Talk:Georgia (country)

Language, Grammar

This is the English language Wiki. However it is riddled with poor grammar, missing articles, etc. And it generally feels like it was written in some sort of Euro-English. Was it translated into English? Or just written by non-native speakers? Honestly the level of English on Wikipedia seems to have dropped rapidly lately. What's wrong with proofreading ? If someone edits a page, it gets fact checked and mistakes or downright lies are removed; but apparently nobody has a problem with broken English. Can this page be reviewed by a native speaker/language expert please? 188.29.57.203 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

1993 conflict map

Iberieli Re this, you are right that the text is misleading. I think that it is supposed to refer to the evacuation of Georgian civilians by the Russian Navy [1]. I think that it would be a shame to lose such a map, I'll try to find a way to fix it. Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Mилостивый государь, where did you read that Russian fleet evacuated civilians from Sukhumi prior and after September 27, 1993? Did you mean Ukrainians? Because it was the Ukrainian ships and helicopters that took the civilians out from the conflict zone. From the HRW report, On August 16, Russian paratroopers began to evacuate civilians from the conflict.55 By August 20, nearly 10,000 civilians had been evacuated by sea by the Russian Black Sea fleet. It was on August 20, 1992 and not September 27, 1993. Moreover, those were NOT Georgian civilians being evacuated by Russian black sea fleet but Russian tourists, ethnic Russians who lived in Abkhazia, and Abkhaz as well. The map claim looks as if Russian Black Sea Fleet militarily assisted the Georgian defence (not the defence one will see in the soccer match, but military one) which as I wrote on the other talk page is completely inaccurate and unsubstantiated. So its a shame to lose such a map which was enormous inaccuracy which might suit certain viewpoint or bias but has nothing to do with reality? No my dear friend such parallel reality maps have no place on Wikipedia, especially on sensitive and controversial topics like conflict, war and political dispute. Iberieli (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote before, I also believe that the current wording is misleading and intend to correct it. I'll check the sources regarding the ethnicity of the civilians evacuated by the Russian navy. Can you point me to a source that says that only non-Georgians were evacuated? Alaexis_¿question? 18:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The HRW report quite explicitly says that ethnic Georgians were evacuated by the Black see fleet:

“ On September 27, Sukhumi fell to Abkhaz fighters as the Russian Black Sea fleet evacuated tens of thousands of Georgians by sea ”

“ Third, the Russian Black Sea fleet participated in the humanitarian evacuation of tens of thousands of Georgians from Sukhumi ”

So are there reliable sources that contradict this? Alaexis_¿question? 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It does seem a map worth saving. Placed it to the right as reference. The text box also needs to be shifted left a bit, but as it's an svg changes should be simple enough to make. CMD (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The map has been fixed and no longer mentions Russian military support of Georgians in September 1993. Alaexis_¿question? 06:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, much appreciated! Iberieli (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

Some image previews are broken.

Change [[File:Mukhranbatoni Palace (3).jpg|thumb|Château Mukhrani, one of the centers of Georgia's viticulture in the 19th century, has recently been restored to produce its eponymous wine. to [[File:Mukhranbatoni Palace (3).jpg|thumb|Château Mukhrani, one of the centers of Georgia's viticulture in the 19th century, has recently been restored to produce its eponymous wine.]]

}} 93.136.205.181 (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

Remove superfluous "was" between "the" and "unified" in the sentence: "In the Middle Ages, the was unified Kingdom of Georgia emerged and reached its Golden Age during the reign of King David the Builder and Queen Tamar the Great in the 12th and early 13th centuries." ShareableTie (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done   melecie   t 12:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is an apparent consensus that, in the absence of a clear primary topic, the disambiguation page should remain at its' current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Georgia (country) → Georgia
• Georgia → Georgia (disambiguation)

– It has been a few years since this same move request was initiated for this page. I agree with the original logic that Georgia as a country should be given preference over the U.S state, and it should not have the words country in the bracket (as no other country does). When this page was created the U.S state was probably more searched for and had more relevance, but now that is not the case. The U.S state page should have its brackets as it does, this bracket should be removed. Johnnytest5 (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Georgia titles a page with significant content and so is ineligible to be a target "new" title unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The country has more than twice as many pageviews as the U.S. state. Update: For the past two years, there was an average of 7,535 views a day for the country compared to 5,085 for the U.S. state. This includes a huge spike at the time of the U.S. Senate runoff. 99to99 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to know what the best thing to do is if you see a Wikipedia requested move that you feel afraid is going to succeed. What's the best thing to do if you feel sure a vote to oppose doesn't do much help?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Your username makes your bias apparent, but that doesn't prevent you from making a good argument for why it shouldn't be moved. O.N.R. ^(talk) 13:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
    • ... that's an extremely effective argument against the move. You saw the word "Georgia" and immediately assumed... the Georgia that isn't the one being considered as a possible primary topic. Red Slash 16:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move. It's hard to prove a primary topic between the two, although this isn't as politically charged as certain other cases. O.N.R. ^(talk) 13:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - In this case, its in the long-term benefit of the project that we continue to disambiguate all so that we do not accrue lazy "Georgia" wikilinks which could lead to the wrong intended target. -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the multiple previous failed attempts and the big FAQ box at the top of this very talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only the past 90 days of traffic stats, as cited by User:99to99, is really a small sample size compared to the years this has been disputed since practically when Wikipedia was first launched back in 2001. The traffic generally ebbs and flows on these pages, depending on recent news. For example, if you had attempted to make this argument back in early January, the three months worth of traffic stats between October and December 2020 shows a period of a very large spike in the U.S. state article because of news that happened there.[2] I agree that the long term benefit is to maintain the status quo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  The second set of stats, 7535 views per day vs. 5085 views per day: that is only about 7535/(7535+5085) = 59.71 percent That is still a bit low IMO to be considered "much more likely than any other single topic" under the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rule. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says the primary topic should be "more likely than all the other topics combined." I interpret that as meaning that at least 50 percent of total traffic goes to the primary. 99to99 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It also says that it should be "much more likely than any other single topic". This situation does not meet that criterion. --Khajidha (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that full line regarding respect to usage reads, "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" (emphasis on the "much more" and the "and"). "Much more" should be higher then 50 percent. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose on EN the state is probably as common or moreso. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Claims about the "last 90 days" will be influenced by WP:RECENTISM relating to the 2021 Tbilisi Pride Protests, which have made international news since May. I'll bet if the same 90 day survey covered November 2020 through January 2021 it wouldn't show the same trend. This is a permanently disputed topic which luckily doesn't provoke the same feelings as some other naming issues; it's best to continue the current solution. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This can lead to confusion. So, no. It is better to maintain the current status. Danloud ^(talk) 20:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. No clear primary topic. Both are equally notable and neither is named after the other. JIP | Talk 23:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Neither is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Georgia, the recent spike of views is not a sufficient reason to move, especially when the view stats themselves aren't even particularly persuasive themselves. - Aoidh (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - As a resident of one of the main options, I probably have a conflict of interest. However, neither is the primary topic, as much as I'd like it to be otherwise. BilCat (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per everything all the other oppose votes listed. --Khajidha (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support - agree with Johnnytest5 --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 11:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no primary topic with respect to usage. The clickstream data for the dab page for the month of March shows that the link to the country got a total number of clicks (5990) comparable to the link to the US state (5157). I checked for one more month – January 2019 – and the margin is bigger (6051 for the country vs. 4115 for the state), but still not big enough to warrant a primary topic. There are also other articles listed on the dab page, and they collectively receive several hundred clicks each month. – Uanfala (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't determine preference based on what we feel should be given preference. See also WP:RGW. -- Calidum 19:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is unable to suggest and influence that one of the entities be renamed to Kartvelia or Peachtree. As a result, neither is the primary topic for Georgia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. There is still no primary topic. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose still no primary topic. The situation might be different if the country was bigger and/or had more population. Clog Wolf _Howl 07:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As noted, there is no clear primary topic here. Both country and state should remain as is. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No clear primary topic. In the last 90 days, the ratio of page views for the country versus the state has been about 2 (not overwhelmingly huge). In addition, the U.S. state has a greater population. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is quite WP:surprise to see Artie like "Religion in Georgia (country)" instead "Religion in Georgia", "Economy of Georgia". Fact that State has Greater populartion is not Valid counterargument IMHO because of state is state and country is country (note WP:VA include small Countries and Cities but no States, even though in India Uttar Pradesh has comparable populaion to whole United States). According to Erik Zachte's Statistics there is about 1/3 page views from USA on English Wikipedia Dawid2009 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Dawid2009, would you still support this move if there were only one person in the country for every Graham's number factorial people in the state?? Georgia guy (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Georgia (country) is not only part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team but also highly rated by that project, meawhile the state is not included to that project at all. Georgia (country) is also part of 10 000 most important articles on English Wikipedia meanwhile the state among 50 000 the most important articles on English Wikipedia. I never said and will never sat population is uttery meningless but only noted WP:VA give higher priority to the countries than states by quite outstanding tendence (in the past thre were efforts to put states like Uttar Pradesh among vital articles but always with no attention, see for example: Special:diff/859855804 and Special:diff/894857355). Dawid2009 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment not bothering to !vote because it seems pretty clear from the last major move request that consensus is against the move. I did chuckle a bit at the "state is state and country is country" because the definition of state is:

a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

while the definition of "country" is:

a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.

which is quite hilarious. Georgia is a partially sovereign state or a fully sovereign state, depending on which one you're talking about. And the degree of sovereignty a topic holds has never been one of the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Red Slash 16:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"The state is a state and the country is a country" if only we had some way to disambiguate the two...parenthetically perhaps, given that neither one is the primary topic for the word "Georgia" in the English language... - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic comment

One more comment. Suppose Tuvalu (population: 11,646; UN votes: 1) decided to change its name to "England". Would you support moving the article on the tiny Pacific island to England, or would you disambiguate it? The England in the north isn't a sovereign state; it's a subnational entity that has, believe it or not, far less sovereign control than Georgia (U.S. state) has. (The UK Parliament has supreme authority over England; however, the United States Federal Government does not even have the authority to require Georgia to use the funds available to it to fund health care for its poorest residents - see National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius for details.) If full sovereignty or a UN vote really are the deciding factors, get ready for England and England (UK).

If not... if you think that, even without a UN vote, the subnational entity of England would have primacy over the island sovereign state newly named England, then where do you draw the line? (Don't BS me about there being a longer history for England the subnational entity. Ignorance of the history of Tuvalu does not mean that it does not exist.)

If you say that "North" England's wiki page is more widely read, I would move the same for "South" Georgia (recent months in 2021 excluded due to pressing current events there). If you say that North England has more population, a bigger economy, more influence on a world stage, etc. I would move the same for South Georgia. If you say that sovereignty does not equal primacy, I would move the same for South Georgia. If you say "this is absurd and a total waste of time", I would move the same for this move request. Red Slash 17:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

South Georgia (island) is located near the Falklands. And if the international community and mainstream journalists actually acceded to your proposed charade, we possibly would move the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean, obviously if Tuvalu changed its name, people would go along with it. Countries do get to decide what their name is. And I did specifically say "South" Georgiato clarify I was referring to the southernmost of the two Georgias, thank you Red Slash 02:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New lead content

The proposed lead changes devote about a sixth of the lead history to wine, in quite a travel-guide style prose. They also reduce the specificity of the HDI for no clear reason, add corruption issues for which the only mention in the article is replacing an entire police force due to corruption, add a lot of detail on cannabis which is almost certainly undue, and duplicates already mentioned NATO aspirations. That other country articles are not good is not a reason to make this article worse to match. CMD (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Several observations why I think lead should not be changed like you suggest:

• It is overly simplistic to say wine is "travel-style". Wine-making is essential part of Georgia's identity, culture, and also worth mentioning in history due to its ancient tradition, which makes it noteworthy in the history paragraph.
• Your other reasons keep changing and not really supported by what you claimed. For example, after I rearrange some images there was no longer any sandwiching, at least in the section where you removed them. Also, you mention accessibility, but if something can be come more accessible (like providing a description), you are free to make improvement and help out, instead of just deleting. This is not very constructive and very frustrating for people spend time on it.

You mentioned WP:LEDE, which I just read and it says "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Nothing you removed is really meeting this criteria so much that it worth fight over.

• Most important, it seems capricious that you seem intent on having problem with such content on Georgia article and not other countries. For example, you recently edit Denmark but did not have problem with this "A developed country, Danes enjoy a high standard of living and the country ranks highly in some metrics of national performance, including education, health care, protection of civil liberties, democratic governance and LGBT equality." I think this is one of those situation where someone has decided that a small poor country cannot have anything nice said about it in the article and nothing more than personal bias, I don't see good reason for it and those policies you cited do not prohibit this information as far as I can tell. Most of it is discuss to some extent and not in violation of policy--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Travel style refers to the way something is written. In this case it's written much like a brochure, selling an oldest country claim and touting UNESCO status. As for the lead content, I specifically pointed out the various unsupported items in my post, which you haven't covered. Regarding images, sandwiching remained, noticeably around the United Georgian monarchy subsection. ACCESS in this case relates to ensuring images are in a relevant section. For example, one of the recent edits put a picture of various foods in the Media subsection, to which it does not add much clarity. As for your Denmark analogy, you are welcome to fix that article, I do not heavily edit every country article. CMD (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Your dismissive tone just confirm what I said above, which is your personal bias against Georgia. It is not "selling" or "touting" anything, it is noting an archaeological fact that Georgia is "one of the oldest" wine producing countries, which is referenced and definitely notable. Cultural aspect of it is also notable if you know anything about Georgia. There are no violations of any policies, it is your personal bias that is against it because it is a small poor country and it bothers you that something not depressing can be said. If something in lede was not discuss at length per policy, you could have also contributed by expanding or ask someone else, we should not do harm and go easy way of delete.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, the issue is the way the text is written, not the underlying archaeology. Do you have any comments on the specific points I mentioned in th eopening post here? CMD (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

the way text is written? then how should it be written, perhaps provide suggestion instead of easy way out of deleting. my response was already detailed. I don't think it's undue to say its one of the first countries to legalize cannabis. I don't think its undue to say one of the earliest wine producing countries in the world. anything that's "one of the...in the world" is notable and fair to say. also just because something reads like "positive" does not mean it is "selling" or "touting"--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)