Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Requested move 29 September 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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

– This is no doubt a perennial proposal, but I do believe that the above changes should be made. I argue that Georgia (country) is the primary topic for the title "Georgia" for the following reasons:

• International significance: a sovereign country clearly has more global significance than a constituent polity (i.e., the state). Wikipedia should be subject to American-centric bias as little as possible.
• Pageviews: I don't like to use this argument, but the results are pretty clear: the country has twice the pageviews of the state.
• Overall significance: If Odisha changed its name today to Tajikistan, would we move to that article to Tajikistan (country)? I hope not! An independent country will always have more significance, and more claim to WP:PTOPIC, than a constituent polity of a larger country.

  We have that, in effect. Zaire renamed itself "Congo", so Congo is a disambiguation page and everybody has to refer to both countries named "Congo" by their unwieldy full names. Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Long-term significance: while the British colony of Georgia was established under that name in the 18th century, the Georgians are an ethnic group, thus giving that name more, in my view, long-term claim to that region (if this makes any sense). See Georgians#History for more rationale of this explanation.

Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• support per nom, also the country is clearly more globally significant and they fact it isn't the pt is a pretty clear case or wiki WP:BIAS—blindlynx 00:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving the country would be European bias just as much as moving the U.S. state would be American bias. The unbiased position is the status quo. Additionally, the name of the country isn't even "Georgia" it's "Sakartvelo", so having the country titled "Georgia" is English-language bias. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose because I'm not a fan of proposals that begin by openly acknowledging that consensus has already been repeatedly and soundly established against them. It's disrespectiful to people who watch a page to keep having the same long discussion pop up for weeks in their watchlist because one person isn't satisfied that it's already been done to death, and it's disrespectful to keep dragging them into repeated rehashes of the same issue. And I don't see that you're offering any new arguments; further, three of your arguments are more or less just one. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Largoplazo (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Adding support for a ten-year moratorium. For countries like Czech Republic where there are repeated requests to move it to the newer name (Czechia, in that case), there's a one-year moratorium, but this isn't the same situation. This isn't a case of testing the waters every so often to see whether there's evidence that the newer name has come to surpass the older name in usage in applicable sources. Here's it's just people relitigating the same matter with no change in the underlying circumstances. It's disruptive, even if unintentionally so. Largoplazo (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Suppose Sealand (a very tiny country) gets renamed California one day. Would Wikipedia decide to move the article Sealand to California and the state's article to California (U.S. state)?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, because the state would still be the primary topic. BilCat (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Georgia guy: The country of Georgia had existed under this name for several hundred years before someone thought to reuse the name for North American plains. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Well, that's just not true. The etymology of the US state is completely different than the etymology of the country. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Look, it's a good faith nomination, but it's literally exactly the same as other noms, which we've had at least one every year, so I don't think it's mandatory we keep doing them. This same RM was done July 2021, January and April 2022. The July 2021 RM specifically swats down most of the claims about pageviews, and points out the fact that accruing bad "Georgia" links would make a primary topic pointless. Anyway, see you guys in 2024 again. --Quiz shows 02:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. My opinions have not changed since the previous discussions. In terms of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines of disambiguating pages and determining primary topics, there has been no consensus that current internationally recognized countries should automatically take precedence over other topics. One example is that consensus remains to leave the Ireland article covering the island, while the country remains at Republic of Ireland. Palestine also remains a disambig page, while the state is at State of Palestine. And, what about the long-term significance of Georgia (name), a feminine given name originating from a Greek word? If Wikipedia should not be "subject to American-centric bias", it should also not be subject to country-centric or any other bias, and having no primary topic can serve that purpose by not favouring any topic. Secondly, the exact wording on WP:PT1 states that a topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined Not simply just more than 50 percent, its much more likely. Taking the page view stats all the way back to when it first started counting in July 2015, 8,674 daily average vs. 4,524 daily average: that is only about 8674/(8674+4524) = 65.72 percent That is still a little low IMO to be considered "much more likely than any other single topic" under the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rule, and that does not factor in the other articles currently listed on the Georgia disambig page. The traffic on both pages has historically ebbed and flowed depending on recent news. For example, there are periods of large spikes in the U.S. state article in late 2020 and because of news that happened there. Thirdly, just as I am repeating arguments from previous discussions, the OP and other supporters so far have seemed to also rehashed the same arguments. I do not see anything significantly new here, so it is best to retain the long status quo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe rename Georgia (country) to Republic of Georgia instead. If this page move goes through though, perhaps Georgia (U.S. state) could be moved to Georgia, United States or State of Georgia. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - the third bullet point at the The "Georgia" move discussions in a nutshell box at the top of this talk page conveys the reasons to oppose this move more eloquently than I could. As an example, the GDP (and therefore economic influence) and population of the State of Georgia are many times greater than that of the Country of Georgia. There are various valid reasons you could put forward for why either article could be the primary topic, but neither article's subject is or should be listed as a primary topic for Georgia on the English Wikipedia, because in the English language the word Georgia does not primarily refer to either one, especially not to such a degree as to prioritize one over the other. I would oppose moving the state to Georgia for the same reasons. - Aoidh (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:SNOW close - Pageviews alone may be somewhat convincing of a primary topic, but the WikiNav results for outgoing pageviews from the dab render that argument null for me [1]. Regarding the "overall" significance point, there's nothing that inherently makes a country more notable than a subnational entity (see the comment by Georgia guy for an example}. Long-term significance is not based off of simply how long a name has been used as the nom would lead us to believe, but rather how significant one topic will be compared to another by the same name in due time. It would take something incredibly dramatic to give one of the Georgias more long-term significance over the other. And for the record, the claim that not treating the country as the primary topic is American-centric bias is just ridiculous. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose move and snowclose. Nothing's changed since the last few RMs. O.N.R. ^(talk) 04:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• As WikiNav doesn't keep history, let's make a note that in August '23, there were a total of 11.4k incoming views of "Georgia", of which 8.7k could be identified, which led to 7.9k outgoing views, spread over 22 topics, and the top entries on that list were 4.24k for the country, 2.89k for US state, 208 for a musician, 146 for given name (probably would have been much more were it not for WP:NAMELIST), etc. With only ~37% going to the proposed primary topic, it's really hard to argue that there's a primary topic by usage; the long-term significance argument would have to override the former to a significant extent. It has merit, but it's not really clear why the average English reader would really benefit from the short-circuiting. It should be noted that we recently had an interesting converse case, where someone wanted to move Chad and Jordan away from countries as primary topics in one go, which was swatted away, but there's some parallels here with Jordan at least. --Joy (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, past perennial discussions have made clear there is no consensus for a primary topic here. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

A long RM just closed today where we couldn't even find consensus that the primary topic for "leaders of Georgia" was the country's leaders and not governor of Georgia. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. There is no primary topic here and this has been discussed repeatedly. There is no need for another time-wasting discussion when the outcome is entirely predictable. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in English there is enough ambiguity with the US state and given name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the various articles about "Georgia" are already a mess with the removal of disambiguatory material, no need to make even more messy by moving the base articles, which will cascade into moving categories, making all of them very messy and needing constant maintenance -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - how many times are we going to do this again? NO... and please stop asking. Continually asking over and over and over again will not change the outcome (or it shouldn't). Didn't we have a moratorium on this? Can we have like... a 10 year moratorium on this after this one also fails (ideally in a speedy manner)? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and support a permanent moratorium - Unless and until the country that calls iteslf Sakartvelo decides that it wants to go by that name in English, and sufficient time passes for that name to become the common name. (See Czechia for how long that's taken already for a relatively easy name, not a tongue twister!) I don't see the US state that changing its name any soon either, but being an English speaking region of an English speaking country, the wait to move it would probably happen almost immediately.

• I think a moratorium wouldn't be unwarranted, but a permanent one hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) ever happened. The longest I've seen is at Talk:Genesis creation narrative where a 1-year moratorium on further proposals has been enacted twice (there's a move discussion history box at the bottom of the talk page headers). A think a one year moratorium would be a good starting point, which I would support. - Aoidh (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think there have been 2-year moratoriums before. I think at least a 2-year moratorium is warranted here. A permanent moratorium might be appropriate, but I think it would be unprecedented. But I would support a very long-term moratorium, like say 10 years. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a moratorium should definitely be imposed. I don't think a permanent one has ever been imposed, not to say that it can't happen. Then again, this discussion will almost certainly happen again not long after a moratorium ends. Basically, I think whatever the longest moratorium we've imposed should be the minimum we impose here, but I wouldn't exactly be opposed to a permanent moratorium, though that should probably be a separate discussion (possibly at a different venue). estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Not 10 years, 2 years might be a good idea but I think its fine to discuss again but I don't think it will happen. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The nominator has presented the rationale very well. I don't find stats-based arguments convincing, primarily because Wikipedia is not a commercial search engine that should prioritise clickable items. A country is unreservedly a more "primary" topic for an encyclopaedia term than a country subdivision. Oppose a moratorium, too. — kashmīrī ^TALK

• It's not though. At least, not in the English language. And Georgia is not a mere country subdivision; it's a US state. It shares its sovereignty with the US Federal Government; it's less of a country subdivision than Scotland is. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT only Americans would think of the state over a country. Moxy- 21:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide some type of evidence of this?... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just need to search non-american publication.Britannica UK. WHO Switzerland. UN. And when it comes to International audience the Americans do it as well. factbook USA. Moxy- 21:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  The WHO and the UN are international organizations, obviously they're not going to list Georgia the country as Georgia (country) because it's implied that only countries are members of an international organization. The CIA Facebook literally says Explore all countries; I'm going to assume that even most Americans know that the U.S. state is not a country. Britannica is also technically American-run FYI (not that it helps my point). estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Of course those organizations are going to point to the country. Any international organization focusing on countries is going to focus on the country vs. the state, but that doesn't mean that "only Americans would think of the state over a country". And of course the CIA factbook will list the country over the state.... the CIA is not interested in domestic intelligence. If I look up Florida, it won't even show up. I have to say that I'm kind of surprised you agree with the proposer here. (ec with Estar8806) --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also this,"only Americas would think of the state over a country", is not a valid argument per WP:NWFCTM. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  it's very simple.....we should be regurgitating the sources not making things up. it's the state that always has a qualifier not the country. Moxy- 22:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding it's the state that always has a qualifier, it took me less than a minute to find a non-American source that uses no such qualifier. Nothing is being made up, as reliable sources and indeed general English-language usage does not default to the country when using the word Georgia, especially not to a degree as to make it a primary topic for the word. - Aoidh (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  it's the state that always has a qualifier is just not true, not in the US, and not internationally, especially in Canada and the UK. The BBC will often distinguish between the country and state of Georgia when the context is not obvious (although in many cases, it is obvious and so no distinguisher is needed). --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment the country got 376,453 page views in the last month and the US state got 144,533. Still, there is nothing wrong with the status quo of Georgia being a disambiguation page because there does not appear to be a primary topic for this name. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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

No relation to Georgia history

To me it seems harsh saying this has no relation to Georgia's history. Do you realize millions of Georgians are emigrants and fate takes them to many different places? It is illustration of Georgia's fractured and troubled history, and also interesting story. His family was still trying throne of Imereti ("Alexander and Mamuka left Moscow to join their father in his eventually failed attempt to recover the lost throne of Imereti") and he also was in touch with Georgian language ("Sparwenfeld helped Alexander to have the Georgian fonts cast in Stockholm"), so does not seem quite accurate to say there's no relation. I hope it's not some type of bias where these people are written off because "Russia is bad" and them associated with it. LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"No relation" is obviously wrong. At the same time, it would be nice if the images in the history section were a bit more diverse; currently, they are nearly all pictures of rulers. At that point in particular, a map illustrating the tripartite division might be a more helpful visual aid than an image of a person who is not mentioned in the main text. Furius (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

L'État, c'est moi, lol. So many people believe that by pasting photos of the royalty they are illustrating a nation's history. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That may be because Georgia does not have many illustrations from that period for non-royalty. Even those are rare because country was always in so much war. Who would paint other people or landscapes...In my opinion, maps can also be overused. I see some Georgia pages that are just maps after maps after maps.

Since you mention diversity, it's also noticeable how other parts of Georgias history are neglected here. For example, Alexander's father's kingdom Imereti seems to be an important Georgia kingdom but is mentioned only once in history. I think because capital city of Georgia is in the east, everybody look to eastern half and forget that there's also entire other half of Georgia that exists, with related but not identical history.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I do see that at Prince Alexander of Imereti (1674–1711) we learn of the circumstances, which are indeed relevant to Alexander—but, evidently, not sufficiently relevant to Georgian history as a whole to even mention either him or the exile in the history section. If there's no mention of him or of this exile in the article, what is the value of illustration of something about which the article says nothing? Largoplazo (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Svan towers, Bedia Chalice, Georgian Shepherd, and Didgori armored vehicles, to mention few, are also not explicitly discussed anywhere in article but here they are displayed in all their beauty. Who created requirement that images must only be about something explicitly mentioned? Visualization can compliment themes discussed in the article and provide additional layer of information or facts that isn't already pointed out. Also not being mention is something that can always be fixed. Not everyone interested reading dry text with maps. There is historic or aesthetic value in many of these imagery. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, interesting that nobody has objection to image of random wolf proudly shown at top of the article (like somebody has to see wolf to understand what wolf means) but I have to prove that a Georgian royal who was second in command in one of the largest armies of the world may be interesting material for wikipedians. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You have it backwards. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Following the guidance of WP:OVERLINKING, the word "wolf" shouldn't even be linked here. It's a common word. We can suppose readers already know what a wolf is. The assertion about the source of the country's name isn't likely to stir an interest to learn more details about wolves than a reader already know. Yet here we have, not only a link, but a photo, as though it adds anything at all to a reader's understanding of the statement in the text about scholars "who point to the Persian word gurğ/gurğān (گرگ, 'wolf'[19]) as the root of the word". That image should be removed for the same reason the word should be unlinked, and because MOS:IMAGES. It is of zero informative value in the context of this article.

You call the photo of Alexander "interesting material". What's interesting about it? It's a picture of a guy. A guy who wasn't significant enough to be mentioned in the text. What do I learn about Georgian history from looking at that photo? Largoplazo (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I see you added material to the article just now that establishes the significance, so now it's a different story. The wolf still needs to go. Largoplazo (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wolf was just example and I don't care that much about it. I was only pointing out how different standards being applied to different people.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." (MOS:IMAGES) So I'm asking: if he isn't significant enough for not ony him but the contextual incident (the exile) to be mentioned in the article, then how does showing a photo of someone who looks like just a guy tell us anything of significance? Is his mustache informative? Do his fur lapels give us profound insight into the mechanics of Georgian history? Or is the image there for decoration? Largoplazo (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It draws attention to a relevant topic, whether that is contain inside this specific article or contain in some other article. Anyways, instead of continuing arguments I just added more information about his family, so they are contextualized now outside of this picture. If Pyotr Bagration is worth mention, so is this family and the chaotic period of Georgia it is symbolic of.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And since you mention, yes I like his mustache. Something can be relevant and aesthetically pleasing at the same time.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a fair point; it is a fine moustache. Furius (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced. This section is (meant to be) a brief overview of the history of Georgia. It is not the main article, which is History of Georgia (country). The latter article doesn't mention either Pyotr or Alexander. Are their fates really so crucial that they need to be mentioned in the very limited space available within this article for the very long history of George? Are either of them really more helpful than (a) a map that makes clear where the many unfamiliar places that the reader may be encountering for the first time were located; (b) an image of the sack of Tblisi (Battle of Krtsanisi has two paintings); (c) an image of the Treaty of Georgievsk, (d) Rouband's painting of the arrival of the Russians (File:Roubaud._Russian_troops_entering_Tiflis_in_1799.JPG. I totally agree about the removal of the wolf and about reviewing some of the other pictures (the picture of Condoleezza Rice and Mikheil Saakashvili seems pretty Americo-centric and misleading given how limited American involvement in the 2008 war was) and I agree that more is needed on Imereti (creating space for that is another reason to be parsimonious about the fates of various expat royals). Furius (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Exile is symbolic of chaos and instability of that time, so it is about what it evokes rather than necessarily specific persons. I don't think space is that very limited, especially considering how entire centuries was already skipped over and half of the country ignored (at least until I added more). I'm not saying it is existentially important to have this here, it is just disappointing to see backlash on my contribution when, as I point out above, there's so much other images and content to pick on that nobody cared about - everybody suddenly threw rulebook at me. Your suggestions may be acceptable for eastern Georgia but doesn't change that outside of Kartli-Kakheti there was only few mentions. Krtsanisi Battle is not good pointer for information on Imereti. I guess one could replace Erekle with that painting since he fought in that war.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

When a section has a main article, it should summarize the main article. If there's information to be added about a country's history, proper practice is to add it to the history article. Then, add it to the summary in the country overview only if it qualifies in terms of relative significance to the country and to its history to be in the overview. Largoplazo (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The history section is overlong as it is, the History of Georgia one is already quite long too. I don't see how the individual career of someone outside of Georgia merits either article, and showing it will require a much stronger source. CMD (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Prince Alexander has absolutely no relevance to the historical significance for Georgia or its politics, etc. Georgian royalty had hundreds of members famous and active in many different countries and that is not the criterion for inclusion. Regards, An emperor ✖ 15:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can do what you like with the picture, I don't care any more, but do not delete referenced work someone spent so much time on. If you think Georgia history article is "too long", how about go in and clean it from all the nonsensical text and unreference information?! That may really be helpful, unlike this discussion, which is not focused on improving information this article provides or fact that such big gaps exist. Seems very immature. You are punishing contributors and complaining about format when few of you actually do anything other than debating.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and utilize respectful language towards the fellow colleagues. WP:STABLE version should be acknowledged; you may reach CON and debate WP:IGF. Regards, An emperor ✖ 19:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see that this hasn't been pleasant. Debate is part of WP process, but it does often get stuck on minor issues. As you say, there are major issues with this article and you have made important contributions towards fixing them. So, let's take the discussion in a more constructive direction. It is a rule that articles should almost never be more than 100k = ca. 15,000 words long. At the moment, this article is 80 kB (12551 words), so we've got a little room to manoeuvre, but it would be good to remove excess, so that we can add critical facts that are missing. It might be helpful to identify important things that are missing and areas which could be reduced.

Things that seem to me to be missing include: the invention of the alphabet (in the history section), a clear description in the "politics" section of how the political system works (selection of president, how the judiciary works, etc.),

Areas that seem to me to be too long include: the foreign relations section; possibly the demographics section (includes a lot of historical material); perhaps the Russo-Georgian War section (if that can be done without removing important nuance).

What do you think? Furius (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The 100k mentioned is for non-split articles, this one is split and the guidance is for 40-60k, although this is not a rule. However, it does help bring focus on what text is the most helpful, which the careers of particular individuals is often not. A difficulty regarding alphabet in the history section is that its history is unclear, although there should be better coverage of it somewhere in the article. The politics section could use a complete overhaul, cutting down the foreign relations and other subsections (corruption and human rights for example) and replacing it with actual coverage of the politics and governance including what you suggest. The history subsection you mention is definitely the most egregious, and is already well covered by sub articles. On other areas of the article, you correctly point out that just as the article is dominated by the History section, there is far too much historical material elsewhere. Demographics is not as bad as Economy, which opens talking about the silk road and ancient wine, and then goes into further paragraphs about history. Administrative divisions should be about the administrative divisions rather than just looking at the history of Abkhazia/SO. Culture faces this issue a little as well, but so do all country articles and this one is not as bad as some others. CMD (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously impossible to fully exclude "history" from some of these sections (especially "culture"), but I agree that there is too much in these sections at the moment.

(On alphabet, I'm not suggesting that the article say anything more than that it exists and is first attested in the 5th C; the various disputes are imo not relevant at the level of resolution used in this article) Furius (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To "fully exclude" history wouldn't make sense, but this article on a currently existing country and its people should be written to describe the current country and people, referring to history as appropriate to provide information about this rather than being written around history. The Culture section for example should open with contemporary culture, then providing the history as context to that. This is tricky to do, but see how Japan#Culture opens with current culture, with tradition raised in that context. CMD (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The wolf picture is back and all the edits made by me and others removed. I spent so much time reducing Russian war section and other areas to make more to the point and others have done same in politics section, all that was returned under some jargon of "stable" version? why? That stable version itself says "It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits".--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a contradiction between the edit summary "too much detail about war that is already on main page" and the actual edit that changed the meaning of some of the text, and in one case added a source. Your edits also, without an edit summary, reinserted some of the text that was under discussion above, which is perhaps what Emperor of Emperors was referring to in their edit summary. CMD (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I reinsert one small item on Imereti to keep section balanced between east and west Georgia, instead of full paragraph I added before, because I recognize rest was too much detail. It is fraction of what was before. On the Russian war, yes I did relocate one source from main page because it is important fact and if anything should be left there it is that Russia make false claims of genocide. Overall I reduced the size of that section with or without that addition. If somebody feels other facts are more important or less or should be cut, of course that can be done but again total removal of text and insertion of wolf picture makes me think that this was not about specific items but was just opportunistic way of bringing back personal favorites. I realize it is much easier to copy/erase in full but we should be more considerative of others.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Stop WP:DE and removing WP:RS without WP:CON. You are also including absolutely irrelevant people and data in history section as communicated above. Please be civil and communicate clearly the updates you want to see and but reach CON first. WP:GF, WP:NAM; Regards, An emperor ✖ 16:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The repeated reverts are unhelpful and I'd ask you to make more effort to WP:AGF . You, too, should discuss what you object to rather than just blanking everything repeatedly. The discussion above identified a problem with irrelevent images; you have restored nearly all of them.

The discussion above identified a problem with post-2008 history being randomly in the "Government and politics" section; I spent some time moving that up and reducing its length. You have just restored everything to the previous situation, which doesn't seem to me to be justified. Furius (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No objections; just reinstated your edits and please tweak accordingly. My above COM regarding my objection stands per relevance in history section and CON should be acknowledged. Regards, An emperor ✖ 17:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I also ask you show more respect for editors. While others discuss in detail, you just leave dismissive one sentence comment here and there. Your time is not worth more than ours. There is nothing "irrelevant" about Georgian monarch who was part of this history and interesting case study. Whole section should not be just one region of country. There should be some balance. This is not page about Iberia or Kartli or your personal favorite monarch. It is about Georgia and that should be seen. If you don't think Alexander III is "relevant", come up some other relevant person who is not from Tbilisi. I provided sources for information that I add.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We have a few overlapping discussions here. The POV tag was added regarding the post-Kingdom of Georgia section solely focusing on the Eastern regions of what is now Georgia. While the paragraph the disputed text being inserted into does not do this, this does seem to be true in the text following. The political history of Kartli and Kakheti/Eastern Georgia makes up the entire focus of the remaining paragraphs, and the writing treats that Kingdom as equivalent to "Georgia" (eg. "...prerogatives in the conduct of Georgian foreign affairs...", "The Georgian envoy in Saint Petersburg..."). This may be contemporaneous usage rather than anachronistic, but it is certainly evoking a particular historical narrative. Imereti is not mentioned until the third paragraph of Within the Russian Empire. Adjara, Guria, Svaneti, and Mingrelia get a rapid fire series of mentions in the following paragraph, again with a narrative slant ("several of Georgia's previously lost territories"). Abkhazia and Samtskhe go unmentioned. Whether this weight is due is not at all established by the sources, which are in places not very strong (the third paragraph of Tripartite division is sourced entirely to a political treaty), but even if they were due the narrative wording could be reduced. This is linked somewhat to the overall issue of length and detail (why is there coverage of the "Georgian envoy in Saint Petersburg"?), which also really needs better sourcing to address. CMD (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Insert ", and around 100,000 Ossetians were forced to abandon their homes moved to Russia." into the sentence "Around 23,000 Georgians[79] fled South Ossetia as well". It was removed as an unsupported in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_(country)&direction=next&oldid=1004649322. Though, the source of the statement is the same [79]. Buda2side (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Good catch!  Fixed Alaexis_¿question? 07:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Change from Greater_coat_of_arms_of_Georgia.svg to Georgian_COA.jpg

It may seem stupid, but every source I find uses Georgian_COA.jpg, and none of them aren't shiny on the gold parts. You would think I would make a post about it about CoA of Georgia. And I did. And nobody saw it. So I would make a new file thats correct, right? Unfortunately, I just can't use Inkscape. I absolutely suck at using it. Not only would I have to make it shiny, I would also have to add the inner ears, and the actual eyes of the lions. There's also a border on the shield. And I just can't do that with my amount of skill. Considering that nobody even heard or even looks at the discussion page there, and the inaccuracies are definitely there, I ask if I can replace the current SVG version of the Coat of Arms of Georgia, where it's used, to Georgian_COA.jpg. Thank you. Kxeon (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. Is it that you feel the wrong colours have been used in the Vector Image? The English Wikipedia style guide recommends using SVG over PNG (and JPG) for images like coats of arms and flags become it the image is more stable at different size formats. The SVG file is used on far more pages than the JPG. If you think the SVG is too distracting to the contents of the article, why not post a message at the village pump at Wikimedia Commons and explain the problem you are having with the current vector image and advice on changing it to a more accurate / less distracting form. EhsanQ ^(talk) 21:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kxeon: You should not be making changes based on personal observations of how these symbols are displayed on different websites or documents. Specifications of state symbols are written into law, which states there should be "two gold lions". It does not say anything about requirement for lions to be "shiny". If they wanted to say they should be "shiny", they would say that, but they don't...

President's website doesn't use shiny coat of arms [2], and neither do many other official bodies.

Different publications stylize coat of arms, such as this official social media of Georgian government. That does not mean that you should now start changing coat of arms to white on blue. It's just stylization to give different organizations their own "visual identity". --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)