Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:33, 7 December 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Georgian scripts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Writing systems Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Georgia (country) Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Georgian scripts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Mess of a text; editing and WP-zation urgently required

The sanctioned User:Obitauri, with his poor understanding of WP standards and his weak English, created a huge mess in the section. Leaving it as is, and encouraging other users improve on his mess is absurd. Either the text should be rolled back or allowed to be modified freely. Sprutt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

One line of beleif?

To User:A.amitkumar: There are always "several line of beleifs", when it comes to historical subjects. If we do as you suggest, there will be such sentences in every single article. In this case, if you would read the article, you'll see that one beleif is that Georgian alphabet was created in 5 c. due to direct or indirect participation of St. Mesrop Mashtots. The other view - that GA existed before 5 c, is hold exclusively by Georgian scholars. This view is considered as unsupported, nationalistic, poltically motivated (as described in the sources). It's largely criticised by foreign scholars (some citations are given). So claims like - there is one beleif and another beleif - are misleading. In other historical articles such biased points of view are not mentioned at all. Of course if I am wrong, and there are scholars who support the second view - you're welcome to add sources. But so far, as it stands in the article, this is exactly the case when one should write "It is widely beleived". Хаченци (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You talk about nationalistic view when yourself were protecting Armenian point in Armenian alphabet section. With same logics, we can write 9-10 century in Armenian alphabet date, because oldest script found in it is only from 9-10 century and not earlier. Archaeological proof is all time higher than scholar point of view. Evidence here, how can Mesrop make alphabet for language, which he even does not knows? Mesrop did not knew Georgian language, so how he made Georgian alphabet? With your logics, I can call Mesrop's participation wrong armenian nationalistic vision, wrongly believed by biased scholars. Every point of view must be in article, not one you like. Misplaced Pages is place for neutral point of view, users must decide themselves, which source is true or fake. Writing widely believed, no longer is correct form. Georgian look on origin is believed by non-Georgians as well. You call nationalistic view on Georgian research, as well as absurd, unsupported, politically motivated and wrong because you do not like this point of view. This is insult for me, as I am Georgian and this is against Misplaced Pages rules. Sorry but I have to report you for using this language and words, because you call someone nationalist, biased or politically motivated. I am happy to report such user, which does not cares other people's point, as well as does not likes sources, which are against their point of view. --Volksjäger (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You talk about nationalistic view when yourself were protecting Armenian point in Armenian alphabet section. Its not me who is talking about nationalistic point of view, its Shnirelman. Its not me, who considers the point of view of Georgian scholars unsupported, its Rapp. Its not me who suggests not to tak serious the georgian point of view, its Seibt. These are famous academical scholars.

With same logics, we can write 9-10 century in Armenian alphabet date, because oldest script found in it is only from 9-10 century and not earlier. No you cant, since there is no scholar, who says Armenian alphabet is from 9-10 century. We do not do original research here!!!

P.S. I think you misunderstood Britannica. In Britannica it is written about survived and firmly dated documents. It is well known that the first firmly dated and fully survived manuscript in Armenian (and as far as I know in Georgian also) is from 9-th century. There are some texts suspected to be from 7-8th centuries as well. This is OK since texts as usual can not survive that long. But this has nothing to do with archaeology, For archaeological findings - there are a lot of inscriptions in Armenian dated from V-VII centuries. read articles by Michael Stone or Tim Greenwood.

Archaeological proof is all time higher than scholar point of view. This is your personal thinking! WE DO NOT DO RESEARCH HERE! How on the hell can it be of higher value, if the dating of the archaeological findings are done by the same scholars?!?!?!?!?

Evidence here, how can Mesrop make alphabet for language, which he even does not knows? Mesrop did not knew Georgian language, so how he made Georgian alphabet? Ask this question to scholars, who claim Mesrop did it, I am not a scholar and I don't care about such questions. All I need to know, is what the academicians think.

With your logics, I can call Mesrop's participation wrong armenian nationalistic vision, wrongly believed by biased scholars. Again - WE DO NOT WRITE OUR PERSONAL OPINION, WE DO NOT DO RESEARCH AND CLAIM WHAT WE WANT! The participation of Mesrop is not my point of view, and not even an Armenian point of view, its the academical point of view.

Every point of view must be in article, not one you like. Misplaced Pages is place for neutral point of view, users must decide themselves, which source is true or fake. ONE MORE TIME - its not the point of view I like, its what one finds in academical sources. Misplaced Pages is not a place for my and your POV. There are thousands of POV. Encyclopedia is not a place for gathering POVs. The Georgian POV is well described in the article, but it still remains only Georgian point of view, and not the internationally accepted one. What else do you want?

Writing widely believed, no longer is correct form. Georgian look on origin is believed by non-Georgians as well. I counted 14 sources calling Mesrop the creator or at least a paricipant of the creation of GA. All are academical sources and non-Armenian, Please, bring at least some foreign authoritative academical sources, where the origin of Georgian alphabet is investigated and the result was that it existed before 5 c (as Georgian scholars claim). Otherwise, this discussion does not make any sense.

You call nationalistic view on Georgian research, as well as absurd, unsupported, politically motivated and wrong because you do not like this point of view. This is insult for me, as I am Georgian and this is against Misplaced Pages rules. You should report the scholars, who dared to call Mesrop the creator of GA. I was only citing them.

Sorry but I have to report you for using this language and words, because you call someone nationalist, biased or politically motivated. I am happy to report such user, which does not cares other people's point, as well as does not likes sources, which are against their point of view.And I absolutely don't care who has created the Georgian alphabet, since I am not Georgian. Was it an Armenian, a Georgian or an alien is not my problem. I am only trying to protect this wikipedia article from users, who want to write their original research in wiki. Хаченци (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I will cite comment of one of users on this talk page, who wrote something very important:

"Things that must be mentioned in the article.

• Mesrop did not know Georgian language what makes it impossible to create any alphabet.
• 5th Armenian historian Ghazar Parpetsi says nothing about Mesrop's invention of Georgian alphabet.
• Armenian historian Mekhitar of Ayrivank in his work says that the Georgian alphabet was created by Pharnavaz I of Iberia.
• According to Tamaz Gamkrelidze before creating a new writing system it is first all necessary to make a very thorough linguistic analysis of the language. Without fundamental knowledge of any language it would be impossible to make such analysis. So the creator of the Georgian alphabet must have been the most educated Georgian.

Sources:

• THE LIFE OF MASHTOTS
• МХИТАР АЙРИВАНКСКИЙ (АЙРИВАНЕЦИ) ХРОНОГРАФИЧЕСКАЯ ИСТОРИЯ
• თ. გამყრელიძე, წერის ანბანური სისტემა და ძველი ქართული დამწერლობა, თბ., 1989. Tamaz Gamkrelidze, Alphabetic system and old Georgian script, Tbilisi, 1989"

As you see, Even Armenian ancient historians claim this. Every scholar which supports Mesrop's participation, base their work on "Koryun's life of Mashtots". According to Georgian famous scholar Ivane Javakhishvili, who totally prove his point in his work, Mesrop's participation in Georgian alphabet creation was mere addition in 6th century. Javakhishvili's point is neutral, because he says Georgian alphabet was based on Greek and was created not by Armenian Mesrop Mashtots.

Scholars who call Georgian point nationalistic, are themselves nationalists. Those sources are no longer reliable, when author calls point of view nationalistic or biased cause its Georgian. Those sources, if even here, which calls Georgian point nationalistic, are no longer reliable and must be removed immediately. Everyone must respect other points of view. Calling Georgian source not reliable, because its Georgian: Worst logic.

Archaeological proof is all time higher, than point of scholar. Britannica says, that according to Armenian traditional view, Mesrop made Armenian alphabet but oldest script found is from 9-10 century. If you trust point, that Armenian alphabet was made earlier when you have no archaeological proof, then why you ask me for archaeological proof, that Georgian alphabet was made earlier than 5th century? No point, if Armenian old scripts are lost or not, still, oldest script is from 9-10th century, not earlier. You call academical point to Mesrop's participation, when we even does not have archaeological proof of Armenian alphabet creation date is 5th century. Georgian point is academical as well. Both point of views contained in article. This looks like as it haves to do.

Count of sources does not matter, many sources does not means, that its widely believed. As well, no of source claims, that its widely believed internationally, that Mesrop made Georgian alphabet.

"ONE MORE TIME - its not the point of view I like, its what one finds in academical sources. Misplaced Pages is not a place for my and your POV. There are thousands of POV. Encyclopedia is not a place for gathering POVs. The Georgian POV is well described in the article, but it still remains only Georgian point of view, and not the internationally accepted one. What else do you want?"

Really? Read article, it says all point of views. Nothing wrong with it right now. Here is not only Georgian point of view in article. Here are all point of views, contained in the article. --Volksjäger (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You are doing original research. We dont care about what the ancient historians were writing, since there works must stand the modern academical critics. You're right - its not widely beleived that Mashtots created GA. This is the ONLY point of view in western academical society. The professors you call nationalist are world known experts of the subject. We DO follow them, we DO NOT follow you! Хаченци (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hah... I do not call anyone nationalist with no reason. Your "experts", if they call Georgian point nationalistic, are biased nationalists and nothing else, cause they do not respect other point of views. No one asks you to follow me, you can follow anyone you want. I am editing with evidence and proof. You did not reply everything by the way... I ask you to tell me why you wrote "ITS WIDELY BELIEVED" when this is weasel. Read Misplaced Pages rules before you edit. --Volksjäger (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki rules say not to write such words without basis. BTW, the same rule says not to write "some people beleive", as it stands currently in the article. When you have sources from proffesors from

• Austrian Academy of Sciences
• Sam Houston State University
• Cleveland State University
• University of Cambridge
• The university of Chicago
• Harvard University
• Princeton University
• Queen Mary University of London
• University of Oxford

and many others, you can definitely write "It is widely beleived", especially if the other point of view is not supported from similar authoritative sources. Хаченци (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is either true or not true. Read WP:WEASEL words such as widely believed is a language that is used to cover up doubts or to mention content that have not been proven. Is the content proven? if not either remove it or mention it as a line of belief and don't edit war. When you are adding content you have the onus to prove it and bring consensus. If you are going to just revert edits at your whim then you will just be blamed of WP:OWNERSHIP.  A m i t  웃   17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Historical science is not mathematics, there is no opinion which is "proven" or "rejected". Everything depends on the current research. The modern academical society is in favor of the point of view that GA was either created by Mesrop, or with his help, or at least with his indirect participation. The other view is from Georgian academicians, who say the GA existed before the AA. Some foreign scientists have even called the Georgian point of view poltically motivated and unsupported. So why whould this point of view exist in the article at all? There are other views as well, but if we write all the points of views and their reasons, the article will be a mess. In particular, there is no need to write in the section why the first scholars think this, and why the others think that. The reader is supposed to be interested in GA, and not in the academical disputes concerning its origin. I can assure you, in every single article dealing with history, on every single statement there will be a scholar who has a different point of view. We cant simply write "one line of beleif is..." on every statement. Хаченци (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The history section is a mishmash of tradition and academic opinion, never made clear which is which. — Lfdder (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

History and origin

I propose to rename the section history and origin. Currently in the history subject only the origin is discussed. However, under history of GA one understands not only the creation of Asomtavruli, but also the history of Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli. Currently it's not explained, e.g., why the GA needed those modifications (only dates are given, the reason is unclear).
Concerning the origin - following the material one can affirm there are two main theories - one is from foreign sources and claims it has Armenian origin (created by Mesrop, with his help, or at least was influenced by Arm. alphabet). The other version (prechristian origin, based on medieval tradition) looks to be supported exclusively by Georgian scholars. Of course the legend of Parnavaz must necessarily be mentioned, but I am not sure whether we should include both versions, since the second one is not taken serious by international authorities.
The article is about GA and the history section should not cover most of the article (if we remove pictures and tables, the text of this section is currently more than half of the total text). This makes difficult for the reader to follow the article. The section is assumed to be compact. Any suggestions? Хаченци (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

ქართული ანბანი

Why deleted this text, this georgian alphabet and georgian history tells us that the Georgian alphabet was created by King Parnavaz

And one more thing, the new edition of The Encyclopaedia Britannica removed this text:

--Medgeorgia (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Because this is a legend, which is not taken serious by academicians. One should write about Parnavaz, but as a local folklore, and not as real creator of GA. Хаченци (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What is a legend?

The Georgian Chronicles is a legend??? Are you kidding Armenian?

and Pharnavaz I is a legend or semi-mythical????

Georgian alphabet was created by Parnavaz! The most significant historic Georgian book, The Georgian Chronicles confirms this fact.

and The Encyclopaedia Britannica also removed the text, that is this article. and Ivane Javakhishvili writes in his work, that Mesrop Mashtots did not know the Georgian language and also Albanian. --Medgeorgia (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am not scholar, but I do read academical books and articles. Parnavaz is considered as semilegendary king (by modern authors). His existence is not firmly proven. The Georgian Chronicle was written in XI century and it was the first book to mention the life of a king (Parnavaz) and an event (creation of Georgian Alphabet) which are supposed to happen 1400 earlier. We dont write here what is written in medieval sources, we write the modern academical point of view. No modern scholar (besides some Georgian scholars) have ever claimed the Georgian alphabet may have a prechristian origin. Of course, the legend must be mentioned in the article, but it's still an old, nice legend, and not a fact. Хаченци (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article on the Georgian Chronicles includes the following statement: "Some modern scholars, such as Ivane Javakhishvili, have questioned the authenticity of the early components of 'The Georgian Chronicles' and have called for extreme caution when working with them. Indeed, strict historical facts are frequently intermingled with mythical ones, making it sometimes difficult to discern true historiography and mythology." Assuming this evaluation of the work is reasonable, I would think we should hesitate to cite it as the definitive and final source of truth on the origin of the Georgian alphabet.

And even if the Georgian Chronicles were considered to be thoroughly authentic and reliable — even regarding events that took place a millennium earlier — it is not accepted Misplaced Pages sourcing policy (see WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV) for us (Wikipedians) to pick the one definitive source on a subject, use that source completely and exclusively, and ignore all others because they disagree with our chosen source (and are, therefore, presumably irrelevant and just plain wrong). Per the NPOV policy, we are required to represent, "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In this situation, where there are multiple and differing significant views on the topic in the reliable sources, we are probably best off saying that certain sources (and we should list them!) say this, while certain other sources (and list them too!) say that, and then leave it to the reader to conclude (if he/she cares) which view is more likely to be accurate.

And has previously been mentioned, we shouldn't be allowing the question of the Georgian alphabet's history to dominate the article; the point should be mentioned and, to some extent, discussed, but not to the exclusion of other issues which are going to be more important to our readers (most of whom are neither Georgian nor Armenian and are not going to get anything useful out of a lengthy paean of praise directed either at King Parnavaz or Mesrop Mashtots). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the only solution. I would also suggest after the text is changed in the history section the article is better to get lengthy protection as well. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice solution, but I can hardly imagine how to do it. all of the significant views - who is going to choose which view is significant? I can remember (forgot the name) there was a scholar from Chechnya, who was claiming the script to be ancient Vaynakh script, which Georgians started to use only later. For anyone familiar with the subject it's clear how stupid this point of view is, but if it turns out that this view is supported by two or three other Chechen scholars, it will become significant. Should we include it? That would only harm the article. I suggest to include only those theories, which are clearly supported by at least one foreign authority. Хаченци (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the text Remove the two facts: Parnavaz I was not the mythical figure and part of article about the Encyclopedia Britannica: New edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica removed this text, that is this article. -Medgeorgia (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Parnavaz's story is full of legendary material, and even if we accept for purposes of discussion that he most likely did exist, that doesn't necessarily require us to accept uncritically every deed and accomplishment attributed to him in the literature.

I looked up "Georgian language" at www.britannica.com just now, and I can confirm that this article does not mention a possible Armenian origin for the Georgian alphabet. However, the statement currently in the Misplaced Pages article is supported by a cite to a different Britannica article (their "Alphabet" article), and I was unable to verify whether their current "Alphabet" article still talks about the Mesrop Mashtots origin theory or not. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Parnavaz's story shpuld be mentioned as the legendary historical tradition, and not more. I couldn't find any scholar, who takes it serious. The Britannica is an Encyclopedia, and the GA article there doesn't say anything certain. It neither rejects, nor confirms possible Armenian origin. By the way, Richwales, few years ago Britannica has written that the creator of GA was MM. I read in some newspapers, that there were mass protests in Georgia, after which they removed it. This shows how the senstive the topic is for Georgians. However, so far I couldn't find any kartvelist which would think the GA has prechristian origin. Adn let us not forget - 'fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' Who is going to choose the proportions ?Хаченци (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Britannica does not mention Mesroph as the creator of Georgian alphabet anywhere. All these sources () which claim so are based on the Armenian tradition. And their claim is not the established fact. Those sources or the authors of those sources have never studied the Georgian alphabet, the order, system of it but just base their opinions on the Armenian tradition. This can be said also about the Caucasian Albanian alphabet as well. Same Armenian sources claim Mesroph created it and again it is typical propaganda as such. Also in the article of Mesrop Mashtots the part where it says "He is also known for his contribution to invention of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets." which is another propaganda should also be removed. Armenians are a nation of big history and culture as well but there are some circles in their elites where they are pushing such propagandist moves against Georgians whether it is about Georgian alphabet, churches etc. For Armenian officials it is very important issue as well. For example if you go to Matenadaran guess what you will be told about Georgian alphabet? They are telling directly to the visitors that Georgian alphabet was created by their national hero Mesroph. Same happens in their schools and universities so their hyperactivity on the Georgian topics and especially on this topic shows everything clearly how much importance this topic represents for them. This article needs to have a lengthy protection as it will lead us nowhere as it will be vandalised everyday so we should take such topic protection in consideration. GEORGIANJORJADZE 11:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Britannica does not mention Mesroph as the creator of Georgian alphabet anywhere.

Sure. But they also do not reject it. They don't say anything about the creator.

All these sources () which claim so are based on the Armenian tradition. And their claim is not the established fact.

There is no Armenian tradition, the Armenians do not study Georgian alphabet. There is an academical point of view.

Those sources or the authors of those sources have never studied the Georgian alphabet, the order, system of it but just base their opinions on the Armenian tradition. This can be said also about the Caucasian Albanian alphabet as well.

They are scholars on the topic, even if they didnot study themself, they are familiar with existing studies, and their claim means they know what they are talking about. Caucasian Albanian alphabet has nothing to do with the article.

Same Armenian sources claim Mesroph created it and again it is typical propaganda as such. Also in the article of Mesrop Mashtots the part where it says "He is also known for his contribution to invention of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets." which is another propaganda should also be removed.

Mashtots is really well know for his contributions to the creation of Georgian and Albanian alphabets, and there are a lot of refernces to it. Its your personal opinion, that this is propaganda. Wiki is not a place for personal opinions.

Armenians are a nation of big history and culture as well but there are some circles in their elites where they are pushing such propagandist moves against Georgians whether it is about Georgian alphabet, churches etc. For Armenian officials it is very important issue as well.

Again, it's your opinion which has nothing to do with the article.

For example if you go to Matenadaran guess what you will be told about Georgian alphabet? They are telling directly to the visitors that Georgian alphabet was created by their national hero Mesroph. Same happens in their schools and universities so their hyperactivity on the Georgian topics and especially on this topic shows everything clearly how much importance this topic represents for them.

Armenians do not care that much about Georgians. But we are proud of Mashtots, who was able to create script for three different nations.

This article needs to have a lengthy protection as it will lead us nowhere as it will be vandalised everyday so we should take such topic protection in consideration.

If you pay more attention, you will see that it were Georgians who were vandalizing th article. Many of them were even blocked. You are talking about Armenian propaganda without any reason. I say it one more time - there is no Armenian point of view, there are Georgian and non-Georgian points of view. Armenians do not have anything to do with it. You were not able to bring a single source, e.g. an article of a foreign professor kartvelist, according to whom the Georgian alphabet has existed before the Armenian one. Please, first of all bring such a source, and then we will discuss weather or not the subject is disputable. So far it are only Georgians who beleive in prechristian origin of their script, the rest of the world does not take it serious. So, please, don't blaim Armenians for what they haven't done. It is the Georgians who do not agree with the internationally accepted point of view. Хаченци (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I say again, for the Armenians: Mesroph did not know the Georgian language and Albanian too. Georgian alphabet was created in the pre Christian era, by Pharnavaz. Encyclopaedia Britannica confirm that mistake and in new edition of the Encyclopedia, the text about Mesrophs and georgian alphabet removed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. So, In this article source from the Britannica is incorrect. Also, It Russian sources is doubtful. This is the Armenian propaganda, but it will not work. Now the main find a way out!--Medgeorgia (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say it only to Armenians? The whole world considers Mesrop to have contributed to the creation of Georgian alphabet. Say it to everyone, why only Armenians? Say it to the professors of Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge. Probably they are so uneducated, that they don't know what you know, and they still consider Mesrop as the creator of Georgian alphabet. Enlighten them endly! Хаченци (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Medgeorgia, you need to stop flinging accusations that people who disagree with you are Armenian nationalists. I, for one, am certainly not an Armenian nationalist — I'm not even Armenian (or Georgian for that matter), and I am interested only in having an article that presents the widely attested theories on this issue in a non-judgmental fashion. See Misplaced Pages's "No Personal Attacks" policy (WP:NPA), and follow it if you want to stay here. This also goes for anyone who is inclined to dismiss people on the other side of the debate as Georgian nationalists; arguments need to be calmly directed to the claims and the sources, not to the people making the claims.

The statement that "Some scholars and encyclopedias claim that the first Georgian alphabet was created by Armenian theologian and linguist Mesrop Mashtots, who invented the Armenian alphabet in the year 406 AD" is currently supported by eight sources, several of which are (IMO) unquestionably reliable for Misplaced Pages's purposes unless clearly and individually proven otherwise. Per Misplaced Pages's "No Original Research" policy (WP:NOR), we cannot brusquely dismiss all these sources because we are sure their claims are tainted by nationalistic propaganda. Note, too, that the current text of the article is not trying to present the Mesrop Mashtots origin hypothesis as a settled fact; rather, it is saying that some scholars and encyclopedias claim this hypothesis (which, in fact, they do). We aren't here to figure out which one viewpoint is correct, present only that one view, and ignore all others because we've determined which one view is correct — go re-read the "Neutral Point of View" policy (WP:NPOV) until you understand that this isn't what the policy says.

The article also currently shows, in footnote #7, a screenshot of the "Alphabet" article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (I'm not sure of the provenance or copyright status of this screenshot, but I'll assume for the time being that it's accurate and that I can use it for purposes of the present discussion). This article (according to said screenshot) mentions "The Armenian and Georgian alphabets, created by St. Mesrob (Mashtots) in the early 5th century AD". Medgeorgia, are you saying that the current edition of Britannica no longer includes this statement in its "Alphabet" article? If so, you need to substantiate your claim (and rebut what we currently have in front of us) with evidence; otherwise, a reasonable person is justified in assuming (per what we currently have as a source) that the existing claim in the article is still backed up by the source it cites. Please be very sure, BTW, that you are talking about the "Alphabet" article — not the "Georgian language" article (as far as I understand, no one here is claiming that any version of the Britannica article on "Georgian language" is promoting the Mesrop Mashtots origin claim, this claim is in their "Alphabet" article).

And, as I said before, the claim that Parnavaz I invented the Georgian alphabet belongs in this article, but only as a claim backed by sources acknowledged by scholars (apparently including at least one prominent Georgian scholar) as comprising a mixture of fact and legend. We absolutely must not put forth the Parnavaz claim as settled fact, any more than we should be presenting the Mesrop claim as settled fact. Rather, we should present both claims in a fair and neutral manner, each along with its sources, and without making Misplaced Pages take sides for or against either claim.

If people simply cannot agree on this issue and insist on taking it to dispute resolution noticeboards such as those for reliable sources (WP:RSN) or neutrality (WP:NPOVN), I can't really imagine outsiders coming up with any conclusion that is going to give short shrift to either of these competing theories. And if people really cannot even "agree to disagree", and insist on arguing ad infinitum amidst ethnic attacks and perpetual edit warring, and the dispute gets thrown into the laps of the Arbitration Committee, all that is likely to accomplish is that the most intransigent people are going to get topic-banned or site-banned, and we'll still have to deal with trying to present these two views (plus any others that have a reasonably significant following) in a neutral manner, just as we're supposed to be doing now.

So, everyone, please stop the name-calling, the insistences that one and only one viewpoint is worthy even of casual mention, and the inclination to keep edit-warring this point forever, and come up with a reasonable compromise. "Compromise" is not a four-letter word — and in order to get a workable compromise, everyone is probably going to end up somewhat less than completely satisfied with the result. We can either do this ourselves, or we can end up having a solution (with tough sanctions and restrictions) imposed on us along the lines of what we've seen in topic areas like Macedonia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the Tea Party movement. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot agree with what you suggest. If there will be no more sources, this solution is unacceptable. In such disputable cases the local sources can not be trusted. In any topic of history there are local historians, who have their own views, we cant write all of them in the article. E.g., there are some turkish historians, who claim turks have been living in modern Turkey since Bronze age, and most of ancient Anatolian nations were Turkic by origin. In Egypt, there are historians claiming that the pharaons were Arabs by nationality, and the Egyptian hieroglyphs can be decoded in Arabic language. We can't represent such claims in wiki referring to NPOV. Especially when there are sources in article (e.g. Shnirelman) who strongly criticize this view. W. Seibt says - "one shouldn't take this theories serious". S. Rapp considers the prechristian origin of GA unsupported. I am insisting on bringing at least one foreign source, which would clearly support the Parnavaz claim as a possible origin. If there will be no source, we can't mention the Parnavaz story otherwise, but a legend. Хаченци (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand you Richwales, but you should also understands me. Georgian wines and foods foreign markets, is written Armenian Products.

Here are similar. We have a great poet Shota Rustaveli Today, Armenians say, that he was Armenian. Also, Armenians say, that Hugh Laurie and other popular persons was Armenians. I'm just tired. --Medgeorgia (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm also tired of such lies. Can you bring any academical source, where Armenians claim Shota Rustaveli to be Armenian? Who told you such tales? Who on the hell is Hugh Laurie? I don't even know the guy. Please bring me some academical sources, Armenian or whatever, where someone tries to prove Shota Rustaveli is Armenian. And what on the hell the article has to do with Armenians? If you pay attention to the list of sources, you will see that its not Armenians who claim Mesrop has created Georgian alphabet, its American, French, Russian, German, British, Austrian professors. Noone otside of Georgia beleives in Parnavaz legend. You don't want to see obvious facts, you just write something bad about Armenian nation, and if you do it again, I will report you. If not Armenians your nation wouldn't even have an alphabet, don't forget it. It does not count who talks more, it counts who tells the truth.Хаченци (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Now your last comment made me laugh Хаченци but that's all right we're used to such fairy tales. As for your sources like American, French, Russian etc. It has no power as such because they never studied the subject deeply but only base their opinions on the Armenian fairy tale of Koryun.

Lenore A. Grenoble. Language policy in the Soviet Union - Based on what? Armenian source and tradition of Koryun.

Donald Rayfield The Literature of Georgia: A History - Based on what? Armenian source and tradition of Koryun.

Catholic Encyclopedia - Based on what? Armenian source and tradition of Koryun.

Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World - Based on what? Armenian source and tradition of Koryun.

etc.

And above all Georgian alphabet's Armenian origin is not an established fact as you want us to see. Well some scholars may see your way but it does not make it an established fact like 2 x 2 = 4. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in full agreement with GeorgianJorjadze, but I will mention here that he is making one potentially valid point. If multiple sources are all repeating a claim originating in a single other source, they really aren't "multiple sources" — it's just one source (the original source upon which the other sources are all based). See WP:NEWSORG (a subsection of the Reliable Sources policy), which says the following that may be analogous to what we have here: "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source."

Technically, the burden of proof would fall on you (GeorgianJorjadze) to substantiate your claim that each of the above sources (each one appearing on the surface to be independent and reliable on its own) is in fact using Koryun's biography of Mesrop Mashtots as its principal source. In this particular situation, it might be reasonable to surmise that these Western sources probably all based their conclusions on Koryun's writings (or on other writings which, in turn, used Koryun as their ultimate source). Speculating too far along these lines, though, will quickly bring us into the forbidden territory of "Original Research" (which, per WP:NOR, we are not supposed to engage in).

I also need to observe here that people on both sides of this issue are seeking to discredit the other side by dismissing its sources as fairy tales, legends, logically unreasonable, etc., etc. If it turns out that all supposedly reliable sources (which happen to favour Mesrop Mashtots as the creator of the Georgian alphabet) are all fatally tainted by over-reliance on the writings of Koryun — and, similarly, that all the Georgian sources are too controversial for Western scholarship because they all depend too heavily on hagiography about a super-king who lived a millennium before the writers — then perhaps the most we can ultimately hope for here is a paragraph or two conceding that the ultimate origin of the Georgian alphabet is not clearly known, and that opposing literary traditions disagree as to whether the alphabet was invented by the 3rd-century-BC Georgian king Parnavaz I, or by the 5th-century-AD Armenian scholar Mesrop Mashtots — and leave it at that, without our trying to determine which (if either) of these competing claims is correct.

Now, we could try to get more input here by asking the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN) for feedback regarding the reliability for our purposes of the Georgian Chronicles, or of Koryun's Life of Mashtots, or of the various modern Western publications which are currently being cited in the article. And we could also ask the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (WP:NPOVN) for comments regarding what we can do with whatever sources are reliable — e.g., to present both opposing sides, or to put forth one side as the overwhelming position of reliable sources and relegate the other side to a minority or fringe (possibly even refusing to mention it at all). Keep in mind, though, that WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN are at best advisory groups, and all they can do is offer suggestions — they do not have power to impose a decision and silence those who refuse to accept it. And my big concern, here and now, is that we appear to have at least one editor on each side of this dispute who is convinced that his view is obviously correct, and that the other view is not at all credible, and that no matter how many people feel differently, he is going to hang on to his judgment to the bitter end. If that's really the situation we have, we could bring in all the dispute resolution tools Misplaced Pages has, and it wouldn't help, and we'll still have no choice in the end but to wait for people to engage in edit-warring and ever-escalating personal attacks until the dispute is bad enough for ArbCom to take it. I really hope it doesn't go that far, but that decision is ultimately up to each of you. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

See all those sources and you will see that those authors are just making their opinion based on the Armenian tradition. None of them ever studied the Georgian alphabet, its system and how can they be thought to be reliable? Armenian tradition is a total absurd supported by some scholars. Mesrop DID NOT speak Georgian language. How in the world would you create even 1 letter if you don't speak that language and especially Georgian which is totally not related to any language families on earth where the letters and sounds differ in every way. This is not an established fact, never was and never will be. Because whoever Mesrop was he had no connection with the Georgian alphabet. GEORGIANJORJADZE 21:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

First, it's not my fault that Armenian historiography is older, than the Georgian one. It is natural, that one trusts a historical source who tells about events he has witnessed, rather, than a source, which tells about events, which happened centuries ago.

Second, Koryun is far not the only reason why the scholars think Georgian alphabet has Armenian origin. But we are not going to do an original research don't we? What Richwales suggests is Original research. It's not important why they think so, it's important that they think so.

Third, GEORGIANJORJADZE, you maybe surprised but all those professors are experts on the subject. They are orientalists or kartvelists, they have done studies, and they certainly know about the origin of GA more than me and you.

Fourth, WP:NEWSORG has nothing to do with the subject as Richwales tries to present it. Neither Koryun, nor Leonti Mroveli are not sources for Misplaced Pages, since they are medieval writers. The academical writers are sources. The sources in the article are academical writers, who know all the details of the subject and prefer one view. Its not "News sources" as described in WP:NEWSORG, and hence WP:NEWSORG is absolutely not applicable. Richwales, you should know this, I wonder why you mention WP:NEWSORG at all, it has nothing to do with the case. It doesn't matter weather they use Koryun or not, they are not "News sources".

Fifth, Richwales You still try to represent the subject as a disputable one. I wonder if you know more than all those Professors, many of them don't consider it to be as such. I explained how I see the situation - the world authorities consider Mashtots to be the creator or contributor to the creation of GA. The Georgian scholars think it has prechristian origin. I hope you will bring at least one source, which proves me wrong, otherwise we can't describe the two pint of view as equivalent, since one side is neutral, and the other side isn't. Moreover, some scholars consider the point of view of the other side politically motivated and not academical.

who is convinced that his view is obviously correct What means convinced? We are not convincing each other Richwales, we are writing articles based on academical sources. I don't have an opinion at all. What I say is - bring neutral academical sources, which support Georgian point of view. Otherwise, I can't see a reason why this view should be mentioned otherwise but a legend. Хаченци (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've brought up the question of reliability of our sources here at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (WP:RSN#Reliability of sources on history of the Georgian alphabet?). Let's see what outsiders who have not yet been involved with this question have to say. As I said before, the RSN is strictly an advisory construct, and opinions expressed there are not binding mandates; however, I hope people will at least give fair consideration to what is said. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So, even they accept, that the Mashtots theory is a western scholar theory. And why "unfortunately"? Because they do not agree with Georgian scholars? Sounds quite arrogant. Хаченци (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

--MEDGEORGIA  talk  20:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Writing system articles
• Top-importance Writing system articles
• Writing system articles needing attention
• B-Class Georgia (country) articles
• Top-importance Georgia (country) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (country) articles
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions