Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
2a01:36d:1200:42da:55de:bdea:5bc6:d548 (talk)
→Move suggestion: new section
Line 265: Line 265:


I suggest that we move this page to [[Sakartvelo]] and move [[Georgia (U.S. state) to [[Georgia]]. We are an AMERICAN SITE. We should use AMERICAN TERMS. --[[Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548|2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548]] ([[User talk:2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548|talk]]) 12:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that we move this page to [[Sakartvelo]] and move [[Georgia (U.S. state) to [[Georgia]]. We are an AMERICAN SITE. We should use AMERICAN TERMS. --[[Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548|2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548]] ([[User talk:2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548|talk]]) 12:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
:"We" are not an "American site", and your proposal is directly contradictory to [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:30, 15 November 2021

Template:Vital article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former good article nomineeGeorgia (country) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 13, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 9, 2004, April 9, 2005, May 26, 2005, May 26, 2006, May 26, 2007, May 26, 2008, May 26, 2009, May 26, 2010, May 26, 2011, May 26, 2012, and May 26, 2013.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Requested move 11 July 2021

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

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

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

Note: Georgia titles a page with significant content and so is ineligible to be a target "new" title unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says the primary topic should be "more likely than all the other topics combined." I interpret that as meaning that at least 50 percent of total traffic goes to the primary. 99to99 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also says that it should be "much more likely than any other single topic". This situation does not meet that criterion. --Khajidha (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that full line regarding respect to usage reads, "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" (emphasis on the "much more" and the "and"). "Much more" should be higher then 50 percent. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

while the definition of "country" is:

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

which is quite hilarious. Georgia is a partially sovereign state or a fully sovereign state, depending on which one you're talking about. And the degree of sovereignty a topic holds has never been one of the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Red Slash 16:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The state is a state and the country is a country" if only we had some way to disambiguate the two...parenthetically perhaps, given that neither one is the primary topic for the word "Georgia" in the English language... - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic comment

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

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

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

South Georgia (island) is located near the Falklands. And if the international community and mainstream journalists actually acceded to your proposed charade, we possibly would move the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, obviously if Tuvalu changed its name, people would go along with it. Countries do get to decide what their name is. And I did specifically say "South" Georgiato clarify I was referring to the southernmost of the two Georgias, thank you Red Slash 02:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New lead content

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

Several observations why I think lead should not be changed like you suggest:
  • It is overly simplistic to say wine is "travel-style". Wine-making is essential part of Georgia's identity, culture, and also worth mentioning in history due to its ancient tradition, which makes it noteworthy in the history paragraph.
  • Your other reasons keep changing and not really supported by what you claimed. For example, after I rearrange some images there was no longer any sandwiching, at least in the section where you removed them. Also, you mention accessibility, but if something can be come more accessible (like providing a description), you are free to make improvement and help out, instead of just deleting. This is not very constructive and very frustrating for people spend time on it.
You mentioned WP:LEDE, which I just read and it says "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Nothing you removed is really meeting this criteria so much that it worth fight over.
  • Most important, it seems capricious that you seem intent on having problem with such content on Georgia article and not other countries. For example, you recently edit Denmark but did not have problem with this "A developed country, Danes enjoy a high standard of living and the country ranks highly in some metrics of national performance, including education, health care, protection of civil liberties, democratic governance and LGBT equality." I think this is one of those situation where someone has decided that a small poor country cannot have anything nice said about it in the article and nothing more than personal bias, I don't see good reason for it and those policies you cited do not prohibit this information as far as I can tell. Most of it is discuss to some extent and not in violation of policy--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Travel style refers to the way something is written. In this case it's written much like a brochure, selling an oldest country claim and touting UNESCO status. As for the lead content, I specifically pointed out the various unsupported items in my post, which you haven't covered. Regarding images, sandwiching remained, noticeably around the United Georgian monarchy subsection. ACCESS in this case relates to ensuring images are in a relevant section. For example, one of the recent edits put a picture of various foods in the Media subsection, to which it does not add much clarity. As for your Denmark analogy, you are welcome to fix that article, I do not heavily edit every country article. CMD (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your dismissive tone just confirm what I said above, which is your personal bias against Georgia. It is not "selling" or "touting" anything, it is noting an archaeological fact that Georgia is "one of the oldest" wine producing countries, which is referenced and definitely notable. Cultural aspect of it is also notable if you know anything about Georgia. There are no violations of any policies, it is your personal bias that is against it because it is a small poor country and it bothers you that something not depressing can be said. If something in lede was not discuss at length per policy, you could have also contributed by expanding or ask someone else, we should not do harm and go easy way of delete.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the issue is the way the text is written, not the underlying archaeology. Do you have any comments on the specific points I mentioned in th eopening post here? CMD (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the way text is written? then how should it be written, perhaps provide suggestion instead of easy way out of deleting. my response was already detailed. I don't think it's undue to say its one of the first countries to legalize cannabis. I don't think its undue to say one of the earliest wine producing countries in the world. anything that's "one of the...in the world" is notable and fair to say. also just because something reads like "positive" does not mean it is "selling" or "touting". It is written in fairly neutral tone and no policy is violated by it.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis I remember we also had the similar issue, when you preferred to simply remove all useful sourced edits by Damianmx, we could preserve most of them, but you removed all of them and it was damaging for the content. I am here for years and it is rare when someone really puts big effort to make the article better. I see that Leontina tries to enrich topics about Georgia and instead of being destructive (again) and deleting, you could easily cooperate with her to make this article even better. I support Leontina in this case.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 10:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal to long-term banned user is an odd argument. You are also welcome to comment on the issues raised at the very beginning which are so far unaddressed. CMD (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"you preferred to simply remove all useful sourced edits... we could preserve most of them (useful edits), but you removed all of them... instead of being destructive (again) and deleting" I don't see here appeal to the banned user, I appeal to the fact, that you keep doing similar destructive changes.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 11:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining article quality is not destructive, nor were they changes I was making. CMD (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, I remember that back then the only argument was that the user was banned, there were no requirements for deletion neither by wikipolicies nor by the quality of the article, but you did it with great enthusiasm. So please try to be fairer, more cooperative and concessive. After your replies, Leontina has made some improvements and at the moment the article looks pretty good in terms of quality. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 13:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is off-topic here, but banned users are banned, and their edits are not welcome under policy. If you want to change the banning policy, you need to do that at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, not here. I appeal again, hopefully, for discussion of the actual content as I raised in the initial post. CMD (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what you linked it is off-topic here, it was not an issue of WP:BMB. It was issue of WP:BANREVERT, which clearly says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)." You were reverting just because they were made by a banned editor. It was a fact and you even didn't hide. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But anyway, I hope we won't continue in this destructive manner and will work together to further enrich the article, and maybe one day we will nominate it as good article.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is another matter but I personally would also keep information on riot added by User:ThrakianPretense because this was very big event, many journalists beat up, somebody died and another journalist lost eyesight. Its absurdity when human rights section talk about some minor protest from decade ago, but information about major riots is removed as "undue". Also, others contribute to that paragraph on riot and so that contribution is now also just erased indiscriminatively, including content and photo I take time to contribute, which is waste of time.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to original issue, I remove some information about UNESCO from the wine sentence to make shorter and less "touristy" because of such accusation. I also remove repeated sentence about NATO, which was also part of complaint. As it look currently, what problematic about other content? It all read very harmless to me and not against policy.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ThrakianPretense is another blocked sock. You are correct that the minor protest is undue; in the same vein a recent protest would also be undue. Including it here would on the major country page would be WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. For the other issues with the content, I again point to the first message on content not covered by the body. The wine tone remains a bit touristy and anachronistic, countries do not produce wine and Georgia was not around 8,000 years ago. It also in general brings the issue of expanding history in the lead, in a situation where the history portion of the lead needs to be shorter to create room for neglected aspects of the article. CMD (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok so what do you recommend as better wording for wine? base on what you said, and based on language used elsewhere on wine articles, perhaps something like this is more acceptable? "Archaeological evidence indicates that Georgia has been the site of wine production since at least 6,000 BC; due to this ancient tradition, winemaking continues to be an important part of Georgia's national identity." Or some shorter version of the same sentiment if better suggestion is found.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly an improvement, but I would first be interested if there are any general (not wine-specific) sources that give such prominence to wine within 1/2 paragraphs of history. The Georgian government doesn't mention wine in its even longer history summary. Britannica mentions wine only briefly in their Georgian Industry page. CMD (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily including it as first line to give prominence, I just think it makes sense for it to be there because that paragraph is mostly chronological and this concern 6,000 year BC history. I checked that britannica link and it is not just industry where it talk about wine, it also speaks about it in more detail elsewhere, for example "The vineyards of the republic constitute one of the oldest and most important branches of Georgian agriculture and perhaps the best loved. Georgian winemaking dates to 300 bce; centuries of trial and error have produced more than 500 varieties of grapes." So it speaks to the ancient nature of this tradition in Georgia (even though dates have not been updated since later discoveries) and it mentions it is "perhaps best loved", I don't think this is insignificant. But as I said, this information is not placed in the beginning of paragraph necessarily because its more important than what follows, but also because of chronology.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the being added to the lead that is the adding of prominence, and we don't have sources that corroborate this. The sentence you quote is from Britannica's Georgia industry page, which would be equivalent to the article body here not the lead. Are there sources which allocate it the prominence your edit gives it within the scope of history? CMD (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the quote I provided is not from industry section, that's a different section where it also mentions wine. But its beside the point, whether particular source mention wine in second paragraph or seventh paragraph is an arbitrary criteria. For example, in introduction Britannica skips classical antiquity entirely and jump straight to middle ages, it only mentions Colchis further down in a very obscure section called "Relief, drainage, and soils". Surely that does not mean Colchis and Iberia are not important? I think criteria of looking where such information is positioned in particular source is arbitrary, organizing this article chronologically is fine and we do not required to follow format/order of another source.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE is not an arbitrary criteria, it is part of official policy. Your framing is mistaken. The question is not whether something is "important" at all. The question is how important it is relative to all other potential information. To answer my question above, I suppose we do not have any sources then that provide such weight. CMD (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly have a source that says winemaking in Georgia is both ancient and "best loved" tradition of Georgia. And the fact that it traces as early as 6000 BC, one of the oldest in world, makes it significant. I can't understand your fixation on the physical order of things. As I say, source you linked does not even mention certain topics that have important placement in this article, i.e Colchis, Iberia, which is why I am confused about fixation on location. In chronological text that is also what decides location. So if we have five topics of varying importance in chronological order (because its history), it makes sense that earliest come first, though I don't have preference for that in specific.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also cannot understand a fixation on physical order, as this is yet another item which I have never mentioned. I think the discussion would be more fruitful if you could please engage with the statements I actually make, including specific links to policy? This discussion is also still awaiting response to the other lead issues mentioned in the first paragraph, along with the ACCESS and Sandwiching issues that were also put back in. CMD (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missing real information about first inhabitants ....should replace wine info with info about peoples.Moxy- 13:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, first inhabitants I think trace back to over million years so not sure that is practical.
CMD, I read that policy you link and see that location is also part of "weight" placed on something, but as I say, here extenuating circumstance is that list is chronological. If you have better placement suggestions please suggest--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with access and sandwich issues, I addressed some of that by removing/rearranging content/images and also now Moxy rearranged/removed image to address that. What other sandwiching is there? would be helpful to see specific example instead of talking about the whole article in general terms.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my immediately previous message, the physical order/placement within the lead is not the issue for the addition you want to make. What I have specifically asked for is whether wp:reliable sources assign it the weight within history that you want to assign it. So far, zero sources have been found that do, and two have been found that do not. Here is another one, Historical Dictionary of Georgia by Alexander Mikaberidze has a chronology from pages xxvii to lii. Wine is not mentioned within that chronology once, and that is far more than what should be a single paragraph in the lead here. On images, I identified some specific issues in my second post of this discussion. CMD (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok here is what you said in your second comment regarding images

Regarding images, sandwiching remained, noticeably around the United Georgian monarchy subsection. ACCESS in this case relates to ensuring images are in a relevant section. For example, one of the recent edits put a picture of various foods in the Media subsection, to which it does not add much clarity

I looked over United Georgian monarchy subsection just now and see no sandwiching as shown on WP:SANDWICH. Regarding access, Moxy just moment ago went through images and moved them to correct sections, did that not fix it? --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see sandwiching between the Gelati and Tamar images, and a slightly wider screen would also have sandwiching between the Tamar and the armour photo (which itself pushes the Vakhtang article down out of position on wider screens). I have not reviewed Moxy's edits in full, but checking the specific example I mentioned it does seem they have reverted the shift of the cuisine image out of the cuisine section as well as reverting the move of the Gelati photo out of the United Georgian Monarchy section, so at least those two instances are indeed fixed. CMD (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok I remove the photo of armor and move others around, I think it is looking fine now?--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also looks better on my devices. Are there comments on the other issues I raised? If this is going to be a response on an issue by issue basis, it might be easier if you proposed each change you put in through the edits, as it seems my attempts to bring the conversation back to them is ineffective. CMD (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the remaining question is this and I already talk as much as I can on it

"Georgia is a developing country with "very high" Human Development, high levels of economic freedom, and low corruption. It is one of the first countries in the world to legalize cannabis for both recreational and medical use, becoming the only former-communist state in the world to do so."

I'm open suggestion on this one but I don't believe it violates any policies. contrary to what you say earlier cannabis is not undue because as I say, when something is "one of the...in the world" it is notable. I've seen similar example on other pages (Uruguay, Estonia etc). I know you will repeat that what happens on other pages is not your problem and that is your opinion, but having this content does not violate any policies.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the cannabis legalisation but I believe that low corruption level is very notable and I would definitely include it in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 10:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is also to add non "positive" information, like poverty, to have more balanced and reduce space taken by legalization, like this:

"Georgia is a developing country with "very high" Human Development, high levels of economic freedom, and low corruption, although poverty remains a significant challenge. It is one of the first countries in the world to legalize cannabis, becoming the only former-communist state in the world to do so."

--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely the wrong approach to evaluate the text per your opinion of what may be positive or negative. Articles are guided by the views of reliable sources. To repeat what I said in the very opening post, you are adding things to the lead that are not at all covered in the article, without any references or assessment of due weight. If you insist on defining this as a "violation" or not (which is not the correct approach), the text goes against WP:LEAD, WP:DUE, and WP:V. Your addition of poverty is the same issue of WP:Lead fixation that does not match the article. Poverty has a single sentence in the article, and that sentence does not suggest it is a "challenge". CMD (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
understand, but to repeat what I say before, WP:LEAD which you continue to cite actually says this:

"Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

it does not say everything must absolutely be covered in depth in text. so now question is if these measly two line addition are such "significant" information that they must not be present there unless text goes in depth. I don't think they are and going after them is just not reasonable. I'm going to try what Alexis did some time ago on different page and do RfC so we hear opinion other than yours.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on lead content

1) Should the last sentence of the lede contain basic information pertaining to Georgia's level of development, such as human development index, corruption, economic freedom and poverty?

2) Should the last sentence of the lede contain information about legalization of cannabis in the country? --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

1) There were opinions expressed that this basic information should not be included for various reasons, such as being WP:UNDUE and because topics not discussed at length in the body per WP:LEAD, which states "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

2) There were various opinions expressed that mentioning cannabis legalization is undue or that it is appropriate because something that is "one of the first" in the world is notable. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economic indicators

  • Yes, this information is almost always included in the ledes of articles about other countries. In case of poverty, it's not discussed in the article itself, so assuming it's an issue, it should be described first in the article and then added to the lede, as the lede should summarise the article. Alaexis¿question? 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that confuse me is how WP:LEAD says "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". It does not say everything must without exception be covered in depth in article text, so where does someone draw the line of what is significant and basic? Are these bits of information "significant" or are they "basic" mentions.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with adding this information to the article too? I think it will take less time than has already been spent here at the talk. FWIW, the WP:FA? also say that the lede summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, so even if it's not an requirement it's a good practice. Alaexis¿question? 17:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly add more information into text (already added some), but it is the principle that matters here, I just concerned that WP:LEAD is being used as justification for removing this info from lead, when it is not really required. To me the language of WP:LEAD does not read so strict and this information is not "significant" based on that wording. I think interpretation of WP:LEAD is very strict for Georgia, when it is not so strict in reality, so it is the principle I care about and need clarification for. I dislike when different standards are applied depending on situation and contributors.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just added more information on these points in text.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are needed There have been no sources provided which assert that these various topics are significant. In the cases of corruption and poverty, the new lead additions contradict the existing article text. Not a single source was provided in the above conversation to support these various points. The quibbling over lead is equally odd, surely if something is basic and fundamental, it must be pretty significant. CMD (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: thanks for feedback, I took closer look and add more info/sources in text for this topics. It now mention poverty and also more updated and detailed information on progress against corruption.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it (a) would be highly unusual to put such in a lead, (b) it would be WP:UNDUE prominence as coverage mentioning Georgia does not go there, and (c) it is not suitable per WP:LEAD guidance since these are not a significant part of the article — not even *in* the article? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say it is not in the article when most of it is now clearly added in text with references? also what basis is to say this content or placement is "unusual" when so many other country article seem to have exactly such content. I recommend you also read over WP:LEAD again, it does not say info in lead has to be significant part of article, it says you can't include significant information in lead if it is not discussed in article, which does not mean the same thing.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just stating facts is how I can say it.
First, the apparently false claim information is “almost always” included in the ledes of articles about other countries fell apart when I tried a dozen and none had it.
Second, Googling gives me a count of all hits and extracts them — and the proposed lead items are just not frequent nor prominent.
Third, WP:LEAD guideline *does* say it should be about things that are a major amount of the body text - when MOS:LEADREL says both lead and body should reflect due weight, and if they do not then match then “seek to resolve the discrepancy.” These topics that have little or nothing in the body... should not be in the lead . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest that this information is "almost always" included, that was somebody else's interpretation. I say it is often included and there are certainly country articles with this content, so there is precedent. Your other point about covering these topics in text no longer seems relevant because in response to other feedback I already include much more new information.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Alaexis --Andrei (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it might. Some of these indicators are quite relevant for new readers/introducees into the country/subject, considering where the country is coming from less than 2 decades ago - to give new readers a sense of its recent development in a few words. My reservation would be in the use (or style) of the current qualitative adjectives (ie "low corruption" and "very high development" and the selective use of quotes). Both examples are relative and prone to nuance. To illustrate that: Georgia has done remarkably in such a short period of time to beat corruption in daily life issues and interaction between government agencies and citizens. Without specifying which administration was primarily responsible for that, the fast development is absolutely worth mentioning in the lede, as it stands out - internationally as well, and should be addressed more elaborately in the article if not done so. Based on its TI CPI ranking it consistently ranks in the top 50 out of 180 countries over the past 5 years, beating a handful of EU member states. With distance it has the best CPI of the former Soviet Union states (outside of the Baltic EU member states), and in the region. But does the score of 56 points mean "low corruption"? Not really. It is very hard to justify the qualification "low", as there still is plenty - yet not as plain-in-your-face visible. So there are two angles to this. Yes, Georgia did great in beating aforementioned type of corruption, while stagnating on progression in recent years, and it certainly is not "low" by any international standard. "Low" would give the wrong impression here to the uninformed and new reader to the subject. I would use a different wording to describe the track record (of development) on these indicators that are of interest and worth mentioning in the lede. My 2cents, hope you get my point on this. And I hope this does not incite a discussion about the level of corruption and so on. Just my "but" on the use of the qualitative adjectives Labrang (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Labrang: good points. base on your feedback, I incorporate more information in the article. For example, I add qualifier to corruption statement and also provide more information in text to show that some more complex/subtle corruption situation remains to better explain. Does this address your concern?--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LeontinaVarlamonva: Yes it does. "relative low corruption" is a perfect nuance for the lede and the explainer is all just fine in the main paragraph in the article on corruption. Commenting on that, recent concerns re backsliding have also been addressed in subtle words. Labrang (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, the material in the lede looks acceptable to me, but corresponding / expanded / sourced material needs to be in the body as well (i.e., these points cannot occur only in the lede). I can't currently see anything at all in the article body regarding human development, for example, and the lede's claim of "low corruption" seems to be contradicted by current statements about corruption in the body. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richwales: thank you for feedback. good observation that article mostly talk about need to eliminate corruption in police but did not provide more recent updates. I added now more information to explain in more detail, does this address your recommendation? (also, I don't feel strongly about HDI, it can be remove, I just think it's a "basic" fact that per WP:LEAD don't necessarily need in depth discussion since its "basic").--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great improvement w/r/t discussion in the body of the current corruption situation. I still say that there needs to be something more in the body about the Human Development Index (HDI) to substantiate the claim in the lede that Georgia's human development is "very high" — especially considering that the lede comment is using "very high" as a quoted phrase. I do see this issue is touched on in the infobox, but that's not enough IMO; calling it a "basic fact" doesn't fly in my book; either add at least one sentence about this to the body (with inline citation to the UN report), or else remove it from the lede. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richwales: ok, I found some additional context for HDI and include that with sources, it explains not just current score but progression over years and some underlying factors as well. I hope this sufficient for what you had in mind? (P.S. I did not include HDI originally, from what I can tell HDI was there in lead very very long time and no one had problem with it, I only added to it)--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The treatment of HDI in the article body looks OK to me now. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, considering the relatively long length of the intro the mention of HDI and corruption fit in well and are well worded as they are. They are also basic information about the country that I expect many readers are expecting to find on the first page. Hentheden (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes agree with @Hentheden, this is useful at first glance. I see the argument against it, but here all presented well, useful & informative, without overloading the lede Hundnase (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; I don't see why not. I'm frankly surprised this is even up for an RfC. If the problem is that those topics which are introduced in the lead are not expounded in the body, then surely, the solution is to add content to the body that would do so. The goal is to improve WP by adding article content if unavailable, not to remove content because there is no corresponding detailed account. If this issue needs to be signalled to other editors so that someone can take up that issue, then a maintenance template should be used. Tstcikhthys (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis

  • Comment, I don't have a strong opinion. It's not the Guiness book of records, so being one of the first in something doesn't automatically make it suitable for the lede. If it's included, I'd suggest to trim it down: even the lede of the Netherlands article only mentions "liberal drug policy." Alaexis¿question? 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are needed demonstrating significance. Is there any other source which treats this as something to be mentioned in a four-paragraph summary? CMD (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because it its an exception in Asia and Post-soviet block --Andrei (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have a clear opinion on this. Yes, it is worth mentioning for reasons given by Andrei above, but as a suggestion: not as a stand-alone remark but preferably as part of a sentence to summarize Georgia's relative liberal attitude on various topics. Yes, it has its conservative flexes, but at the same time has historically had its liberal undercurrents which - for example - goes back to its Democratic Republic days when universal and women suffrage was adopted and so on. So, in a wider political-cultural context it might be worth mentioning. But I wouldn't consider it ultimately crucial. Not everything can be mentioned. At some point adding something means either condensing or removing something else. Is that worth it for some details? Labrang (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes because as Alaexis mentions this is something mentioned in the leads of other articles, but also because it's an interesting fact that doesn't take up too much space that provides information on the country. Hentheden (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not lead worthy at all. NO other country article covers this in the lead.....not even Canada....that covers this in the culture section.Moxy- 01:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy:, it's not actually true that no other country article covers marijuana it in lead, for example Uruguay mention cannabis in lead and it even talk about abortion, which by the way is also legal in Georgia. In case of Georgia cannabis legality is even more significant because of it being only country in communist/post-communist space with this status.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on balance I think this does set Georgia apart from its peer group, and can stay (arguments against also plausible). In my view, additional sources would be good. Hundnase (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No inclusion in lead. Many more social liberal policies are much more important then pot smoking. Nor is it a major economic viable product.204.237.3.153 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"many more social liberal polices"? such as? what other liberal policies significant enough to say Georgia's the only in the post-communist world to have? more specificity needed to seriously consider. And by the way, it seems very dismissive to say like this is just about "smoking pot", as article explain in more detail, legality of cannabis here has more profound significance than smoking pot, it is about loosening harsh drug policies and not filling prisons with people who are not dangerous criminals.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very misleading statement .....as "Authorities maintained harsh drug laws (except for marijuana) " World Report 2021: Georgia | Human Rights Watch.--Moxy- 17:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as WP:UNDUE; while the policies might be worth mentioning in the body, the subject in relation to the country as a whole simply isn't significant enough to warrant space in the lede; indeed, I can think of very few specific legal policies that would be of sufficient note to include in the lede, and drug legalization status is not one of them. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per BilledMammal Sixdown (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes à la Uruguay. If a country is notable for a significant policy decision, then it surely deserves a mention. As for whether it should be in the lead, I think so given that this is fairly standard practice and a reader would likely expect to get a synopsis of a country's significant qualities by reading the lead. Tstcikhthys (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation edit needed in very first sentence of the etymology section

<<The first mention of the name spelled as “Georgia” is in Italian on the mappa mundi of Pietro Vesconte dated AD 1320,[14] At the early stage of its appearance...>> That comma should be a period. Maybe someone with the credentials to fix this should fix this, as I do not. Thanks. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, best, CMD (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for section on science and technology

Hi, just a suggestion, many country articles have sections for 'science and technology', this could be a section on this article as well.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move suggestion

I suggest that we move this page to Sakartvelo and move [[Georgia (U.S. state) to Georgia. We are an AMERICAN SITE. We should use AMERICAN TERMS. --2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548 (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"We" are not an "American site", and your proposal is directly contradictory to WP:COMMONNAME. Largoplazo (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F1055391984
No tags for this post.