Talk:Kingdom of Georgia

Untitled
The present article claims that the kingdom was established in 888, 975 and 1008. Any idea of what is the correct one?--Menah the Great (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Language
As regards the caption beneath the map portraying the peak territorial expansion of the Kingdom of Georgia, what do people feel is more appropriate for Wikipedia from a language perspective:

"Kingdom of Georgia in 1184-1230 at the peak of its might"

or:

"Kingdom of Georgia in 1184-1230 at the peak of its territorial expansion"

I think that "at the peak of its might" is severely unencyclopedic, and weirdly nationalistic and politically biased. I do not see any argument against the far more accurate and appropriate "at the peak of its territorial expansion" - please do not revert, rather demonstrate what that argument might be and wait for a consensus here. thanks. Bdog Drummond (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, the burden of "gainning consensus" is on you, since you want to change a stable version of the article, but let's wait for other contributors opinion (however, i've seen that you added back your edit without consensus). Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikaviani - I think you'll find that not only was it a different user who made the original edit this is a reference to, but also a different user who "added back [the] edit without consensus" as you put it. Your edit war is being held with somebody else entirely, thankyou very much, and I accept your apology. Bdog Drummond (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, i know this was another editor, but quite strangely, you made (partly) the same changes. Anyway, as i said above, just wait and see, if this edit is endorsed by other editors then it's perfectly fine for me. Also, you should take a look at my comment, for now, i did not present any "appology". regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not that strange that we've both reached the same conclusion; I'm sure we'd both agree that an apple was different to an orange as well, or that red and blue are different colours. Also, just to clarify, you've made two eccentrically spelled quotations above ("gainning" and "appology") which seem to incorrectly imply that it was I who misspelled those words. Was this a mistake on your part or did you intend it to be a sleight? Regardless, I do accept your "appology" and you're very welcome. Bdog Drummond (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * it's just a typo because I have a lot of screens in front of me. Also, i have no comment about your "apple and oranges" babble. regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who originally changed "peak of its might" to "peak of its territorial expansion" for reasons that Bdog talks about. The second one is more neutral, "might" implies other things besides size.--Bencemagyar (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of User:Studiawschodnie
 * And i'm the one who said above that if your edit is endorsed by other editors, then it would be perfectly fine for me. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Eurasian
There are some tiresome edit wars going on here that are transparently politically motivated. The Kingdom of Georgia (much like the country of Georgia today) was both European AND Asian, it was not either European OR Asian. The term Eurasian is the perfect descriptor and should be included initially in the lede to establish this fact and to dissuade any misleading, politicised efforts to paint the picture as being entirely European or entirely Middle Eastern (and this includes weasel words, structure and context). The lede should make it clear that the Kingdom encompassed both Eastern Europe (and Eastern European culture) and the Middle East (and Middle Eastern culture), and should not imply that it is merely one or the other, or that it is predominantly indicative of one or the other. Bdog Drummond (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Text already says that Georgia stretched from Russia to Iran, so it is clear that it was on both continents. But if you want to be specific and say that it was both in Eastern Europe and middle east, that is also ok.--Bencemagyar (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC) <-- blocked sock of User:Studiawschodnie

I removed "Eastern Europe" from the geographical description in the introduction. That it hints at far-flung areas like the Balkans, Ukraine, and European Russia, while it is implied by "North Caucasus", which is appropriately specific. Zaslav (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Conrad Grünenberg COA
User:Vif12vf please stop edit war and removing credible COA by Conrad Grünenberg.
 * Simply linking to an article about a historical person is not attributing a source. Also neither of these CoA are wrong, but there is no need for a change unless it is a modern version of the CoA already in place. If you really want that other CoA in the article so bad then put it somewhere else in the article! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Conrad Grünenberg was a person famous for his armorial as this person was dedicated and working on them. Not the case with Prince Vakhushti. Conrad takes precedent over Vakhushti as his armorial is more credible in all senses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B417:1BFA:7D20:8A62:19DB:BC2 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds highly like POV and seems almost completely irrelevant. The current CoA will remain in place! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

" The current CoA will remain in place! " - it shows clearly how biased and noncompromising you are. Your behavior will be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Georgiano User:Giorgi Balakhadze User:LouisAragon User:Kober Please take a look at this article. User above is absolutely noncompromisingly biased and pushing fraudulent information and ignores a credible European armorial by Conrad Grünenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment : IP, instead of canvassing other editors and edit warring (could lead you to a block), please provide reliable sources for your edit. Also, please focus on content, not users. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikaviani Stop removing the COA. It is sourced which you can easily access in its description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.202.10.254 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * IP, again, there is not a single source for your edit in the article, stop it before being blocked, please. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * IP, on my request, this article is now protected by an administrator. However, if you're able to provide sources for your edit, please ping me here and i'll edit the article for you if you want. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What part of my question you cannot understand.? See the source information in the image'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.37.81 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Coat of arms
User:Vif12vf You are a vandal and stop removing the sourced information! Stop vandalism! See the pages presented in the article. Also there is summery in English! User:Georgiano User:Kober Please stop the vandalism of this user! User:Wikaviani I've provided the source but this user is vandalising again. Please see the source. Thanks


 * Sorry but the source doesn't back it. The CoA on pages 5-6 are similar but not identical. Keep in mind that various states have used different version of the same CoA, this is not uncommon. Also, there is no reason to change the CoA already in place! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you even read the source! It is the SAME COA. It is the oldest dated COA for the kingdom. Stop vandalism and removing sourced content!


 * Look more closely, it is not 100% the same as the version in the source. The sword and the crown is different, and the lion and shield is less detailed in the source, this means that while they are similar, it is not the same. And again, there is no reason for change, the long-standing version has a source attributed to it on its commons-page. If you want to change from one sourced version to another then ask for concensus for such a change here on the talk-page, dont just carry out the change thinking nobody is going to object to it. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of both CoA
I think the best solution (compromise, how to stop local editing war) is to use both Coat of Arms in the infobox. It is possible to use a special way to put both CoA there and prevent ongoing disputes. Of course, somebody thinks that Prince Vakhushti is more trustworthy, however Conrad Grünenberg's CoA is much older. So it is appropriate and legitimate for both CoA to be placed there. Of course, both CoA may represent a different historical period and style. It is also possible that neither of them is historically true and both are only attributed, because none of them cannot be substantiated by another source. Do you agree? Dragovit (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been tagged as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) It will likely be deleted after one week unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Major contributions by contributors who have been verified to have violated copyright in multiple articles may be presumptively deleted in accordance with Copyright violations.

Interested contributors are invited to help clarify the copyright status of this material or rewrite the article in original language at the temporary page linked from the article's face. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. -- Sennecaster ( Chat ) 12:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I want to make a note that this is planning to be revised under WP:Team-B-Vital and all the content that I have removed WILL be restored via rewriting by the end of this week. Per WP:CVREPEAT, this is an acceptable method. I apologize for any disruption caused, but this is the best way that I can think of cleaning up this article. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 12:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive
Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this week's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborate effort to bring Stub and Start class Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to seven days, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

This was a special request from a member of the WP:CCI effort to ensure the article did not lose B rating due to copyright cleanup efforts.

Thank you! -- ferret (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Name
What was the actual name in Georgian? It could not have been Sakartvelos. --95.24.69.191 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Common languages
Recent additions was made under "common languages" infobox that Arabic and Persian were "common" languages spoken in the kingdom along with Georgian. This was based on bilingual coins with Arabic and Persian inscription. Based on provided authors themselves, these languages were important for trade, but I don't think that is intended purpose of this specific infobox section, which is about common languages in the Georgian kingdom. Inscription on coin says more about languages of trade partners, than domestic language situation of Georgia. Provided books also don't make claims that coin languages were indicative of domestic language demographics. It is just not what they say.

Also, Armenian would certainly be more common in the Georgia kingdom than Arabic even if there is no bilingual Georgian-Armenian coins. Same about Greek, Abkhazian, Ossetian and other languages of people who lived there. Relevance of languages on coins is already covered in another area of article which is the right place.LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to not include all languages, especially those on their coins, in the infobox. Personal opinions mean nothing here. Facts clearly state this Kingdom used two other languages on their coinage. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Source themselves say these languages were important in trade. This section is not about common languages of Georgias trade partners, it is about common languages spoken in Georgia.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Provided books also don't make claims that coin languages were indicative of domestic language demographics."
 * Yeah your personal interpretation is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know enough English language to understand what they say and this claim is simply not something they make. They say these languages were important in trade, not that it was common languages spoken in Georgia.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know enough English language to understand when someone just doesn't like non-Georgian languages listed in the infobox. Clearly this kingdom used multiple languages, for coinage, and clearly this is properly referenced.
 * Your sources just don't say this was common languages in Georgia, only that their presence on coins indicated Georgia's important trade partners. You are stretching meaning of what they say, which is why it was removed. It has its own paragraph where trade and coins are discussed.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Also, Armenian would certainly be more common in the Georgia kingdom than Arabic even if there is no bilingual Georgian-Armenian coins."
 * Sounds like speculation to me. Where is Middle Georgian sourced? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have reason to suspect that Georgian was not spoken in Georgia, feel free to delete that. All I can say is that I read what your source says and it only talks about languages of Georgia's foreign trade partners, so it is not relevant to this specific section of infobox, which is about commons languages of the country itself.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong. As clearly stated, Georgian coins used Arabic language per Vacca
 * "Later Bagrationi monarchs, notably David IV Agmašenebeli (r.1089–1125), Dimitri I (1125–54), and Giorgi III (r. 1156–84), minted coins with the title malik al-mulūk and T‘amar (r. 1187–1213) followed suit with malikat al-malikāt. Brosset correctly dismisses the idea that Arabic-language Georgian coins implied vassalage to the Caliphate or the amīrates of the North. If that were the case, Georgian coins would have followed Abbāsid patterns as we see emanating from Tiflīs/Tp‘ilisi and Sharwān in the eleventh century. Brosset instead suggests that Arabic served as a lingua franca in Georgia due to the significance of commercial ties with the Islamic world."
 * "As Georgia came under the Mongol yoke in the late 13–14th centuries,Georgian coins again bore evidence of foreign influence as they combined Georgian, Arabic, and Persian inscriptions."
 * So we can keep all languages in the infobox, since they also state Georgian language, along with Arabic and Persian.


 * "All I can say is that I read what your source says and it only talks about languages of Georgia's foreign trade partners, so it is not relevant to this specific section of infobox."
 * Clearly that is NOT that case. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are repeating same information about coins and as sources themselves say, coins were indicative of trade partners and their importance. It says nothing about how common these languages were among Georgia residents. I don't need to know Arabic to use bilingual Georgian-Arabic coin, just as I don't need to know English to use dollar or pound.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is your interpretation. This is starting to sound like JDLI. Nothing in the article states Georgian residents used Middle Georgian either. Oddly, you didn't tag that or remove that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not remove Georgian because I have no specific reason to question that Georgian was spoken in Georgia... If you have reason to doubt that Georgian was spoken, please do. I am focus on your reference because you are stretching the meaning of coins to suggest these languages were common in this country, when authors themselves are strictly taking about importance of Arabic and Persian trade partners, rather than commonality of this language among locals.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure you're upset about Arabic and Persian, but even Mikaberidze doesn't say "trade partners", which you conveniently missed. You only see what you want to see. "Arabic served as a lingua franca in Georgia".
 * Mikberidze books entire section is strictly on "currency" and he does not attempt make any assumption about common language knowledge of Georgia. Second book does reference trade partners.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "rather than commonality of this language among locals."
 * "It says nothing about how common these languages were among Georgia residents."
 * And that is your interpretation of the infobox. I see nothing stating "Common languages" has to indicate "Georgian residents". --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This infobox is about country in question, so of course common languages is about residents of that country, why would it be about residents of some other country, including Georgia's trade partners? Just as you stretch meaning of what coin inscriptions mean, now you're redefining what purpose these boxes serve? It is not to describe other countries populations, it is to describe Georgia so of course it is about "Georgian residents".--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong! The Kingdom of Georgia minted coins with Arabic and later Persian inscriptions. You deciding that the infobox consists of Georgian residents involvement is your opinion. Whether you like it or not, it happened. You don't own this article and your continued labeling my edits to this article are starting to consist of WP:HARASSMENT. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Just as you stretch meaning of what coin inscriptions mean"
 * How is it harassment to point out obvious issues? I am not allowed to change what you add but I am also not allowed to mark my objection either? How will others know that this is even being discussion if they are no tags? It is not fair to insert something, tell me it cannot be changed, and also not let me note what issues are. Others should be aware so they can comment as it is not enough for one or two people to decide clearly.
 * Infobox is just not the place for this information because numismatics is very specific thing and does not denote common languages. What coins they minted is already explain in detail thanks to your addition to the article, which is best place for this information. Everything else about these languages being "common" in the kingdom is just assumptions based on coins. I don't see why coin languages cannot be explained in article as they are and why they must be in this specific field.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I don't see why coin languages cannot be explained in article as they are and why they must be in this specific field."
 * I see no reason NOT to include these languages in the infobox. Your interpretation as to what common languages does or doesn't mean is meaningless. And, Arabic is not just numismatics, but chancery now.


 * "How is it harassment to point out obvious issues?"
 * It has become painfully obvious you want to present the infobox of the Kingdom of Georgia as a single language kingdom(which it wasn't), untouched/unconquered by outside forces, which it wasn't(Arab rule in Georgia, Mongol invasions of Georgia). Someone has done quite the job, to sanitize this article, to the point it appears the Kingdom of Georgia never was invaded or conquered. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It obviously was not single language kingdom as many other peoples live there and spoke their own languages, including Armenian and Ossetian. But issue is that we are making assumptions here based only on coins.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any assumptions, I have added exactly what the source states, nothing more. I even included numismatics and chancery, which explains in which capacity those languages are used. Also, while you are synthesizing sources that make no mention of languages, you better add Kipchak, since apparently you haven't read this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)