Hi all,
Please feel free to leave any feedback or discussion on this wall.
I am doing my best to do everything in line with Wiki conventions and factuality. Let's help each other improve!
Thanks!

I noticed you are a recently active member of WikiProject Georgia (country). There is ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) regarding content on the Georgia (country) article. You are cordially invited to join the discussion because as WikiProject Georgia member you may be able to offer valuable perspectives. Kind regards --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. Responded to both points within the RfC and added my thoughts. Labrang (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for this overdue clarification. I stumbled upon it because the topic had come up in a separate but somewhat related context.

If I were you, I would go even further. Instead of stressing how it is "identifying itself", better state how it is "geopolitically considered part of Europe." Placing emphasis on self-identification is somewhat misleading because it implies as though that's all that matters. The fact is that 27 states of Europe recently certified its belonging to the continent (in their eyes at least), so it appears that it's more than just a matter of self-identification but also that of fairly widespread acceptance. 2600:1700:20:1D80:C16D:866E:2BAA:DF9E (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and you're right. I am currently more active on the Dutch wikipedia as it really lags behind on the Georgia pages. But I keep an eye on here, and I noticed the slight edit dispute which I didn't agree with. I didn't want to push it now, but my thinking is in line what you say. Labrang (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your changes were overwritten by User:Stuntneare without explanation and now the article again says "organizations across Europe and Asia", which as you said "feels constructed" to distance it from Europe. Also, the introduction was changed to say "South Caucasus" instead of "Caucasus" (it's noteworthy that part of Georgia is actually located in the North Caucasus, so Caucasus was factually more accurate and a better choice than a specific region within). On another page, this same user argued to exclude Tbilisi from cities in Europe, so I think you were absolutely right that all of this "feels constructed". Sadly I'm not able to correct...--104.5.61.212 (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion that relates to one of your recent edits so I thought you may be able to offer additional perspectives. 2600:1700:20:1D80:8C24:1D15:EC36:563C (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The discussion is too long for me to fully read. But my take (I'll see tomorrow if I drop it in an appropriate place in the discussion): Since the list doesn't specify that the city must be located inside a certain (geographical, topographical) definition of Europe, one could interpret "European city" in a broader sense. As I tried to point out before on Georgia and Europe, Tbilisi is considered by hardly anyone an "Asian city". It breathes Europe. It is considered a European city, just like Georgia is considered a European country, as is proven by the fact it is included in ALL the European supra-national structures, including being welcome in the EU, and it is taking part in UEFA and so on and on and on. There is nothing Asian about the country and its relations, no matter how hard people try to fixate on an arbitrary definitional debate on the continental divide. To put it strongly: to hang it *only* on the strict geographic definition is narrow minded from people who can't look beyond their maps. Labrang (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed quite awhile ago now the need for better inclusion and sourcing of Georgian identity, in particular the European identity, on the Georgia page. I have (very belatedly) added a bit on that here. I've tried to keep it reasonably succinct given the already overbearing length of that article, mostly including ideas that were common throughout all the sources, but the sources added contain a lot that could be used to expand if needed. Best, CMD (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my belated response, CMD, but this is certainly a good addition and gives the right handles to readers to contextualize the European self-identity. Thank you. Labrang (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Labrang,

And thank you for noticing Wikipedia:Citation overkill. I wanted to make the article 2024 Georgian post-election protests better by providing references to videos with police brutalities and other human rights violations, but my approach is reasonably sub-optimal. How do you think I can benefit the article by listing sources with human rights violation videos and other proofs? Maybe there is some way. David Osipov (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @David Osipov , good that you reach out. I think there is a place for such things, but I think your approach via for example the wikidata template is prone to go against some of the conventions that we have, such as the citation overkill. First of all, it is good to note that the introduction (ideally max 3-4 paragraphs and not very long) is nothing more than a summary of the main content of the article. In other words, what is written there, is already in the main content. It is for people who just want to have a quick impression and want to know the most important details before deciding if they read more.This also implies that references can be kept to a minimum (ideally nothing would be required - but it's ok to have a few more the most important factual statements) - after all, what is in the introduction is (more elaborately) described in the main content - with the referencing. For many editors it is a hard thing to resist the tempation to add new developments in the introduction. In a developing situation like this, it is very easy to make the introduction so larges, it is nearly an article in itself. Sometimes less=more.

Concerning this particular article, I think it gets to the point it needs some structuring. It is now noting else than just a chronologic timeline. That also means some things can become very repetitive ("again..police violence took place...", "again people came out on the streets" etc) It is a recipe for a lot of text, but not saying much other than a kind of diary. To focus on your question on all the evidences of violations/brutality, I think a paragraph with a header could be added about police brutality or violence. Describing it in general terms with for example the amnesty report and some others / public defender complaints. And then give a few clear examples -- with the references that you have. But just dump 15-20 references somewhere, even within a separate template, is not really the way to go. Also, Human Rights reports also sum up the examples, so in a few months we don't need to describe them ourselves. Sometimes it is better to stick to a more general approach. We are not an investigative report. These reports will be made. And we can use them in a few months, from for example HRW or Amnesty etc. Labrang (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Labrang thank you for the input, after reading through Wikipedia:Citation overkill we are on one page that my initial way of adding a lot of references is not suitable for the Wiki.

I guess I'll try to create another section or even the whole page on police brutality topic. Living in Georgia, I just feel the urge to showcase these cases.

If you have any other ideas - please share. David Osipov (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will. I think it is better to keep the police subject within the protest page. They are directly related. Labrang (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen you fix GD/PP's seat count. Can you also check on the Parliament of Georgia page if all the other numbers are accurate and fix accordingly? Zlad! (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Labrang (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you been active on Georgia election and recent political event articles, so I would like to make you aware of this discussion taking place that may be of interest. It could use contributions from other informed users. LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeontinaVarlamonva - thanks for pointing that out. Yes, there is some need for comment there. I will do so, but I need to sit down for a properly worded argumentation against some of the opponents. Labrang (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]