![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
The present article claims that the kingdom was established in 888, 975 and 1008. Any idea of what is the correct one?-- Menah the Great ( talk) 15:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
As regards the caption beneath the map portraying the peak territorial expansion of the Kingdom of Georgia, what do people feel is more appropriate for Wikipedia from a language perspective:
"Kingdom of Georgia in 1184-1230 at the peak of its might"
or:
"Kingdom of Georgia in 1184-1230 at the peak of its territorial expansion"
I think that "at the peak of its might" is severely unencyclopedic, and weirdly nationalistic and politically biased. I do not see any argument against the far more accurate and appropriate "at the peak of its territorial expansion" - please do not revert, rather demonstrate what that argument might be and wait for a consensus here. thanks. Bdog Drummond ( talk) 15:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I was the one who originally changed "peak of its might" to "peak of its territorial expansion" for reasons that Bdog talks about. The second one is more neutral, "might" implies other things besides size.--
Bencemagyar (
talk)
21:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of
User:Studiawschodnie
There are some tiresome edit wars going on here that are transparently politically motivated. The Kingdom of Georgia (much like the country of Georgia today) was both European AND Asian, it was not either European OR Asian. The term Eurasian is the perfect descriptor and should be included initially in the lede to establish this fact and to dissuade any misleading, politicised efforts to paint the picture as being entirely European or entirely Middle Eastern (and this includes weasel words, structure and context). The lede should make it clear that the Kingdom encompassed both Eastern Europe (and Eastern European culture) and the Middle East (and Middle Eastern culture), and should not imply that it is merely one or the other, or that it is predominantly indicative of one or the other. Bdog Drummond ( talk) 15:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed " Eastern Europe" from the geographical description in the introduction. That it hints at far-flung areas like the Balkans, Ukraine, and European Russia, while it is implied by "North Caucasus", which is appropriately specific. Zaslav ( talk) 03:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Vif12vf please stop edit war and removing credible COA by Conrad Grünenberg.
" The current CoA will remain in place! " - it shows clearly how biased and noncompromising you are. Your behavior will be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 ( talk) 16:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Georgiano User:Giorgi Balakhadze User:LouisAragon User:Kober Please take a look at this article. User above is absolutely noncompromisingly biased and pushing fraudulent information and ignores a credible European armorial by Conrad Grünenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 ( talk) 17:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Wikaviani Stop removing the COA. It is sourced which you can easily access in its description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 ( talk) 18:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
What part of my question you cannot understand.? See the source information in the image'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.37.81 ( talk) 16:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Vif12vf You are a vandal and stop removing the sourced information! Stop vandalism! See the pages presented in the article. Also there is summery in English! User:Georgiano User:Kober Please stop the vandalism of this user! User:Wikaviani I've provided the source but this user is vandalising again. Please see the source. Thanks
I think the best solution (compromise, how to stop local editing war) is to use both Coat of Arms in the infobox. It is possible to use a special way to put both CoA there and prevent ongoing disputes. Of course, somebody thinks that Prince Vakhushti is more trustworthy, however Conrad Grünenberg's CoA is much older. So it is appropriate and legitimate for both CoA to be placed there. Of course, both CoA may represent a different historical period and style. It is also possible that neither of them is historically true and both are only attributed, because none of them cannot be substantiated by another source. Do you agree? Dragovit ( talk) 23:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as part of
a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See
the investigation subpage) It will likely be deleted after one week unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept
copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Major contributions by contributors who have been verified to have violated copyright in multiple articles may be presumptively deleted in accordance with
Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
Interested contributors are invited to help clarify the copyright status of this material or rewrite the article in original language at the temporary page linked from the article's face. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. -- Sennecaster ( Chat) 12:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello all!
This article has been chosen as this week's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborate effort to bring Stub and Start class Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to seven days, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.
This was a special request from a member of the WP:CCI effort to ensure the article did not lose B rating due to copyright cleanup efforts.
Thank you! -- ferret ( talk) 00:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
What was the actual name in Georgian? It could not have been Sakartvelos. -- 95.24.69.191 ( talk) 19:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Recent additions was made under "common languages" infobox that Arabic and Persian were "common" languages spoken in the kingdom along with Georgian. This was based on bilingual coins with Arabic and Persian inscription. Based on provided authors themselves, these languages were important for trade, but I don't think that is intended purpose of this specific infobox section, which is about common languages in the Georgian kingdom. Inscription on coin says more about languages of trade partners, than domestic language situation of Georgia. Provided books also don't make claims that coin languages were indicative of domestic language demographics. It is just not what they say.
Also, Armenian would certainly be more common in the Georgia kingdom than Arabic even if there is no bilingual Georgian-Armenian coins. Same about Greek, Abkhazian, Ossetian and other languages of people who lived there. Relevance of languages on coins is already covered in another area of article which is the right place. LeontinaVarlamonva ( talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Wrong! The Kingdom of Georgia minted coins with Arabic and later Persian inscriptions. You deciding that the infobox consists of Georgian residents involvement is your opinion. Whether you like it or not, it happened. You don't own this article and your continued labeling my edits to this article are starting to consist of WP:HARASSMENT. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
The present article claims that the kingdom was established in 888, 975 and 1008. Any idea of what is the correct one?-- Menah the Great ( talk) 15:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
As regards the caption beneath the map portraying the peak territorial expansion of the Kingdom of Georgia, what do people feel is more appropriate for Wikipedia from a language perspective:
"Kingdom of Georgia in 1184-1230 at the peak of its might"
or:
"Kingdom of Georgia in 1184-1230 at the peak of its territorial expansion"
I think that "at the peak of its might" is severely unencyclopedic, and weirdly nationalistic and politically biased. I do not see any argument against the far more accurate and appropriate "at the peak of its territorial expansion" - please do not revert, rather demonstrate what that argument might be and wait for a consensus here. thanks. Bdog Drummond ( talk) 15:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I was the one who originally changed "peak of its might" to "peak of its territorial expansion" for reasons that Bdog talks about. The second one is more neutral, "might" implies other things besides size.--
Bencemagyar (
talk)
21:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of
User:Studiawschodnie
There are some tiresome edit wars going on here that are transparently politically motivated. The Kingdom of Georgia (much like the country of Georgia today) was both European AND Asian, it was not either European OR Asian. The term Eurasian is the perfect descriptor and should be included initially in the lede to establish this fact and to dissuade any misleading, politicised efforts to paint the picture as being entirely European or entirely Middle Eastern (and this includes weasel words, structure and context). The lede should make it clear that the Kingdom encompassed both Eastern Europe (and Eastern European culture) and the Middle East (and Middle Eastern culture), and should not imply that it is merely one or the other, or that it is predominantly indicative of one or the other. Bdog Drummond ( talk) 15:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed " Eastern Europe" from the geographical description in the introduction. That it hints at far-flung areas like the Balkans, Ukraine, and European Russia, while it is implied by "North Caucasus", which is appropriately specific. Zaslav ( talk) 03:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Vif12vf please stop edit war and removing credible COA by Conrad Grünenberg.
" The current CoA will remain in place! " - it shows clearly how biased and noncompromising you are. Your behavior will be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 ( talk) 16:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Georgiano User:Giorgi Balakhadze User:LouisAragon User:Kober Please take a look at this article. User above is absolutely noncompromisingly biased and pushing fraudulent information and ignores a credible European armorial by Conrad Grünenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 ( talk) 17:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Wikaviani Stop removing the COA. It is sourced which you can easily access in its description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 ( talk) 18:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
What part of my question you cannot understand.? See the source information in the image'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.37.81 ( talk) 16:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Vif12vf You are a vandal and stop removing the sourced information! Stop vandalism! See the pages presented in the article. Also there is summery in English! User:Georgiano User:Kober Please stop the vandalism of this user! User:Wikaviani I've provided the source but this user is vandalising again. Please see the source. Thanks
I think the best solution (compromise, how to stop local editing war) is to use both Coat of Arms in the infobox. It is possible to use a special way to put both CoA there and prevent ongoing disputes. Of course, somebody thinks that Prince Vakhushti is more trustworthy, however Conrad Grünenberg's CoA is much older. So it is appropriate and legitimate for both CoA to be placed there. Of course, both CoA may represent a different historical period and style. It is also possible that neither of them is historically true and both are only attributed, because none of them cannot be substantiated by another source. Do you agree? Dragovit ( talk) 23:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as part of
a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See
the investigation subpage) It will likely be deleted after one week unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept
copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Major contributions by contributors who have been verified to have violated copyright in multiple articles may be presumptively deleted in accordance with
Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
Interested contributors are invited to help clarify the copyright status of this material or rewrite the article in original language at the temporary page linked from the article's face. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. -- Sennecaster ( Chat) 12:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello all!
This article has been chosen as this week's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborate effort to bring Stub and Start class Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to seven days, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.
This was a special request from a member of the WP:CCI effort to ensure the article did not lose B rating due to copyright cleanup efforts.
Thank you! -- ferret ( talk) 00:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
What was the actual name in Georgian? It could not have been Sakartvelos. -- 95.24.69.191 ( talk) 19:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Recent additions was made under "common languages" infobox that Arabic and Persian were "common" languages spoken in the kingdom along with Georgian. This was based on bilingual coins with Arabic and Persian inscription. Based on provided authors themselves, these languages were important for trade, but I don't think that is intended purpose of this specific infobox section, which is about common languages in the Georgian kingdom. Inscription on coin says more about languages of trade partners, than domestic language situation of Georgia. Provided books also don't make claims that coin languages were indicative of domestic language demographics. It is just not what they say.
Also, Armenian would certainly be more common in the Georgia kingdom than Arabic even if there is no bilingual Georgian-Armenian coins. Same about Greek, Abkhazian, Ossetian and other languages of people who lived there. Relevance of languages on coins is already covered in another area of article which is the right place. LeontinaVarlamonva ( talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Wrong! The Kingdom of Georgia minted coins with Arabic and later Persian inscriptions. You deciding that the infobox consists of Georgian residents involvement is your opinion. Whether you like it or not, it happened. You don't own this article and your continued labeling my edits to this article are starting to consist of WP:HARASSMENT. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)