Talk:Georgians

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

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

Jews

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

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

Reappropriation

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

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

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

Dear VKokielov, this article is about the Georgian people (Kartveli Eri), about the nation (ethnic group), not about the whole population of the Republic of Georgia. -- Levzur 25 Apr 2005

Then it shouldn't mention the Svans, Megrelians or Laz either, as they are not ethnic Georgians either -- for one thing, they don't speak Georgian. Considering them to be ethnic Georgians is like considering Catalonians to be ethnic Spaniards. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 23:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Svans, Megrels and Lazs are ethnic Georgians. Literary language for all ethnographic groups of Georgian people is Georgian language. We have many historical sources about it. I'm Laz, my mother is Imeretian, my grandmothers were Megrels = we all are GEORGIANS! -- Levzur 26 Apr 2005

I didn't say anything about "literary language"; I was talking about the language they actually speak, as the literary language is often not a good guide to distinguishing linguistic/ethnic groups. Literary languages are often imposed from outside, by whatever group is in power at a given time; spoken language within a group is a matter of group choice and is a far better guide to group affinity. (If I were to do all my writing in Japanese -- make it my "literary language" -- that would not make me ethnically Japanese.)

In other words, I don't care whether Megrelians use Megrelian, Georgian, or Swahili as their literary language. My understanding is that among themselves when possible, they speak Megrelian (am I correct?), and therefore I say that they are obviously a distinct linguistic group from Laz, Svans, and Georgians proper. I think there's a problem of definition here: "Georgian" (= native of Georgia) is not the same as "ethnic Georgian" (= person whose primary linguistic/cultural affinity is Georgian).

Then again, if you're going on the criteria of literary language, you can't really exclude Georgian Jews from the category of "ethnic Georgians" -- isn't their literary language also Georgian?

Finally, a question: how is it possible that your grandmothers are Megrelians and yet you're Laz? Please explain. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 02:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just 2 comments:

• Language/dialect and tribe/nation are difficult questions. I won't pretend to know anything about Georgia but I know a lot about the Balkans. Language is not a good measurement of ethnicity.
• From what Levzur says and what I know of how ethnicity is inherited in most of the world, I'd guess that his paternal grandfather was Laz, his maternal grandfather Imeretian, and both his grandmothers Megrel, making him a Laz. Zocky 11:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Point the first: I agree that language is not a good measurement of ethnicity, but I only agree with that in one direction. I can think of many cases where a language group encompasses several different ethnic groups, but I can think of no case where, as Levzur is claiming, one ethnic group encompasses several different language groups -- save perhaps in large "melting-pot" countries like the U.S., a category of state that I doubt Georgia falls into.

In other words: "belonging to different ethnic groups" doesn't imply "speaking different languages", but "speaking different languages" generally implies "belonging to different ethnic groups", AFAIK.

Point the second: quite possible. I never said intermarriage didn't occur... :)

Point the third (gratuitous plug): the sort of argument I appear to have got into on this page is a good example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. I have a proposal to fix some of these problems; I'd love comments on it. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

How about Germany? Low German and High German are two quite distinct languages, but all Germans call themselves German. How about Albanians? Dialects of Kosovo and Albania are quite unintelligable but they're all Albanians. How about Scots, Welsh, the Irish? Plenty of cases like that around. Ethnicity and language are two related, but separate things. Zocky 00:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Repetition will not advance your argument. Please answer the questions I asked. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 12:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My answer is argumented! What do you want? Unfortunately, you absolutely not know history of Georgia, history of Georgian people (Nation), ethnogenesys of Georgians, ethnology of Georgia. Finally, about genealogy: in Georgia grandmothers are wifes of grandfathers... Levzur 1 may 2005

What do I want? Very simple: I want you to answer the questions I asked. If you think I'm ignorant about Georgia, then please tell me what I am not taking into account. Just repeating yourself and calling me ignorant will not help at all. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

YES! You are ignorant about Georgia: 1. You not know Georgian language; 2. You not know Georgian historical chronicles of "Kartlis Tskhovreba" and other important Georgian sources; 3. You are not historian; 4. You not know important works of outstanding Georgian historians (Ivane Javakhishvili, Pavle Ingorokva, Simon Janashia, Levan Chilashvili, Giorgi Melikishvili, Sargis Kakabadze, Mikheil Tsereteli, Ekvtime Takaishvili, Malkhaz Abdushelishvili and others)... Levzur 2 May 2005

You have no basis for most, if not all, of these assumptions. Please, please, please stop repeating yourself and answer my questions. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I will not discuss wit you scientific questions! Please, read more books about Georgia and Georgian People and visit this country... -- Levzur 8 May 2005

Where do you get the idea that I haven't read books about Georgia? And why won't you discuss scientific questions? That's the purpose of these talk pages. Please don't edit Wikipedia if you won't discuss your edits. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are a dilettante and demagogue. If you had read books (objective books) about Georgia, you would not ask me such questions! Good bye! -- Levzur 9 May 2005

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

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

83% of georgians live in georgia

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

83% of the population of today's Georgia! Thank you! Georgians living in Turkey (more than 1,5 mil.), on the territory of old Georgian provinces - Tao-Klarjeti and Lazeti, are indigenous population of this region. Information about the number of Georgians living in Turkey is the data of the Georgian Society in Turkey. In Afganistan and Iran Georgians were moved in the XVII-XVIII cent. Levzur Sept 2, 2005

Compare these disputed diaspora figures with those cited for Armenians and Norwegians. I don't think there's one single answer for how to realistically enumerate something as elusive as the primary ethnic identity of millions of people after generations of exile or intermarriage. Are sub groups such as the assimilated people in Turkey and Russia whose genetic roots are in the Georgian people to be counted in or out? Are they a subgroup? Are the Ajarians? Tricky, this is.... //Big Adamsky 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Total population of Georgians living in Turkey, on the territory of old Georgian provinces - Tao-Klarjeti and Lazeti (Lazistan) and not assimilated, is more than 1,5 mil. They have Georgian Associations "Chveneburi" and "Lazebura" (Laszs are one of ethnographic groups of Georgian People). "Chveneburi" is a Georgian Cultural Society in Turkey, not "ethnic group"! Ajarians are muslim Georgians, not a different ethnic group!. In Russia Georgians (about 1 mil.) have own cultural Association also. Georgian Associations are in the USA, Germany, France, Netherlands, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran, etc. For mentioned above people "GEORGIAN" is a primary ethnic identity. Unfortunately, you absolutely not know Georgia and history of Georgian People. With kind regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, Georgian historian. 5 January 2006

I think Big Adamsky's also pointing to assimilated Georgians as well as those of a recent cultural assimilation into say Turkish or Russian society. Also, the usage of the term ethnic groups is tricky. On the Han chinese page we had a discussion about whether the Hui are Han or not. The view was that they are not. Why? Because they are Muslim rather than Buddhist/various others. The Hui have the same origins as the Han and are usually considered a sub-group at least, but not 'real' Han. Ethnicity is often a hazy term that is applicable in many instances that may not be universally agreed upon, but I think has to be left to some concensus of the group involved deciding whether or not they feel they are an 'ethnic' group as such. Tombseye 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, who put up 150,000 Georgians in Afghanistan?! This is the first I'm hearing about this. Mostly there used to be thousands of Georgian Muslims in Afghanistan, but they vanished/assimilated into the population probably a century or more ago. Gorgin Khan's the last major Georgian ruler mentioned before the Hotaki revolt against the Safavids in the 1700s.Tombseye 06:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tombseye, I say only about NOT ASSIMILATED Georgians. Ajarians and mentioned above Georgians in Turkey are Muslims, but they are not culturally and linguistically different from the rest of Georgia. They are ETHNIC GEORGIANS. Total amount of Georgians in Afganistan is about 300,000, about 50% of this population identified himself, as Gurjs (Georgians). With best regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze. 6 January, 2006.

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

Hello Dr. Levan, I'm just wondering though when this figure was taken. I have no problem with it if it's true, but I was under the impression that indeed many thousands of Georgians were placed in Afghanistan and many became rulers such as the aforementioned Gorgin Khan who ruled Kandahar, but I haven't seen census data that points to Afghans who, other than possibly claiming some partial descent from Georgian ancestors they no doubt have since we know some were settled there, still claim Georgian ethnicity. I'm not disagreeing with your view of who ethnic Georgians are as I agree that Georgians regardless of religion are Georgians, but I am wondering where these figures are from as most of the sources I've consulted, including some books I've read about Georgia, including history, economcy, etc. mainly relate to some groups in the Caucasus, Russia, Turkey, while other regions aren't particularly referred to. The Iranic lands such as Iran and Afghanistan, I thought, had assimilated Georgians who no longer identified themselves as ethnic Georgians. Tombseye 09:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend! Unfortunately, your information is not true! With best regards, Levan Z. Urushadze, 8 January, 2006.

Look Levan, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm asking for some information here. You can't put up figures unless there is some reliable evidence. Where did the 300,000 Afghans claim to be ethnic Georgians in the 20th century?! I was under the impression that even in Iran, they have been largely assimilated and no longer constitute a viablely separate group as they apparently don't even speak Georgian any more. Tombseye 08:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

About 150,000 Gurjs (Georgians) in Afganistan and about 100,000 in Iran claim to be ETHNIC GEORGIANS. Georgians in Iran SPEAK GEORGIAN. With best regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, 21 January 2006

I'm just asking for a source though. What source or survey or report shows that hundreds of thousands of people still claim Georgian ancestry and speak Georgian Afghanistan and Iran? I'm not against the possibility that you might be correct, but this is the first time I've heard of actualy speakers of Georgian in Afghanistan still. Like I said, I was under the assumption that most had been assimilated by the 19th century and in Iran the actual number of ethnic Georgians, according to most reference books is relatively small (this would again assume that most have assimilated into bigger groups). Now I know there are Armenians still, but as for Georgians, I just wanted some source for this information is all. Thanks. Tombseye 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think a source is needed for statistics regarding the number of ethnic Georgians residing in Turkey, possibly in Iran and Afghanistan as well. The reason being that Turkey does not allow census data on ethnic minorities (it maintains that there is only one ethnicity/nationality in Turkey--the Turk). I personally would be very interested to see alternative census data. While in the Rizeli region and in Hopi, I conducted a very unscientific informal poll, but very few people claimed to be Laz (or perhaps they just didn't understand my Turkish ;) )--I got far more responses from people identifying as Hemşinli or just Turkish. So, like I said, I'm very interested to find better sources of demographic information on the Laz in Turkey. --Treemother199 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The number of Georgians in Turkey (minus Laz), is well above 1.5 million. I do not know where this figure comes from all I can say is that it is wrong, and their is no way of knowing either unless a census would be conducted (which would not happen) even then the data would not be 100% correct because some diaspora Turks are Georgian. The number is at least 3 million if not more Georgians of full/partial decent. Kusca (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected again

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

I'm not entirely convinced that page protection is necessary at the moment. There was a flurry of contentious edits earlier today, but they have stopped. It might have been interesting to see if they would start up again. However, it would be good to have some documented statement here from those involved about why they feel their version be better. --Gareth Hughes 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends! Yes, Stalin was ethnic Georgian, but he was a GREATEST ENEMY for Georgia: in 1921 he was a main organizer of occupation of sovereign Georgia by Bolshevik Russia; in 1921-1952 under Stalin's order were killed and jailed more than 100,000 Georgian patriots. Proceeding from mentioned above, Stalin was not a "Famous Georgian", he was a Famous Russian politician. With kind regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, Georgian historian. 5 January, 2006

To quote User:Tombseye:

Wikipedia should not be a nationalistic feel good encyclopedia to depict only people everyone likes or would like to represent them. If there were to be an Iraqis page (or an Iraqi Arabs page), Saddam would have to be there. Genghis Khan has to be on the Mongols page and Hitler is on the Germans page. Many Hungarians would argue for the inclusion of Attila and on the Romanians page we have Vlad the Impaler (although he could probably go both Hungarian or Romanian).

Please, I ask you, why does it matter that he was an enemy of his own people? He was still an ethnic Georgian. --Khoikhoi 00:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a serious issue about sensitivity in placing a picture of Stalin at the top of the infobox. --Gareth Hughes 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a recurring problem and I guess I might as well weigh in here. The sensitivity issue is a huge problem indeed, but I think it does shed light on the impact Georgians have had on the world scene to include Stalin, good or bad. He probably hurt Russians more than he did Georgians (for whom he gave cultural autonomy, but of course treated them as harshly as everyone else, being an equal opportunity tyrant). Overall though, what's interesting is that when given a choice people want to be 'represented' by their most attractive and those who are seen as positive influences but that's subjective. Some people blanche at having Mao on the Han Chinese page and instead prefer Yao Ming. Mao's pretty one of the icons of China, good or bad. Genghis Khan's a hero in Mongolia, but a villain in China. I don't think it really hurts the image of Georgians to include their most famous son, because if people are going to be so narrow-minded as to believe that one person can represent them, they probably have a lot of issues anyway. Generally, this seems to be a way to gloss over the past for people and a pride thing rather than academic. With that said, Gareth makes a good point regarding sensitivity issues, but with that let's face it, no one will ever agree as to who should represent them. Might as well put it to a vote or something and let the chips fall where they may as with the "Macedonians" page. Tombseye 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Stalin was ethnic Georgian, but he was a tyrant and "Hitler" for his own people! He was one of the GREATEST ANTIGEORGIANS in the history of Georgia! He identified himself as Russian. Proceeding from mentioned above, I ask you to remove Stalin's picture from the infobox. With best regards, Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, 6 January, 2006.

Yes, but you need to realize that this article is not just for Georigans. Khoikhoi correctly put it when he said that these articles are for everyone on wikipedia. You can't just put people up that you personally approve of. Stalin is probably the most famous Georgian ever and I'm not at all saying he was a good person and so think he needs to be on the collage of Georgians. These 'controversial' figures are resisted by lots of other people. On the Han chinese page there is resistance to Mao. On the Persian page there is resistance to Khomeini. And actually many people probably think Stalin was a Russian, which we all know is not true. Thus, the need for him to be on the Georgian people page. Tombseye 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He is added on the article, but, please, remove Stalin's image! With best regards, Levan Z. Urushadze, 8 January, 2006.

Ok, his image was removed, but I don't see any reason to not mention him at all in the article. I added him back among the Georgian politicians. --Red Star 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Stalin needs to be on the list of notable Georgians. Even if he ruled in the Soviet Union and occupied Georgia it doesn't change the fact that he was indeed Georgian. Saying he wasn't georgian and was actually Russian is like saying Hitler was a German. Hitler was Austrian and as a German I would be offended to be told he was a German. Plqgnmv 18.57 (New Zealand time) 2 April 2007

Well that's not the same thing because Austrians and Germans, especially in that time, were the same people ethnically. They still speak the same language today, and the reason they consider themselves different is because Austria lsot the war against Prussia back in the 19th century to control Germany. Hitler was a German, nobody would contradict that. --Red Star 14:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would contradict that. Have a look at the article Austrians. It shows that Austrians and Germans are different people and both Germans and Austrians recognise this. Same language does not mean same people. --plqgnmv 6:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is true, although it is important to note that the Austrians were historically seen as a German people along with the Prussians, Bavarians, etc. Nowadays the various German peoples have assimilated into a single German identity and the Austrians see themselves as a different group due to different nationality. Both Red Star and plqgnmv are correct in this case. 121.222.38.56 (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

title

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

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

Ibero-Caucasian People???

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

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

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

Photos

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

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

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

)

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

File:Geopeoplerev005.jpg

How about this one? Ldingley 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the idea now, a random choice. Well, not a bad idea, but one problem with it: Similar photos for most other nations are carefully selected, and I am afraid an average wikipadian already asumes this to be so for all articles about nations (as did I for Georgians). At least for this reason, I think selectivness will be good in this case. Ok. The saddest thing now to me is that we are having four or more art people here, as since the chocie is random this means that art people are overrepresented not only in these photos, but on wikipedia too. I think that Stalin should be included, but if I am in the minority I will not insist (but I do not think that I am in the minority :)). qarTvelebisTvis: raRac davwere saqarTvelos portalis ganxilvaze da naxet. Tamokk 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Who else should I add besides Stalin? Sergo Orjonikidze, Beria, Philip Makharadze, or maybe Igor Giorgadze?. Also i will suggest to Austrians to add Hitlers photo as he was very famouse and include also Mussolini for the Italians. Ldingley 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange, majority of people on Irish people are of arts and literature. And what is wrong with it? Are you sure Stalin is a better candidate than Jansur Kakidze and Liana Isakadze? Ldingley 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Stalin is out of the question. As much as Hitler is for Austrians or Germans. Ldingley 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the newly proposed gallery is quite balanced and well selected. It represnts Georgia's monarchic past, ancient cultural heritage, modern cultural achievements, and most importantly, prominent leaders at various stages of the development of the Georgian national identity and state-building. Stalin was involved in none of these processes. On the contrary, he initiated the events which destroyed Georgia's first attempt to create a modern European nation-state that led to the demoralization of the Georgian society for the subsequent seven decades. As for Saakashvili, good or bad, he is the current national leader and he did start a new stage in the consolidation of the Georgian state, a process which is largely regarded as a delayed transition in the post-Soviet history of Georgia. Many foreigners learned about Georgia after the Rose Revolution. Kober 19:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

File:Geopeoplerev006.jpg

Here last one. Ldingley 20:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok lets leave Stalin out. About Saakashvili: I opose his inclusion not because he is "good or bad", but exactly because he is "the current national leader". If we want take into account the recent political events we'd better put the photo of Zurab Zhvania, who passed away. He was involved in Rose revolution, and if not much of an "action figure" during the revolution, the political changes of which kober speaks were first initiated by him.

Or Isakadze for Saakashvili.

Dear Tamokk, I would not make a big deal of the infobox pictures. In addition, I would not argue with User:Ldingley, because he ha done an amazing job about the articles related Georgia and Georgians. As far as Stalin, I would say No :):) and I think I represet the majority of Georgian citizens. He might be well known person, but putting him here, because that he was a member of Georgian ethnic Group is just wrong. He did not belong to Georgian Georgian Nation-State or has done anything exceptional for it. Most of all, I think Georgia has enough well known people than being proud of Stalin or Beria, when really there is nothing about them to be proud of. As far as Misha's picture I think Saakashvili kind of deserved to be there. If anybody disagrees his political moves, at least he was elected by 94% od Georgians citizens for God's sake. :) If you would like we cn put Nikoloz Baratashvili, Vaja Pshavela, John Bagrationi and etc. There is not any ranking or Georgians or something like that. As Akaki Tsereteli would say nobody can count Georgian heroes. Sosomk 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "Saakashvili kind of deserved to be there". Right, we should not make big deal of these pictures, they are not about deserving or something. I did not say anything about Mishas politics, my point was that I do not like the idea of taking an acting political figure, whoever he is, as a representative of a nation. Tamokk 00:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean that thanks God Georgia is a democratic nation-state and 96% of the Georgian people elected him to be the president of the nation. Indeed, you have to deserve to be on the infobox. I can't just go ahead and put my pic on there. As far as living people, Sean Connery is also a living guy and he is on the Scottish people page. Sosomk 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One question then. If somebody else get elected president of Georgia soon should we remove Saakashvili and put him. It is your personal point ov view that Saakashvili deserved to be in that gallary. Regards. dzalian ar gabrazde, bobosdabolos qartul vikipediashi raindis wodeba moganichet. tamok

Tamok, if you really want, we can even put your picture there. :) Ldingley 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's not already there? :) Misha is know for his humble personality. Tamokk 18:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh :) I never understood why Georgians tend to dislike Presidents of their country :)Ldingley 18:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, we always elect them with no less then 80%. Tamokk 18:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Like Gamsakhurdia who was ousted by armed criminal coup? Or Shevardnadze by armed roses? :) Ldingley 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not you want to visit Goergia? No coups seem to be coming up in the near future. :) Tamokk 19:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I visited Georgia during the Abkhazia war, first coup in Tbilisi, Rose Revolution and so on. I don’t want to see any coups. God forbid. That time of coups and wars has ended in Georgia. Ldingley 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW can you help out with these articles? Nino Chavchavadze and Alexander Chavchavadze. Ldingley 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like, but with my limited knowledge ნწუ, as we say in Georgian nowdays.

Hey guys. Let's give Misha a chance. If he succeeds in successfully lobbying for Georgia's ascension into NATO within the span of two years, we'll keep his photo in the gallery forever. If he fails, we will replace his photo with that of Comrade Giorgadze. :))))--Kober 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Luis, I'll join you on both articles tomorrow. Now I am going to bed. Goodnight, Wikipedia. :)--Kober 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comrade Giorgadze, that was a good one :0) good night Kober! Ldingley 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tamokk, thank you so much for the award, it made me very happy. In addition, I was not mad, I was just offering my point of view. You know, a good argument is a foundation of making a right decision. Personally, I like Misha a lot and I hope that we are not gonna have any Coup in the future :):). Look at Thailand, the Prime minister is at the Assembly in NY and he is not longer in power in his country :). I hope that the time of confusion and insecurity is gone and today Georgian Society should be united. We might disagree politically, but we will have to share our social consensus about the freedom and libery of the nation and its efforts towards the better future through liberal democratic way which I think is already a built-in aspect of our people. Sosomk 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is crazy not to have a picture of Stalin in the infobox, he was the most important and influential Georgian in history, he should be represented; same goes to Hitler. I'm assuming his pic was omitted before because it might be offensive, don't worry about it being offensive..nobody's going to burst into tears or anything just because of a picture.

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

getting off the topic :)

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

Yes, you have a point. He is still a part of history, but he is not the subject of national pride. Sosomk 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

About national pride: he certainly was, ask our forefathers :).

I don't know how many of your forefathers went in the WW2, but my ancestors fought a lot, some of which never came back and I am proud to say that I am their descent. (Not Proud of Stalin.:) Sosomk 16:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

King Tamar

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

Just a thought.

Beautiful women

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

The phrase was changed as per your request. Thanks for reading the article! Ldingley 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is more of a common knowledge stereotype. It is not a POV statement. Sosomk 19:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I doubt that many Georgian women are beautiful, but that could be said for Armenian, Russian, Scandiavian, Italian, French or almost any other nation, could it not? JdeJ 19:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that. You can go ahead and edit the articles about Armenian, French, Italian women. I don't think that statement makes that much of a differece or requires that much of a discussion. I am sure we can cite it using on of the travel guides to Georgia. Sosomk 20:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

for example, germans are coidered talented in music, mozart, bach beethoven and etc. Sosomk 20:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Austrians would like hearing their greatest composer being called a German :-) Ok, but two things:

1. You could easily name many famous German composers. If we talked about French, Italian or Spanish beauties, most people could name quite a number. Katie Melua is very cute, but that's the only Georgian woman I've heard of.

2. Even so, you don't find the page on Germans saying that "Germans are very musical" but you do find a section devouted to famous German composers and musicians. It's not the fact I object to here, it's the non-encyclopedic way it's presented. JdeJ 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, man, you really got on that one:):). I hope Austrian don't mind that I am being poltically incorrect about their Austrian-Bavarian pride. However, I can provide a counter-argument that for that time it was Holy Roman Empire. Sosomk 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Shiite Georgians

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

not most but ALL. this you have as an insider info! Babakexorramdin 22:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Most Georgians in Iran are Shia Muslims according to Iranica:

In conclusion, it can be said that the Georgians in Persia have at all times displayed a special talent for adaptation to their new environment. While their Armenian neighbors in Faridan have remained Christians, they long ago espoused Shiism, and, while their Circassian neighbors at Dez-e Kord, near Aspas, have survived as a tight-knit community, they have become thoroughly assimilated to the surrounding population. [1] Grandmaster 06:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. I’ve just consulted the Encyclopaedia Georgiana (former Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia) article on Fereydoon, and the Georgians in Iran appear to be “almost exclusively Shiite Muslims” (sic). I’ve some additional remarks concerning the article. I think the list of famous Georgians is redundant since it is just a recapitulation of the List of Georgians. Also, the history of Georgian-inhabited regions in Turkey and Azerbaijan is too much detailed while there is no word about how the Georgians appeared in Iran. The article also lacks the info on Georgians’ demographic problems in Abkhazia. I’ll soon try to fix these problems and to add some more info on the ethnogenesis of Georgian people. Thanks,--Kober^Talk 08:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don’t agree with that. You can’t include all religions of the minorities for the ethnic people info box. For example the article English people does not include converted Muslim English (which number grows every year) and English Eastern Orthodox. Why not include Jehovah’s Witnesses which outnumber Georgian allegedly Shia Muslims in Iran? I think the better solution is to include all Islamic communities under one umbrella of Islam. Thanks. Ldingley 16:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. I am not sure where you got the information on the number of Georgians who are associated with Jehova's Witnesses but the Shia Georgians in Iran are not a recent or an insignificant phenomenon. The community is more than 300 years old and historically has to do with a very important turning point in the Georgian history. I think it should be mentioned separately, just like Orthodox and Catholic Georgians are not listed under 'Christianity'. Parishan 18:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that Azer gardash. Sure, fereidun Georgians played some part in the development of agriculture and construction of bridges in Persia but that has nothing to do with the dominant religion of the majority of Georgians which is Christianity since officially 327 A.D. The number of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Evangelists and Baptists is growing in Georgia and far outnumber the Fereidun Georgians. I don’t want to unite Orthodox with catholic because it will cause some controversy and dispute. Muslims are far more united to be discomforted by sub-divisions of their religion. When people see that infobox, they might presume that Georgians (4 million of them) are mix of 4 dominant religions which is not true. Dominant is the Orthodox Church, the second largest might be Catholic, Muslims in Adjaras villages Khulo (even in Adjara the Muslims are not majority) and some 50,000 Diaspora members in Iran. If we follow your argument, than we should change many info boxes and specifically section on religion and include all religious convictions of every Diaspora which belong to the ethnic group mentioned in the article. In the Georgian Caucasus, there are some villages which were converted into Judaism. Should we include Judaism as the religion of Georgians too? Lest not confuse the reader who has no previous background in Caucasian affairs. P.S. You should seriously fix up numerous POVs on Azerbaijani people article. When reading that article, I presume that Azeris are Persians by origins rather than independent nation. I have told Grandmaster about it before. Ldingley 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Georgians are a living ethnic group, with their own traditions and culture. Not what you might call simply as Diaspora. Iranian Georgians are a community with its own symbols and history. This is something else than converted Johova wittnesses who are from families of Orthodox Christians. If you treat the Iranian Georgians as fellow Georgians, then you should include the Shiite islam as one of the religions of the Georgian people. --Babakexorramdin 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is a Georgian

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

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

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

Article Reorganization/Clean up

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

Short History

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

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

Georgian character

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

Feel free to edit the article, add more info and fix errors. Thanks. Ldingley 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Added NPOV section tag. -66.41.27.200 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, someone removed the NPOV tag because "the dispute is not outlined in talk page". Fine. I added the tag because it is vague and not objective. I could say that people here in Minnesota are "irreverent, good humored, and generally high spirited" and "are proud of their culture, language, history, and traditions". Some people would agree with that. Is it true? Probably not, despite people wishing it were. What this section needs is not a feel-good vagueness, but a description of what makes Georgian character DISTINCTIVE or UNIQUE, or what is important to the majority of Georgians. What seperates them from other cultures? Until that question is resolved, the tag goes back up. Oh, and I think the italicized text needs to be cited in the section, not linked as superscript. -66.41.27.200 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Minnesotean culture or character and Georgians are one of the most distinguished peoples of the world. SosoMK 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap. I'm going to forego wasting my time writing a profanity-laced response and simply say How dare you say that. Not only do you apparently know nothing about Minnesota, but your statement is pure NPOV. Heck, it could be the definition. HOWEVER...I am not going to throw the NPOV tag back up, because that would violate the "revert three times" rule. Oh, and it's "Minnesotan". -NordsternMN 02:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image removed

I've removed this image because:

• It's not about a Causasian Iberian soldier but an Iberian warrior.
• It's not a Roman relief but an Iberian relief.
• And it's not in Rome but in Madrid, at the National Archaeological Museum of Spain.

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

Contradiction?

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

Nationalism and national unity are not the same. Ldingley 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

POV for Georgian Character

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

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

and

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

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

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

Added references, from two books. Also slogan Georgia for Georgians was not used widely, only by some political fraction. Please consult sources. Ldingley 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. Although I understand that the slogan was used by a small political faction, I'm wondering if you have a more recent citation for the 'nationalism is rarely felt' since your current one dates to the 1960s where communism officially disallowed any nationalist ideas.

Also, what do you think about breaking out the artistic section, especially since it is still lacking a source?

Finally, reviewing the long quote, it states that "Women are highly esteemed in society and are accorded a respect endowed with great courtliness," which seems to understate (or at least try to put nicely) the problematic position of most Georgian women. Yes, they are highly respected in certain ways, but like the West before the 1960s, it comes at the price of general submissiveness to males. The massive double standard in extra-marital sexual adventures, the reports of the kidnapping and raping of women who then have to marry their rapists (both linked to women having no value for marriage when not a virgin) are examples that I'm thinking of. --vckeating 15:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes i do have recent reference. In the book: Georgia, Armenia & Azerbaijan by Tom Masters, Richard Plunkett. Go to chapter on Georgia and see introduction by Tom Masters which includes: "Nationalism is rarely felt." The book was published in 2004. From my own experience with Georgia (i travelled there and studied Georgia for a long time) i completely agree with this characterization. Artistic section should stay, there are tons of sources for that and there is no point to attach them after every sentence. Ldingley 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. However, there are many other sources that would contradict this. See, for instance,

Nelson & Amonashvili "Voting and Political Attitudes in Soviet Georgia" Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 4. (1992), pages 694-7 for highly felt nationalism and a differential distrust of other nationalities between Communist and Round Table supporters, the latter of whom were more likely to have a negative attitude toward Ossetians (34%) and Abkahzians (40%).

There is also a report by Hann, "The Anthropology of Ethnicity" Anthropology Today, Vol. 10, No. 2. (Apr., 1994) that notes the classic (highly primordial) nationalist rhetoric employed by Georgian scholars during an anthropology conference.

More recently, Suny, "Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations" The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 4. (Dec., 2001) has a great discussion on the creation and continuation of Caucasian national identities, including Georgia. See especially page 874 for the development and perpetuation of national identities within the Soviet space.

The point here is that there are many, many peer-reviewed academic articles out there that discussion the existence of nationalism in Georgia - and this was just me doing a quick JSTOR search. Though a Lonely Planet guide might suffice if it was the only source we had, unless you have peer-reviewed articles that back up your claim, I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert your correction. --vckeating 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is Saakashvili?

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

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

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

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

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

Btw, Mr Okruashvili is not a defense minister. --Kober^Talk 06:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

1.5 million Georgians in Turkey?

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

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

Sergo Ordzhonikidze

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

DNA

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

Georgian DNA Issue

Hallo Ebizur, I am happy to see you being so interested in genetic origins of so many peoples, including Georgians. On Pages Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) and Georgians you claim Georgians to have 72% of J2 Haplogroup that is simply impossible. You also provided Sources that I assume you have not read enough. First of all, you used my Ref. on page Georgians claiming high frequency of G Haplogroup in Georgians to substantiate high frequency of J2 Haplogroup that is utter nonsense.

To be short, the sources you provided -- Ornella Semino et al., "The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective," Science Vol 290 10 November 2000 -- I checked http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.2145&rep=rep1&type=pdf and it contains no constantation that Georgians have 72% of J2 Haplogroup. On the contrary i provided credible and respectable source (That u later falsely attached to your dgujments) http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n3/fig_tab/5201934f2.html#figure-title that clearly demonstrates Georgians Having extremely high % of G Haplogroup (NOT J2) and moderately low J2 Haplogroup!!!! PLEASE, double-check your sources and provide cognitive, credible edition of the articles if you still think my position is not persuasive and based enough. BEFORE THAT, I HAVE TO change both articles (Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) and Georgians) containing incorrect info. Thnx for understanding and your contributions. Best regards, Niko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickniko (talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the sources Nickniko mentioned above. As best I can tell, the first source doesn't say anything at all about haplogroup J2 in Georgians, and the second source shows only a very small incidence of haplogroup J amongst Georgians. On that basis, I'm inclined at the moment to side with Nickniko on this issue. If I'm misreading the sources, or if there are other sources that say something different, I hope Ebizur or someone else can clear up the confusion. Simply reverting others' editing in a situation like this without getting involved in a talk page discussion, on the other hand, is not generally considered good practice and is likely to be treated as disruptive edit-warring. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 02:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I also checked the three sources which Ebizur supplied in his edit (all three of which I was able to find online). I was unable to find anything at all in the first two sources to support a claim of haplogroup J2 in Georgians. The third source (the 2003 Nasidze paper, available online here) does report a 72% frequency of haplogroup J2 — amongst one specific group of Georgians (those from Kazbegi, present-day Stepantsminda). I think we can assume this is where Ebizur got his 72% figure from for haplogroup J2 in Georgians — but I would say this is a misinterpretation as far as the entire population of Georgia is concerned. On this basis, I'm going to go ahead and revert Ebizur's edit (sorry, nothing personal, but your sources just don't seem to substantiate what you're claiming here). As for Ebizur's sources, I'm actually inclined to keep them, since they really do appear to support Nickniko's claim that haplogroup G is dominant in Georgia. If anyone disagrees, go ahead and improve on what I've done, but please come here to the talk page with anything potentially controversial. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 04:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The following material on Nickniko's talk page is relevant to this discussion. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 05:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Andronikashvili

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

Christian people is inappropriate

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

There are no single group in the world which has 100% ethnic Christian population. However, majority of Georgians are Christians and those people are Christian people hence the category. You are damaging this article by removal of this category which is unproductive and will lead into further confrontation. Iberieli (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As you said There are no single group in the world which has 100% ethnic Christian population. You're correct, and that is precisely why no population in the world is described under the category Christian People. By inserting it, you're insulting every non-Christian Georgian as being less worth as a Georgian. It is an obvious case of discrimination and should be removed. JdeJ (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Full of original research, weasel words and peacock words

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

I have removed the section on Georgian Character. Whilst I largely agree with that section, that type of OR doesn't belong in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed JdeJ and I have tons of books and scholarly articles which will be used for editing this article. Kober I need your help thou :) We need to shape up with references history section, origins and so on. Also the issue with image should be solved. We can take the example from Armenians. Thanks. Iberieli (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I also recommend that a better source than the Encyclopedia of the Orient Encyclopedia of the Orient be used to derive the number of Georgians living in Turkey. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mite! I have plenty of scholarly sources, I do study ethnography and ancient Near Easter Languages for a while now and posses many books on topics of Caucasian studies, however, I do need help from others.  :) Iberieli (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Small" issue

I agree about Turkey and Iran, where the majority of Georgians (if not all) are Muslims, however, in case of Autonomous Republic of Adjara, we can justly say that there is a small community of Muslim Georgians there (mainly Khulo region) and Islam does not constitute the religion of the majority in Adjara. It is a wrong assumption that all Adjarians are Muslims, and therefore it is a Muslim region of Georgia. Iberieli (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question about Traditional Dress

This really isn't related to the article, but I'm dying to know what the name and function is of those little cylinders pocketed across the chest in rows. I've seen other Eastern European groups employ them in their traditional dress as well and I'd like to know more about it. D Boland (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently they're called Gaziri, and date back to the Caucasian wars of the mid-19th Century. They're for holding measured charges of gun powder for easy and precise loading of a firearm. Now a days they're obviously ornamental. This meager information was found in The Russo-Japanese War 1904-05 By Philip S. Jowett, Alexei Ivanov, Andrei Karachtchouk, Osprey Publishing. D Boland (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

About the picture on the "Part of a series on Georgians" sidebar

Who is the youg woman in the bottom right corner? -Leodmacleod, 23 December 2008, 23:36 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:020208 1.jpg

The image File:020208 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please update data on georgian population in canada 2200 and australia: 385 this is the sources:

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?breadcrumb=TLPD&method=Place%20of%20Usual%20Residence&subaction=-1&issue=2006&producttype=Census%20Tables&documentproductno=0&textversion=false&documenttype=Details&collection=Census&javascript=true&topic=Ancestry&action=404&productlabel=Ancestry%20(full%20classification%20list)%20by%20Sex&order=1&period=2006&tabname=Details&areacode=0&navmapdisplayed=true&

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/highlights/ethnic/pages/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&Code=01&Table=2&Data=Count&StartRec=1&Sort=1&Display=All&CSDFilter=5000

little georgian is very sweet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.63.202 (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is about Georgians of all countries.

Gamarjobat, Megobrebo. This article had to be about all Georgians oin all countries. I see that this is now mainly about Georgians of Georgia. I will point out to some thinsg which need more work. In the pictures, no picture is included from the Georgians of Iran and Turkey. I suggest one from Iran and one from Turkey be included. 2- the total populations of Georgians all over the world is not 7-8 million. Most Georgians in othe countries are counted twice among Georgians of georgia3.9 mil. Iranian Georgians and Georgians (and Laz)of Turkey are not included to this number. Also those in the republic of Azerbaijan and Russia might not be counted double. I would count meskheians in this number too, because they are not Turks. They are fro the bigger part Muslim Georgians. All and all the number will be closer to 5.5 worldwide that 7-8. Having said this out of this 5,5 million 3,5 million are Christians and and about 2 million are Myuslims. the figure 9.9 refers only to Georgia. Just count the Muslims Ajarains of georgia, Georgians and Laz of Turkey, Iranian georgiana dn meskehtian, you come around 2 Million. Also I think Shia not only Sunni hanafi should be mentioned but also Shia Islam. In Iran all are Shia and 60,000 is only the lower limit. In the reppublic of Azerbaijan those who are close to Azeris and interact with them are Shia. Those who are close to Avar and Tasakhur and interact withe them are Sunni and another group is Christian.Georgians are a diverse people and yet all are Georgians. Georgian are historically known to be very tolerant. It is certainly not republic of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Abkhazia or Russia. Georgia has always been prod of its diversity and regarded it as its cultural wealth. Kargad iq'avit. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Gives a negative impression

Unfortunately, this article does not give a favourable impression of Georgians. Looking at the picture at the top of famous Georgians, there are 18 individuals yet only two women. To avoid presenting a picture of Georgia as a highly unequal society, I would strongly encourage removing at least 4-5 of the males and adding 4-5 females instead.Jeppiz (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over who Georgians *are*

I've fully protected the page due to the simmering edit war. It appears the crux of the dispute is edit warring over who the Georgians *are*. Please communicate HERE, not just in edit summaries, and explain why certain groups should or should not be included. tedder (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I just removed a series of borderline and over-the-line personal attacks. Please comment on the article, not on your fellow editors. Consider this your only warning of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. tedder (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the point here is to take a calm and dispassionate look at how to best present factual information. There was a bit of that going on in the discussion, but it was overwhelmed by the uncivil nature of the commentary, on the part of more than one editor.

Please dial the personal nature of the commentary down. -Pete (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

dear Pete I think the facts are clear. There are many sources available. The numbers in the infobox were sourceed (ethnologue). No one else had ever removed that sourced material. Satt2 is seriously violating Wikipedia rules.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And why was my comment removed? How on earth was it a personal attack? --Kober^Talk 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I do not understand that too.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tedder, but if I'd been in his position, I'd have removed the whole discussion, too. Not as a judgment of the people participating, but to create an opportunity for a fresh start. Kober, leaving your comment in without the rest of the discussion would have created confusion, as it was related to another comment that was removed.

You guys can do whatever you want, but my strong recommendation would be that you take advantage of an opportunity to step back and make your points in a more collegial, dispassionate way. -Pete (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pete can you tell me what was uncivil in my last statement? I am very clear. All sources prove my point and the info was sourced. Ethnologue is used as source in more articles here in wikipedia. I do not see why there should be an exception in the rules of wikipedia here? Simply it is not "both" should do this or that. The nature of our talk is very different. I might have been harsh to him. Although he has been 3 times or more harsh to me. But that is not my point. The fact is that Satt is pushing his POV too much and gets angry and badmouths others. It is the "POV" thing which bothers me here.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your last comment is very simple. You chose to put your focus on the individual, rather than the article content. Please rethink your approach. -Pete (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My focus is not a particular individual. I would have reverted any other person would who pushed his POV and disrespected the source.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Carry on, then…and merry Christmas! -Pete (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Total number of Georgians

If one adds together all the populations listed in the infobox, the total number is between 5 million (low estimate of Georgians in Turkey) and 6.3 (high estimate). Why is then such a number (which is unsourced) stated as the total population? I know that these matters, so I won't change it for now, but it's really necessary that a source is placed for this number. Kostja (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is Stalin?

Hitler is on the Austrian people page and the List of Austrians page. Hitler is also on the German people page and the List of Germans page. Mussolini is on the Italian people page. Pol Pot is on the Khmer people page. Stalin is not even mentioned on this page, but he is on List of Georgians. He does not need to be in the picture area, but he does need to mentioned somewhere. Please pardon me for placing this above other comments, but I don't believe there is any disputing the facts I just stated here. von Harris (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He is by far the most recognized and known Georgian worldwide. Why is he not among the representatives of the Georgian people in the infobox? --Voyevoda (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

so is Hitler, why is he missing from Austrian people page? same reason. Iberieli (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Hitler should also be there. The infobox' function is to show the most influential and prominent people of a nation, not the most morally ones. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hush! Of course he shouldn't. The infobox' function is to show those people, whom the nation is proud of. Neither Austria, nor Georgia are proud with Hitler and Stalin.--Gaeser (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually (and possibly surprisingly), some Georgians still revere Stalin. (See, e.g., Gori, Georgia#Landmarks.) When monuments to Stalin were removed from public places earlier this year, the Georgian government had to act discreetly so as not to cause unrest (such as by removing at least one statue in the middle of the night). Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And what's with that? Are there no Neo-Nazies in Russia or Germany? The statue was removed then, when the government decided to do that. I don't think, that they should ask Communist party of Russia, should they? --Gaeser (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Most Georgians are proud of Stalin. It's not some minor fringe group, like neo-nazis in Austria. In Georgia, a Reverence for Stalin --DonaldDuck (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"...he was the most famous Georgian who ever lived..." Huh... and who did say this? Mr. Ziyadaliev who is himself from Azerbaijan. And btw the author of the article doesnt say most Georgians are proud of Stalin. The article should show that person whom the nation is proud of. Nowadays Stalin is a cult of tyranny. –BruTe ^Talk 06:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Was Stalin even completely Georgian? Yes, he was Georgian by birth (though nowadays, had he not been a monster, I'm sure the South Ossetians would be claiming him as he was part Ossetian and from South Ossetian...). But did he consider himself a Georgian his whole life? No, he alternatingly considered himself Soviet, and many think he was actually ashamed of being Georgian by birth, preferring to associate more with Russians. Other evidence supports this. He rarely spoke in Georgian, even to his own family, preferring Russian, a language with which he spoke with a heavy accent. He gave his children Russian names. Even very early on in his career, in the early 1920s, he is quoted to have made disparaging comments, singling out Caucasian peoples (including Georgians) as being uniquely wretched. For example, while Stalin agreed that most regions of the Soviet Union should have cultural autonomy, he did not believe this should be applied in his homeland (thankfully, it was, despite his feelings on the matter)- he stated "national cultural autonomy is meaningless and nonsensical in relation to Caucasian conditions" in his Marxism and the National Question script. He rejected Georgian (and Caucasian in general) customs and morals. He didn't even attend his mother's funeral. Stalin rejected his Georgian roots. Ethnicity is determined by self-identification, is it not? And yes, it is true that some Georgians during Stalin's lifetime were proud of him, but that's only because they didn't know what he had done, and furthermore, even if they had, he did not CONSIDER HIMSELF a Georgian, and therefore wasn't one. Stalin, while born a Georgian, did not live most of his life as one, and did not die a Georgian. --Yalens (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(as a sidenote, let me note that Hitler actually didn't consider himself Austrian either, he considered himself German =P)--Yalens (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he was an ethnic Georgian, what he considered himself is irrelevant in this case. Hitler had some base for his belief that Austrians were Germans because after all they share the same language and culture. In case of Georgia and Russia, none of that is true.--Polgraf (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Laz people

Laz people identified themselves as Georgian before the Turkish national identity existed in the region. Now they might consider themselves Turks because of centuries of cultural influence, including Islam. This was not always the case. Laz are not Georgian at this point but they are related people, this should be noted. The fact that Mingrelian and Laz sound very much the same to this day attests to this.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Argun, if you think that Laz identification as a related group of people somehow undermines Turkey's nationhood you are wrong. Turkey is a mix of Turkic people and indigenous people who were absorbed after conquering the lands from the Byzantine Empire. Just because Turkey recognizes all of the territory's original residents as Turks does not mean that they are Turkic peoples. Moreover, no one is describing Lazs as anything but related group of people.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Laz people used to identify themselves as Laz, not Georgian. Apswaaa (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkish PM Erdogan Georgian?

The questionable claim that Erdogan is Georgian has been raised many times but without reaching a consensus. Now the IP's trying to insert him in the article are back. I did my best to revert these controversial edits which have been made without discussion but I alonr cannot hold these IP's back. I have requested a protection for the page but this Erdogan matter needs to be resolved regardless. Feel free to join the discussion with whatever you have to say.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 01:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's pic

Regarding this change, I think Stalin is much more notable. The other guy is hardly known internationally at all. The pics should include the most notable Georgians. Nanobear (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Of cource, in Russia Stalin is much more notable than the National Hero of Georgia, but in Georgia his reputation has recently been fallen apparently. And by the way, Kakutsa Cholokashvili isn't "hardly known internationally" at all. –BruTe ^Talk 12:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously no Georgian would want to be associated with Stalin, including me, but I think the point of that slide is to display the most notable and recognizable Georgians. We are not trying to assort them based on moral judgments. Yes, Kakutsa is a national hero because he fought the Bolsheviks, yet there are many heroes like him who, for practical reasons, we cannot include. As for Stalin being renowned, I do not think he is renowned only in Russia and I would not agree with your implication that somehow this might be an attempt of pushing Russian POV on this page.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As a non-Russian and Non-Georgian editor (with no particular Stalinist leanings) I can say that Stalin was the only picture I recognized and along with Mikheil Saakashvili the only name I recognized. (Whoops and Katie Melua obviously although I didn't know she was of Georgian birth)I would also suggest to trim the infobox a little since it now takes up much more of the lead space than similar infoboxes in other articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnographic subdivisions ???

The section "Ethnographic subdivisions" is not neutral. The Abkhaz people (and Megrelians, Laz people, etc.) are not "ethnographic subdivisions" of Georgians. This Wikipedia is not Geogia's Wikipedia! --Kmoksy (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Large population of Mingrelians and Svans consider themselves to be Kartveli (Georgian) but Lazs are not and this is not the result of assimilation, Lazs always called as Lazi or Chani (Tzani) in the history but never Kartveli. Arguni (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

All Svans consider themselves Georgian. As for the Lazs, they are not included as presently Georgian. They are only included in the history section for time periods when they were not Turkish and in fact, when Turkey did not exist at all. So I am not sure what your problem is.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 17:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lazs in Ajara consider themselves Georgian.Iberieli (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Iberieli, If i say to you that "You are Laz" since childhood, you could say that "I am Laz". There is no doubt that this is the result of assimilation or entegration to Georgian community. This is not same situation with our subject. Lazs always known as Laz or Chani in the history, but not Kartveli. Arguni (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "ethnographic subdivisions" the correct terminology would be to say that the Georgian ethno-national group is a macro-ethnic group composed of several different ethnic groups. "ethnographic subdivision" makes no sense. Either a group is an ethnic group or it is not - but ethnic groups are not mutually exclsuive one can be of Mingrelian/Svan/Laz and Georgian ethnicity. The current definition is not defensible from an anthropological or sociological standpoint.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ethnographic subdivisions" was an unfortunate choice of words in this article and it has been removed some time ago when I made changes.I am not sure whether this post predates the reorganization or the editor simply did not notice; he is knowing for aggressive copy/paste posts.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 02:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkefied Laz

I do not need to be familiar with Georgian history to realize that it is unnecessary to describe Laz as "Turkefied" and completely impossible to include without providing a source. There are Laz people who are Turkish citizens and Laz who are Georgian citizens, there are Laz who are Muslims and Laz who are christians. They all speak the Kartvelian Laz language. Insisting on referring toto them en masse as "turkefied" and downplaying Laz presence in Georgia seems fairly close to using wikipedia ethnic cleaning. The section is about linguistic diversity in Georgia - it doesn't matter for the description of languages in Georgia whether LAz are tiurkefied or not.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to finish vandalism of some users. Some users want to spread their own ideologies with using English wikipedia, pls stop it and see the reality that how they are efforting to change this kind of articles as their ideology. English wikipedia must not be a playground of these people. Arguni (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Truth is dangerous for Georgia. Apswaaa (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Apswaa, pls don't make irrelevant comments here. Arguni (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arguni, are you Laz? Apswaaa (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i am a Laz Arguni (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

The current version of the article is in a deplorable state and needs some major improvements. Let's first start with the gallery. Not only it is a chronological mess, there are some persons who can hardly be regarded as notable representatives of the Georgian people. From what I can see from the article's history, WP:IDONTLIKEIT logic has been frequently applied in this case. However beautiful Princess Mary Eristavi, she has nothing to do here. The portrait of Vazha-Pshavela, the crowning merit of modern Georgian poetry, has been removed just because he looks "untidy" in the portrait. When it comes to international recognition, Erekle II is far more notable than George V of Georgia. The inclusion of Pyotr Bagration and Joseph Stalin is also questionable as none of them identified himself as Georgian. Ekaterine Dadiani is also marginally notable, but can be included in the gallery to represent the 19th-century aristocracy. The current Patriarch Ilia II is far more notable, both domestically and internationally, than the venerable Ambrosius. Any thoughts? --Kober^Talk 06:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1.As for Illia II, I personally do not have anything against including him. Ambrosius was here for a while and that is most likely why he stayed.

2. Because this article is about people of ethnic Georgian origin, and not merely Georgian nationals, I cannot agree with your claims on Joseph Stalin and Pyotr Bagration. If I come out tomorrow and say that I am French because I have lived in France and built my entire career there, that will not prevent me from being an ethnic Georgian, regardless of what I think. We cannot base this article on peoples self-perception.

3.Princess Mary, while not the most famous of all Georgians, brings a much needed diversity and lightness to a page previously dominated by insipid, old/middle aged men. This is especially true given the past comments in the talk section which alleged that the page presented an unfavorable, patriarchal image of Georgia. This may not be a problem for you, since I am thinking you are a male, but it is for many other people. I think Mary, along with Princess Dadiani, alleviates the aforementioned concerns

4.As for Vazha-Pshavela, I do agree that he is as far from being "tidy" as one can get, but at the same time I want to stress that while he may have been a notable poet, so were others, like Galaktion Tabidze and Grigol Orbeliani. I am not sure why so much emphasis on Vazha and his untidy looks.

5. As for Erekle II, I would say that outside of Georgia, Russia is probably the only place where he and his turban are more notable than George V. And that is largely because of the period leading up to the annexation of Eastern Georgia in 1801.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 07:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. My comment was not targeted at you, so no need for such defense arguments.

2. Ok, I see your point. What can Georgians do without their notable bad guys? :(

3. I don't think that my gender has anything to do with this discussion. That's not my fault that Georgia produced more notable males, than females. This is an encylopedia, not a fashion magazine. Princess Mary should go, imho. Was not she an Abkhaz on her father's side, btw?

4. Galaktion Tabidze is, without any doubt, comparable to Vazha-Pshavela, but we have no copyright-free image of him. Grigol Orbeliani... em.. cannot be compared to the magnitude of Vazha's poetry. Nikoloz Baratashvili can be an option, but again we have no free image of him.

5. "Russia is probably the only place where he and his turban are more notable than George V". Actually, no. Heraclius was well-known to the 18th-century Europe and Asia as suggested by several contemporary accounts. George V was hardly known to anyone else either in Russia or Europe until Brosset's translation of the Georgian chronicles. Even after that I cannot see how he is more notable than that unfortunate king with turban. If his turban is the problem here, I have to reiterate that Wikipedia is not a fashion magazine. --Kober^Talk 07:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Prokofi Shervashidze was as Georgian as they come. If you have a reliable source that claims otherwise, then I will have to reconsider my position.

I do not believe there is anything Georgians can do with their bad guys. I think, however, that Stalin is the only one of those bad guys whose importance outweighs whatever bad associations he may bring. For example, someone was trying to stuff Ordzhonikidze in and I am against that. Moreover, I was thinking about replacing Petre with his brother Roman - at least he is buried in Georgia - but I'm afraid Petre is much more notable.

The truth is that many men previously displayed on this article were not all that notable. Gia Kancheli is an example of that. I agree that Georgia produced more notable males than females and that is largely because of systemic inequality in the Georgian society; chivalrous as many in Georgia may be, chivalry does not make up for equality.I think we must attempt to balance.

I understand what you are saying about lack of suitable photographs for Galaktion but it seems that all images displayed, including those in other language versions of his page, have that problem. If we take a photograph of him at a younger age, we may get way with the life +50 years copyright tag. I am not sure about more recent photographs.

In summary, I am flexible with the replacement of Ambrosius and George V, but not Ekaterine, Mary, Lamara, or Ketevan.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 08:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

New Changes

The article originally lacked a missing image which I replaced. I fixed the dead hyperlinks to their proper Wikipedia sister pages. I added new content all cited and without synthesis (check it out and let me know if you disagree, or change according to source.) I also felt that the overall article read more like a piece of praise which is not in conjuction with WP:NPOV so I did my best, without changing the content, to convey the content without having to deal with weasle wording. For instance "so and so was definitely one of the greatest figures in the history ever" is a weasle type statement. Such statements need sourcing. For material that were not supported I added CN tags (x3) of which I actually found data on one, so there are yet two cn tag that beg somebody to find data on and to support it (or reword if false). I felt the modern history section was also short, so I added material from relevant sources. (feel free to check against sources and critique!) Again feel free to comment and Thank you! Dr. Persi (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think someone should add that there are AT LEAST 61,000 Ethnic Georgians living in Iran. Also, many Iranians have Georgian ancestry. Iran is not just land of Persians... don't forget it's a multi-ethnic nation and always has been. Persians are just from a few provinces in central Iran mainly and all Iranians I know absolutely love their Georgian cousins and you must remember that we are very close both historically and culturally. The only big difference is our religion.