Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 3

message: There are some POV and other issues with the current introduction, which I have tried to rectify.  First of all: if Georgia is reckoned in Europe (and regarding this there is no argument), it is part of Continental Europe (i.e., on the continental mainland, unlike the British Isles, Iceland, or Cyprus) and in Southeast(ern) Europe, not southeast of it.  However, even if this is corrected, this assertion cannot be made at the expense of an equally valid viewpoint that Georgia is in Asia, and a number of other reliable sources (e.g., National Geographic) have been added to corroborate this.  After all, that's why it's a transcontinental country.  If one performs an online search (which is very basic and not necessarily authoritative but as good a gauge of frequency as any), the number of hits containing Georgia and Asia (56.4M) is just a bit more than those containing Georgia and Europe (55.3M).  Thus, it is sufficient and impartial to indicate merely that Georgia is in the Caucasus region of the Eurasian landmass/continent (e.g., compare with Cyprus), with details to follow.  Some of the other sources I added were reverted, which is proof-positive of the bias of the reverter and constitutes vandalism, which will hereafter be rectified without argument. Anyhow, until compelling reasons are produced as to why preference should be given to mentioning that Georgia is just in Europe, the current version should stand.  Thought?  Thanks! Corticopia 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it says southeast to Continental Europe, it does not necessarily  mean that it is located in Europe. Please look at the wording again and note that in different European countries the word Continental Europe has acquainted different meanings whether there is a sea or the mountainous range that separates the country from the surrounding nations.SosoMK 02:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  This is totally unclear, not to mention incorrect and unsourced: Georgia may be considered to be part of Continental Europe or may not be.  And if it is not a part of 'Continental Europe' (as you maintain), what part of Europe is it in?  Peripheral Europe?  And if it is not a part of Europe, what continent do you suppose it's a part of?  Please drop the illogic and hoodwinking.  Please provide a citation from a reputable publication -- none as of yet (including worldatlas.com, which places G. in Europe and is not necessarily authoritative) -- that describes the country's location so awkwardly ... and definitely not at the expense of reliable definitions which do clearly define its location in Europe and/or Asia.  Until you can, there is no reason to retain an 'ass' introduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corticopia (talk • contribs) 07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see new editors on this talk page. May it become more civil. I support User:Corticopias arguments. Tamokk 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Georgia is located to southwest of Europe in the Caucasus at the east coast of Black Sea, which is mostly considered to be a part of Europe, but we will keep the current wording due to the fact that not all sources say that Georgia is located in Europe. SosoMK 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no: it is IN (part of) Southeastern Europe and part of Continental Europe and or (South)Western Asia.  'Mostly' = 'weasel word for assertion which can't be corroborated.  I am still perplexed as to why you insist on retainin an unsourced, unclear introduction which only YOU support.  We will keep the current wording until a consensus insists otherwise: only you have recently objected to it. Corticopia
OK: EE/WA -- as opposed to the other way around -- is fine with me.  However, it should read 'juncture of EE' ... -- my mistake. :)  I also inadvertently placed the locator map for Armenia; my apologies.  Corticopia 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with introduction 

message: See arguments above. The section seems to be a sequence of selected facts, some of them rather missleading, while it ignores important things, like the effects of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and military conflicts of the 90s on the country's economy. Tamokk 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tamokk, ise Kober a ekimia, midi rame kai camali gamoacerine. SosoMK 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a very nice move on your part, Alex. You are not involved in the dispute and if this is supposed to be a friendly warning it should be done on Soso's talk page, not here.--KoberTalk 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is equally good place to post a warning imho. Alæxis¿question? 06:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that it was your indirect invitation to get him blocked. Sorry... --KoberTalk 06:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes: the prior introduction has and will be restored, and edit warring regarding this and other article content will be dealt with.  Corticopia 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humans, why are u so hostile to Soso? He has contributed a lot of useful things to Wikipedia. He's now blocked, but you have also violated wikipedia's rules of 3rr and civility. I suggest elaborating a compromise version on talk page before engaging in edit wars. Thanks, --KoberTalk 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, why is S. so hostile to us, humans? Now the lead section is well written, for one week... eh?! Tamokk 07:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes: the question should be flipped.   And we did elaborate a conciliatory version on the talk page, only to have it continuously and senselessly reverted without reason.  As a result, S. was just blocked for a week for edit warring.  And, even now, why do editors insist on reverting to such an unclear, POV introduction which has no source?  Please -- let's get on with it.  I suggest added discussion and consensus before attempting to change it again/back, or said changes shall be dealt with.  Corticopia 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy Section

message: There's a grammatical error in the text under the flag. There's written "SMedieval flag of Georgia restored after Rose Revolution"
- 83.117.225.78 10:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Please cote below:
Support User:Sosomk's version:
#Support SosoMK 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most say here that the version is well sourced. Did you actually see those "sources"? Almost non of those support the corresponding claims.  Tamokk 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: Please leave my name out of this dispute. This is a dispute between you, and you are gonna have to work it out. I don't favour any side or any version of the article, and I will not have people using my name and my adminship to claim support. Everything I have ever said here, I said as an editor, not as an admin. AecisBrievenbus 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only POV pusher and editor here is you. And don’t downplay on some blocking threats. You behaviour here and communication with other editors is disruptive and despicable. You also vandalize the article, of which i have been a witness before. Also you have very strong POV (admirer of Beria and Stalin) which sometimes seem anti-Georgian in nature. Your intentions are very clear, you are just here to wage edit wars, and attack other editors. This kind of approach to the Wikipedia process is unacceptable. Your personal attacks on Soso are just another indication of your disruptive behaviour and rigid POV pushing Ldingley 15:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Refrain from personal attacks. I was accused of POV only by you and Sosomk. And Sosomk was accused of POV by almost every editor who has edited the article. And administrators have not warned me of being blocked, because of my behaviour here. Tamokk 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And what? I know that inflation was 10% in 2006. I just do not think it is necessary to include this detail in the artiicle. In 2005 inflation rate was 8%. In early 1990s we had hyperinflation, and another, although less severe, by end 1990s. Even today it remains high. Why should we stick to some 10% inflation? I suspect the only reason is to magnify Russias ban on Georgian wine (btw I doubt that the ban could have caused the inflation rise, wine export to Russia does not account for so much for Georgias economy). Also I do not understand why do you want to exclude economic downfall of early 1990s, which was by far more important then this 10%. You are fact selective. This is why I blame you of POV. Tamokk 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And is this your idea of voting? Putting your version in a favorable position, as if a version approved by an administrator. That administrator could have spoken for himself if he wanted. Tamokk 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The admin has already spoken in the very beginning of the discussions section. Alæxis¿question? 06:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you clarify what is a Sovet propaganda in my section? As for the inflation statistic, when we are writing about the economy of  a country in 2007, we must use the statistics of the last fiscal year, rather than the skeptical summary of last ten years. Note that the other countries of E Europe have not had the best statistics as they are transforming. 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why can't the article have both the last year inflation and the overview of the situation with it in the past? Alæxis¿question? 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could do that but to summarize last ten years we have to write a book. Please look at the economy sections of Czech Republic, England, USA, Canada, and etc. SosoMK 17:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Today most mainstream economists emphasize the short-run rather than the long-run and as John Maynard Keynes would say in the long-run, we are all dead. SosoMK 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sosomk, you can't have 66% consensus. Check what does it mean - it could either exist or not. Alæxis¿question? 13:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions

message: * Russia completes withdrawal from 1 of 2 remaining bases in Georgia
*Russia completed its withdrawal from one of two remaining military bases in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia on Wednesday, a long-promised move that Georgia's president has pressed for years.
Georgia's pro-Western leaders are trying to steer the country into NATO and are counting on the United States to help get them into the Western alliance. Georgia also wants Washington to put its diplomatic muscle behind its efforts to bring the pro-Moscow separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia under Tbilisi's control. --Tones benefit 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A key victory for Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili

message: ===Key issue===
Please present some refs proving that the presence of Russian troops is not one of but the key issue in Rus-Geo relations. Alæxis¿question? 07:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to reach consensus. Untill now, and give your above question either Russian trops are or not the key issue in Rus-Geo relations prove that you're on the wrong way to reach consensus. The above questions are already explained above, see above.--Tones benefit 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are many citations on google about how many times Georgia asked Russia to withdraw. After all, you think they send invitation to stay?--Tones benefit 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Generally high investment and inflation may well coexist, so in this case we only need credible citations and not speculations. Tamokk 03:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: Please present some refs proving that the presence of Russian troops is not one of but the key issue in Rus-Geo relations. Alæxis¿question? 07:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to reach consensus. Untill now, and give your above question either Russian trops are or not the key issue in Rus-Geo relations prove that you're on the wrong way to reach consensus. The above questions are already explained above, see above.--Tones benefit 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Key issue

message: This could be true but it's not referenced - the article says Russia completed its withdrawal from one of two remaining military bases (the second one is Batumi - Alæxis¿question?) in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia on Wednesday, a long-promised move that Georgia's president has pressed for years. which is not quite the same thing. Alæxis¿question? 07:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many citations on google about how many times Georgia asked Russia to withdraw. After all, you think they send invitation to stay?--Tones benefit 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Troops in Abkhazia

message: Please present a source proving that inflation could be (and was in this case) offset by investment rate. Alæxis¿question? 07:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally high investment and inflation may well coexist, so in this case we only need credible citations and not speculations. Tamokk 03:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Offset

message: What do you say about an article like this one Georgia and NATO?--Tones benefit 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgia and NATO

message: I don't mind your political convictions, as soon as you keep your POV away from the article. Stop censoring the economy section.  Tamokk 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are so sensitive about the inflation, I have removed the paragraph about it, although I thought it was informative, and left only the statement by the president of national bank in connection to the embargo. You can add information to the section if you think I have forgotten anything. If you decide to remove something or revert it alltogather give reasons. Tamokk 03:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is this version anti-Georgian? Could you list specific issues with it like I did in the issues section. Btw you also didn't answer the questions I raised there. Alæxis¿question? 07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political POV editors

message: There are a few problems with this sentence:
:It is conjectured that the word "Georgia" derived from the Ancient Persian word Gurj or Gorg, meaning Gorgeous in Proto-Indo-European languages .
*There is no such thing as "Proto-Indo-European languages": one either has the "Proto-Indo-European language" (the root language of all) or "Indo-European languages".
*The word given is in Ancient Persian, so one can't just assert that it means X in other languages; the word will have preserved differently in different languages.  You could say perhaps that cognates of that word in other languages all mean X, or that the word derives from a root (in this case a Proto-Indo-European root) meaning X.
*The word "gorgeous" is not something I would use to translate any foreign word: it's essentially a poetic synonym for "beautiful".  It is obviously included because it is thought to be a cognate of the Proto-Indo-European root which also led to "Georgia".
So, the best speculative interpretation I can make of this sentence is "It is conjectured that the word "Georgia" derived from the Ancient Persian word Gurj or Gorg, derived from a root meaning 'beautiful' in Proto-Indo-European and cognate with English 'gorgeous'."
And that would be the end of it if I could confirm this interpretation.  But, yet another wrench is thrown in: my Oxford English Dictionary lists the origin of "gorgeous" in English as "Old French gorgias fine, stylish, elegant, of unknown origin".
I think we have to throw out "gorgeous" entirely since we don't even have a proven йderivation to Proto-Indo-European, or cognates in other Indo-European languages.  And if we have to do that, I wonder if this whole thing is just a speculative false etymology.  Can anyone offer any insights here? --Saforrest 11:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of 'Georgia' 

message: the intro is a summary of the article, and lengthy political declarations do not belong to it. The following piece is deleted form the intro and replaced by a summary.
:Georgia repeatedly asked Russia to withdraw their troups from Abkhazia and the issue of Russia’s military withdrawal from Georgia is fast emerging as the key measure of whether the two countries can overcome mutual suspicion and settle their political differences (including Russia’s economic embargo, starting from 2006). Anyway, Russia completed its withdrawal from one of two remaining military bases in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, a long-promised move that Georgia's president has pressed for years.http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/27/europe/EU-GEN-Georgia-Russia-Withdrawal.php  Russia completes withdrawal from 1 of 2 remaining bases in Georgia.
The text requires serious rephrasing (e.g, the phrase "fast emerging" is good for newspaper about today, but not good for encyclopedia) and opinions in it must be attributed. `'Miikka 19:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro cleanup

message: The two versions differ in the date of country Christianized: "in the early 3rd century" vs "in the early 4th century". Please explain and provide references. `'Miikka 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the date. It occured in the 4th century, c. 330. --KoberTalk 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianization

message: Thanks for your efforts for merging the two versions, but if you note, you did not change anything from my section except restoring S's awkward wordings in some of the sentences. Tamokk 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awkward wording is no big deal. We have native English speakers in wikipedia to fix this. Now, what exactly do you see missing from "your" section? Please keep in mind that this article is a summary article for the whole country, and all details must go into the articles referred to as "main" for the sections. So, rephrasing my question, what major points are missing from this summary? `'Miikka 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No major points are missing, just language is bit awkward. S. can keep it if he thinks it's more Georgian. Just watch out that he does not remove my info again. Thanks. Tamokk 06:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging feedback

message: I agree to accept points of view from totally other side of the political spectrum. However, we have to do a little work in translating it to English and merging paragraphs a bit because there are just too many right now. SosoMK 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did my best to make it presentable for people from various different schools of thought and economic ideologies. Now I leave it up to native-English speakers and non-native experts to fix any awkwardness that there is in the section. Regards, SosoMK 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing Economy section

message: Right now, the article says Georgia[2] is a transcontinental[3] country in the Caucasus and this links to an article that virtually does not have any references. We all know that Georgia is generally an European country. However, geographic classifications from various important organization vary: for example the Oxford Reference, which belong to the World's most respected institution, says that Georgia is in southeast Europe and on the other hand, the UN says that Georgia is in Western Asia. Since two different ideas about the location exist, we can say that Georgia is located southeast to mainland Europe at the east coast of the Black Sea and that would be just fine. I just don't like seeing the word transcontinental there and anybody must be mystified by the term. It makes it sound like that Georgia is some kind of divided nation, where European Georgia is different from Asian Georgia, which is the case with Russia, for example. SosoMK 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing the introduction

message: Perhaps one could include some trivia such as the fact that people cheered for sportsmen from Georgia during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.
:Are you serious? See WP:TRIVIA.--Svetovid 12:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

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

message: As the information reached my ears i searched it in wikipedia and it wasn't here, so i added it. I put the reference and it's the 30th one. I hope i didn't made any aggressions to wikipedia's rules
189.32.158.41 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. The debate is becoming increasingly notable and even deserves a separate article. However, the link you provided contains an inaccurate info. There were no such consultations in the Parliament of Georgia, specifically in October 2007. I'm sorry I have to remove your passage, but I'll definitely restore it in an updated and referenced form. Thanks for a great idea. --KoberTalk 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate on Monarchy