Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia/Archive 3

Cleanup
I have started cleaning up the article by
 * rm unsourced content when references couldn't be located for up to Zviad Gamsakhurdia per WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Information should only be restored if a WP:IS WP:RS is provided.
 * Then edited the article lede to the point I referenced to reflect sourced info in the article body per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY "The sequence in which you edit should usually be: first change the body, then update the lead to summarize the body."
 * I have removed blog posts and GeoCities posts as references for obvious reasons. See WP:RS if needed.
 * The grammar was horrible, I have tried to improve it when possible. After cleanup, article should go to WP:GOCE for a good ce.
 * I have also started working on the "Further reading" section per MOS:FURTHER and External links per WP:EL

I have specifically done my editing in small increments, so they can be discussed easily per WP:BRD individually and edited per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. If you revert, do not reinsert unsourced content per WP:V and WP:BURDEN and do restore maintenance tags as needed.

I do not believe there is an accepted single reference style for the article already, so I have been using APA with cite templates. As the article improves hopefully the citation style will become more uniform.  // Timothy :: talk  07:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * wow! Thanks a lot for your impressive work! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna clean the citations to use sfn. I think it's way easier especially when you want to bring the article to GA or FA (which I'm more and more inclined to do given the importance of the Gamsakhurdia and how contentious the topic seems to be based on the recent heated discussions...). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * /agree. sfn's would make editing the article much easier w/o the ref clutter and the ref style is chaos atm so I don't thnk anyone would mke a sustainable objection. I tagged the further reading sec with an under construction so if this section get a bit messy others will understand what is happening.  // Timothy :: talk  22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Adjarans are not "ethnic or religious minority"
Can we agree to remove Adjarans as "ethnic and religious minority"? It is offensive to Adjarans to reffer to them as non-Georgians, it is insulting, they are Georgians and onlt 39% is Mulsim actually, according to wiki article about Adjarans: According to census data recently published by the Department of Statistics of Adjara, 54% are Christians, and 39% Muslim Cutoc (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * (I'm gonna sleep so can't discuss further sorry...) But I disagree: it is sourced by reliable sources. There are only 39% of Muslims among Adjarians today because they converted en masse after Gamsakhurdia took power. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they were forcibly converted to Islam by Ottomans, then were forced atheism by USSR, and finally, when Georgia reclaimed their independence, they returned to their religion (christianity). Please see page about Adjarians, they are mentioned as Georgians. They are Georgians. It is insulting not to mention this, to fragmentize Georgians as Adjarians, Kakhetians, Kartlians, Megrelians and etc and Adjarians as non-Georgians. Wikipedia page and all reliable sources says they are Georgians. Please stop questioning existence of Georgian nation. -- Cutoc (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's Wikipedia: we use reliable sources. That's it. Also, 39% is not the % of Muslims among Adjarians but the % of Muslims in the Adjara region (including non-Adjarians). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will find reliable sources which say that Adjarians are Georgian and we will remove it, agree? -- Cutoc (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to add reliable secondary sources that say that Gamsakhurdia did not belittle Adjarians. That's the only topic here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "belittle"? Listen friend, 87.58% of population voted for Gamsakhurdia, it is simply impossible to get such high number of votes if you just "belittle" everyone as you claim. Does not it seems unusual to you? He belittled everyone and got 88%? -- Cutoc (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's all about secondary RS again. There are RS that say that he belittled Adjarians, so I added it to the article.
 * I'm curious about a few points by the way:
 * Regarding the presidential election:
 * Could all minorities vote? (as the 1991 draft law was not adopted I understand that all minorities were not citizens but I may be wrong)
 * What was Gamsakhurdia's % in Adjara? (During the parliamentary elections, he got 54% nationwide vs 24% in Ajara as he threatened the region's autonomy.)
 * Regarding Adjarians's religion:
 * Do you have RS claiming that they were forcibly converted to Islam by Ottomans? (Adjara says: The Ottomans conquered the area in 1614. The people of Adjara gradually converted to Islam in this period. citing an RS)
 * What was the % of Muslims vs Christian among Adjarians in 1990? (I couldn't find it exactly but I understand that it was close to 100%, I'll dig further later, I really need to sleep...)
 * a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, minorities could vote. 1991 citizenship law was not passed but there were Soviet era laws still active so all could vote. The new laws were in development though.
 * I don't know about Gamsakhurdia's percentage in Adjara, but Communists had a stronghold there, that's why they even won majority in 1990, so that's not about Gamsakhurdia, that's just about Communists having some support there.
 * Please read Georgian history if you want to be invested so much in Georgian-related discussions. Georgians converted to Christianity in 4th century, one of the olderst nations. How do you think Adjarians became Muslim? Adjara has a very unfortunate history unfortunately. It is a Georgian land which was ruled by Ottomans the longest period out of all Georgian regions, excluding Georgian regions south to Adjara which are still under Turkish control (Tao-Klarjeti). That's why islamization happened in Adjara (Tao-Klarjeti was also islamized). The ties were still strong that Turkey tried to reconquer it even in 1921 based on "religious affilations", but Georgians fought them off and this is why Adjara has autonomy - Turkey made it as a precondition to recognize Adjara as Georgia (Turkey wanted to retain its influence there by this action). Read about Kars treaty, battle of Batumi 1921. There are many reliable sources but I just know it very well because it is history of my country. Basically all Georgian history is figting Muslim empires and no Georgian voluntarily accepted Islam during this period.
 * I don't know, I don't have stats, but why does that matters anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoc (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * you are not listening to what other editors are saying. Statements such as "I will find reliable sources which say that Adjarians are Georgian and we will remove it", show a lack of understanding of how sourcing NPOV work on Wikipedia. Just because you can find sources that hold your POV, that does not mean they can be used to override sourced content you don't agree with.
 * If there is a consensus of editors that no consensus exists in RS for a particular point, it needs to be explained (with footnotes or in the article body) with consideration for WP:WEIGHT, WP:AGE, WP:BIASED, WP:SCHOLARSHIP when considering what sources can be considered reliable and how much coverage to give to a position. This is decided by consensus.
 * If there is consensus of editors that there is a general consensus of RS for a particular point, but there is an alternative that has some support in RS (again considering WP:WEIGHT, WP:AGE, WP:BIASED) it should be included in the article body or footnote (again with WP:WEIGHT determining the space given to a point. This is decided by consensus.
 * Wikipedia is here to report what reliable sources state, not here to write what reliable sources which we agree with state. If you are searching just for sources that you agree with and ignoring others this is going to be a problem in general, but especially in this ds topic.  // Timothy :: talk  23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for notifying me, I will take all of that into account to reach compromise about this topic (Adjarians). -- Cutoc (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , what is your opinion about this? Should we include that Adjarians are Georgians or not? Thanks for engaging in discussion. -- Cutoc (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Adjarian is self explanatory. If I said "Californians" or "Californios" it is obvious that there is some demographic element, maybe arbitrary "eg: Californians" or fundamental eg: "Californios" that makes then a distinct group. How, why, when, etc this group is distinct is an issue that is beyond this article. I know the California example is not an exact match by any means but it demonstrates the point. I don't need to state that Californians are a minority subgroup that is in some way distict within America and Mexico. They exist as a distinct group, but it is unnecessary imo to go into the reasons in this article.
 * Omitting this (imo redundant) verbage, perhaps with a footnote to an article explaining the history, seems reasonable.  // Timothy :: talk  23:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another option which is perfectly legit is to ask for an uninvolved experienced neutral party to the table to abritrate the matter and all agree to accept their determination. This might be helpful in many circumstances here.  // Timothy :: talk  23:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Please stop questioning existence of Georgian nation.: coming back go this I want to reiterate that I have nothing against Georgia or Georgians. I just want this article to reflect what reliable secondary sources say. For instance, I'm really happy with your additions about Gamsakhurdia's pragmatism when he granted Abkhaz over representation in the local Parliament: it's back by RS and it's super interesting as it shows him in a different light and it highlights the complexity of the conflict.
 * Coming back to Adjarians. The article says "religious and ethnic minorities". I think everyone agrees that Muslim Adjarians are a religious minority. Then you say that Christian Adjarians are not an ethnic minority. There are two issues here:
 * First, based on what I read (I'm on mobile so cannot link but some sources are already in the article or in Adjarians), it seems that when Gamsakhurdia took power, most if not all Adjarians were Muslim (probably not practicing due to Communism but at least "culturally"). For most of the time it seems that "Muslim Georgian" and "Adjarian" were synonym. They many Adjarians converted to Christianity after independence. Gamsakhurdia even performed a baptism on stage in a meeting in Batumi to convince them to do so! Many Adjarians were afraid of this and resisted attempts of Christianisation. As of today, a significant portion of Adjarians (if not the majority) are still Muslim.
 * Muslim or not, some sources consider Adjarians as an ethnic minority as well due to their different culture and their dialect influenced by Turkish. Adjarians were classified as a minority in early Soviet censuses, later they were included into "Georgians". Other sources mention that Georgians may consider Adjarians as non Georgian. For instance, when Gamsakhurdia went to Batumi and told thousands of Adjarians "You are Georgian too" many Adjarians were shocked because for them it was obvious they were Georgian and the "too" was a way to differentiate them. Adjarians demonstrated against Gamsakhurdia and fought politically to keep their autonomous status. The Adjar leader even closed the region's border to protect Adjars from the Mkhedrioni nationalist paramilitary.
 * So it seems that both the religion of Adjarians and how their "Georgianess" was perceived evolved over time, and especially after Independence. But according to RS when Gamsakhurdia took office, they were mostly seen as a minority due to their (past or present) association to Islam. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One detail: it's hard to find sources about Adjarians as they are also called Achar, Acharians, Acharan, Adzhar, Adzharian, Ajar, Ajarian, Acharlebi, Achareli, Acara, etc. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Unprofessionally edited text needs to be removed
The article talks about Gamsakhurdia repelling so-called "Soviet treaties protecting minorities", but article does not names even one such treaty, what kind of "Soviet treaties" is the article even talking about? When were they repelled? It is all unclear. The article also talks about some kind of "statements of Georgian parties" - it is not even named what parties are implied (for example, if they are anti-Gamsakhurdia parties, they are not relevant to this article), and what kind of statements? Not even one statement is mentioned. Moreover, the article talks about "Gamsakhurdia's nationalist and chauvinistic policies", but not even one such policy is mentioned and named, not even one. All of this looks very unprofessional for Wikipedia, just unprofessional editing, unclear and vague text with loaded language but no actual content. It reads like a propagandistic bulletin from Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I would like to remove such texts from the article if no one provides any reasonable counter-argument. The problem of "puffery and peacock language" (as noted by the template in the article) really needs to be fixed to make article look more professional. — Zip18 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * All the statements you mentioned are well sourced, based on reliable sources. If you want to remove them, you need reliable sources proving the opposite view.
 * The problem of "puffery and peacock language" was noted by @TimothyBlue on Oct 25. I'm not sure it was related to this specific section that was the result of a lot of discussions and efforts (see above). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because it is sourced does not means that it is written well and should remain there, there are equally important rules concerning language and neutrality. Even with sources added, the text can still be written in a manner which violates rules about language and neutrality, so it needs to be removed. I don't know who and when added the template, but that's not very important since this text is clearly good example of rule violation anyway. The propagandistic language is evident in the phrasing, in a manner which tries to construct a sequence of strong words one after another to propagandize the reader. For example - "ethno-religous chauvinistic, nationalistic, xenophobic..." - this is clear example of this technique, and just because these strong words were cherry-picked from different sources, does not makes the problem go away, because the main problem still is evident since this kind of sequence of strong words was deliberatly constructed to give the text propagandistic implication.
 * Anyway, I don't really have much time to debate this since it is obvious that there is a Russian propagandistic agenda against Georgian people and its leaders, and I don't want to debate such obvious things because this kind of debates attracts many Russian bots and trolls and Wikipedia users should not feed the trolls. I will try to add information about Russia's role in instigating ethnic conflicts in Georgia and try to amend the text as much as possible without delating anything for now, but I will wait until other Wikipedia users who support removing propagandistic text will express their opinions to build concensus because I don't want to start a debate on obvious anti-propagandistic issues and provide a ground for Russian bots to spread disinformation and fake news, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. — Zip18 (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Don't resort to personal attacks. I'm not a "Russian bot" or "troll".
 * Discuss the content you want to add here first. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, sources need to be reliable sources relevant for the topic. For instance:
 * : as suggested by its title, this source is not centered on Georgia. There's only an in-passing mention of Abkhazia and the South Ossetia on page 93 => not relevant for this article.
 * : it is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a predatory source (see WP:QUESTIONABLE), and therefore not WP:RS.
 * : seems to be a self-published (see WP:RSSELF) thesis (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP) from 1994 (see WP:AGE MATTERS), not acceptable.
 * a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You also added many sources from IGI Global, a predatory published per Vanity and predatory publishing. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a widespread consensus in the worldwide community that Russia triggered ethnic conflicts in the post-Soviet word to retain its influence - like, in Georia, in Moldova and in Ukraine recently. Do you disagree with that? As I said, I would like to remove anti-Georgian information, but this addition of mine was added temporarily, so those sources should not be a problem, but I will add other sources from internet too, that's just sources I found on internet right now. I will add many other info about Russian involvement anyway, which is key to starting conflict.
 * I don't need to start a discussion about edit bebefore making it to the article, if anyone disagrees they should start a discussion with notable counter-arguments, and if they fail to do the edits should stay. - Zip18 (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to start a discussion as I reverted your edit and two editors (@Alaexis and I) contested your edits based on its content and its lack of reliable sources. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't need to start a discussion, you need to start a discussion when you revert, moreover, you reverted my previous edit few days ago with many sources and new info which you did not challenge, and now to you reverted some my new info only challenging some sources but removing others too which you could not challenge, this is violation. - Zip18 (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with @A455bcd9's concerns here.
 * To focus just on the first sentence, it makes it seem like this is the scholarly consensus when it's not the case. These conflicts have a long history and many actors in Abkhazia, Georgia and Russia had their part in initiating the conflict (see sources in History of Abkhazia and History of Abkhazia).
 * I should say that blaming outsiders for one's own problems is common enough. Just as many Russians blame the West for the break-up of the Soviet Union, many Georgians blame Russia for the conflicts in the early 1990s. Alaexis¿question? 09:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, this is misinformation. Do you actually realize how powerful Russia was and how many influences Russia had in ethnic conflicts in Georgia? Do you want me to give you several example? Abkhaz and Ossetian separatists were directly integrated into the Soviet elites, Vladislav Ardzinba was member of Soviet hardliner Soyuz faction, their separatism was triggered by Gorbachev who passed law in April 1990 to encourage autonomies to secede, so he could pressure the union republics to stay with this method. Those separatists were direct proxies of Moscow, neither Abkhazian, nor Ossetian, nor Armenian separatists wanted to secede from Soviet Union, but they wanted to secede from Georgia, they were not pro-independence, these groups were anti-Georgian puppets from Moscow, the whole conflict with Abkhazia started because in March 1989 in Lykhny they wrote to Kremlin to transfer Abkhazia to Russian SFSR! They are Russified ethnic minorities who were tools used by Kremlin to sabotage Georgia's national self-determination and independence. They wanted to be part of Russia and russification, they were triggered by Kremlin, whole so-called "ethnic conflicts" were in reality Georgia's struggle against empire which wanted to strangle Georgia's independence using non-Georgian ethnic groups, Kremlin maintains separatist movements to bully its small neighbors into submission, is not there a clear pattern of this in Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia and etc? So-called "ethno-conflicts" are tools of Moscow and its empire to quash Georgia nationalist struggle for independence. It is Russian agency, not Abkhazian or Ossetian, this is the first step to realize what is actually going on. Kremlin empire wanted to maintain its prison of nations, it was trying to strangle independence movements with its proxy Russified ethnic groups, who have no identity on their own, they don't even speak their language, just Russian and etc. - Zip18 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't think that text should be removed. He said I would add new information about Russia which is essential and should mentioend. IGI Global was used in specific cases and they would be removed, but there were other sources added to, not all removable, so adding tamplate for better source to be adding. And if we have a quote from one scholar who claims that Gamsakhurdia started ethnic conflicts in Georgia (which is absurd), then we should have quotes from other scholars who say that ethnic conflicts were initiated by Russia. "Scholars" will replace it with "a number of scholar", but adding this widespread opinion is necessary and doing otherwise is just anti-Georgian and pro-Russian. I think he said I wanted to add information about Russia's involvement (which indeed happened and was attested by many sources) and I did not call anyone specifically RUssian bot, I said this kind of debates attracts many Russian bots in general, and I don't want to feed the trolls which is against Wikipedia's rules. Don't think this is a personal attack.— Fodrid (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion organised. It seems like the role of Russia is the main bone of contention, so let's discuss it in the dedicated thread below. Alaexis¿question? 22:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already responded to your edits in the subsection below, the additions you deleted were made by me, so please respond to my comment or I will reinstate the sources and the deleted text in the article. - Zip18 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop removing information added by other users
It looks like User:A455bcd9 has a tendency of straight up reverting vast information added by other users, while only challenging and presenting arguments against only some of the added information. This revert is a clear example. An end needs to be put on this practice. - Zip18 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please note that the WP:ONUS is on those who want to add new information, in other words they should establish consensus for adding it. Alaexis¿question? 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User, the sources you removed right now mentioned conflicts which were ongoing since Gamsakhurdia was actively involved in politics since 1989, they mentioned South Ossetian conflicts whose active phrase started when Gamsakhurdia was chairman of Georgian parliament in 1990 and later President in 1991. Gamsakhurdia faced these ethnic separatist conflicts, which were mentioned and discussed in the sources, therefore those sources are relevant and should be reinstated.
 * Don't obect to adding information about Russia instigating conflicts. If we will retain in the article text which express the viewpoint that Gamsakhurdia started ethnic conflicts, we need a text which express notable viewpoint that it was Russia that instigated ethnic and separatist conflicts by using ethnic minorities as Russian tools, this is 100% relevant,fair and neutral. If you don't agree, it does not mean that this should not be added, because that's how Wikipedia functions, there is rule NPOV. Wikipedia should be not be dictated by what some persons think. Even if your personal viewpoint is that Georgians are to blame for everything or whatever, it should not dictate what will be written in Wikipedia. I will reinstate the text which was removed so it will be in line with Wikipedia's rule, or otherwise, I will remove the text which blames Gamsakhurdia for instigating "Bosnia-like conflicts", because this is not fair. - Zip18 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zip18, the policy says that This means that you shouldn't restore challenged content while the discussion is ongoing. Alaexis¿question? 07:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I have reverted your recent edits because discussion is ongoing here and you do not have consensus for your changes - multiple editors have objected. Please review WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS as previously advised, and review User talk:Zip18 for information on controversial topics.  // Timothy :: talk  09:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alaexis and Timothy. FYI, I created this yesterday: Sockpuppet investigations/Fodrid. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources say Russia instigated conflicts in Georgia
User, It is important viewpoint that the conflicts were actually resulted by Russia using ethnic and religious minorities as proxies to cause separatist discord and undermine Georgia's independence/move towards EU or NATO. It is cited by many important sources and should be mentioend in the article. Wikipedia has NPOV rule which states that all notable viewpoints should be menionted. This is important. You may not agree with this view, but reliable sources share it, so it should be mentioned. Your personal views should not dictate what Wikipedia says. So please, stop removing information. - Zip18 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Proxies
User, the source says that ethnic and religious minorities were Russian proxies, so it is important to reflect exact meaning in the article, it was Russia's agency in this conflicts. - Zip18 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Also, user, I would be glad if you would engage in the discussions here on Talk page first before making unilateral edits about my text, thanks. - Zip18 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the sources that are already in the article, but before that please note that this is the article about Gamsakhurdia, so we cannot add any information that seems pertinent to us. Instead we should follow the sources that deal with Gamsakhurdia.


 * In our case, this means that we should mention the role of Russia when describing Gamsakhurdia's policies if reliable sources which deal with Gamsakhurdia's policies mention it, and giving it the weight that these sources give.


 * Georgia. A Political History since Independence by Stephen Jones is one such source. This is what it says

Georgians feared that with separation from the Union, their national minorities ... would seek union with their co-ethnics and dismember Georgian territory... Minorities, intimidated by the statements of Georgian parties ... began to form organizations of cultural and political self defense ... Georgian and non-Georgian insecurities fed on one another, widening cultural antagonisms and increasing political uncertainty ...As the Georgian government, which after October 1990 was in the hands of Zviad Gamsakhurdia, began dismantling Soviet treaties guaranteeing ethno-administrative borders and the rights of minorities, non-Georgians feared Moscow’s legal and physical absence would end vital protections. Chauvinistic statements from Tbilisi suggested an aggressive monoethnic state was emerging. Anti-Georgian riots in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whipped up by local intelligentsias fearful of losing their privileges and supported by conservative Russian military circles, intensified Georgian fears of fragmentation.


 * So Russia, or rather "conservative Russian military circles" played some role, but for the most part the conflict is described as having internal causes - the relevant chapter only mentions Russian influence on the third page. We should examine more sources to understand what the current consensus is, but it's already clear that we cannot say in wikivoice that the conflicts were initiated by Russia without any local actors playing a role. Alaexis¿question? 22:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, let's break it down: There is a viewpoint presented in the article that Gamsakhurdia triggered ethnic conflicts. This viewpoint is not shared by all reliable sources and there are other notable competing opinions, which should be illustrated. It is very clear. Otherwise, this opinion should also be removed, because it gives biased presentation which blames Gamsakhurdia for being the source of the conflict, without providing other notable opinions from RSs. There are reliable sources which say that Russia was the source of conflicts, so if we gonna have a discussion in the article about who triggered conflicts in Georgia, we should present this view too. You claim that the sources added by me don't deal with Gamsakhurdia, this is not true, they deal with ethnic conflicts in which Gamsakhurdia was representing Georgia and which Gamsakhurdia s President faced, so they deal with Gamsakhurdia too. Are you denying the relevancy of those sources? It is not feasible, so we either delete opinion about Gamsakhurdia "triggering Bosnia-like conflicts" altogether, or I am reinstating the opinions about Russia triggering ethnic conflicts, because otherwise, this is unfair violation of NPOV. - Zip18 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I reworded the text in a different way, so to make it clearer why the information is relevant because you challenged the relevance, so I think now it answers your concerns and looks more appropriate. This notable opinion should be expressed in the article because of NPOV rule. - Zip18 (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , (also posted above) I have reverted your recent edits because discussion is ongoing here and you do not have consensus for your changes - multiple editors have objected. Please review WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS as previously advised, and review User talk:Zip18 for information on controversial topics.  // Timothy :: talk  09:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion anymore as I reworded the text and user Alaexis did not obect anyome, and another user also did not object to additions when they were added. So I will reinstate the text. Zip18 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources which discuss this period in detail and describe Gamsakhurdia's policies in detail are preferable to ones that only mention these events in passing. Here is another source, Thomas de Waal's, The Caucasus. An introduction, p. 134-135
 * In 1989, Georgia rejected Soviet rule and embraced revolutionary nationalism...In fact, nationalist fervor had not been far below the surface. As with Nagorny Karabakh, a reemerging majority- minority dispute lit the fuse. The issue was the autonomous Black Sea region of Abkhazia. On March 18, 1989, the Abkhaz convened a “People’s Forum” in the village of Lykhny at which about 30,000 people called for Abkhazia to be separated from Soviet Georgia, given the status of a full Soviet republic, and placed under special rule from Moscow. The meeting unleashed a wave of counterprotests by Georgians led by two former dissidents, Merab Kostava and Zviad Gamsakhurdia. They denounced not only the Abkhaz for wanting to break up Georgia but also “colonialist” Moscow for being behind the Abkhaz initiative. ... the Georgian movement took an openly anti- Russian and anti- Soviet line from the beginning— for Georgians, the “other” was Moscow itself
 * The chapter goes on to discuss Gamsakhurdia's policies after he came to power and doesn't say anything about the Soviet/Russian government instigating these conflicts. So we have two sources which deal with this period that give no or very limited weight to the supposed influence, versus the two sources you've added (Rywkin and Hamilton) whose focus is not on the events during Gamsakhurdia's reign and that do not mention Gamsakhurdia himself. Please note that the relationship between the leaders of Abkhazia and "Russian conservative military elites" is already mentioned in the article. Given the sources provided so far I don't think this should be given greater weight. Alaexis¿question? 13:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we touch the origin on the conflicts, we should mention notable viewpoint that Russia instigating it, are denying this is notable viewpoint which thus needs to be covered while talking about origin of conflicts in Georgia? Those sources you deny, even if they don't directly mention Gamsakhurdia, discuss conflicts started during Gamsakhurdia's reign, therefore, they touch Gamsakhurdia's period and are relevant, just because there are some other sources which think Russia only supported separatists (but not initiated separatism), does not means other notable viewpoints should not be added, you want to dismiss other notable viewpoints by pointing out at only some sources which only mention vague relation between Abkhazia and "Russian military conservative elites", which is wrong. See NPOV, all notable viewpoints should be mentioned. - Zip18 (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alaexis. If Gamsakhurdia accused Russia of initiating and supporting separatism, then it would be worth adding to the article. But given the sources we have, I don't think there's any need to add anything else. (I would of course happily change my mind if we find recent centered reliable sources on this.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zip18, there are specific problems with the edits you've made. You shouldn't make changes when there is clearly no consensus. The way to go is to provide sources that describe Gamsakhurdia himself or the Georgian politics during his presidency (rather than making a general statement about the early 1990s in Georgia). Alaexis¿question? 14:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the recent sources I added, talk directly about Gamsakhurdia and Georgian politics during his presidency, not generally, and this is not an edit war, I added new sources, I am sorry but I can not help you if we will go into making unfounded statements, because sources are clear. - Zip18 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've already violated the WP:3RR . Please kindly self-revert your latest edits and participate in the discussion. Alaexis¿question? 15:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alaexis Stop edit warring Zip. I cannot see the references to Gamsakhurdia in the sources you added. They seem to be the exact same very generic sources that we've already discussed (and rejected). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it is not edit war, they are different edits, and the last one is written in the completely different way especially (it is given as Gamsakhurdia's opinion). The sources I added recently directly mention Gamsakhurdia and Georgian politics during Gamsakhurdia's presidency. - Zip18 (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zip18 OK I'm on mobile so I maybe missed them. I'll check later on desktop. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked on desktop:
 * Potentials of Disorder: Explaining Conflict and Stability in the Caucasus and in the Former Yugoslavia: does not cite Gamsakhurdia
 * The CS Monitor is probably RS, but it's an interview of him at that time, it would be better to have a secondary source, more recent, analyzing the situation
 * Rywkin & Hamilton: you added them back, although they don't mention Gamsakhurdia, as discussed above
 * a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, Potentials of Disorder: Explaining Conflict and Stability in the Caucasus and in the Former Yugoslavia this source mentions Gamsakhurdia numerous times and it analyzes conflicts which were active while Gamsakhurdia was president/dissident, it says that the point of analysis is " the struggle for power at the state level, the secession of South-Ossetia and the secession ofAbkhazia–which occurred with signiﬁcant overlaps in the space of just four years, from November 1989 to October 1993". So, the point of analysis is Georgian politics during Gamsakhurdia's reign and political activity. This is ridiculous because, what else should sources mention to be added? Gamsakhurdia himself is also mentioned, and the point of analysis is conflicts during Gamsakhurdia's activity. By this argument, I will remove numerous sources from article, and I will start doing this right now because this is just not fair. If the intention is anti-Georgian propaganda, no argument can help, but I will not allow anti-Georgian anti-Gamsakhurdia propaganda no matter what. - Zip18 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Potentials of Disorder actually says the exact opposite of what you want it to say in its Introduction. The sentence JUST BEFORE the one you quoted says: Similarly, the interference from Russia cannot be interpreted as the all-dominant force; Russia's involvement and influence were certainly significant factors but they were not the determinants of the violent escalations of internal crises in Georgia. It is dishonest of you to pretend that this source says anything else. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you need to read carefully before you write or I can not help otherwise. I did not use that source for the claim that Russia caused ethnic conflicts, I know this source does not presents that opinion, I used that source for the opinion that shadow economy and corruption were source for conflict, not ethnic grieviences. DIfferent notable opinions should be reflected in the article. That article illustrated opinion that shadow economy and corruption were sources of conflicts, other sources illustrate opinion that Russia was the source, all are notable opinions which you try to delete. - Zip18 (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "all are notable opinions": no, it's not how it works per WP:WEIGHT. We can maybe add the sentence but in this case we need to attribute it to Pavel Baev. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It was attributed to Pavel Baev but it was removed by you and likeminded user in a disruptive way. And you also keep reverting my edits, show me in this quote, where is Gamsakhurdia cited directly?
 * "The initial tension between Tbilisi and Batumi arose from the nature of Georgian nationalizing policies which emphasized a Georgianness that was tied explicitly to Christianity. Because the Ajars were Muslim, they were seen as falling outside this conception of national identity and, therefore, a threat to the unity and the legitimacy of the newly independent state"
 * And if your argument will be "the quote is about Gamsakhurdia's tenure and period", no, that argument was rejected by you recently.
 * I will reinstate Pavel Baev and if you don't provide answer to this question, I will remove abovementioned quote. "Of course they cite him" is not an argument. - Zip18 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For Pavel Baev, I meant adding the sentence summarizing that Similarly, the interference from Russia cannot be interpreted as the all-dominant force; Russia's involvement and influence were certainly significant factors but they were not the determinants of the violent escalations of internal crises in Georgia. You cannot cherry pick what Baev wrote. If we cite Baev, we need to summarize his whole point: 1/ Russia's involvement was significant but not the main cause. 2/ The main cause of the crisis was corruption.
 * Full quote: During the most tense period of confrontations between Ajaria and Tbilisi, Ajaria was accused of separatism. Yet the evidence indicates that Ajaria did not seek independence. The conflict centred on whether Ajaria would remain an autonomous republic (Fuller, 1990: 14). Despite Gamsakhurdia’s rhetoric, therefore, the issue was one of territorial autonomy rather than ethno-religious difference. What accounts for this conflict and its resolution? The initial tension between Tbilisi and Batumi arose from the nature of Georgian nationalizing policies which emphasized a Georgianness that was tied explicitly to Christianity. Because the Ajars were Muslim, they were seen as falling outside this conception of national identity and, therefore, a threat to the unity and the legitimacy of the newly independent state. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will reinstate opinion of Baev that Russia was not the main cause of conflict but corruption was, along with opinions of Rywkin, Cohen and Hamilton that Russia was the cause of conflicts. - Zip18 (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving this part of text in the article as it is right now there, as a compromise, since I added to the article your suggestion, the text about Baev thinking that Russian external influence was not the cause of the conflicts, and my suggestion too about the opinions of Rywkin, Cohen and Hamilton that Russia was the cause of conflicts. - Zip18 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you cease edit warring your POV into the article. You do not have consensus for the changes you are making.
 * Due to the history of this discussion and the history of the article in general, any changes should be proposed, discussed, and a request for closure made for an uninvolved experienced editor to evaluate if consensus has been reached.  // Timothy :: talk  20:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am tired of this kind of comments of you, what do you want? What is my POV? I have provided numerous RSs and how are they my POV? You only revery my edits, you don't revert their edits, you are a side here, stop acting "neutral". Everything is clear. You only write to my comments that "changes should be discussed in advance" and stuff like that. This whole article is written in anti-Georgian, anti-Gamsakhurdia manner, it is an attempt to discredit first Georgian president, national hero in Georgia, this article reads like Soviet anti-Georgian propaganda but you don't notice it. I will not allow anti-Georgain propaganda no matter what, because I have a right to defend my nation, and at least on Wikipedia, this should not be allowed, there is NPOV rule, which editors here disregard. This is not how Wikipedia articles should be written. - Zip18 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A user TimothyBlue disregards consensus
User, there was a discussion about adding source written by political scientist Pavel Baev to the article and more or less agreement about it, but you still reverted it. And there is a bad pattern of such reverts. Stop disregarding consensus. - Zip18 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * TimothyBlue was right: "more or less agreement about it" is not consensus :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zip18, Pavel Baev's article is a good source, we can certainly use it. What exactly do you want to use it for? Can you answer this question or link a specific edit in which you've added information based on this source? Alaexis¿question? 14:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI: Zip18 just banned per Sockpuppet investigations/Fodrid. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup of unsourced
A substantial amount of material has been marked as needing citations for a while now. This material should be sourced or removed per WP:V and WP:BURDEN. I will attempt to find sources, but lacking sources I will begin to remove the unsourced content per WP:BURDEN.  // Timothy :: talk  06:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)