Talk:Georgian scripts

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)

GJ, what is your opinion on the material which has been brought up by people posting at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN)? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe we should definitely use those sources. GEORGIANJORJADZE 00:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"No more Armenian fairy tales" ??? Nicholas Marr's mother was Georgian, Истрин (Istrin) - Russian. Divot (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No Georgian source. Enough is written about how Georgians concern the topic. For being as objective as we can, we should use only foreign sources. I think User:Susuman77 clearly explained why the pre-Christian origin should not be mentioned. No serious scholar writes such tales. But of course, the legend of mythical king Parnavaz should be mentioned. Хаченци (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me offer a summary of how I think we should organize the history section; I believe that in accordance to wikipedia guidelines regarding sources, we should not include/exclude them on the basis of their POV/national origin (i.e. "No Armenian fairy tales!" or "No Georgian source" is not the way to go), but according to their scientific nature and their age (recent scientific literature trump old). With this clear, here are the points I think the section can be based upon:

• The origin (date, creator(s), influences) of the Georgian alphabet are poorly known. First attested examples - 5th century (Bethlehem, Bolnisi) (source to Hewitt).
• The scholarly consensus points to the alphabet (that is the Asomtavruli script) being created in the 4th century AD, latest early 5th century (Haarmann), as part of the process of christianization of the Georgian lands (Colchis and Iberia) and of the whole Caucasus (Hewitt, Rapp).
• A point of contention is the role played by Armenian clerics in that process. An Armenian tradition, originating in Koryun, holds Mashtots as the creator of the Georgian alphabet as well as the Armenian. This tradition has been quoted in western sources until recently (Rayfield), but has been criticized by scholars, both Georgian and Western, though many agree that Armenian clerics must have played a role in the process (Rapp, Greppin).
• A competing Georgian tradition, first attested in medieval chronicles, assigns a much earlier, pre-Christian origin to the Georgian alphabet, and names King Pharnavaz as its inventor. This tradition is now mostly rejected by scholarly consensus (Rayfield, Rapp), and has found no documentary confirmation. Tamaz Gamkrelidze offers an alternate interpretation - the alloglotographic hypothesis (as quoted in Kemertelidze).
• Another scientific controversy regards the main influences at play in the Georgian alphabet: Greek or Semitic (as explained in Kemertelidze, also Shanidze). Also hypothetical role of pre-Christian cultural symbols/clan markers (Haarmann).

Also, this section could be more precisely labeled "Origins" rather than "History", as it does not touch the development of the other scripts, the evolution of letters, etc., all matters covered later in the article.

In any case, I can attempt to write this paragraph following what I suggested above in my sandbox to integrate in the article if consensus allows it. If you object to any of the sources, claims, phrasings, etc., please make it clear here so we can discuss, same if you think more should be added. Susuman77 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I support Susuman in this case but the Georgian tradition should come first and then Armenian one as this article is about the Georgian alphabet after all and not about an Armenian one to give it the preference. I also support renaming the section into Origins over History. GEORGIANJORJADZE 14:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! As to the order, it does not matter that much to me; I put it in that order as the question regarding role played by Mashtots is directly linked to a 4th century/christian origin, whereas the Pharnavaz hypothesis relies on a totally different assumption. Let's see what others have to say on the matter. Susuman77 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman77s text looks nice. Few comments.

The scholarly consensus points to the alphabet (that is the Asomtavruli script) being created in the 4th century AD, latest early 5th century (Haarmann).

I can't see any consensus accepting the existence of Georgian alphabet in 4th century. This view also goes back to Armenian alphabet creation story, which was in 405/6.

A point of contention is the role played by Armenian clerics in that process. An Armenian tradition, originating in Koryun, holds Mashtots as the creator of the Georgian alphabet as well as the Armenian. This tradition has been quoted in western sources until recently (Rayfield), but has been criticized by scholars, both Georgian and Western, though many agree that Armenian clerics must have played a role in the process (Rapp, Greppin).

Well, Koryun is not the only source, as is mentioned in earlier discussions on this TalkPage, so we better write early Armenian sources of V-VII cc. And which Western scholar criticizes that view?

I support Susuman in this case but the Georgian tradition should come first and then Armenian one as this article is about the Georgian alphabet after all and not about an Armenian one to give it the preference

Why? It's not about traditions, it's about scholar view on the subject, which has no nationality. The scholars mostly prefer the view, that the Armenian clerics and/or the Armenian alphabet has influenced the creation of Georgian alphabet. Hence it should be written first, as a more popular opinion. The Georgian tradition comes next, as a traditional, but rejected by most of modern scholars, point of view. In other articles the ordering is the same (first scholar, then traditional).

I also support the change of History to Origin.Хаченци (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! To answer your comments:

• 4th or 5th century? You can see how I put it in my sandbox text. Sure thing is Bethlehem 430. Then we have various scholars linking creation of alphabet to christianization following Mirian's conversion (337 latest). Rapp writes: "Thus by the end of the fourth and certainly by the start of the fifth century, Christian clerics had equipped themselves with a script", and "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". Hewitt: "Most, however, would concur that it was probably created some time in the 4th century". So at least 2 specialists put forward the 4th century; I admit that not all do, and I think my proposal reflects that an early 5th century date is also possible.
• Koryun/other sources. Koryun, as a contemporary of Mashtots, is the most important primary source in favor of that hypothesis, and as such has been the one most subject to criticism. For "Western" criticism, see Rapp ("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", which also applies to sources from the 7th century, times of conflict between the Arm. and Geo. churches), and Seibt (paper linked in the article, extracted from a published academic book: W. SEIBT – J. PREISER-KAPELLER (eds.), Die Entstehung der kaukasischen Alphabete als kulturhistorisches Phänomen. The Creation of the Caucasian Alphabets as Phenomenon of Cultural History (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 430;Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 27). Vienna 2011. Seibt also strongly rejects the Pharnavaz hypothesis). Still, we could change the wording to admit that other early medieval sources (but later than Koryun!) make the same claim.
• Order of presentation: I agree with your point here. Susuman77 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman77s text makes sense but User:GeorgianJorjadze's comment does not. The text should put most emphasis on the assumptions and theories that are most extensively mentioned in reliable academic sources. And that theory is the Armenian origin of the Georgian alphabet. The length of the text(s) also should be representative of the preeminent points of view. If the predominant theory is X and the theory that challenges X is Y, then discussion of X should have more real estate that the discussion of Y. Now we have the opposite: fringe theories that affirm the nativist, i.e. exclusively Georgian theories (Parnavaz and other myths, as well as awkward insinuations of some modern Georgian nationalist authors) enjoy most real estate. Sprutt (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman77, thanks. Well, your points are convincing and I agree with you in general, but the claim of Mashtots's creation (or better contribution, since the role of Mashtots is not completely clear) is based not only on historical sources (Koryun (V c), Moses of Chorene(V or VIII c), "Book of letters" (VI c)). There are indirect 'proofs', like similarity of Arm. and Geo alph., the Geo Bible being translated (partially) from Arm Bible, etc. One should not mention all this stuff, as well as its critic, so maybe writing Armenian tradition (see W. Seibt, "Die armenische Tradition schreibt dem Maštoc‘...") is better than naming Koryun. We should not forget, that there is a suspicion that the famous part of the text in Koryun's "Life of Mashtots" has been added later, but still some scholars who mention this "addition" and agree with it, accept the possible participation and/or contribution of Mashtots to the creation of GA. I guess it means, that Koryun is not the only reason pointing out to Mashtots theory. But this is just a minor comment. I am actually not against your version of text. :)

Perhaps the first book written or translated in Georgian may also be mentioned. The first original book is I think "The martyrdom of Shushanik", ca. 480. The first translation should have been the Bible, but I am aware of its dating. We agreed before, that the text in this section should not be large, but "The martyrdom of Shushanik" is a masterpiece, and I beleive it deserves to be mentioned as the first (known) book written with Georgian alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments and appreciation. In my proposed text, I indeed use first the phrase "Armenian tradition". I mention it originates in Koryun, but that shouldn't be taken to mean that it is not found elsewhere; similarly, I mention where and when the Georgian tradition is first attested. As for Shushanik, that's a great text, but I doubt it has a place in this paragraph: from what I can tell, the oldest manuscript preserved of it is much later (and an Armenian translation!). If you have a source claiming it was the first literary work created using the GA (that is, not a translation), maybe we could put it, but I cannot find it (admittedly, I did not perform the most thorough search, so you may be more lucky...). Susuman77 (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Хаченци. Koryun is by far not the only reason why the Armenian theory is the predominant theory on the origin of the Georgian alphabet (this is something that should be mentioned more explicitly, by the way). There are other reasons too. One of the them is the timing of emergence of Georgian and Armenian alphabets, and first samples of writing. Don't forget that the oldest sample of Armenian writing is also a mosaic and it comes from the Holy Land, just like the Georgian inscription in Bethlehem [1] - dating is almost exactly the same, 430s-440s. Second, let's not forget the striking graphical similarity between the Armenian alphabet and the oldest version of the Georgian script, Asomtavruli. Sprutt (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This stuff should not be mentioned in the article, we're just discussing whether to use "dating back to Koryun" or "according to early Armenian tradition". However, I don't think the difference is that big. Susuman77 looks to be familiar with the topic, maybe he knows what to write better than we. I hope he will start working on the article soon, and if someone will have comments/protests - there is always enough place in talk page. No more EW. Хаченци (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I finished writing down my proposed version of the "Origin" section in my sandbox, and invite you all to take a look at it (or would it be more convenient if I copy it here??). Thanks a lot for your remarks and comments, and keep them coming! Hopefully we can find consensus and ask an admin to unlock the article and integrate the new text in it. Susuman77 (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is about origin too. Divot (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"but has been criticized by scholars, both Georgian[8] and Western" -> "but has been criticized by Georgian and some Western scholars". Divot (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"who judge the passage in Koryun unreliable or even a later interpolation" - Rapp, Studies in medieval Georgian historiography: early texts and Eurasian contexts, Volume 601 "There is also the claim advanced by Koriwn in his saintly biography of Mashtoc' (Mesrop) that the Georgian script had been invented at the direction of Mashtoc'. Yet it is within the realm of possibility that this tradition, repeated by many later Armenian historians, may not have been part of the original fifth-century text at all but added after 607. Significantly, all of the extant MSS containing The Life of Mashtoc* were copied centuries after the split. Consequently, scribal manipulation reflecting post-schism (especially anti-Georgian) attitudes potentially contaminates all MSS copied after that time. It is therefore conceivable, though not yet proven, that valuable information about Georgia trans¬mitted by pre-schism Armenian texts was excised by later, post-schism individuals."

So, we need to say "who judge the passage in Koryun may be (though not yet proven) unreliable or even a later interpolation" Divot (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I support Divot. It should be made more clear that most scholars agree with the role of Mashtots in the creation of the Geo alphabet. Is this a coincidence that ALL THREE alphabets - Armenian, Asomtavruli and Gargarian ("Caucasian Albanian") - are basically invariants of the same script: [2], [3], [4], [5]? Furthermore, we should mention that serious scholars (e.g. Alexidze and Blair [6]) do care about the curious graphical similarity among the three alphabets attributed to Mashtots. Sprutt (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Most scholars agree? Can we have some sources? — Lfdder (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Please consult the sources in the earlier version of the chapter [7], sub-chapter International (traditional) view on origin - [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Sprutt (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

None of that is scholarly opinion. Some (most?) are not even RS on the matter. — Lfdder (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

None of that is scholarly opinion.

Have you actually checked who the authors are? Хаченци (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

To Lfdder: Sir, is your comment some kind of strange joke? Please advise. Sprutt (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Rayfield 2000 says "it has been believed"; this seems to be neither his nor other specialists' opinion, i.e. it's been generally believed
• Grenoble 2003 same as above
• Campbell 1998 says "traditionally invented", somewhat unclear
• Catholic Enyclopedia, Bowersock et al. 1999, Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia 1995, and Ackroyd et al. 1975 are not specialist lit.

— Lfdder (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to answer all those comments. I think there is a confusion between 2 claims:

1. Armenian clerics played a significant role in the creation of the Georgian alphabet, together with Georgian ones. Modern scholarship seems to agree on that, based on external arguments (tight relationships between the churches at the times) and internal ones (graphic similarities).
2. Mesrop Mashtots is the creator of the GA. This relies on Armenian historical tradition, mostly Koryun, and modern scholarship is very skeptical of this particular claim. To support that claim with sources that only show graphical similarities is WP:SYNTH if not WP:OR.

As for sources, first I agree with Lfdder's assessment. As to the sources brought up by Divot (Marr, Muradian, Istrin), I would not consider them reliable sources for the purpose of this page. Marr's linguistics, and most Soviet linguistics, rely on outdated theories and are rejected by modern linguists - they also were very politicized; see Shnirelman's works for more on that. Alexidze & Blair: you only provided an image: are they recognized specialists? Have they published peer-reviewed literature relevant to the debate here? If so, their POV would be relevant, if not I'm afraid we cannot quote them.

For those reasons, I stand by my version. Divot's suggested phrase, "but has been criticized by Georgian and some Western scholars", does not correspond to the state of modern scholarship, as I haven't found any post-1990 specialists of the subject who explicitly endorse the Armenian traditional version; actually, Haarmann and Hewitt call it a legend, Rapp is neutral but skeptical of Mashtots' personal role, Seibt rejects the traditional narrative and calls Mashtots an "indirect initiator". As for the phrasing on Koryun, we indeed have Rapp, who is neutral, but the straight-on source regarding interpolation that I quote is Seibt, who writes: "Yet there is also another chapter, with an astonishing and highly suspect report. (...) We assume that it is a later interpolation to Koriwn’s text, and one of modest quality. The Armenian historian Ghazar Parpetsi (Łazar P‘arpec‘i) (writing before the end of the 5th century) and Eznik, a younger contemporary of Mashtots, do not mention anything about the invention of a Georgian alphabet by Mashtots." Susuman77 (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just found another source: Robert W. Thomson. Rewriting Caucasian history: the medieval Armenian adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles : the original Georgian texts and the Armenian adaptation. Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 0198263732. Pp. xxii-xxiii. According to him, "the impetus to provide an independent script in which the native language could be written first came in Armenia." After detailing the creation of the AA by Mashtots, he then writes: "According to Koriwn, Mastoc' also composed alphabets for the Georgians and the Caucasian Albanians (Aluank')." Thomson does not endorse that theory, but rejects the Pharnavaz hypothesis: "The Georgian alphabet came into use about the same time as the Armenian, but there is no early tradition ascribing the invention to a local figure. The legendary attribution of the alphabet to King P'arnavaz many centuries before Christ has no historical foundation." So no explicit criticism of Koryun, no endorsement of him either = a similar neutral posture to Rapp. Reflecting that, I suggest adding a sentence to that paragraph, quoted to Rapp or Thomson: "Other scholars quote Koryun's claims without taking a stance on its validity." (see my sandbox, I added it) Susuman77 (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I found some of above-mentioned claims logical but some (plainly bizarre).

• Rayfield 2000 says "it has been believed"; and that means that there is a lazy/imperfect consensus (but consensus!) on that matter. You can't dismiss it.
• Grenoble confirms the lazy consensus.
• Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar. This source was entirely disregarded by Lfedder (why?). They say clearly "Mastoc' also created the Georgian and Caucasian-Albanian alphabets, based on the Armenian model." Plain, affirmative, clear.
• The Catholic Encyclopedia is considered a reliable WP source. Please do not arbitrarily dismiss it. It speaks affirmatively of Mashtots' role too.
• Campbell 1998 says "traditionally invented", and it is "somewhat unclear" (have to agree with Lfedder on that) but that too points to an affirmative (however not strong) opinion.
• Marr, Muradian, Istrin are reliable sources. Susuman77's point on Marr is laughable. Marr is a historian as much as a linguist, and a giant in academia. Some of his linguistic opinions are outdated, agree with Sasuman77; this, however, has nothing to do with his brilliant credentials of a historian. Muradian and Istrin are first class historians.
• Eznik and Lazar Parpetsi do not mention Mashtots' invention of GA. Fine. But Mashtots' disciple and Armenia's No.1 historian Movses Khorenatsi DOES that. That's good enough.
• Bottomline: there is a consensus on Mashtots' role in inventing the GA but that consensus is not as strong as many would like it to be. This, however, is a CONSENSUS. And it is an inclusive consensus, meaning it accommodates opinions on the possible role of Georgians themselves. All this mean that people here CANNOT dismiss, mis-characterize or water it down (it comes watered-down enough already). It is a predominant opinion. There are those in academia like Rapp who do not like the opinion of this majority. That's fine, and some of such opinions can be mentioned. Sprutt (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus among whom? I think you're confusing popular opinion with academic/specialist opinion. You can't extrapolate "it has been believed" and "generally attributed" to mean it's academic/specialist opinion. I did not "arbitrarily" dismiss Catholic Encyclopedia and the others; I dismissed them because they're not -- like I said -- specialist literature. — Lfdder (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Specialist literature? These are encyclopedias and scholars, who, though may not do their original scholar research, but they are familiar with what has been written in specialist literatue and their texts are based on academical sources, not on their personal opinion. I don't think ecnyclopedias are writing whatever they want. Хаченци (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

First, my apologies regarding Marr - I did not mean to demean his work, that I indeed respect and admire. I mostly think that recent research has drifted away from what you call the former "lazy consensus" (good way of saying it), and that recent scholarship seems to be either neutral or skeptical regarding Mashtots' personal role and Koryun's account. I don't think this article should go into more detail as to the many theories regarding the origins of the GA; we should create a specific article for that (although I recoil in fear at the future edit wars and nationalistic bombardments that will entail).

To address some of your other points, I know about the Movses Khorenatsi mention - however, recent scholars discuss the Mashtots' hypothesis mostly from Koryun, and do not assess Khorenatsi. I was only quoting Seidt about Eznik and Parpetsi, that was not my own OR or opinion. As to the Catholic Encyclopedia, I would call it a reliable tertiary source: we should not forget that it can be based on previous research that has been outdated by newer historians, and so the CE should not be made to represent a current consensus.

All in all, we mostly seem to disagree that the Mashtots' hypothesis is still "predominant opinion". It was, for sure, but things are not so clear nowadays, especially as that previous consensus was "lazy" and that no recent researcher argues in its favor. Consensus is that Armenian clerics must have played a role, direct or indirect, and influenced the creation of the GA, which is pretty much what I wrote. Further, it is controversial. Susuman77 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Come on guys, we will never rich a consensus in this way. Eznik, Parbetsi, Istrin, Marr, etc. Susuman77's text gives clear answer to the question. The theory that Mashtots created GA is supported by some scholars, but many authorities reject it in such simple way and give their own theories on the contribution of Mashtots. Some say Mashtots has contributed or influenced, the others say it may not be Mashtots, but the Armenian clerics in general, etc. We can't write Mashtots is considered as creator of GA, since this is an obvious exaggeration. We also can't mention every such theory as separate, since there are many of them but all of them are variations of the same story. I like the Susumans version in general, but I also have few comments, which I will write later. Хаченци (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that take on the situation, and welcome any further comments... Susuman77 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman, I appreciate your efforts, but when talking about the role of Armenian clergy, the phrase "Many agree" seems problematic to me as it invites the infamous {who} tag. I think Rapp is making his point clearer in another of his papers:

It is certain that the Armenians’ memory of Mashtoc‛, as it has reached us, at the very least represents a multiethnic, regional project to invent scripts for the major ethno-political and linguistic communities of southern Caucasia. On the basis of extant texts and their later manuscripts there is simply no way to prove definitively which script was invented first and whether it served as the direct prototype for the others. But what we can say is that all three were intentionally invented by a pan-Caucasian project, almost certainly with the participation of the learned Mashtoc‛, within a decade or two of the year 400. — Stephen Rapp. "Recovering the Pre-National Caucasian Landscape," in Mythical Landscapes Then and Now: The Mystification of Landscapes in [the] Search for National Identity, Ruth Büttner and Judith Peltz eds. Erevan: Antares, 2006. Pp. 13-52.

In addition, I would like to see the exact quotation from Greppin's work. Either way, I think we should not present their(?)/Rapp's assertion, however probable, as a scholarly consensus, but rather make this passage closer to what Rapp actually says and attribute it to this scholar. I would suggest to reword the passage in the following way:

As the modern Caucasiologist Stephen H. Rapp suggests the Armenian literati, being in possession of the largest Christian church organization in the Caucasus, would have played an active role in the simultaneous "multiethnic, regional project" of creating scripts for the Armenian, Georgian, and Caucasian Albanian communities.

--Kober^Talk 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

More detailed discussion of the obsolete theories regarding the origin of the GA can be found here. --Kober^Talk 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The website is Georgian and contains some strange statements. For example,

For some time there existed a view of the Armenian origin of the Kartuli Asomtavruli alphabet. The stance was based on a passage in Koriwn’s The Life of Mashtots, which ascribed the creation of the Kartuli Asomtavruli alphabet to his teacher, who, interestingly, possessed no knowledge of the language. This view refuted by Georgian scholars several decades ago, is, unfortunately, still mentioned as a theory in western scholarship.

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

Whether you find it arrogant or not is not relevant at all. Yes, the site is Georgian and it illustrates a Georgian POV. Either way, I explicitly said that the link is useful for earlier, obsolete theories which is interesting from a historical point of view. --Kober^Talk 19:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The obsolete theories are of course interesting, but in this article we should not go that deep into past. Maybe another one - an article called "Origin of Georgian alphabet", will be needed, and there the source will definitely be useful. Хаченци (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

" I haven't found any post-1990 specialists of the subject who explicitly endorse the Armenian traditional version; actually" - Mouradian "The problem of St. Sahak's and St.Mesrope's 'Perfect history'" // Patmabanasirakan handes (Erevan) 169, 2005, nr. 2, 154-165 and Serge N. Mouraviev. "Erkataguir, ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien". Academia Verlag, 2010. P.29 note 23, Pp/ 202-203. Divot (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Serge N. Mouraviev. "Erkataguir, ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien". Academia Verlag, 2010. P.29 note 23: "L'opinion fort commode, qui fait de Korioun la source unique de toutes les informations dignes de foi rapportées par les autres historiens et permet d'ignorer les autres, me semble parfaitement insoutenable. Ses partisans interprètent tout ce qu' « ajoutent » les autres sources comme des erreurs ou des inventions destinées à « combler les lacunes » de Korioun (exemples : MARTIROSSIAN 1988, 78, 81-82...). Elle est d'ailleurs actuellement en passe d'être démentie par les traces de plus en plus nombreuses d'une Histoire parfaite des saints Sahak et Mesrop que rassemble Parouyr Mouradian (MOURADIAN 2005, 154-165)." Divot (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, according Rapp, "Consequently, scribal manipulation reflecting post-schism (especially anti-Georgian) attitudes potentially contaminates all MSS copied after that time. It is therefore conceivable, though not yet proven, that valuable information about Georgia transmitted by pre-schism Armenian texts was excised by later, post-schism individuals.". "potentially" in the original Rapp's text in italics [16]. Thus Rapp specifically emphasizes that this is only a potentiality, but not a fact. Divot (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Divot's commentaries well complement my suggestions above. I am for Sasuman77's text, but it should be modified to reflect a much more prominent role of the view that GA was the work of M. Mashtots. Sprutt (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman, Georgian tradition should be mentioned first and then you can continue about Armenian tradition. Also this part where it says "Many agree, however, that Armenian clerics, if not Mashtots himself, must have played a role in the creation of the Georgian script" should be changed to Some, as some people who support the Armenian fairy tale does not mean it is believed by many. GEORGIANJORJADZE 00:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In brief, there's the possibility that there's some truth to the Mashtots legend 'cos the timeframe and his background fit. But to attribute the creation of the GA to Mashtots in the absence of evidence is simply laughable, and sources that claim it was his work in a 'plain, affirmative, clear manner' should be dismissed. — Lfdder (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

sources that claim it was his work in a 'plain, affirmative, clear manner' should be dismissed

Aren't those sources academical and neutral? Хаченци (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Are they reliable? No. — Lfdder (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't you tell more precisely - Who, from overmentioned sources, supported Mashtots as creator of GA, is not reliable, abd why? Хаченци (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not gonna keep repeating myself. — Lfdder (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot you wrote on it already. But you comment does not make sense.

• Rayfield 2000 says "it has been believed"; this seems to be neither his nor other specialists' opinion, i.e. it's been generally believed

In an academical article one does not write about "general beleifs" but about "scholar beleifs". Rayfield points out that this is the general beleif among scholars, hence Mashtots theory is not only his personal point of view, but (as he claims) the main theory among scholars. You have a very strange interpretation of his words.

• Grenoble 2003 same as above
• Campbell 1998 says "traditionally invented", somewhat unclear

Well, traditionally invented is really unclear statement, I have to agree. But - does he mention the other tradition?

• Ackroyd et al. 1975 are not specialist lit.

One does not need to be a specialist in Georgian alphabet, any scholar of Middle East studies or Caucasus studies also has to be familiar with the modern academical opinion, with the "state of the art". Therefore, one cannot ignore them. Хаченци (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@GEORGIANJORJADZE, I suggest you calm down and stop the unnecessary attack on the Armenians. If it was an "fairy tale", it wouldn't be so popular among non-Armenian experts. See WP:WEIGHT --Երևանցի ^talk 01:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The possibility of a guy who knew no Georgian language and that very guy creates a Georgian alphabet well that's a totally laughable and epic at the same time. Same applies to the Caucasian Albanian alphabet as well. That's the most funny joke in the region btw. GEORGIANJORJADZE 01:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Laughable or not, you are neither a historian, nor an archaeologist. I think you're behavior speaks for itself. You like it or not, there are many sources that say that he invented the Georgian alphabet (or participated in the invention or influenced it). You are free to think otherwise you and believe in whatever legend you want. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which bases itself on reliable sources and not on believes of its users. If most experts believe in the "Armenian fairy tales" as you claim, then something must be wrong with the world. Maybe Armenians are conspiring to take over the world too? --Երևանցի ^talk 01:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, so all those scholars, who accept Mashtots participation are jerks? Хаченци (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman, concerning the centuries. Is there anyone claiming GA was invented before AA? Because the date for the later is 405/6. So, one wonders only, how on one side it could exist before AA, and on the other side, Mashtots has participated in its creation. Rapp's theory is somehow problematic to me. I mean, after the decipherment of Albanian palimpsests it became quiet clear that the invention of their script belongs to Mashtots (see, e.g. latest articles by J. Gippert). So, in general Rapp's theory about simultaneous invention of three alphabets must have been reviewed in recent years. I will search for new articles. However, which dating is more popular ? I guess early 5-th, since the authors who mention the 4-th century, mention also 5-th century. I don't think there is anyone directly saying it has been invented in 4-th century, is there? Хаченци (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Georgian tradition should be mentioned first and then you can continue about Armenian tradition

Absolutely impossible. The section is about origin, the scholar view on the origin. The Georgian tradition is a legend, which noone takes serious (except some paranoic Georgian pseudo-historians). Hence it has to be mentioned in the end, as an old, nice fairy tale. Хаченци (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze should be advised to adhere to WP standards of debate; otherwise his participation should be restricted. Making pejorative nationalist and other untactful statements is unacceptable. Sprutt (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No interest in this article any more? Хаченци (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The Davati Stela is an early Christian ivory artifact from the mountainous part of eastern Georgia. It is a cross-shaped stela, carrying a bas-relief, depicting the archangels Michael and Gabriel, with one of the earliest inscriptions in the ancient Georgian script (asomtavruli). The stela was discovered in 1985 in a small church of the Virgin in highland village of Davati. The Georgian scholar R. Ramishvili has claimed that the combination of letters კ [k], ტ [t] and ჭ [tch](კტჭ) correspond to the number 5320(კ-5000; ტ-300; ჭ-20) and has attempted to calculate from it the alleged date when the Georgian alphabet was created (284 BC). Mesrop Mashtots was born in 362.

What does this mean?!--MEDGEORGIA  talk  19:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)--Medgeorgia (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It means only that Ramishvili thinks Mashtots did not create Georgian alphabet. But practically all other Georgians also thinks so, hence it does not mean anything related directly to this article. Хаченци (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What Ramishvili?

The Davati Stela is important and crucial to the dispute! Davati Stela is oldest Georgian artifact. Date of inscription is considered 367 years. AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362.

Bibliography

• R. Ramishvili, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1986, #8
• K. Tsereteli, Stellas from the village Davati “Dzeglis Megobari” 1984 #68
• G. Narsidze, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1987, #4
• G. Narsidze, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1987, #8
• K. Machabeli, Stellas in the Georgia. 1999
• G. Javakhishvili, early feudal epoch in Georgia. 1999

--MEDGEORGIA  talk  15:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

“ 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 ”

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

Look, you can write that POV on talkpages or in Georgian Wiki, but not here. It has been written a lot that this is solely Georgian point of view. Western scholars laugh at the people who beleive in that. Davati Stela is dated to 367 by Georgian academicians, there is no script from III c. BC, there is script which is dated by Georgian scholars to III c. BC. The legend of Parnavaz should be mentioned as a Georgian traditional legend about the origin of the alphabet, but it cannot be written as an academical point of view, since no academician outside of Georgia considers it possible. Search for western sources, the origin of GA is studied not only in Georgia. If you study Kartvelian history in NY state university, it would not be a problem to point to a dozen of western kartvelists who beleive in Parnavaz legend. Хаченци (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What Parnavaz Legend? I'm talking about Davati Stela!!! Yes, Davati Stela is Georgian Heritage, Georgian alphabet is also Georgian and not the Armenian, and Georgian scholars explores Georgian heritages. And yes, Davati Stela is dated to 367 by Georgian scholars and academicians. AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362. So once again,

• AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362—Davati Stela is dated to 367
• AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362—Davati Stela is dated to 367
• AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362—Davati Stela is dated to 367

Bibliography

• R. Ramishvili, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1986, #8
• K. Tsereteli, Stellas from the village Davati “Dzeglis Megobari” 1984 #68
• G. Narsidze, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1987, #4
• G. Narsidze, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1987, #8
• K. Machabeli, Stellas in the Georgia. 1999
• G. Javakhishvili, early feudal epoch in Georgia. 1999

--MEDGEORGIA  talk  09:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Improving article and under construction

Hello guys. Just wanted to let you all know that I'm working on to improve the article concerning the Asomtavruli, Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli scripts. I've done the Asomtavruli today and the next few days I'll do Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jaqeli, please discuss your edits. Your grand ambition to improve the article does not empower you to gratuitously delete the inputs of other users without discussion. Thanks. Hablabar (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This article subject to general sanctions

As a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted. The specific details are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Direction of writing

Are ზ and ხ really written in the opposite direction, one beginning with the tick atop the bowl, and the other ending with it? — kwami (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ზ is written starting with the top loop (going clockwise) and ending with the bottom loop (counterclockwise). ხ starts with a downward vertical stroke and ends with the bottom loop (going counterclockwise). Aronson's Georgian: A Reading Grammar contains several pages (21-25) illustrating what I understand to be the "correct" way to write all the letters. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We got the first one wrong, then. I don't have access to Aronson. Could you check to see which others we got wrong? I'll correct the image if you can describe them as well as you did ზ. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Aronson book is available online (see "Reference grammar of Georgian by Howard Aronson" in the article's external link section).

The directions in the "Writing order and direction of Mkhedruli" section of the article seem to be mostly correct, but I would say the following:

• The stroke direction for ზ is all wrong, as I already pointed out above.
• Is there any way to use curved arrows? The arrows currently on თ and ფ, for example, do not (IMO) adequately express the idea that the circle should be done first (counterclockwise), followed by the hook or hooks (clockwise).
• I would add another, upward-pointing arrow to the end of პ, to make it clear that the letter is written bottom-to-top. Same for ჰ, and also ა.
• The directional arrows on ჯ don't really make sense, since (as far as I'm aware) the form of ჯ shown in this chart — like an X with hooks on all four ends — is exclusively a printed (typeface) form and is never used in handwriting. The common handwritten ჯ is made by first doing a vertical stroke, with a hook on the bottom (kind of like handwritten კ), and then adding a horizontal stroke (which may slant slightly from upper left to lower right).

Please remember that I'm a student of Georgian (not a native speaker), so I'll gladly stand corrected if Jaqeli or other native speakers would like to correct me. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello @Richwales: and @Kwamikagami: I should state that none of those letters are written wrong. All of them are correct. I should also say that usage of printed version for ჯ is also handwritten by some though majority of course write it with the hook so we can discuss the possibility of changing of printed ჯ into handwritten ჯ. Also I want to say that I would definitely support the curved arrows as well as Rich suggested. As for პ, ჰ and ა there is no need for additional arrow as those letters are written with 1 move. Jaqeli (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So, ზ and ხ are written in opposite directions, ზ bottom-to-top, and ხ top-to-bottom, pace Aronson? — kwami (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No. ზ is written middle-to-top-to-bottom, roughly like a slanted figure-8. After the first (left/top) loop, the rest of ზ is written more or less like ხ. Also, the final tail (tick mark) on the end of ხ (and ზ) is an optional flourish, kind of like a serif — it's common in many typefaces, but it's not an absolutely mandatory distinguishing characteristic — some people's handwriting includes the tail on ზ and ხ, while others don't, and AFAIK it's considered OK either way. The essential difference between ხ and ს, as I understand it, is that ხ has a closed loop, whereas the ending of ს is open. My impression of the font used in Aronson's book is that the ს's look way too much like ხ's — Jaqeli, could you let us know what you think of the Georgian font in the Aronson book (available online via the first external link in this article)? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Richwales: I've seen the book and the handwritten words and their direction is indeed right. By the way, all kids at schools at first learn the Georgian alphabet in that kind of barred notebooks as Aronson used for the letters. Rich, you seem to know many things about the Georgian alphabet so well done. Indeed, the tail on ხ and ზ are used by many and those letters are considered written complete when used in that way so yes it is very common and is used by many. What do you mean about the letter ს being too much? Jaqeli (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So, as you said above; you and Jaqeli then disagree as to whether Aronson or our illustration is correct. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What I disagree with Rich exactly? Jaqeli (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Aronson says ზ is written top-to-bottom, as ხ is; you say it's written bottom-to-top, the opposite of ხ. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My motivation for suggesting additional arrows was to make these writing issues clearer to readers who may be totally unfamiliar with the Georgian alphabet. If one looks at a letter like პ, with absolutely no prior knowledge of this or any other Georgian letter, one's first assumption is almost certainly going to be that the letter must obviously be written top-to-bottom — the opposite of reality. Regarding ჯ, it wasn't until I saw the common handwritten form of this letter that I realized the most important identifying feature is the hook on the bottom (lower left), and that the other three hooks are basically just an artistic thing (kind of like serifs in the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Richwales: I think that ჯ the way it is now in the image should stay that way as there is an additional section for those letters who have alternative forms for Mkhedruli just above that section. As for the upward arrows I think the best solution would be the curved arrows which would describe their direction at its best. Jaqeli (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think curved arrows will make them clearer. ა especially might be confusing with a second arrow, but they might be useful with the others. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So we've got:

clockwise: ბ გ დ ე ვ ი კ ლ მ ნ ო რ უ ქ ღ შ ძ წ ჭ ჯ

counter-clockwise: ა პ ს ც ხ ჰ

both: [ckws–cntr] ზ; [cntr–ckws] ჟ ტ თ ფ ყ ჩ

— kwami (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, as I see you're mostly confused with letter ზ? You can first write the same kind of letter like ხ and then just add a circle at the top. It will be more easy for you. By the way many write like that. Jaqeli (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why it's the opposite of ხ, and if Aronson made an error. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would not really call it an error. It's just recommended to write ზ like that. Though as I've said many write it as they want. Jaqeli (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I found the font Avaza SP online. It's closer to handwriting than Sylvaen, and so is probably a better font for the image. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, you mean this font? Jaqeli (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's not beautiful, but it's easy to copy with pen and paper, and it leaves out the optional serifs, and thus illustrates the necessary parts of the letters. (Unless that first left-to-right stroke of l is necessary?) — kwami (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Parent system

to Jaqeli: The parent system of Georgian alphabet is the Greek alphabet. The ordering of letters is such an obvious proof of it, that it is not rejected by anyone, not even Georgian scholars. By the way, the fact that it's modelled on Greek (and not on Armenian, like Caucasian Albanian alphabet) has been the main point for scholars who reject its creation by Mashtots. The concept of "parent system" has nothing to do with what is written in "Origin" section, it does not mean a Greek origin of Georgian script, or that the forms of Greek letters have influenced the form of Georgian letters, it simply means the alphabet as such has been modelled on Greek alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Jaqeli's behavior is highly disruptive with no apparent desire to discuss. If this continues, I suggest you go to Arbitration Enforcement per Talk:Georgian_alphabet#This_article_subject_to_general_sanctions. There is no reason for him to remove Greek as the parent sustem of the Georgian alphabet. It is backed up by a reliable source, which he prefers to overlook. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I beleive in this case it's only a misunderstanding of the concept of "Parent system". The different versions of origin of Georgian script are not saying anything about the parental system of the alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Further changes by Jaqeli, without any discussion. By parent system, Jaqeli, one means the alphabet on which the current one is modelled. For the case of Georgian alphabet it was modelled on Greek. This fact is neither rejected by anyone, nor is it disputed. The origin of Georgian alphabet, its creation, history, modifications, etc. may be unclear, but the fact that the alphabet, as we know it today, was modelled on Greek is not something disputable. It has nothing to do with the form of the letters, etc., it is just that the Greek alphabet was used as a basis for Georgian alphabet. I hope know you understood. Хаченци (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The category seems ambiguous to me. Usually by "parent system" we mean direct descent. "Modeled on" works for me. But the sorting order is not "modeled on" Greek, it *is* Greek. Whether that and the few obvious Greek letters in Georgian mean that the Georgian script is actually derived from Greek I don't think anyone knows. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would never claim Georgian alphabet is derived directly from Greek alphabet, the two scripts are simply too different from each other. It is though a descedant from Greek (in the sense it was modelled on Greek) whereas the intermediate steps remain unclear. While creating a new alphabet, you need a basis, don't you? For Georgian alphabet it was Greek, wasn't it? That's what I am trying to say. Correct me if I am wrong. Writing "The parent system of Georgian alphabet was Greek alphabet" absolutely does not mean that Georgian script is a sort of evolution of the Greek alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Хаченци, stop inserting the disputed wording in the "parent system". It is not important if you would never claim anything about the Georgian alphabet but it is important for the average reader of the encyclopedia to understand what does that mean. It is highly confusing and such wording like "modeled on Greek" can not stay in that bar. Exact wording which is "alphabetic order modeled on Greek" is clear and such statement better explains its role when "modeled on Greek" can mean anything from copying the Greek letters to the origins of the alphabet itself. Jaqeli (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been going on for so long that I don't know what the status quo is. But we have a ref for it being modeled on Greek; if it were descended directly from Greek we wouldn't need a clarification such as "modeled on". — kwami (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To Jaqeli, Why should it matter what an average reader would understand, if the written text is from reliable sources? The details are described in the article itself. The Armenian alphabet is even more far from Greek, but I can hardly imagine any Armenian feeling somehow offended because of the fact that Greek alphabet is a parent system of AA. You need to compare with other articles on scripts, the world is not moving around Georgian alphabet only. Хаченци (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

comparison with Armenian

What's the point of the img comparing Georgian w Armenian? Is it just to show a common calligraphic tradition, as you get between the Latin and Thai alphabets, or is there an implicit claim of a common origin? Today, Georgian and Armenian often look like the Latin alphabet, but that doesn't mean they derive from Latin, or even that Latin influenced their creation. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cmon, that's already not serious. Similarity between early Georgian and Armenian scripts can hardly be compared with similarity of both with Latin. Possible influence of Armenian alphabet on Georgian is written in sources, and the similarities of letters is one of main points why people think about common origin. It's not only graphical similarity, but some of the same letters, i.e. the letters corresponding to the same (or almost the same, due to differences of the languages) sound, look extremely similar in both alphabets (e.g. k (Կ), i (Ի), p' (Փ, from Greek), v (Վ), ts' (Ց), zh' (Ժ) ) . However, I have to agree, that the shown picture does not show that similarity. And such a picture is probably better to include in a detailed article about the origin of Georgian script. Хаченци (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User Hablavar is making highly disputed edits in the origins section and attention should be taken with all such edits for avoiding disruption on Wikipedia article. As for this picture this shows only the calligraphic similarities and not of the letters. And it is Nukshuri alphabet which first appeared in the 9th century so what does that image have to do with the origins section as it has nothing to do with the origins of the first Asomtavruli alphabet. Jaqeli (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)