Talk:History of Georgia (country)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

repeated statement[edit]

The statement "In the 2nd century AD, Iberia strengthened her position in the area, especially during the reign of King Pharsman II who achieved full independence from Rome and reconquered some of the previously lost territories from declining Armenia." is included twice in the same section, this seems very redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

poor topic sentence in first paragraph[edit]

History itself is 6000 years old, history (as defined by historians and in Wikipedia's article on history" is based on written records. So, for Georgia it's 1000 BC (which makes it one of the "middle-aged" peoples, not "one of the oldest," at best. Since much of the land on which Georgia sits was under water back when the Black Sea/Caspian Sea were joined (and mostly freshwater), Georgia can't possibly have the depth of habitation that, say, Crimea or Transylvania do. The prehistory of Georgia is very short - indeed, it starts very soon before its history.

Making it one of the younger cultures of the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Official date of Christianity in Georgia[edit]

…Christianity became established as a state religion of Kartli-Iberia in the 327 A.D. T.E.Dowling

Christianity was adopted as a State religion in 327 AD, under the influence of Saint Nino… D.M.Lang

...Christianity became an official religion of Iberia in about 327 A.D...... Allen

Orthodox Church sources:

The active history of Christianity in Georgia begins with the missionary activities of Nino of Cappadocia beginning in 303. By 317 her message reached the rulers of the eastern and western kingdoms of Georgia when King Miriam II of Iberia (Eastern Georgia) and Queen Nana of Western Georgia adopted Christianity as the state religion. The Christianization of Georgia progressed over the next several centuries.

Ldingley 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ldingley is absolutely correct. AD 327 is a more widely accepted date of Georgia's conversion though AD 319, AD 334 and AD 337 have also been suggested.
I would add Margery Wardrop's The Life of Saint Nino, p. 5. (ISBN 1593334710; 1900, reprint 2007) to the list of references. Also Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, page 17; Marie-Félicité Brosset, Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l'antiquité jusqu'au XIX [i.e. dix-neuvième] siècle, p. xxxvi. --Kober 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The sources that say 337 far outnumber those that allegedly say 327. Just checking on the web, I can't find any hits for 327 anywhere, but hundreds for 337. And if you check out you can see that Britannica and several Encyclopedia articles besides wikipedia all agree, 337 or 330s. 337 is definitely not a typo, it's the majority opinion of historians. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
What historians? Can you name me one? I already listen all major scholars of Caucasus who based on extensive research have provided the exact date as 327 A.D. However, according to new findings in Georgia the date is 10 years older and settling on 317 A.D. However, based on scholars (such as Dowling and Allen) and not on or Britannica which is not historic scholarly data base, the date is 327 A.D. The scholarly sources are far more important than Google hits. Please visit your local University library and conduct your own research about the topic. Georgia (Iberia) is the second oldest Christian after ancient Armenia state and not the kingdom of Aksum (Ethiopia did not exist in 330 A.D.). Actually the date of 330 A.D for Aksum is also very much disputed and as i review the Aksumite History, i dont see that date anywhere. Ldingley 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The oldest attested native use of the name "Ethiopia" just happens to be from an inscription dated to the year 330 AD, so please do not make assertions like "Ethiopia did not exist in 330 AD". Ethiopia existed long before that and the continuity under whatever name goes back thousands of years. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Ethiopia is a very ancient community, however everywhere we can only see that the Kingdom of Aksum adopted Christianity as state religion. Ldingley 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more "typos" that say 337 AD - what a lot of "typos"![edit]


Just the tip of the iceberg, I got tired of looking halfway down the first page...

Sites that claim 327 AD:

  1. (none)

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

None of those sources are scholarly or Historic data base, I have quoted many historic materials which give the date of 327. Now even i found the earlier date of 324 in Mr Wardlops book on Georgian Kingdom, London 1911. Again, none of those sources are scholarly, they are mainly personal websites.Ldingley 16:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
So how do you account for everybody making the same "typo", LDingley? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Listen, Wikipedia is not a place where you can site the references from some websites like Tripod, Answers and even Britannica which is not credited as Historic scholarly database. I gave you real scholarly references by well known specialists of Caucasian History and provided lists of their work with pages. This is sufficient for the determining which date is correct based on historic research and not googling. I will go further and will present more evidence from other scholarly work as time will allow. Thanks. Ldingley 16:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
OK maybe so, maybe not, but you didn't answer my question: How do you account for everybody making the same "typo"? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of the data on those web sites are actually taken from Wikipedia. is notorious for that. I have to run to the lectures; will site more references from the scholars rather than websites of Georgian boy scouts :) Cheers my friend. Ldingley 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The Britannica articles on Georgia mostly uses the chronology proposed by Cyril Toumanoff, and other websites blindly repeat that. Toumanoff was a great scholar but his data are not always accurate. The references listed by me and Ldingley are very serious and easily checkable. I think they are more credible than a scout organization website (I liked that very much:)) or any other obscure Tripod page. --Kober 17:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Its so funny, all of these websites do not mention 337, and even some of them go far earlier to 317 A.D. US State Dep: "only the second nation in the world to do so officially." These are only some websites, there are tons more where the date is 317, 330, 324, etc. That’s why it is very important to acknowledge the fact of accuracy which is derived from scholarly sources rather than websites. I am am very late :( Cheers. Ldingley 17:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


In 314, at Ceasarea in Cappadocia, Grigol Lusarovich, “the Illuminator” was consecrated bishop of Armenia. Twenty years later, the king of karli-Iberia, Mirian and his kingdom adopted Christianity….. The Making of the Georgian Nation, Ronald Grigor Suny, p. 20

In AD 330, King Mirian III and Iberia (Georgia) accepted Christianity… Georgia A Country Study, Glenn E. Curtis, p. 42

  • Keep it civil folks. A little sardonic humour may miscarry as outright sarcasm. This is text only and face and tone of voice can not mitigate what may only be friendly banter. We all want to take this to Feature Article quality. Malangthon 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Filling in the sources[edit]

Hi, I am doing what I can to at least trace some of these uncited statements to a credible source. Few are actually primary sources and that is a problem most people face when trying to dig up references. My guess is that an organisation like, say, the American Chamber of Commerce in Georgia is getting informed feedback and while it is not a primary source, it will serve for now. Let me know if you dig something up. Malangthon 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

From the DAI (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut) I discovered what excavations are being carried out [1]: "cooperative projects are being conducted in Georgia: an excavation by the Eurasia Department of the DAI in Tachti-Perda in Georgia, an excavation organised by the Tübingen University in Udabno, and the excavation at the Bronze Age gold mine at Saktrissi, in which the Deutsches Bergbaumuseum in Bochum is involved. "

NB: Most sites I have come across that are scholarly in content are not in Engish. German seems to predominate. If you read German, let us know what is out there. Meantime, I will see what I can uncover on English language sites. Happy hunting. Malangthon 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Recorded History[edit]

The statement, "The recorded history of Georgia dates back for more than 4,000 years." needs a reference. Neolithic peoples left artefacts and burial mounds, Neolithic people did not write, ergo, did not record. In other words, they were PRE-historic. Can anyone show a reference--probably outside of Georgia--that mentions the people in Georgia? That at least will give us a source for this statment. Malangthon 23:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just reread that--4000 years ago is about 2,000 B.C. So what do I know? OK We still need a source but we may not be talking about Neolithic peoples. Malangthon 23:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

first king[edit]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Image removed[edit]

I've removed this image because:

I took an image of the piece myself, which is at Commons. --Zaqarbal 18:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Any reason why there's a gaping hole between the Ottoman invasion and the Russian annexation. That's a gap of over three centuries. I'll see what I can do about filling it before too long - unless anybody has a valid objection. Cheers. --Folantin 14:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually I was about to ask whether Georgia has been under Ottoman rule, the current article doesn't seem to indicate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnugh (talkcontribs) 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Golden Age maps[edit]

old map, new map

There are several differences between them - the most notable ones are that Shirvan and North Caucasus are shown as parts of Georgian state and not as dependent territories in the new one; on the other hand Nakhichevan is shown as part of Georgia in Andersen's map and as dependency in the other one. I doubt that all the North Caucasus (up to the Sea of Azov!!) was part of Georgian state at that time. Besides no sources are indicated that were used to make the new map. Could anyone clarify the status of Shirvan, North Caucasus and Nakhichevan in the time of Queen Tamar? Alæxis¿question? 07:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

War with Russia[edit]

It should be brought to someone's attention that this article doesn't even mention the 2008 war with Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyburd (talkcontribs) 19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over "Early Georgian kingdoms of Colchis and Iberia" section AND "The Roman Conquest of Iberia and Colchis".[edit]

Dears, let us all put in our hard work to bring this article into order. For the 1st, let us start from a more easy parts; the ones, that we CAN find dada for from reliable sources. The disputes for pre-historic period is more difficult to handle as it really needs much deeper research. Let this section be for the early history. This dispute arises from not having any resurces mentioned for the early history of these Caucasian Kingdoms of Colchis and Iberia. I personally shall be looking for some factual bases and try to contribute to it. I'd also like others to do so.Aregakn (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to do more research on the subject. But I’m removing your tag as I see no dispute out here. --KoberTalk 07:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I hope you will first learn the description of the tag and when it can and should be used first, then claim that it was ABused. I shall remind:

" The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if: .....

  • it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references."

Tell me how many references you see there to the whole information. I see only 1 to the first sentense and not the story. In addition I shall add to it the Roman conquest as it has really 0 links. Hope your research will help find links. And before that I wouldn't recommend you to delete the tag claimig it's abuse. PS. pls attend the other discussions on Sameba and the Georgian Orthodox Church. This will be my last reminderAregakn (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please keep your "last reminders" to yourself and add tags when there is an actual dispute here. The tag will be removed unless you are going to be more specific about what you are actually disputing.--KoberTalk 09:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The accuracy of article(s) as a whole. And the tags shall be added back until we can find reliable sources for that info.Aregakn (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
For what info? Please list the statements in the article which you think are disputable. "the accuracy of article(s) as a whole" is not an argument. --KoberTalk 09:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one to list statements disputable. I am requesting references to where the history is taken from. There are 2 sections of a historic article with no references to sources. If you know the sources the information is taken from, listing them is what I want to be done. The same you are requesting on other articles.Aregakn (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't quite understand what you are talking about. First you were referring to some vague "disputes from prehistoric period", then you went on to state that you are not the one who finds any statement in the article disputable. You are stubbornly putting the dispute tag where there is no content dispute whatsoever and refusing to name the part of the content you find controversial. Do you actually know what you want? If your intention is to request more sources for the article, there is a {{Refimprovesect}} tag for that.--KoberTalk 20:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You really didn't understand it, yes. As an introduction, I was speaking of not willing to dispute the prehistoric era as it is difficult due to lack of sources. This was a reference to one of the previous discussions on this page (have a look above). As for your suggestion to put {{Refimprovesect}} instead of {{Disputed}}, I shall take it for now. But in a little while I hope you can also help me with the disputes I shall list, as you asked, separately. Thanks and till then.Aregakn (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous sources which you might look into when you discuss Colchis and Iberia as early Georgian states. Please refer to the article about Colchis and Iberia where numerous scholarly sources were attached. When reading your "disputes" it is clear that you are just suggesting and not disputing anything because you dont counter any argument with other scholarly sources which might contradict the well established facts. I do understand that we need to attach those sources to the article and as time will allow I shall commence with references and sources shortly. I have many scholarly publications on Ancient Georgia and shall improve the article based on these sources. Iberieli (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
As you see, I have agreed to the dispute tag being changed to the reference tag for now because I'd like to have seen the sources and see which parts should be disputable (or not). Appreciate your work on references. Aregakn (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Laves! Yes I will start inserting references. Problem with me is that i have very limited time, I have my own papers and sources to research. And you are correct, there are sources missing from many sections in that article. It is not because the original author (i have no idea who it was) had bad intention but i think he or she did not have enough time to hit the books and articles and link them to the article claim. It happens in every article. I usually get involved if there is a dispute and i have to support that disputed claim wit sources (like Colchis case). Cheers-Tsavatanem! Iberieli (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
p.s Moreover, this article is a mess. Vital historical facts are missing, some sections are too short and not informative, bibliography is incomplete and references are missing for Roman section and others bellow it. Lets take our time and improve it step-by-step. Iberieli (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes! All you say is right, dear. The whole mess made me go directly to the dispute tag. Anyway, it's going to get better little by little, i guess.Aregakn (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC) PS. Oh... and I think you were trying to write Armenian... I might not get things right as I am just starting to learn Armenian but I thik you wanted to say "lav es?" and it should be as a question meaning "are you fine?" :) Yes, I'm good. Lav em! :) Rogo raxar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aregakn (talkcontribs) 03:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman Map[edit]

Aregakn, This map was created based on scholarly sources and it shows the location of Iberia within the periphery of the roman empire and is suitable for the section which describes the Iberian history in the Roman context. You are blatantly removing this map under alleged claim of "POV" and not presenting any viable argumentation or reference in order to show how "POV" it is. You replace this map with the outdated one which is un-scholarly but i understand why this map suits your own POV, the border of Armenia are greatly extended into Caucasus. Instead of vandalizing this article and removing valuable maps, i appealed to you previously to cooperate rather than engulf in edit wars. If you dont cease from blatant removal of this map which does not suit your Armenian POV, I will appeal to administrators and report you as vandal and POV pusher. Moreover, this article will be locked until further resolution of the dispute. Iberieli (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

More easy for you and others to understand to make it, I shall do it like this:
Chapter 1
1. You speak of cooperation you proposed.
1)I had not only agreed but also shown in that very discussion that I do contribute in accordance to the rules.
2)But after my request to comment the article itself I did not see you continuing and "cooperating", as you say. But you intentionally stop the "cooperation" (though you are there) so making technically impossible any discussions.
2.I'd suggest you first to (at least) read the rules you are suggesting to have been violated by me (vandalize) befor you openly accuse me. Otherwise you are missleading the editors with your attacks.
3. Your accusations of me having a POV are non-reasonable due to:
1) I did not express an opinion of my own
2) I do always bring reliable sources as references
The issue of the map change.
Answers to your arguments and/or justification of mine
RomanEmpire 117.svg
(I shall call it "the 1st map"/"the old map") is licensed as "Own work" by the editor.
1)This makes it be a POV and/or a personal research of the editor
2)The publications of personal researches are not allowed by the rules
2. In this regard, the claim that it is made based on scholarly resources is:
1)Your personal point of view
2)does not justify using this map
3. "Removal of the map" phrase is by me considered an intent to suit the circumstances to your own benefit, as it was not removed but changed.
4. The justification of the change was mentioned while the action (and, as you can see, is justified in more details above). The sentence, that the map is "An editor's personal work" was also mentioned hence your other claim of me "not presenting any viable argumentation" is baseless.
5. The claim of me presenting an "outdated" HISTORICAL map
Roman Empire full map.jpg
(I shall call it "the 2nd map"/"the new map"), forgive me for expressing my opinion, seems quite ridiculous. I don't even think it needs commenting.
6. The claim of the map I proposed being un-academic is pure manipulation. It can be found for educational purposes in different universities and libraries and used in the academic processes. I've updated some information in it's summery so you can see it as an example.
In addition to above mentioned I will add MORE reasons of why to remove it and mention why to have my change
1. The 1st map is not suitable for this section as the section is named "The Roman Conquest of Iberia and Colchis". In the map you prefer:
1) It is clearly obvious there is no Colchis
2) The map has not mapping, no bordering of either Iberia or Colchis
3) The absence of the above mentioned not only doesn't show that it wasn't made to enlighten anything connected with those kingdoms, but also has an approximate "whereabouts" of the Caucasian Kingdom of Iberia.
2. The map I presented is not only academic and published, but also spots the Iberian Kingdom AND the Kingdom of Colchis AND their borders.
3. The 1st map is claimed by the editor to be “The maximum extent of the Roman Empire” and is in his own understanding. The 2nd map is named the same way “The Roman Empire at it's greatest extent" and is a published map in a historical atlas.
4. And in addition the 2nd map is easily suitable under the featured image policy of Wikipedia.
My conclusion
1. Your claim of suitability of the old map isn’t justified
2. Your claim of the new being not academic is baseless
3. Your claim of it being my POV is baseless
4. Your claim of vandalism is even more
5. You fail to see the old map’s contradiction to Wiki rules
6. You fail to see the advantages of the new map
7. You fail to understand the justifications of edits on time
8. You fail to understand what a POV is
9. You fail to understand what a reliable source is
10. You fail to cooperate with other editors not having your view
11. You baselessly attack other editors and threaten them
12. You are welcome to apply to Admins for a resolution; it will be my pleasure to have the truth prevailing by any means.
13. If you have any comments or arguments of what I said, please use the points I mentioned in here [example: “The issues of the map change” 2.1)]
Aregakn (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
None of your arguments are valid or even makes sense. They do not explain why the so called first map is POV and why you continue removing this map. Hence, i will treat your POV pushing as vandalism and kindly ask you to refrain from removing valuable images from this article. Otherwise, we will have to seek mediation from the administrator. Iberieli (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
For the last time I shall request you to read:
1. Vandalism and not interpret it yourself
2. POV and understand what a POV is
3. Featured Pictures and judge our issue by it
4. Personal Work and judge the old map
5. Reliable sources and judge the old and new maps
to identify your mistakes yourself.

If you see any thing I said in my last long, detailed explanation that contradicts with these or other rules, state the rules and I shall most probably comment. If not, then the map should be changed ASAP as it IS contradicting with 2 of the last mentioned rules.

Regards Aregakn (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Listen, you dont have to lecture me on Wiki guidelines, im one of the oldest contributors here. You are the vandalizer here not me. It is the last time i try to bring some senses in you, otherwise we will only deal through mediator, arbitration and if you dont cease removing valuable information and maps from this article i will file ban request on your account. Iberieli (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
For hundred times you repeat the same claims presenting no argumentation. And each time you tell it, you do as if something new happened. For people lacking of any attention I'll tell one more thing:
Your claim that I removed any valuable information is one more baseless accusation as I removed no information from the article.
As you lack sense, so be it; we shall arbitrate (The wrong map is changed to a propper and you can act)! Aregakn (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your unwillingness to cooperate, aspersions and prevention of editing leaves me no choice; I've applied for mediation. Aregakn (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Having seen no comments or agreement to anything, I am taking the discussion to official Mediation. You shall receive the notification shortly. Aregakn (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit prevention and own work pushing[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg Iberieli, please do stop prevention of corrections and edits by editors accompanied with reliable sources and pushing an own work.
Neither repeat your ridiculous sentences and baseless accusations. You have been told to either comment properly on the issue of the map in History of Georgia (country) opened by your self with arguments and referrals to my argumentation or stop your baseless claims and aspersions. Enough is enough of your threats and attacks on editors; I shall apply for blocking you if you continue your unwise actions. You are the on to vandalize articles with edit prevention and pushing own work claiming it is scientific. This isn't the first I am asking you to stop your threats and attacks, and this shall be the LAST TIME I am warning YOU!Aregakn (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


I've protected this article from editing until this dispute is resolved. First off, both sides need to stop calling each others edits "vandalism" since this is clearly not the case. What is going on here is considered a legitimate dispute over the article's content and should therefore be treated as such. The two parties need to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and this article will not be unprotected until you takes the step necessary to resolve this issue.

P.S. I notice that most administrators would protect an article for a certain amount of time in such an instance, but I have protected it indefinitely because I don't want the edit war to break out again until it's resolved.

Khoikhoi 19:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that! As you can see, I've already started the process in the 3rd opinion and also 3 days ago had filed a request in the Mediation Cabal for now. I want also to note, that I did not call the other editor's edits "vandalism" in any way but the attacks he is having on other editors (by non-wiki terminology). Regards Aregakn (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Khoikhoi, this user needs to understand that simple removal of content is unproductive. None of his arguments have seriously challenged the reason of removing scholarly map. Therefore, other explanation for his/her actions is simply: POV pushing because the map content does not suit his own POV. I reviewed his/her argumentation and it completely does not make any sense or has serious grounds for dismissal of that map. I guess its simple principle for him to just remove it from that section. I would have backed down if he would present any reasonable arguments. I am long time contributor in Wiki and im well aware of Wiki guidelines. With all due respect, I will not compromise with the demands of his user simple because this map does not suit his POV. I can only suggest to him that we may place both maps (his outdated map of 1923) with the one he does not like. I'm willing to accept his map but only if he leave the map which has been on this article for a long time. This is the only way out in my opinion. Otherwise, I'm not willing to compromise just because this map is annoyance to someone. I greatly appreciating the author of that map for his professionalism and time which he took to construct this map. If he keeps insisting on simple removal of that map, then this dispute will never be resolved. Thanks a lot to administrator for taking time and attempting to solve this issue. I welcome any positive suggestions and open to cooperation if others are ready to do the same. Iberieli (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A third view[edit]

Hello. I'm not anybody in particular and I don't have a very good knowledge of Roman or Georgian or Iberian history. That probably makes me a good candidate to offer an unbiased opinion! It also means that you'll have to be patient with me and explain if I misunderstand any important points.

It seems that there are two maps and the dispute centres on which of these is most appropriate for this article. Is that right? For my purposes, I'm going to refer to the "RomanEmpire 117.svg" map as the "created map" and I'm going to refer to the "Roman Empire full map.jpg" as the "scanned map". I have to first say that I find the scanned map much easier to read and understand. In general, I'd prefer to see an independently published map rather than one created for wikipedia, but if the created map is well referenced, I think it's preferable, simply for ease of understanding.

Having said that, I'm not sure that I see the need for either of these in the article. Perhaps you can explain the relevance for me? Thepm (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Thepm. Thank you for volunteering. There are several aspects in the dispute. I am going to speak of the disputed aspects regardless of personal accusations and opinion about the editor. So from what you mentioned I can divide 2 main divisions:
1) the aspect of rules
2) the aspect of suitability
First I’ll explain how I though the purpose of the map of the Roman Empire though I was not the one to put it there. I think it is there because of the subject is about the 2 Kingdoms during the conquest of the Roman Empire in the region.
For the above mentioned aspects:
1) Rules (I have links in the discussion if you wish to read some):
1. Wikipedia rules say, that there should be no original research by the editors. The creator of the map is our editor and he has created the map himself. Even if it is somehow “referenced” it is an original research of an editor. Be the “research” based on scholarly or unscholarly sources has no matter and is contradicting with the Original Research rule.
2. The rule of reliable sources tells, that whatever sources they have to be “published” and even if an editor WITNESSED THE ROMAN CONQUESTS himself he cannot make a map and claim it reliable.
These are the main aspects of the rules why the created map cannot be there.
2) In addition, if looking at the created map from the aspect of suitability:
1. It does not match the subject at all. The reasons are, there is no Colchis Kingdom on the map in the first place, and there is no mapping of any of these kingdoms, no borders, nothing. “Iberia” is mentioned out of all boundaries and borders the kingdom ever had. The only connection I could see there, was that it is showing an approximate location of the region where the Kingdom of Iberia was located. My [[2]] to the author about the purpose of that map posted in his talk-page (just for my information) has not been answered almost for a week (not a big deal).
Why the map I offered is better:
2. The map is made by professional topologists based on geography and not proximity. It is from a published and reliable source. It is made for academic use and is used as such based on academic researches. It had both of the subject kingdoms in it. The exact location with borders is also shown there.
This is in short my point of view. Here I had not mentioned reasons that the author might have not had the professional skills, is not a topologist (leave alone historian), likes making and combining maps by the advices of other editors (including the other involved party in our dispute) without proper check, etc, etc, because this has really little matter in this case, as there are such strong breech of rules as I mentioned above.

Well, I hope you have understood my explanation and if something was unclear, I can clarify. Aregakn (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

None of his explanations make any sense. Its a simple fact dear Wiki users, this person has strong Armenian bias. Look here what other users of Wikipedia have said about his problem with this particular map: This is a great map, unfortunately a user upset with the boundaries of Armenia has just gone through removing it from the English Wikipedia [3]. I agree with that user, its a great map and accurate one too. This map irritates this user, because of Armenia issue. I dont see any problems with Armenia there but somehow it does not favor his POV. I suggested to include both maps in the article, he did not respond and hence he is not constructive. If he is not ready to be constructive, than i can not allow anyone who has some bias to remove valuable content from this article. I have closely and carefully reviewed his arguments and did not detect OR, POV or any other infringement this map may have. In my opinion as a student of classical history, its accurate map of the Roman empire including the region which is described in that section. If there no concrete evidence to suggest that this map might have OR and POV, then i dont see any reasons why we should remove it from this article and continue this discussion. Again, this user has failed to identify problems with this mapIberieli (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Aregakn, thank you for your explanation. It seems to make sense to me from the point of view that I believe I understand what you are saying. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree :) Iberieli, I would be grateful if you would refrain from making accusations of bias. It would be easier, if you would focus on the content rather than your perception of another editors behaviour. I realise that can be difficult when there is a dispute, but please try to stay focussed on the facts.
As far as the matter of WP:OR goes, I'm not sure that it necessarily applies. The policy says that "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". So that means that any argument along these lines would need to demonstrate that the map illustrates or introduces unpublished ideas or arguments. I'd be inclined to use the scanned map (if it didn't breach any copyright) if it were equal to the created map, but as an outsider I can say that it's certainly easier to read the created map. So, unless the scanned map contains some relevant information that is not in the created map, my inclination, so far as the matter of 'rules' goes would be to use the created map.
On the question of suitability, Aregakn mentions that the created map does not include the Colchis Kingdom. Perhaps I can ask Aregakn to explain why this is important and also ask Iberieli to explain why is is not necessary?
I am still left trying to understand why either of these maps is necessary. This is probably a failing on my part, so I would be grateful if each of you would give me a short explanation of why it is necessary to have any map at all.Thepm (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Thepm. First why the map is needed. As I said, the subject paragraph is “The Roman Conquest of Iberia and Colchis”. It gives an idea to the reader where in the Roman Empire or in relevance to it the 2 kingdoms were located. This is all I see the map for. As for the OR, it is not just an image, it is a historical map. A historical map, especially that includes such a large region as Europe and the Mediterranean needs a professional approach. It also needs a real serious research of the historians and a geographical approach, as the historians described the territories in relevance to the rivers, mountains etc etc. There is no way a simple editor could on his own on a simple plain contour-map of the region make a correct map of all the territories and regions of the empire. As I said, the editor isn’t a professional and the map is not published. The only thing the map does is proximately showing locations of states. And even if it is based on some publications, it cannot be used as a map, as it is improfessional. It’s not just an image, it’s a historical map. I see it only as an OR. As for the Colchis Kingdom. It is the first foundation as a state for the formation of the Georgian state and is one of the 2 contents of the paragraph. Can you tell me if it isn’t needed to be sited in a map used in the paragraph? And again, the map is not suitable for the paragraph as it has nothing to do with those kingdoms if not mentioning the “where abouts” of 1 of them. Hope I have answered and/or made clear my views. Thanks again. Aregakn (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing about your argument for OI. This is clearly not the case of "... there are relatively few images available for use in Wikipedia." Aregakn (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies Aregakn. Once again you've helped me to further understand the issues.
I'll note that, for the reasons given in my previous reply, I do not agree with your contention that the created map is in breach of any rules in and of itself. The use of a created map is perfectly legitimate and I think we would be better to focus on the relative value of the two maps to the article.
From my PoV, this leaves us with two issues. The first is whether either map adds to the article. The second issue, assuming that the first is answered in the affirmative, is whether one of the maps is more suitable than the other. I'll address just the first question for now because my initial view is that neither map adds any particular value to the article.
The section in question discusses the "The Roman Conquest of Iberia and Colchis" which took place in the first century BC. The scanned map shows the Roman Empire "at its greatest extent" in the third century AD. The created map shows the Roman Empire in 117AD. Neither of the maps appear to show a kingdom of either Colchis or Iberia. The scanned map appears to show Colchis as a city whereas the created map does not show it at all. This makes sense in the context of the article stating that around 65CD, "the Kingdom of Pontus was completely destroyed by the Romans and all its territory including Colchis were incorporated into the Roman Empire as her provinces". Furthermore, each of the maps appear to show Iberia as an ill-defined region.
As I mentioned in my first post, I have no special knowledge or understanding of the facts surrounding this issue. It may be that my lack of understanding is the reason for my view that neither map is relevant. I'd invite both of you to explain, without reference to either of the maps under discussion, why any map of the Roman Empire is relevant or necessary for this article and what that map should illustrate or explain. I'l re-iterate. Please DO NOT refer to either of the maps currently under discussion. Please simply explain to a novice why a map of the Roman Empire is relevant or necessary for this section of the article. Thepm (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me disagree with you, that the map from a historic atlas shows Colchis as a city only. You might have been paying attention only to the borders of states in the map that are colored but Colchis, Iberia and Albania also have borders in the map (in the region) that you haven’t noticed.
As for the dates of the conquest, the paragraph is for a period from 1 century BC to 6 century AD inclusive. My understanding of the reason why the map is there is stated. Maybe Iberieli can offer other reasons; we shall see. I wasn’t the one to put it but the one to offer an academic map instead.
The dispute is in between the 2 maps.
Aregakn (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Aregakn for being patient with me :) You're right. Colchis, Iberia and Albania are all shown on the scanned map. Having said that, I'll await comment from Iberieli (or any other editor that might be interested) before commenting further. Thepm (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome! And as we are waiting, I want you to tell me if you are saying, that if, for instance, I make a historical map on my own, claiming it's referenced, and put it in an article of history somewhere you'll see it right and if yes, what are the bases? Aregakn (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
PS. and pay attention, that in the created map none of the kingdoms are mapped and all together have somehow called "Iberia". I'd also see that as the very reason, why Iberieli is so hardly pushing the created map instead of an academic (but this is my personal point of view). Aregakn (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Well having read your comments, I cant hide my disappointed. Instead of constructive dialogged, we fail to achieve anything reasonable. Thepm with all due respect, you are not qualified to pass judgments on Georgian history as you are not specialist or a student of Caucasian studies. Just because you fail to see why some maps should be used overall in the article, it does not mean they are unnecessary. On contrary, they are valuable part of this article. I reviewed again very closely arguments by our friend Aregakn and still failed to see any reasonable excuse to disregard the map under question. I dont see any sources, references and scholarly opinion which will question this map in any way. Thepm I appreciate your involvement and positive constructive intentions. I have proposed to include both maps, however Aregakn ignores my suggestions and continues his push for removal of this map. Thepm have you noticed that he fails to bring out any scholarly sources which will question the accuracy of this map? He only uploaded the outdated map of 1923 (there has been far more research done since in Roman history). Again my dear friends i fail to see any solid arguments backed up by sources which will convince me otherwise. Until then, this issue is unresolved and disputed. I suggest Kober and Geagea to get involved as they are well versed in Georgian history. Regards. p.s unfortunately due to full course load at university im unable to answer promptly, therefore i apologize for the delay. Iberieli (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Iberieli: you were the one not to respond in the discussion you opened yourself and continuously threaten me with blocking. I am obviously not the one to refuse the dialogue.
I have to also note that I personally never received an offer of having both of the maps, certainly because of 1 - you withdrew from any talks and discussions, 2 - because you thought it better to be addressed to an admin, rather than an editor, so it wasn't addressed to me ever.
In addition you fail to see that your map has NOTHING to do with the article as it has nothing to do with either Iberia or Colchis. You also fail to tell what it has to do with them.
An other fact is, that you want me to prove that an unprofessionally made map by an editor is non-referenced. You certainly lack to see that I am not to bring references that a map made in the air is incorrect but those who are for it should bring references, it is correct. In addition, that it's more professional, than the one I offer.
But the worst, in my opinion is, that you refuse a published academic map used in universities for keeping an editor's made map. And I did never see any explanation WHY (never saw a serious discussion). But of course a person having at least a bit of self-respect wouldn't be anymore into discussion with somebody that has an ignorant and threatening behavior towards other editors.
Dear Thepm, as you see, the other side is not interested in your 3rd opinion, as I had guessed before. Not even waiting for an opinion he dismisses any importance of it. Please, comment and let us pass to the next stage of official Mediation. Aregakn (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Folks. As noted in my original post and as Iberieli has pointed out, I am not in any way qualified to pass judgment on Georgian history. Until the 3O request, I have not previously edited or even read this page. My purpose here is simply to provide a 3rd opinion. My opinion is not binding in any way and simply provides a fresh pair of eyes that both parties can consider and then use as they see fit.

My opinion is that the need for any map of the Roman Empire on this page is marginal at best. I note that the only reason given for having the maps was offered by Aregakn, who said "the subject paragraph is “The Roman Conquest of Iberia and Colchis”." and that the map "gives an idea to the reader where in the Roman Empire or in relevance to it the 2 kingdoms were located"

So with this in mind, I can't help but conclude that the scanned map is more appropriate. The created map does not clearly show either of the kingdoms under discussion and does not show the kingdom of Colchis at all. Therefore, it doesn't appear to serve any particular purpose for this article.

As an outsider, I can tell you that I find the style of the created map much easier to follow and that if the content were the same, I would enthusiastically support the created map. As it stands now however, I fail to see any relevance at all for the created map.

That's my opinion, use it as you will. I hope it can help in some way! Thepm (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)—Thepm (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and efforts (whatever they might have brought to) for the 3rd opinion! Yes, the rules and prurpose of the 3O is stated as you say, of course. Best regards. Aregakn (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


By the sources and the Treaty of Georgievsk I'm given to believe that Georgia was fragmented, that one free part joined the Russian empire wilingly in order to escape Persian/Ottoman rule, that one part was convinced to join through bullying, and that the other parts of Georgia were retaken from Turkey. There was no Georgia-Russia war in which Russia conquered it so I don't think the term annex applies (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Annexation is the conventional term to discribe the acts that Pavel Tsitsianov and the Russian Empire made to conquer Georgia and the south-Caucasus. They use interior conflict and external threats for this. You can read more in the articles of Erekle II (who made the Treaty of Georgievsk) and his son George XII of Georgia, the last king of Georgia.Geagea (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Georgia (country)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Georgia (country)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "burke":

Reference named "Iranica":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 17:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Colchis and Iberia as part of Georgian history[edit]

A series of large removals of content on several pages is done by Hyrudagon which are related to each other. The baseline is that the history of Colchis and Iberia is not part of the history of Georgia. Here are some edits: [4], [5] (Timeline of Georgian history), [6] (Military history of Georgia), [7] (List of wars involving Georgia (country)). I cannot comment on that, but I think, a consensus should be reached in one place for all such pages, and this Talk page is best suitable for that. --Off-shell (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Off-shell: thanks for pointing that out, he has no right to be removing such large swaths of articles without any discussion and should be reverted. If Colchis/Iberia is not part of Georgian history, then nothing is. For the past 2000 years, Georgia has been officially named Georgia for only a handful of centuries, the remainder of this time it was fractured into various kingdoms and principalities, or subordinate to different empires (most recently the Russian Empire and Soviet Union). Yet, all of these periods are distinct but inseparable episodes of Georgia's history and that of its people.--Damianmx (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with @Damianmx: that these deletions are not acceptable. Hyrudagon seems to have some sort of objection to the idea that Georgians have been in the Caucasus for a long time. That's irrelevant - even if the prehistoric inhabitants of what is now Georgia had no ethnic connection to modern Georgians, we would still expect them to be discussed in "History of" articles (compare History of Croatia or History of Hungary, both of which include periods before the arrival of the modern nation). On the other hand, I think it should be noted that some of the things that have now been restored do need more work. The timeline in particular is very poorly written; I can't find another timeline in Europe that attempts to go so far back into prehistory. Nor does it seem necessary to refer to each of the prehistoric archaeological assemblages as "Age of Georgians." A section of Military history of Georgia takes the time to argue that Colchis "played an important role in the ethnic and cultural formation of the Georgian nation." Leaving aside the problems with talking about "nations" of any sort in the first millennium BC, given that the nation-state is a much more recent phenomenon, what exactly does that have to do with military history - in fact the whole section on the kingdom of Colchis in that article does not mention anything that could be classed as "military." It shouldn't be there. Furius (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Picture of nobles mid-article[edit]

Picture of said 19th century nobles at mid-article is that of General Solomon Makashvili and family, pretty much on or very near 1900 - might as well mention at least name? Source: 2 photos of same family at Museum in Tbilisi. (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC) PC.