articel in both of those articels it says those countires were the second oldest country to declare Christianity as their official state religion. I was wondering which one is really true was it Ehiopia or Georgia? ROOB323 02:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Georgian King Mirian and Queen Nana declared Christian religion as a state religion in 327 A.D. It had been preached by the Christ's disciples and their disciples since the 1st A.D. Saint Nino was a woman who convinced the nation to become Christian and Georgians built their first wooden church in Samtavrisi Mtskheta, which later on was replaced with the new church built with rocks. Metekhi church was built in the 5th century A.D. and it's still there in Tbilisi right behind the monument of King Vakhtang Gorgasali. You should probably look at the fact when it was declared as a state religion. I will attach documents when I go back home in summer.

This is not a question of Christianity in Georgia, Christianity in Georgia existed before 337 AD, but in 337 Iberia officialy declaed it as an official state religion. In fact the common knowledge of Georgians is that Georgia has been christian for twenty centuries (Alasania, g. Twenty centuries of Christianity in Georgia. Library of Congress. Washington, DC). One user was arguing that the Roman empire was the secod oldest christian nation, but he was also wrong, becasue the Roman Empire had never officially declared christianty as a state religion. SosoMK 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Georgia officially adopted Christianity as state religion in 327 A.D . The 337 was a typo. This is supported by numerous sources: Dowling, Lang, Allen, Sunny, etc. And in many scholarly works Georgia is officially considered as a country which adopted Christianity soon after Armenians did, making it a second country to do so. Ldingley

Funny, I can't find any source that says 327, but I have found any number of sources that say 337. You say this is a typo. How could all these sources be making the same typo? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is funny. Britannica quotes it as about 330 A.D. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-44321/Georgia while as far as I remember from school it was 327. Another source quotes A.D. 330 is: http://countrystudies.us/georgia/27.htm 330 is Ok, I guess they rounded the number, but Soso and Ldingley, if you're in Georgia can you doublecheck this? Codex Sinaticus, Can you please provide the sources and links where it says 337? - Thank you, Legendary Georgiana Jan. 14, 2007

SosoMK might be right, there are numerous countries that have never declared any state religion see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_religion#Eastern_Orthodox but it is the fact that that in early 300s A.D. Georgia was well known as a christian country and it does not matter, but still, Georgia indeed was the second country to embrace Christian religion. - German Scientist. Jan 14, 2007

the new map

I am kind of mystified why Luis thought that the new map was great. I think it shows Georgia from a wrong socio-georgraphic point of view. Only other country that has similar kind of mao is Spain, which shows North Africa in it. I understand that official geographic classification of Georgia as Europe is a shaky argument, but we can also look at other European nations, like Greece, Cyprus and France. Let's start with France: France has cultural ties with North Africa and ALgeria, but the Map does not show those countries on it. Map of Greece also does not show any Asian countries and the map of Cyprus brely shows any of her neighbors on the map. I really do nor care about the map that much. I am just saying that the map by Clevelander made a better sense to me. Regards, SosoMK 11:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dont be mystified :) Its a great map, showing all neighbours and European continents near by. Its has nothing to do with European argument. It zooms on Georgia in order to show the closer image of its boundaries and neighbours. Georgia is so small that on a previous map, we had problems detecting it :) However, if you insist, we can reinstate the map by Clevlander :) Ldingley 15:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Treemother199 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Demographics are messed up

I noticed that demographics are messed up. What are ethnic Svans and Mingrelians? SosoMK 17:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

GDP numbers

FYI: After the recent edit to the GDP number by User:Geller04, I did a search and found this webpage <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5253.htm> from the US Dept of State and changed the overall GDP and the per capita GDP numbers to reflect what I found. Figma 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:49 (UTC)

A unitary state?

How is Georgia a unitary state, when it has two very autonomous regions within it, with their proper elected governments, consitutions, flags and military forces?

there " independence", "proper" elected governments, constitutions, flags and armys are not internetionaly recognised, because they represent georgias historical regions. Geller04 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the two autonomous regions in Georgia are Abkhazia and Adjara. South Ossetia is not an autonomous region; it is a secessionist region not recognized de jure as an administrative region of Georgia. Adjara has neither a separate constitution nor separate military forces from the central government. That being said, the previous unsigned comment is right to point out that this "unitary state" phrase is weird and inappropriate. In political science, the term "unitary state" is a theoretical abstraction only ever used to apply to an empirical reality when talking about totalitarian dictatorships. It is therefore incorrect to refer to a presidential republic, such as Georgia, as a unitary state. My best guess is that this phrase was included in the article as a sort of political jab at Georgia's secessionist governments and as such constitutes a political bias in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This is, unfortunately, only one of many soft violations of NPOV on the page that are contributing to controversy. --Treemother199 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A state could be unitary (like France or Georgia), federative (like Russia, Spain or Germany) or confederative. It has nothing to do with the the fact that Georgia is a presidential republic. There is nothing POV in calling Georgia unitary state - look at France, it's also called unitary republic in the article. Alaexis 06:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe South Ossetia is not recognised de jure, but Abkhazia actually _is_. Even though the de facto government is not considered legitimate, there is a pro-Trbilisi "government in exile" ruling over a small part of Abkhazia - so even de jure Georgia is not unitary. France is a unitary republic, because the central government has full power legal, and actual, to supercede any and all decisions made by the local governments. Government in Tbilisi is completely unlike the government in Paris. Not only does it have very little actual power in Abkhazia and Ossetia, but legally, in the law of _Georgia_, Abkhazia does enjoy special status - that clearly makes Georgia federative. See this article De-jure_Government_of_Abkhazia. A unitary state cannot contain an "autonomous republic" within it 158.143.165.225 12:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

TREEMOTHER IS HERE ON PURPOSE, HER PURPOSE IS CREEPY.....