Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Topography Map

Giorgi Balakhadze, Hebel, You have both reverted my edits regarding the topography map of Georgia. I have already talked to Giorgi about this but since there are now two users reverting, it makes sense to move the discussion here. I strongly think that the map showing the disputed boundaries should be used for the sake of Neutrality WP:NPOV. In regards to Giorgi's claim that this is not a political map, it does indeed show political boundaries and internal divisions so the disputed borders are very relevant. Yes, it's aim is topography, but that does not make entirely a non-political map as it indeed shows political borders. As per Hebel's comment on the fact that he does not believe showing "internationally recognized borders on any map is POV". The removal of disputed boundaries from maps is indeed POV pushing as it is not neutral. The fact that an overwhelming majority of the world's countries do not recognize the breakaway states is an undoubted fact but that does not mean that they are not disputed regions. There are still countries that recognize those states, the list is very limited in its number but nevertheless it does in fact exist. The regions are also not currently under the de-facto control of the current Georgian government, so not showing the disputed boundaries is also misleading. Showing disputed boundaries on any maps is the best way to achieve NPOV and avoid any type of controversy. The main map of Georgia on this article shows the disputed areas as does the location map. Once again, for Giorgi, I encourage you to go to Commons and inform someone on the incorrectly drawn or omitted internal border that you are talking about. You say that because you are a geographer, you like for details to be correct on maps so I am surprised that you have still not done that. I am sure that there are many users on Commons who can fix that issue so I don't understand why you don't want to contact someone about that. Either way, I do think that it is important to show the map that includes the disputed borders in order to achieve NPOV. --Turnless (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

For me my made map is better and I don't see need in other maps or changes. Sorry but it is nonsense to put those disputed areas on every map of the countries. Mostly Georgia is recognized in those borders and no need to politicize all maps. It is a physical map not political and in physical maps accent is on relief not on disputed borders. Readers already have maps where those territories are shown and it is redundant to put them everywhere.--g. balaxaZe★ 04:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No it is not nonsense or redundant, it is NPOV. A map that has political borders should not leave any of them out. In this case, the ones left out were the disputed areas which is always a very controversial topic which is best avoided by showing disputed boundaries. --Turnless (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Turnless they are not official borders and they are not demarcated they are temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia and it is redundant to put those lines on every map (maps have different types, content and needs).--g. balaxaZe★ 05:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia"? That is very much POV pushing. No matter what you want to call them, they are at the moment breakaway regions de-facto independent from Georgia obtaining partial recognition. No, they are not currently officially recognized by Georgia or most other countries but they are still there which is why the borders are dashed meaning they are disputed. That is in fact, the reason they are present on most other maps that include political divisions of Georgia such as the main map on this article and the location map. I assume from your name and attitude towards this issue that you are Georgian. If I am correct then I would just like to ask you to respect NPOV and not POV push in regards to these disputed regions. I am not pushing for a map that shows them as sovereign countries with solid borders. The map that I proposed has dashed disputed lines which are most neutral. --Turnless (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Turnless; we're not here to right great wrongs. Looking at Giorgi Balakhadze's long-term continuous POV pushing and, unfortunately, rather nationalistic disruptive editing regarding the matter of Abkhazia/South Ossetia (even right here, e.g. "temporary imagined lines on the territory of Georgia", or this other prime example), his editorial pattern regarding this matter is problematic to say the least. He can totally have those opinions, obviously, and I fully understand that he as a Georgian feels strongly about this (rightfully so), but we here should not deal over and over with his personal grief and dissatisfaction regarding these political matters. If this happens again, given that it's pretty structural, I suggest bringing this Arbcom for preliminary sanctions. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
For you if someone is Georgian it is the best and easiest to blame. But this is a relief map based on sources and which replaced another map with big mistake. Also I can say the same that you are pushing separatists POV, don't not miss single line to put everywhere your pro-separatist view. Sorry but you need more knowledge to understand what means imagined lines, because those disputed borders are only on the map and in reality nobody knows where "borders" go, they are not demarcated. Not only Georgians think like that but all international community supports Georgia except some editors in wiki and russian purchased voices.--g. balaxaZe★ 10:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
You won't afraid no one with this cheap pathos about sanctions and my "POV". I have created map that is based on other sources and is not my personal view map. So I advise to close your wings about blaming Georgians and presenting everything like you wish to be.--g. balaxaZe★ 10:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Giorgi, once again stay calm and respect WP:EQ. No one is "blaming" Georgians for anything. LouisAragon and I have only pointed out that your personal views towards the issue of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are understandable because of your ethnicity. You cannot blame us for pushing "pro-separatist POV" as we are not supporting a map that creates solid borders for the breakaway states, we are supporting one that shows dashed disputed borders which is the best way to achieve NPOV. It is also quite the opposite when you say "in reality nobody knows where "borders" go" as they are 'de-facto' borders meaning that in reality they are in fact there but are not widely recognized which is exactly why they are dashed, meaning disputed. No one ever said that the international community support or recognizes the breakaway states, but that doesn't make them go away and does not eliminate the dispute. The map that you created removed disputed borders, which is now very clear why you would have done so as per your view on the issue. Neutrality is veryimportant, which is why dashed borders should be included. --Turnless (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Images in question: File:Relief Map of Georgia.svg, File:Relief Map of Georgia.png. CMD (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Turnless your attitude is different than Aragon's (previous comment was for him), I understand what you say, but that is not a reason to create all maps with disputed areas, Commons files are not only for English wikipedia or even for Wikipedia, I've spent hours to create map of Georgia as it is in geographical science and as widely used. Your suggested map is with error and has old data, my map has better quality and modern borders the only thing is that it doesn't show disputed areas but that is not a fault. And again I agree to show disputed areas on political maps but not in every other case because they change content and make everything political that's why they become redundant.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Turnless what would you say if I remove all internal divisions and will leave only contour?--g. balaxaZe★ 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for at least trying to suggest a compromise, that is a change in your attitude that I have not seen before. However, I do not think that removing the internal borders is a good idea either way as that is very constructive information. Adding the disputed borders doesn't make everything political as the map is already in part political since includes political borders (not only internal but also national). I still think that adding the disputed borders is the best way to achieve NPOV while at the same time leaving valid information of other borders. Even if you remove the internal borders, the disputed borders still have a valid reason for being included. --Turnless (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"Relief map of Georgia" and "Relief map of Georgia with conflict regions" are two different titles and two different contents. This file is not only for English Wikipedia and it is a Relief map of Georgia.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do you refer to them as conflict regions? You called them that in the other discussion as well. I have never heard anyone refer to them as such, they are breakaway states, partially recognized. I am not sure what is your input to the discussion by that comment either way? What is your point?. --Turnless (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


Update. The map opposed by Giorgi Balakhadze, File:Relief Map of Georgia.png, for its inclusion of disputed borders and the absence of an internal border between the regions of Guria and Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti is now fixed and has no mistake in its mapping of internal divisions. Despite my continuous recommendation for Giorgi to go to Commons and request for the map to be fixed, he did not do so, so I did it myself. The border between the two internal divisions is now added, so I invite both Giorgi Balakhadze and LouisAragon, as well as Hebel who also reverted the addition of the NPOV map, and anyone else wanting to comment on the issue to join the discussion once again. --Turnless (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My objection was mainly in the reasons given for objecting to this map. I don't think that depicting Georgia in it's internationally recognized borders can be a violation of WP:NPOV. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Turnless I had my made map which is good as for me, it was you who wanted to change and it is no surprise that you should try to fix your preferred map. And about NPOV, I have same point as Hebel, depicting internationally recognized border can't be POV. And putting every conflict on every map is huge nonsense. For instance Pakistan do not recognizes Armenia, so for Pakistan area of Armenia is nothing than empty space, but do we put this case on every map? According your NPOV we should show somehow that for the country Armenia does not exist as a political entity. We do not do this because international borders have more weight and we should not put these disputes everywhere especially when map is from physical Geography.--g. balaxaZe★ 07:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The dispute between Georgia and its breakaway regions is much more problematic than Pakistan's non recognition of Armenia. There are a number of countries who actually recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, plus they are actually de-facto independent and do exist. Those borders are not exactly internationally recognized, yes the majority of the international community recognizes them as such but that doesn't take away from the fact that there remains to be a small number of countries who recognize the regions as independent and they still retain their de-facto independent status. Taking the disputed borders away is like saying that there is no dispute there or that the breakaway regions don't exist which is POV pushing and very misleading. --Turnless (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

two errors

The text

Lore based theories were given by he traveller

should read

Lore-based theories were given by the traveller

but I can't fix it as editing is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.37.9 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - LouisAragon (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

In the section "Etymology" the legend for the reference image should be changed from "Gorgania" to "Giorgiania": other texts from the Fra Mauro map make it clear that the letter similar to Ç is to be read as d͡ʒ (hope this is the correct IPA symbol) - see e.g. "çonchi" for junks.

93.34.83.228 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 talk 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

Since 2013, Irakli Garibashvili has been the prime minister of Georgia. – this line has become obsolete, because he is not a minister anymore. It should be removed or updated to– Since 2015, Giorgi Kvirikashvil has been the prime minister of Georgia. This line is from Government and politics- paragraph Hoome (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done by DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. /. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

188.169.42.254 (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kosack (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

In the "Etymology" section, St. George theory should be brought forward and citation is needed to support the claim that English term "Georgia" is somehow derived from the Persian word for Georgia (which does not even sound like George or Georgia). The most reliable theory of why the country is called 'Georgia' in English language is St. George, who is considered to be the patron saint of the country. Besides, the English speaking world first discovered Georgia during the Crusades and religion obviously played a major role in determining the country's name (Not to mention the letter by Jacques de Vitry that is provided as a citation).

In summary, the section should start as follows: The medieval traveler Jacques de Vitry explained the name's origin by the popularity of St. George amongst Georgians,[11] while traveller Jean Chardin thought that "Georgia" came from Greek γεωργός ("tiller of the land"). Some scholars reject these century-old explanations for the word Georgia/Georgians and point to the Persian word gurğ/gurğān ("wolf"[12]) as the root of the word.[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusAvrelius2017 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for "Georgia after restoration of independence" section

Section says: <<Roughly 230,000 to 250,000 Georgians[60] were massacred or expelled from Abkhazia by Abkhaz separatists and North Caucasian volunteers (including Chechens) in 1992–1993.>> Cited document [60] says: <<The Abkhaz attacks triggered a mass flight of Georgian civilians that international relief organizations "roughly estimated at 230,000 to 250,000 people.>> Note, that massacring is one thing, expelling is another, and causing a flight is yet another thing. Proposal is to make this string read: <<Attacks by Abkhaz separatists and North Caucasian volunteers (including Chechens) triggered flight of roughly 230,000 to 250,000 Georgians[60] from Abkhazia in 1992–1993.>> 185.150.154.5 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And what about massacres? --g. balaxaZe★ 22:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The source cited for "massacres" (that is, [60]), does not actually mention any, so, I assumed, "massacres" mention should be removed, or made into a separate sentence, not pointing onto 250,000 figure or the [60] source. 185.150.154.5 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the proposer regarding the "massacred" point, and have made the edit. The source does not mention the word "massacre" or "massacred" once. But even if it did, the linking of the word "massacred" with the word "expelled", with it placed in front of "expelled", seems like weasel editorializing to imply that the majority of those 230,000-250,000 were massacred. If there are RS sources that support a mention of massacres it should be mentioned separately and a separate number should be given. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The rest of the proposer's points have yet to be addressed. They probably should be. This edit [1] has added the propagandistic terminology "ethnically cleansed". This wording (like "massacred") is also not supported by the cited source, which actually says "Both parties have accused each other of engaging in "ethnic cleansing," a term that has gained currency during the war in Bosnia. Because of the euphemistic nature of the word "cleansing," Human Rights Watch has chosen not to use this term to describe practices of forced population movement or hostage taking on the basis of ethnicity during the Abkhaz war." I have removed the "ethnic cleansing" wording and instead made a neutral wikilink to the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!185.150.154.248 (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

Under History>Declaration of independence

The paragraph:

"After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic was established. president of nation was Nikolay Chkheidze. nation was federation which consisted by three nations: Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan as the Ottomans advanced into the Caucasian territories of the crumbling Russian Empire. Amid the crisis, Georgia declared independence on 26 May 1918. The Menshevik Georgian Social-Democratic Party won the parliamentary election. Its leader, Noe Zhordania, became prime minister."

are poor grammar and aren't totally accurate. I suggest a change to:

"After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic was established, headed by president Nikolay Chkheidze. It was a federation consisting of the nations of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. On May 26, 1918, the Democratic Republic of Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia) declared independence, with Noe Ramishvili (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noe_Ramishvili) becoming the first Prime Minister of Georgia."

So this is both a grammar change and a change to the substance of the paragraph.

Regarding removal of "as the Ottomans advanced into the Caucasian territories of the crumbling Russian Empire" this is because it is arguably only one factor in the politics of the region at the time. One could argue the German and British events had more of an impact during this period. Since this paragraph should serve as a brief overview of critical events and subjects, much more information can be found by following the referenced links to the TDFR, Chkheidze, DRG, and Ramishvili.

Regarding the mention of Zhordania but not of Ramishvili, it is inaccurate to skip a prime minister, even if his tenure was only a month before parliamentary elections were held and Noe Zhordania then became Prime Minister. Please see the referenced articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noe_Ramishvili) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noe_Zhordania). I think it is in the best interest of this paragraph that the "first" be mentioned, subsequent leaders can be found in the referenced articles. Phalstar (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions - Edit Request

Administrative Division section says: "In both Abkhazia and South Ossetia large numbers of people had been given Russian passports, some through a process of forced passportization by Russian authorities.[160]"

The [160] reference, however, is a report "Distributed by the Delegation of Georgia", which would imply it may push some agenda. Or it may not.

Anyway, it is worth discussing, if this sentence should be changed into:

"In both Abkhazia and South Ossetia large numbers of people had been given Russian passports."

However, in a quick search of materials of the conference [160] is a product of, I was unable to find any report by Russian authorities denying it, so... yeah...

185.150.154.36 (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Relations - Edit Request

Section "Foreign Relations" says "Georgia maintains good relations with its direct neighbours (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey)..." However, it probably does not have such good relations with Russia, and Russia being Georgia's direct neighbour invalidates the sentence. Maybe write like this:

"Georgia maintains good relations with neighbouring Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey..."

185.150.154.36 (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

Please change the infobox map caption from "Georgia proper shown in dark green; areas outside of Georgian control shown in pattern" to "[...] in light green" to reflect current version of the file. 2601:644:1:B7CB:44D2:D1A7:14DD:E76 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out.—Odysseus1479 22:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong information in the Infobox above

It reads: "They also argue that since the Eurasian country is actually slightly less searched for than the U.S. state, then the former cannot be the primary topic." This is not true, as the statistics for last year clearly show that the country is viewed more than twice as much as the US sub entity. So, please change or remove that information. Linhart (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Linhart: I have now made this a bit more clear. The arguments that the opponents were making was based on the page view and search statistics at the time of the above linked discussions, not the past year. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, these discussions occurred when the page view statistics were still being saved on stats.grok.se The server is currently down, so you cannot look it up yourself right now (see Wikipedia:Pageview statistics#Accuracy of the tools). Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, great. I just saw on https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews that information was completely false. Linhart (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Georgia (country). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


1. Megrelian, Svan and Bats in Georgia are NOT recognized as regional languages; The Megrelians, The Svans and The Bats are completely ethnic georgians, they are not ethnic minorities. 2. The georgian government controlled territories are NOT considered as "Georgia proper" - Georgia proper that is all Georgia (including Abkhazeti and Tskhinvali region) You must edit these informations in the article, becouse now you have pro-russian points of view there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.146.243.96 (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's true. Neither of these languages has a recognized status, but the Bats are not "completely ethnic Georgians". They are a Nakh subgroup with a high degree of assimilation with the Georgians.--KoberTalk 16:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Bats are half-georgian and half nakh ethnic group with mixed nakh-georgian language, but they have georgian identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.74.222 (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC) GEORGIA PROPER - if you mean georgian territories without Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region, I must say that the meaning of GEORGIA PROPER is not like that. Georgia proper that's ALL GEORGIA. You must sign there only the territory under georgian goverment control and the russian ocupation zones. P.S. the Bats nowadays have absolutely georgian identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.74.222 (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.252.163.99 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

rank and file

In the last sentence of the last paragraph in the Georgia In The Soviet Union section: please change "rank in file" to "rank and file". Kajaro (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Too cramped and depressing

I notice introduction is very cramped with talk of treaties, wars, and so much negativity. It should be more crisp and include some positive aspects of today's Georgia, like growing tourism, economic transparency, low corruption ranks. These types of indications are commonly shown on other country pages but because Georgia is a post-Soviet country, I guess focus is only on negativity. I traveled there recently and it is a great country with much to offer, which is not something this page shows from all angles...--Bencemagyar (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of User:Studiawschodnie

why are my additions being removed? Should there be nothing positive on this article, only negativity? please keep it balanced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencemagyar (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of User:Studiawschodnie
can someone explain why my contribution is "vandalism"?! I added information comparable to other country articles, nothing about this is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencemagyar (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of User:Studiawschodnie
It is not vandalism per se, it is disruption and evasion of a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a difference between vandalism and "disruption" (both insulting), and my changes are neither. The introduction is too depressing and notes very little that would be interesting to an everyday user, like wine, culture, etc. It talks about Georgia exclusively through the lens of depressing stories. A country with thousands of years of history and we can't find a few positive things to say.--Bencemagyar (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of User:Studiawschodnie

Please stop deleting so much information, which I supported with links. Explain yourself, instead of just insulting me as a vandal and disruptor. I have done nothing but improve this article. It should not be all about war and misery.--Bencemagyar (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of User:Studiawschodnie

No, it is actually your responsibility to explain us why the changes you propose are appropriate and why they improve the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI, your last edit broke the WP:3RR, this could lead you to a block if i report you on the relevant noticeboard. i strongly suggest you to listen to Ymblanter and to stop your edit war.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1) You're a sock.
2) You're here on a single purpose mission.
3) You're fond of edit-warring.
Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say you're not here to build this encyclopedia. As for stories which are too "depressing" for your liking, I kindly suggest creating a blog or a Facebook page. There you can write all day about Georgia, Georgia's viticulture, and how Georgia became politically more aligned with the West after the fall of the Soviet Union, without disrupting this place. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

where is Georgia?

Being at the crossroads puts Georgia in which continent(s)?(Some sources refer to it as an Asian country, others show it clearly in Europe. Is it in one or both? Kdammers (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Depends on the definition, could be Europe, Asia, or both (the last being the case for example if the cross-continental divide is defined as the main ridge of the Caucasus).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
But as an encyclopedia, Wik should either come down on one side or the other (with citations) or explain why we are waffling. As it now reads, the reader is not told one way or the other. Kdammers (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
We have reliable sources advocating different points of view. There is nothing we can do about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
But there is: We can briefly state that it is variously assigned to the two continents and give a reliable source for each claim. Kdammers (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
You can also mention some reliable opinion polls on the continent which the citizens of the country itself prefer to use / where they feel the country belongs. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

fix please

"After Soviet leader Josef Stalin, a native Georgian" --> "Josef Stalin" to "Joseph Stalin" (including wiki link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.248.156 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Current prime minister is now Mamuka Bakhtadze, as of June 20, 2018 176.37.36.120 (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, this is what the infobox says.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Form of government

is Georgia now parliamentary republic ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.144.150 (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

How I know,yes--ჯეო (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

On Wikipedia, US states and cities are more secondary because when I try to look up a city in a specific US state I get the more main one outside the US first. Similarly, US states should be always after countries.

Therefore, I request this move:

Georgia (Country) ----> Georgia

Georgia ----> Georgia (disambiguation)

Barracuda41 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sure before writing this you have already studied the previous move discussions and reviewed their main arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Please raise your move request at no other place besides Talk:Georgia Red Slash 03:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Climate zones

There are five climate zones in Georgia - Warm humid continental climate, Humid subtropical climate, Oceanic climate, Subarctic climate, Hot humid continental climate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Regenteditor (talk • contribs) 10:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Question about area and population

Do the two statistics refer to Georgia-proper or Georgia with the two disputed states?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Torpilorul (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2019

"The region retains autonomy, as a sign of Ajaria's reconnection with the central Georgian government, the Georgian Constitutional Court was moved from T'bilisi to Batumi."

This sentence has a comma splice. Please add "and" before "as a sign" 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done as this is a minor edit. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2019

International rankings section shows the 2018 placement of 9th best in the Ease of Doing Business Index, this has increased to 6th in the 2019 report. [1] Wodgester (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Explore Economies". World Bank. Retrieved 2019-09-08.

During World War II, almost 700,000 Georgians fought in the Red Army against the Germans.

Consider changing 'the Germans' to 'the Wehrmacht' in the sentence 'During World War II, almost 700,000 Georgians fought in the Red Army against the Germans.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsotsoria (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

St. George Why is there no identifying information about Saint George in the article while it is clearly visible in Georgia's name and flag? 5.176.189.61 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, Saint George's connection with Georgia is never mentioned or revealing. However, the Georgian flag has the coat of arms of St. George and even the name of the country is linked to St. George. If I am not mistaken, the red cross and the white flag are the Saint George Cross. Also, the Saint George who killed a dragon is depicted on the coat of arms of Georgia. These are not included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.167.65.40 (talk)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


How can not be understood? In the article, the flag and coat of arms of Georgia are St. george is included and there is no explanation on this subject, do you think this is acceptable? It would at least make sense if a St. George wikipedia link and links were put in the description or etymology section. More information should be added for the flag and name etymology.

For example In this place in the etymology section, where it says St. George, a wikipedia article link should be placed and more explanation should be made:

based theories were given by the traveller Jacques de Vitry, who explained the name's origin by the popularity of ------ St. George(article link)--------- amongst Georgians, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.167.65.40 (talk)

Fair enough, I've wikilinked the mention of Saint George. If you'd like anything beyond that added to the article by edit request then you'll need to provide the specific text you'd like to see added, supported by reliable, published sources. "More explanation should be made" is going to be declined in an edit request every time. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Economy during the Soviet era?

It would improve the article to include and expand the activities and elements of the economy during the Soviet era, c. 1921 - c. 1990. --TGC55 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

History

The history and politics sections are woefully out-0f-date. For example, there is nothing about Ivanishvili. What about the March 2017 arrangement by EU to let Georgians enter without a visa? Is Merabishvili still in prison> When were the last elections? What were the results?Kdammers (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Images and text

Please don't remove new beautiful images and text, if it is too much then we make smaller and nicer, total deletion is not improving. This article does not look nice, if you have better ideas please do, but why just delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I already made text smaller and also removed/rearranged images as sugested by different editor who thinks it is too long. What else to do, please write something better or if not don't delete. This article does not look nice, some info very old, low quality photos, too many maps hard to read, please help edit but don't delete. This happen already, they delete, ask me to post and then nobody answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 13:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Parliament hasn't been in Kutaisi for many years, why have its photo Why have photo of president meeting with some Swiss politician, why is it important More than dozen different maps for such a small country, many not very accurate. Very few picture of nature and historical monuments, see other articles with beautiful imagery, Georgia is a pretty, visited by millions, they don't need to see just maps — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

LeontinaVarlomonva, you are making a huge amount of varied changes without any edit summaries or other explanations. Could you break down your proposals here so it is easier to see each change? CMD (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

1) I want to edit intro to make read nicer and less bureaucratic. I want more culture in it (such as wine). Also, want to explain that Soviets invade Georgia only after it became neutral country and foreigners left. It had more effect on the country than Transcaucasia Federation, which exist only one month. If too long, it can be cut down by deleting repeat information, like separatists, currently two paragraphs talk about separatists in the beginning, it's too much 2) Want bring more picture of historical monuments from time periods, not just ruins. Reduce dozen map images that are modern and wouldn't interest, not this many. 3) Bring more pictures of Georgia's beautiful nature, there is so much of it 4) Cut out photos that are of confusing importance, like president meeting a Swiss politician, why is that important? Also, photo of parliament in Kutaisi that has been abandoned for years. When I visited there were dogs there and cows, there is nothing left there important to show on the article since you say space is limited — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. For the lead, I think you are correct that it needs to greatly cut down on history and have more information such as culture. I don't think there is space to explain why a certain invasion happened, but less important information such as the Transcaucasian Federation can be removed. I'm not sure what you mean about two paragraphs being devoted to separatists though, they seem to get only a couple of sentences in the final paragraph and a brief mention before. Regarding additions of culture, text in the lead should be based on what is in the rest of the article (per WP:LEAD). Could you propose the suggested changes here?
Regarding images, please note that per WP:IMGCONTENT images should be informative, not merely decorative, so it can't all be beautiful nature images. I'm not sure which specific map photos you want to cut, so more specifics would be useful there. On the last point, you make a convincing case and I have removed the President and the Swiss politician and the Kutaisi parliament, as you suggest, so there is space for a more relevant picture. CMD (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course it doesn't have to all be pretty, but it can be both informative and pretty. These fit nice along paragraphs describing roughly same periods:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC) For beginning of the article, something like this: Georgia (Georgian: საქართველო, romanized: sakartvelo; IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ⓘ) is a transcontinental country in the Caucasus region, where Europe meet Asia. It sits on the coast of the Black Sea and is largely encircled by the Caucasus Mountain ranges. It is bordered to the north and east by Russia, and to the south by Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The capital and largest city is Tbilisi.

Georgia is one of the oldest wine-producing countries in the world; the local traditions associated with wine are entwined with Georgia's national identity[1] and have been classified by UNESCO as part of the world's Intangible Cultural Heritage.[2] During the classical era, several independent kingdoms became established in what is now Georgia, such as Colchis and Iberia. The Georgians officially adopted Christianity in the early 4th century. The Georgian Orthodox Church contributed to the spiritual and political unification of early Georgian states.

In the Middle Ages, the 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. Thereafter, the kingdom declined and eventually disintegrated under the hegemony of various regional powers, including the Mongols, the Ottoman Empire and successive dynasties of Iran. In 1783, one of the Georgian kingdoms entered an alliance with the Russian Empire, which proceeded to annex the territory of modern Georgia in a piecemeal fashion throughout the 19th century.

Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, Georgia emerged as an independent republic[3] under German protection. Following the German defeat in WWI, Georgia was invaded by Bolshevik Russia, resulting in the country's eventual incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1922. During World War II, almost 700,000 Georgians fought in the Red Army against the Germans. By the 1980s, an independence movement was established and grew, leading to Georgia's secession from the Soviet Union in April 1991. Most of the following decade, post-Soviet Georgia suffered from economic crisis, civil and secessionist wars in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Following the bloodless Rose Revolution in 2003, Georgia strongly pursued a pro-Western foreign policy; aimed at NATO and European integration, it introduced a series of democratic and economic reforms. The country's Western orientation soon led to the worsening of relations with Russia, culminating in a brief war.

Georgia is a unitary parliamentary republic, with the government elected through a representative democracy. It is a developing country with a "very high" Human Development Index. The country is a member of organizations on both continents, such as Council of Europe, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Eurocontrol, OSCE and the GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development.

This proposal is not just adding culture, it is making a whole raft of changes, including removing very pertinent information and adding trivia. The history section already has wp:sandwiching issues, more would not fit nicely at all. CMD (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I have difficult explaining everything so which is why I copied it here to see. What is removed pertinent information? we can see where to add back? For photos, if you are worried about sandwich, not important to include every single photo I copied here, I can move some to other section or delete, like towers or fortress. It hard to see on this page because it formats strangely, it will look better on the article or if not again move somewhere else or delete if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
From the first paragraph alone, area and population, with trivia about being technically transcontinental by some definitions added instead. It would be much easier if you could propose specific changes, rather than having to go through and unpick everything backwards. Please indent your posts on talkpages using colons and remember to sign your posts. I have put the images in a gallery format above for ease of reading this talkpage section, I hope that is okay. CMD (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you that made look images much better now. It is hard to explain every little sentence but since you ask I do my best here:

  • 1) I remove population and size because it is already in the box on the right side, so I thought maybe it was not necessary in the very first part if space is limited. It can be kept if you insist that it must be at the very beginning, not important to me
  • 2) For "transcontinental" issue, to clarify that was already there when I began edits. I kept because I see that is how Russia page is written, also Azerbaijan, so I did not think it should be deleted. At least from the perspective of someone who has worked in the tourist industry, being both here and there is an important part of country's identity and distinct character, so being transcontinental is not total unimportant
  • 3) I added talk of wine and importance to the country, which is not disputed I think?
  • 4) I reduced size of history portion in places, like simplifying talk of Georgia's transitions from country to country, like from Russian Empire to DRG to Soviet without discussing too many administrative details, i.e Trancaucasian Federattion
  • 5) Reduce mention of separatists, since one paragraph already mentioned and linked them if somebody want to read more. I gave this space to international organzations and human development index talk
  • 6) Added photos of historical sites with history section
  • 7) Added more photos of nature
  • 8) Replace not relevant images of president and old parliament

I think this is a full list, which make sense to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

By point:
  • The infobox and the lead prose are different considerations, the prose should be able to stand-alone without the infobox. It's not really about if it can be by itself, its just question of how easy it is to read. Its too many numbers to be reading right at the beginning, not easy on the eyes, but I'm ok keeping if you insist
  • The exact continental boundary has little impact on the country, and is not mentioned anywhere in the article. The important implicit implication, of an area where cultures meet, is covered by the mention of Western Asia and Eastern Europe. For example, it does say "Architecture in Georgia is in many ways a fusion of European and Asian." so there is some mention. If you don't like word transcontinental it is fine, not important
  • Adding culture in principle is something to look at, but as I mentioned above information in the lead should reflect information in the article. It is not the place to add new information and citations (see WP:LEAD). Currently wine only has the briefest of mentions in History, Economy, and Culture. It would be better to add information there and see how it fits within the overall balance of the article. Added section on Wine from other areas
  • Looking at the history simplification edits in isolation, after the wine bit, I think most of them make sense to me as well.
  • On the separatist areas, I can see the argument that the current information is too detailed but I'm not sure about removing all the details completely given their relevance to Georgian politics and foreign affairs.Not removing all, just not mention in two different paragraphs as before
  • The history section is one that already has a few more pictures than is optimal, so it would be helpful to know which specific photos you feel should be added and why they would be better than the existing ones.Photos that I show above, because they depict actual historica monuments from those periods. I would for example replace map of medieval Georgia because it is modern and its better to see an actual monument from that period, not modern map create by someone on wikipedia
  • Nature is only really covered in the Geography section, which also has a decent number of photos, so it would be good to know which ones to replace and why.Some but not great. There are 3 photos, 2 of them from east parts of Georgia, and not great photos. One shows man-made caves, the other shows man-made settlement, third shows man-made railroad tunnel/railroad tracks passing under Batumi botanical gardens, not even the garden itself. Not sure that I can call them "nature", Georgia has lots of true stunning nature, not man-made caves or railroad. I don't know why I have explain everything, people who added bad or blurry photos, did they explain anything? they just add. Georgia has beautiful nature and my photo speak for itself, I tried posting them on the article, the down look like sandwich now, just take a look
  • example of nature
    example of nature
  • example of nature
    example of nature
    • On the Politics images I have already removed those as you suggested[2], to make space for a new image you feel is more appropriate.
    CMD (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

    It is confusing to respond to so many bullets so I just respond next to it in thick black letters if that's ok--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

    Here is another one with some changes you talk about


    Georgia (Georgian: საქართველო, romanized: sakartvelo; IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ⓘ) is a country in the Caucasus region, where Europe meet Asia. It sits on the coast of the Black Sea and is largely encircled by the Caucasus Mountain ranges. Georgia is bordered to the north and east by Russia, and to the south by Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The capital and largest city is Tbilisi. Georgia covers a territory of 69,700 square kilometres (26,911 sq mi), and its approximate population is 3.7 million.

    Georgia is one of the oldest wine-producing countries in the world; local traditions associated with wine are entwined with Georgia's national identity[1] and have been classified by UNESCO as part of the world's Intangible Cultural Heritage.[4] During the classical era, several independent kingdoms became established in what is now Georgia, such as Colchis and Iberia. The Georgians officially adopted Christianity in the early 4th century. The Georgian Orthodox Church contributed to the spiritual and political unification of early Georgian states.

    In the Middle Ages, the 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. Thereafter, the kingdom declined and eventually disintegrated under the hegemony of various regional powers, including the Mongols, the Ottoman Empire and successive dynasties of Persia. In 1783, one of the Georgian kingdoms entered an alliance with the Russian Empire, which proceeded to annex the territory of modern Georgia in a piecemeal fashion throughout the 19th century.

    Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, Georgia emerged as an independent republic[5] under German protection. Following the German defeat in WWI, Georgia was invaded by Bolshevik Russia, resulting in the country's eventual incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1922. During World War II, almost 700,000 Georgians fought in the Red Army against the Germans. By the 1980s, an independence movement was established and grew, leading to Georgia's secession from the Soviet Union in April 1991. Most of the following decade, post-Soviet Georgia suffered from economic crisis, civil and secessionist wars in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Following the bloodless Rose Revolution in 2003, Georgia strongly pursued a pro-Western foreign policy; it introduced a series of democratic and economic reforms aimed at NATO and European integration. The country's Western orientation soon led to the worsening of relations with Russia, at one point even resulting in a brief war.

    Georgia is a unitary parliamentary republic, with the government elected through a representative democracy. It is a developing country with a "high" Human Development Index. The country consistently ranks high for ease of doing business, and has relatively low levels of corruption. Georgia is a member of international organizations across both Europe and Asia, such as Council of Europe, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Eurocontrol, OSCE and the GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development.

    The replying through bold text interspersed in my edits is not helpful, and hard to follow. Please propose specific text changes rather than pasting a whole new lead every time. Again, the point of photos is not to display beautiful nature. For wine, are you copying text from elsewhere? For that you need to follow WP:CWW. This applies to images and captions too. CMD (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry I didn't know how else respond than copying the whole thing here. I propose what you see above, it added back things you mention, so what else need add? For wine, I did not copy everything, but is based on things I found on Russian wikipedia and the wine page, I change some and do google translate for some part.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    Easiest way is to propose specific changes. I have already responded above on some issues above which remain in the current version. Please follow WP:CWW for the text that you copied and translated. CMD (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

    Is there rule where I have to propose specific change? Where does it say I have to give sentence and sentence instead of just giving you the whole to see how it reads as whole? What are "some issues above which remain in the current version"? I think critiquing should also be kept specific so I can evaluate concretely just as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 12:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

    To make easier and edit in small amounts as you suggest, I will start changing one by one paragraph, that will be more concrete than the whole text you did not like above — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

    Comment: I suggest finding an alternative for the Marcus Aurelius plate, currently located in the "Antiquity" subsection. Surely, it shouldn't be too hard to find a work of art from ancient times without specifically pointing to Roman/Greek or Iranian roots, associations or influences. Although Georgia is geographically positioned between east and west it shared far more with the east for thousands of years (until the coming of the Russians in the 19th century). This is well established in scholarly works. For the record:

    • "Socially, the Caucasian polities were similar to the Iranian world and utterly unlike the Romano-Byzantine. Armenia and Iberia [i.e. K'art'li] were even more aristocratic in character than Iran, being, in fact, federations of dynastic princes -- each the overlord of a body of lesser nobility -- presided over by kings... (Toumanoff 1954: 123-124)" -- Rapp, Stephen H. (2009). "The Iranian Heritage of Georgia: Breathing New Life into the Pre-Bagratid Historiographical Tradition". Iranica Antiqua. 44: 660. doi:10.2143/IA.44.0.2034389 p. 662 (citing Cyril Toumanoff)
    • "Above all, pre-modern Caucasia is characterised by its integration into the Iranian and Persianate socio-cultural world, the Iranian commonwealth, which extended from Central Asia to Anatolia and south to the Arabian Peninsula. Caucasia’s active membership in this commonwealth began under the first “world empire” of the Achaemenids and survived both Christianization and the demise of the Sāsānian empire." -- Rapp Jr, Stephen H. "Georgia, Georgians, until 1300". In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Edited by: Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson
    • "From the mid-sixth century BC through the late fourth century AD, most of the Transcaucasus had been part of the Persian Empire... (...) Armenian, Georgian and Albanian aristocratic culture was heavily influenced by Persian values... (...) Zoroastrian beliefs were widespread, far more in fact than the later Christian tradition of history writing in the Transcaucasus is prepared to admit. Even after this, it is worthy remembering that many of its population, including Armenians and Georgians as well as Persians and Kurds, the Transcaucasus had much closer ties with the former Sasanian world to the south and east than with the world to the west." -- Whittow, Mark. (1996). The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025 pp 203-204 University of California Press ISBN 978-0520204973
    • "Some patriotic scholars in the Republic of Georgia, ripping a page from the political playbook of the Sakaashvili regime to connect Georgia (with pre-dominantly Christian) Western Europe, have likewise shrouded, ignored, and in extreme cases, even denied eastern Georgia's and Caucasia's intimate bond to the Iranian world in pre-modern times, instead exaggerating the region's historical ties to the Mediterranean." -- Rapp, Stephen H. (2009). "The Iranian Heritage of Georgia: Breathing New Life into the Pre-Bagratid Historiographical Tradition". Iranica Antiqua. 44: 660. doi:10.2143/IA.44.0.2034389 p. 647
    • "Despite the sharing of religion from the fourth century C.E. and the unshakeable later image of Christian Georgia’s natural bond with Byzantium, the impact of Greek on Georgian was limited mostly to religious circles. When Greek words were imported into the Georgian lexicon, their application was often adjusted to the social mores of the Iranian world to which Caucasia belonged. " -- Rapp Jr, Stephen H. "Georgia, Georgians, until 1300". In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Edited by: Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson
    • "“[i]t would be hard to place such peoples as Georgians and Armenian unequivocally within any one major ‘civilization’” (Hodgson, 33). While Hodgson astutely perceived Caucasia’s cross-cultural condition, subsequent research has exposed the region’s long-term participation in the Iranian and wider Persianate world. This multifaceted association began in the Iron Age, survived the intensive Christianization of Caucasia, and continued until the annexation of Caucasian lands by the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century." -- Rapp Jr, Stephen H. "Georgia, Georgians, until 1300". In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Edited by: Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson

    - LouisAragon (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    The inclusion of a piece of art influenced by the contemporaneous Iranian traditions (i.e. Achaemenid, Parthia, Sassanid) alongside the Marcus Aurelius plate, would also do the trick. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    I see what Stephan Rapp believes in strongly, but he also say "hard to place such peoples as Georgians and Armenian unequivocally within any one major civilization", so I think that point is best approach. To have varied things on the article, I found another photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Georgian_National_Museum_15043_(9067066727).jpg It look nice as well, so I included — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    But I have a different issue also. Why remove this "Georgia stands out in the region for its ease of doing business, relatively low levels of corruption, and more press freedom than in any of its neighbors." All of it is true and links have been created to support. Why cannot we say good things about this country, just because it is developing country?

    Russia says the country is "It is simultaneously ranked very high in the Human Development Index, with a universal healthcare system and free university education" Why is that good but we cannot say similar things about Georgia?

    On another hand, look at Moldova for example, it says "It is the second poorest country in Europe by GDP per capita.[18] Although Moldova has a relatively high Human Development Index, it is the lowest in the continent, ranking 90th in the world."

    What this tells is that it is fine to say bad things about small poor country, but if they do well in something then we delete because it sound like bragging?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    Please sign and indent your posts as I requested earlier in the conversation. Articles should follow WP:NPOV, using an WP:IMPARTIAL tone. If it sounds like bragging, it probably is. CMD (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    No I don't say it is bragging, especially if it is true. I just think there is a double standard with country's like Georgia, always emphasis on war, poverty, horrible things, but if something good is mentione then its not impartial. I think you're not impartially thinking if that is how you think--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing the basis for this assertion. Poverty is not mentioned in the lead, and wars are only mentioned within the history portions without any particular emphasis. There's also plenty in the existing lead that some would read as "good". CMD (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    Also I did not understand what was critique of this, especially location and population figure https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_(country)&diff=1003941843&oldid=1003871206 It read more simple and easy to understand. Also, why is it important to have population at 3.718 instead of 3.7, what difference that 18 thousand people make so important that it should be in the very beginning of a country profile. I think maybe you are just used to these texts and don't want change, but I don't read logic in it--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    That edit removed convert templates, replaced the more specific and useful regional locations with the entirety of Asia and Europe, and added a bit on mountains not supported by the text. Not seeing a significant difference in simplicity or understandability either way. CMD (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    Ok I now understand the part about detail, but it could also be done without repetition and less words. For example, saying Eurasia, eastern Europe and western Asia seem redundante since both europe and asia are part of eurasia...Also I did not notice template converting, I must have remove by accident when I copy things, sorry about that--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    Your change actually added words, it was not less. Previous point about mountains remains, and changes to directions are unexplained. CMD (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    Georgia bordering countries

    I change directions because I look at the map and the current ones were not very clear. Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan all seem mostly south, but Russia also cover a lot of the east, not just north. So saying Azerbaijan east and Russia north not seem very accurate. Most Azerbaijan territory is south or southeast of Georgia. It just what I see on the map so I want to change maybe as "Georgia is bordered to the north and east by Russia, to the south by Turkey Armenia, and to southeast by Azerbaijan" or maybe simpler "Georgia is bordered to the north by Russia, and to the south by Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan."--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

    There's no perfect way to describe an irregular object, and Azerbaijan lies generally to the east as well as the south, so your first option sounds the best. CMD (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ a b Miquel Hudin & Daria Kholodolina (2017), Georgia: A guide to the cradle of wine, Vinologue, p. 300, ISBN 978-1941598054
    2. ^ "UNESCO - Ancient Georgian traditional Qvevri wine-making method". ich.unesco.org. Retrieved 2019-09-09.
    3. ^ Jones, Stephen (27 October 2020). "The establishment of Soviet power in Transcaucasia: The case of Georgia 1921–1928". Soviet Studies. 40:4 (4): 627. doi:10.1080/09668138808411783.
    4. ^ "UNESCO - Ancient Georgian traditional Qvevri wine-making method". ich.unesco.org. Retrieved 2019-09-09.
    5. ^ Jones, Stephen (27 October 2020). "The establishment of Soviet power in Transcaucasia: The case of Georgia 1921–1928". Soviet Studies. 40:4 (4): 627. doi:10.1080/09668138808411783.

    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 [3]. 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:
    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)

    – 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.[4] 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_(country)/Archive_8&oldid=1090559705"