Talk:Georgian scripts

Pre-Christian origin

Any discuss about Armenian Origin is not serious. There are few Georgian scripts made in 3'd century BC saved in National museum of Georgia. I am from USA, i study Kartvelian history in NY state university. I have seen this scripts done in III BC and talked to famous historians such like Chilashvili and others. Georgian Alphabet was made by Pharnavaz I of Iberia, 7 centuries earlier when Mesrob mashtots was born. --ChelseaFCG (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Letter values

It would be nice if the alphabet mentioned the values of the letters; that is, the sound(s) that each letter represents. -- pne (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Nominal Christianity"?

I was curious why the insistence on calling them nominal christians. Is there some reference to why they were any less "nominally Christian" than other European nations? Any reason it's particularly relevant to the linguistics? Certainly any country with official religion X could be called "nominally" X so I was curious why the emphasis here?

Claim to phonemicity

Georgian linguists claim that the orthography is phonemic.

This sentence makes it seem a controversial point. So is it phonemic? Or is it just the Georgian linguists claiming this while it isn't so? Or is it so but is the rest of the linguistic community unable to grasp this? Shinobu 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right Shinobu! This setence is really controversial in it's meaning. Because georgian orthography is phonemic indeed and it doesn't depend on what geargian linguists claim, so I think the sentence must be changed. It'll be more correct if said: orthography is phonemic in georgian language, or just :georgian orthography is phonemic. Rastrelli f 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Graphics

Might it be possible for the letters to be replaced by graphics rather than Unicode?

While my computer out of the box supports Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, Cyrillic and various Indian-subcontinental scripts, Georgian is a little esoteric.

It is ironic that someone searching for information on the Georgian alphabet needs a Georgian typeface installed to be able to read this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.154.189 (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I agree with this. I certainly won't install anything, but I'm so curious about what Georgian letters look like! All I see is question marks. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.216.65 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Transcription of ყ

It appears that the National Transcription of the letter ყ is a bit odd. Is there an apostrophe (as shown in the Latin capital Q’) or is there no apostrophe (as for the Latin lower-case q). I guess it could be either, the ყ is ejective (so one would expect the apostrophe q’) but there is no corresponding aspirate consonant, so the apostrophe could be left out without cause for confusion. Languagegeek (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the Georgian Transcription pdf, and it should be q’. Sorry everyone, I should have checked there first. Languagegeek (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Armenian origin of the Georgian alphabet

Please do not play down, especially in an unsubstantiated and unreferenced way, the ancient and well-documented theory about the Armenian origin of the Georgian alphabet. This may be sensitive to Georgian national pride but facts are facts, and no matter how hard Georgia's Stalinist historians tried to prove the opposite, they have failed. Do not get offended - Armenians might indeed have invented your alphabet. Possibly. But you controlled a large chunk of Armenia for several centuries. That may be the consolation. Peace. Pitael (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,everyone. The alphabet is the best invention of the humankind. If St. Mesrop invented Georgian alphabet, he deserves nothing but gratitude from us, Georgians.But did he really create it?Several traditions exist regarding the invention of Georgian alphabet. We want to learn more about it. It is a stupid thing to say that we are offended by Armenian tradition. Those who know history know that one has to check and double-check the existing sources. E.G Philip Longworth says in his introduction to `Russia` that `the early chronicles were composed to sustain the legitimacy and claims of princes rather to provide objective records of circumstances and events.` He speaks about Russian sources but this opinion is shared by the historians all over the world: We cannot just rely on sources, we must examine them, we must try to prove that they are correct.

Wikipedia tells us that Armenian alphabet is modeled after the Greek alphabet, supplemented with letters from a different source or sources for Armenian sounds not found in Greek. The evidence for this is the Greek order of the Armenian alphabet. Check whether Georgian and Armenian alphabets have the same order. They don`t.Most of Armenian history books do not mention that there was a certain Greek from Samosata Called Rufanos who helped St. Mestrop creat the alphabet. WHY? One way or another Mestrop knew Greek. Did he know Georgian and Albanian? The Armenian tradition says that Mestrop listened to Albanians and thus created their alphabet. I don`t know who can believe this. One has to be fluent in any language to create the alphabet of it. Any linguist can confirm it. Some Amrenian and European schollars think that the historian of St. Mesrop, Koryun was either Georgian or Georgian-Armenian (Check Wikipedia). WHY DOES NOT HE SAY SO? Maybe Geogians asked St.Mesrop to create their alphabet as well, he would not have been able to do it without the help of Georgians. The source does not tell us he knew Georgian, which is not related to Armenian language. It is possible that Koryun helped him creat Georgian alphabet but why does not he say so?

I would love to provide you with some information about Georgian alphabet. The German scholar Junker, H. `H holds that both Mkedruli and Khutsuri are based like the Armenian alphabet on Aramaic Pahlavi scripts. He also suggests Greek influence (`Caucasia. 1925-1927. I want to just remind you all that before Georgian alphabet a unique local form of Aramaic writing known as Armazuli existed in Georgia as demonstrated by the 1940`s discovery of a bilinigueal Greco-Aramaic inscription at Mtskheta, Georgia. Sir, Ellis H. Minns points out that the Georgian script must be derived from Aramaic as it has in their right places lettres corresponding to WOW, TSADE and QOPH. Armenian possesses these, but out of order. W. E. D. Allen writes: `The Georgian alphabet is a perfect instrument for rendering the wealth of varied sounds in the language: the letters give each different sound wiht accuracy and clearness and no other alphabet, including the Armenian compares with it in efficency. It would seem that the alphabet has a long and slow evolution to its present state of perfection, rather than it was invented by a foreigner.` ( Mr. Allen is the auther of `A history of the Georgian people`, London. `The present State of Caucasian Studies`` )

N. Marr, a leading linguist, while accepting the common opinion that the Khuttsuri was a Georgian Christian creation, considers the Mkedruli as a developments of a pre-hChristian Georgian script, which was modified in later times, under the influence of the Khutsuri. Some atribute the origin of the Khutsuri to the creator of the Armenian alphabet. Nowadays only some letters of the 2 scripts look alike.. Nina iberi (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina iberi (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk)

In a book ``Arménie. La magie de l'écrit`` edited by Claude Mutafian, Jean-Pierre Mahé writes in details how St. Mesrop created Georgian alphabet. Mr. Mahé does not invent anything. He repeats what Koryun wrote, if Koryun himself wrote about it, of course. So, Georgian king Bakour who was a highly educated man served in Pelastine between 380-394 and he met Masrop in Jerusalem. King Bakour tells Rufin d'Aquilée how Georgians were converted to Christianity by Nino in 334. (This is not the correct date, by the way.) He introduced an intrerpeter named Djala to Masrop and asked him to create Georgian alphabet. Bakour, who as Mr. Mahé explains later was not a king but a brother of King Artchil (410-425), brought Georgian children from different regions of Georgia to Palestine. Among those children, there where some from mountanous regions who were not even Christians. Thanks to Mesrop they were converted to Christianity. The children were sent back to Georgia. After having created shcools in Armenia and having created Albanian alphabet, Mesrop visited Georgia to check the progress of his pupils in 423. He was very pleased to see that King Archil did a great job. Education was prospering in Iberia. Mesrop told each of his pupils to `rester dans la verité` which means to remain followers of a true religion.

There was an Armenian intellectual Theotig (T`eotos Labkjundjian) who was the editor of the most precious Armenoun Daretsouyts (`` Almanac for Everyone``. According to him, Mesrop invented Armenian alphabet in 412. Mr. Mahé does not believe him. He belives in Moise de Khorène who confirms Koryun`s version. Well, this is Mr. Mahé`s business to believe whoever he wants but the story of creating Georgian alphabet by Mesrop, though beautiful, seems to be an attempt to glorify Mesrop. I am not going to write about how Mesrop created Albanian alphabet. It will be a long story. But I must tell you that Movses of Khoren is not considered to be a reliable source by foreign historians. Armenians defend fiercly the history written by him. Why? Nina Iberi March 2010

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 

In the same book `Arménie. La magie de l'ércit`, on page 84 we learn that the date of the copy of the Gospel was falsified. The colophon of the manuscript gives us the following date: 415 AD. So, it used to be considered that it was created just after translating the Bible into Armenian. But, we read on the same page that in fact, the colophon was falsified: `De notre Seigneur` which means since Christ, was added to the original `De l'ère arménienne` that is since the Armenian time. `The real date of this document is 96 AD, which still makes it one of the oldest dated Gospels` You can check the above mentioned infromation. So, someone wanted to make people believe that the above mentioned copy was the oldest. People used to falsify the information and they still do for differnet reasons. Sometimes to glorify a certain person, othertimes the purpose might have been more noble, e.g. to bring people together: one person created the alphabet of three Christian nations whose neighbours are Muslims and their strength is in their union. Mr. Mahé expresses similar idea. Koryun`s version is very beautiful but, there is and will be But. Lots of linguists believe that Georgian alphabet is not created by one person. Nina Iberi March 2010

Someone doesn't have to be offended to question your assertion. Is this really "well-documented"? You've only provided weblinks (one of them an encyclopedia). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Well-documented" sounds too bold and a bit Stalinist.:) Although Koryun's version is indeed the earliest recorded account on the origin of Georgian alphabet, it is the only version attributing the invention of this script to Mesrop. Please note, that Koryun was his disciple, and, true to a medieval tradition, he was inclined to glorify his mentor in all possible ways. It is just one of the versions and neither it nor a medieval Georgian one proves anything. They should be represented in a neutral way.--Kober^Talk 04:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Koryun's account is contemporary to the first appearance of the Georgian alphabet, (the medieval tradition is later), so it is of more importance, though of course not in any way conclusive. Meowy 23:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not conclusive evidence. But have a problem with this sentense: "but none of these traditions seems to have much currency as, in the view of modern scholars, the only convincing explanation for the similarities has to be the same influences rather than the same creator.[4]" Who says that??? What source? Pitael (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too - aside from the confusing wording, the stated source, "Unicode Demystified: A Practical Programmer's Guide to the Encoding Standard", seems very off-topic based on its title. Meowy 23:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be at least three arguments to support the Armenian origin of the Georgian alphabet: (i) Koryun's direct evidence of Mashtots' authorship; (ii) the absence of any inscriptions using Georgian alphabet prior to Mashtots (and plenty of evidence thereafter), and (iii) a strong resemblance of Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri to the Armenian alphabet (suggesting the same creator). [[[Special:Contributions/173.73.2.153|173.73.2.153]] (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)]

Sound values of the obsolete letters?

I'd welcome such an addition :)

And maybe be some info about the pronunciation of the old scripts as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnugh (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a separate Nuskhuri chart and list of obsolete letters. I got the information from the Georgian wiki: Georgian alphabet, from Old Georgian, and from the Georgian language entries for the obsolete letters. JFHJr (㊟) 23:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

IPA for ჩ and ც

The current article offers /tʃ/ and /ts/ as the IPA for ჩ and ც. ISO and BGN for the letters have an apostrophe, and the grammar by Howard Aronson, cited in Georgian language, says that the the sounds of these letter are aspirated, as ფ and თ.

Based on this i assume that the correct IPA for ჩ and ც is /tʃʰ/ and /tsʰ/. Please correct me if i'm wrong. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The source for the consonant chart at Georgian language explicitely says that the laryngeal distinction with affricates is between voiceless, ejective, and voiced while for the plosives it is between aspirated, ejective and voiced. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have Shosted & Shikovani. Aronson is available online and it says that ჩ and ც are aspirated and groups them with the stops on page 20. Frankly, it sounds weird to me, too. Maybe it's another point where the scholars' opinions differ. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right about that. Even if they aren't aspirated, they certainly form a class in the language with the aspirated plosives. There may be some sort of acoustic blurry line between aspiration and sibilant affrication. There are a number of sibilant affricates that are arguably aspirated despite descriptions of them as being unaspirated. Languages like Spanish and Ancient Greek that have [h] as an allophone of or a historical change from /s/ is also compelling evidence for this. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is Aronson available? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mesrop

To Divot: Instead of persistent edit warring, it would be great if you have used talk page for discussing your edits.

Koryun's piece is noteworthy for being the first written account about the origin of the Georgian alphabet and thus merits to be included in the article. Hence, it is already there. However, any medieval (semi)-legendary account including that of Koryun should be discussed in the light of credible modern scholarship. However pleasant to some nationalistic ears, Koryun should not be affored exaggerated trustfulness. To sell it to the reader as the prevalent scholarly opinion is hopeless original research. The wording on which you insist won't go: "The historians, for the most part, believe that the Georgian alphabet was created by Mesrop Mashtots (who also created the Armenian script around 405 AD). This viewpoint, based on the Armenian sources of the 5-7th centuries, is accepted by the most influential encyclopaedias". --Kober^Talk 03:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove it? I quote Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature, Donald Rayfield, Anatoli Novoseltsev (The History of East), Anahit Perikhanian, Victor Schnirelmann, etc. And, f.e. Cyril Toumanoff ("Studies in Christian Caucasian history", P. 105 : "A word must be said here about the rise of the Armenian and the Georgian alphabet. The invention of the former by St Mastoc (Mesrop), at the beginning of the fifth century, it is generally admitted fact"). Divot (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"The tradition has persisted in some of the modern history writing".... Britannica, Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia, Novoseltsev, Rayfield, Schnirelmann, etс. are some of the modern history writing? )))) Divot (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And what about Schnirelmann's "Georgian historians' somewhat morbid attitude towards Mesrop Mashtots is conditioned by their "desire to create a myth about pure and distinctive Georgian culture" ??? Divot (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedias are tertiary sources based on the scholars you have mentioned. Most of your soruces relate of tradition [by Koryun], not an established fact. You will still have to prove that this tradition is a version believed by "the historians, [for the most part]" as you claim. Also, the phrases like "...s accepted by the most influential encyclopaedias" is hopeless OR/POV. Please stop blindly reverting attempts at NPOV. --Kober^Talk 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

An obscure Russian historian rattling about others' "morbid attitude" can hardly be regarded a neutral and credible source. Not everything that you find on the net and meets your POV can be inserted in Wikipedia. --Kober^Talk 04:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Once more. I quote a lot of sources. You quote nothing. Can you prove your opinion? Divot (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What opinion? about NPOV? Yes, I can. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Your sources and the info on Mesrop are still there (with the exception of that Russian which does meet the NPOV policy). I just rendered the wording more neutral and in line with sources.--Kober^Talk 04:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Donald Rayfield (The Literature of Georgia: A History[1] by Donald Rayfield, professor of Russian and Georgian at the University of London, is the first and the most comprehensive study of the literature of Georgia that has ever appeared in English) - "It has been believed, and not only in Armenia, that all the Caucasian alphabets — Armenian, Georgian and Caucaso-AIbanian — were invented in the fourth". Is it WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV or WP:OR? Divot (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Victor Schnirelmann is a famous Russian historian. Why he is not neutral? Can you prove it? Divot (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I have never heard of him. He is not neutral because accusing others of "morbid attitude" is not a neutral opinion. His words proves that.--Kober^Talk 04:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"His words proves that" - it is only your opinion, not more. Divot (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Is this 213.87.80.244 your ip [1]? Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? --Kober^Talk 04:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Is this 78.139.137.162 your ip? Divot (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Want to file a checkuser case? --Kober^Talk 05:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I only want your Reliable sources. With quotes, of course. Divot (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You can read, can't you? I have left your sources largely intact. I just neutralized a blatantly POV/OR/SYNTh wording. And that ip involvement should be checked for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. That's what I mean by checkuser case.--Kober^Talk 05:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. You have left Britannica's "The Armenian and Georgian alphabets, created by St. Mesrob (Mashtots) in the early 5th century ad, were also based on the Aramaic alphabet" (nothing about relate of tradition), Novoseltsev's "Not without its help national alphabets in Georgia and Albania have been invented" (nothing about relate of tradition) etc. You have left Schnirelmann's "Georgian historians' somewhat morbid attitude towards Mesrop Mashtots is conditioned by their "desire to create a myth about pure and distinctive Georgian culture".

By the way, what about "This viewpoint, based on the Armenian sources of the 5-7th centuries (relate of tradition [by Koryun]), is accepted by the most influential encyclopaedias ...."? It seems to me, it is a correct version. Divot (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Schnirelmann's "The value of the past. Myths, identity and politics in Transcaucasia" is highly quoted book (see Google Scholar). Who says that "He is not neutral"? Divot (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view).

So, because now we have a lot of first-class academical sources with Mashtots, we must describe it "The historians, for the most part, believe". Please, don't change that description. Divot (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The description needs to be changed whether you like it or not. Your prose is laden with weasel words, original research, improper synth and suffers from serious POV issue. Your randomly chosen citations are not helpful as they, as I pointed out, speak only of a historical tradition by Koryun, not about a fact established by modern scholarship.--Kober^Talk 03:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I noted that you frequently misquote or misinterpret the passages you cite. For example, you cited Toumanoff: "A word must be said here about the rise of the Armenian and the Georgian alphabet. The invention of the former by St Mastoc (Mesrop), at the beginning of the fifth century, it is generally admitted fact". Does Toumanoff says anything about Mesrop being the inventer of the Georgian alphabet?

As for your beloved quote from that Russian guy (even if we assume that it is a citable one), the phrase "болезненное" is to be translated as "painful" not "morbid" which you have invented to impart the citation more "strength".--Kober^Talk 04:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, painful. Your version is more correct. Divot (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"A word must be said here about the rise of the Armenian and the Georgian alphabet. The invention of the former by St Mastoc (Mesrop), at the beginning of the fifth century, it is generally admitted fact". Toumanoff says "The invention of the former" about "Armenian and the Georgian alphabet", not only about Armenian. Divot (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously not the case. If it were, what would be the latter here? Former clearly refers to the Armenian alphabet only. — N-true (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't use Toumanoff's citation in the topic.Divot (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mesrop Mashtots

I believe that the following wording "The historians, for the most part [3] [4] , believe that the Georgian alphabet was created by Mesrop Mashtots" are not even nearly neutral, because the fact is the nation who wrote "The martyrdom of saint Shushanik" shortly after having adopted Mesrops alphabet could only have written few basic sentences but not a masterpiece like "The martyrdom". Why nothing about it is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.54.202.3 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is a valid argument. In case of the Armenian alphabet, the Armenians managed to translate the Bible which is more than "few basic sentences". [[[Special:Contributions/173.73.2.153|173.73.2.153]] (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)]

Hi. Ghazar Parpeci, an Armenian historian of the fifth century writes that St. Mestrop created Armenian alphabet. Parpeci does not say that St. Mestrop created Georgian and Albanian alphabets. Why? Geogian historian Iv. Javakhishvili, who studed Coryun`s work, claims that the creation of Georgian and Albanian alphabets is added to Coryun`s work in the sixth century.

I would love to let everyone know that in Dusheti, Georgia, a stella with Georgian alphabet is found. It is dated appr. 367 AD. Linguists and historians are still learning the origin of Georgian alphabet. I am sure there will be new discoveries. Nina iberi (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina iberi (talk • contribs)

Armenian origin

There is the authoritarian Russian scholar Perikhanian mentioned in the article. He worked in Russia but he is ethnic Armenian which along with the wording "painful attitude" and "Georgian historians' desire to create a myth about the pure and distinctive Georgian culture" makes this article non-neutral and totally nationalist towards Georgia. If we speak about neutrality in wikipedia, I think someone has to pay attention at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.54.202.3 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"painful attitude" - Victor Schnirelmann's words. He is Russian scholar and ethnically Jewish. Divot (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Armenian origin

I ask Divot to read my comments. I am Nina Iberi. Armenian alphabet is based upon the Greek alphabet. Are you offended by it? We, Georgians try to discover as much as possible about the origin of our alphabet. Because we, differ from Armenians, have doubts that Georgian alphabet is created by a foreigner does`t mean we are too poud. What you are saying is ridiculous. Each historian and linguist studies each case carefully. Don`t you know? As I have written already that there is an Armenian historian of the same period who does not mention that St. Mestrop created Georgian alphabet. Did you know about it? Read my comments for more info. about Georgian alphabet. Nina Iberi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes he may be jewish but Perihonian is Armenian and besides whoever they are thing they say are not neutral that is what I said above. Their wording is nationalist that is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.54.202.3 (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is only your opinion, and you are nor Reliable source (see WP:RS). Divot (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The issue raised by the anon is legitimate. Your recalcitrance to NPOVfication of the text speaks of your own nationalist bias and unreliability as an editor. It seems to me I'm wasting my time. I will have to get third party editors involved.--Kober^Talk 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No priblem, you can call third party editors. Divot (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 to divot  

And what a reliable source you are that always quote other people espessially those of Armenian origin who spread nationalistic ideas. Whatever my point maybe I am certain there are people more qualified and authoritative than you and Peritonian or Perihonian or whatever who will sooner or later get this article improved. Yet you say I am not a reliable source and Perihonian is. Well I have not seen his articles anywhere here and in the internet anad it is the first time I have heard of him at all. Who says he is reliable at all - the books he wrote, well I have several too. You have only got quotes on others but not any reliable evidence that anything from what is said has ever been proven. I mean the article says "It has been believed [3] [4] that the Georgian alphabet was created by Mesrop Mashtots (who also created the Armenian script around 405 AD)" Who believed it and what historical evidence is there to it. When one says I did something that has to proven and what you have is historician who says Mesrop created alphabets. Likewise Georgian tradition atributes the creation of Georgian alphabet to Parnavaz King of Iberia but the data is not as well proven. It happened in the 4 c. bc. Than we can suppose with equal posibility that Armenian alphabet was created by Georgian author due to several similiriarities. Then you said I am not a reliable source. Well you can open wikipedia at any page and see that "The martyrdom of saint Shushanik" was indeed written by Georgian author and in Georgian language shortly after the convertion to christianity which would be impossible if Mesrob had really created Georgian alphabet. You should read more. Than there is pre-christian Georgian inscription in Asomtavruli found by Chilashvili in Nekresi. But this article is not neutral it just keeps saying Mesrop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.54.202.3 (talk • contribs)

See WP:NOR. Divot (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. Your POV pushing and inability to engage in a meaningful disucssion is becoming increasingly worrisome. Why are you eliminating the fact that the only original source on Mesrob's role is Koyrun? --Kober^Talk 17:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not difficult to note that your prose is based on the carefully selected sources you found on the net. Tamaz Gamkrelidze is far more prominent and internationally acclaimed scholars that those Russian guys. Why have not you used his research? --Kober^Talk 17:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Tamaz Gamkrelidze is "far more prominent and internationally acclaimed scholars" than Britannica, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Glen Warren Bowersock, Lenore A. Grenoble, Donald Rayfield, Igor Diakonov etc. Divot (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. I have compared Gamkrelidze (a favorite of Armenians, btw, for his well-known theory) to those two obscure Russian scribes. And you have apparently no answer to my question regarding Koryun, right? --Kober^Talk 03:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can compare all what you want. But it is WP:NOR. We just can use Reliable sources (see WP:RS). Divot (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Which question? Divot (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can read, don't you? I have posted a question regarding Koryun just a bit above. Admit Divo: You're good in avoiding answering unconvenient questions, but not so strong in result-oriented discussion. What's WP:NOR? Man, what are you talking about? --Kober^Talk 14:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You said "However, any medieval (semi)-legendary account including that of Koryun should be discussed in the light of credible modern scholarship". Ok. Because Lenore A. Grenoble, Donald Rayfield, James R. Russell, Greppin, John A.C., Novoseltsev are all credible modern scholarships, we use that information in topic. What more do you want? Divot (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You are again diverting the discussion (Lack of arguments?) I just want you to answer my question: why do you keep removing my passage regarding the hypothesis' original/primary and only source, the account of Koyrun? True or not, all other sources, including your "authoritarian" scholars, are based on his information.--Kober^Talk 04:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it is your passage regarding the hypothesis, not scholar's passage regarding the hypothesis. Scholars passage is "It has been believed, and not only in Armenia, that all the Caucasian alphabets — Armenian, Georgian and Caucaso-AIbanian — were invented in the fourth century by the Armenian scholar Mesrop Mashtot", "the creation of the Georgian alphabet is generally attributed to Mesrop", "Mastoc' also created the Georgian and Caucasian-Albanian alphabets, based on the Armenian model". Divot (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

to kober What I did not get is you seem to be quite an intelligent guy, who should know threre are generrally acclaimed reliable and authoritative research books in favor of Levan Cheishvili's works which are well enough documented, and besides there are Georgian sources attributing the invention of the alphabet to Parnavaz, there are even sources argueing that Mesrope did not know any Georgian etc., etc. So why do you let this nationalist, you know, who I mean now, operate with scholars when there are many more scholars saying contrary, why do not you quote them appropriately so that you would not have problems with posting these things in the article. I do not do it, because I am very knew to wiki, but what is the matter with you. Please write to me if you care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipito9 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Nina Iberi`s comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.27.221 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Alphabet's official Origin

First: This page has to be edited since Pharnavaz I. of Iberia is described as the official founder of the georgian alphabet, regardless of other theories. It was founded by the Iberian king in 300 BC.

Second: If you write an article than allways be neutral damit. Make two different sections. One consisting of the official version and one consisting of foreign theories and claims. Keep professionalism and not vandalism.

Third: Stop trolling around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyGeneral (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'official origin'? For any one theory to be 'officially' approved, there would have to be an institute (recognised by Wikipedia) which says so, but that's not how science works, and it is not how Wikipedia works.sephia karta | di mi 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Font help

What font is needed to display the Nuskhuri table in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.107.162 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

TITUS Cyberbit Basic correctly renders Nuskhuri (Unicode 2D00 to 2D25). Other fonts may actually show Nuskhuri instead of Asomtavruli or Mkhedruli; the reason may be that Nuskhuri was encoded later. JFHJr (㊟) 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Donald Rayfield

From what anyone can see in works by this schoolar, nothing is said to deny or aprove that Chilashvili's gravestones with Georgian inscriptions on them have pre-christian origin. His works cover other finding which had been already known as written in Aramaic and Greek long before he made that conclusion.

And as to Nekresi inskriptions found by Chilashvili it is proven to Georgian script and there nine stones altogetherwhich count as archeological data. Those inscriptions have nothing to do with Christianity which is widely supported. Here are the links to your attention. http://webzone.imer.mah.se/projects/georgianV04/DEMO/GeoLINK/Nekresi.html

http://webzone.imer.mah.se/projects/georgianV04/DEMO/GeoLINK/IntrScr2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artag (talk • contribs) 09:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

I've requested semi-protection of this page due to a rash of vandalism by what appears to be a single anon using at least three IP's so far. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Armenian origin

To Kober: Hi Kober. I came across this article and it caught my attention right away. Devot is very misleading. It is clear that he is Armenian and putting information from very limited view. You response is quite good (especially your questions him to which he constantly avoids answer) but you miss, in my opinion, some important piece of information which definitely should be on the page. I think you did mention that "Armenian origin" has only one source, namely Koryun. This should be clearly mentioned in the article. Also, it should be mentioned that all those historians appeal only to this source. Now the problems of this source is not mentioned, most important being the fact that Koryun himself says Mesrop Mashtots did not even know Georgian language which is unimaginable. 1) How can somebody without the knowledge (and very good knowledge) of the language create an alphabet for that language? 2) Here comes 2 more interesting parts. First Mkhitair Airavanski (МХИТАР АЙРИВАНКСКИЙ - see node or chapter 4580) an Armenian historian (he could also have been a monk, but this I can check exactly for you) mentions in his historical work that Georgian alphabet was created (or helped to be created) by Georgian King Pharnavaz in the 3 century AD. This is corroborated in famous Georgian source. Mkhitair knew about Mesrop Mashtots and if that story of Koryun was right it should've been in his work. Second thing is that there could be (which I am checking exactly) Georgian source which says Armenian alphabet was created by Georgian. Georgians do not use this source at all as a "proof" of origin of Armenian alphabet and do not even deny Mesrop Mashtots contribution, not claiming Georgian origin of Armenian alphabet. Though this fact is significant in itself since if poorly documented Armenian source could be used as a "proof" for Armenian origin of Georgian alphabet why can't Georgian source be used for the same thing? Or why can't another Armenian source be used as a refutation of that absurd theory? 3) This is more important than anything since it is now archeological document asserting that origin of Georgian alphabet was much earlier than 4th century. One source is Nekresi inscription. I think you have mentioned this but Stephen H. Rapp objection is very vague. It seems that in the citation a Georgian author is mentioned (Is it because that Stephen H. Rapp cited Georgian author?); Besides I would like to see on which base is this objection based. Second source would be Davati's stella which is dated back to 367 CA. Mashtos was born in 361 CA. He must have devised Georgian alphabet at the age of 6 years which is kind of unlikely.

Vano t (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

NGR

... is defined as New Georgian Romanization.
Until the day that page gets created, perhaps one or two sentences of explanation might be helpful?
Varlaam (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the "NGR" column from this article and from the National System article because the claimed system was posted over two months ago by a single editor, remained uncited, and the transliteration scheme is available nowhere except Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Plus, I find it inherently implausible that any official (let alone new) romanization scheme would place dots in the middle of words. If the romanization scheme is in fact true, however, I suggest NOT putting it to the right of the IPA column; that's just sloppy. JFHJr (㊟) 19:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lashaberaia, 9 July 2011

Dear editor,

There are reasons to make some changes to the article because the information is not more relevant or emotional attitude towards the hypothesis is obvious:

1. Please remove 6th reference to Encyclopedia Britannica after the phrase “This viewpoint is accepted by encyclopedias,[5]***[6]***[7][8][9]” because the viewpoint that Mesrop Mashtots has created not only Armenian but also Georgian alphabet is not more supported by Britannica – please check the article “alphabet” at Britannica (you should be registered user to read the full article). I am providing the snapshot of the relevant Britannica’s page where Mesrop Mashtots is named as creator of Armenian alphabet only (the former definition concerning both Armenian and Georgian alphabets has been changed). Please download the snapshot using this link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13502289/Armenian%20alphabet.JPG

2. I would appreciate very much if you reduce the pretentiousness of the phrase by inserting word “some” before “encyclopedias”. Thus the phrase “This viewpoint is accepted by some encyclopedias” will be much more neutral than existing “This viewpoint is accepted by encyclopedias”.

3. Please make the same revision towards the phrase “as well as by *authoritative* scholars.” Why the cited scholars should be represented as authoritative while others in this article automatically defined as “not authoritative” by default? I guess this represents the emotional attitude of the article's or paragraph's author towards the theory and does not comply with the declared rules of Wikipedia. I would like to suggest neutral and relevant “as well as by *several* scholars.”

Best regards, Lasha Beraia

LB 13:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The reference you want removed has in fact changed. I have removed it. I apologize for misunderstanding previously.

2. With that reference removed, the phrase at issue is still supported by four references. That's several (especially for a single phrase on Wikipedia), and fewer other conflicting views by modern reputable sources have been cited. The unqualified statement is not pretentious. Inserting the word "some" would undercut those sources without providing a reason. The qualifier should be added if there's a good basis shown to undercut a general statement – for example, if sources' research were outdated or views no longer mainstream.

3. Stating that the scholars cited are authoritative is fine because they are. If you think they are not, that would be a reason to delete the word "authoritative." The word does not, as you suggest, carry emotion or imply that any particular others are not authoritative. Lack of statement is not a statement of lack. If you think these particular scholars are not authorities, you ought to show a reliable source or two that debunks them. I have, however described two linguists with opposing views as authorities (because they are!); I also changed the word "admit" that follows in that sentence, which read rather adversarially. JFHJr (㊟) 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am closing this edit request based on the response of JFHJr. If you still want something changed, please explain further and re-open the request or open a new request. Monty₈₄₅ 23:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

Thank you for your comments and revisions and I would appreciate if we could move forward together to improve the article.

A. Following two paragraphs below are irrelevant in the chapter “Nuskhuri”:

“The forms of the Khutsuri letters may have been derived from the northern Arsacid variant of the Pahlavi (or Middle Iranian) script, which itself was derived from the older Aramaic, although the direction of writing (from left to right), the use of separate symbols for the vowel sounds, the numerical values assigned to the letters in earlier times, and the order of the letters all point to significant Greek influence on the script.[19]

However, the Georgian linguist Tamaz Gamkrelidze argues that the forms of the letters are freely invented in imitation of the Greek model rather than directly based upon earlier forms of the Aramaic alphabet, even though the Georgian phonological inventory is very different from Greek.”

I argue that: 1. This is just hasty point concerning derivation of the Khutsuri letters from other alphabets. Please check the picture representing all three forms of Georgian alphabet in the chapter. No special knowledge is needed to see that Nuskhuri letters are squared versions of Asomtavruli (and the change was invented based on needs of speed writing of religious texts) as well as Mkhedruli letters has been developed from Nuskhuri. The change is that Nuskhuri letters are written between four lines while Asomtavruli where written between two lines (as capital letters).

The reference 19 to Armazi webpage is irrelevant too because no such statement is made there, also this is not authoritative source for the statement concerning the influence of Greek alphabet (please see relevant viewpoint and the source below). Thus I would appreciate if you delete the first paragraph.

2. The next paragraph is irrelevant concerning Khutsuri because Tamaz Gamkrelidze argues in his work concerning Asomtavruli, not Khutsuri (derivation of Khutsuri from Asomavruli is not questioned by him at all). Thus I suggest moving the information to chapter History above and inserting it as third paragraph in the following form: “Authoritative linguist Tamaz Gamkrelidze argues that the forms of the letters are freely invented in imitation of the Greek model rather than directly based upon earlier forms of the Aramaic alphabet, even though the Georgian phonological inventory is very different from Greek.” [The 16th reference to Gamkrelidze’s work has to be inserted here, it is totally irrelevant in its current place in the forth paragraph of History chapter because Gamkrelidze has never stated that Georgian alphabet was created before Mesrop Mashtots.]

The same 16th reference should be added as 3rd one in the second paragraph, after the link “Greek alphabet”.

B. The phrase “Old Georgian alphabet” in the second paragraph has to be changed to just “Georgian alphabet”. Definition “Old” has no sense here as all three forms of Georgian alphabet reflect gradual changes inside the same system. As the “creation” is stressed in the sentence it is relevant towards the Georgian alphabet as a whole system, not to its oldest form only.

Best regards, Lasha Beraia LB 10:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lasha. Could you please site the source of Tamaz Gamkrelidze about the freewill creation? I rephrazed the text about the close to Greek alphabetic sequence and made it close to the source (current Britannica) and so we can add Gamkrelidze's point too.

I also have a worthy question to answer: how prominant is Gamkrelidze? Aregakn (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Aregakn. Gamkrelidze is widely known authority in the field. Please see article about Gamkrelidze on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamaz_Gamkrelidze

Britannica's view is probably based on the research of Gamkrelidze. One of his articles in Russian: http://files.istorichka.ru/FTP/Periodika/Voprosy_Jazykoznanija/1988/1988_6.pdf

The same theory is developed in the work sited under reference 16 while, as I have mentioned, it is irrelevant there and has to be moved from its current place as additional reference for Britannica which you have cited. Though Gamkrelidze admits existence of old pre-alphabetic (?) [Gamkrelidze's questioning in the work] writing but argues that the known Georgian alphabet (Asomtavruli) is created when Georgia converted to Christianity, and is modeled upon the Greek: "Сопоставление древнегрузннской письменности с семитской и греческой системами выявляет отличный от семитского строй древнегрузинского алфавитного ряда и совпадение его в основном с греческой парадигматикой, которая и должна была послужить письменной моделью для создателя древнегрузинского алфавита." (Chapter 4, last paragraph http://amklib113.ru/bbl/gkr/gkr-91.html) (My translation: Comparison of Old Georgian writing with Semitic and Greek systems detects a non-Semitic alphabetical order of Georgian alphabet and match it with mostly Greek paradigm, which was to serve as a writing model for the creator of ancient Georgian alphabet). LB 14:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashaberaia (talk • contribs)

Lashaberaia you should now be able to edit the article yourself to make the changes you want done. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Georgian Alphabet Tower (Batumi, Georgia).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Georgian Alphabet Tower (Batumi, Georgia).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Georgian Alphabet Tower (Batumi, Georgia).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How can they tell?

ბ გ მ შ ძ (= b g m sh j) these letters all look about the same to my eyes, and seem more different between computer fonts than between letters. How the heck can anyone (especially kids) tell these apart in practical situations? Wnt (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks plenty different to me. For example, its hard for many non users of Latin alphabets to tell a lowercase l from i and I or c from o. If you know the language, read it an such those distinctions will be quite clear. | ខែមារាតសប្បាយ | Talk 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's down to context and practice, I suppose. Meowy 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has learnt to read the Georgian alphabet: ბ გ are hard to tell apart in the beginning, but after a while, it becomes easy to spot the difference in elevation, as g is lower than b. The letters მ შ ძ are easy; m is like a complete partial derivative symbol, sh is a wavy/"broken" form of the same symbol and dz is an 'incomplete' version of it. Though, if you are not used to partial derivates from mathematics, perhaps they will be harder to tell apart. Njardarlogar (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Some letters are still difficult to tell apart in mtavruli style (where there are no ascenders or descenders because everything is stretched/squished to be the same height). And even in regular style, მ and შ can be tricky to distinguish, as well as ნ and წ, in some fonts (though in other fonts they are very easy to tell apart). A fluent speaker who has reached the point where they see an entire word at a glance is presumably going to have a much easier time than a learner who still needs to study a written passage one letter at a time. I've had native Georgians tell me that mtavruli writing is sometimes harder for them to read than the regular style, but they can still read it without very much trouble — presumably because they're recognizing entire words and phrases and "just know" what does or doesn't make sense. — Richwales 22:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mesrop Mashtots and the georgian alphabet

Ghazar Parpeci, an Armenian historian of the fifth century writes that St. Mestrop created Armenian alphabet. Parpeci does not say that St. Mestrop created Georgian and Albanian alphabets. Why? Geogian historian Iv. Javakhishvili, who studed Coryun`s work, claims that the creation of Georgian and Albanian alphabets is added to Coryun`s work in the sixth century.

I would love to let everyone know that in Dusheti, Georgia, a stella with Georgian alphabet is found. It is dated appr. 367 AD. Linguists and historians are still learning the origin of Georgian alphabet. I am sure there will be new discoveries.The alphabet is the best invention of the humankind. If St. Mesrop invented Georgian alphabet, he deserves nothing but gratitude from us, Georgians.But did he really create it?Several traditions exist regarding the invention of Georgian alphabet. We want to learn more about it. It is a stupid thing to say that we are offended by Armenian tradition. Those who know history know that one has to check and double-check the existing sources. E.G Philip Longworth says in his indroction to `Russia` that `the early chronicles were composed to sustain the legitimacy and claims of princes rather to provide objective records of circumstances and events.` He speaks about Russian sources but this opinion is shared by the historians all over the world: We cannot just rely on sources, we must examine them, we must try to prove that they are correct.

Wikipedia tells us that Armenian alphabet is modeled after the Greek alphabet, supplemented with letters from a different source or sources for Armenian sounds not found in Greek. The evidence for this is the Greek order of the Armenian alphabet. Check whether Georgian and Armenian alphabets have the same order. They don`t.Most of Armenian history books do not mention that there was a certain Greek from Samosata Called Rufanos who helped St. Mestrop creat the alphabet. WHY? One way or another Mestrop knew Greek. Did he know Georgian and Abanian? The Armenian tradition says that Mestrop listened to Albanians and thus created their alphabet. I don`t know who can believe this. One has to be fluent in any language to create the alphabet of it. Any linguist can confirm it. Some Amrenian and European schollars think that the historian of St. Mesrop, Koryun was either Georgian or Georgian-Armenian (Check Wikipedia). WHY DOES NOT HE SAY SO? Maybe Geogians asked St.Mesrop to create their alphabet as well, he would not have been able to do it without the help of Georgians. The source does not tell us he knew Georgian, which is not related to Armenian language. It is possible that Koryun helped him creat Georgian alphabet but why does not he say so?

I would love to provide you with some information about Georgian alphabet. The German scholar Junker, H. `H holds that bothe Mkedruli and Khutsuri are based like the Armenian alphabet on Aramaic Pahlavi scripts. He also suggests Greek influence (`Caucasia. 1925-1927. I want to just remidn you all that before Georgian alphabet a unique local for of Armaic writing knows as Armazuli existed in Georgia as demonstrated by the 1940`s discovery of a bilinigueal Greco-Aramaic inscription at Btskheta, Georgia. Sir, Ellis H. Minns points out that the Georgian script must be derived from Aramaic as it has in their right places lettres corresponding to WOW, TSADE and QOPH. Armenian possesses these, but out of order. W. E. D. Allen writes: `The Georgian alphabet is a perfect instrument for rendering the wealth of varied sounds in the language: the letters give each different sound wiht accuracy and clearness and no other alphabet, including the Armenian compares with it in efficency. It would seem that the alphabet has a long and slow evolution to its present state of perfection, rather than it was invented by a foreigner.` ( Mr. Allen is the auther of `A history of the Georgian people`, London. `The present State of Caucasian Studies`` )

N. Marr, a leading linguist, while accepting the common opinion that the Khuttsuri was a Georgian Christian creation, considers the Mkedruli as a developments of a pre-hChristian Georgian script, which was modified in later times, under the influence of the Khutsuri. Someatribute the origin of the Khutsuri to the creator of the Armenian alphabet. Nowadays only some letters of the 2 scripts look alike — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMistAnchorite1 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Georgian alphabet

This article doesn;t talk about the recent discoveries about the origin of the georgian alpbahet. It is possible that the georgian alphabet to have its origin in the Summerian alphabet. For more information please see this page: http://geoalphabet.webs.com/sumer-1.htm The only one who sais that the georgian alphabet was creted by Mesrop Mashtots was the armenian Koryun, and all scholars embraced this without seeing if the manuscript of Koryuns work was alterated or not. By the way i am romanian, and i don't agree with what is presented on this wikipedia article, because it does't expres the oppinion of the georgian nation, and it doesn;t take in account recent discoveries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMistAnchorite1 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about a scientific topic, so scientific papers or books should be cited, not private websites with conspiracy theories by layman. The website you linked unfortunately is almost complete nonsense and it's clear that the author of it doesn't know very much about Sumerian. He mixes up words, invents new meanings and attributes wrong meanings and features to Sumerian. The Sumerian word an does not mean "moon" in any way, Sumerian neither had an alphabet, nor capital letters. There is no Sumerian word similar to khar that means "bull"; later on he claims the very same character suddenly means "earth". The Asomtavruli letters don't even bear remote similarity to their Sumerian cuneiform (pseudo-)"cognates", just compare Asomtavruli eni with Sumerian en. He attributes the letter tani with the ancient Sumerian character for eye, although Sumerian was written in cuneiforms already, in it's middle and later time, which hardly resemble their original characters. Even less so the late Babylonian writing. I couldn't even find a single Sumerian character on the website. I'm not sure if this website is a hoax (let me cite: Oh, God, some miracle is happening!), but it should definitely not be included in a serious Wikipedia article. If you want to make changes to the article, please cite from accepted, peer-reviewed or at least officially published sources. — N-true (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit by ChelseaFCG

As requested in the edit summary I'm bringing this up here. I've reverted this edit as we simply do not use YouTube and TripAdvisor reviews as sources, see WP:RS. The wording dismissing other opinions also violated WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr Dougweller, Kartvelian history is my profession and i can debate about origin of the Georgian Alphabet to anyone on this planet. There are few scripts written on Georgian alphabet in 3'd century BC, 700 years earlier when Mesrop Mashtots was born. This scripts are saved in Georgia's national museum in Tbilisi. After this break through discovery i was taught that may be Georgian alphabet was made by Mesrop Mashtots but now everything in changed. After 2011 there is not even a talk about Armenian origin because now we have a fact and discovery. I amd NOT GEORGIAN, i am from USA, ethnic Irish if u are interested. I repeat there is scripts made in III BC and everyone can see it in Museum. If u have any questions i can discuss it--ChelseaFCG (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, we do not use sources such as TripAdvisor or GeorgiaTraveller, nor do we ignore what reliable sources have to say. Stephen Rapp is an expert on this subject, and he says "Not a shred of dated evidence has come to light confirming the invention of a Georgian alphabet by King P'arnavaz in the third century BC as is fabulously attested in the first text of K'Ck.43 Rather, the Georgian, Armenian, and Caucasian Albanian scripts were likely created by a Christian pan-Caucasian initiative in the late fourth/early fifth century AD." and "43 Cf. Chilashvili's "Nekresi" for the claim that a Geo. asomVavruli burial inscription from Nckrcsi commemorates a Zoroastrian who died in the first/second ccntury AD. Archaeological evidence confirms that a Zoroastrian temple once stood at Nekresi, hut the date of the supposed grave marker is hopelessly circumstantial. Chilashvili reasons, on the basis of the first-/second-century date, that P'arnavaz likely created the script in order to translate the Avtsla (i.e.. sacred Zoroastrian writings) into Geo., thus turning on its head the argument that the Georgian script was deliberately fashioned by Christians in order to disseminate the New Testament. Though I accept eastern Georgia's intimate con- nection to Iran, I cannot support Chilashvili's dubious hypothesis. I find more palatable"[2].

Discussion raised at WP:RSN#Is TripAdvisor really a reliable source for Georgian alphabet. I've already made it clear that you need to cite reliable sources for your edits but you continue to add badly written edits and to make controversial statements in Wikipedia's voice. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with it is not reliable source and i deleted it. BUT really reliable source is that scriptions in National museum of Georgia which are WRITTEN IN GEORGIAN LANGUAGE IN 3'd CENTURY BC. http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/div/nekrisi.pdf here is an copy of that scripture. This discovery was in 2011 and that work by stephen is old, he made this work in 2003, and discovery was in 2011,01,18. I have read that book by Stephen and he was real professional but he hadn't seen that scriptures. again, i repeat my friend there are real scripts, originals hanged out in national museum of Georgia, anyone can see it. Also scientists such as Ivane Javakhishvili, P.Ingorokva, T. Putkaradze, E.sintibidze, G. Tsereteli, N.berdzenishvili, S. janashia, T. Gamkrelidze and others who died before 2011 concluded that Georgian alphabet was pre-Christian by researches. Our group will visit Georgia next summer for archeological dig in Nakalakevi, and i will make a Photo of that scripts and upload it in Wikipedia.--ChelseaFCG (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that the above editor is blocked as a sock. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

These recent edits are utter vandalism. Creating a YouTube video then referring to it as a source is nothing but a joke. First of all the dating of Nekresi inscription has not been confirmed by anyone other than Georgian nationalists. The pre-Mashtotsian absence of Georgian literature and the abundance of post-Mashtotsian literature are a perfect example of the origins of Georgian alphabet. An alphabet used by the entire nation cannot suddenly disappear, only to reappear after Mashtots invention of the Armenian.

And what is said about Khorenatsi and Koryun is utter rubbish. Obviously the individual never even read any of it. Where he gets his sources from? Conspiracy archives? The edit says “It should be taken into account that in Koryun's original text says that the purpose of Mashtot's visit to Iberia exchange of experience in translating the Christian literature to the national languages, establishing uniform liturgy procedures, etc (and not the invention of the Georgian alphabet).”

That’s a bunch of rubbish. First of all Koryn’s original text says literally the following: “Again, after the passage of sonie time, the beloved of Christ thought of taking care of the barbarian regions, and by the grace of God undertook to create an alphabet for the Georgian language. He wrote, arranged, and put it in order, and taking a few of his pupils, arrived in the regions of Georgia. And he went and presented himself to King Bakour, and the bishop of the land, Moses.” - Koryun, The Life of Mashtots, XV

Khorenatsi in his work on Mashtots, even describes such details as the translator Mashtots acquired for his endeavour, and how the King and the Bishop provided the necessary means: "Mesrop, ventured to Georgia, and there too, in accord with his divine gift and with the assistance of King Bakur and Bishop Moses created for them an alphabet as well, with the help of a certain Jagha, who was a translator of Greek and Armenian. Amongst them he chose a number of pupils and divided them up into two classes, and assigned them as teachers two of his disciples, Ter of Khordzen and Mushe of Taron." - Moses of Chorene, The History of Armenia, Book III, Sec. 54.

And this edit doesn't even make sense: “he examples listed above clearly show that some of the old Armenian sources do not acknowledge Mesrop Mashtots as the inventor of the "full" (36 letter) Armenian alphabet. In the said circumstances serious scholars can't even suppose that the authorship of the Georgian alphabet can be attributed to Mesrop Mashtots.” I can continue showing source by source the many false claims this individual is making, but I have a feeling it would be a waste of time.

Catholic Encyclopedia says: “He (Mashtots) evangelized successively the Georgians, Albanians, and Aghouanghks, adapting his alphabet to their languages, and, wherever he preached the Gospel, he built schools and appointed teachers and priests to continue his work.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10211a.htm

Yet another external source to which Britannica links says: “The Caucasian Albanian alphabet is believed to have been created by Mesrop Mashtots (Մեսրոպ Մաշտոց), who also devised the Armenian and Georgian alphabets, probably in the late 4th or early 5th century AD." http://www.omniglot.com/writing/caucasianalbanian.htm

As for ChelseaFCG who are you kidding? Your English is so poor it could hardly be written by an American with Irish roots. Not to mention your false claims of being an academic. Everything edited in the article suggests you have no clue of scientific conduct. You are most probably the very same Georgiaphile TheMystAnchorite who is famously clogging the internet with outlandish nationalistic Georgian claims. Wikipedia is no YouTube so stop vandalizing articles! Even the word “Armenia” you write with a lower-casing. Pity some people resolve to such means when it comes to history. It's painful to even read the edits let alone take them seriously. Thanks for the revisions. Freeanthony (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment on sources

I've already said that YouTube videos are not reliable source for this yet they continue to be used. I've removed a comment based on the Britannica because in discussions at RSN it's been agreed it isn't a reliable source for this sort of claim unless of course the article was written by a reputable scholar in the field, in which case we would attribute the statement to that scholar. I'll also note that I don't see William Edward David Allen as a reliable source. We do have a discussion board to discuss sources at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Eight(?) Obsolete Letters

The subsection labeled "Obsolete Letters" claims that there are eight obsolete letters in the Mkhedruli alphabet. The obsolete letters are shaded in the "Mkhedruli letters" table located in that section. The issue is, there are ten shaded letters! The first five obsolete letters are shaded in light purple. The reference to the final "three" obsolete letters refers to those shaded dark purple in the alphabet table. However, there are five letters shaded in dark purple. What about the other two? There are no references whatsoever to the letters "ჺ" and "ჹ" in this article! If they are obsolete, why does the article refer to eight obsolete letters? If they are not obsolete, then why are they shaded?

The obsolete letters section also says that the last three obsolete letters were added to accommodate "sounds not present in Georgian proper". If you go to the table at the top of the page, which contains links to each of the individual letters of the Mkhedruli alphabet, you'll see that the letters "ჺ" and "ჹ" both fall into that same category. That would explain why they are shaded in the alphabet table. So then why aren't they included in the article?!? If "ჶ", "ჷ", and "ჸ" are mentioned as serving the same function, then why are the other two letters missing from this section?

Finally (not quite about "obsolete" letters), the table at the top of the page that contains links to each of the individual letters of the Mkhedruli alphabet includes one more letter: "ჼ". The page for this letter states that it is: "The modifier letter ნარ (Nar) in the Georgian alphabet." This letter isn't referenced anywhere in this article. Why? This seems like an omission. While it may simply be a modifier and not quite a "letter", in the purely linguistic sense, if it's used to write the language, and it isn't punctuation, then shouldn't it be included? (It would seem to fall into the same category as the hard ("ъ") and soft ("ь") signs, required (especially the latter) to write Russian and integral to the Russian alphabet.)

While I've studied a number of writing systems, I don't speak or write the Georgian language and, therefore, am not qualified to answer these questions or make changes to the article itself. Ge0nk (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Origin of Georgian alphabet

There is an ongoing disagreement over the degree of emphasis which should be given to the assertion that the first Georgian alphabet was either invented by, or strongly influenced by, the 4th/5th-century Armenian scholar Mesrop Mashtots, and whether Mesrop's connection to the Georgian alphabet is widely accepted by scholars in general or is primarily an Armenian claim. This dispute has been going on for several years (as indicated by comments above in this talk page going back to 2008) and has given rise to a lot of edit warring. Outside perspectives would be gratefully appreciated. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The "Armenian claim"–a term I object to, since none of the cited authors are Armenian–is backed up by eight sources. The Georgian response and the possible reasons for it are already detailed in the body of the article and also buttressed by reliable citations. This dispute hasn't ceased because there will always be a Georgian nationalist who will want to disassociate or downplay the Armenian influence. Good luck finding consensus. Jackal 01:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Looking at these sources, there's no question that Mesrop's connection to the Georgian alphabet is widely accepted by scholars. To even begin to argue that it's primarily an Armenian claim, all (or at least most) of the sources would have to be Armenian, which isn't the case. Some of the sources are other encyclopedias widely acknowledged as reliable, so I'm not sure how one would even make that point. That said, seeing as there is some debate over this, I think that the wording in the article is perfect. The article states that "it is widely believed that" this is the case. The wide belief is something that cannot be argued. Whatever the origin of the alphabet, it is widely believed that it was created by Mesrop. The article goes on to explain the opposing point of view with proper citations. This is a textbook example of how to handle a disputed claim. What is the proposition, to remove the claim? That certainly does not pass the sniff test. To de-emphasize the claim? It already appears to be given no more than its due weight, with the opposing view clearly and properly presented and also given its due weight. I don't believe there's anything to discuss here. Arathald (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No further comments have been posted here for over nine days, and it appears that edit warring is continuing over the proper way to describe the history of the Georgian alphabet. At this point, I'm inclined to ask for someone to intervene by "fully protecting" the article and forcing people to hash out the question here, on the article's talk page. As an admin, I technically have the ability to do this myself — but since I've done a lot of work on this article (though in other sections, not in the history portion), I am inclined to acknowledge that I'm WP:INVOLVED and find someone else to impose full protection rather than doing it myself. For those of you who are determined to keep battling back and forth on the article itself, this is probably your last chance to work toward a consensus and avoid the possibility of full protection causing the article to be frozen at The Wrong Version. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think 1 rv in over a week calls for full protection. — Lfdder (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Divot and Obituari having a go at each other
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I added very little new material, just tried to bring order and structure into displaying those opinions that are predominant and backed by reliable third party sources versus other views, including modern nationalist reactions to well-documented historical record. Sprutt (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC) If here wasw neutral point of view, I say to write all sources like this: One of origin point of view... Not saying that most schoalrs believe and it was created cause it. I can bring many source supporting Greek influence. Also you can start argument and not try to make me banned as you see I am doing my job well which goes on contrary of your ideology --Obitauri (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC) According WP: WEIGHT, first we describe main international viewpoint. Then, Georgian viewpoint. Then, the critique of the Georgian and main viewpoints. Divot (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC) A good idea. However, in the spirit of WP:WEIGHT the amount of text devoted to the main main international viewpoint should be proportional to its prominence. But now we see that fringe theories are described in more detail that the most accepted viewpoint, which is wrong. It is logical to curtail the description of less prominent viewpoints or to move their discussion into footnotes. Or, expand the description of the international viewpoint to include more "meat." Sprutt (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC) "According to Georgian scholar Ivane Javakhishvili there are many similarities as well as differences between Georgian and Armenian alphabet, but the order of the letters in the first part of Georgian alphabet is almost parallel to the similar letters of the Greek alphabet, and the other part consists of letters which are very specific to Georgian. Also, the names of the letters and the numeral values of letters are completely different, which, would not have been the case if the Georgian alphabet had been created on the root of Armenian alphabet.[22] The modern Georgian scholar Levan Chilashvili, on the basis of dating the Nekresi inscription in eastern Georgia to the 1st–2nd century AD, claimed that Parnavaz probably created the scripts in order to translate the Avesta (sacred Zoroastrian writings) into Georgian. However, a pre-Christian origin for the Georgian scripts has not been firmly supported by archaeological evidence. According to Donald Rayfield, the assumption that the Georgian script has pre-Christian origin, is rather unfounded and was not confirmed by archaeological findings.[8] Stephen H. Rapp, too, has questioned such a dating." With a logical argument, we can agree Ivane Javakhishvili look. He also mentioned that armeniand mestrop mashtrots or something name like it he had did not create Georgian alphabewt as it was addition on history in VI century by Armenians. Ivane Javakhishvili is more educated and his books are more trustfull than Rayfield's sources. Also Georgian investigator sources are more trustfull. As I see "many" sources supporting armenian view, it is not logical. If we remind that small and minor sometimes is better than huge as we have here. With logical arguments, if we look at Georgian alphabet, it is based on Greek one. As both Georgian and Armenian was absed on Greek, we have minor similarities here which dont gives us mention to say Georgian is based on Armenian as we have many logical and historical sources. --Obitauri (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Also if we look at the first writing found in Georgian alphabet is made in 430, it is in church, which does not means Georgian alphabet did not exist before. Also according to some scholars Georgian alphabet was used to translate early pre-christian holy pagan texts and also in 4th century to translate Bible after christianisation of Georgia --Obitauri (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC) With his gratuitous rejection of international sources, what I see here is complete disregard of WP:NPOV by User:Obitauri. Sprutt (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Obitauri, your observations about Georgian vs. Greek vs. Armenian alphabetical order, as well as on the numeric values of the Georgian letters, are certainly interesting. However, per our No Original Research policy, we (Wikipedia editors) are not allowed to make such observations on our own (all we're allowed to do is to report things like this as they are mentioned in reliable outside sources) — and we are also not allowed to use observations of this sort as a means of evaluating the worthiness of sources which say this or that. So, for example, we can (and probably should) say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica suggests a Greek influence on the Georgian alphabet because of the order of the letters and some of their shapes, but we cannot say that Britannica proves the Georgian alphabet was developed independently of Armenian influences, and we also cannot categorically exclude sources that disagree with Britannica just because we might happen to agree with the position which the Britannica article espouses. Whether you accept the Mesrop Mashtots theory of the origin of the Georgian alphabet or not, we are required to mention it and also to acknowledge that it is a view prominently held by mainstream scholars. Similarly, those people who consider other origin theories (not involving Mesrop Mashtots) to be ridiculous need to back off and allow those theories to be mentioned as well, with due recognition given to the extent to which each theory is reported in reliable sources. We can discuss whether this or that source is "reliable", but publications such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica are pretty much considered reliable by definition in the English-speaking world, so whatever Britannica says definitely needs to be mentioned (though not in such a way as to say it is obviously 100% correct and no sources disagreeing with it are worthy of mention). Also, in general, any "reasoning" of the form that "this source says so-and-so, a proposition which I reject, therefore this source cannot be reliable" is — and should be — treated with great skepticism here; people need to get used to the idea that this article is going to present multiple sides, and that it must do so fairly, even if someone happens to feel that one side is obviously correct and the other is ridiculous. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Britannica is not only which agrees Greek influence. As of Georgian popular scholar, Ivane Javakhishvili which is most trustfull source, as he is one who investigated Georgian culture more than any other scholar from world, we can agree him when he says Georgian haves Greek influence and Mesrop's creation of it is just mere addition of history in VI-th century. As we investigate all sources, most logical is that Georgian haves Greek influence. Wikipedia rules say to bring "Trustful Source". As we see, Ivane Javakhishvili investigated Georgian culture more than anyone other, also his argument is most logical. Also Mesrop's creation is not agreed in Georgia, as Georgians know more about their culture than anyone other. Also bringing 10 or 12 sources, does not means that mesrops influence is widely believed. I can bring 20 or 25 sources saying it is not made by mesrop. Then this guys will bring saying he did and so what we can do then. So my argument says that Georgian haves Greek influence. Also we MUST remove that "Many scholars agree that Georgian alphabet was created by Mesrop Mashtots". Write that one of point of view is this, then write other and other and this will not cause conflict anymore but Divot keeps changing it to most scholars worldwide... I will not allow vandalism or conflict on this article --Obitauri (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC) BTW, Brittanica, "Alphabet": "The Aramaic alphabet was probably also the prototype of the Brāhmī script of India, a script that became the parent of nearly all Indian writings. Derived from the Aramaic alphabet, it came into being in northwest India. The Armenian and Georgian alphabets, created by St. Mesrob (Mashtots) in the early 5th century AD, were also based on the Aramaic alphabet.". Divot (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC) As of Britannica saying this, I cant see it saying it here source you brought. Also it says on different source that Georgian alphabet haves Greek influence. Which we can trust? Other sources support one or second variant. We must choose logically and historically correct source as true. Ivane Javakhishvili investigated Georgian culture more than any other scholar. His source is most trustful. Also Ivane says that Georgian alphabet haves Greek influence as of numeral and structure similarities, not Armenian basis --Obitauri (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Point of view of Greek influence as of numeral and structural similarities of Georgian alphabet is not my idea. It is invented by famous scholar Ivane Javakhishvili. He says: "There are many similarities as well as differences between Georgian and Armenian alphabet, but the order of the letters in the first part of Georgian alphabet is almost parallel to the similar letters of the Greek alphabet, and the other part consists of letters which are very specific to Georgian. Also, the names of the letters and the numeral values of letters are completely different, which, would not have been the case if the Georgian alphabet had been created on the root of Armenian alphabet." Also similarities are caused as of Greek basis. Some letters look like Aramic. Main influence of structure on Georgian alphabet is Greek. About Messrop: After researching Koryun's Life of Mashtots, a Georgian historian Ivane Javakhishvili came to conclusion that the story of creation of Georgian alphabet by Mashtots was a mere addition made in the VI century. We must choose most logical arguemnt from sources as here is rule to bring reliable sources. Other thing is we can just write about all sources that it is one, 2nd and 3rd point of view, not tell its widely believed or something like it as we have 10 sources it don't mean its widely believed. We can just let people take their ideas out of all sources and get their own look on origin. As we can give all sources equal value and conflict will be solved --Obitauri (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Isn't it interesting that the fact that Koryuns work was interpolated is only a suspicion and other things are of course true. Well, Kudos Armenian diaspora : ]. BTW, do all scholars, as you call them "international scholars", base their thoughts on Koryuns work? Yes I suppose. The saying that they compared the two is kind of funny. Nevertheless, I don't think that their assumptions should be removed or disparaged by *us* anyhow. And lastly, you all prolly have already come to understand that this article is doomed to be vandalized by either side. So, I propose we make all our efforts (it won't be easy nor short-term) to make a partially final version of this article till some new researches are made. By partially final I mean no one has rights of changing even a word in some parts of the article :]. And in case one sees a need of expanding one has to write it here (we could also make a sign warning editors about this). Therefore we make a rule, which is way easier to follow than no-rule situation where every revision is an omen of the new era of edit-warring. Rules rule :]--Dixtosa (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC) This guys bring 10 or 15 sources based as you said on Koryun's work. This is not international view and not widely believed, no way to bring 100 source or 1. Sometimes you can bring 100 source but thing they support may not be widely believed and 1 source may be. We must look fact that Mesrop ONLY invented Armenian alphabet as we see with comparing sources, most logical is that Mesrop's supporting sources are not true. If they ask me proof I can bring any time --Obitauri (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC) I see user Obitauri is playing deaf and is committed not to comply to WP rules in a classical display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DISRUPT. Sprutt (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Go write more rules I "broke". Come in argument and stop writing this rules, if I broke it, Admin will do what is needed. And why I broke this rules? Edits are not based on my ideas. I brought sources. Ivane Javakhisvili books is reliable and did not broke anything here --Obitauri (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Obitauri, can you please clarify to us how your approach to evaluating the available sources here is in keeping with the Wikipedia policy requirement (see WP:NPOV) that we must be committed to "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC) If you think sources from books of Ivane Javakhishvili is not reliable, then I cant discuss anything with you --Obitauri (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Apologies, in advance, if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. The question here is not whether or not we should consider the scholarship of Ivane Javakhishvili to be of acceptable quality. We aren't supposed to be deciding which one point of view is the correct view (and then present only that view and no others, or present the view that we consider to be correct as the primary view and relegate other views to a secondary or fringe status). What we are required to do here is to present all significant views from reliable sources, and to do so "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (see WP:WEIGHT, a subsection of WP:NPOV). We aren't allowed to use arguments such as "Ivane Javakhishvili was a Georgian scholar of unquestionable quality, and therefore anything he said is reliable, and any other source which disagrees with Javakhishvili is (by definition) not a reliable source, so Javakhishvili's views should be given the greatest prominence, and any conflicting views are worthy only of passing mention because nothing disagreeing with Javakhishvili can possibly be reliable". Again, please accept my apology in advance if I'm not properly understanding what you are trying to say — but if this is in fact what you're trying to say, you really need to carefully re-read our Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV), because that is the standard you (and all of us) are required to use on Wikipedia. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC) So article we now have haves neutral point of view. As one of editors before said that Ivane's look is nationalistic as he is Georgian, I can disagree him as if he was Georgian nationalist he would not say that Georgian alphabet was based on Greek. So neutral point of view form of article now we got can be left here but I can not let this people to write about article that the mashtots creation is widely believed, as it is based only on several source and it is not supporitng neutral point of view rule. So we can writeas it is now: Britannica's point of view, Other scholars who support mashtots point and then contrary disagree view against mashtots by Ivane Javakhishvili. As here must be neutral point of view, now it is like it and as some people thinks mesrop created it, we can not say its widely believed but I will bring proof which goes contrary on Koryuns work and then I think this masrop creation of alphabet must be like its not true proven by other sources --Obitauri (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Divot keeps undoing my edit with reason: Main viewpoint is international. I told him that Britannica is international. Also 100 or 10 book is not proof to say its belived by most scholars about mesrops creation. Article now looks good and does not needs changing and moving "international" view --Obitauri (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC) According WP:CON "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus". So, if you want to change the article, you must discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. Next time i'll ask for your block. Divot (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 1. Identifying reliable sources says "generally attributed to the Armenian linguist and monk Mesrop" and "It has been believed, and not only in Armenia". So, it is main international viewpoint. Divot (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 2. When Britannica suggests that the Old Georgian script must have been derived from the Greek alphabet, this is not means that Old Georgian script created not by Mashtots. Mashtots could use Greek alphabet or Aramean alphabet. This is only means that Old Georgian script's base letters from Greek alphabet. Divot (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC) I made page with NPOV. This page no longer said most of scholars widely believe something. Now this starts with Britanicca argument. 1. It is not main international viewpoint, bringing even 100 sources does not means it is widely believed, this also breaks Rule NPOV. 2. Ivane Javakhishvili says and here is source that Georgian alphabet is not created by Messrop. Also all sources supporting Messrop are based on Koryuns work, which according to Ivane is addition by Armenians in VIth century. Ivane does neutral point of view, and he is Georgian but he is neutral because if he was not neutral, he would not say Georgian alphabet was based on Greek. Article as I modified does not breaks any rule and is neutral view. Also it does not supports any view and does not says one is logical or widely believed, we must let people see argument and contrary argument which is like it now. If you edit this again it goes to edit warring and article may be blocked on wrong version you did. I think you just try to say Georgian alphabet is made by Armenian as I see your location --Obitauri (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC) As best I can tell from comparing this version (preferred by Divot) and this version (preferred by Obitauri), the main difference between the two appears to be whether the Mesrop Mashtots theory is "widely believed internationally" (Divot) or "believed by some scholars" (Obitauri). The content of the "History" section of the article in these two versions otherwise seems to be the same, except for a variation in the ordering of the paragraphs whose significance is not obvious to me. Am I basically correct, or am I missing something important here? If this is really all the difference that separates the two sides, I wonder whether a reasonably reachable compromise position might exist here involving a wording that neither substantially promotes nor downplays either theory. In fact, "believed by some scholars" isn't really that bad (IMO) for a neutral wording — "some" is indefinite and noncommittal, not meaning "many", but also not meaning "only a very few". I believe NPOV is probably best served here by presenting both theories, along with the main reasoning behind each, but without making Wikipedia's editorial voice favour or oppose either side. This really doesn't look to me like a case of one obviously 100% believable and correct view countered by another obviously 100% wacko-fringe view; thus, per the NPOV policy, we should give a fair presentation of both views, accept that the question remains unresolved, and leave it to the reader to choose one or the other if he/she so desires. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) My version agrees all rules on wikipedia and is neutral. Also I added this at end: "After researching Koryun's Life of Mashtots, a Georgian historian Ivane Javakhishvili came to conclusion that the story of creation of Georgian alphabet by Mashtots was a mere addition made in the VI century." This was here before but removed as not sourced, I sourced this and edited but Divot removed it again. My version contains this view as well but Divot's one does not and removes this. He is just trying to take me in warring to make me blocked and make article as he wants with his supporters, as you saw Sprutt also told me I "broke" rule. I think Sprutt and Divot may be same users, I think we must check who they are and tell administrator --Obitauri (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Divot has been on Wikipedia since 2008, and Sprutt has been here since 2011. IMO, it is extremely unlikely that they are the same person. As for concerns that other editors are trying to bait you into edit-warring so you can get blocked, the best thing you can do is to avoid interpersonal disputes or accusations entirely: instead, concentrate on article content and sources and follow the established dispute resolution procedures as scrupulously as you can. No one else can force you to engage in edit-warring; that is your decision to make. As for material sourced to Ivane Javakhishvili, I would strongly recommend you try to be careful not to overuse Javakhishvili to the point that people might think you are attaching undue weight to what he said. I do understand you feel Javakhishvili's work is and ought to be the definitive "last word" on this whole subject, but that is not how the sourcing and neutrality policies work here in the English Wikipedia. You should probably combine the (currently three) different mentions of Javakhishvili in the current "History" section into a single paragraph, and his name should also not be wikilinked each and every time it is mentioned — wikilinking the first mention of his name should be enough. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Once more. Identifying reliable sources says "generally attributed to the Armenian linguist and monk Mesrop" and "It has been believed, and not only in Armenia". So, it is international generally viewpoint, and according WP:WEIGHT (Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view.) we must to say it. Not "some scolars", but "generally". Divot (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Why not to write generally: First of all its no longer neutrality. Also we can not say it is generally believed if we even bring 100 source. Britannica agrees Javakhishvili point about Greek influence, then we can say it is general as well? So what it becomes then. If its "widely believed" cause foreign sources agree it, but they still are based on Koryun's work, which according to Ivane is mere addition in VIth century, which gets no contrary argument. Also Brittanica agrees Greek influence and its foreign source, so can we say basing on it that Greek influence is widely believed? Article we have now is good. I noticed you just try to write as its made by Armenians... To Richwales, I brought Javakhishvili point as it is needed: I put argument of supporters of Messrop, then its contrary arguement, then its contrary argument and at end point of Ivane's point, which suggests that Koryuns work was mere addition and about which we have no contrary argument so its in end of article. Also Divot's version puts Armenian supporting sources at end and makes article to support this Koryun based sources. Also Divot removed Ivane's point saying Koryuns work was mere addition which is sourced. This version I made is good and does not breaks anything --Obitauri (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Once more. According Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:Due and undue weight "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view". Understand? We have identifying reliable sources about the majority view. What more do you want? About Britannica. Britannica NOT agrees Javakhishvili point, because Britannica only says that the Old Georgian script must have been derived from the Greek alphabet. But Britannica not says that the Old Georgian script created not by Mashtots. Divot (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC) How do you "prove" majority of scientists support messrop? Bringing 10 source? Its not enough proof. Also Ivane's point is reliable and trustfull. Also not majority of scientists agree this Messrop's creation. Bringing even 100 sources does not means its agreed widely. Britanicca does not says it was created by messtroop. Also I can tell you that article we now have is good and does not needs anything changed. And all sources are based on Koryun's work which supports Messtop, Koryun was Armenian, its clear what he would have wrote. Agreeing from several scientists and bringing them as proof of it is "widely" believed is not correct. Now article does not needs changing anything, no rule broken and its done well. If I see anything changed to wrong version, I will do what is needed --Obitauri (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC) "How do you "prove" majority of scientists support messrop?" Lenore A. Grenoble. Language policy in the Soviet Union. Springer, 2003. ISBN 1-4020-1298-5. P. 116. "The creation of the Georgian alphabet is generally attributed to the Armenian linguist and monk Mesrop, who is also credited with the creation of the Armenian alphabet." Donald Rayfield "The Literature of Georgia: A History (Caucasus World). RoutledgeCurzon. ISBN 0-7007-1163-5. P. 19. "The Georgian alphabet seems unlikely to have a pre-Christian origin, for the major archaeological monument of the 1st century 4IX the bilingual Armazi gravestone commemorating Serafua, daughter of the Georgian viceroy of Mtskheta, is inscribed in Greek and Aramaic only. It has been believed, and not only in Armenia, that all the Caucasian alphabets — Armenian, Georgian and Caucaso-Albanian — were invented in the 4th century by the Armenian scholar Mesrop Mashtots." Divot (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC) "Britanicca does not says it was created by messtroop" - BTW, Brittanica, "Alphabet": "The Aramaic alphabet was probably also the prototype of the Brāhmī script of India, a script that became the parent of nearly all Indian writings. Derived from the Aramaic alphabet, it came into being in northwest India. The Armenian and Georgian alphabets, created by St. Mesrob (Mashtots) in the early 5th century AD, were also based on the Aramaic alphabet." Divot (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC) It does not means its widely believed if even 10 sources says it. This sources are made by again same person which seems haves relations and supports Armenian version. Also show me where you read this text from Britannica. Ivane Javakhishvili says that Georgian alphabet was based on Greek and was not made by Messrop. According to him, messrops participation was added in history by Koryun. All sources supporting Armenian creation are based on Koryun's "work". Koryun was armenian so you know what he would write about alphabets and this scholars agree Koryun.. This are not good reliable sources, this haves contrary argument and article now does not breaks neutrality rule and is as it is needed. Saying most of world scholars believe this basing on 2 books and one of them which says its believed not only in armenia does not means its widely believed. Nothing shows its widely believed from this sources. And I can tell you Messtroop did not create GEORGIAN alphabet basing on several sources and LOGICS --Obitauri (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Obitauri and Divot, based on the talk page and on the article history, it's pretty clear you're edit warring over this point despite there being an active RFC about this. That behavior is completely inappropriate -- both of you are trying to push specific edits while this is under discussion. At this point, I'm still going to assume good faith and suppose that you both believe you're doing the right thing for the article, but you need to stop this edit warring until a consensus is reached. You two have also effectively monopolized the discussion in this RFC, keeping others from expressing their opinions and viewpoints just by virtue of the sheer volume of posts you've been making. You've both made your points, and you need to step back and let the RFC continue. If you have any new information to add, however, please feel free to add that. Arathald (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Why me? We have the consensus version, and Obituary try to change it by edit warring. What must i do? Divot (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC) It takes two to edit war, and the edit history of the page shows that you are, indeed, engaged in edit warring. You're doing the same thing that Obitauri is, just from the opposite perspective. We haven't reached a consensus here, and both of you are showing behavior that is making it very difficult to have this discussion. As I said, you've stated your points, so unless you have something new to add, the both of you need to let other editors chime in on this instead of monopolizing the conversation. Arathald (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Having taken some (but not a lot of) time to look at the sources and other literature, my impression is that neither claim has gained much traction. The wording in the article had been twisted to make it sound like popular opinion is academic opinion. What academics generally seem to agree on is that the Georgian alphabet surfaced around 400 CE and that it was influenced by Greek to some degree. Everything else seems to be very much open to debate. — Lfdder (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Dee Ann Holisky, in “The Georgian Alphabet”, The World’s Writing Systems, ed. Daniels & Bright, OUP (1996), writes: “Although Armenian sources credit Mesrop Mashtots' with the creation of asomtavruli, this is effectively refuted by Gamkrelidze (1990: 194–95). Popular legends as well as some scholarly treatments place the creation of the alphabet in pre-Christian times, but Gamkrelidze (pp. 196–97) argues persuasively that it must have followed the advent of Christianity in Georgia (circa 337); the forms of the letters are freely invented in imitation of the Greek model.“ (p.367)—Odysseus1479 04:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• However this article ends up, I can say that Obitauri either doesn't understand or is ignoring various policies including WP:VERIFY and NOR when he says "We must choose logically and historically correct source as true" and "I can tell you Messtroop did not create GEORGIAN alphabet basing on several sources and LOGICS". Obitauri, I suggest you read the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I don't much like the present version which leans to heavily on a generalist Encyclopedia - our main sources should be specialist works. And if we are going to use the word 'some' in "It is believed by some scholars and Encyclopedias" (do Encyclopedias believe) why not use it in "Georgian scholars (including Ivane Javakhishvili)"? I'm also not sure about " After researching Koryun's Life of Mashtots,[27] a Georgian historian Ivane Javakhishvili came to conclusion that the story of creation of Georgian alphabet by Mashtots was a mere addition made in the VI century.[23]" - why at the end, and does the source actually say he came to this conclusion because he read Koryun? Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

more of it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obituary's editing. The source for "Georgian historical tradition and some non-Georgian scholars attributes the invention of the Georgian alphabets to the semi-mythical Parnavaz I of Iberia" is "Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History, Matthias Hüning, P.299". This is the page 299: "The beginnings of a local tradition of literacy in Georgia - contemporaneous with early writing in the native language in neighboring Armenia - date to the early fifth century. The original script that was created by Mcsrop consisted of 38 signs. The modern Georgian alphabet has 33 letters. Literature in Georgian has been produced in three varieties of the alphabet. The oldest version of Georgian writing is the "capital" script (asomtavruli), also known as the "rounded" script (mrglovani). This script was used from the fifth to the ninth century. The earliest extant texts are written in the capital script: an inscription in a church near Bethlehem in Palestine, dated to c. 430, and an inscription in the church at Bolnisi (south of Tbilisi) from 494." What does it mean, Obituary ????? Divot (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Huning says: Scholars believe that Georgian script may ave been created already in pre-christian times... Then he says what others think about Mesrop. Is it so hard to read? Also I borught several sources supporting Parnavaz's creation and now article looks good and I have understanding of rules and this article will not end up. I already verified them. See what Javakhishvili says. "Why he came on this conclusion"? He read Koryun to check if it was true and when he researched this, he found out it was not original and true. He needed it to read this as people were basing their look on it so is this something you can not get why he researched? Also here are several other sources supporting Georgian point of view: Bermann, CultureGrams: Europe Page 114 "Georgian alphabet was created by King Parnavaz in 2nd century B.C." Georgian: ივ. ჯავახიშვილი, ქართული პალეოგრაფია, გვ. 194-203, 236-238, 266-272 --Obitauri (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Specialist literature is very much preferred over a book on shamanism. — Lfdder (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC) "Huning says: Scholars believe that Georgian script may ave been created already in pre-christian times..." Of course, not. Huning says: "The resemblance of the signs with prehistoric motifs led some scholars to believe that the Georgian script might have been created already in pre-Christian times". He say nothing about and some non-Georgian scholars. Divot (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC) "Shamanic Journeys, Shamanic Stories: Michael Berman" - is not an Identifying reliable sources. Do not return these links, at first you need a consensus on this page. Divot (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC) So the statement linking reading Koryun and Javakhishvili's conclusion is basically original research as there is no causal link. Michael Berman is clearly not a reliable source for the Georgian alphabet. His book is on an entirely different subject. Divot is also correct about Huning. I'm very dubious about Culturegrams - I'd like to see comments at WP:RSN before we use it. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Britannica about Mesrob. Divot (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Britannica from Google - page 1042. What does it mean, Obituary ????? Divot (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Source says that Ivane researched it as many scholars based their work on Koryun's work. He researched it to show it was not historically accurate version. This source contains 3 pages of his book, one of those says after researching history and koryun's work, also other works he came to this conclusion. Also I brought foreign sources supporting mesrtops non-participation, which got 2 times removed by divot, first time he said its not reliable, then I brought Google books link but he again removed them. If I did same, it was like if I removed sources supproting mesrop but I did not but he did remove them to "prove his argument". I dont know what was point of removing latest added reliable sources, probably he wants to make article like he wants.

Also adding Ivane's words at end is because: We must bring argument and its contrary argument. Here no one talks about Ivane's words I put at end with contrary argument, so it is in end. We have no contrary argument which says about Ivane's research that he was mistaken and Masrop is not mere addition so Ivane's words are in end, is this so hard to notice? Then what to put at end. If we put mesrop supproting argument, then won't it be same "rule break". So as we do not have contrary argument that it was not mere addition, it is in end. Also article now does not breaks any rule and is good. Nothing needs to be removed, it is neutral point of view. I will tell Divot to do not remove sources again --Obitauri (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 2 weeks - their 3rd block for edit warring in the last month. I'm considering asking for a topic ban at WP:AN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Richwales:@Lfdder:@Dougweller: Looking at the article it is clear that both users Obitauri and Divot are engaged in the edit war. I want to suggest you to revert the edits of the article's history section as it was in April 2013 with statement of It is asserted ... which was at least neutral back then. And then we can continue discussion and working on the history content ONLY in the talk page and want to call on all users to work HERE and then when the consensus is reached we can put the agreed version into the article. georgianJORJADZE 14:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

New information (Divot)

Besides Koryun’s writing there are the following arguments in favor of the version that Mashtots was the creator of the Georgian alphabet:

• Nicholas Marr in his article “On the unity of issues of Armenian-Georgian philology” noted the great deal of similarity between the ancient Armenian and Georgian alphabets: “Georgian church script, the only script used by scribes in Georgia up until 10th and 11th centuries, indeed demonstrates an exceptional level of proximity to the Armenian alphabet.”
• Countering the argument by Javakhishvili, which states that the record proving that Georgian language was created by Mashtots appeared in later writings by Koryun, Muradyan cites the third letter written by the Catholicos of All Armenians Abraham to Kartlian Bishop Kyrion (in 607, after the separation of the Armenian and Georgian churches in 604, when the latter accepted the doctrines of the Council of Chalcedon) in which it said that Christianity both in Armenia and in Georgia originated from the same source – “first St. Gregory and then Mashtots, and the knowledge of letters rests within the firmness of faith.” It is also known that Kyrion sent a sharp response letter, in which he did not deny Mashtots’ role in the Georgian church. Thus Muradyan concludes that these notable figures of the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 7th centuries were very well aware about Mashtots’ role in the creation of the Georgian alphabet.

…….

Georgian scientists, who deny Mashtots’s role in the creation of the alphabet, bring the following arguments:

• Koryun was the only one who wrote about the creation of the Georgian alphabet by Mashtots
• Paleographic analysis of ancient Georgian inscriptions makes the version about the origination of the Georgian alphabet based of Aramaic language at the beginning of our era more credible
• There is no similarity between the Armenian and Georgian alphabets

Analyzing these arguments Istrin considers the third argument as the least convincing one, since the methodology by which Mashtots created the Georgian alphabet demonstrates the correspondence of the alphabet to the phonetics and decorative art of Armenia; thus if Mashtots were to compose the Georgian alphabet he would have been guided by other phonetic and decorative principles. Opposing the second argument Istrin notes that the basis upon which the Georgian alphabet was created is not clear either.

The Aramaic hypothesis (by Muller, Tailor, Javakhishvili, Tsereteli and others) refers to the similarity of a number of letters and a common geographical style; however there is no less similarity between the Greek and the Georgian letters. The Georgian and Greek letters are vocal-phonic while the Aramaic letters are consonant-phonic. The direction of the Georgian alphabet is from left to right, while that of the Aramaic is from right to left. Finally, the order of the letters in the Georgian alphabet is more similar to the Greek one.

Divot (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this information? Divot (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

New information (GJ)

Things that must be mentioned in the article.

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

Sources:

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

georgianJORJADZE 05:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Mekhitar of Ayrivank isn't reliable source. Divot (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"5th Armenian historian Ghazar Parpetsi says nothing about Mesrop's invention of Georgian alphabet." - original research. Divot (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Mesrop did not know Georgian language what makes it impossible to create any alphabet." - original research. Divot (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

One line of beleif?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Things that must be mentioned in the article.

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History and origin

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

ქართული ანბანი

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

“ The creation of the Georgian alphabet is ascribed to King Pharnavaz reigning in the 3rd century BC. The 11lh century historian Leonti Mroveli refers to Pharnavaz as the first Georgian King credited with creating the Georgian alphabet. The development of the Georgian alphabet was yet another important facet of the emerging Georgian statehood. Pharnavaz raised the idol of Armaz, reputedly named after him, on a mountain in the vicinity of Mtskheta.

According to The Georgian Chronicles:

And here Pharnavaz was first king of Georgia from race of Kartlos. He spreaded the Georgian language, and there was no language but Georgian only in land of Georgia. And he created the Georgian alphabet. And died Pharnavaz, and he was buried in front of Armazi. და ესე ფარნავაზ იყო პირველი მეფე ქართლსა შინა ქართლოსისა ნათესავთაგანი. ამან განავრცო ენა ქართული, და არ-ღა-რა იზრახებოდა სხუა ენა ქართლსა შინა თჳნიერ ქართულისა. და ამან შექმნა მწიგნობრობა ქართული. და მოკუდა ფარნავაზ, და დაფლეს წინაშე არმაზისა კერპისა.

”

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

“ The Encyclopaedia Britannica in the article "Georgian language" suggests that the Old Georgian script must have been derived from the Greek alphabet, on account of the order of the alphabet and the shapes of some of the characters, although the shapes of the majority of the signs appear to be a result of a free creation of its inventor. The same Encyclopaedia Britannica in the article "Alphabet" suggests that the Armenian and Georgian alphabets, created by St. Mesrob (Mashtots) in the early 5th century AD, were based on the Aramaic alphabet. ”

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

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

What is a legend?

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

“ The Georgian Chronicles is a conventional English name for the principal compendium of medieval Georgian historical texts, natively known as Kartlis Tskhovreba (Kartlis Cxovreba ქართლის ცხოვრება), literally "life of Kartli", Kartli being a core region of ancient and medieval Georgia, known to the Classical and Byzantine authors as Iberia. ”

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

“ Pharnavaz I (Georgian: ფარნავაზი) was the first king of Kartli, an ancient Georgian kingdom known as Iberia to the Classical sources, who is credited by the medieval Georgian written tradition with founding the kingship of Kartli and the Pharnabazid dynasty.

Based on the medieval evidence, most scholars locate Parnavaz’s rule in the 3rd century BC: 302–237 BC according to Prince Vakhusht, 299–234 BC according to Cyril Toumanoff and 284–219 BC according to Pavle Ingoroqva.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britannica does not mention Mesroph as the creator of Georgian alphabet anywhere. All these sources ([8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]) which claim so are based on the Armenian tradition. And their claim is not the established fact. Those sources or the authors of those sources have never studied the Georgian alphabet, the order, system of it but just base their opinions on the Armenian tradition. This can be said also about the Caucasian Albanian alphabet as well. Same Armenian sources claim Mesroph created it and again it is typical propaganda as such. Also in the article of Mesrop Mashtots the part where it says "He is also known for his contribution to invention of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets." which is another propaganda should also be removed. Armenians are a nation of big history and culture as well but there are some circles in their elites where they are pushing such propagandist moves against Georgians whether it is about Georgian alphabet, churches etc. For Armenian officials it is very important issue as well. For example if you go to Matenadaran guess what you will be told about Georgian alphabet? They are telling directly to the visitors that Georgian alphabet was created by their national hero Mesroph. Same happens in their schools and universities so their hyperactivity on the Georgian topics and especially on this topic shows everything clearly how much importance this topic represents for them. This article needs to have a lengthy protection as it will lead us nowhere as it will be vandalised everyday so we should take such topic protection in consideration. GEORGIANJORJADZE 11:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

All these sources ([8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]) which claim so are based on the Armenian tradition. And their claim is not the established fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEORGIANJORJADZE continues doing original research and calling Armenian tradition absurd. Why do say, that those scholars did not study Georgian? Most of them did study, many of the speak Georgian perfectly. Please, stop lying! Do you really think that no foreign scholar has studied Georgian alphabet? Do you think an academician would do claims like "Georgian alphabet is generally attributed to Armenian monk..." without having an idea on the subject? Хаченци (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

“ the world authorities consider Mashtots to be the creator or contributor to the creation of GA. ”

No sense to have any discussion with this user. Not going to waste my time arguing with this user as absurdity is reaching its peak already. We know his position on this issue already. Better to have some more serious users involved here as this is getting more like a joke every minute. GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Denying obvious facts continues without bringing a source. Well, that's what I was expecting.When you don't have a source, denying is all you can do.Хаченци (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I arrive a bit late to the party, and I see that the WP:RSN guys have weighed in with informed judgment and potential new scholarly sources, but I'd like to offer my perspective on the subject and bring to the discussion a source I met last year when working on the Georgian Orthodox Church article, which was also very contentious between Georgian and Armenian historical traditions.

It feels to me that the current version is too heavily dominated by the 2 rival traditions (Pharnavaz/Mashtots) and that each side bends sources to forward their POV instead of trying to reflect the actual linguistic and historical consensus. I am not very familiar with the linguistic studies (the studies mentioned at RSN should be interesting for that matter), but the historical consensus seems to link the development of the 1st Georgian script (Asomtavruli) with the christianization of Kartli/Iberia (Eastern Georgia) in the late 4th/early 5th centuries.

Stephen Rapp, a recognized historian of Georgia and the Caucasus, wrote in the Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, p. 139:

“ In order to propagate the faith rapidly among Mirian’s subjects, Christian leaders deliberately invented a script for the K‘art‘velian idiom of Georgian so that biblical and other religious texts could be translated into the local language. There is considerable controversy about the origins of the Georgian script. The c.800 Life of the Kings, the initial text of the corpus of medieval Georgian histories known as K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba (the so-called Georgian Royal Annals or ‘Georgian Chronicles’), credits the first K‘art‘velian monarch P‘arnavaz (r. 299–234 bce) with the invention of Georgian writing in early Hellenistic times. There is, however, no direct evidence to support this fanciful claim.

For its part, the medieval Armenian tradition gives the honour of creating scripts for Armenian, Georgian, and Caucasian Albanian to the Armenian cleric Mashtots, also known as Mesrop. However, surviving manuscripts of the vita of Mashtots, like those transmitting The Life of the Kings, postdate the schism between the Armenian and K‘art‘velian Churches, and it is altogether possible that both have been manipulated so as to give their respective parties precedence. In terms of chronology there can be no question, however, that all three Caucasian scripts were fashioned by a Christian impulse at about the same time, in the second half of the fourth century or early fifth century. Thus, while Mashtots might not have been involved personally with overseeing the creation of the Georgian script, there is every reason to think that a Christian pan-Caucasian effort was afoot. Armenian clerics would have played a conspicuous role in the project since their Church – established just a generation previously, after the conversion of King Trdat c.314 – was the largest and organizationally the most developed among the embryonic Caucasian churches. Thus by the end of the fourth and certainly by the start of the fifth century, Christian clerics had equipped themselves with a Georgian script, called asomt‘avruli.

”

So for Rapp the Pharnavaz hypothesis is "fanciful" and the Mashtots one should be reinterpreted as a "Christian pan-Caucasian effort", the personal role of Mashtots doubtful as based on later, biased sources. In my opinion, this seems to sum up the scholarly consensus, and should form the basis of the History section here; details regarding the traditional versions of the alphabet's origins could remain, but should not carry as much weight as they do now.Susuman77 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Rapp is of course one of the best scholars on the subject, but for writing his view as consensus, we will need some other scholars to agree with him. There are other authorities as well. E.g., W. Seibt considers GA to be invented in Jerusalem by monks who were inspired by the invention of GA. A third view is, that Mashtots has directly taken part in the creation, however, with the help of local Georgian monks and translators. All authors I could check (besides the Georgian ones), clearly support the view of Armenian influence on GA. But mentioning all this does not make much sense. A good writer and editor will ceratinly be needed. Хаченци (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Any progress? Let's start working on the history text already.

Time goes and the history section is frozen like that for too long. Let's start working on the wording in the history section already. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And what about new sources? Are there any objections to this information? Divot (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No more Armenian fairy tales here. GEORGIANJORJADZE 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)