Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Tskhinvali

There's a contradiction in the administrative division section of the article. Tskhinvali is listed among the raions of Georgia while the map to the right does not show such raion. Am I right to think that the map is right and the list is wrong? Alæxis_¿question? 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Am I right to think that the map is right and the list is wrong?" , hehe. Why i’m not surprised that you made this assumption. Just a question though. Did, even for a fraction of a second, it occur to you it could be otherwise?

(aaah....i hate replies like this one, but just couldn’t resist)

The map is evidently worng. It doesn't show Tskhinvali and some other raionis of Georgia.--Kober^Talk 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

unlike Abkhazia, south ossetia is not an autonomic republic since it was renounced by the government at the biggining of 1990s. so I think there is nothing wrong with the map --Polscience (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias in the article

I'd like to have this article flagged for biased content. For one thing, it does not site the Orthodox Church's heavy involvement in the Rose Revolution incidents. For another, it says that religious discrimination is practically unknown in the country, when several religions are banned or persecuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronMaidenRocks (talk • contribs) 04:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed the line about Protestants in the religious section. But it is still contradictory to say in one line that Protestants are met with heavy opposition, and that there are no religious conflicts in another. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No religion is banned or persecuted in Georgia. The radical Orthodox leaders who encouraged hatred against other religions were cast in prison shortly after the Rose Revolution. --Kober^Talk 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting line of comments, since someone seems to have deleted any reference to Protestants. They may or may not be persecuted in Georgia, but someone wanted them purged from this article! Also, someone with good source materials needs to edit the section on the history of Christianity in Georgia, which is not at all objective. It states obviously legendary material as factual. The article ought to take a neutral position on whether the mantle of Christ is really in Georgia and simply say that there is such a claim.Ftjrwrites (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the Religion section that describes the well documented physical violence that occurred in Georgia against Protestant denominations. I have sourced my material well, and the material contains additional sources. Please do not remove them. If you have evidence that this violence has stopped occurring please give me links and the paragraph will be worded in past-tense. The articles about Georgia religion will also need to be edited to reflect this paragraph. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Department of State's 2007 reprt:

The status of respect for religious freedom by the Government continued to improve during the period covered by this report, and government policy continued to contribute to the free practice of religion in most instances… Attacks on religious minorities, including violence, verbal harassment, and disruption of services and meetings, continued to decrease… Past incidents of abuse were committed by or attributed to a small group of GOC extremists, who were subsequently repudiated by the GOC or successfully prosecuted. The GOC excommunicated Paata Bluashvili, and on May 30, 2007, he was convicted of abuse, but when released on bail he did not return to custody. Two other extremists, Mkalashvili and Ivanidze, remained in prison. Other reported extremists remained at large and unprosecuted but did not commit any known violent acts during the period covered by this report.

International Religious Freedom Report 2007--Kober^Talk 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I like your username, btw. Yes, they rock. :) --Kober^Talk 12:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I believe that the current wording of the paragraph should be rephrased if necessary to indicate that major mob violence has ceased. The report you linked to indicated that religious hostility and freedom of religion is still an issue in Georgia. Before my edit, religious oppression was blatantly said to be "unheard of". The article, and subsidiary articles about Georgian religion, needs to reflect that religious hostility exists there to a degree. Edit: Oh, I see you already did that. Thanks for your help--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the situation is not perfect but. it is improving with the new governments efforts. --Darevanche (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reformist government?

What is meant by a reformist government? Especially when considering the anti-democratic behaviour of the government recently, it is very obscure, if not propagandistic - I suggest that it simply read pro-Western, applied to/joined Nato, without any claims about implications for improvement of the society - that is for future historians to decide. 204.83.135.219 (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A reformist government may engage in anti-democratic behaviour, there's no contradiction here imho. Alæxis_¿question? 18:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what one might think is antidemocratic, others think is necessary for their countries' security. history will determine.--Maccfarland (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How is Georgia unitary?

How can Georgia be described as a unitary state, when it has regions with vast autonomy within it, up to independent regional armed forces? 92.234.45.208 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

This version just says 'As a transcontinental country Georgia may be considered in Asia and/or Europe...' Then several external links are given for each variant. This is what I call NPOV :)

On the other hand in this version it is written that 'Numerous sources put Georgia in Europe ...[examples]... As a transcontinental country, Georgia may also be considered to be in Asia.' The reader gets the impression that the first variant is somehow more right (or, at least, more widely accepted) that the second one. Obviously neither variant is right and if you think that one is more popular this fact has to be referenced separately. Alæxis_¿question? 05:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 Polls

I added this here and in the 2 articles, since, this article is not updated. But it can be on the upper area or post independence. Mikhail Saakashvili on May 22, 2008 announced his confident victory for his ruling party in parliamentary polls amid fears of political unrest, and rising tensions between Georgia and Russia. Early official results indicated his United National Movement had 63% of the votes against the opposition's 13%, with about a quarter of the 3,664 precincts.news.bbc.co.uk, Georgian leader set for poll win--Florentino floro (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in "Regions" section!

There appears to be some sort of text error in the "regions" section of this article. It looks to me like someone tried to make some sort of map of the area that Georgia is in. If I could, I would fix it myself, but alas, I am a noob. Just thought I'd Bring that to attention. --robo56 (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

What are you doing? Thanks for your interest in Georgia, but you can not write here everything you have read somewhere. This is not a forum. At least you will have to go to the history section. After awhile I will revert all the recent changes, and don't accuse me in some POV. Tamokk 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the blanking, but nothing was better then such lead section. Unfortunately it has to be written anew again. Or just restore the last consensus version. Tamokk 05:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a tiny correction on the etymology of "Georgia" 1. Linking it semantically to Greek and Latin roots (respectively, γεωργος "tiller of the land" and georgicus "agricultural")[9]

The more direct translation would be "worker of the land." From γη or γεα (earth) and ‘εργο (work). "Farmer" would do nicely.user: G.Theodoridis 16.35 11 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.82.248 (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories

What are the criteria for this questionable category? From time to time, it appears in this article, but Russian is neither an official language in Georgia nor it is a native tongue of any substantial minority in the country.--Kober^Talk 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a political statement just some useful info, Sakartvelo has only one official language - Georgian but Russian is known and will still be known for some time in Georgia. Most Georgians are so fluent when interviewed by Russian commentators, this applies to most politicians as well. I will have trouble finding an adult urban Georgian without some knowledge of Russian, unless he is adolescent. Don't be shy, it's good to be multilingual. Wishing you well. EDIT: I hope the disagreements between Russia and Georgia will soon be over. --Atitarev (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not shy at all and I also speak Russian without any major difficulty, but I don't think that Georgia can be described as a Russian-speaking country. Btw, Abkhaz language has also an official status in the Constitution of Georgia. I also hope that disagreements between Russia and Georgia will be over, but not as soon as we might wish. Thanks and also wish you well, --Kober^Talk 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that this seems an odd definition of a "Russian-speaking" country. In much of continental Europe you would likewise have trouble finding anyone not speaking English, but that doesn't mean it'd be correct to call those parts of Europe "English-speaking". MMad (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories are generally used for uncontroversial grouping of articles. In this case a list of the countries with significant number of Russian-speakers would be more appropriate, imho (the statistics would be rather interesting). Alæxis_¿question? 13:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

georgia is a georgian speaking country and what other language they speak is completely irrelevant. Alaexis you better go back and finish working on your abkhazia pages and then do the russia propaganda. its not an appropriate page to do that.--Polscience 27 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 11:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style."

What? How can you convert metric measurements to English? They are English. Or maybe you mean that you want people to convert them into imperial measurements (ounces, pounds, fahrenheit, gallons, etc.)? Why should this be done? The majority of countries (all countries in the world except the USA and Burma) use metric measurements.--Xania ^talk 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Imperial units are usually known as English units in the US. As to the other part of your question, around half of the users of the English Wikipedia are American, and most Americans don't know how long 50 meters is or how warm 15 degrees Celsius is. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's another reason to use metric first! The more it is used here, more people will learn it, until there is no longer a need to include imperial measurements at all. -- Stormwatch (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

South Caucasian(Kartvelian)

Ignoring the alleged edit history of the person making the edits, I'm not clear as to the necessity of having the Kartvelian in brackets. It's somewhat controversial as Laz don't consider themselves Kartvelian but speak a South Caucasian language. I'm not clear as to what the bracketed term adds to the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The person making the edits is a sock of the now banned troll, your erstwhile protege. I'd recommend you to do a quick search through scholarly publications how the language group spoken by Georgians and Laz is called. After your recent failure, you may also wish to make another attempt and bring the case to the board of fringe theories. --Kober^Talk 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Kober, this edit war is a little silly. Having been in linguistics for several decades, I can assure you that, with reference to the language family, South Caucasian and Kartvelian are exact synonyms, as the South Caucasian languages article makes abundantly clear. In fact, the South Caucasian languages article also includes another synonym which has not been added here, namely Ibero-Caucasian, with a link to a separate page (there is no link, however, to a separate page "Kartvelian languages"). So, it's not at all clear why the addition of the synonym is so necessary here. By the same token, the Northwest Caucasian languages have also been called Abazgo-Kerketic, Pontic, or Abkhaz-Adyghe, but there is no need to add these synonyms between parentheses after every mention of the Northwest Caucasian languages. By and large, the most commonly used terms for these language families are clearly South Caucasian and Northwest Caucasian, therefore references to them by these standard names are in no way dubious and require no further clarification between parentheses. The same applies to the dozens of other names of language families that have alternate names. The use of the prevalent name does not normally necessitate a listing of alternate names. Pasquale (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Ibero-Caucasian languages is not the exact synonym to the Kartvelian languages, and the proponents of the highly controversial Ibero-Caucasian theory extend the term to other language groups of the Caucasus, including the Northwest Caucasian languages. The term "South Caucasian" leaves those who are not very well familiar with the Caucasian linguistic nomenclature, in confusion as the South Caucasian region also includes Azerbaijan and Armenia whose languages are not really "South Caucasian". That's why I think that using the group's another name "Kartvelian" is helpful here. Furthermore, "South Caucasian" is not the absolutely prevalent name and the term "Kartvelian" is equally, if not more, frequently used in scholarly publications. The user who keeps eliminating any mention of "Kartvelian" has a very puerile prejudice towards this term as he thinks that it was introduced by Georgian scholars, and the user Pocopocopocopoco has his own reasons to uphold his position. I don't really find my reverts silly as I'm pretty much sure that "Kartvelian" is a legitimate synonym and too frequently used to be ignored when speaking about the languages spoken in Georgia.--Kober^Talk 17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Pasquale, instead of lecturing us on the topic which we are well informed about, you should pay attention to vandalism and trolling by socks. Kober, ones again we have to report him to the admins. Thanks for your hard work in countering vandalism and POV pushing by this disruptive sock/troll. Iberieli (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't upheld any positions, I'm just trying to get a grasp of why you need the bracketed term. Pasquale makes an excellent argument. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a comparative search through Google Books for the prevalent scholarly designation of this language group. Here are the results:

Now let's turn to Google Scholar:

Please note that Kartvelian is also transliterated as K'art'velian or Karthvelian. In summary, the Google Book search for "Kartvelian" yields 998+ results vs. 516 hits for "South Caucasian"; and the Google Scholar gives 611+ results for "Kartvelian" vs. 222 for "South Caucasian". Is everything clear now? --Kober^Talk 05:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kober, you made some good points, however, I specifically disagree on the need to clarify that the South Caucasian language family does not include all the languages spoken in the physical South Caucasus region, because only a person with no education in language classification might think that (and, in that case, they would simply have to follow the link and get educated). No one is lecturing here. I am simply saying that, for at least a century and a half now, the term "Caucasian languages" has unambiguously referred to languages indigenous to the Caucasus which are not members of other language families, such as Indo-European, Turkic, Semitic, or other. That is why there is no need for further clarification. As you no doubt well know, linguists have attempted for a long time to interpret these "Caucasian languages" as a unitary language family, but when those attempts failed, three (or four) distinct language families were set up, named South Caucasian, Northwest Caucasian, Northeast Caucasian (and, for some, also a separate North-central Caucasian). Of course, all of these have alternate names, but the reference to Caucasian remains convenient, pending further clarification of the relationship among these different groups. This is not a matter of statistical frequency on Google or even in the linguistic literature. I fully realize that Kartvelian has a high frequency and I myself use it with reference to the proto-language of the South Caucasian languages, which I also refer to as "Proto-Kartvelian". So, let me be clear. Personally, I do not object to the parenthetical insertion of "(Kartvelian)" after "South Caucasian". It doesn't bother me at all. I was simply saying that the term "South Caucasian language family" is completely unambiguous, therefore it does not necessitate further clarification. That is why I said and continue to say that this edit war is silly (and I might have said ludicrous if I didn't suspect intense emotions were linked to this parenthesis). Since absolutely nothing is gained by the insertion of "(Kartvelian)" after "South Caucasian", it seems absurd that this insertion would be removed and reinserted dozens and dozens of times as if some great truth depended on it, when in fact absolutely nothing depends on it.

Let me give you an example. The Afro-Asiatic language family includes languages that are spoken in Africa and Asia, but absolutely not all the languages of Africa and Asia. Would you add an alternate name such as Hamito-Semitic after Afro-Asiatic just to make sure some readers will not think all languages of Africa and Asia are included in the Afro-Asiatic language family? Obviously not. So why is this necessary here? (By the way, the same parallel could be made for Indo-European, Austro-Asiatic and several other language families.)

Finally, regarding the socks and trolls argument. I am very well familiar with vandalism and trollism on the Wikipedia and have had to reverse it countless times. However, this seems to be a different case. Even if the authors of a given edit are cerified vandals and trolls, you still have to look at the merits of the edit. Do they have ulterior motives in removing the parenthetical insertion of "(Kartvelian)" after "South Caucasian"? Maybe so, I don't know. But then the question arises: Do the editors who insist on the parenthetical insertion of "(Kartvelian)", as if their life depended on it, have ulterior motives? Since there is no difference in meaning between one phrase and the other, it becomes legitimate to suspect that both sides in this edit war have some (unknown to me) axe to grind. Pasquale (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it was a very interesting reading indeed, for which I'm greatfull. However, we should keep to the scholarly sources rather than deductions or analysis on this question. I'm impressed with your knowledge of languages however, as mentioned before, your arguments should be supported by scholarly sources (primary and secondary at least) otherwise, everyone can claim to be Harvard linguist (for example i specialized before in Ancient Near Eastern Languages but its completely irrelevant here). As for vandalism. Im sorry but I must disagree. First of all, vandalism is vandalism no matter how we see it. Secondly, this person used inflammatory remarks calling me and Kober "GAYorgians" and "fascists", which completely unacceptable (not to mention sock accounts). Also there are no interior motives or grand conspiracies here. If you have credible claims with supportive scholarly sources please feel free to add the additional information or make corrections to the existing ones. Pardon for being suspicious, its due to Procos long history of provocations of Georgia related articles and therefore I must insist on proper sourcing. Thanks for the useful google book links and also for your time and contributions on this question. Regards. Iberieli (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Iberieli. However, I am not sure what you want me to give proper sourcing for, that South Caucasian languages and Kartvelian languages are synonymous? Just click on the links and you'll find all the sourcing you need. Pasquale (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What I fail to understand is why the inclusion of the most prevalent term for the language group is harmful here. Is it really that catastrophic to add just ONE word to the description of the majority languages spoken in Georgia in the article about Georgia? Are we supposed to get rid of this word as a concession to a vandal whose strongest arguments have so far been limited to throwing ethnic slurs around? Is this the only article in Wikipedia which contains a bracketed synonym? Could you please explain the harm the word “Kartvelian” brings? --Kober^Talk 14:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Kober, you obviously did not read what I wrote. I specifically said: "I do not object to the parenthetical insertion of "(Kartvelian)" after "South Caucasian". It doesn't bother me at all." There is absolutely no harm in the inclusion of a parenthetical clarification, just as there would not be any harm, to go back to my earlier example, in the inclusion of a parenthetical "Hamito-Semitic" after "Afro-Asiatic". I have simply said it was not necessary, as it does not add any additional information. I do sympathize with your unwillingness to concede a point to a contributor (or contributors), sometimes anonymous, sometimes not, who may have abused the Wikipedia and its users and contributors (sorry, I have no first-hand knowledge of this). However, just consider that if you did concede this point, absolutely nothing of substance would change. On the other hand, you can continue this edit war ad infinitum without ever arriving at a conclusion. Pasquale (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I would highly appreciate if someone provide any data concerning the Ossetian share in Georgia's population.Taamu (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

War

Due to the latest events I propose to prevent artile from editind to unregistered users. --Dima1 (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Iberieli (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea as articles related to Georgia may fall under cyberattacks - like Estonia article during the 2007 April riots in Tallinn.Karabinier (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just undid (as an IP, forgot to log in) a modification with a paragraph comparing the current Russian actions with those of Stalinist russia in 1939. A. Smith (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I've just undone a revision calling Geogia 'Fascists', but was from a registered user. BigTurnip (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, noticed the recent vandalism fixed by Bigturnip (Paul (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Sadly, it does appear that vandalism is going to happen to this article. Minutes ago I saw some highly opinionated comments that I was going to suggest be removed. Someone beat me to it. :) But already I am seeing new comments like this: "As soon as he realized that he was mistaken and that Russian Peace keepers entered South Ossetia he panicked and asked the U.S. to get involved" Is there anyway to stop vandals from messing with this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niblik (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, anon-IP's should be kept out of this article for a while to prevent this. semi protection stopping unregistered IPs to edit has been requested. Arnoutf (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New section

I propose to merge the last paragraph of the WWII section and the 1989-1991 section into a new section named "Calls for independence" or "Towards independence". NerdyNSK (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The new section would read as follows: NerdyNSK (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Towards independence'

The Dissidential movement for restoration of Georgian statehood started to gain popularity in the 1960s.^[1] Among the Georgian dissidents, two of the most prominent activists were Merab Kostava and Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Dissidents were heavily persecuted by Soviet government and their activities were harshly suppressed.

On April 9, 1989, a peaceful demonstration in the Georgian capital Tbilisi ended in a massacre in which several people were killed by Soviet troops. Before the October 1990 elections to the national assembly, the Umaghlesi Sabcho (Supreme Council) — the first polls in the USSR held on a formal multi-party basis — the political landscape was reshaped again. While the more radical groups boycotted the elections and convened an alternative forum (National Congress), another part of the anticommunist opposition united into the Round Table—Free Georgia (RT-FG) around the former dissidents like Merab Kostava and Zviad Gamsakhurdia. The latter won the elections by a clear margin, with 155 out of 250 parliamentary seats, whereas the ruling Communist Party (CP) received only 64 seats. All other parties failed to get over the 5%-threshold and were thus allotted only some single-member constituency seats.

"Georgia or Sakartvelo"

The lead paragraph says: "Georgia or Sakartvelo is a transcontinental country ..."

As far as i understand, this means that "Sakartvelo" is used as one of the country names in English, but i have never seen anything like it in English texts. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No sakartvelo is not used in English. Sakratvelo is a TRANSLITERATION from Georgian and should not be used in English. In English it should be Georgia as directed by Georgian constitution and official procedure guidelines.--Satt 2 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Article too long

This article is way, way too long, but, given the current state of affairs, I suppose splitting the article would be equated with splitting the country. Pawyilee (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say, i actually think it is one of the most thorough articles i've come across in Wikipedia. Perhaps a few more redirects to subsections would be help out. But i wouldn't recommend cutting much. --68.51.72.144 (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Article linked in the news

Accusation of McCain plagiarizing from this article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/did-mccain-plagiarize-his_n_118207.html links to http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/08/did-mccain-plagarize-his-speec.html

Might be some high activity/scrutiny here soon. Just a heads-up. -- Quiddity 19:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we're being useful to lay readers, rather than specialists; and the extracts appear to be factual... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But there's no attribution. I guess this is what happens when lazy college kids become campaign staffers. Joshdboz (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also picked up by The Hill, Indecision 2008, and Wonkette. Joshdboz (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain's campaign has denied copying, but "wouldn't say outright that Wikipedia wasn't consulted". --Stlemur (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Syntax

"Dissidential" is not an English word. Sca (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Gulistan

Why I couldn't find anything about Treaty of Gulistan in this article while it has a really important role in Georgia history!?

It seems to me that in all articles regarding Iran and Russia,history has been changed slightly!!!!! So,It is quite true that history is always written by the winner side and extravagant although it isn't a very far from our time! According to articles of Wiki ,It also seems that in all wars between these two countries,the poor and innocent russia army with a very little troops but brave could win against a large Iranian troops.Besides, the reason of the wars wasn't the greed of Russians to take possession of other countries!

Why some people and governments think that others are stupid.They do whatever they want then change the history and forget about everything so easily! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.184.89.221 (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia

Site is moved to Estonia and working again. http://www.mfa.gov.ge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchoman (talk • contribs) 11:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Education

I was just checking the page,is there something to be written in Education section or what? Elv2003 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

CIS

Georgia has left the CIS organization, please someone modify the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeru (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the CIS reference earlier today, but more recently learned that Georgia has merely announced its plans to leave the CIS, and at this moment is actually still a member. Given the fact that it likely will not remain a member for much longer, I'm not sure how important it is to mention its present membership in the intro. But if anyone wants to add back this information, feel free. Adlerschloß (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics map

I don't quite understand the position of Satt 2 who repeatedly keeps removing this image from the article. The user calls this image "IRRELEVANT", although it shows ethno-linguistic groups in the Caucasus region, which Georgia itself is part of.

I understand that removing the map of the world from such an article about a relatively small country would make sense, but not a Caucasus map from the Georgia article. Please explain, what that removal is about, Satt 2. Because right now, your actions make no sense to me, and I plan to re-add the map. - MentalMaelstrom (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh...I just think that on Georgian page it is more appropriate to put ethnicity map of the Georgian territory and not the region. It is too Large. If you will make it a low resolution, then one can not see anything on it without clicking and going inside for a higher resolution.Cant you crop the picture and readjust it so that it shows just Georgian territory ? I think showing the whole region and taking space is not what you should do.--Satt 2 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

citations needed.

Quote from the article: "Supported by Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia achieved de facto independence from Georgia. More than 250,000 Georgians were ethnically cleansed from Abkhazia by Abkhaz separatists and North Caucasians volunteers (including Chechens) in 1992-1993. More than 25,000 Georgians were expelled from Tskhinvali as well, and many Ossetian families were forced to abandon their homes in the Borjomi region and move to Russia."

I see three inflammatory claims in that paragraph which desperately need citations. I cannot since I am not a registered user. Ciao. 216.69.219.3 (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Georgia" on my mind

I've always been curious about the English-language name of this country. In it's own language, is it called something that sounds like "Georgia" — or was that some Westerner's rough equivalent centuries back?

I notice in Russian it's called Грузия, which would be rendered in English as something like Gruzia. However, the U.S. state that has the identical name Georgia is transliterated phonetically on Russian Wiki as Джóрджия. Thus, the two places known as "Georgia" in English are known by different names in Russian. Is it really correct for us English speakers to call the ex-Soviet country in question "Georgia"?

Sca (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgians call themselves Kartvelebi (ქართველები), their land Sakartvelo (საქართველო), and their language Kartuli (ქართული). Term Georgia comes from the Saint George, the patron saint of this nation but there are other theories that you can see in this part of the article Georgia_(country)#Etymology_and_state_name.--Avala (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 1, Article 1, Section 3 of the Georgian Constitution:"Georgia shall be the name of the state ( meaning country) of Georgia". Briefly no one plans to change the name or amend the constitution. Every countries' name is different in almost every language so I do not see the problem. Hope this explanation helps.--Satt 2 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting but confusing, too. I suspect "Georgia" for a country whose inhabitants call it Sakartvelo is sort of a historical malapropism. It seems less logical than, for example, "Germany" for a country whose inhabitants call it Deutschland, since the latter was long known in Latin as Germania.

Sca (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes as you can see it in the article, its either derived from St. George -- A patron Saint, or from Greek Georgicus meaning agricultural. Its because Greeks first arrived on the Black Sea coast more then 2000 years ago and established colonies, there were probably many plantations in Georgia just like it is characteristic to sub-tropical western Georgia even today.--Satt 2 (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have an official source for the English-language constitution, as opposed to an online translation somewhere which happens to have perpetuated "Georgia" for "საქართველო"? Also, any particular reason why we have a footnote in the infobox for it? 217.36.107.9 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't terribly related, but does anyone know where the Russian "Gruzia" comes from? The term is used in several other languages as you can see from the wikilinks, most notably other Slavic languages (including my mother tongue), and for some reason, in Japanese as well. I notice the Kurdish name is Gurcistan - since Kurds live in the neighbourhood, maybe it is an alternative regional denomination of the area/people? TomorrowTime (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Colbert Report August 13th

Brace for impact, Colbert mentioned this article tonight, August 13th. Though I imagine since the article is already locked we'll miss most of the usual. 24.17.179.183 (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was also mentioned in Congressional Quarterly [1] [2], Keith Olberman's TV show [3], The Onion [4], Huffington Post [5], Daily Kos, etc etc, where it was alleged that McCain plagiarized this article (or at the least used it without attribution). --AW (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia-Israel Relations

"The growing US and European Union influence in Georgia, notably through the Train and Equip military assistance programme and the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, have frequently strained Tbilisi’s relations with Moscow." This leads the reader to believe that it's mainly the US & Europe interested in the pipeline (Israel has a stake in the pipeline - [6] [7] [8]) and also having influence in Georgia... when in fact Israel has been an ally of Georgia, and assisted in training troops and providing arms [9]. Would anyone like to add this in? If not, I'll take a stab. -- Eeblet (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning that Georgia's defense minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli. [10]

I certainly support any attempt to improve this article with the information you've mentioned, as it's important to consider the Russia-Georgia war from the viewpoint of regional tensions (Russia's support of Iran and Syria, U.S. and Israeli intentions against Iran, etc). Adlerschloß (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the info. What do you think of these changes, proposed by an online friend?

FOREIGN RELATIONS

Georgia maintains good relations with its direct neighbours Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey and participates actively in regional organizations, such as the Black Sea Economic Council and the GUAM. [44] Georgia also maintains close political, economic and military relations with [ADD: Israel and] Ukraine.

REPLACE - The growing US and European Union influence in Georgia, notably through the Train and Equip military assistance programme and the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, have frequently strained Tbilisi's relations with Moscow.

NEW - The growing US and European Union influence in Georgia, notably through proposed EU and NATO membership, the US Train and Equip military assistance programme and the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, have frequently strained Tbilisi's relations with Moscow. Georgia's decision to boost its presence in the coalition forces in Iraq was an important initiative. [11]

REPLACE - Georgia has been recently invaded by Russian armed forces due to the conflict over Ossetia.

ADD: In July 2008 hostilities started between Ossetian militia and Georgian armed forces which led to a full-fledged attack with artillery fire on Tsinkvali region (South Ossetia) on Friday August 8. Russia claimed 1,600 Ossetians were killed in this attack. [12] As a consequence, Russians troops entered S Ossetia through the Roki tunnel in support of Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers already stationed there.

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)

August 12, 2008, Georgia's president Saakashvili, has told tens of thousands of people at a rally outside the country's parliament that Georgia will quit the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and urged Ukraine to follow suit. [13] The CIS was created in 1991 and has included Georgia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine.

SUGGESTION

The military relationship with Israel and the US should be added under topic: MILITARY.

--Eeblet (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made some of these changes - we should update the Military section to include info about the US & Israel supplying arms and training, and also perhaps noting that the Sec of Defense is Israeli. I'll leave that for another person or another day! It's hard to find good information on Georgia, at least written in English. --Eeblet (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Does Georgia really border Ukraine?

Currently the article lists Ukraine as one of the countries Georgia borders, "to the west across the Black Sea". Is this in fact true? I have not seen a map with border delineations within the Black Sea. If the two countries do not in fact share a border, we should not state this in the intro. Adlerschloß (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was put there for the purpose of showing Georgia's general geographic location, regardless of whether it actually borders Ukraine. 71.255.152.8 (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This section was recently removed without comment by User:Satt 2. My understanding is that this constitutes vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_(country)&diff=next&oldid=232137317

He also restored mention of Georgia "bordering" Ukraine into the main article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_%28country%29&diff=231990483&oldid=231978442

I removed that mention from the intro section of the article. Unless someone has a good case to make for Georgia actually sharing a border with Ukraine, please do not restore.

Adlerschloß (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with citations!

Hi all, I'm still somewhat of a newbie and just attempted to fix some very broken citations in the "Recent" section. They're better (no longer breaking all the nearby citations), but still imperfect... as are my own citations I just added in the "Foreign Relations" section. What is the proper way to cite? When do you use the cite tag vs just the ref tag? Is it always correct to use the cite tag? Thanks! --Eeblet (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

semi protection expired

Hi all, the temporary semi protection expired, so we have to keep a good eye on IP edits. If it becomes as bad as a week ago (which might be the case as the crisis/war has not ended yet; and I have already reverted anon removal of text - from a 91 ie Russian account), don't hesitate to ask for renewed semiprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Links, news pages and proof of Estonia's help against Russia and Ossetia!

I've looked around and found these pages on the Cyberattacks by/on Estonia and Russia. Poland and the Ukraine also offered a 'web-page in exile' ti the Georgian Goverment at one point to.

[[14]]

[[15]]

[[16]]

[[17]]

[[18]]

[[19]]

[[20]]

[[21]]

[[22]]

[[23]]

[[24]]

[[25]]

[[26]]

[[27]] --86.25.48.119 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And why is this relevant? Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Invasion

No mention of the invasion? I am surprised to see so little input on this.--andreasegde (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. Someone needs to do it, however, there is already a separate article about Russian invasion and actually it is very, very, very biased. Russian internet "warriors" are pushing their "ethnic cleansing" and "stopping the Georgian aggressors" claims.--Satt 2 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever added the following:

"Georgia has been recently invaded by Russian armed forces due to the conflict over Ossetia."

Please rephrase to form a neutral statement. Georgia has been recently involved in an armed conflict with Russian armed forces and separatist territories of South Ossetia and Abhazia. Claims of the invasion are being disputed. --24.141.111.95 (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By whom is it contested. The Western media show pictures of Russian tanks in Gori, what more evidence of invasion is needed? Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Invasion" is the act of moving armed forces into someone else's sovereign territory. Georgia's movements were within internationally-recognised borders, while Russia's movements crossed them. Russian forces have found their way into Georgian territory beyond the disputed area, therefore it is self-evident they have invaded Georgia. Whether Georgia has invaded South Ossetia depends on whether or not you consider South Ossetia to be Georgian territory. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

More objective and detailed view of the Russo-Georgian clashes as well as the background of that conflict is urgently needed

Write about Ossetian and Russian atrocities that Georgians suffered in Aug 2008. Do not repeat Russian propaganda increasing number of Ossetian casualties. Include also information that in July 2008 and some months earlier there were Ossetian artillery fireings aimed at Georgian territory which Russian troops were unwilling to cease. Some in-depth remarks on Russian policy in the Caucasus should also be included or relating links should be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.183.185 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We should try to give an objective as possible view. In other words, we should not present either the Russian, or the Georgian pov. As it is now, we have limited neutral sources as many of the disputed areas are closed to independent press and external organisations/representatives. We will have to wait until this information is coming from neutral (ie neither Russian or Georgian government related) sources before we can start adding it. Untill then the background information will be necessarily much scarcer. Arnoutf (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the name of the country in English "Georgia," which is the same as a US State?

I always wondered about this. In its language, the name of Georgia is "Sakartvelo." In Japanese, the 2 names (that of the country and that of the US state) are distinct: "gurujia" for the country and "joujia" for the US state. In English, however, they are the same. Now I know it's no excuse for often geographically ignorant Americans, but it still seems like something that could sew confusion; it's also a source of curiosity. Perhaps Wikipedia could post something to satiate curious readers? Cornince (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some reference is made earlier on this talk.

First references to George (St George's country) date back to about 1000AD, so the better question would be: Why would the English name a colony after their King George while in their own language at that time a country/region/province with that name already existed. Yes, the names are the same, the namesake is different, with the Georgia in Eurasia predating the naming of American Georgia by several centruries. You could therefore argued that this issue should be primarily solved for the (later named) Georgia state page, rather than here. Arnoutf (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that ancient Greeks (ca 5 BC) named the country Giorgios meaning country of farmers or something, Persian named it Giurji or Gurgistan. The Georgian town of Gurjaani has related name. It appears that the original Russian name was Gurzia from the same name that soon became more easily pronounced Gruzia. Georgia is also developed either from Greek Giorgios or from Persian Giurjia. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is actually in the article itself Georgia_(country)#Etymology_and_state_name Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead section: Transcontinental

I know that the geographical location of Georgia is a key question for this country. However, I find this issue is treated much too prominently in the lead. I am OK with an opening sentence about its location and transcontinental status. Following this sentence we currently have:

The geographical inclusion of Georgia in Eastern Europe is a controversial subject related to Georgia's desire to become part of NATO. As NATO may only accept European members,[citation needed] Georgia needs to claim some form of geographical appurtenance to Europe. Virtually all of the existing maps align Europe's Southeastern border with the skyline of the Caucasus Mountains. According to this definition, Georgia is not in Europe, but, interestingly enough, Azerbaijan is.

My proposition is to move all of this to a subsection Location under the section Geography. I find a specific (sub)section appropriate to deal with this question, but not the current wordiness in the lead. And really do we need this

According to this definition, Georgia is not in Europe, but, interestingly enough, Azerbaijan is.

at all?? It appears very unprofessional to me. Tomeasy_{T C} 10:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have executed the proposed change after user: Satt 2 had deleted the whole stuff without substitution. I would appreciate a discussion to take place instead of revert-warring about it on the main article. It goes without saying that the section as it is now needs improvement. Thanks. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Improving the intro paragraph

We really shouldn't bog down the article with Europe/Asia debates - especially the first paragraph! Here is the current opening paragraph:

"Georgia ([ˈdʒɔrdʒə] (help·info); Georgian: საქართველო, Sakartvelo) is a transcontinental country in the Caucasus region, partially in Eastern Europe and partially in Southwestern Asia.Georgia is bordered to the north by the Russian Federation, to the east by Azerbaijan, to the west by the Black Sea, to the south by Armenia and to the southwest by Turkey.[2] The territory of Georgia covers 69,700 km² and is influenced by a temperate seasonal climate. Georgia’s population excluding Abkhazia and the Tsinkvali region is 4.4 million, nearly 84% of whom are ethnic Georgians.[3]"

This is quite poorly written, and contains all sorts of debatable material. My proposal for replacing this is:

"Georgia ([ˈdʒɔrdʒə] (help·info); Georgian: საქართველო, Sakartvelo) is a country located in the Caucasus region, which borders both Europe and Asia. Georgia is bordered to the north by the Russian Federation, to the east by Azerbaijan, to the west by the Black Sea, to the south by Armenia and to the southwest by Turkey.[2] The territory of Georgia covers 69,700 km² and has a temperate seasonal climate."

Given that who exactly comprises Georgia's population is hotly contested, we should save the complexities of that for later in the article - the intro paragraph should just cover the most basic and undisputed of facts. My twopence! I'm certainly not going to make any changes until I hear some others chime in on this. -Eeblet (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you just say "borders" Europe and Asia? That is going to make things even more complicated because it sounds like it belongs to neither rather then one of them, or both. It has to be somewhere and I believe that at this point Transcontinental is a good settlement. At least for now. I am not really completely happy with it,but I think what you proposed will make it even worse: Country of undetermined location and belonging and geography. strongly disagree with the wording that you proposed.--Satt 2 (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a modified version of Eeblet's wording. These definitions are changing over time. In the 1980s, I think it was fairly uncontroversial to state that Trans-Caucasus was in Asia. With the break-up of the USSR, it became more common to identify Caucasus as part of Europe. This does of course have political implications, and was not something that emerged spontanously. I think we can state that Georgia is in Caucasus, south-eastern corner of Europe, but with a footnote explaining the background of this definition. --Soman (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree Soman. That is how it is listed in Europe article. It is put in the list of European countries, nevertheless, the footnote explains all the complications the geographic location has. I am for doing something like that.--Satt 2 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Connection between the text about Asia Development Bank and the paragraph about South Ossetia war.

On August 20, 2008 I found a piece of text in the "Foreign Relations" section which was more appropriate to be placed in the "Recent Years" section. It followed the text about Georgia's accession to the ADB and looked rather confusing. Here is the quote of that part.

On February 2, 2007, Georgia officially became the most recent regional member of the Asian Development Bank. They currently hold 12,081 shares in the bank, 0.341 percent of the total.

which is followed by:

Almost immediately Russia claimed 2,000 Ossetians were killed in this attack, which was discredited by Human Rights Watch observing the situation in the region as quoted: Human Rights Watch (HRW), investigating the humanitarian damage in South Ossetia, said that Russian estimates of 2,000 dead were "suspicious.""The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful.""Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated.""The torching of houses in these villages is in some ways a result of the massive Russian propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the scale of casualties.""That is then used to justify retribution."^[2]
+

I removed that piece, given that the same or better description of events is found in the "Recent Years" section, however, user Arnoutf reverted that change as "anti Georgian POV".

I am not discussing whether fixing logical gaps is something "anti-Georgian", but would like to ask the users (including the most distinuished ones) and administrators to pay more attention to the consistency of the text and less attention to politics.

Perhaps, for some users a proper "non-anti-Georgian view" would be that Georgia's joining the ADB killed 2000 Ossetians and angered Russians, but I am not sure if this would be a neutral statement appropriate for Wikipedia.

AdvoKot (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Europe or ASIA

can not you make the intoduction little less ambiguous ? we dont need that much information. its confusing people

for example: "Georgia is a Eurasian country in the Caucasus located at the east coast of the Black Sea. It is bordered on the north by Russia, on the south by Turkey and Armenia, and on the east by Azerbaijan. It is a transcontinental country, located at the juncture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia - in other words, located in the transitional, mountainous Caucasus region of Eurasia.[3] ". At the beggining it already mentions that it is in caucasus. and by mentioning that it is in both asia and europe by itself means that it is Eurasia.This i just tooo much I think.,

here is also link to the European Union Website that lists member and non-member European States. I dont know what else is needed.

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/georgia/index_en.htm

--Alexuss (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. that will be a nice thing to do. and by the way I checked all the references provided and found out that for example CIA world factbook does not explicitly state that Georgia is in Asia. it just shows it on the Asian map which can be explained by the size and location of Georgia, sometimes it can appear in asia, europe and even on african map if it shows some nearby territories.for example Ukraine, and baltic states are shown on the Asian map as well and many other countries too. I think it kind of disqualifies CIA reference as it does not explicitly state that it is in Asia. However it does say that it is on the juncture.

--Harland1 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by this discussion. First, all the stuff about various sources putting Georgia in Europe or Asia is in a note, and cannot possibly confuse a reader. Second, it is explicitly written in CIA World Factbook that Georgia is in Southwestern Asia. Alæxis_¿question? 09:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I am sorry. I did not notice what it was saying on the top, I just looked at the information below it. it does actually say western asia.Anyway, I think the introduction still has to get better. when this previous user was talking about confusing people he probably did not mean the notes. he was talking about mentioning, Eurasia, Caucasus and transitional more than necessary in the into.It repeats the info over and over or at least thats how it sounds to me.

"Georgia is a Eurasian country in the Caucasus located at the east coast of the Black Sea. It is bordered on the north by Russia, on the south by Turkey and Armenia, and on the east by Azerbaijan. It is a transcontinental country, located at the juncture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia - in other words, located in the transitional, mountainous Caucasus region of Eurasia.[3] ".

I think introduction is very important and you have to agree that this paragraph definitely can get better--Harland1 (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

the CIA does actually mention western asia. I think what these people are tyring to explain is that the introduction mentiones things over and over, things that are already in the notes.--Von Helsing (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Western Asian, but because of the political situation it is beneficial for the country to say that it's part-European. Probably raises self-esteem. It's a bit difficult to understand why did they choose Eastern instead of Southern Europe, since the only connection they have to the former is through Russian imperialism, while Southern Europe really did have some actual historical impact on Georgia. --Humanophage (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Georgia is in Asia. The border to Europe is north of the Caucasus, cf. here. No matter how many flags of the European Council Mr. Saakashvili puts in his office. --Bachforelle (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bachforelle, Asia and Europe are not concrete and indisputably separate. Some systems don't even try to define them separately - hence "Eurasia". A debate about Georgia's status as Asia or Europe is not going to be fought and won on this talk page; why not just go with "Eurasia" in the intro, and then add a well-cited paragraph about its ambiguous or contested identity as Asian or European? -- Eeblet (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty clear and I have quoted the map showing the border. No sq.ft. of the country is in Europe. --Bachforelle (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bachforelle, before you opened your account and made three or four edits, there are whole range of discussions that already took place on this talk page and many other talk pages. The consensus is that it is in BOTH Europe and Asia, however it depends on ones definition of borders. We can not take One version, the one that you LIKE, and put it in here. That is your personal opinion and you should keep it. There is no Universal definition of European borders.--Satt 2 (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the map which I have quoted in my remark above. --Bachforelle (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is misleading. 95% of the country lies physically in Asia. Should we start off the 'France" article with ...."partly in Europe and Partly in South America" because French Guiana is part of their country?

Which 5% of Georgia is in EUrope??? Absolutely no part of the country is within Europe. --Bachforelle (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Every child on earth learns that geographical Europe begins at the Caucasus ridge. Whatever the cultural and/or genetic characteristic of its people, you can't very well transport the Georgian people to some Asian island, and then - suddenly- the island is counted as being in Europe. The way the article is written now "partially in europe partially in asia" makes clear that the reader is meant to assume the percentages are about equal or even that the country is mostly in Europe, when in fact, only about 5% of Georgia lies in Europe. The rest in Asia. Europhile Georgians would prefer it were the reverse, but the ONLY reason Georgia appears on maps of "Europe" is because pre WWI 'European Russia' stretched into the area. This is what they're basing their 'fantasy geography' on. Ridiculous and also racist against other Asian peoples. Chechnya, on the other hand, is actually INSIDE of Europe, but popular culture in the west likes to define them as belonging to 'those others'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.163.85 (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Trans-Caucasia is NOT in Europe

No recognized geographical classification has ever designated Trans-Caucasia as being part of Europe. Specifically, the boundary between the two continents has never been fixed further south than the central ridge or backbone of the Caucasus Mountains, south of which the rivers flow south, and north of which they flow north. That means all, or virtually all, of Georgia is in Asia, and most of Azerbaijan is Asia. The UN classifies them as being in Asia. Nevertheless, we are speaking strictly about geography here, not about political or cultural affinities. It is disigenuous and false to claim that the entire Caucasus mountins, including half of Georgia and half of Azerbaijan, are in Europe simply because these nations are members of the Council of Europe (not that European organizations have exactly been in a hurry to defend the political interests of Georgia, though, but that is another matter). It is also irrelevant how BBC and, indeed, Wikipedia, classify them, as these organizations have no mandate whatsoever to decide where one continent ends and another begins, particularly as these classifications are politically motivated. In fact, the border between Europe and Asia was historically defined by the Swedish military officer and geographer Philip Johan von Strahlenberg, who suggested the border follow the peaks of the Urals, and then the lower Emba and the coast of the Caspian Sea, before passing through the Kuma-Manych Depression, which lies 300 km north of the Caucasus Mountains. In 1730, this course was approved by the Russian Tsar and since then was adopted by many scientists. Following this definition, the mountains are a part of Asia and according to this view, the highest European mountain is Mont Blanc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Mountains

This was the last time a certified official demarcation of the continental boundaries was made. Perhaps, though, the problem is that there is no real geographical distinction between Europe and Asia, only political, and the fact that Europe is currently expanding as a political entity is what is creating these uncertainties over boundaries. If that is the case, we should consider to stop talking about Europe and Asia as separate continents in geographical terms, and simply speak about a Continent of Eurasia. ---J. Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The EU classifies Georgia as European http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/georgia/index_en.htm , and that is the case in many other instances such as the council of Europe definition, and even the fact that NATO considers Georgia for membership as stated in the Bucharest summit declaration, means that it is European. As you know non European states can not become members of the Alliance except for the US and Canada that were the founding members, are already in the alliance, and represent another side of the Atlantic. If one will take a look at your previous edits,you are actively pushing with your POV.Please do not try to override the consensus and bring this painful issue to light again. It is somewhat settled at this point and does not need further aggravation.--Satt 2 (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to state that I know of no NATO criteria specifying that only European states may join. In fact, Rudy Giuliani as a presidential candidate stated that he believed Israel, Japan, India, Singapore, and Australia should be invited to join NATO. [28] Regardless, I think this discussion is growing a bit old. Georgia is not unambiguously an entirely European or Asian state, and different groups will classify it as one, the other, or both. This ambiguity should be reflected in the article as per NPOV, and neither "side" in this argument should dominate the tone of the article. Adlerschloß (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Atlantic Treaty that established NATO. See article 10 http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm. that says that NATO "may invite any European state" ... ect. What Rudy Giuliani wants is one thing, but what the treaty says is another.--Satt 2 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ←I fixed the formatting here so that the thread hierarchy is maintained -Eeblet (talk)

They obviously also classify Brazil as European, cf. here [29] --Bachforelle (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Brazil?? Tomeasy_{T C} 11:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I flag for HIGHLY biased content

  I WAS HERE!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.114.5 (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I even think it is made on purpose. I have a few remarks : 1- The maps in wikipedia don't improve but degrade. Surrounding countries names are not shown as they used to. I don't know how this can be explained with politically correct administrative bullshit but I am just convinced that it is some revisionism and a lot of censure. You see names at a scaale but they disapear if you get more definition. Hiding country names in an encyclopedia is an intellectual suicide. The mind thinks a lot faster with clear maps, makes a lot more links.

2- Georgia was ounce Khazaria territory and no mention is made about their existence. These Khazars weren't Christians at all and converted to Judaïsm around 740 AD. No mention is made about this religion either. The page says something opposite to this, that "Georgia" converted to Christianity in 392 BC which is in contradiction with Wikipedia's Khazar subject.

My verdict is that many people maintain Khazar's not only adopted Judaism but also the Hebrew character set (but not the language which Iguess was tha base of Yiddish) in 740 AD in order to ease their tensions with Orthodox in the north and Muslims in the south. Later they migrated either in Spain and around the Mediterranean sea and became the Shepherdess while the majority went west in Polland, Ukraine and Germany to become the Askenazi.

The Khazars never had any Jewish blood always said they were Jews and continued to say so since 740 AD. Since Zionism is heavyly concentrated around so called Ashkenazi "Jews" they don't like the information to get public as it did recently. A lot of the antizionists maintaining this fact were influenced recently by Jack Otto, an historian on Youtube ("Forbidden Knowledge: Jack Otto"). "The 13th Tribe" book documented on Wikipedia also brought explained it.

I affirm that I have seen MANY Zionist revisionists here on Wikipedia to such a point that it now shows on the quality and credibility. I think there should be a vote on who decides about the definitions but adverse views would be shown and the users would vote. Otherwise you can bet the Pentagone, MOSSAD and CIA wil control it with a budget. I think it is already there in fact.

I hope to get feedback from this. Those who control the past control the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.31.41 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the things you are flagging up seem to be honest omissions or consensus not to, that can be solved by adding the relevant texts (with high quality neutral sources). Most of the things you are saying is highly biased towards a fictitious zionistic conspiracy theory; and is about the most biased comment I have seen in the 2,5 years I have been editing Wikipedia.

Re map: I guess you are referring to the infobox map (as all other maps show neighbouring state names). The consensus is to use these maps only to show location, nothing else.

Re Khazars, a quick reading of that article seems to give a brief occupation of Georgia around 800 CE. Whether this is sufficient for inclusion in this main article I am not sure about, but we can discuss about that. The Khazar occupation lasted relatively short, and a long time ago, so it should be treated in a few lines at most. Arnoutf (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A "fictitious Zionist conspiracy theory"?

What can be qualified as a "conspiracy theory"? As far as I know publishing real facts that oppose some real or perceived "consensus" about reality and history. The "consensus" can be real but can also be cheated by communication interference and media control or by covertly creating events that will alter the public opinion.

Who uses the "conspiracy theory" discrediting qualifier? Those who defend the "consensus", right?

Is it possible that ounce in a while a conspiracy theory is real and that the "consensus" is a pure revisionist fraud made possible by media control? Is it even possible that it is frequent?

Is it frequent when we speak on a country scale? Did it dominate history? Just look at the media "consensus" about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq to justify a war.

If I am labeled as a conspiracy theorist by you can I label you as a consensus revisionist?

I am just an observer who points out what I see is missing, wrong, altered or simply lied. I consider information as part of our environment, part of physical matter as per quantum mechanics but also according to the Information Theory that Shannon invented.

I consider that information should be democratic. It is absolutely not because of obvious reasons. There is more power in truth (unaltered information) then in any other physical object.

- Wikipedia Khazars: its importance is way more then a brief occupation of Georgia. It was an important regional power for at least 500 years.

-maps: did the consensus to show location only asked to remove surrounding country names which were present before? Images speak more then text, removing information in an image is not my definition of being transparent and unbiased.

Zionists in Wikipedia: The Supreme Court building of Israel has a page here where the picture of the building shows that this building contains a built-in blue pyramid with a circular window on the top of each of its 4 surfaces just like the famous pyramid with the all-seeing eye printed on the US currency. The building was paid by the Rothschild family.

Since one must enlarge the picture to really notice it I just added a remark like "Notice the built-in pyramid with circular windows on the above picture". That edit was rejected with a justification about no proven source! Wikipedia does not trust Wikipedia?

I had similar experiences and now I do not trust Wikipedia for the simple fact that any reality that does not conform to the mainstream media "consensus" will be censured. I have seen the quality and usefulness of the information go down in a short span of time. I am sorry to say so.

Khazars: "The Thirteenth Tribe" book is discredited by Wikipedia as much as the Protocols of Zion. Whether they are real or not the reader does not need to think and make is own opinion.

"Forbidden Knowledge: Jack Otto" is an excellent historical video about the same theory.

Both bring a "conspiracy theory" about Khazars conversion to Judaism in 740 AD recognized by many Zionists who insist on saying Khazars where real Jews. Ashkenazi "Jews" descend from Khazars. Consensus says Khazars have genetic relations with one of the 12 Israelite tribes while the Zionist conspiracy theory says the Khazars adopted the Hebrew character set and the Jewish religion as a strategy to fit regional military politics.

I think removing this information about history is revisionism. An allusion to the same theory can be found in the last book of the Bible, the Apocalypse. Would you agree to remove this part of the Bible?

I am not anti-Semite at all. I believe in this theory. I believe that Zionists are mostly false Jews who created WW1 and WW2. I believe history.911allo (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

911allo your comments have to be some of the MOST biased comments I have ever read on wikipedia as well. You seem to have an extremely anti-zionist/anti-Jewish agenda. You are definitely not a neutral editor. Your writing sounds like it was lifted straight from some wacko conspiracy theorist website!!WacoJacko (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia is not geographically in Europe

Why does the lead section describe Georgia as a country in Europe? As every child learns, Europe begins at the ridge of the Caucasus mountains. Is this about cultural chauvinism and a desire among Georgians not to be associated with a landmass they look down on, or to get more aid money and investment from Europhiles? Ridiculous. Over 90% of Georgia is physically in Asia. Don't sacrifice truth and georgraphy on the basis of emotional sentiment. The only reason cartographers ever placed this area in Europe is because the western portion of the Russian Empire included it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.163.85 (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"As every child learns" is not a valid citation, nor are Europe and Asia universally defined. Please take a look at the existing discussion on Georgia as European or Asian. -- Eeblet (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no Borders between Europe and Asia and the land is not separated by anything. What you THINK is the border is not necessarily how it is. Please keep your OPINIONS to Yourself ! Thank you.--Satt 2 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And anyway the 10% you acknowledge is not in Asia can only be in Europe, hence you yourself acknowledge that Georgia is (partially) in Europe. Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Satt and Arnoutf, if you are responding to the unsigned user, please just have one colon at the beginning of your comment, or it looks like you are responding to me. (If you are responding to me, then I am confused - I couldn't care less about whether Georgia is in Asia or Europe, I just want the article to be neutral and clear!) Thanks, Eeblet (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia is in Europe from the beginning to the end. There are no borders and it all depends on the flexibility of ones thoughts. IF one does not want it to be included, they are not gonna include. IF they do, they can. I hope next time certain people will keep their arrogance to themselves and not make it look like someone is posing and "acting" like European even when they are not. Who do they think they are after all for everyone to try and claim to be like them (european) ? --Satt 2 (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed there are no borders, but if it is in Europe it is on the border (or if it is in Asia, on the border as well). The current opening line "Georgia ([ˈdʒɔrdʒə] (help·info); Georgian: საქართველო, SaKartvelo) is a transcontinental country in Eastern Europe and partially in Southwest Asia in the Caucasus region." - acknowledges that it is in both Europe and Asia. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I know Arnoutf, and I know that I do not agree with that but I can not help it. Can not make important changes unilaterally.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"There are no borders..." yep, and therefore Vladivostok is part of Europe? Read a schoolbook please --Bachforelle (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. As the Eurasia article mentions, the border between Europe and Asia is somewhat arbitrary, and more based on historical than on physical/geographical criteria. Hence any statement about any area in the border region between Asia and Europe (where Georgia undeniably is and Vladivostok undeniably is not); may be somewhat arbitrary.

I have read many schoolbooks, and a problem in many is that they (justifiably) simplify issues to meet the level of the student. For complex issues, however, this means that at least an undergraduate text is needed, rather than a schoolbook. Arnoutf (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually a very tiny amount of Georgia's land does extend into Europe. You can look at a detailed map of the caucasus watershed to figure this out. The European portion is in the same watershed as feeds North Ossetia, Ingushetia, and Chechnya. Again, the percentage is extremely small, maybe less than 5%. However, I was surprised by the emotional reaction to my post pointing out that Georgia was located in Asia. Why would someone become so defensive unless a nerve had been touched. Not to criticize for criticism's sake, but to make a point - This is EXACTLY same kind of person must have been the one who created the wikipedia .png image which depicts the caucasus mountain ridge as bisecting georgia through its center rather than running along its north - Someone actually had to 'THINK' about distorting the map in order to create it - had to THINK about how to create a lie which 'de-asianizes' Georgia's geography - What does this say? The .png is still there for all to see the extent of the distortion. This can only be about some kind of prejudice, which shouldn't be allowed to distort any discussion of a country's geography . Has anyone watching the latest news reports even ONCE, just ONCE heard Georgia's president Saakashvili call his country an Asian country; He says the word "Europe" at every other breath. This is also indicative of some kind of anti-Asian personal matter. Why else would someone become so emotional in their defense of a lie - that Georgia is in Europe. Again, we can say that that tiny percentage is in Europe, but a larger percentage of France is in South America, we do not say that "France is in South America". Which contributer here not a Georgian or Armenian didnt learn in elementary school that the eastern boundaries of Europe were the Urals and the Caucasus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.163.85 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So the U.S is too good to be called a western nation now?

Western nations and the USA condemned the declaration.

What makes the U.S so special it has to be mentioned specifically in the article in that context? Why can't it be just grouped with the western nations? --58.108.53.110 (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with the current wording.The US is considered a leading nation in the west and can shape the international relations more than any other country. Although it is a western nation, its politics and foreign policy often differs from the one of much more reserved Europeans.I think it is necessary that we mention it separately.--Satt 2 (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. Agreed then. ;-P

--58.108.53.110 (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Am I alone in thinking it EXTREMELY peculiar that on typing "Georgia" into Wikipedia I meet a disambiguation page? Clearly, I am going to mean the country, not a division of another nation. I mean, who on earth is going to type in "London" and expect to get the town in Ontario to pop up? It's madness. Georgia has been independent since 1991, so for God's sake let's recognise that and give them the dignity they deserve by stopping equating them with a subdivision no-one really gives a damn about. JPBarrass (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the subdivision actually has a higher population than the country. Also the American state has many more English speakers than the (European/Soviet/Asian) one. aliasd·U·T 03:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Gorgia-Asia-Europe all over again.., or Geography versus the EU and NATO

Folks

IMHO the truth is as follows, and I hope we shall find an consensual way to phrase it:

There are standard geographical definitions of Europe, and, under none of them is Georgia an European country
Historically and until recently Georgia (and/or Azerbaijan) have never been considered European countries, not in the least by Georgians/Azeris themselves
NATO restricts membership to European countries-without defining which country is or isn't European-or the criteria used to make that determination.
For EU membership considerations only, the EU retains the right to label any country as European (See Enlargement of the European Union: "Whether a country is European or not is a subject to political assessment by the EU institutions")
The "Georgia belonging to Europe" issue has only appeared recently, as a direct consequence of Georgia's projected accession into NATO.
Conceivably the main reason EU/NATO want to classify Georgia as an "European country" is to limit Russian stronghold on Europe energy supplies, as several oil and as pipelines cross the country.

In other words: let's not sacrifice good old Geography to geopolitics, via patently absurd arguments. It is not in the spirit of Wiki. Push politics at the expense of science somewhere else. While NATO/EU/Georgia have the right to say: "For the purpose of its NATO membership we consider Georgia is part of Europe " the same sentence should not be used to modify Geography textbooks. This is DoubleSpeak. Next I know Greenland is in Antarctica.

Thomas Arad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Arad (talk • contribs) 13:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The most interesting thing: Why WOULD People "label" themselves as European if they are NOT European ? When you will give me an answer to that question, then we can talk about what the rest of the people think. In response to what you said about labeling countries as European to decrease Russia influence: why dont they label Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan European to decrease Russia's Influence? What you are saying is Wrong.--~Satt 2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, of course, not a foregone conclusion as to whether a particular group "would label themselves as European" or not. As Thomas Arad correctly mentions, the peoples of Trans-Caucasia did not historically label themselves as European, and only as a result of new geopolitical realities since the breakup of the Soviet Union, not least the expansion of the EU, have they opened themselves up to that possibility. Since you insist on avoiding the geographical issue in deciding on what constitutes "European", then you should at least be apprised of the fact that traditionally, most of the peoples of the Caucasus have not self-identified as "Europeans". Culture, language, and religion have in general militated against this self-identification. Of course, a large amount of Russification has taken place in the Caucasus in the last 200 years, and Russian is the main 'lingua franca' in the Caucasus. However, this has not cast the Caucasus into the 'European' camp, but rather made it geo-politically 'Eurasian', not least due to Russia's self-identification as a Eurasian nation.

I believe that Georgia is in many ways Europeanized and Weternized. Then again, so are a number of countries which are not geographically in Europe. The particular continent to which Georgia belongs does not and should not preclude it from be admitted as a worthy member to the EU and NATO, if that is what the Georgians wish. However, my opinion on the matter is that the Georgians have a far more clear objective and a far more urgent priority on their minds, and that is the preservation of their territorial integrity, which is crumbling as we speak. All the nice words of encouragement from the EU, the US, and the West in general, and all the assistance Georgia has provided (e.g. in the war on terror), have translated into nothing in the way of saving Georgia from the chopping block. I think that that Georgians believe it is more important to prevent their country from being wiped off the map, as it were, than being "counted as Europeans" or being a pawn in some great East-West "Clash of the Titans". But that, of course, is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

---Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

- I am sorry to say that but you have no clue. What is the connection between thinking about territorial integrity and being European? I am Georgian myself and I know what is more "important." and what is not. "wiped out" or not it is none of your business. It is still going to be European.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

- - This is a decision that will be made by Georgia, and by the EU. Since your profile indicates you live in the United States, you should not state with such certitude "it is still going to be European".
  - I was only venturing my opinion, as I indicated. I did say I could be wrong. In theory, there may not be a link between territorial integrity and being part of the EU. But in practice, it appears that as the EU has expanded in area, the number of countries that have split up into separate components, as well as pro-independence movements and regional assertiveness within existing nations, has definitely increased. Just something for you to think about.
  - Incidentally, you mentioned that Kazakhstan, unlike Georgia, "is not labelled as European". On what basis? At least in the case of Kazakhstan, a small part of its territory is verifiably in Europe, whether the boundary with Asia is taken to be the Ural River or the lower Emba River.
  - Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Thomas Arad, my thoughts exactly. The labelling of a country as European for political considerations is entirely different from the defining of a continent based on geographical considerations alone. The EU definitions of what constitutes 'part of Europe' is dictated by politics at least as much as by geography (not that this appears to be helping Georgia any), and NATO has not defined what consitutes a European country. The EU may choose to regard Turkey as part of Europe, but the fact of the matter is that the Anatolian landmass is in Asia (hence, the name ASIA MINOR) and indeed was the original location to be historically called Asia.

In terms of geography, the boundary between the two continents has been regarded as either the Kuma-Manych Depression (clearly north of the Caucasus Mountains; officially certified in the 18th century and the site of the currently planned aptly named 'Eurasian canal'), or by the central ridge / watershed of the Caucasus Mountains, which forms the border between Georgia and Russia. The Caucasus Mountains are geographically contiguous with mountainous networks that run through Turkey and Iran, all the way to the Himalayas. In a north/south axis, these mountains are to be notably distinguished from the steppes and European Plain.

Back to my original point, though. If indeed the geographical boundary between Europe and Asia is so ambiguous that it is to be overridden by political boundaries and considerations, then perhaps it would be more expedient to stop speaking about Europe and Asia as though they were separate continents and simply refer to a single, geographically contiguous Eurasian continent.

---Jacob Davidson

The Asia-European continent border is a bit of a difficult thing. Cyprus (EU member) for example is labelled as Eurasian island. Indeed the Eurasia article acknowledges that "Eurasia is a large landmass covering about 53,990,000 km² (or about 10.6%) of the Earth's surface. Often considered a single continent, Eurasia comprises the traditional continents of Europe and Asia, concepts which date back to classical antiquity and the borders for which are somewhat arbitrary." it has arbitrary borders.

If there is no clear physical border, the border is a social construct, which is likely to be fluid; so it may well be that Georgia is seen as an Asian country in some contexts, but as a European country in others. I therefore think this is not a black-white issue, but a gray one. Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

When was Georgia created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.11.15.2 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If Europe actually existed as a true geologic province the suture would not likely be at the ridgeline of the mountains. However, this discussion is fruitless because Europe is in truth an agglomeration of microcontinents and exotic terrain stuck to Asia, and exist only as a geopolitical construct. It is therefore whatever precedence states it is. Historical geography should be the only guide here.Miglewis (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia recognizes independence of Abkhazia and S.Ossetia

With Medvedev today formalizing Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries, I am wondering how this might affect our map, given that these long-disputed areas have now achieved some level of diplomatic legitimacy? It is difficult to find any coherent policy on Wikipedia for matters such as this, with disputed and partially recognized territories being treated in seeming haphazard manner, glancing at articles dealing with Serbia/Kosovo, disputed areas of India, Israel, China/Taiwan, etc. Adlerschloß (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for a comparison, the most similar case would probably be Northern Cyprus. But in these cases it also holds that no case is like another. When debarking for this issue, please keep in mind that it requires tolerance and civility from all sides. Otherwise you will not come far and create a lot of unnecessary friction. Note that in the end you will have to achieve a result that is comprehensible by all sides. Good luck! Tomeasy_{T C} 16:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a border should now be drawn separating the (now officially) sovereign Republics of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the Republic of Georgia. --SergeiXXX (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Some recognition should be given at least that these provinces have claimed independence. (84.13.255.174 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

They are not independent states and the map should not be redrawn. What Russia says is one thing, but what the world says is another.In regards to what user:sergei said: Dont you ever dare to push Russian nationalism on this page, Ever.--Satt 2 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you ever push Georgian nationalism on this page. Ever. How's that? Abkhazia and S. Ossetia are INDEPENDENT now, ok. They are not a part of Georgia anymore, just as Georgia itself is not a part of Russia. Just accept that. Just face it already.--SergeiXXX (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the autonomous republic (sub)section - rather than the recent years should report this. I would suggest to mention something like "On August 26, Russia has declared it recognises SO and A as independent countries, in turn the United States have declared Russia should reconsider this declaration, and will block any suggestions for such independence in the UN security council" (and add some refs). Arnoutf (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, these regions must be acknoledged as defacto independant, maybe different color or a striped kind of thing or a dotted line marked "claimed by georgia". secondly the map is too small, get a bigger one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia are now two individual independent states recognized by a sovereign nation (and a very powerful one at that) - the Russian Federation. As such, all maps need to be updated with the two nations represented like any other countries on the map (I.E. on a map with Georgia in orange and several countries surrounding it in white with black borders, Abkhazia and South Ossetia need to be carved out and made white with their own black borders separating them from Georgia like the other countries outside of Georgia).

This seems to be the only neutral way to go about doing this because as of right now Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been recognized as full states by a major world power. Just because NATO is pushing an agenda does not invalidate their status as individual entities, because a) they have their own governments, militaries, and are in no way under the control of Georgia and b) Russia recognizes them as independent nations

Georgia may be trying to claim that these two nations are not their own individual entities but they have not had any control over them since the early 1990s.

Another thing to note before claiming that "the entire world except Russia says they belong to Georgia" is that no, the entire world does not say they belong to Georgia. The only parts of the world that say they belong to Georgia are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which has an obvious agenda of its own to push. That is 26 countries out of hundreds - only a small percentage of the world's governments. Everyone else has remained neutral in the situation. Xizer (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep track with the current political developments it appears obvious to me that the article needs to change. It appears equally obvious to me, and I think it is obvious for everyone here, that this image cannot be the final NPOV solution we are all looking for.

Why not? It reflects the reality.--SergeiXXX (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In order to achieve a successful result in the near future on this very contentious issue, please show all your tolerance and friendlyness. Specifically, abstain from the use of language like here. Tomeasy_{T C} 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any better suggestions? Xizer (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just don't use the s*** word anymore!

Another suggestion: Stop violating WP: 3RR as you did today. Tomeasy_{T C} 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and S. Ossetia are independent, sovereign states now. This is not "Russian nationalism", as claimed for some reason by Satt, it is the reality. Georgia has no control over these areas, and, now, they are officially recognized by Russia as independent. What else do you need? Are you waiting for Russia to establish embassies in Tshinval and Sukhum? Well, that won't take very long now.--SergeiXXX (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to draw A. and S. O. as Georgia, we should also draw Kosovo as Serbia. Any objections?--SergeiXXX (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Recognition by one rogue state which has militarily occupied 1/3 of Georgia is not a very valid argument to redraw an encyclopedic map of Georgia.--Kober^Talk 17:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And NATO occupied half of Serbia and recognized it as Kosovo what's the difference here? Albanians can get independence and Abkhazs and Ossetians can't? Thats POV right there.--SergeiXXX (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have any grievances regarding Serbia/Kosovo issue please go to Talk:Serbia and Talk:Kosovo. Be bold and raise your concerns there. This is not a forum. --Kober^Talk 18:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the map in the infobox of Serbia boldly includes Kosovo. Your turn Sergei! Tomeasy_{T C} 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia had never been a part of Independent Georgia, they never had control over them and you can forget about Georgia ever controlling those areas. They are free and independent now from the state that terrorized them. They weren't, aren't and will never be a part of Georgia.

I am noticing a rather intense edit war occurring over this issue and wonder if a compromise solution might be called for that acknowledges the disputed status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On the one side we have a NATO/Georgia perspective claiming these areas to be legally a part of Georgian territory, while on the other we have the Abkhazian/South Ossetian/Russian perspective which recognizes them as independent countries. I believe it is not the place of a neutral encyclopedia to favor one side or the other in a conflict clearly as complex as this one, and I have created a new image in hopes of respecting both perspectives while not choosing either to be favored over the other. I am not placing it on the article yet and hope that all parties can reach a cool-headed neutral consensus that favors no political position. Adlerschloß (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Adlerschloß, please take that map and sell it to someone else. There is no place for it here. What Russia says is one thing but how it is in reality is another.Those regions are inside internationally recognized borders of Georgia and it has been articulated many times in UN security council resolutions which by the way Russian Federation supported .Russia is so far the only country officially recognizing the regions and we are not going to change the map to make some hysterical POV pushers happy.--Satt 2 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"What Russia says is one thing but how it is in reality is another." In REALITY, Georgia has no control whatsoever over these areas. And they are RECOGNIZED by Russia to be independent. And, btw, you are the one pushing Western/Georgian POV here.--SergeiXXX (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"please take that map and sell it to someone else." Isn't that a personal attack?--SergeiXXX (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since location maps of Serbia, Cyprus, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Somalia include the unrecognised states that broke away from those countries then it shouldn't be different here imho. Alæxis_¿question? 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sergei, you have not reacted to this little conversation:

And NATO occupied half of Serbia and recognized it as Kosovo what's the difference here? Albanians can get independence and Abkhazs and Ossetians can't? Thats POV right there.--SergeiXXX (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the map in the infobox of Serbia boldly includes Kosovo. Your turn Sergei! Tomeasy_{T C} 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on in the Serbia article regarding that map, if you weren't aware. Also the map of Israel in its article doesnt include Gaza or the West Bank, even though neither is officially recognized as independent.--SergeiXXX (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. the map there is stable. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So, tell me, how come Gaza is drawn separately from Israel?--SergeiXXX (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My tip for you, stop mixing this issue up with politics and concentrate on a fair imbalanced solution. You're too emotional, it seems to blind your rationale. Tomeasy_{T C} 07:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the image should show Georgia as well as both breakaway republics and the republics should have different colors. I have used Image:Europe location GEO4.png though I would prefer the republics having colors closer to Georgia proper (e.g. yellow or red) Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex, which rationale motivates you to treat Georgia differently than Serbia and Cyprus. Or, do you disagree with the consensus the respective authors have found there? Tomeasy_{T C} 09:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears Wikipedia tends to use UN recognition of indepence or annexation. As long as the UN does not acknowledge Kosovo independence, the map of Serbia should show it; the map of Cyprus should show a unified Cyprus, and the map of Israel should not include the West Bank/Gaza strip (which has never been UN recognised as Israel). Break away regions in Georgia should be treated the same; i.e. no UN recognition, no removal from map. Arnoutf (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm noticing that the map of China displays areas claimed by the PRC but not under its actual current control as colored differently than that of the rest of the country. Taiwan is not recognized as an "independent country" by anyone, and the ROC has no UN recognition whatsoever presently. The UN recognizes Taiwan as under the sovereignty of only the PRC, yet this map reflects the ambiguity of the situation that actually exists. And in the ROC article, we see a map which only shows the areas controlled by the ROC government, not the areas it claims as its territory (all of mainland China and even Mongolia), and not the areas which the UN recognizes as under its sovereignty (which would be nothing at all).

If I may editorialize here in a way that I hope isn't horribly controversial, merely to air these issues for the sake of context, while understanding that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, for the sake of our discussion it can be acknowledged that in all probability, sometime in the future Taiwan will likely be controlled by the PRC in some sense or another, while Abkhazia and South Ossetia realistically speaking will almost certainly never return to the control of the state of Georgia. If Taiwan and the ROC enjoy a special status on wikipedia, I see no reason why we shouldn't acknowledge the disputed status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Adlerschloß (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is not recognized as an "independent country" by anyone

Adlerschloss, please try not to make wrong statements if possible. It just complicates the discussion. Have a look at this: Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_China#List_of_countries_with_diplomatic_relations_with_the_ROC.

The second paragraph of your above post is, as you figured out yourself, irrelevant. Believe me, these kind of statements are counter-productive as they trigger useless political discussions. If you want to share your political opinions, do it in an appropriate place but not here. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My statement was not incorrect. Taiwan is not recognized as an independent country by anyone. Please look more closely at the article you just linked to.

"All of the 23 states which have official diplomatic ties with the ROC recognize it as the sole legitimate government of the whole of China including Mongolia (although some of them have diplomatic relations with Mongolia), instead of just its current jurisdiction of the island groups of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and some other islands."

These countries recognize the Republic of China, the government that currently controls Taiwan, as the legitimate sovereign authority of all of China, and do not recognize an independent entity of Taiwan. Yet you will notice that the island of Taiwan still receives a special coloring on the map in the People's Republic of China article, despite being recognized by, as I stated, no one at all as a separate independent country. Taiwan has never "declared independence" and the government ruling Taiwan, the ROC, still claims sovereignty over all of the territory of the PRC, all of Mongolia, and small areas of other countries. The conflict is over which government is the legitimate authority over all of China, not over whether Taiwan is itself an independent country. There are political parties that have wished to frame the issue in these terms, but they have not succeeded in any legal sense. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit, I misunderstood your original post. Now, I see why you quoted independent country. So what your were trying to say is in deed correct. It just sounded so much like meaning the wrong thing that I acted.

Back to our topic Georgia: I think you have just made clear why China is not a good example when looking for an analogy. What we need to consider here is how to treat a de facto sovereign state that receives recognition from a just few (here one) recognized states. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think China is indeed different; if alone because the situations is stable for many decades, and no foreign powers are involved. Both in Cyprus and in Georgie a powerful neighbour (Turkey/Russia) was both essential (army intervention) and the only nation to recognise the independence. So if we are looking for a comparison, I think Cyprus maybe closest comparison. Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel and West Bank drawn separately. I write this a third time as no one replied to that before. And West Bank isnt recognized by anyone.--SergeiXXX (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian media reporting that Belarus will recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by this weekend. [30] Adlerschloß (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, so said Belarus's Ambassador to Russia.--SergeiXXX (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Showing Abkhazia and South Ossetia the same color as Georgia is clearly not NPOV, and neither is showing the two breakaway states as the same color as the rest of the independent countries in Europe. Therefore, the compromise (showing Georgia in one color, all other countries in another, and South Ossetia & Abkhazia in a third color to represent their unique situation) seems to be the most NPOV position possible. Showing them with no difference to the rest of Georgia is biased in favor of NATO sympathizers, and showing them the same color as the rest of Europe is biased in favor of Russian sympathizers. Xizer (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

I think the variant with three colors is the most informative one. It shows the borders Georgia claims to have and most countries recognize, it shows the borders it really controls. It is NPOV in the dispute over the status of the breakaway territories. All other variants of the map so far are less informative and so they are less useful. They are also less neutral over the dispute. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we have all proposed maps posted here? 202.173.157.112 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, the three-color map would be the best for this article, it shows that there is a current on-going territorial dispute and reflects the fact that Georgia has no actual control over those territories (whether because they are occupied by Russia, independent entities, or whatever). Yury Petrachenko (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, cross hatching is not suitable due to the fact the map is too small. it should also be written below waht is what. the 2 territories have NEVER been controlled since the USSR collapsed.Phil Ian Manning (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What about cross hatching to show that the territories are in dispute? I think that is the accepted method of representing disputed territory in a political map. Also, should we upgrade this map to be more Wikipedia standard? I wouldn't mind doing the SVG work if we can reach consensus. aliasd·U·T 12:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Morocco and Western Sahara.

I definitely prefer a cross-hatching map, similar to Morocco. Please, go ahead and create it. I have no idea how to do it myself and what Wikipedia's standards are on this. Make sure to address the issue by Tomeasy below (country borders). Yury Petrachenko (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please observe that neither of the three maps distinguishes Kosovo or Transnistria. While this is consistent with the left image, the middle and the right map must be updated for consistency. This is a basic comment on the files, below the question which map should later be used. Tomeasy_{T C} 12:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you please explain to me, this is the third time I point this out, why is West Bank drawn separate from Israel then? Image:LocationIsrael.svg--SergeiXXX (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should the Georgian map and not the Serbian be changed, after all Kosovo is recognized by far more countries. Emto (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we can leave all the borders as in the left-hand side map if we also leave the old state borders of Georgia and simply cross-hatch Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. This would be overall consistent. Kosovo/Serbia maps should be discussed in appropriate places, my opinion is that Kosovo should be distinguished on the map of Serbia. Yury Petrachenko (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But this is the appropriate place to discuss the above maps. And the two right maps are not consistent yet. Your cross-hatch proposal is another alternative that might make sense, but it does not help the fact that files uploaded as ...GEO3 and ...GEO4 are in any perspective POV. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think three colors is best - cross-hatching is difficult to see from the overview. Xizer (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cross hatching is entirely appropriate, in my opinion. There is no need to include such a wide perspective in the new map, so we can get more detail on Georgia. As far as Israel and Palestine is concerned, this is not the place to discuss it. As far as Serbia nd Kosovo is concerned, I will try not to include so much of them in the new map if possible. I will check back here in about 6 hours. If you guys are in agreement, I will make some map. Please play nice, there need not be a war here. aliasd·U·T 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This solution seems most fair and appropriate. Adlerschloß (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel, west bank, Serbia, and Kosovo? What article talk page is this? What are all these irrelevant discussions ? Russia recognized the regions, so what? If we will recognize Chechnya as an independent state I doubt they will change anything on the Russian map. The map should not change does not matter what additional details you might want to add. Those are the internationally recognized borders and that is how they will remain.

Also,please note that user Xizer has been Blocked two times already for his aggressive editing habits, including the violation of three revert rule. If certain people in here will not follow the rules - and I already see some tendencies - they are likeley to end up in the same situation. It is time to get civilized and it is time for people who DO NOT play by the rules (Xizer) to STOP teaching us what the rules are - in this case how to make maps.--Satt 2 (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that looking for the precedence set in the Serbia and Cyprus articles, we should definitely keep the full map of Georgia, with no indications about Abkhazia or South Ossetia breaking away. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 06:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, it would help to first agree that this issue is not trivial. IMO, it hinders the discussion when (like now) the opposing sides continuously state that their respective solution is the single and absolutely obvious solution to this question. Please, appreciate that your respective adversaries have also factual reasons to argue their points and there might not be a clear cut truth. Whoever thinks is owning the clear cut truth should contemplate a little while and come back with more mental flexibility and respect for his opponents. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

When designing a solution we should have two things in mind:

1. It should be self consistent, i.e., not contradict its own guidelines.

2. The solution should be balanced within the global setting of Wikipedia.

1. Whatever we decide to finally show, Georgia like on one of the three maps or the de facto regimes hatched as a fourth option, the underlying rule has to be consistently implemented within the whole figure. The underlying rule would be (left map) only show borders according to international law, (center map) visualize de facto regimes as clearly as all other states, (right map) with respect to border lines the same rule applies as for the center map, (hatched map) no border lines are indicated between de facto regimes and the "parent" country. The three maps above use these rules implicitly, and independent of our choice the files have to use their underlying rules consistently. So the person who drew border lines into Georgia should have done the same elsewhere. This is actually a minor, very neutral, point. So I am really wondering why it is already difficult to receive consensus on this one.
2. Satt 2, you are right that this is not the talk page of another country, but we have to watch out that our solution here fits into the global framework of Wikipedia. I would find it deeply concerning if dogmatic criticism like Wikipedia is western propaganda found evidence. This kind of criticism has been raised by Xizer and Sergei before and it was very important to point out that it is simply wrong by linking to the country pages of Serbia and Cyprus. So, I disagree with you Satt 2, we cannot decide independently from other articles here. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

@Sergei, You are constantly asking why the Westbank is marked on the Israel article? Perhaps, you should better ask the editors there for the reason, because I do not really know it. I can just guess it might be because Israel acknowledges the autonomy of these areas. After all, they have a peace treaty which regulates this autonomy. Perhaps, editors decided to appreciate the borders of the autonomous regions as they are recognized by both parties. Or, I think this argumentation will be more suitable for you, it is because the anti-zionistic Wikipedia mafia has imposed this Arab POV ;-) As I said, I do not know, but I wonder what you you intend by asking this question. If you think you know why, you can tell us and we discuss it as to how far it relates to the situation in Georgia and might serve as a role model or not. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am asking because, UNLIKE Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the West Bank is NOT recognized by a single state as an independent. Yet, it is drawn separately. That is my point. Abkhazia and S. Ossetia actually are recognized, yet they should not be shown? I see clear Georgian POV on this talk page, including in you, though, you are not Georgian... That is why it is so strange to me.--SergeiXXX (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

West Bank is considered occupied territory. It has not been annexed officially by Israel. It is de jure no man's land, not officially under sovereignty of any state. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this valuable input. What you mentioned makes more sense than my propositions. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed nobody every recognised Israels control over WestBank, so that is not part of Israel.

Re map options, I think cross-hatching is a decent solution as that gives clear sign the area is contested; consistent with other maps. Both right side maps seem not very well developed.

Re POV - I think to prevent any non neutral POV all Russian and Georgian editors should be very modest in their opinion on this page, as I expect neither involved country being capable of giving a neutral view. Arnoutf (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, was the map redrawn to reflect that invasion? I think when they held sway there they had total military control of Kuwait. Is there any way to look back at that historically in the logs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.152.180 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that was before Wikipedia. But I doubt this community would've changed the maps to reflect Iraq's de facto control over Kuwait. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we approaching consensus on a compromise solution involving cross-hatching the disputed areas? The present map -- which, I should note, I myself created almost two years ago -- is, given the present and developing circumstances, highly biased and inappropriate. I wish to note that I am neither Russian nor Georgian and prefer we take a middle course here disavowing either POV. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NO,Adlerschloß, actually there already is a consensus about the map and it is how it is now. It should not change whatever Russia's decisions are. We can not rearrange the whole wikipedia according to certain people's wishes. Changing the map would be an unforgivable POV and the "neutrality" that you are talking about is just laughable.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back to the facts in this issue.

The international community has not supported independence of the regions; so in principle they should be depicted as part of Georgia (similar to Cyprus)
The current military situation is such that Russia will not allow Georgia to have any say over the regions in the foreseeable future (similar to Kosovo, where NATO does not allow Serbia any say over the region)

(other occupied regions are dissimilar - Gaza, West Bank, Western Sahara were never independent countries; Taiwan claims China, just as China claims Taiwan so this is no succession; Tibet is dissimilar as this is an occupied region, annexed by a superpower, not a break away region)
Neither Cyprus nor Kosovo appear to use crosshatching, or any other distinction. Therefore the regions of Georgia should not either. Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf's analysis that the comparable cases are Cyprus and Serbia, and that the consensus there compares to the left map (GEO2). I am just wondering whether this is the most sensible solution. I must admit that—if done equally for all three cases—I find a hatched solution very OK. They already meet quite strong requirements for they are

(i) de facto independent and

(ii) partially recognized by universally recognized countries.

Hatching regions once these requirements are met, appears a stable, very well defendable guideline to me. If there are different POV's in the international community then the infobox map will simply show this, provided the territory is in addition also de facto sovereign. No counting and balancing which institutions or countries are more important than others. With the current ruling, we will always get into trouble. What for example if one day half the nations are recognizing Kosovo. I think a common guideline (perhaps different to what I have outlined) is needed.

However, I also think that this time and this place are not suitable to have such a fundamental discussion. So my opinion here is that we should keep in line with Wikipedia standards. I am very strong against any visualization of Abchasia and South Ossetia, while Kosovo (enjoying much more recognition) is not hatched. Tomeasy_{T C} 20:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if we decide that de facto independent states should be hatched, then these should as well. I think that is a discussion for wikiproject:countries. Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What else do you need?

2 countries have now recognized Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, Russia and Nicaragua. Belarus will probably follow soon, probably Venezuela as well. I ask, what else do you people need to prove that these are independent, sovereign states and should not be drawn as a part of Georgia!--SergeiXXX (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Recognition by UN would be enough. Recognition by more than half of the world's nations could be enough. Anything less probably wouldn't. See maps of Cyprus and Serbia. Neither show any hint of their breakaway parts. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 06:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-Soviet states article edit by anon

Please process this issue (confirm, add refs, rewrite the paragraph historically, etc.). `'Míkka >t 00:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Processed" to the best of my ability on 8 September 2008. --Zlerman (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Article comparing Georgia and Kosovo.

Interesting article here.

Georgia shows Canada was rash on Kosovo ON TARGET By SCOTT TAYLOR - Tue. Sep 2 - 5:36 AM

(Quote) BACK ON March 18 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada would recognize Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence many decried this decision as a violation of the United Nations charter.

It was without a UN mandate that NATO had intervened in the clash between Serbian security forces and Albanian separatist guerrillas in 1999. However, it was UN Resolution 1244 that brought a ceasefire to the disputed province, and although NATO troops were to replace Serb forces in providing security, Kosovo was to remain the sovereign territory of Serbia. (MORE @ LINK)

Kinda true, shouldn't South Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to breakaway if they want too?

CaribDigita (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen alot of comparisons of Kosovo and S. Ossetia, superficially they seem similar but the history of alignment is very different. In the most generalized terms-

South Ossetia and Abkhazia have traditionally been in the family of kingdoms that repeatedly came under Georgian control, often by their own choosing for collective protection. This goes back well over 1000 years. Historically they have closely associated themselves with the Georgian Identity.

Kosovo, on the other hand, spent 500 years under Ottoman rule, entrenching Islam amongst these Albanian people. Christian Serbia, while also under Ottoman control for a couple hundred years as a quasi-independent principality, remained the domain of the Hapsburgs, with intermittent full independence and was dominated by Austrian influences.

I'm not making any judgments on S. Ossetia or Abkhazia and their bid for freedom, I am just pointing out they are not like Kosovo. Miglewis (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps all you are writing is correct. However, I do not think that it helps to analyze these details when trying to set up a global solution to this and related issues. Try to find some objective arguments on which basis we can distinguish such cases. Based on this, we might be able to establish objective guidelines for the past and future cases that global history provides. You are welcome to contribute here. Keep in mind that we try to find a general guideline and arguments should be formulated in a generic way; abstain from specifics for individual cases.

Just to give an example: If you tried a generic formulation for your above reasoning, it would be along the lines how closely were the entities aligned in the past? Such a qualifier has apparently many problems as it is subjective how close will be defined and evaluated, and also how far back or enduring was the past? Well, that's (on an abstract level) what makes me reluctant to take your above comment into consideration. Tomeasy_{T C} 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about map and de facto indepence started on Country project

Hi all, as the discussion here has been about how to deal with the de facto independence on maps, and since different examples from different cases has been presented, I think this issue has a lot to do with consistency within Wikipedia. Therefore I have opened a thread at WikiProject Countries to discuss how this issues should be dealt with for all similar cases within Wikipedia. I suggest we discuss the map issues there, and accept whatever Wiki wide consensus is achieved there. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarity in name between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state)

I've been having fun joking about this similarity. AFAIK the names aren't actually related: there was a massive coincidence (the etymologies were entirely different, with the US Georgia being named after one of the British kings by the name of George and the Asian one perhaps having to do with farming). 204.52.215.14 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is dumb, you guys are dumb.

South Ossetia is now part of Russia. Including it on the Georgia map is dumb. Xizer (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously it's like throwing Minnesota in as part of Canada. Dumb dumb dumby dumb! Xizer (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should throw in the Mexican state of Chihuahua with the map of the United States. Xizer (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Or how about adding California to Mexico's map. After all, there's probably more Mexicans in California now than Americans. Xizer (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither Russian nor Georgian law support your idea. End of debate Arnoutf (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither South Ossetian, actually:) SO are independent and they want to be independent from now on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Apropos the title: 'you guys' I suppose means the editors of Wikipedia, which includes Xizer. So he is effectively calling himself dumb. Amrad (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Including South Ossetia in the map of Georgia

I restarted this under a decent header and because Xizer (above) sounds like a sockpuppet, making those who hold 'his view' look dumb. But the issue is there. SE has declared itself independent and a major nation has acknowledged its independence. Doesn't that make it qualify as a region with disputed status? On maps, such regions are usually hatched. Then again, the same should go for Chechnya on the map of Russia. Amrad (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I now notice that Arnout has already started a thread at WikiProject Countries. Indeed the right place for this discussion because above all it should be dealt with in a consistent manner throughout Wikipedia (which is basically what I menat to say in my first post). Amrad (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? What countries? Only the dictators of Nicaragua and Russia support the idea of "independence" of those Georgian territory's... this is dumb indeed to even discuss this nonsense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daikide (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rigged elections - not even mentioned

I have read several times in newspapers that the last elections (presidential and parliamentary) were undemocratic. So I decided to look up more details here, and to my surprise I find nothing at all on it. Just a bit in the article about the presidential elections. The parliamentary elections are not even mentioned. That is in itself a major omission, but especially here, with all the controversy over Saakashvili's legitimacy. Amrad (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

These reports have made the media, however international observers have labelled the election as generally fair (although problems have been reported). So if it is mentioned at all be sure to include the conclusion of the international observers. (In that light I am not sure it is relevant enough. For details see Georgian presidential election, 2008 Arnoutf (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia (country)

Why does it say (country). I think most people know it's a country. Then shouldn't you also add (country) behind all the other countries of the world too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomerom (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's because there is no consensus about which is more significant Georgia (country) or Georgia (U.S. state) and both have their strong proponents. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the best idea is to check OSCE report about any elections in Georgia. The last presidental ones were called "democratic", but not perfect. That is all...

"In its Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions of 6 January, the IEOM stated that while the election was in essence consistent with most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections, it also revealed significant challenges which need to be addressed urgently. Although this election represented the first genuinely competitive post-independence presidential election, shortcomings were noted." www.osce.org/item/29982.html+OSCE+presidential+elections+in+Georgia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=opera —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daikide (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When is the next election on primary topic? I would like to know so I can vote in it. Thanks! Tschravic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, I meant vote. My English isn't very strong. I had been reading the irrelevant comments about election authenticity. I promise it wasn't meant to be a pun. Tschravic (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

^ Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917 by Stephen F. Jones
^ [31]

[1] Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917 by Stephen F. Jones

[2] [31]

[1]

[2]