Talk:Irakli Kobakhidze

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Irakli Kobakhidze.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: These files are from sources all labeled (C) at the bottom of their respective pages, except the last one which is from Facebook.  Not own work, no indication that actual copyright holder/s' permission/s has or have been obtained via c:COM:OTRS.   
Deletion request: link 

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC).

This image has been deleted from Commons

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -JamuthiraR (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC).

Problematic Paragraphs

There are several paragraphs in here that are clearly too positive about his work.

Take for instance this paragraph:

In 2017-2018, under his leadership, a wide-scale constitutional reform was implemented in Georgia. The new constitution established a European type parliamentary system of government. It divided competencies among different branches of government in accordance with the principle of separation of powers, introduced the proportional system of parliamentary elections, strengthened the role of the Parliament and the political rights of the opposition, advanced the constitutional guarantees of human rights, independence of the judiciary and local self-government, and stipulated EU and NATO integration as the constitutional task of all constitutional bodies.[6]

There were also large criticisms on this constitution which are completely neglected to be mentioned, leaving the impression everyone was in favour for these changes. 2001:1C00:F13:3100:5023:36C3:C43:982E (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi - the paragraph reads as factual, and fine to me. Best thing is to add something by someone who has your differing POV. Wikipedia works best when people don't remove stuff, they add to it. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits by Silveresc

@Silveresc: - please provide explanation to your editions beyond a reference to an irrelevant rule. The sources to information you are attempting to remove are provided and represent a variety of institutions with immense reputation. If you continue your attempts to remove sourced information, it might be considered as WP:POVPUSH, and based on your previous contributions I have a feeling that we might be dealing with conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. DerFuchs (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This is biased reporting and I think you understand it very well. Let's just write Wikipedia according to what United National Movement and other opposition think. It is not "Anti-American" and "Anti-European" to criticize certain forces in the Europe and USA, which makes these allegations very bizarre. The person did not really in any statement attack America and Europe directly or described himself as "Anti-American" or "Anti-European", moreover, the person did not state that "the West is trying to drag Georgia into the War" (despite the article saying that he said so), therefore, these are just allegations. Just because they are repeated by "variety of institutions" don't make them any more credible. There are many sources which state the opposite, and they are even provided in the article itself, but you made biased headline like that, writing allegations made by certain people as facts (and not just as they are - allegations), which not only violates NPOV rule, but also looks like agenda-pushing.

And my contributions are mostly to the Georgian articles, there is nothing to suggest what you are saying. Another baseless and unspecific accusations which violate Wikipedia's rules. Silveresc (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Finally! I am happy that I was able to start communication (Pity that a warning was needed for this). First, the NPOV rule is irrelevant - if you read through it carefully it will be clear why; second - we are creating an encyclopaedia, and not a news report. Though the current version, providing more context, is definitely better than the previous one. DerFuchs (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Clear Bias

This article was either written by the staffers of Kobakhidze, some partisan hack, or by Kobakhidze himself. This is a glowing review of a controversial politician with 0 ounce of objectivity. Zlad! (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zlad!: - It turns out that the article was edited heavily by a number of sockpuppets connected to Silveresc & ArsenalAtletico2017. DerFuchs (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Liverpoolfan12600: - removing well-sourced information without proper discussion is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Considering recent issues with sockpuppets and this article, I welcome you to discuss changes before making them - otherwise, it will be hard to consider your edits as legitimate, and will raise questions regarding both possible sockpuppetry and paid editing. Also, if you consider a publication of European Council on Foreign Relations as not realiable or biased, good luck proving this here first. --DerFuchs (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your note. This is not a paid editing. The publications of different authors (including ECFR) create characterizations that have nothing to do in the bio page and labels the individual with something that he does not represent. ECFR's opinion section cannot be characterized as a credible source. Liverpoolfan12600 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that you shared your view regarding the possible characterizations, but your personal evaluation of ECFR is not in line with the current guidlines. The ECFR, together with other sources, is a reliable source, and it follows the trend we witness in many other sources as well, and describing his statements as "anti-European" and "anti-American" is a common trend in other sources as well. There is also an additional explanation of this topic later in the article, so there is no reason in line with current Wikipedia policies to remove this information that is included in almost all sources and seems a vital characterisation of the subject of the article. However, I also find the current wording slightly rambling, so I welcome you to suggest possible different wording - but before any edits, we must discuss it here. Please also note, that since the statements are indeed evaluated as "anti-European" and "anti-American" in a multitude of reliable source, this needs to be kept in the edits suggested by you.--DerFuchs (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. While I disagree on the characterization by different sources, I think this wording below is fair, it includes trend from the mentioned sources while highlighting the facts and presents a very neutral point of view. While his statements have been characterized as critical of the West, his actions have different ramifications, for example, with his chairmanship the ruling party, the country received EU candidate status and his current plan, as Georgian PM candidate, includes pro-EU and pro-US messages. See the sources below.

"Kobakhidze's statements have occasionally been characterized as critical of the West. He has implied that Western actions may inadvertently provoke conflict in Georgia, citing remarks like "open a second front" and similar messages. Nonetheless, it is important to note that he consistently reiterates Georgia's commitment to its foreign policy objective of EU integration. Notably, the country achieved EU candidate status in December 2023 during his chairmanship of the ruling party."

Georgia celebrates gaining EU candidate status | Euronews https://www.euronews.com/2023/12/16/georgia-celebrates-gaining-eu-candidate-status

Govt’s “well-defined” EU integration plan involves fulfilment of European Commission priorities - PM candidate https://agenda.ge/en/news/2024/337 Liverpoolfan12600 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed the sources provided by you. First of all, you absolutely need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No original research and verifiability. Let me start with the evaluation of soruces: there is a difference between a well-respected analytical material and person's quote. The euronews article doesn't even mention Kobakhidze at all, while the second article is just a quote of the person himself, which is not enough for now, and leads us to the no original research policy. If you will be able to provide well-respected analytical sources similar to ECFR, then we can consider at least part of your suggestions. Your current suggestion is a very clear example of original research, and (for example the line his actions have different ramifications seems to be a page from the advertisement, and not an encyclopaedia article. I would suggest you to revise the proposal based on the policies cited above; however, this also leads me - again - to the question if there is any conflict of interest here, and if you are affiliated with any PR firm or consultancy, or otherwise working for the subject of the article? DerFuchs (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

On a slightly different note: I checked the domain agenda.ge (There was no "about" section on the website, which seemed odd). The domain is owned by the State Chancellery of Georgia, so - even if the source was not a mere quote - there is a very clear COI here. DerFuchs (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with User:DerFuchs as the article has no mention of Kobakhidze and does not seem to add anything to the article. What is the purpose of including the link to the news article to this article? Jurisdicta (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be POV pushing from a number of users on this article without proper discussion. If this continues, I believe we will have to block the article entirely.--DerFuchs (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

Euronews https://www.euronews.com/2023/12/16/georgia-celebrates-gaining-eu-candidate-status Govt’s “well-defined” EU integration plan involves fulfilment of European Commission priorities - PM candidate https://agenda.ge/en/news/2024/337 Liverpoolfan12600 (talk) Liverpoolfan12600 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing. Please let the editors time to reply, otherwise your actions will be considered as WP:POVPUSH.--DerFuchs (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing debate re: "Anti-European" phrase

Dear User:DerFuchs and User:Silveresc, allow me to attempt some peace making here. I was drawn to this debate by reading the lead on this article, where the "his views have often been described as Anti Euro" jumped out at me as entirely inappropriate for a lead. Let me tell you why I think this.

Koba (for short), said he didn't wan't get drawn into providing a second front. Personally, I understand why, although that is irrelevant. However, what he said is a fact. What other people said in reaction though, is not something that should be in the lead. To me, the "Anti Euro" tag sounds like a smear. It certainly is just political posturing. So fine, put it down below as "criticisms" etc. Not in the lead.

By choosing to put commentary in the lead, we are going beyond our editorial capacity. Just tell the story. Who is Koba? What has he done? What has he said? Leave the biased editorialising out.

Myself, I don't like the tone of people accusing other's of being or using sock puppets, etc. I really don't like threats, and hiding behind Wiki protocols. I'm glad we're having this discussion, in a reasonably civil way. Meanwhile, I'm going to modify the statement for the reasons I've stated above. I invite you all to fill out the article with more of Koba's positions, and people's reactions to them. But the lead is a place for a summary of who he is as a person, not political posturing. Thanks all Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Billyshiverstick: - your edits were reverted, since you did it without properly consulting other editors on the talk page first. First of all, it is unfortunate that you didn't even check the users you are talking to - and the fact that Silveresc is actualy a permaenently blocked sockpuppet. Please pay more attentions before making edits or accusing people. As editors, our purpose is to provide neutral infomration based on sources - and not whitewash people based on our personal feelings. The anti-european statements are mentioned in all possible sources and constitute an important part of this article, thus - they are mentioned in the lead. If you want to suggest different wording, do it before editing the article first, please. --DerFuchs (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The protocols exist for a reason - our purpose here is to write a neutral, encyclopedic article based on sources and Wikipedia guidlines, and not a political PR leaflet based on on personal feelings. DerFuchs (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I did explain myself on the talk page, before I changed the text. You call Silveresc a sock puppet, but maybe he was hounded out by editors who know how to work the Wiki system. His POV sounded reasonable to me. I consider your reversion to be proprietary editing. I don't care though. I'm never coming back to this page. I notice you deleted mention of Koba's constitutional reforms. They were in the text below. They are facts. You are displaying bias with that edit. I think you should put them back. I'll leave that to your conscience. It appears you don't want him to be seen as accomplishing anything.

Again, about the perceived "anti euro" statements, they are just political smears, not facts for a lead. If he had been in power 10 years, and repeatedly displayed actual "anti euro" sentiments, maybe. But one knee jerk reaction from a Putin bot isn't Wikipedia lead material for me. He never said anything anti euro or anti us. He just declined to open a second front. Georgia has a tiny fraction of Russia's power, and they lost the last war against them. Anyways, I can see you have an agenda here, and I don't want to fight you. Good bye, and good luck. Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You attempted to change a consensual version of the text without previously discussing the edit, and attempted to transform the article into a page from a PR leaflet, without even providing any sources. I don't call anybody a sock puppet - this user was caught running a ring of sock puppets, attempting to influence articles on a number of topics. So, yes I am extra careful trying to avoid government backed and paid edits, transforming this article into a PR leaflet. As for the last part of your comments, I appreciate you sharing your vision on the topic, however it is entirely beyond Wikipedia's current role - we are here writing an encyclopaedia based on sources, and not somebody's perceptions or feelings. The sources are crystal clear on the topic, and we are here to respect it. It is also unfortunate that you are trying to personally attack an editor who is trying to uphold current policies of Wikipedia, and issue totally baseless accusations. DerFuchs (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

CSO report

This article appeared in a report of a Georgian CSO Sockpuppets and Wikipedia - an unknown battlefront. DerFuchs (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead templates

The templates in the lead will be removed, since they were pasted without any clarification on the discussion page, and the user that placed them had more than enough time to explain reasoning/clarification.--DerFuchs (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

Irakli Kobahkhidze sold his country to Russia to feed his wallet and neverending appetite for more. Adittionaly Irakli is originally from Russia as it's stated on his birthcertificate and remains in service of russian oligarchs, politicians and Daddy Putin himself. 131.179.59.42 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)