Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia

POV additions

If Kober wants facts about Gamsakhurdia's interview on Armenian TV before leaving for Grozny he can contact www.armtv.com to ask them to find it from the archive. I saw the interview myself 15 years ago and have all the rights to post that information as a historical witness. Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia and not a literature review master paper or peer reviewed journal of articles. There is no need to bring citations or references after each sentence. In that case we can just do a google search or yahoo search and read the articles in the primary sources. Wikipedia is a place where people should decide which is right and which is wrong.Moreover witnesses are number one primary sources.--armenianNY 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) I've had to revert the article to the previous version to eliminate a large number of POV additions and the deletion of a large amount of text, which is pure vandalism. The user responsible (213.157.211.130) should take a look at the Policies and guidelines article to learn why his changes and the way he did them are a Bad Thing. -- ChrisO 09:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

More wholesale partisan additions and deletions. Things such as "All so-called "Ethnic conflicts" in Georgia and the Caucasus are inspired from Moscow." and "Zviad Gamsakhurdia, - Georgia's National Hero and the first President of independent Georgia was assasinated by the supporters of the Shevardnadze's regime." are blatantly partisan. It's also inexcusable to delete large amounts of content for partisan reasons without even discussing it first. If this continues, I will apply for the article to be locked. -- ChrisO 10:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Falsification of biography of President Zviad Gamsakhurdia

The Article about President Zviad K. Gamsakhurdia ("Zviad Konstantinovich" is Russian form!) of "ChrisO" has absolutely false character. We will create new article about the first President of Georgia.

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, Chairman of the International Association "CAUCASUS: Ethnic Relations, Human Rights, Geopolitics" (IACERHRG), Fellow of the International Academy for Intercultural Research (IAIR), in 1991-1997 Member of the Governing Board and Press-Secretary of the Georgian Helsinki Union.

Why do you remove the full name? You can add the Georgian form if you want, but we usually give the fullest form of a name at the beginning of an article, even though we use the most common form for the title (which, in this case, is simply "Zviad Gamsakhurdia" without even the initial). --Wik 02:55, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Wik, I don't know whether Georgians are still given patronyms but I assume that it was common practice under Soviet rule (compare Eduard Amvrosiyevich Shevardnadze). It's quite possible that Russian-style patronyms have fallen out of fashion among modern Georgian nationalists. -- ChrisO 14:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

PURE FALSIFICATION OF THE BIOGRAPHY OF PRESIDENT ZVIAD GAMSAKHURDIA

[moved here from User talk:Viajero]

DEAR SIR! THE ARTICLE "ZVIAD GAMSAKHURDIA" (AUTHOR: USER "ChrisO") HAS ABSOLUTELY FALSE CHARACTER. PROCEEDING FROM MENTIONED ABOVE, I DEMAND TO REMOVE THIS WRONG MATERIAL FROM WIKIPEDIA. WE WILL CREATE NEW ARTICLE ABOUT THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA.

I HOPE FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND ATTENTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH IN ADVANCE.

ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP OF GEORGIAN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI:

USER "LEVZUR":

DR. LEVAN Z. URUSHADZE, CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION "CAUCASUS: ETHNIC RELATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, GEOPOLITICS" (IACERHRG), FELLOW OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY FOR INTERCULTURAL RESEARCH (IAIR)

TBILISI, DECEMBER 8, 2003

---

Advice for Levzur

Levzur, as a new user you should have a look at Wikipedia's policies to learn more about the requirements for articles. In particular, you should look at the articles on Neutral point of view ("NPOV"), the NPOV tutorial and why you should log in before making drastic changes to existing articles. To help you get started, I'll explain why some of your edits don't meet the Wikipedia standards:

• Biased descriptions of individuals and groups: e.g. "Communist-criminal forces", "notorious underworld figure", etc.

• Stating disputed assertions as authoritative: "This coup was govern from Moscow", "President Gamsakhurdia was assassinated", etc. It's certainly legitimate to mention a particular viewpoints but not at the cost of ignoring all others (particularly if your viewpoint happens to be in a minority).

• Unexplained deletion of content: if you delete any content, you should explain why (it's inaccurate, biased, etc). If you have specific concerns, they should be discussed on the talk page. You should also ensure that you log in before you start making drastic changes.

• Apparent deletion of politically inconvenient facts: for instance, your edited version of the Gamsakhurdia article jumps straight from Gamsakhurdia's election to his overthrow. It doesn't say anything about the circumstances of his overthrow (the Soviet coup, the resignations of senior ministers, etc). Likewise, you gloss over the 1993 civil war by calling it "large-scale civil disobedience" when the reality was that it was a full-scale armed conflict involving tanks and troops from four countries. (See the Wikipedia article on civil disobedience for the meaning of the term.) These aren't disputed matters of opinion: they are recorded, indisputable historical facts. You can certainly dispute the meaning of the events concerned but they should not be ignored completely.

I'm not going to speculate on your motives for making those changes, but I have to point out that they present a very one-sided view of Gamsakhurdia, portraying him as a hero and deleting anything that suggests that other people saw him as a villain. Personally, I don't much care whether he was a hero or a villain - I'm not a partisan. The important thing is that Wikipedia should provide an objective summary of his career. That necessarily has to acknowledge both sides' view of Gamsakhurdia. If you eliminate one side's viewpoint entirely, you will have an article which (like yours) does not meet the neutral point of view requirement.

I've tried to capture the viewpoints of both sides, but I'm entirely willing to admit that I may not have achieved this yet. If you would like to suggest specific areas where the article can be improved, or point out things that I've got wrong, I would be grateful. Let's work together to improve this article, not have a pointless edit war. -- ChrisO 14:44, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Note to readers User:Levzur has his very own page among the Problem Users: Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users/Levzur will give an idea. His own user page will also give the reader a clear picture of this contributor's agenda. -- {[User:Wetman|Wetman]]

This entry caught my eye: "1991-1992 - Special Correspondent of the Press Office of the first President of the Republic of Georgia, Dr. Zviad Gamsakhurdia." That may have something to do with the present dispute... -- ChrisO 13:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Letter for "ChrisO"

Dear Sir!

Thank you very much for your letter.

I have carried in the necessary changes in your article about President Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Without it your article will be unboubtedly tendentious. I have spacious documentary files confirmed the correctness of these changes.

I'l be very grateful if you will foresee it and leave them in your article.

I hope you will understand me.

Thank you in advance.

With best regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze ("Levzur")

---

Another day, another draft

OK, we're making progress here. I've added some more material and references, and I've retained as many of your amendments as possible (I've reworded a few to make them work better in the text). You haven't said which specific points of the article you were/are unhappy with, but from your latest additions and deletions I would guess that you dispute the following bits:

• "Zviad Konstantinovich Gamsakhurdia" - as Wik said earlier on this page, "we usually give the fullest form of a name at the beginning of an article". I'm not sure why you don't want to use his middle name.

• "The authorities claimed that he had confessed to the charges and recanted his beliefs..." Gamsakhurdia's "confession" is a matter of historical record, although obviously the explanation is a matter of debate - I found an open letter from Gamsakhurdia to Shevardnadze which suggests that his motives were purely tactical. You've removed any mention of the "confession" at least twice now; what is your reason for doing so?

• "Zviad Gamsakhurdia's brief tenure as President of Georgia was characterised by steadily worsening tension between the Georgian government and its ethnic minorities, and splits within the governing coalition that eventually resulted in a civil war and Gamsakhurdia's ousting." This seems to be a reasonable summary of events but it's been removed and re-added at least twice now - do you not agree with it?

• The coup attempt of June 1992 - I added more information on this subject. However, you've removed any mention it at least twice now; what is your reason for doing so?

• "However, Gamsakhurdia's capture of the economically vital Georgian Black Sea port Poti threatened the interests of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. All three countries intervened militarily to support the Georgian government, sending troops to block Gamsakhurdia's advance." I've re-inserted and clarified this point, but your last draft deleted it; Russia was not the only country involved, although it sent by far the largest number of troops.

• "On December 31, 1993, Zviad Gamsakhurdia apparently died in circumstances that were (and still are) very unclear..." You've persistently deleted this entire section and replaced it with an assertion that Gamsakhurdia was assassinated. I don't think it's credible to be so certain about it when there are several different competing explanations (and particularly when suicide is the generally accepted theory). To use an American comparison, it's as if you were ending an article on John Fitzgerald Kennedy with a statement that "Kennedy was assassinated by agents of Fidel Castro" - that's one theory, certainly, but not the only one and definitely not the leading one. The article has to reflect the uncertainty that still exists over the death of Gamsakhurdia (remember the NPOV requirement!) and it also needs to say that the most widely believed explanation is suicide. -- ChrisO 23:20, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For "ChrisO"

Dear Sir!

Please note, that I'm participant of all events in 1987-1993: In 1989 I was Editor and publisher of the underground newspaper "Kristian-Democrati", in 1990-1997 - member of the Georgian Helsinki Union (in 1992-1997 - member of the Governing Board and Press-Secretary), in 1990-1991 - Spec. correspondent of the Press Office of Zviad Gamsakhurdia, in 1992-1993 - Co-editor of the underground newspaper "Kartuli Azri" ("The Georgian Opinion").

We have special archive, spacious documentary files confirmed the correctness of my changes in your article about Zviad Gamsakhurdia.

I hope for your understanding.

With best regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze ("Levzur")

I'm not disputing your credentials, but I asked a number of very specific questions - could you please answer them? -- ChrisO 13:40, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Answer for "ChrisO"

Dear friend,

You have questions, we have answers and documents. This discussion will endless... Please note that really President Zviad Gamsakhurdia is a National Hero for majority of the population of Georgia. His legal authority was overthrown and he was murdered for his aspiration to create independent, full value state of Georgia. First of all, I am historian and I wish to create a objective portrait of the first President of my country.

With best regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze ("Levzur")

Some more changes

Thank you for your latest additions - I've made some modifications to the article to make the additions work better. I hope you don't mind this; I know English isn't your native language, so I'm trying to reword your sentiments so that they read better in English. There are a few partisan additions that I've had to remove in their original form (such as the assertion that Georgia's minority problems are all inspired by Moscow) but I've tried to respect these by expressing them in a different way.

Speaking of partisan additions, I need to ask you about what appear to be partisan deletions. There are three examples in particular which you've persistently deleted without any explanation:

• The paragraph which begins "A Military Council made up of Gamsakhurdia opponents ...". I don't see why this paragraph is objectionable, given that it's entirely factual.

• Mentions of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the section about the 1993 civil war. Both countries are clearly on the record as having supported Shevardnadze's government - which from their point of view was entirely sensible, as both depended on having access to the Georgian Black Sea ports. Why don't you want to mention this?

• The three paragraphs from "On December 31, 1993, Zviad Gamsakhurdia apparently died ...". From your previous edits, I would guess that you take the view that he was murdered. As I've already said, that is one point of view. I've tried to include the other points of view as well - that is essential if the article is to meet the neutral point of view requirement of Wikipedia. I really don't recommend deleting this section again.

One other thing - if you make any more major changes, could you please make sure that you don't have "This is a minor edit" selected? Minor edits are supposed to be things like correcting spelling mistakes, not making significant changes to the text. -- ChrisO 01:35, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

STOP!

Dear ChrisO, please stop!

Not until you stop making politically inspired deletions which you refuse to discuss. I've given you more than enough opportunity over the past month to discuss your changes, which you have so far refused to do. Your editing falls well below the standards for Wikipedia editors and has already provoked a number of complaints from users - see Wikipedia:Problem users. I have asked for the article to be locked until you decide to start discussing your changes. -- ChrisO 08:29, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Letter to ChrisO and Administration of "Wikipedia"

Dear ChrisO and members of the administration,

If you will continue to publish misinformation in the article about President Zviad Gamsakhurdia, I am forced to bring the administration of "Wikipedia" to the trial.

Dear ChrisO, we have all your writings showing the level of your knowledge of Newest History of Georgia. Your reasonings prove not your impartiality but your absolutely incompetence.

I give you 24 hours to restore my text which you changed. Otherwise I shall take steps against you and the administration of "Wikipedia" for cast aspersions on first President of Georgia and the insult of his memory!

I hope you are sufficiently sense and will not lead the case to very undesirable for you end.

With best regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze (user "Levzur")

Rather than making empty threats, why not discuss the specific points in the article that you object to and that you keep deleting? The reason why the Wikipedia administrators have locked the article is so that a compromise can be worked out without an edit war. I can't edit the article any more, either.

The points you seem to object to are:

• reported casualties in the September 1991 protests in Tblisi. This was widely reported in the media at the time. According to the Associated Press and other news agencies on September 3, 1991, five people were injured in clashes between government forces and demonstrators.

• support of Armenia and Azerbaijan for Shevardnadze in September/October 1993. According to the Associated Press and other news agencies, talks were held in Moscow between Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan on October 11, 1993 about setting up a joint military force to restore order in western Georgia. Many sources reported around October 14, 1993 that the Georgian Black Sea ports were vital to Armenia because of Azerbaijan's economic blockade of the country. Many press agencies (including Xinhua, UPI and the Associated Press) reported that Shevardnadze gave a radio interview on October 18, 1993 in which he asked for military assistance from Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Agence France Presse reported on November 2, 1993 that "Armenia said it was waiting for fighting in western Georgia to stop before deploying troops along communication routes as agreed in a joint plan signed in October with Georgia and Russia. At a press conference in Yerevan, presidential spokesman Aram Abramian said Armenia was worried that its troops might get dragged into the conflict. But he added that the plan was still valid, although the troops would only be deployed once the fighting had finished."

• Gamsakhurdia's death. As you know, the circumstances were disputed. The Mkhedrioni were blamed by Gamsakhurdia's supporters for his death but they rejected this and offered an alternative explanation, i.e. that he died in Chechnya (as reported in The Guardian, January 6, 1994). His purported suicide note was widely reported on January 6, 1994 (for instance, in the Washington Post and Las Vegas Sun) following a TASS report. TASS attributed the publication of the suicide note to Gamsakhurdia's press agency in Grozny.

You may not agree with this, but the neutral point of view requirement dictates that Wikipedia articles should report what is claimed. Editors are supposed to present all sides. You are not supposed to dismiss claims as "misinformation". Many of your edits and deletions have clearly had a partisan element (for instance, your use of descriptions such as "Communist-criminal forces" and "notorious underworld figure" or your assertions that "This coup was govern from Moscow" or that "President Gamsakhurdia was assassinated").

As an editor, you're not supposed to take sides. You can describe claims but don't present them as being the absolute truth and don't delete claims you don't like. You may disagree with them personally, but you shouldn't try to suppress the fact that the claims were made in the first place.

I've already tried to explain this to you in my earlier contributions to this discussion page. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia rules, you will probably find yourself banned by the administrators. -- ChrisO 12:46, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From "Levzur"

Dear "ChrisO":

1) You are writing in your answer that on September 2, 1991 "five people were injured in clashes between government forces and demonstrators". But in the artticle about President Gamsakhurdia it is in another way: "Anti-government demonstration in Tbilisi was dispersed by police with the reported loss of several lives". On the base of many documents and Georgian press of that time I assert no one was killed there. There were only some injured men. On Zviad Gamsakhurdia's order already on September 3, 1991, was started the investigation of this case.

2) In October, 1993, Shevardnadze asked military help to Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, but it had made only Russia and in turn Shevardnadze promised to enter Georgia into CIS and to legalize Russian military bases in Georgia.

3) Zviad Gamsakhurdia was killed on December 31, 1993, in a small village Jikhashkari (Samegrelo, Western Georgia) and was secretly buryed in the same place. It was really fact. On February 15, 1994, Gamsakhurdia's body was transported to the Grozny (capital of the Chechen Republic Ichkeria), where he was re-buryed on February 24, 1994. All of it was taken (photo and video).

Therefore as before we categorically demand bring in these corrections!

With best regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze ("Levzur")

Taking each item in turn...

1) You're right about this - I had confused the demonstrations at the beginning of September (in which five were reported injured) with those at the end of September (in which five were reported killed). This does need to be changed.

2) Correct, Shevardnadze asked for help from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, but as I've already stated, all three countries agreed on or around October 11 that they would provide military assistance to Shevardnadze in exchange for Georgia joining the CIS. Armenia later said that it would only send troops when the fighting had stopped; I'm not sure what happened with Azerbaijan but I presume it did the same as Armenia, as I've not found any mention of Azerbaijani troops intervening. This is a matter of historical record, so I don't know why you object to mentioning Armenia and Azerbaijan's position. Omitting the Armenian and Azerbaijani position and presenting Russia as Shevardnadze's only supporter is a distortion of the facts.

3) You miss the point - there are two sides to this story and both need to be reported to meet the Wikipedia neutral point of view requirement. We have to report the claims, not state that one particular version - that of the Gamsakhurdia supporters - is "really fact". Again, it's a matter of historical record that the Mkhedrioni contradicted the "official" story and that a purported suicide note was published. Ignoring those claims isn't neutral. I repeat, they have to be reported whether or not you agree with them (personally, I don't). -- ChrisO 11:14, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is misinformation!

1) "CrisO" wrote,that in the end of September, 1991, was demonstration in which 5 were killed. It is completely misinformation.

2) Military help to Shevardnadze had made only Russia!

3) It is really fact, that Zviad Gamsakhurdia died in a village Jikhashkari (not in the Chechen Republic!). His body was transported in Grozny from this village. We have photo and video material.

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze (user "Levzur")

1) I said that five were reported killed. Actually, the figure varies between three and five depending on the source. It was widely reported between September 24-26, 1991: see, for instance, "Four Killed as Soviet Georgia Fighting Grows" (Los Angeles Times, Sep 24), "Shootout in Soviet Georgia leaves 4 dead" (Associated Press, Sep 25), "Georgian troops kill 3, opposition chief claims" (Reuter, Sep 26).

2) The article already says this.

3) You seem to be wilfully ignoring what I said above. We have to report both versions of the story, not just what you regard as "really fact".

I'll ask for a modification to fix the factual error that you identified at point 1. Regarding point 2, the article already agrees with what you said - that the support from Armenia and Azerbaijan was purely political and that only Russia sent troops. This doesn't need to be changed. On point 3, the article already meets the NPOV requirement by providing both versions of events. You haven't said what changes you would like to make but I assume that you want to delete the paragraph beginning "This was denied by the Mkhedrioni". This would not comply with the NPOV requirement, so I won't make any changes here. I don't propose to discuss the matter any further unless you can propose a new description that would be neutral. -- ChrisO 10:50, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

About misinformation again...

Dear "ChrisO",

Spreading of misinformation and falsification of historical facts means fighting against basic principles of historism!..

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze (User "Levzur")

For user "ChrisO"

Dear ChrisO,

I'd like to inform you, that the first decree, which the President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili had signed on January 26, 2004, is the decree about re-burying the body of the first President of Georgia Zviad Gamsakhurdia from Grozny to Tbilisi and the longest main road of Tbilisi (the right embankment of a river Mtkvari (Kura)) mas named after Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Moreover, 32 political prisoners, supporters of the first President of Georgia, arrested by Shevardnadze, will be released.

This important decree was signed in Tbilisi Qashueti church of Saint George, where President Saakashvili declared, that Zviad Gamsakhurdia was the great statesman, one of greatest patriots of Georgia and may his memory live for ever.

In so far as, Mr. ChrisO, I hope above mentioned will show you who was really Zviad Gamsakhurdia for Georgia and what kind article must be devoted him.

With best regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze (User Levzur)

Jan 27, 2004

For user Wik

Dear "Wik",

In 1991-1992 I was a Special Correspondent of President Gamsakhurdia's Press Office. President died in village Jikhashkari (Mingrwelia region of Western Georgia. I was participant of re-buriing of Gamsakhurdia to Grozny!

With best regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze (user Levzur

10 Feb 2004

ChrisO has addressed this issue before. I will not waste my time. --Wik 21:21, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Has the article been locked again? *sigh* -- ChrisO 23:39, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Request for Comment

In the light of the continued reversion conflict on this article and the evident failure of step 1 of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, I've moved on to step 2 and posted a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page. If you've come to this talk page from there, I suggest that you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Zviad_Gamsakhurdia&diff=0&oldid=2385271 for the most recent comparison of versions and the notes on this page under Letter to ChrisO and Administration of "Wikipedia", which outlines the positions on both sides. -- ChrisO 03:00, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph:

This was publicly denied by the Mkhedrioni, who claimed that Gamsakhurdia had been wounded in a skirmish on Chechen territory and had died in Grozny. Adding to the confusion, the Chechen authorities published what they claimed was Gamsakhurdia's suicide note: "Being in clear conscience, I commit this act in token of protest against the ruling regime in Georgia and because I am deprived of the possibility, acting as the president, to normalize the situation, to restore law and order." The Georgian Interior Ministry suggested that he had either been deliberately killed by his own supporters, or had died following a quarrel with his former chief commander, Loty Kobalia. This was strongly denied by Gamsakhurdia's supporters.

has been deleted by Levzur (marked as a minor edit). It reads to me as NPOV. If a reference or two can be provided then I suggest that the paragraph be put back in. Same goes for the other items Levzur deleted. Everybody here needs to follow the majority/consensus rule established on this talk page. Those that don't, risk their ability to edit this article in the future. --mav

For ease of reference, I'll repost the relevant portions of my comments and references from earlier in this thread.

The Mkhedrioni were blamed by Gamsakhurdia's supporters for his death but they rejected this and offered an alternative explanation, i.e. that he died in Chechnya (as reported in The Guardian, January 6, 1994). His purported suicide note was widely reported on January 6, 1994 (for instance, in the Washington Post and Las Vegas Sun) following a TASS report. TASS attributed the publication of the suicide note to Gamsakhurdia's press agency in Grozny.

There are two sides to this story and both need to be reported to meet the Wikipedia neutral point of view requirement. We have to report the claims, not state that one particular version - that of the Gamsakhurdia supporters - is "really fact". Again, it's a matter of historical record that the Mkhedrioni contradicted the "official" story and that a purported suicide note was published. Ignoring those claims isn't neutral. I repeat, they have to be reported whether or not you agree with them (personally, I don't).

The article already meets the NPOV requirement by providing both versions of events. You [Levzur] haven't said what changes you would like to make but I assume that you want to delete the paragraph beginning "This was denied by the Mkhedrioni". This would not comply with the NPOV requirement.

It appears that Levzur does not want the article to mention either the Mkhedrioni's version of events or the purported suicide note - I can only assume for partisan reasons. He has not attempted to provide any alternative wording. His concerns about "misinformation" are addressed by Neutral point of view, which says:

You aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that such-and-such, twiddle dee dee, and therefore, QED." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. That's the important thing here! If we are summing up human knowledge on a subject, in the sense above-defined, then you are leaving out important information when you omit so-and-so's argument.

-- ChrisO 12:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear ChrisO, you and others from Wikipedia must publish a REAL FACTS! Real fact is Gamsakhurdia's death on December 31, 1993, in west-Georgian village Jikhashkari ("Zviad Gamsakhurdia" (Obituary signed by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Georgia in exile and the Gamsakhurdia's Government), Russian newspaper "Ichkeria", Grozny, February 23, 1994). Prime-Minister of Gamsakhurdia's Government, Dr. Bessarion Gugushvili (he was with President Zviad Gamsakhurdia in Jikhashkari) confirmed many times, that Gamsakhurdia died in the mentioned village. Information of "Mkhedrioni" is MISINFORMATION! On February 24, 1994 I was one of the participants of Gamsakhurdia's re-buriing to Grozny. In January, 1992 - January, 1994 I was also a Deputy Head of the underground Press-Office of the exiled Supreme Council in Tbilisi. -- Levzur 21 Feb 2004

Levzur seems to be on a crusade to present the version that he views as the right one, as being the only one. Wikipedia's Npov is holy, all relevant viewpoints must be presented, however "wrong" they might be. I view Levzur as a danger to this article's correctness. Mrdice 08:52, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

No. Read our NPOV policy. The facts here are disputed, so we must therefore explain that fact. Declaring one set of disputed facts as "true" and not presenting other versions is not in conformance with our policy. So far it is two to one and we have policy on our side. And the fact that you were closely involved raises POV flags for me. --mav 03:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with mav and Chris. Taking out that paragraph makes Wikipedia seem to say that the version you are trying to impose is the only version. If there is a question ruaabout his death, then all points must be presented. RickK 05:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph isn't there to annoy Levzur or belittle Gamsakhurdia. There was a great deal of confusion at the time about Gamsakhurdia's apparent death, with at least four different explanations being offered (not to mention the claims that he'd escaped somewhere to fight another day). Even now, it's not clear what happened. Levzur's earlier edits to this article stated that Gamsakhurdia had been "assassinated", which is obviously very different from what others have claimed. Because of this still unresolved confusion, we need to reflect the different theories in the article. This does not mean that we are endorsing them. -- ChrisO 08:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To User:Maveric 149 and User:RickK

Dear friends,

The official obituary signed by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Georgia in exile and the Gamsakhurdia's Government (Newspaper "Ichkeria", Grozny, February 23, 1994) is official document about the date and place of Gamsakhurdia's death. It is fact and this fact can't disputed! --Levzur 22 feb 2004

It is a fact that that is what they claim. RickK 05:13, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's also a fact that others have claimed differently. :-) -- ChrisO 08:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with ChrisO, mav, etc. We can not verify how Gamsakhurdia died, we can only report the various claims. --Wik 08:39, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Page protected yet again

From Wikipedia:Protected pages:

• Zviad Gamsakhurdia -- Continual changes by User:Levzur, contrary to clear consensus, many of them dishonestly marked "minor". Not the first time this page has been protected for the same reason. Tannin 09:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While it's clearly a good thing that we have a time out from the revert conflict, the article clearly cannot be protected forever and past experience has shown that it will simply be changed again when it's unprotected. What do we do now? Is it possible to protect a page from one single user or IP address, rather than from everyone? -- ChrisO 11:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have asked myself that same question many times. As far as I know, the answer is "no". Sigh. Tannin 11:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Tannin, I not assert that President Zviad Gamsakhurdia had been assassinated (before the end of the official investigation of this case by the Prosecutor General's Office of Georgia and the Supreme Court of Georgia). I say that President Gamsakhurdia died on December 31, 1993, in a village JIKHASHKARI (Western Georgia) and that the data of "Mkhedrioni" about Gamsakhurdia's death in Chechenya is a misinformation! The official obituary signed by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Georgia in exile (Russian newspaper "Ichkeria", Grozny, February 23, 1994) is a main document about the date and place of Gamsakhurdia's death. Prime-Minister of Gamsakhurdia's Government, Dr. Bessarion Gugushvili (he was with Gamsakhurdia in Jikhashkari) confirmed mani times, that the first President of Georgia died in Jikhashkari. -- Levzur 25 Feb 2004

Here we go again

Unfortunately RickK has had to protect the page yet again. I think it's about time we got the message across some other way.

(Added) I've now started a quickpoll at Wikipedia:Quickpolls#Levzur on the question of a 24 hour ban. -- ChrisO 01:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've protected it again. Levzur was reverting again. RickK | Talk 02:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protected due to edit war

This page was protected to stop an ongoing edit war (5+ reverts each) between ChrisO and Levzur. Unless someone else does so first, I intend to unprotect the page in 48 hours. -- Seth Ilys 22:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this latest outbreak makes it very clear that Levzur has no intention of following the policy, which has already been posted to his talk page, and also intends to ignore both the community consensus here and the warnings/advice of various sysops. The matter is now listed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and will probably be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration in due course. -- ChrisO 23:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I won't be around this evening to unblock at the 48-hour mark, and because I'm opposed to indefinite protection of pages, I've gone ahead and unprotected the page. -- Seth Ilys 14:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I agree entirely that pages shouldn't be protected indefinitely. For the record, Levzur has now effectively rejected mediation (and the applicability of Wikipedia policy in general) so it looks like it will have to go to arbitration after all. -- ChrisO 15:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration requested

I have now submitted a request for arbitration concerning this article. Evidence is at User:Levzur/Evidence - if any non-arbitrators wish to comment, please do so there. -- ChrisO 11:59, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Thanks. I think this latest outbreak makes it very clear that Levzur has no intention of following the policy, which has already been posted to his talk page, and also intends to ignore both the community consensus here and the warnings/advice of various sysops. The matter is now listed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and will probably be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration in due course. -- ChrisO 23:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

is that the Supreme WikiCourt? Vital component 5-19-04 4:16 AM est

You could call it that. :-) -- ChrisO 10:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

LADS!!! Alexander Lebed, Zurab Zhania, Turpal Ali-Atgeriev, Salman Raduyev, President Dudaev... mysterious circumstances surrounded many deaths of players in the murky politics of ex-Soviet Bloc states. Cancer, internal-bleeding, suicide were all cited as official causes of death. I think that ChrisO should pay more attention to plausibility and less to the majority opinion. Levsur appears to be closer to the situation and although he makes no concealment of his partisanship on the subject of Gamsakhurdia, his version has the ring of credibility where other versions sound ridiculous. That's my opinion.

Eda.

Helsinki

Someone who can edit protected pages please link a few of those references to "Helsinki groups" to Helsinki Committee for Human Rights and remove the overly generic link to http://www.ihf-hr.org/index.php (which exists on the aforementioned other page already). Thanks. --Shallot 17:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to do that; I'm otherwise completely uninvolved with this page or the arbitration relating to it so hopefully I won't be considered partisan. Bryan 23:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Konstantinovich"

I know this is probably a waste of time given Levzur's apparent Russophobia, but for the record here are some Google links to examples of ZG's patronym rendered in the Russian style: [1] -- ChrisO 15:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zviad Gamsakhurdia fighted against Russia, he fighted against the Russian Soviet empire, for the restoration of state independence of Georgia! -- Levzur 10 Apr 2005

And your point is? Was he also referred to as "Konstantinovich" during the Soviet era? Yes or no? -- ChrisO 23:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not by the Georgians. We Georgians call each other "batono ... (first name of the person)", which translates to "mister ...(first name)". And since Zviad Gamsaxurdia was Georgian you shouldn't refer to him way the Russians did.

respectfully Niko (in Russian - Nikolai, but please call me Niko)

in spanish

Hello, I wanted to start a translation for the president of georgia to Wiki Spanish, but I find unable to understand the whole point of the discussion. Wich version can I use to present an accurate an NPOV bio about this president. Thanks to everyone ! Messhermit 03:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you use the current version... -- ChrisO 08:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

1991 election

Who were the other candidates? What parties did they represent?

Body

Four times reburied - where is the grave of Zviad Gamsakhurdia now? --HanzoHattori 16:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What Gamsakhurdia is known for internationally

Whether this is warranted or not, he is known for fanning the flames of disgruntlement for ethnic minorities in Georgia with the "Guest-Host" doctrine. This should be mentioned in the article in a neutral manner. Pocopocopocopoco 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Internationally he's generally unknown. He's just known in Russia as a freak, in Ossetia as a war criminal, and in Georgia as a national hero. Even Georgia's best friend, Mr McCain doesn't have an idea about who the hell this is. --Comiccar (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually understand that Gamsakhurdia isn't viewed that well inside Georgia either, that a lot of the whole "national hero" talk comes from the little cult of Gamsakhurdia that would also believe that he's still alive and soon to come back riding on a white horse. Which is probably why this article isn't as negative on Gamsakhurdia as it should be; those little cultists of his wouldn't have it in a Wikipedia article so they constantly edit and re-edit to obscure all the b.s. that happened under his presidency, from widespread corruption to allying himself with Georgia's enemies to the complete decay of Georgia before Shevardnadze took power and brought back Georgia's overall political and economic integrity. By the way, if you'll look at my IP information, you'll see I come from nowhere near Russia, Ossetia, or Georgia. 68.93.140.29 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

When is NPOV not NPOV?

LevZur has a point, but isn't making it clearly enough. This article repeats much that is "received wisdom", the "majority opinion", and in itself that is right. However, much of this is actually the product of a long and politically-inspired campaign, supported by a number of Western governments (see their websites) to smear Gamsakhurdia and thus justify their own actions towards him. If those with a contrary view HAD THE SAME LEVEL OF ACCESS TO MEDIA OUTLETS the received wisdom might be different. The received wisdom is not therefore necesarily NPOV, it can be entirely false, simply because those who know the truth are not given the platform to tell it! Anyone who has been directly involved in any news story, and seen the reporting of it, even when they themselves gave the information, will know what I mean.

Apparently the previous contributor to this page thinks his views are less biased than those of LevZur. The manner in which he expresses them suggests otherwise, and his origins are of no consequence. I would add that in contemporary Georgia open Zviadists are regarded as dinosaurs, non-persons, but Gamsakhurdia has far greater support than you would ever imagine from examining the media. Almost all the TV stations are controlled by the government, and although the printed press is more independent it is not inclined to be openly Zviadist as this would strike at the heart of the legitimacy of the present Georgian state, and have serious repercussions. To take an example: one of the TV stations initiated a "100 Greatest Georgians" programme, a variation on the same format used in many countries. Gamsakhurdia was leading the public vote on this for a long time. Then ads started appearing promoting this programme in which modern Georgian celebrities named their THREE greatest Georgians, when the public could only vote for one. Amazingly, or perhaps not, not one of these celebrities mentioned Gamsakhurdia in their three - a total contradiction to the public vote. Eventually King David the Builder went into the lead, perhaps, the Church got involved, it was a big story. The trouble is, not even Gamsakhurdia's sworn enemies accused his supporters of rigging this vote. So why do such things? Similar conduct has generated what is regarded as the NPOV concerning Gamsakurdia.

Mr. Georgian Secret Service agent who will read this comment, please stop threatening members of my family for refusing to spy on me. If you want to know my views, they have been expressed in a number of newspaper articles, and you know which. If you would like to tell me what they are, be my guest, because most people get it wrong! Varangarian (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Varangarian

Scientist?

The introduction to this article describes Gamsakhurdia as, among other things, a scientist, but the biography seems to indicate that his scholarly work was in literature rather than science. Should the word "scientist" be replaced by another word, such as "professor," "scholar," or "academic"?

I wonder if this may have arisen from translation issues. In some languages, the word "science" (or its equivalent, such as the German "Wissenschaft") can refer to any branch of scholarly inquiry, but in English, it's not usually used for the study of literature and the arts.

I'm putting this in the Talk page rather than changing the article itself, because I know little about Gamsakhurdia. I hope that someone who is more knowledgeable than I will make the correction, if it is considered appropriate. On the other hand, if he really was also a scientist (in the sense that this word is used in English), that should be mentioned in the biography.

Thank you.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071124032614/http://www.bhhrg.org:80/Print.asp?ReportID=139&CountryID=10 to http://www.bhhrg.org/Print.asp?ReportID=139&CountryID=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027134550/http://geocities.com/z_g.geo/z_g.html to http://rustaveli.tripod.com/gelati/spiritualmission.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027122226/http://geocities.com/shavlego to http://www.ishr.org
• Added archive //web.archive.org/web/20081201194141/http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/georgia/gamed90s.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/georgia/gamed90s.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027081348/http://www.geocities.com/shavlego/zg_1d.html to http://www.diacritica.com/sobaka/2002/gamsakhurdia.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040120135306/http://www.funet.fi:80/pub/culture/russian/politics/coup/rlr/91-0829C.RLR to http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/russian/politics/coup/rlr/91-0829C.RLR

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

De facto regime cannot legally despose ruler

It is stated that a "Military Council made up of Gamsakhurdia opponents ...One of its first actions was to formally depose Gamsakhurdia as President". However a self appointed council has no legal powers, and certainly no formal authority to "formally depose Gemsakhurdia". Furthermore "formally depose" is a contradiction in terms, since formal means legal, but depose implied illegal.203.80.61.102 (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Gamsakhurdia's alleged chauvinism

Should we restore this: According to George Khutsishvili, the nationalist "Georgia for the Georgians" hysteria launched by the followers of Gamsakhurdia, part of the Round Table—Free Georgia coalition, "played a decisive role" in "bringing about Bosnia-like inter-ethnic violence."[13][14] His ethnoreligious chauvinism increased tensions between ethnic minorities in Georgia.[15] The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes that Gamsakhurdia's anti-Ossetian discourse is one of the main causes of the Georgian–Ossetian conflict.[16]? Sources:

• [13]: Bloodshed in the Caucasus: violations of humanitarian law and Human Rights in the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict (PDF). New York: Helsinki Watch, a division of Human Rights Watch. 1992. ISBN 978-1-56432-058-2.
• [14]: Khutsishvili, George (February–March 1994). "Intervention in Transcaucasus". Boston University. 4 (3). Perspective.
• [15]: Zakharov, Nikolay; Law, Ian (2017). Post-Soviet racisms. Mapping global racisms. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 118. ISBN 978-1-137-47691-3.
• [16]: Sartania, Katie (2021-04-27). "Struggle and Sacrifice: Narratives of Georgia's Modern History". Carnegie Europe.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As I have noted and provided source, Gamsakhurdia never used that slogan. Here is also a video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRXrX467l0E . This was slogan of his opponent, opposition politician Gia Chanturia, but as Chanturia said, this slogan was just used to support Georgia's national liberation movement against Soviet Union, it was not directed against ethnic minorities. And also, writing something like "Gamsakhurdia/Georgia is to blame for Georgian-Ossetian conflict" is very huge violation of Wikipedia's rules about neutrality. This is clearly POV and not a fact, and erroneous one, since Ossetian separatism, started way before Gamsakhurdia, in 1918-1920, see Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918–1920). Gamsakhurdia can not be blamed for Georgian-Ossetian conflict. Moreover, this is a false claim repeated by Russian President Medvedev, he justified Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 by saying that "Gamsakhurdia under slogan "Georgia for Georgians" ordered an attack on Tskhinvali and Abkhazia, then Saakashvili did the same, so we had to intervene and save them". This is totally false since Gamsakhurdia never even used that slogan and he did not order any "attack", so this is just a false narrative pushed to support Russian messianism and justify Russian imperialism. It is very similar to what Russia does now to Ukraine, Russia accuses Ukrainians of being "Nazis" who "genocide" Russians, they did same thing in Georgia in 2008, they falsely accused Georgia of being "Nazis" who genocided "Ossetians" and "Abkhazians" (this is totally false as showed by evidence - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121874784363742015), so it is very important for Wikipedia not to repeat Russian propaganda in this matter.Silveresc (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. The fact that Medvedev said something is not a reason to remove it from Wikipedia. The above paragraph is backed by reliable sources, that's all what matters. No one wrote "Gamsakhurdia/Georgia is to blame for Georgian-Ossetian conflict". But The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes that Gamsakhurdia's anti-Ossetian discourse is one of the main causes of the Georgian–Ossetian conflict. => It's the position of Carnegie Europe, that's it.

Additional sources:

• Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies: Nationalistic and xenophobic sentiments ran high and Georgia’s then president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was calling for a Georgia for the (ethnic) Georgians.
• De Facto States The Quest for Sovereignty: Gamsakhurdia’s increasingly xenophobic rule exhibited an an intolerance and violence that rejected the political participation of 'minorities' that had lived as neighbours of the Georgians for centuries. (p. 148)
• Multi-Ethnic Society in Georgia: A Pre-Condition for Xenophobia or an Arena for Cultural Dialogue?: The independent Georgia of the post-Soviet era, led by President Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1991), began to build a new state based on a mono-ethnic principle. The extreme nationalist position of the government and of certain sections of society is well illustrated by popular slogans of the time such as ‘Georgia only for the Georgians’ (Dzhavakhishvili & Frichova 2005). Against the background of the drive for independence, chauvinist rhetoric and extremist nationalism led to tensions in relations between ethnic groups and later to armed conflict in Southern Ossetia. The vast majority of ethnic minority citizens who emigrated from Georgia between the declaration of independence and the present day left the country at precisely this time. (p. 38)
• LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY IN GEORGIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LANGUAGE POLICIES IN THE PERIOD 1991-2012 Gamsakhurdia started the state-building process by excluding minorities. [...] is best characterized as a period of flourishing extreme ethnic nationalism and a tyranny of the majority. Since the government of Gamsakhurdia started the state-building process coined with the motto “Georgia for Georgians” by excluding minorities from it, national minorities were not able to participate in the shaping of state institutions and became marginalized within Georgia. The ethnic minorities were treated as an inferior group and perceived as an assault on the Georgian language and culture [...]

If you fail to provide reliable sources, I'll revert. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

All reliable sources have already been provided. The Youtube video was just used for further confirmation. You seem to reject every reliable source. Pushing NPOV is prohibited on Wikipedia. You are trying to write in the article that Georgia and Gamsakhurdia are to blame for Georgian-Ossetian conflict based on The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's article, but, it is worth noting that at the end of that same article, we find the statement which you chose to ignore - "Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees". So this is not even Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's position as you tried to present it, this is personal opinion of author Katie Sartania, and biased one, it violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRNG. Wikipedia articles should be written in neutral manner without giving precedence to positions of some fringe authors and personalities. Russian propaganda uses all of this disinformation against Georgia and falsely accuses Georgians of being "Nazis" and committing "genocide", similarily to Ukraine. This fact is very important because Wikipedia should not be turned into a place for Russian propaganda.

Discourse on Ethnic Minorities and Civic Integration in Georgia during 1991-90: Analysis of Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s Official Speeches, Statements and Interviews "In each of his official speeches, statements and interviews, Gamsakhurdia was trying to avoid any rhetoric discrimination to ethnic minorities and not address official laws and regulations, where one is not able to find discriminatory facts."

European Journal of Transformation Studies, 2298-0997, A Political Discourse on Nation and Nation-Buildng in a Post-Communist State: The Case of Georgia Under Zviad Gamsakhurdia "In an interview with the Russian newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, Gamsakhrdia admitted that it would have been a totally wrong view if he had accepted the policy of “Georgia for Georgians”. He regarded such a view “as rumour against him and his country disseminated specially by the central (Russian based) newspapers". In his words, as long as his anti-Soviet agency was intertwined with the best members of Russian society, especially in publishing of most of the literature of “Samizdat” in Tbilisi, Georgia, unacceptance of non-ethnic Georgians in Georgia from his side is just a big false injustice” [Newspaper “Republic of Georgia # 36 (56), 22/02/1991]."

Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War - "By March 1990, the Georgian nationalist movement was split. Gamsakhurdi was the leader of the Round Table / Free Georgia coalition that had agreed to compete in the upcoming Georgian Supreme Soviet elections, but was opposed by Gia Chanturia, leader of the more radical Georgian National Independence Party and National Forum. Chanturia's slogan was inflammatory "Georgia for the Georgians"

Myths about Zviad Gamsakhurdia - "To this day, many people think that the slogan "Georgia for Georgians" belongs to Zviad Gamsakhurdia, however, he has never used such a phrase in any statement or rally. Actually, this call was written in the program document of Giorgi Chanturia's "National Democratic Party". Chanturia then explained that "Georgia for Georgians" was not a slogan against ethnic minorities. The situation changed so much that he and his supporters "congratulated" Gamsakhurdia with this slogan and baptized him as an enemy of other ethnic groups."

Silveresc (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

• The first source you cited (Abashidze, 2019) is just the abstract of a speech. I don't think it's a reliable source. Anyway, it says: There is a quite widespread view on Gamsakhurdia in Georgian as in foreign literature that he employed the slogan “Georgia for Georgians” as an integral part of his official policies, while his principal goal was to establish ethnically homogenous society. => This "widespread view" is worth being mentioned here on Wikipedia (even though it may not be correct, that's something different)!
• The second source you cited is also from Abashidze. And it doesn't seem to be reliable (typo in the title = not serious paper + unknown journal). In any case, even if the source were reliable, it only says that Gamsakhrdia denied the accusations against him. But it confirms the existence of such accusations. Again, for this reason alone it's worth being mentioned. And even this paper says, in both the introduction and the conclusion: The article concludes that a hybrid model of a nation was used by Zviad Gamsakhurdia instead of a pure ethnicity model widespread in relevant literature. [...] Thus, as the above study shows, the post-communist nation-building or nationality policies shown in the Georgian case from 1990-1992 can be regarded as a model based on a hybrid understanding of “nation” rather, then on pure ethnicity, as is widely accepted in social sciences. So Abashidze confirms that the widespread academic consensus is that Gamsakhurdia had "a pure ethnicity model" of nation building.
• Modern Hatreds: this quote says nothing about Gamsakhurdia
• Myths about Zviad Gamsakhurdia: as I've already noted, this opinion is not a reliable source because it's the blog section of the Georgian language edition of RFE: "ძვირფასო მეგობრებო, რადიო თავისუფლების რუბრიკაში „თავისუფალი სივრცე“ შეგიძლიათ საკუთარი ბლოგებისა და პუბლიცისტური სტატიების გამოქვეყნება." "თავისუფალი სივრცე – თქვენი პუბლიკაციებისთვის" ["Dear friends, you can publish your own blogs and journalistic articles in Radio Liberty's "Free Space" section." "Free space - for your publications"] (see WP:BLOGS).

So you failed to provide reliable sources denying the claims supported in the paragraph above. Unless you do so, I'll revert. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that you noticed the first point and reverted your edit to remove the part of the quote about the "widespread view on Gamsakhurdia"... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You keep readding material without the topic being settled on the Talk page. You act uncooperatively and apparently, based on your edit history, you are engaged in POV-pushing which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Basically you are Armenian and your edits are all about Turkey and recently about Georgia with the aim of casting it in negative light. So what is your goal? POV-pushing? You are apparently not neutral in this case.Silveresc (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue is settled. I provided all the required secondary sources. You provided 0 reliable sources.

Basically you are Armenian:

1. Please read WP:NOPA.
2. Is it a problem to be Armenian?
3. For what it's worth, I'm not Armenian, no one in my family is Armenian, I don't speak Armenian and I've never been to Armenia so I find the "accusation" of being Armenian quite funny. (I'm actually way closer to Turkey...)

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It might indicate that you are not neutral in this case and engage in POV-pushing. Basically almost all your edit history is about Armenia and additionally unhealthy amount is about Turkey (in negative light), which might indicate something. But anyway, you keep acting uncooperativly and fail to address the issues:

You keep readding the text which supposedly indicates Carnegie Europe's opinion (you previously justified adding the material by saying that "It's the position of Carnegie Europe, that's it."). However, it has been shown that this is not Carnegie Europe's position: on the Carnegie Europe's webpage, it reads: "Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees".

You keep readding personal opinion of Gamsakhurdia's opposition, George Khutsishvili, which is stated as fact. Moreover, non-neutral terms are used against Gamsakhurdia such as "hysteria" (as if Gamsakhurdia and his supporters were "hysterical", clear POV violation). And you totally ignore the fact that "Georgia for Georgians" was not Gamsakhurdia's slogan, this is even attested personally by Gamsakhurdia with video footage being provided.

You keep readding text which blames Gamsakhurdia for Georgian-Ossetian conflict, despite it being shown that Ossetian separatism caused the conflict way before Gamsakhurdia was born (in 1918–1920). Moreover, personal opinion of Katie Sartania is used as source, which violates WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.

You keep deleting text which states that Gamsakhurdia is considered as national hero of Georgia, despite all polls indicating that Gamsakhurdia is considered as such in Georgia, Gamsakhurdia officialy being awarded title of National Hero in 2004, streets, avenues, parliament's hall and other places being named after Gamsakhurdia, and etc.

So all of this combined might indeed indicate that you are engaged in POV-pushing, which violates WP:NPOV.Silveresc (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Again: stop personal attacks. There's nothing "unhealthy" about contributing to Armenian and Turkish articles.

I removed Carnegie's article as you may be right.

Calling someone or something "hysterical" is not clear POV violation if it's backed by reliable sources and if it's attributed.

Good reliable sources are cited. You may disagree with them, but there's no reason to remove them.

It's already written in the intro that He was rehabilitated by the President Mikheil Saakashvili and awarded the title and Order of National Hero of Georgia. so there's no need to add it a second time: that's why I removed it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It was not personal attack, but POV-pushing is not allowed on Wikipedia.

The source is George Khutsishvili, Gamsakhurdia's opposition, the line starts with "According to George Khutsishvili" and he is cited as source for describing Gamsakhurdia and his supporters as "hysterical". The non-neutral opinion is presented as fact. This is violation of NPOV. Gamsakhurdia's opposition is not a reliable source in this case.

The sources which are used are not reliable or neutral. For example, one of the cited books is De Facto States: The Quest for Sovereignty, a chapter from which the quote which is used in the article is cited from is called The Abkhazians A national minority in their own homeland. It is written by Edward Mihalkanin, a pro-Abkhazian scholar who takes side against Georgia in Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. The article is written in a way to justify Abkhazian's claim for independence from Georgia against international norms and international law. Claims about Gamsakhurdia are written in here to justify Abkhaz's claims. This article is not in any way examination of Gamsakhurdia's ideas and views, it is just pro-Abkhaz separatist propaganda which happens to include anti-Gamsakhurdia propaganda to justify its point. Another source Post-Soviet Racism has Georgian section written by Russian scholar Nikolay Zakharov, which might indicate anti-Georgian sentiment and an attempt to justify Russia's war against Georgia. The reference used in the article is from this chapter. In short, these sources are questionable and not reliable.Silveresc (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc: Silveresc, refrain from personal attacks. I hope this thread won't devolve into personal attacks and edit war. Otherwise, I also think that just writing that Gamsakhurdia was "chauvinistic" and "xenophobic" does not accurately and neutrally illustrates his ideas. Anyway, I hope the issue will be solved through discussion on Talk page. -- Cutoc (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not engaged in personal attacks. I just provide evidence which might indicate some kind of bias. Since POV-pushing is prohibited on Wikipedia, there is nothing wrong in indicating potential bias. On the other hand, the edit was is indeed not allowed on Wikipedia, which you chose to ignore. Which might indicate your bias as well. There is nothing wrong in pointing out potential bias when backed by evidence.Silveresc (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc:, Hello once again, I am not sure what you mean by "chose to ignore", but I agree that edit war is prohibited on Wikipedia, but personal attacks are also phobited. Since your recent activity might indicate use of personal attack, it was just a reminder to respect civility and prevent this page from devolving into battlefield. All issues should be solved with peaceful interaction on Talk page without edit war and personal attacks. -- Cutoc (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc: Criticizing a person in an article does not make the article "non neutral". Being pro-Abkhaz or having a Russian name does not make an author not reliable either (which might indicate anti-Georgian sentiment and an attempt to justify Russia's war against Georgia: what kind of xenophobia is this? He's an associate professor at a Swedish university).

And what are your objections to the following reliable sources?

• Georgia and the Russian Aggression, Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Diana Janse (formerly Sweden’s ambassador to Georgia): Nationalistic and xenophobic sentiments ran high and Georgia’s then president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was calling for a Georgia for the (ethnic) Georgians.
• Multi-Ethnic Society in Georgia: A Pre-Condition for Xenophobia or an Arena for Cultural Dialogue?, Marina Elbakidze (a Georgian!): The independent Georgia of the post-Soviet era, led by President Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1991), began to build a new state based on a mono-ethnic principle. The extreme nationalist position of the government and of certain sections of society is well illustrated by popular slogans of the time such as ‘Georgia only for the Georgians’ (Dzhavakhishvili & Frichova 2005). Against the background of the drive for independence, chauvinist rhetoric and extremist nationalism led to tensions in relations between ethnic groups and later to armed conflict in Southern Ossetia. The vast majority of ethnic minority citizens who emigrated from Georgia between the declaration of independence and the present day left the country at precisely this time.
• Human Rights Watch: The October 28, 1990, parliamentary elections in Georgia brought to power the Round Table coalition, led by Zviad Gamsakhurdia. A fiercely nationalist grouping of dozens of political parties, the Round Table staunchly advocated complete independence from the Soviet Union and popularized the slogan, "Georgia for Georgians".

So before reverting, provide reliable sources. So far, you only provided one low quality secondary source: Abashidze. But even this source which tries to defend Gamsakhurdia agrees that there's a "widespread view", both in Georgia and abroad, seeing Gamsakhurdia as a xenophobic nationalist: There is a quite widespread view on Gamsakhurdia in Georgian as in foreign literature that he employed the slogan “Georgia for Georgians” as an integral part of his official policies, while his principal goal was to establish ethnically homogenous society. Abashidze's other article also concludes: Thus, as the above study shows, the post-communist nation-building or nationality policies shown in the Georgian case from 1990-1992 can be regarded as a model based on a hybrid understanding of “nation” rather, then on pure ethnicity, as is widely accepted in social sciences. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Gamsakhurdia's opposition is not reliable source to describe Gamsakhurdia and his supporters as "hysterical". It violates NPOV. George Khutsishvili needs to be removed.

The article in question was written from pro-Abkhaz perspective, so it is not coincidence that it mentions Gamsakhurdia in negative light. Such articles can not be considered as neutral, they are written explicitly to justify some POV.

Additional sources confirming that slogan actually belonged to Giorgi Chanturia and National Democratic Party (Gamsakhurdia's opposition), not Gamsakhurdia:

25 Years of Independent Georgia: The National Democratic Party went further, introducing the slogan “Georgia for Georgians” and questioned the presence of autonomous areas in Georgia, as “historical territories that belonged to Georgia from the beginning”.

Securitization (management) of minor differences security and conflict in the South Caucasus during the late 1980s and early 1990s: In an interview to the Russian newspaper, Sobesednik, Gamsakhurdia explained that the allegations that he was campaigning for “Georgia for the Georgians” were "total lies".

Georgia's battle for independence looms: Nodar Notadze, another presidential candidate as leader of the Popular Front, said he wasn't on good terms with Gamsakhurdia, "but no one here ever uttered those words "Georgia for the Georgians' in public here."

The Politics of Memory in Post-Authoritarian Transitions: The Two-Stage Transition in Georgia: Those decisions were followed by the politician’s victory in the general presidential election of 26 May. 9 The nationalist slogan of “Georgia for Georgians”, however, was not a part of some comprehensively planned activity

And stop removing mention of Gamsakhurdia being a Georgian national hero. You previosly agreed on one mention of Gamsakhurdia being national hero in the lead, so only one mention was left. More concrete description was moved to the other parts of the article.Silveresc (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you wish to continue, I posted to ANI.  // Timothy :: talk  03:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Silveresc in this case. There is documented evidence on video where Gamsakhurdia denied that he ever used the slogan. And this video was recorded when he was already a head of government (in 1991). Moreover, the slogan appereantly belonged to political program of Gamsakhurdia's opposition, which makes even less sense to attribute the slogan to Gamsakhurdia. I think Wikipedia should be neutral in this case and not repeat some allegations and accusations which are unfounded. -- Cutoc (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the long term disruptive edit warring that characterizes this article history for the past month.  // Timothy :: talk  03:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, edit warring is not productive in any case. Both users should engage in discussion without edit war. -- Cutoc (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cutoc: it's Wikipedia, we use reliable secondary sources, not primary sources like a video of someone denying something that everyone else accuses them of.

Even the second source sent by @Silveresc (Securitization (management) of minor differences security and conflict in the South Caucasus during the late 1980s and early 1990s, which is a WP:THESIS so not necessarily RS btw) acknowledges Gamsakhurdia's chauvinism but Silveresc posted a truncated quote! Here's the full paragraph (in italic, the truncated excerpt that Silveresc chose to share...): Georgia was intended for Georgians, and minorities were excluded from the future post-Soviet project of the nation-state. In an interview to the Russian newspaper, Sobesednik, Gamsakhurdia explained that the allegations that he was campaigning for “Georgia for the Georgians” were "total lies". However, he elucidated, "Georgia, being in a catastrophic demographic predicament, cannot grant citizenship to all. In any country foreigners, hostile to the state are denied citizenship." (1991: 7), Gamsakhurdia’s narrative demonstrates that he was in favour of the selection and limitation of “foreigners”. Note also his use of the modifier “hostile”, which specifically securitizes minorities. Such views were destroying the multicultural legacy of Georgia, but Gamsakhurdia was able to gather enough supporters, and the choice was made in favour of nationalism. As Thomas Goltz puts, it he did all the right things at the right time, including becoming a member of the Helsinki Human Rights Committee, and was an intellectual who translated European books (2009: 5). Perhaps this secured him support along, with promoting the policy “Georgia First”, which pleased ethnic entrepreneurs but alienated everyone else in Georgia and abroad (Goltz, 2009: 6). However, Stephen Jones observes that Gamsakhurdia’s period was more than just “nationalism”, as the leader believed in a “semi-mythological” and “racially pure” Georgia, which helped him to appeal to nostalgic Georgians who yearned for “the innocence of pre-Soviet times” (2013: 52). By enticing the “little man” who had missed out on privileges and idealistic youth, he reflected “Georgia’s crisis of modernity” (Jones, 2013: 52-53). His language and its semantics appealed to those who lost out,saw a truncation of opportunities and had no access to power. They felt bewilderment and perceived a Messianic figure in Gamsakhurdia. What kind of bad faith is this? The same source has many accounts of Gamsakhurdia's chauvinism, for instance: The discourse of national identity and nationalism transformed multicultural Tbilisi into an arena for chauvinists and nationalists. They looked for ‘others’ in their midst, which led to the disintegration and segregation of society. Georgia was heading toward a rift between Zviadists (those who shared Gamsakhurdia’s nationalist views) and antiZviadists — the section ofsociety that knew nationalism was a self-defeating tool and rejected Gamsakhurdia’s stance. One of the participants of those events and a prominent film director, Goga Khaindrava, confirmed during an interview that Gamsakhurdia’s discourse was a deliberate attempt to stir enmity through his speeches (Khaindrava, 2013). [...] Gamsakhurdia was a radical who manipulated the moderate 261 Georgian populace into a chauvinistic mob (Jones, 2006: 257). [...] His discourse was the source of the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy in Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian relations. He openly claimed that the Abkhaz as a nation does not exist at all, and that it was just a name of a Western Georgian province (Chagelishvili, 2002a). [...] Gamsakhurdia’s vision of a unitary Georgia was translated into nationalist discourse and stirred up ethnic sentiments. [...] The Tbilisi society questioned the right of the Abkhaz to live in Georgia. Radical chauvinism became popular as many renowned writers, artists and public figures supported right-wing ideas. Georgia was depicted as a privileged nation and all other ethnicities had to accept the reality or leave. [...] Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s political allies particularly supported this stance.

The third source, TampaBay, is old and it's just Gamsakhurdia saying that his innocent: not RS.

The last source doesn't prove much but here again @Silveresc truncated it: The nationalist slogan of “Georgia for Georgians”, however, was not a part of some comprehensively planned activity, but was an expression of social sentiments of the time (see: Nodia, 1994). I couldn't find Nodia, 1994 but I found Nodia, 1997: Of course Georgian nationalists, especially in the Gamsakhurdia period, were far from sensitive to minority issues. According to many accounts, Georgia for the Georgians was Gamsakhurdia's slogan, which in fact is not true. I personally never heard anything like this slogan at his rallies and have never seen anybody cite a source for it. But it probably expressed his true attitude. Moreover, one can find many truly racist quotations in the Georgian press in that period. So even Nodia acknowledges that 1/ "According to many accounts, Georgia for the Georgians was Gamsakhurdia's slogan" and 2/ whether he actually said it or not did not matter much as he agreed with this slogan in practice.

I presented countless secondary reliable sources that @Silveresc keep removing.

How can we move forward @Cutoc @Timothy? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEKHELP, I've just requested other editors' help on WP:POLITICS, WP:GC, Wikipedia:WikiProject Abkhazia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ossetia, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Another recent RS, The Geography of Ethnic Violence, by Monica Toft, published by Princeton University Press: The individual who came the closest to fitting this description is Zviad Gamsakhurdia, an outspoken Georgian chauvinist. [...] Although it could be argued that Gamsakhurdia in fact stirred nationalist passions among Georgians prior to his ouster, more than eight months passed between his ouster and the firing of the first shots in the Abkhaz civil war. [...] Gamsakhurdia’s political dominance unnerved the ethnic minorities. His earlier dissident writings often invoked the peril of the Georgian nation and blamed both Moscow and the minorities for the destruction of its land, language, and culture. So his slogan “Georgia for the Georgians” was interpreted as a battle cry for the suppression of minorities. [...] But his [Gamsakhurdia] response to that threat was to incite Georgian nationalism, even chauvinism. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I will note that while Gamsakhurdia may not have used the slogan, that it is attributed to him is notable, and has been discussed extensively in literature. Noting that he was accused of stating "Georgia for the Georgians" while clarifying he did not actually say that should be mentioned on the article, as his alleged statement was used as justification to start the fighting to some extent. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @Kaiser matias. What about: According to George Khutsishvili, the nationalist slogan "Georgia for the Georgians" launched by Gamsakhurdia's followers, part of the Round Table—Free Georgia coalition, "played a decisive role" in "bringing about Bosnia-like inter-ethnic violence." While commentators disagree on whether Gamsakhurdia actually used the slogan, they agree that his ethnoreligious chauvinism, nationalism, and xenophobia stirred tensions between ethnic minorities in Georgia.? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! One minor quibble, the tensions were mostly not *between* the ethnic minorities but rather between the Georgians (the majority) and certain minorities. So I would suggest stirred ethnic tensions in Georgia. Alaexis_¿question? 20:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in @Alaexis. So the proposed wording is: According to George Khutsishvili, the nationalist slogan "Georgia for the Georgians" launched by Gamsakhurdia's followers, part of the Round Table—Free Georgia coalition, "played a decisive role" in "bringing about Bosnia-like inter-ethnic violence." While commentators disagree on whether Gamsakhurdia actually used the slogan, they agree that his ethnoreligious chauvinism, nationalism, and xenophobia stirred stirred ethnic tensions in Georgia. (using the above references) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, it should be noted that those ethnic minorities (Abkhazians and Ossetians) were Russian-backed separatists and they pursued their separatist objectives even after Gamsakhurdia was overthrown (War in Abkhazia started in August 1992, Gamsakhurdia was overthrown and in exile since January 1992). It should be noted that they were Russian-backed and separatist from the beginning, before Gamsakhurdia became President or head of the government. -- Cutoc (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That's as far from neutrality as it gets. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you questioning? That Abkhazians were and are separatists? Or that they were and are Russian-backed? Or that War in Abkhazia started after Gamsakhurdia was overthrown and exiled in Chechnya? These are not opinions, these are facts. -- Cutoc (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So, it seems like no one has written anything against what I suggested few hours ago, it does not seems like anyone is againsto, so I will add the relevant information to the article. -- Cutoc (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't mention this, so don't add it. What's the point you want to make "He was xenophobic but it's because there were separatists"? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to add that his sentiments and rhetoric were also caused by separatism of some ethnic minorities and Russian backing of them. I don't think any leader in the world would react softly to separatist claims over territories of his country. Moreover, Russian backing, which was an attempt to preserve influence in the Caucasus, also may be assessed as one of the most important factors. Additionally, I also want to add important stepts which Gamsakhurdia took to defuse ethnic tensions among minorities: He granted wide-overrepresentation to Abkhazians in Abkhazian parliament despite them being only 17% of population, also, he confirmed Abkhazian-supported Vladislav Ardzinba on the post of chairman of Abkhazian parliament. Additionally, Gamsakhurdia and his allies passed law on nationality which granted citizenship to all ethnic groups. I can provide all sources on Russian backing, separatism of some ethnic groups and Gamsakhurdia's steps. If there is no objection, I am going to make these edits with reliable sources cited to make article more in line with WP:NPOV rule. -- Cutoc (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cutoc: Silveresc has just been topic banned so I think this article is now a disputed topic and, for the next few days, I suggest we reach consensus in the talk page before making changes.

In particular, when you write I don't think any leader in the world would react softly to separatist claims over territories of his country.: our personal opinions don't matter on Wikipedia, beware of WP:OR. We need reliable sources that directly link his actions to separatism. Please also see Stephen Jones's analysis below. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally to the sources I have provided, there is also this reliable source, authored by Stephen Jones, who is already cited in this article, which disapproves of many claims presented against Gamsakhurdia:

Zviad Gamsakhurdia was a radical nationalist. Brought to power by a wave of popular nationalism in the October 1990 Supreme Soviet elections, he was not simply an ethnic entrepreneur who, using nationalist slogans to gain authority, manipulated a formerly moderate Georgian populace into a chauvinistic mob. Resource theories of nationalism, which stress manipulation by elites, are inadequate explanations of nationalisms’ successes. Gamsakhurdia, after eight months as chairman of Georgia’s Supreme Soviet, was elected president in May 1991 with 87 percent of the vote. His success was based on ideas and anxieties that resonated among Georgians—the threat of Georgia’s disintegration, the fear of Russian military power, and the perceived neglect of Georgian interests. In contrast to 1918, almost every party by 1989–90 was advocating independence, the great panacea for Georgian ills. This was a time of national trauma; twice in 1989 Georgians had been killed in conflict with Soviet interior troops—on April 9 at a popular demonstration outside parliament advocating independence and on July 15 in clashes with Abkhazians in Sukhumi. Georgians, in Gamsakhurdia’s view, were being victimized in their own state. The reaction of both Georgians and the minority Abkhazians and Osetians to Gamsakhurdia's militant nationalist rhetoric was understandable. In a time when physical and economic security was unprotected, national solidarity and self-reliance were the obvious answer. In circumstances like those of 1990–91, with the threat of dissolution of the state, economic collapse, and hostile declarations from a still militarily powerful imperial overlord, it is hard to imagine even “civic” European nations, let alone newly independent states led by inexperienced elites, abjuring militant nationalist ideas. But a closer look at Georgian nationalism from 1989 to 1992 shows this was neither the resurgence of latent ethnic hatreds nor the expression of a violent political culture. Rather, it was contingent on extraordinary economic, political, and physical insecurities brought about by the collapse of Soviet power. It is worth remembering that from 1989 to 1990 those leading the Georgian national liberation movement tried to divert popular focus from national minorities. Representatives of the Kurdish and Armenian communities, among others, took part in the early rallies for Georgian independence (there was a similar pattern in the Baltics), and Georgian radicals in these early years saw the “ethnicization” of Georgian politics as a deliberate Kremlin provocation.

However, even Gamsakhurdia in his most intense moments of nationalist apoplexy did not advocate the forcible expulsion of national minorities or question minorities’ cultural rights in Georgia. And although his government abolished South Osetia’s regional status in December 1990 in response to a South Osetian declaration of independence and unsanctioned elections to the South Osetian Supreme Soviet a few days before, he did not question Abkhazian autonomy. In 1991 he negotiated a consociationalist agreement with the Abkhazians which put Georgians living in Abkhazia at a political disadvantage. The Abkhazians, who made up only 17 percent of the autonomous republic’s population, received twenty-eight seats in the sixty-five-seat Abkhazian parliament; the Georgian community (46 percent) received twenty-six seats; and the remaining population (37 percent), consisting mainly of Armenians, Greeks, and Russians, received eleven seats. No constitutional change was possible without two-thirds of the vote, which gave Abkhazians relatively secure protection of their existing legal rights.

Whatever Gamsakhurdia’s motivation—calculation that things would change in Georgia’s favor or that the alternative would lead to a conflict with Abkhazia and ultimately Russia—the consociationalist policies in Abkhazia show inconsistencies with Gamsakhurdia’s reputation as an uncompromising nationalist who believed in “Georgia for the Georgians.”

So I think we can say that presenting Gamsakhurdia just as "xenophobic" and "intolerant" violates NPOV and does not fully explains the peculiar context of 1990-1992. It needs to be removed. It fails to explain the context of the rhetoric of Gamsakhurdia - Russia, "a still militarily powerful imperial overlord", was directly supporting separatism and trying to fragment Georgian state. Therefore, Gamsakhurdia's rhetoric was caused by concerns about security and fear of losing control by Georgians over their own republic. It was not simply "Gamsakhurdia was xenophobic who caused problems with ethnic minorities", it was much more to that, including imperial Russian threat, separatism, state failure and so on. This article highlights it.Silveresc (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I also want to bring attention to the fact that in July 1991, during Zviad Gamsakhurdia's presidency, Gamsakhurdia and his party drafted and passed citizenship law, which granted citizenship to all ethnic groups in Georgia.

DEFINING THE NATION IN RUSSIA'S BUFFER ZONE: THE POLITICS OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN AZERBAIJAN, MOLDOVA AND GEORGIA: In 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Georgia passed a draft law on Citizenship of the Republic of Georgia. While it failed to become law, the draft set an important precedent inclined toward the “zero” option of admitting the majority of the state's residents into the initial body of citizens (there was no years of residency required but instead a legal source of income) although it didn't go as far as the full “zero” option adopted in Moldova and Azerbaijan. It did not address dual citizenship at all (Gugushvili 2012:3)

"Zero option" is defined as - "admitting all residents of the state to the initial body of citizens" on page 65.

All of these once again disapprove A455bcd9's false and non-neutral claims.Silveresc (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Silveresc. Once again, you cite a source that eventually says the opposite of what you want to prove. Indeed, Stephen Jones writes:

• Whatever Gamsakhurdia’s motivation—calculation that things would change in Georgia’s favor or that the alternative would lead to a conflict with Abkhazia and ultimately Russia—the consociationalist policies in Abkhazia show inconsistencies with Gamsakhurdia’s reputation as an uncompromising nationalist who believed in “Georgia for the Georgians.” The argument is not that Gamsakhurdia was a liberal nationalist; he was not. He threatened, bullied, and belittled Georgia’s national minorities. But the evidence of these years, including the expulsion of Gamsakhurdia in January 1992, suggests that Gamsakhurdia, though a bully, was capable of pragmatic calculation. Not all national groups were equally bad or unacceptable as partners in the Georgian state.
• helped diffuse much of the chauvinistic hysteria that dominated the 1992–95 parliament. Undoubtedly, the reality does not reflect legislative ambition, but the political context has changed radically since Gamsakhuria.
• The Georgian government of 1990–1992 inexperienced, and chauvinistic, confirmed their fears.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)