Jump to content

Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Article should be seriously reworked

The content of the article is unencyclopedic. Even the introductory part is full of dubious not to mention irrelevant statements. Arguments:

  1. Georgia is located in South Caucasus. No significant portion of it lies in North Caucasus.
  2. Terms liberal decocrasy and nation state are journalisic rather then encyclopedic.
  3. The term Georgian civilization' is no good too, because the word civilization is usually reserved for things of broader scale, like "Roman civiliztion", "European civilization" etc.
  4. Culturally, historically, and politically Georgia is considered part of Europe. 1. Culturaly: Statement that Georgia culturally belongs to Europe is POV. 2. Historically: If this means that historically Georgia was considered part of Europe it is not true. Otherwise it is unclear what it means country to be considerd "historically part of some region". 3. Politically: Georgia is a member of several European organizations. I think it is much better to just mention this.
  5. official geographic classification another interesting term.
  6. The English (and not only English btw) Georgia possibly does derive from Greek, but by no means is it a "Hellenistic term" (somebody wanted to sound scientific here. hehe).
  7. officially adopting the Georgian alphabet during the reign of King Pharnavaz I of Iberia. I do not think that official alphapet ever existed, and it is controversial weather Georgian alphabet was really invented by Pharnavaz.
  8. In 327, Christianity was declared the official state religion in the ancient Georgian Kingdom of Iberia. third use of the word official.
  9. its natural resources are abundant unfortunately Georgia is not especially know for abundant resources.
  10. Georgia has one of the oldest wine-making traditions in the world. Georgian wine is characterized as naturally semi-sweet and very competitive with French, Spanish and other Western European wines and is well-known around the world, especially in Eastern Europe. oldest wine-making traditions, are sacred for Georgians and who mentions it along with its commercial value man?! Tamokk 11:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. True.
  2. True: neither term is very informative. In particular, liberal democracy is incorrectly applied to Georgia according to several reputable sources.
  3. Agree.
  4. Agree, should be removed.
  5. I'm not sure about that, but, in any case, we need reliable sources.
  6. We should defer to a reliable source on that one.
  7. I think that Christianity was the official state religion of Iberia, but, again, we should defer to a reliable source.
  8. Agree. Such a statement would be appropriate concerning Canada, Russia, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but not with regard to a little country in the Caucasus.
  9. That bit about Georgian wine, apart from being trivial, reads like an advertisement and should be removed entirely. -- WGee 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, tell Khevsurs that their portion of the country is not important, lol:)) SosoMK 00:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Explain in detail what is wrong with current version of the article so that other editors can understand your position. Right now, you are not giving anyone reason to believe that your edits are driven by reason rather than irrational ultra-nationalism. -- WGee 00:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Wrong, I am half-Kakhetian and half-Pshavian. Northern Georgia is certainly important.
  2. Wrong, It is an academic term.
  3. Wrong, According to Davind Lang, Georgians are one of the most distinguished peoples of the world and therefore calling Georgia a civilization is justified by country's long history.
Could you name a few non-distinguished peoples of the Earth? Alaexis 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Wrong, It is a matter of opinion, but most scholars consider Georgia as a part of Europe
  2. Wrong, UN officially classifies world regions. So does the National Geographic Society.
  3. Ok, we can tweak that.
  4. Wrong Think of Grigol Orbeiani's poem.
  5. Wrong it does not sound redundant
  6. Wrong well you can find most of natural resources in Georgia.
  7. Wrong Most Georgians prefer Kakhetian wine to French, Spanish and Italian (No offense to Chile and California)

SosoMK 01:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the cited information and please do not judge the article according to your point of view. SosoMK 01:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Most of the sentences in the introduction have at least two or three citations. SosoMK 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I also changed the term Hellenistic, which was a sheer mistake to Greco-Roman or classical, which sounds better. SosoMK 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think just classical would be the bestSosoMK 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, please watch out the economy section that they won't remove Ilia's picture from there. He was the founder of the Georgian Central Bank. SosoMK 01:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I restored the new version. the old one did not even include the very basic information about the country, like what organization it is member of, and contained many arguable and less important facts. But even with this new intro the article is one of the worst articles about a country in wikipedia. sosomk, if you want to edit wikipedia, please find time to write couple of paragraphs with content. Do not just edit here and there according to your mood. and what do you mean by vandalizing? explain please Tamokk 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

about cited information: One can find citation for many things. e.g. it is not a heroic deed to find a scource applying adjectives like "emerging liberal-democracy" to Georgia. Tamokk 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)\

The old version was very good and informative with sources to support the data. Why did you remove it withou voting? I don't think a person with Stalins photo on the userpage can be trusted with NPOV maintenanace of the article. You have removed valuable information which should be restored. Than a voting must proceed so all users can have their say. This way, you have vandilized the article. WGee Canadians and other nationalities can also be biased. Euskera 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact I did not change the older version, just modified it, namely removed the inaccuracies i listed above. I do not know what did you find informative in the older version. As well as I am not going to argue that Georgia is in South Caucasus, that terms like "Official alphabet" (without explanation) are nonsense, and that in the introductory part of an encyclopedic article about a country one should not speak of the competitivenes of its wine with wines from other countries. Tamokk 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
For a voting we should first at least have several well-written versions (btw. POV can be written well too). Currently we have no good versions. Tamokk 16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Tamokk, we can mix both versions and combine information about the international organizations as well. However, I don't see any necessity of listing them in the introduction. I think the purpose of the introduction is to provide a prospective of where the article is going. As for removing Ilia's picture and replacing it with the Soviet flag is intolerable. Ilia was a philosopher and the founder of the Central Bank of Georgia and portraying the flag of the country, which conquered Georgia, abolished civil liberties in the country is not appropriate for this article. I know you might say that Stalin was Georgia-born, but just remember he never was elected by the Georgian people. As for your advice I was one of the writers of the introduction along with User:Kober and User:LDingley and if you disagree with that, please provide a solid argument, supported by acceptable academic sources. SosoMK 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sosomk, many facts given in the introduction are arguable and less important (even given the citations. one could also find plenty of citation agains those things). But the main problem with the article is even not these . I respect and appriciate ur and ur friends work over this and other Georgia related topics, but I am afraid the quality of the article is near to zero, I mean stylistically. As I already said even POV can be written well. Say one could wirte about Georgian wine without sounding like advertising it. Moreover, much of the intro sounds like a travel guide advertisement of the country. too bad. do not read too much travel guides. Read Encyclopedias, like Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which btw classifies Georgia in Europe, so u have one more citation now. hahaa. Tamokk 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kaixo (hello in Basque) Georgikam (Georgians in Basque). Tamokk IMHO you have removed some valuable information which has good references. You made the text very plain. The old version had many interesting facts and attracted the attention. You can not simple remove it without consensus from other users. Unfortunately, this text which you removed in lost i think. I was translating it into Basque on Basque Wikipedia. I didn’t detect any POV on that version. Yes POV can be well written and can be well exchanged with another POV. Great Soviet Encyclopaedia is not a real encyclopaedia, more Communist propaganda leaflet. Its very sad to see what has been done on this article. Euskera 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Euskera, have you read the Soviet Encylopedia to make such claims? Alaexis 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have read, Alex, and I basically agree with Euskera. БСЭ might contain some valuable info, but I don't trust the encyclopedia which regards the Soviet Russian invasion and military occupation of Georgia as a "popular uprising against the bourgeois nationalist Menshevik government of Georgia", speaks about the "brotherly help provided by the Peasants and Workers Red Army to the Georgian proletariat" and calls desperate attempt by Georgian patriots to throw off the Bolshevik yoke (1924 August Uprising) a "bloody adventure undertaken by counterrevolutionary bandits sponsored by the Western imperialists."--KoberTalk 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of calling the glass half-empty or half-full, I presume. (That's about the virtues of BSE) Alaexis 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No comment. Sorry. I misunderstood you. --KoberTalk 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That story about Soviet occupation of Georgia comes from the political ideals of Soviet state. West too has its own political ideals, and does occasionally occupy other countries. The difference between West and Soviet Union is that in the West encyclopedias do not contain propaganda of any ideals. I am afraid Soviet standards have penetrated Wikipedia. Tamokk 03:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Except that quality is frequently much lower than that of БСЭ. Tamokk 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in that the article should be organized better, and an encyclopedic style should, undoubtedly, be given precedence over touristy staff and advertising. As one of our fellow Wikipedians correctly put it, we are not going to "sell" Georgia, but provide the reader with an objective information about the country. However, БСЭ can hardly be a source for that and I don't think the story about Soviet occupation of Georgia comes from any political ideals. It is a real historical fact: a sovereign country was occupied by another sovereign country, which had signed a non-aggression pact with the former just six months before. Even the engineers of the military aggression against Georgia (e.g., Stalin, and Philipe Makharadze) used the word "occupation" for the 1921 events in Georgia. As for the article itself, there are Wiki articles on some countries (e.g., Turkey) that have achieved a Featured Article status. They can be used as templates, provided that the peculiarities associated with Georgia will be taken into account. Best, --KoberTalk 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Right that the article should not "sell" Georgia, that was my point. That's true that Bolsheviks invaded Menshevik Georiga. But one should not exeggerate about Russians invading Georgia and so on. Bolshevik invaders of Georgia were led by a Georgian. Some of the most notorious bolsheviks were Georgian. Communist leaders of Georgian SSR have always been Georigians. And dissident movement in Georigia was weaker than in Russia. Tamokk 14:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TAMOKK IS AN OBNOXIOUS COMMUNIST TRYING TO HELP HIS FELLOW COMMIES TO RESTORE POWER...IT'S LATE LOOSER!

tagged

The section of economy, which is supposed to be about the economy of the modern state, begins: Archaeological research demonstrates that Georgia has been involved in commerce with the majority of the world's historical empires. It is cited, and the citation has a caption National Museum of Georgia. However, if we look closer we find out that the source is a 11.11.2005 advertisement of two books "Colchis Land of Golden Fleece" and "Max Tilke Costumes of the Caucasian People", one for 10 USD another for 17 USD [1]. Although, even here I was unable to find anything like "world's historical empires". Tamokk 05:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the article because it is full of such things. The tag can can be removed only after these are cleaned up. Tamokk 05:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Democracy

The lead section says that Georgia is an "emerging liberal democracy"; however, that is only the opinion of Lincoln Mitchell and Mikheil Saakashvili, not a fact. For example, in its well-known Freedom in the World 2006 report, Freedom House describes Georgia as only "partly free" and thus not a liberal democracy.[2] And according to WP:NPOV, "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth." Moreover, liberal democracy, as used in the lead section, is merely a peacock term intended to glorify its subject without imparting to the reader any useful information. -- WGee 04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Tamokk 05:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New begining

I began working on the article. All literate editors are wellcomed to join me. Tamokk 12:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a lead section structurally modeled on turkey. Some things have be fixed. And the second paragraph has to be rewritten. Notice that the second paragraph in turkey does not give sheer facts, and is just a general review. That's a good idea I think. Although, I think we should mention Georgian alphabet and Christianity. Tamokk 13:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

kober, kargi darches erti tagi. saertod rogorc gindat ise moiqecit, imitom rom ar vici me ramdenad shemidzlia statiaze mushaoba. garda amisa, tqveni megobris gamo statiaze mushaobis yvelanairi survili damekarga. utxarit rom nu uzrdelobs. da sisuleleebis bodvas tavi gaanebos. magas qartulad qvia tavs iyle...ebso. bolshevikebtan vin aris axlos zemot kargad chans. warmatebebi Tamokk 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets all work on it Tamokk and keep politics out of it, Communism or Capitalism.

I only expresed my negativity for your editing only due to the fact that you deleted some valuable information. However, you are a very good editor so lets all improve the articles and maybe you can help me in translating this one into Basque :) Euskera 13:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Culture

Culture of Georgia section is empty, we need to add something there, Kober can you help? Euskera 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I tried to cleanup the article by restructuring it, I don't think it needs the cleanup tag now - even though content can be added. See Turkey or Canada to improve and balance out the article. (a culture section would be nice per above :)) Cheers! Baristarim 15:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, excellent work Baristarim, im amazed. Its good to see the professional editor. Article is shaping nicely thanks to you. Can i use you on Basque Wikipedia? LOL :) Please continue editing, this article definitely need your attention. Marci! Euskera 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately Mr Tamok still damaging this article with POV deletions. You did not consult other users and removed valuable information which was referenced. I can detect a strong POV (political i presume) in your edits. Im sorry but i am alwasy frank. bartsho suna gaiko. Euskera 14:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Which of my edits do you think is POV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamokk (talk • contribs) 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
and what political POV? As far as I remember I have not express any political POV. Tamokk 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever does not suit your intellect, you delete the content which i referenced and nobody except you had any problems with it. You did not ask or vote for removing the sentences among the other users, just started chopping like the Soviet censorship. Stop deleting referenced materials from this article. And discuss first before removing whole sentences. BTW use example of the editor User:Baristarim Euskera 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
if something is referenced this does not mean that it should have place in the article. and i have already indicated above what do some of the references really represent. I again reverted your edit. in the comment i did not specifically mean you. i just wanted to say that i do no more see any sense in correcting other editors irresponsible edits. the flow seems endless anyway. Tamokk 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
irresponsible edits? Just because i made one error on early medieval it does not mean i am irresponsible. I spend my time to improve this article. So you are the main responsible editor for corrections and deciding what should be or not on the article? That’s what i meant by POV. Well i tried my best to co-operate and i don’t see any point going on. I thought I was helping but now im irresponsible. Do whatever you want, your hero Stalin did the same in politics. Good luck. Euskera 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Euskara, the "early medieval" was not the only fault of your edit. See, once you have written a normal sentences I am not touching. Tamokk 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes Comrade :) Thanks :) Euskera 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Economy section

Economy section needs attetions. Tamokk 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. Can I suggest removing all direct quotations from this article and move them into more specific entries? This is a general article on the country, and all excerpts from Georgian luminaries or political documents seem to be somewhat excessive here. Any thoughts? KoberTalk 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea.
Well, I began working on the economy section. I think judgmental statements should be avoided in that section. Anyway, much is to be done there. Tamokk 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

When did the invasion (not annexation or incorporation) of Georgia by Russian Empire happen? Alaexis 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you mean the 1801 annexation of eastern Georgia (Kartli-Kakheti), it was not a direct military invasion, but an annexation (partly by force and intrigues, partly by persuasion). As for the 1810 events in western Georgia (Imereti), it was an invasion and a violent suppression of the local dynasty and popular resistance.--KoberTalk 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I've seen a bit different version of Imereti-related events... Never mind. Alaexis 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about that version. Many Georgians still speak (or at least understand) Russian, so we are familiar with Russian mythology. If you are really interested in that period, I can recommend quite a few works written by the contemporary and latter-day European scholars.--KoberTalk 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There are many interesting books about this topic: Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917 by Stephen F. Jones and Georgia from National Awakening to Rose Revolution: Delayed Transition in the Former Soviet Union (Post-Soviet Politics) by Jonathan Wheatley Ldingley 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No need of listing the invadors in the lead section. It does not give any possitive information. Georgia had many invadors before 1466, and its history was turbulent even then. I think the current lead section is ok. Mongols too were before 1466, and I think that to devide history by a very specific date, and call the history of the country turbulent after it is not nice Tamokk 01:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
SosoMK, can you read my thoughts to claim I don't have any academic interest in Georgia?
What particularly don't you like in my version of the end of the economy section:
In 2004, the Georgian Parliament voted to introduce a flat income tax pegged at 12%, which significantly increased tax collection, thereby reducing the government's formerly large budget deficits. According to Transparency International Georgia has significantly reduced corruption in the past few years thus rising from 130th place in 2005 to 99th place in 2006 in the Corruption Perceptions Index.[32] ?? Alaexis 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
ps. Did you describe my edits as 'phsychiatic'? Alaexis 17:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

Ldingley, as I already told to one of the editors I am tired of correcting other editors irresponsible edits. I will stop blindly deleting content after you stop blindly adding it. Look at what you hve written: After 1466 Georgia underwent through turbulent period of her history due to numerous invasions by Mongols, Turks, Persians, Russians which has divided and dissolved the state only to be reunified as an independent state in the 20th century. Monglos were before 1466 and Georgia was dissolved not "after 1466" but "in 1466". Moreover in this sentence it is unclear to what does 1466 refer to. Tamokk 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you are so concerned about vandalism watch out that nobody rvs the economy section. I began working on it, and I'll finish it when I have time. Tamokk 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
First i will suggest you to change your tone and be more understanding rather than cynical and ignorant. Other users have also mentioned about your blind deletions without consulting all editors of this article. In fact, you are in dispute with Soso, Kober, Euskera, and now me. You are only supported by Alex, who we all know what kind of agenda he has on Wikiepdia. Therefore, let’s not go into heated disputes and arguments, rather work together and post any questions or comments on the discussion pages of the user page. I am editing Georgia related articles for a while now (I always wanted to move out and start other countries). I will definitely watch out for keeping your edits and support them. However, lets maintain reason and avoid any personal views on things. If you don’t like something in that article, it does not meant that it is not worthy or appropriate. I don’t like many things on many articles, but I try to separate my views from editing responsibilities. Cheers and Thanks. Ldingley 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Guys, please calm down and let’s put aside our emotions. The article needs systematic improvement through consolidation of your efforts and cooperation as Luis correctly put it.--KoberTalk 16:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't get personal. The agenda of yours is no less well known. Alaexis 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Btw, when and where have I written that I support Tamokk's edits? Alaexis 18:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Given a wide range of articles (from Georgian Romanticism to Coptic Christianity) edited by Luis, I would not accuse him of any particular agenda. After all, he does not specialize exclusively in the narrow spectrum of topics such as the Russian satellite separatist entities. --KoberTalk 16:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes Alex, i have been instructed by Canadian government to hunt down Russian nationalist propagandists on Wikipedia :) Ldingley 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If someone writes a sentence which implies that Mongols were after 1466, most natural thing to do is to delete it. But what did you find wrong with my last edit? If I am supposed to consult with others, why do not you bother to consult with me. Now I will not revert your edits, for a while, and ask you to answer my comments about that sentence as well as the following (sorry if anybody finds these pedantic, but we are writing encyclopedia):
  • unique Georgian culture and statehood: I think the adjective "unique" does not go with "statehood". Otherwise the content is ok, but I think it would be better somehow to reword.
  • Georgian states were first unified: This is not ok. Before unification some of the states on the Georgian lands were not actually Georgian (notably Tbilisi). Besides, for purely stylistic reasons, the word "state" is already used in the lead section several times. Tamokk 04:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not in dispute with Kober, Euskera or you. I am definitely not going to speak with Sosomk . I am not saying that he is a bad guy or anything, I don't know him, but for me he is just a wierd troll on the web. And his hobby of insulting people with his pathetic stuff is disgusting. As for his edits, I find them harmfull. He apparently has not read anything except travel guides and advertisements. And he is deleting content from the economy section. Tamokk 04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What am I deleting? The fact that after the Soviet Union fell apart Georgians do not know what to do and they are praying that Russians would incorporate them again and appoint Igor Giorgadze as the governor, so our proletariat will be free again? Ok, if you think that economy sections sounds too optimistic, I added the fact that we have high unemployment and fairly low median income and that should do it. However, if you compare the unemployment with the GDP growth we are still doing fine, because unemployment is decreasing as GDP is growing. So, my point is just be nice and do not benefit anti-Georgian users like User:WGee, look at what he edits on wiki, Socialism, Communism, Hugo Chavez and that kind of stuff, or Wiki Tribal Leader User:Khoikhoi, an American who is full of Soviet badges on his user page, hero if the USSR, what a great medal. How can they ever write something nice about humanity? SosoMK 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"so our proletariat will be free again?" LOL, yap long live proletariate of all nations!!! Ldingley 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Sosomk, I would once more recommend you to stop insulting other editors. It is not your business who edits what.
Indicate what particularily you do not like in the economy section, if you want a dialogue. I am not interested in your proletrait theories at all. Tamokk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.83.81 (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Dear Luis, as you know it was a metaphor, but I still think that proletariat under the USSR had equal rights as bourgeoisie in a way neither of them had any :)SosoMK 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And more importantly, gay people and liberasts did not have any rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.83.81 (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Tamokk, please stop blindly reverting and provide a good reasoning.SosoMK 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You too stop reverting. A good reasoning: you are emotionally bound to the article; you are selective, writing only what you like; use Peacock terms; make judgmental statements; give references to commercial websites and weblogs (whatever), as if they were valid sources and true academic references.
Mr Luis, look at the lead section in the Canada article. It is simple and concise. No maples there. Now look at the lead section of Georgia. It already is eleborate, pathetic and lists all the "bad guys" who were invading the country; In other words I already made sufficient compromises.
Now user Sosomk wants to write a hymn of Kazakhstan, what I am not going to allow. Tamokk 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Tammok when you push 'rv" please make sure you don’t rv anything added by others too. I added some info on Georgian culture and it was fully removed. I spent lot of time to study the sources (8 books in total) to compile this information. Canada article is dull BTW. Also please try to understand that not all people know Georgia like you do. Maybe it seems pathetic to you but for other sits a learning process. Its good to know that Georgia was the birthplace of wine, almost in every book about Georgia or wine they have this info. Also its good to know why Georgia "disintegrated" after 15th century. It sound like it didn’t exist from 15 until 20th, which is false. Also its very important to know the relation between Georgian states of Colchis and Iberia. In every historical source and references of scholarly work, they have this information explained. Also bare in mind, Georgian statehood existed long before 9th century. Colchis and Iberia were Georgian states with complex hierarchy, and state system. Anyway, your crusade against this article makes sense. You want to make it clearer, correct? But don’t too simplify the information like its intended for idiots. P.s don’t call me Mr :) we are all friend here, including Sosomk. Ldingley 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_(country)/Archive_2&oldid=170181353"