Talk:Georgians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Georgians article.
Article policies
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Georgia (country) Portal
Georgians is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the country of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I don't think the Ajarians are an ethnic group, but I could be wrong. I thought the term just applied to the inhabitants of Ajaria. They are culturally different from the rest of Georgia because they're Muslim, but I don't think they were ethnically distinct. Isomorphic 00:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ajarians are ethnic Georgians (one of the ethnographic groups of Georgian people). Ajarians are Muslim, but they are not "culturally different from the rest of Georgia". Levzur 19 Apr 2005

Contents

[edit] Jews

Please remember that Georgian Jews don't call themselves Georgians.

That's wrongSosoMK 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reappropriation

I'm biased, but isn't it better? Yes; the Serbs have their own page, and so do the Croats. But remember who links to this page. --VKokielov 04:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the page back, because it's not fair any other way. But don't take out the mention of the Jews. You know what you mean when you do it, and so do I. Let's not pretend. --VKokielov 04:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And remember: the Jews distinguish themselves from the Orthodox Georgians. --VKokielov 04:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear VKokielov, this article is about the Georgian people (Kartveli Eri), about the nation (ethnic group), not about the whole population of the Republic of Georgia. -- Levzur 25 Apr 2005
Then it shouldn't mention the Svans, Megrelians or Laz either, as they are not ethnic Georgians either -- for one thing, they don't speak Georgian. Considering them to be ethnic Georgians is like considering Catalonians to be ethnic Spaniards. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 23:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Svans, Megrels and Lazs are ethnic Georgians. Literary language for all ethnographic groups of Georgian people is Georgian language. We have many historical sources about it. I'm Laz, my mother is Imeretian, my grandmothers were Megrels = we all are GEORGIANS! -- Levzur 26 Apr 2005
I didn't say anything about "literary language"; I was talking about the language they actually speak, as the literary language is often not a good guide to distinguishing linguistic/ethnic groups. Literary languages are often imposed from outside, by whatever group is in power at a given time; spoken language within a group is a matter of group choice and is a far better guide to group affinity. (If I were to do all my writing in Japanese -- make it my "literary language" -- that would not make me ethnically Japanese.)
In other words, I don't care whether Megrelians use Megrelian, Georgian, or Swahili as their literary language. My understanding is that among themselves when possible, they speak Megrelian (am I correct?), and therefore I say that they are obviously a distinct linguistic group from Laz, Svans, and Georgians proper. I think there's a problem of definition here: "Georgian" (= native of Georgia) is not the same as "ethnic Georgian" (= person whose primary linguistic/cultural affinity is Georgian).
Then again, if you're going on the criteria of literary language, you can't really exclude Georgian Jews from the category of "ethnic Georgians" -- isn't their literary language also Georgian?
Finally, a question: how is it possible that your grandmothers are Megrelians and yet you're Laz? Please explain. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 02:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just 2 comments:
  • Language/dialect and tribe/nation are difficult questions. I won't pretend to know anything about Georgia but I know a lot about the Balkans. Language is not a good measurement of ethnicity.
  • From what Levzur says and what I know of how ethnicity is inherited in most of the world, I'd guess that his paternal grandfather was Laz, his maternal grandfather Imeretian, and both his grandmothers Megrel, making him a Laz. Zocky 11:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Point the first: I agree that language is not a good measurement of ethnicity, but I only agree with that in one direction. I can think of many cases where a language group encompasses several different ethnic groups, but I can think of no case where, as Levzur is claiming, one ethnic group encompasses several different language groups -- save perhaps in large "melting-pot" countries like the U.S., a category of state that I doubt Georgia falls into.
In other words: "belonging to different ethnic groups" doesn't imply "speaking different languages", but "speaking different languages" generally implies "belonging to different ethnic groups", AFAIK.
Point the second: quite possible. I never said intermarriage didn't occur... :)
Point the third (gratuitous plug): the sort of argument I appear to have got into on this page is a good example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. I have a proposal to fix some of these problems; I'd love comments on it. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
How about Germany? Low German and High German are two quite distinct languages, but all Germans call themselves German. How about Albanians? Dialects of Kosovo and Albania are quite unintelligable but they're all Albanians. How about Scots, Welsh, the Irish? Plenty of cases like that around. Ethnicity and language are two related, but separate things. Zocky 00:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Marnen Laibow-Koser, I say about "ethnicity". Megrels, Lazs, Svans are not independent ethnic groups. They are ethnographic groups of the Georgian people. Georgian Jews are not ethnic Georgians, they are representatives of other ethnic group. My father is Laz, my Mother is Imeretian, my grandmothers were Megrels = we all are ethnic Georgians. Levzur 29 Apr 2005

Repetition will not advance your argument. Please answer the questions I asked. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 12:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My answer is argumented! What do you want? Unfortunately, you absolutely not know history of Georgia, history of Georgian people (Nation), ethnogenesys of Georgians, ethnology of Georgia. Finally, about genealogy: in Georgia grandmothers are wifes of grandfathers... Levzur 1 may 2005
What do I want? Very simple: I want you to answer the questions I asked. If you think I'm ignorant about Georgia, then please tell me what I am not taking into account. Just repeating yourself and calling me ignorant will not help at all. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
YES! You are ignorant about Georgia: 1. You not know Georgian language; 2. You not know Georgian historical chronicles of "Kartlis Tskhovreba" and other important Georgian sources; 3. You are not historian; 4. You not know important works of outstanding Georgian historians (Ivane Javakhishvili, Pavle Ingorokva, Simon Janashia, Levan Chilashvili, Giorgi Melikishvili, Sargis Kakabadze, Mikheil Tsereteli, Ekvtime Takaishvili, Malkhaz Abdushelishvili and others)... Levzur 2 May 2005
You have no basis for most, if not all, of these assumptions. Please, please, please stop repeating yourself and answer my questions. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I will not discuss wit you scientific questions! Please, read more books about Georgia and Georgian People and visit this country... -- Levzur 8 May 2005
Where do you get the idea that I haven't read books about Georgia? And why won't you discuss scientific questions? That's the purpose of these talk pages. Please don't edit Wikipedia if you won't discuss your edits. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are a dilettante and demagogue. If you had read books (objective books) about Georgia, you would not ask me such questions! Good bye! -- Levzur 9 May 2005

Dear Levzur, the question of Marten comes not from ignorance of Georgia, but from ignorance of rules of descendance for various nationalities. From his last name I suspect that he is Jew. From my dilettante knowledge of Jewish laws, a son of a Jewish mother is a Jew (I don't know if there are exceptions). He apparently thinks that the same rule applies everywhere, hence the surprized tone of the question. He is also apparently unaware that not all ethnicities pay so strict attention to the exact ethnos among close ethnic groups. Not to say that ethoses split, merge, assimilate, disappear... After all, it appears that we all have a common pramother.

See Matrilineality and Patrilineality for a "scientific" answer. Mikkalai 21:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 83% of georgians live in georgia

but 4 mil out of 7 mil is not 83%. I would say the numbers of georgians living in Turkey or Afghanistan are a little far fetched. I never heard of 150.000 Georgians living in Afghanistan. Can someone verify this info.

83% of the population of today's Georgia! Thank you! Georgians living in Turkey (more than 1,5 mil.), on the territory of old Georgian provinces - Tao-Klarjeti and Lazeti, are indigenous population of this region. Information about the number of Georgians living in Turkey is the data of the Georgian Society in Turkey. In Afganistan and Iran Georgians were moved in the XVII-XVIII cent. Levzur Sept 2, 2005
Compare these disputed diaspora figures with those cited for Armenians and Norwegians. I don't think there's one single answer for how to realistically enumerate something as elusive as the primary ethnic identity of millions of people after generations of exile or intermarriage. Are sub groups such as the assimilated people in Turkey and Russia whose genetic roots are in the Georgian people to be counted in or out? Are they a subgroup? Are the Ajarians? Tricky, this is.... //Big Adamsky 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Total population of Georgians living in Turkey, on the territory of old Georgian provinces - Tao-Klarjeti and Lazeti (Lazistan) and not assimilated, is more than 1,5 mil. They have Georgian Associations "Chveneburi" and "Lazebura" (Laszs are one of ethnographic groups of Georgian People). "Chveneburi" is a Georgian Cultural Society in Turkey, not "ethnic group"! Ajarians are muslim Georgians, not a different ethnic group!. In Russia Georgians (about 1 mil.) have own cultural Association also. Georgian Associations are in the USA, Germany, France, Netherlands, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran, etc. For mentioned above people "GEORGIAN" is a primary ethnic identity. Unfortunately, you absolutely not know Georgia and history of Georgian People. With kind regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, Georgian historian. 5 January 2006
I think Big Adamsky's also pointing to assimilated Georgians as well as those of a recent cultural assimilation into say Turkish or Russian society. Also, the usage of the term ethnic groups is tricky. On the Han chinese page we had a discussion about whether the Hui are Han or not. The view was that they are not. Why? Because they are Muslim rather than Buddhist/various others. The Hui have the same origins as the Han and are usually considered a sub-group at least, but not 'real' Han. Ethnicity is often a hazy term that is applicable in many instances that may not be universally agreed upon, but I think has to be left to some concensus of the group involved deciding whether or not they feel they are an 'ethnic' group as such. Tombseye 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, who put up 150,000 Georgians in Afghanistan?! This is the first I'm hearing about this. Mostly there used to be thousands of Georgian Muslims in Afghanistan, but they vanished/assimilated into the population probably a century or more ago. Gorgin Khan's the last major Georgian ruler mentioned before the Hotaki revolt against the Safavids in the 1700s.Tombseye 06:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Tombseye, I say only about NOT ASSIMILATED Georgians. Ajarians and mentioned above Georgians in Turkey are Muslims, but they are not culturally and linguistically different from the rest of Georgia. They are ETHNIC GEORGIANS. Total amount of Georgians in Afganistan is about 300,000, about 50% of this population identified himself, as Gurjs (Georgians). With best regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze. 6 January, 2006.

I think its fair to say alot of these numbers are somewhat accurate when you consider the traditional definitions of an ethnic group (a common cultural, linguistic, religious, historical/ancestral and/or physical/gentic origin). Just because Georgians were assimilated in Turkey doesn't necessarily not make them ethnically Georgian. If they had significantly intermarried with ethnic Turkish and adopted all things Turkic then they can be consdiered to be ethnic Turkish with some Georgian roots/influence. But if they still have a significant combination of Georgian roots, whether they be cultural, ancestral/etymological, linguistic, religious or physical/genetic, then they can be classified as Georgians just as much as being classified as a Georgian-Turk or citizen of Turkey. Epf 09:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Levan, I'm just wondering though when this figure was taken. I have no problem with it if it's true, but I was under the impression that indeed many thousands of Georgians were placed in Afghanistan and many became rulers such as the aforementioned Gorgin Khan who ruled Kandahar, but I haven't seen census data that points to Afghans who, other than possibly claiming some partial descent from Georgian ancestors they no doubt have since we know some were settled there, still claim Georgian ethnicity. I'm not disagreeing with your view of who ethnic Georgians are as I agree that Georgians regardless of religion are Georgians, but I am wondering where these figures are from as most of the sources I've consulted, including some books I've read about Georgia, including history, economcy, etc. mainly relate to some groups in the Caucasus, Russia, Turkey, while other regions aren't particularly referred to. The Iranic lands such as Iran and Afghanistan, I thought, had assimilated Georgians who no longer identified themselves as ethnic Georgians. Tombseye 09:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
My dear friend! Unfortunately, your information is not true! With best regards, Levan Z. Urushadze, 8 January, 2006.
Look Levan, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm asking for some information here. You can't put up figures unless there is some reliable evidence. Where did the 300,000 Afghans claim to be ethnic Georgians in the 20th century?! I was under the impression that even in Iran, they have been largely assimilated and no longer constitute a viablely separate group as they apparently don't even speak Georgian any more. Tombseye 08:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
About 150,000 Gurjs (Georgians) in Afganistan and about 100,000 in Iran claim to be ETHNIC GEORGIANS. Georgians in Iran SPEAK GEORGIAN. With best regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, 21 January 2006
I'm just asking for a source though. What source or survey or report shows that hundreds of thousands of people still claim Georgian ancestry and speak Georgian Afghanistan and Iran? I'm not against the possibility that you might be correct, but this is the first time I've heard of actualy speakers of Georgian in Afghanistan still. Like I said, I was under the assumption that most had been assimilated by the 19th century and in Iran the actual number of ethnic Georgians, according to most reference books is relatively small (this would again assume that most have assimilated into bigger groups). Now I know there are Armenians still, but as for Georgians, I just wanted some source for this information is all. Thanks. Tombseye 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a source is needed for statistics regarding the number of ethnic Georgians residing in Turkey, possibly in Iran and Afghanistan as well. The reason being that Turkey does not allow census data on ethnic minorities (it maintains that there is only one ethnicity/nationality in Turkey--the Turk). I personally would be very interested to see alternative census data. While in the Rizeli region and in Hopi, I conducted a very unscientific informal poll, but very few people claimed to be Laz (or perhaps they just didn't understand my Turkish ;) )--I got far more responses from people identifying as Hemşinli or just Turkish. So, like I said, I'm very interested to find better sources of demographic information on the Laz in Turkey. --Treemother199 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected again

I've re-protected the page. Discuss changes here, please. Mark1 12:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that page protection is necessary at the moment. There was a flurry of contentious edits earlier today, but they have stopped. It might have been interesting to see if they would start up again. However, it would be good to have some documented statement here from those involved about why they feel their version be better. --Gareth Hughes 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends! Yes, Stalin was ethnic Georgian, but he was a GREATEST ENEMY for Georgia: in 1921 he was a main organizer of occupation of sovereign Georgia by Bolshevik Russia; in 1921-1952 under Stalin's order were killed and jailed more than 100,000 Georgian patriots. Proceeding from mentioned above, Stalin was not a "Famous Georgian", he was a Famous Russian politician. With kind regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, Georgian historian. 5 January, 2006
To quote User:Tombseye:
Wikipedia should not be a nationalistic feel good encyclopedia to depict only people everyone likes or would like to represent them. If there were to be an Iraqis page (or an Iraqi Arabs page), Saddam would have to be there. Genghis Khan has to be on the Mongols page and Hitler is on the Germans page. Many Hungarians would argue for the inclusion of Attila and on the Romanians page we have Vlad the Impaler (although he could probably go both Hungarian or Romanian).
Please, I ask you, why does it matter that he was an enemy of his own people? He was still an ethnic Georgian. --Khoikhoi 00:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but there is a serious issue about sensitivity in placing a picture of Stalin at the top of the infobox. --Gareth Hughes 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a recurring problem and I guess I might as well weigh in here. The sensitivity issue is a huge problem indeed, but I think it does shed light on the impact Georgians have had on the world scene to include Stalin, good or bad. He probably hurt Russians more than he did Georgians (for whom he gave cultural autonomy, but of course treated them as harshly as everyone else, being an equal opportunity tyrant). Overall though, what's interesting is that when given a choice people want to be 'represented' by their most attractive and those who are seen as positive influences but that's subjective. Some people blanche at having Mao on the Han Chinese page and instead prefer Yao Ming. Mao's pretty one of the icons of China, good or bad. Genghis Khan's a hero in Mongolia, but a villain in China. I don't think it really hurts the image of Georgians to include their most famous son, because if people are going to be so narrow-minded as to believe that one person can represent them, they probably have a lot of issues anyway. Generally, this seems to be a way to gloss over the past for people and a pride thing rather than academic. With that said, Gareth makes a good point regarding sensitivity issues, but with that let's face it, no one will ever agree as to who should represent them. Might as well put it to a vote or something and let the chips fall where they may as with the "Macedonians" page. Tombseye 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Stalin was ethnic Georgian, but he was a tyrant and "Hitler" for his own people! He was one of the GREATEST ANTIGEORGIANS in the history of Georgia! He identified himself as Russian. Proceeding from mentioned above, I ask you to remove Stalin's picture from the infobox. With best regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, 6 January, 2006.
Yes, but you need to realize that this article is not just for Georigans. Khoikhoi correctly put it when he said that these articles are for everyone on wikipedia. You can't just put people up that you personally approve of. Stalin is probably the most famous Georgian ever and I'm not at all saying he was a good person and so think he needs to be on the collage of Georgians. These 'controversial' figures are resisted by lots of other people. On the Han chinese page there is resistance to Mao. On the Persian page there is resistance to Khomeini. And actually many people probably think Stalin was a Russian, which we all know is not true. Thus, the need for him to be on the Georgian people page. Tombseye 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
He is added on the article, but, please, remove Stalin's image! With best regards, Levan Z. Urushadze, 8 January, 2006.
Ok, his image was removed, but I don't see any reason to not mention him at all in the article. I added him back among the Georgian politicians. --Red Star 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Stalin needs to be on the list of notable Georgians. Even if he ruled in the Soviet Union and occupied Georgia it doesn't change the fact that he was indeed Georgian. Saying he wasn't georgian and was actually Russian is like saying Hitler was a German. Hitler was Austrian and as a German I would be offended to be told he was a German. Plqgnmv 18.57 (New Zealand time) 2 April 2007
Well that's not the same thing because Austrians and Germans, especially in that time, were the same people ethnically. They still speak the same language today, and the reason they consider themselves different is because Austria lsot the war against Prussia back in the 19th century to control Germany. Hitler was a German, nobody would contradict that. --Red Star 14:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I would contradict that. Have a look at the article Austrians. It shows that Austrians and Germans are different people and both Germans and Austrians recognise this. Same language does not mean same people. --plqgnmv 6:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] title

Should we consider to move this page to "Georgians" instead of "Georgian people"?Sosomk 09:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should. Ldingley 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibero-Caucasian People???

--85.117.56.99 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "Ibero-Caucasian People" is inappropriate, as it is not scientific and is purely theoretical and even more than that - it is nowadays considered to be wrong , as North and South Caucasian Languages show no linguistic relation. Georgians are not an Ibero-Caucasian people, but just South Cacuasian (Kartvelian) people...

Actually they are. Many sources use the term "Ibero-Caucasian people" which identifies kartvelian (ei South Caucasian people: Lazs, Chans, Svans, etc). Ldingley 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Please explain what are the criteria for selection of photos in the infobox. I do not understand why Princess Ekaterine Dadiani is included. Cann't comment on George Chavchavadze and Teymuraz Bagrationi, despite being Georgian I've never heard of them. Performing art people are clearly overrepresented. I would not include the current president of the state as well, if someone else gets elected soon should we put him here too? Stalin is by far the best recognizible Georgian, why not include him? Why forget Rustaveli? Tamokk 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And the David the builders picture is an artists perception, and we have old frescos of him surviving. Tamokk 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

those images were selected randomly and not by any selection. They are ethnic Georgians and i didn’t hear any negative comments from any Georgian user. By placing Stalin’s face on that info box, i'll assure you that you'll have big opposition from Georgian users and from me personally. Its very sad that you are not informed about Teimuraz Bagrationi and George Chavchavadze. Soso and Kober please comment. Ldingley 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

)

While adding the Rustaveli portrait is indeed worthy to consider, I will never agree to add the photo of Stalin to the gallery. He never identified himself with Georgia and considered his native country a medieval rudiment. Teimuraz Bagrationi was the first Georgian author whose historic writings attracted the attention of European scholarship, thus paving a path to the development of the Kartvelian Studies.--Kober 17:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Geopeoplerev005.jpg

How about this one? Ldingley 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I see the idea now, a random choice. Well, not a bad idea, but one problem with it: Similar photos for most other nations are carefully selected, and I am afraid an average wikipadian already asumes this to be so for all articles about nations (as did I for Georgians). At least for this reason, I think selectivness will be good in this case. Ok. The saddest thing now to me is that we are having four or more art people here, as since the chocie is random this means that art people are overrepresented not only in these photos, but on wikipedia too. I think that Stalin should be included, but if I am in the minority I will not insist (but I do not think that I am in the minority :)). qarTvelebisTvis: raRac davwere saqarTvelos portalis ganxilvaze da naxet. Tamokk 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Who else should I add besides Stalin? Sergo Orjonikidze, Beria, Philip Makharadze, or maybe Igor Giorgadze?. Also i will suggest to Austrians to add Hitlers photo as he was very famouse and include also Mussolini for the Italians. Ldingley 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Strange, majority of people on Irish people are of arts and literature. And what is wrong with it? Are you sure Stalin is a better candidate than Jansur Kakidze and Liana Isakadze? Ldingley 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was not a major issue in what I have written. Nothing is wrong if art people are overrepresented, exept that it is only possible if others are underrepresented. My suggestion would be: David the builder, Queen Tamar, Rustaveli, Erekle 2, Pyotr Bagration, Ilia Chavchavadze, Takaishvili or javakhishvili or someone else, Stalin, Gamsakhurdia, Isakadze Tamokk 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

this would make historical figures in the first row. And Chavchavadze, a scientist, Stalin who was the most well-known Georgian, Gamsakhurdia first president of Georgia, and Isakadze who is a good representation of modern Georgian nation in the second row. Tamokk 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But on the whole, this now version is better. Only I think we should better remove Saakashvili. Tamokk 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stalin is out of the question. As much as Hitler is for Austrians or Germans. Ldingley 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the newly proposed gallery is quite balanced and well selected. It represnts Georgia's monarchic past, ancient cultural heritage, modern cultural achievements, and most importantly, prominent leaders at various stages of the development of the Georgian national identity and state-building. Stalin was involved in none of these processes. On the contrary, he initiated the events which destroyed Georgia's first attempt to create a modern European nation-state that led to the demoralization of the Georgian society for the subsequent seven decades. As for Saakashvili, good or bad, he is the current national leader and he did start a new stage in the consolidation of the Georgian state, a process which is largely regarded as a delayed transition in the post-Soviet history of Georgia. Many foreigners learned about Georgia after the Rose Revolution. Kober 19:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:Geopeoplerev006.jpg
Here last one. Ldingley 20:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok lets leave Stalin out. About Saakashvili: I opose his inclusion not because he is "good or bad", but exactly because he is "the current national leader". If we want take into account the recent political events we'd better put the photo of Zurab Zhvania, who passed away. He was involved in Rose revolution, and if not much of an "action figure" during the revolution, the political changes of which kober speaks were first initiated by him.

Or Isakadze for Saakashvili.

Dear Tamokk, I would not make a big deal of the infobox pictures. In addition, I would not argue with User:Ldingley, because he ha done an amazing job about the articles related Georgia and Georgians. As far as Stalin, I would say No :):) and I think I represet the majority of Georgian citizens. He might be well known person, but putting him here, because that he was a member of Georgian ethnic Group is just wrong. He did not belong to Georgian Georgian Nation-State or has done anything exceptional for it. Most of all, I think Georgia has enough well known people than being proud of Stalin or Beria, when really there is nothing about them to be proud of. As far as Misha's picture I think Saakashvili kind of deserved to be there. If anybody disagrees his political moves, at least he was elected by 94% od Georgians citizens for God's sake. :) If you would like we cn put Nikoloz Baratashvili, Vaja Pshavela, John Bagrationi and etc. There is not any ranking or Georgians or something like that. As Akaki Tsereteli would say nobody can count Georgian heroes. Sosomk 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what you mean by "Saakashvili kind of deserved to be there". Right, we should not make big deal of these pictures, they are not about deserving or something. I did not say anything about Mishas politics, my point was that I do not like the idea of taking an acting political figure, whoever he is, as a representative of a nation. Tamokk 00:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I mean that thanks God Georgia is a democratic nation-state and 96% of the Georgian people elected him to be the president of the nation. Indeed, you have to deserve to be on the infobox. I can't just go ahead and put my pic on there. As far as living people, Sean Connery is also a living guy and he is on the Scottish people page. Sosomk 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
One question then. If somebody else get elected president of Georgia soon should we remove Saakashvili and put him. It is your personal point ov view that Saakashvili deserved to be in that gallary. Regards. dzalian ar gabrazde, bobosdabolos qartul vikipediashi raindis wodeba moganichet. tamok
Tamok, if you really want, we can even put your picture there. :) Ldingley 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure that it's not already there? :) Misha is know for his humble personality. Tamokk 18:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh :) I never understood why Georgians tend to dislike Presidents of their country :)Ldingley 18:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, we always elect them with no less then 80%. Tamokk 18:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Like Gamsakhurdia who was ousted by armed criminal coup? Or Shevardnadze by armed roses? :) Ldingley 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Do not you want to visit Goergia? No coups seem to be coming up in the near future. :) Tamokk 19:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I visited Georgia during the Abkhazia war, first coup in Tbilisi, Rose Revolution and so on. I don’t want to see any coups. God forbid. That time of coups and wars has ended in Georgia. Ldingley 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW can you help out with these articles? Nino Chavchavadze and Alexander Chavchavadze. Ldingley 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like, but with my limited knowledge ნწუ, as we say in Georgian nowdays.
Hey guys. Let's give Misha a chance. If he succeeds in successfully lobbying for Georgia's ascension into NATO within the span of two years, we'll keep his photo in the gallery forever. If he fails, we will replace his photo with that of Comrade Giorgadze. :))))--Kober 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Luis, I'll join you on both articles tomorrow. Now I am going to bed. Goodnight, Wikipedia. :)--Kober 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comrade Giorgadze, that was a good one :0) good night Kober! Ldingley 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Tamokk, thank you so much for the award, it made me very happy. In addition, I was not mad, I was just offering my point of view. You know, a good argument is a foundation of making a right decision. Personally, I like Misha a lot and I hope that we are not gonna have any Coup in the future :):). Look at Thailand, the Prime minister is at the Assembly in NY and he is not longer in power in his country :). I hope that the time of confusion and insecurity is gone and today Georgian Society should be united. We might disagree politically, but we will have to share our social consensus about the freedom and libery of the nation and its efforts towards the better future through liberal democratic way which I think is already a built-in aspect of our people. Sosomk 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is crazy not to have a picture of Stalin in the infobox, he was the most important and influential Georgian in history, he should be represented; same goes to Hitler. I'm assuming his pic was omitted before because it might be offensive, don't worry about it being offensive..nobody's going to burst into tears or anything just because of a picture.

Also, there is something wrong with the picture with the caption that reads "Georgian children from Svaneti" in the Gallery. That is the main reason I joined in on this convo. If it could be checked to see if it's not just me, that would be greeeeeeeat. - Clown57

[edit] getting off the topic :)

In fact I am not against Saakashvili very much. But, why dislike Stalin so much? I would not put him in the company of Mussolini, Mao and others. Tamok

Yes, you have a point. He is still a part of history, but he is not the subject of national pride. Sosomk 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
About national pride: he certainly was, ask our forefathers :).
I don't know how many of your forefathers went in the WW2, but my ancestors fought a lot, some of which never came back and I am proud to say that I am their descent. (Not Proud of Stalin.:) Sosomk 16:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of my grandfathers were in WW2. But Stalin was a national pride for many Georgians that time. Tamok

i'm with Sosomk on this one. My grandfather fought the War. And me along side of him, putting it lightly, dislike(d) Stalin. (my grandpa passed away, God bless his soul). Niko.M

[edit] King Tamar

It really bothers me that King Tamar (Tamar Mepe) it refered to as Queen Tamar. This is incorrect. Tamar Mepe made everybody call her King Tamar because she felt she was on the same level as men.

Just a thought.


[edit] Beautiful women

This article says that Georgian women are well known for their beauty. That seems to be rather POV, and what is meant by it? Are Georgian women more beautiful than women of other nationalities? What is meant by well known for their beauty? JdeJ 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase was changed as per your request. Thanks for reading the article! Ldingley 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess it is more of a common knowledge stereotype. It is not a POV statement. Sosomk 19:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not that I doubt that many Georgian women are beautiful, but that could be said for Armenian, Russian, Scandiavian, Italian, French or almost any other nation, could it not? JdeJ 19:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, we can do that. You can go ahead and edit the articles about Armenian, French, Italian women. I don't think that statement makes that much of a differece or requires that much of a discussion. I am sure we can cite it using on of the travel guides to Georgia. Sosomk 20:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
for example, germans are coidered talented in music, mozart, bach beethoven and etc. Sosomk 20:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the Austrians would like hearing their greatest composer being called a German :-) Ok, but two things:
1. You could easily name many famous German composers. If we talked about French, Italian or Spanish beauties, most people could name quite a number. Katie Melua is very cute, but that's the only Georgian woman I've heard of.
2. Even so, you don't find the page on Germans saying that "Germans are very musical" but you do find a section devouted to famous German composers and musicians. It's not the fact I object to here, it's the non-encyclopedic way it's presented. JdeJ 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, man, you really got on that one:):). I hope Austrian don't mind that I am being poltically incorrect about their Austrian-Bavarian pride. However, I can provide a counter-argument that for that time it was Holy Roman Empire. Sosomk 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to say in the article that Georgia is well known for cheeseburgers, another common knowledge stereotype. Then we could of course support this statement with such undisputable examples as imeruli khaxhafuri, acharuli khachapuri, achma and penovani. Tamokk

[edit] Shiite Georgians

Guys, please stop edit warring over this. Discuss the article and not the subject: no one is interested to know your opinions. Just report what third-party, reliable sources say Georgians. That being said, aren't most Georgians in Iran Shiite? This article is not only about people living in Georgia, but the diaspora as well. Khoikhoi 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

not most but ALL. this you have as an insider info! Babakexorramdin 22:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Most Georgians in Iran are Shia Muslims according to Iranica:
In conclusion, it can be said that the Georgians in Persia have at all times displayed a special talent for adaptation to their new environment. While their Armenian neighbors in Faridan have remained Christians, they long ago espoused Shiism, and, while their Circassian neighbors at Dez-e Kord, near Aspas, have survived as a tight-knit community, they have become thoroughly assimilated to the surrounding population. [1] Grandmaster 06:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. I’ve just consulted the Encyclopaedia Georgiana (former Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia) article on Fereydoon, and the Georgians in Iran appear to be “almost exclusively Shiite Muslims” (sic). I’ve some additional remarks concerning the article. I think the list of famous Georgians is redundant since it is just a recapitulation of the List of Georgians. Also, the history of Georgian-inhabited regions in Turkey and Azerbaijan is too much detailed while there is no word about how the Georgians appeared in Iran. The article also lacks the info on Georgians’ demographic problems in Abkhazia. I’ll soon try to fix these problems and to add some more info on the ethnogenesis of Georgian people. Thanks,--KoberTalk 08:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don’t agree with that. You can’t include all religions of the minorities for the ethnic people info box. For example the article English people does not include converted Muslim English (which number grows every year) and English Eastern Orthodox. Why not include Jehovah’s Witnesses which outnumber Georgian allegedly Shia Muslims in Iran? I think the better solution is to include all Islamic communities under one umbrella of Islam. Thanks. Ldingley 16:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with that. I am not sure where you got the information on the number of Georgians who are associated with Jehova's Witnesses but the Shia Georgians in Iran are not a recent or an insignificant phenomenon. The community is more than 300 years old and historically has to do with a very important turning point in the Georgian history. I think it should be mentioned separately, just like Orthodox and Catholic Georgians are not listed under 'Christianity'. Parishan 18:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with that Azer gardash. Sure, fereidun Georgians played some part in the development of agriculture and construction of bridges in Persia but that has nothing to do with the dominant religion of the majority of Georgians which is Christianity since officially 327 A.D. The number of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Evangelists and Baptists is growing in Georgia and far outnumber the Fereidun Georgians. I don’t want to unite Orthodox with catholic because it will cause some controversy and dispute. Muslims are far more united to be discomforted by sub-divisions of their religion. When people see that infobox, they might presume that Georgians (4 million of them) are mix of 4 dominant religions which is not true. Dominant is the Orthodox Church, the second largest might be Catholic, Muslims in Adjaras villages Khulo (even in Adjara the Muslims are not majority) and some 50,000 Diaspora members in Iran. If we follow your argument, than we should change many info boxes and specifically section on religion and include all religious convictions of every Diaspora which belong to the ethnic group mentioned in the article. In the Georgian Caucasus, there are some villages which were converted into Judaism. Should we include Judaism as the religion of Georgians too? Lest not confuse the reader who has no previous background in Caucasian affairs. P.S. You should seriously fix up numerous POVs on Azerbaijani people article. When reading that article, I presume that Azeris are Persians by origins rather than independent nation. I have told Grandmaster about it before. Ldingley 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Iranian Georgians are a living ethnic group, with their own traditions and culture. Not what you might call simply as Diaspora. Iranian Georgians are a community with its own symbols and history. This is something else than converted Johova wittnesses who are from families of Orthodox Christians. If you treat the Iranian Georgians as fellow Georgians, then you should include the Shiite islam as one of the religions of the Georgian people. --Babakexorramdin 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is a Georgian

Seeing as my edits were reverted, I'd like to ask this question here: which groups are considered Georgian? I believe that David Marshall Lang (I can produce quotes & references on Monday) includes the Kartveli, Laz, Svans, and Mingrelians as belonging to the "Georgian" ethnicity, or at least nationality. This presents some problems for the article as it is written. First of all, the leader conflates "Georgians" with "ქართველები," although I believe we can all agree that the Laz, Mingrelians, and Svans are not considered by any source to be "ქართველები." I still think this should be removed, but Khoikhoi has reverted my initial edit--I greatly prefer discussion to reverts ;). I am not, however, familiar with the term "ქართული ერი," which I take to mean Kartuli nation. Is this a broader term that would include other Georgian ethnic groups?

Khoikhoi also wrote that "some Laz do not consider themselves to be Georgians," in justifying the inclusion of the Laz as a "related ethnic group" rather than a part of the broader Georgian ethnicity. This makes the article contradictory--within the text of the article we say that the Laz are a Georgian ethnic group, but in the fact box we consider them a separate, but related group. I believe that we should go with the general scholarly consensus on this matter--are the Laz considered Georgian or not?--irregardless of what some Laz think. Thoughts? --Treemother199 06:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, linguistically and culturally laz have sticking seminaries with the rest of the Georgian sub ethnic groups (Mingrelians and Svans). Most scholars identify Laz people under the umbrella of the kartvelian ethnic group to which Georgians belong to. Laz are the only ethnic group closely related to Georgian. There is a broader confusion that Laz having its cultural ties and similar ethnic composition as Mingrelias can differ from the rest of the Georgian people. Mingrelians are the sub-ethnic group of the Georgian nation and therefore, there is no point separating these kartvelian groups from each other. Now there has been strong nationalistic and pan-Turkish strive among some Laz who intended to isolate the historic and ethnic reality surrounding the Laz and their Georgian counterparts. This has been due mostly to political and religious reasons and had nothing to do with ethnographic dispute. Referring to scholarly work is the great way to verify the claim. Ldingley 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Reorganization/Clean up

This is a very good article that stands to benefit from some reorganization. I think that the "Origins," "Population and Geographical Spread," and "Ethnographic Subdivisions" subsections are the most directly relevant and polished sections--perhaps we should move them to the top of the article. Thoughts? --Treemother199 04:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short History

As it currently stands, I think the history section is not appropriate for this page. This is a history of the Georgian nation, rather than the Georgian people(s). That is, this is not an ethnographic history--something which this page certainly needs. An ethnographic history would chart the formation of the 4 principle Georgian ethnic groups--it would explain the ancient Svan split, the coming together of the Kartuli sub-groups into one ethnic group, recent conflict between Mingrelians and Kartvelebi (post-Gamsakhurdia), and the centrifugal forces contributing to the divergence between groups within the Laz group.

I propose that the current history section be removed from this article (and replaced by an ethnographic history) and merged with the existing history articles at Georgia (country) and History of Georgia (country). What do other editors think? --Treemother199 04:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgian character

This subsection has a big NPOV problem. I personally would agree with much of what is written, but it currently reads like a travel brochure, not an encyclopedia entry. And I think that Rosen's quote should go as well--we're not trying to "sell" Georgia; we should stick to non-subjective, encyclopedic material. I don't intend to do anything with this section for a couple days--I'd like to hear opinions on how to revise this section. --Treemother199 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article, add more info and fix errors. Thanks. Ldingley 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Added NPOV section tag. -66.41.27.200 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, someone removed the NPOV tag because "the dispute is not outlined in talk page". Fine. I added the tag because it is vague and not objective. I could say that people here in Minnesota are "irreverent, good humored, and generally high spirited" and "are proud of their culture, language, history, and traditions". Some people would agree with that. Is it true? Probably not, despite people wishing it were. What this section needs is not a feel-good vagueness, but a description of what makes Georgian character DISTINCTIVE or UNIQUE, or what is important to the majority of Georgians. What seperates them from other cultures? Until that question is resolved, the tag goes back up. Oh, and I think the italicized text needs to be cited in the section, not linked as superscript. -66.41.27.200 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Minnesotean culture or character and Georgians are one of the most distinguished peoples of the world. SosoMK 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Holy crap. I'm going to forego wasting my time writing a profanity-laced response and simply say How dare you say that. Not only do you apparently know nothing about Minnesota, but your statement is pure NPOV. Heck, it could be the definition. HOWEVER...I am not going to throw the NPOV tag back up, because that would violate the "revert three times" rule. Oh, and it's "Minnesotan". -NordsternMN 02:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image removed

I've removed this image because:

I took an image of the piece myself, which is at Commons. --Zaqarbal 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Contradiction?

How can Georgians not be nationalistic but have a strong sense of national unity? Zhang Guo Lao 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism and national unity are not the same. Ldingley 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can just throw it away like this. Gellner's famous definition in Nations and Nationalism, for example, "Nationalism is a political principle which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent" would imply that national unity must in some way related to nationalism - it can't be completely independent. I think if this point is going to be made - that the two are different in Georgia - it needs to be fleshed out. --vckeating 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV for Georgian Character

Hey all, I've put a POV on the Georgian Character section. Although the quote and section on Georgian hospitality isn't bad (although it would be better to support it with more than one quote), there are several unsourced comments here that any national group would claim to be true for them. Good examples of it are:

Georgians have been said to be irreverent, good humored, and generally high spirited.

and

Georgians are highly gifted in the world of arts, which include: music, cinema, theatre, painting, literature, poetry, and other artistic endeavors.

Also, I echo Zhang Guo Lao's comment about Georgians having a strong sense of national unity but not are at the same time not nationalistic. This is especially problematic given Georgia's political history after the fall of the Soviet Union, where slogans like 'A Georgia for Georgians' were relatively widespread.

A rewrite for POV would be nice here, unless there are specific citations that can be added. I think that the artistic achievements should be moved to another section (perhaps its own), since if there is so much going on here it would be better if it was elaborated. Any other ideas? --jrs 14:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Added references, from two books. Also slogan Georgia for Georgians was not used widely, only by some political fraction. Please consult sources. Ldingley 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the references. Although I understand that the slogan was used by a small political faction, I'm wondering if you have a more recent citation for the 'nationalism is rarely felt' since your current one dates to the 1960s where communism officially disallowed any nationalist ideas.
Also, what do you think about breaking out the artistic section, especially since it is still lacking a source?
Finally, reviewing the long quote, it states that "Women are highly esteemed in society and are accorded a respect endowed with great courtliness," which seems to understate (or at least try to put nicely) the problematic position of most Georgian women. Yes, they are highly respected in certain ways, but like the West before the 1960s, it comes at the price of general submissiveness to males. The massive double standard in extra-marital sexual adventures, the reports of the kidnapping and raping of women who then have to marry their rapists (both linked to women having no value for marriage when not a virgin) are examples that I'm thinking of. --vckeating 15:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yes i do have recent reference. In the book: Georgia, Armenia & Azerbaijan by Tom Masters, Richard Plunkett. Go to chapter on Georgia and see introduction by Tom Masters which includes: "Nationalism is rarely felt." The book was published in 2004. From my own experience with Georgia (i travelled there and studied Georgia for a long time) i completely agree with this characterization. Artistic section should stay, there are tons of sources for that and there is no point to attach them after every sentence. Ldingley 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. However, there are many other sources that would contradict this. See, for instance,
Nelson & Amonashvili "Voting and Political Attitudes in Soviet Georgia" Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 4. (1992), pages 694-7 for highly felt nationalism and a differential distrust of other nationalities between Communist and Round Table supporters, the latter of whom were more likely to have a negative attitude toward Ossetians (34%) and Abkahzians (40%).
There is also a report by Hann, "The Anthropology of Ethnicity" Anthropology Today, Vol. 10, No. 2. (Apr., 1994) that notes the classic (highly primordial) nationalist rhetoric employed by Georgian scholars during an anthropology conference.
More recently, Suny, "Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations" The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 4. (Dec., 2001) has a great discussion on the creation and continuation of Caucasian national identities, including Georgia. See especially page 874 for the development and perpetuation of national identities within the Soviet space.
The point here is that there are many, many peer-reviewed academic articles out there that discussion the existence of nationalism in Georgia - and this was just me doing a quick JSTOR search. Though a Lonely Planet guide might suffice if it was the only source we had, unless you have peer-reviewed articles that back up your claim, I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert your correction. --vckeating 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Saakashvili?

I am sorry, but this is a matter of princile. See the disscussion above. When I was arguing that image gallary here should not depend on the political sympathies of the editors, some began to fight for Misha and for the Motherland. Where is Saakashvili's picture now?

P.S. I agree that Saakashvili is not that bad guy after all. Born to a Soviet inteligentsia familly and educated in some of the best universities of the world. Besides, now he seems to have started to get rid of the savages. Soon we'll be an enlightened Soviet nation again, and Georgia will get reintegrated with mother Russia! Ura! Tamokk 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The gallery has recently got updated to include new personalities. It was simply a rotation of images in order to have the gallery periodically renovated. Political symphaties have nothing to do with that. Also, I have to disappoint you; The Soviet Union is dead and Georgia keeps further detaching itself from Mother Russia from day to day. Udachi, --KoberTalk 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I checked Georgian news recently, and found out that the defence minister had said that Saakashvili had grudges against Georgian culture and religion or something like that. Then I came here and found his picture removed. I just wanted to defend the President (from possible POV pushers of course). But now I see that it was simply a rotation of images. a ia dumal shto bludnii sin vazvrashalsia k materi. Naive me :( Tamokk 06:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your cynicism won't have desired effect, I guess. The gallery had been updated long before you decided to leave Wikipedia and then to stage a comeback ála Okruashvili :). And I don't think that Okro's phantasmagorias or Misha's occasional coarsenesses are in any way relevant to the image collage of Georgian people unless you are just entertaining yourself with your comments. Best,--KoberTalk 06:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Btw, Mr Okruashvili is not a defense minister. --KoberTalk 06:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place for polemics and pro-Russian Neo-Soviet propaganda. Tamokk keep your delusions and political POVs to yourself. This page is designed for content discussion and not some gibberish about resurrecting mother Russia. And also please stop vandalizing this article and removing images. Take your polemics somewhere else buddy. Iberieli 13:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1.5 million Georgians in Turkey?

Is there another source that can verify this claim as the source used is the [Encyclopedia of the Orient http://i-cias.com/e.o/turkey_4.htm] which likely doesn't qualify under WP:RS. I think what they may have done is take all the Laz people in Turkey and called them Georgians and this is rather dubious as those Laz likely consider themselves Turks. The Georgian_language article says there are 50,000 Georgian speakers in Turkey. Would this be a more appropriate number? Pocopocopocopoco 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Laz consider themselves Laz. It is the Turkish govt who considers them Turks. Second, you can hardly find any source which would verify the true number of Georgians since they are not recognized as minority in Turkey. 50,000 is the number of Georgian speakers who are compactly settled in NW Turkey and can be relatively easily recognized, but hundreds of thousands of Georgians are scattered across Turkey. Many of them remember that they are Georgians, but no longer speak their native language. The Encyclopedia of the Orient is not the only source which claim that Georgians actually number more than 1 mil. and these figures should stay until more reliable source, if such exists, is found.--KoberTalk 05:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sergo Ordzhonikidze

He is not notable?--mrg3105mrg3105 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DNA

Are there any DNA studies regarding Georgian origins or their relation to the surrounding peoples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.194.201 (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andronikashvili

Elepter Andronikashvili was a renowned Soviet physisist of Georgian origin. He performed a famous experiment that is discussed in most books on superfluidity (Andronikashvili experiment). Maybe his name can be put among famous Georgians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.194.201 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Christian people is inappropriate

Some users are reinserting the category Christian people on this page, so let me point out that it's completely inappropriate. The category is to be used for individuals who identify as Christians. The category is not used for any other people article on Wikipedia and should under no circumstances be used here. As a matter of fact, there are Muslim Georgians and Atheist Georgians and adding such a category is insulting to them as it implies people belonging to other religions or to no religion would be less Georgian than a Christian. Thar is a form of racism and contrary to Wikipedia policies. It is also completely out of line to try to force one's own religious convictions on anyone else. JdeJ (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no single group in the world which has 100% ethnic Christian population. However, majority of Georgians are Christians and those people are Christian people hence the category. You are damaging this article by removal of this category which is unproductive and will lead into further confrontation. Iberieli (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As you said There are no single group in the world which has 100% ethnic Christian population. You're correct, and that is precisely why no population in the world is described under the category Christian People. By inserting it, you're insulting every non-Christian Georgian as being less worth as a Georgian. It is an obvious case of discrimination and should be removed. JdeJ (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Full of original research, weasel words and peacock words

Already in the introduction, we are told that most battles "ended with the Georgian victory", no references given. Then comes some weasel words and original research about the ethnicity, stating that "Most historians and scholars of Georgia as well as anthropologists, archaeologists and linguists tend to agree...", again with no references being given. The whole history section in unreferenced and filled with statements like "the most glorious sovereign of Georgia of that period was definitely Queen Tamar ". When we enter the heading Georgian character (an unsuitable heading in any article on a people), we are informed that Georgians are "good humored, and generally high spirited people." Nice, but OR and peacock. We're then told that "Georgians are highly gifted in the world of arts" which also is nice but again violates the same policies. We're then served more OR along the lines of Georgians "all share a common sense of strong national unity". Next follows a very long list of supposedly famous Georgians, very few of whom have an article about them on Wikipedia resulting in longs lists of red links. All in all, this article is surprisingly badly written and of a very low standard. It needs massive cleaning up. JdeJ (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section on Georgian Character. Whilst I largely agree with that section, that type of OR doesn't belong in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed JdeJ and I have tons of books and scholarly articles which will be used for editing this article. Kober I need your help thou :) We need to shape up with references history section, origins and so on. Also the issue with image should be solved. We can take the example from Armenians. Thanks. Iberieli (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I also recommend that a better source than the Encyclopedia of the Orient Encyclopedia of the Orient be used to derive the number of Georgians living in Turkey. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mite! I have plenty of scholarly sources, I do study ethnography and ancient Near Easter Languages for a while now and posses many books on topics of Caucasian studies, however, I do need help from others.  :) Iberieli (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)