Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia for Georgians (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While there is a consensus to delete, the concern voiced at the end that the discussion may have been influenced by editors' personal associations with the topic must be taken into account. It is also unusual to see a competent AfD nomination by an account with four edits to its credit. This means that the deletion is somewhat provisional, and if the article is userfied, improved and resubmitted, a new AfD should be considered as a chance to give the issue a second look.  Sandstein  09:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Georgia for Georgians
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a fine example of WP:CHERRYPICKING and propaganda. It becomes apparent after checking sources that most of the cited sources are authored by pro-Russian people, such as Sergey Markedonov and Anna Matveeva. It's now widely accepted that the pro-Kremlin propagandists have no compunction against faking facts to demonize post-Soviet states, especially those not aligned with Russia.

The very first source states that the report of the use of the slogan as state policy by Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first president of Georgia in 1991-1992, was not a solid fact, but accusation. After further research, it was discovered that this cited source states on page 101 that the slogan actually belonged to Gia Chanturia, who opposed Gamsakhurdia. While the slogan certainly existed, the article so grossly misrepresents it as a name for state policy of Georgia aimed at extermination of Georgia's ethnic minorities that it borders on hoax.

Some statements are not actually supported by the cited sources. Page 72 of this source is cited in the article, but it only mentions Kenya instead of Georgia. Konstantine Gamsakhurdia is mentioned in the article, but the cited source doesn't even mention him. The article says that "Mixed marriages would be discouraged" by this supposed policy and cites 4 sources, but the sources don't mention anything about prohibition of mixed marriages. Igor Giorgadze is also cited in the article, but his cited work doesn't even mention "Georgia for Georgians."

Another fine example of falsification of sources: "This policy resulted in the decision of the South Ossetian parliament in 1989 to declare its intent to unite with North Ossetia as part of the Russian Federation." Gamsakhurdia, the alleged author of the policy according to this very article, did not hold any office in 1989. Then this text follows: "resulting in the revocation of South Ossetia's autonomy and the merger of the region by the Georgian authorities to Shida Kartli (literally "Interior Georgia")." The latter sentence is supposedly backed up by Ossetian propaganda source, which does not even actually mention any such slogan. The entire paragraph is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH.

Furthermore, the article claims that many Azeris "were forced to move from the land on which they had lived for centuries", however, the cited book itself cites another source published in 1984. I highly doubt that anyone had heard about Georgian politician Gamsakhurdia in 1984. Furthermore, the same cited book makes claims demonizing Georgia on the same page and cites dubious Russian sources.

It's very telling that the pro-Russian creator of the article was permanently banned for abusing Wikipedia. Without further ado, deletion of this inflammatory article per WP:TNT is the only logical thing to do. To conclude, the Georgian nationalism deserves better and neutrally-written article. Integrist (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The entry was intended by its now community-banned editor (and his permanbanned ally) to illustrate the alleged exclusionist character of Georgian nationalism, but, as expected, the article and its talk page has long become a hotbed for anti-Georgian sentiments. Any attempts at compromise utterly failed because both of these editors were inherently biased and hyperaggresive. All major problems with this article are perfectly summarized by User:Integrist. Most reliable sources mentioning this slogan just say that the slogan was allegedly used by a politician or a group of politicians but none of them attempt to illustrate it as the basis of political ideology or state doctrine. I don't think that Wikipedia has room for allegedly used isolated slogans, the impact of which on Georgia's society and politics has never been established by any source used in the article. --KoberTalk 07:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no "alleged exclusionist character" or "alleged use", there are many sources (some of which I have cited in my keep opinion, that say that in Georgia there existed policies that were openly exclusionist in character and polices whose intended effect was exclusionist in character, that those polices were advanced by Gamsakhurdia, and that "Georgia for the Georgians" was the ideology (it was more than just a slogan) used as the rationale behind those policies - and most say that Gamsakhurdia actually used the slogan as well as promoting the policies. The article was created over 8 years ago and many editors have worked on it, so any alleged long ago issue regarding its creator can have nothing to do with this AfD. In addition, Russavia, as anyone who knows Wikipedia history knows, was banned as a result of secretly organized off-Wikipedia gaming via the Eastern European Mailing List. Russavia was unblocked after the resulting investigation . However, his justified unwillingness to accept the whitewash of an investigation into the EEML became an annoyance to many highups in Wikipedia and eventually culminated in a community ban at the demand of Jimmy Wales (after Russavia mischievously commissioned an infamous Pricasso painting of Wales). Russavia's status has no relevance whatsoever to this AfD discussion, and his banning had nothing to do with this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * TNT This article is in place of the article on "Georgian nationalism" as part of a series for every ethnic group (see infobox at bottom). Info about the slogan could be included in such an article, but the whole article shouldn't be about the slogan instead of a well-balanced article on Georgian nationalism. I say delete, and let someone recreate it as Georgian nationalism instead of just being about one phrase that may or may not have been attributed correctly. We already have the category (Category:Georgian nationalism) so we just need a good article to go with it.  —Мандичка YO 😜 14:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Georgian Nationalism does redirect to this article, but it is not necessarily a replacement for it. Looking at recent talk page discussions, there has been suggestions that the redirect be removed. I think that delinking would be correct, and might encourage the creation of the missing article. Georgian nationalism is a much broader subject and would covers a vastly longer time period. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested WP:TNT. Clearly, the article has problems with biased sources. Georgia for Georgians may not have been Gamsakhurdia's own slogan, but the slogan existed in some way (was it really actual policy?) and it appears clear it was embraced by Gamsakhurdia's supporters, and has been discussed frequently so has notability for inclusion on Wikipedia, even if part of a larger article. IMO it is much better to have an article dealing with Georgian nationalism as a whole, as this is the primary topic we are dealing with. If the article is so large that GfG should be split off into a separate article, then that can be discussed. We need to look at this neutrally and start over with the best possible sources. The current article and its history have been tarnished by Russavia; TNT is the best route. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * With respects, nothing you are saying are legitimate AfD delete arguments. You cannot argue to delete an article based on who created it 8 years ago. TNT apples to rewriting problematic existing articles from the ground up, not deleting one article that has legitimate notability with the hope that someone will create a different article full of content that would be off-topic for the deleted article but for which the deleted article's content might find a place. So you also cannot argue to delete based on that - nor can there be an argument to merge since there is nothing to merge it into. If you want to TNT this article, keeping its title, there has to be an article there to TNT - so you need to make your vote "keep". Problems with existing sources are not delete reasons - they are content issues. If there are problems with sources, why are there no recent talk about it? The article's last talk page post was back in December 2014. What has prompted this AfD, initiated by an editor who has edited nothing else? Is it because I cited the "Georgia for Georgians" policy in another AfD for an article which audaciously tries to revise history and actually present Gamsakhurdia as a unifying figure for the whole Caucasus? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to delete this article and keep its title. I want it to be deleted and its topic (which I DO think is notable) be discussed in a more comprehensive article called Georgian nationalism, which currently only exists as a redirect to this article about the slogan; I find this very WP:UNDUE. This is what I've said. I have nothing to do with initiating this AfD, I have nothing to do with the Caucasian Federation AfD. I'm coming from a neutral place. And it is my opinion that notoriously corrupt permabanned editors are like a cancer on this encyclopedia. When you come across problematic articles they created and worked on, possibly under numerous socks, the articles should be TNTd. So with respects to you, please don't tell me I need to change my vote to keep.   —Мандичка YO 😜 05:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you do not want to keep this article with this title then your TNT proposal cannot work within an AfD discussion. TNT requires the article to remain. The Georgian Nationalism redirect is currently being proposed for deletion, as suggested by earlier editors in the Georgia for Georgians talk page. I think "Georgia for Georgians" is too subject specific to cover a very broad topic like Georgian Nationalism that would cover a much wider time period and subject matter. This would leave the way open for an actual "Georgian Nationalism" article to be created. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an article about a notable specific extreme political policy that was held and acted upon within Georgia. It was a policy which had very adverse effects on social cohesion within Georgia, and was one of the factors that prompted the various breakaway conflicts that blighted post-soviet Georgia. The idea expressed in the AfD rational that the policy did not exist, that it was a "hoax", that it was unconnected to Gamsakhurdia, is absurd. The casual dismissal of sources as "pro-Russian people", "pro-Kremlin propagandists", etc, has no validity - and anyway, problems with specific sources are content issues, not delete reasons. We do not delete articles just because they are detailing events that a particular country would rather be forgotten. The proposer has not cited a single legitimate delete reason in the AfD rationale, they are all alleged content issues (about an article that has had no content discussion for two years, suggesting a lack of legitimacy in those content issues). Google Scholar has 116 hits for "Georgia for the Georgians", 111 for "Georgia for Georgians,  (there is some overlap in results), and 12900 web hits for "Georgia for the Georgians", 7150 for "Georgia for Georgians" - more than enough to prove notability. I have provided relevant quotes from some of the Google Scholar derived results below. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In The Geography of Ethnic Violence, by Monica Duffy Toft (obviously a pro-Russian person) published by Princeton University Press (obviously pro-Kremlin propagandists), 2010, in the chapter dealing with the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict, page 94: "In Tbilisi, the cause of a "Georgia for the Georgians" intensified, despite the fact that a good proportion of the inhabitants of Georgia were neither Georgian or Christian. Georgia's minorities felt threatened and mobilised in response"; also on page 94 the author quotes R.G Suny - "Tragically, Georgians made political choices that deepened social and ethnic divisions"; and on page 96 Toft writes: "Gamsakhurdia's political dominance unnerved the ethnic minorities. ... So his slogan 'Georgia for the Georgians' was interpreted as a battle cry for the suppression of minorities".
 * In Language hierarchies in Georgia by Driscolla, Berglund & Blauvelt, "Caucasus Survey", 2016, on page 3 "Georgians overwhelmingly elected Zviad Gamsakhurdia as their first president, who infamously called for Georgian "ownership" of "their" republic, and is, fairly or unfairly, credited with fanning an environment of ethno-religious nationalism that threatened the interests of non-Georgian minorities".
 * In Georgia : The Ignored History by Robert English, The New York Review of Books – 6/10/2008, "Trying to understand the Ossetian, Abkhazian, and other minorities' alienation from Georgia without reference to the extreme nationalism of Gamsakhurdia is like trying to explain Yugoslavia's collapse and Kosovo's secession from Serbia while ignoring the nationalist policies of Slobodan Milosevic". "Gamsakhurdia ...rode to power on a wave of chauvinist passions. Both were demagogues who manipulated justified popular grievances and crude popular prejudices to demonize "enemies"--a tactic that soon became a self-fulfilling prophecy". "Gamsakhurdia's "Georgia for the Georgians" would be established by curtailing the rights and autonomies enjoyed by Georgia's internal minorities, privileges he saw as divisive vestiges of the Soviet system. And as he acted on that program—rising between 1988 and 1991 from opposition leader to parliamentarian to president, Georgian relations with the republic's Abkhazian and Ossetian enclaves went from being strained to being violent". "...[minority] groups were scorned by Gamsakhurdia as 'ungrateful guests in the Georgian home'." "Gamsakhurdia ranted that subversive minorities should be chopped up, they should be burned out with a red-hot iron from the Georgian nation.... 'We will deal with all the traitors, hold all of them to proper account, and drive [out] all the evil enemies and non-Georgians'". "Gamsakhurdia's aggressive nationalism and strident denunciations of "devil Russia" and its "traitorous" allies within Georgia pushed moderate Abkhazians and Ossetians into support of outright secession".
 * In Rose Colored Glasses? by Paul Manning, in Cultural Anthropology vol22, 2007, page 176 "With the regime of Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1991–92), technocratic socialist elites were replaced by nationalist cultural ones. "...because of its rabid, almost mystical, ethnic nationalism, that there emerged a rather sharp polarization of the population into “Zviadists” and their opposition."
 * In The pawn of great powers: The East–West competition for Caucasia by R.G Suny, Journal of Eurasian Studies, vol. 1.1 2010, "Attempts by the Georgians under its first president Zviad Gamsakhurdia to end the autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and create a unitary “Georgia for the Georgians” led to ethnic and civil war, his own defeat and death, and the de facto separation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia."
 * In Abkhazia and Georgia: Time for a Reassessment by George Hewitt, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 15.2 2009, page 187 "Georgians had already from late 1988 succumbed with relish to the destructive nationalist calls of such anti communist leaders as Merab Kostava, Zviad Gamsakhurdia and Gia Chanturia..." Such rallying cries as "Georgia for the Georgians" signaled the dangers minorities would face in an independent Georgia".
 * The above sources show that Kober's assertions that Georgia for the Georgians was an "allegedly used isolated slogan", that it was not "the basis of political ideology or state doctrine" in Georgia, and that "the impact of which on Georgia's society and politics has never been established by any source" are all incorrect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Source, provided by the OP, proves that the real author of the slogan was Gia Chanturia, but you have an agenda to impute Zviad Gamsakhurdia.
 * Although your sources say that tensions arose between Georgians and the ethnic minorities during Georgia's transition to independence, they don't absolutely prove that Gamsakhurdia in his official capacity sanctioned a state policy named "Georgia for Georgians" with the aim of discriminating non-Georgians. Sources also say that the slogan did not actually intend to suppress ethnic minorities, but rather it was probably wrongly interpreted as such. Actual meanings and interpretations are two different things. Insistence on correctness of one given interpretation is not neutral. One should not forget that pro-Russian stance of Georgia's ethnic minorities radicalized Georgian independence leaders and ultimately led to tensions. The cause should not be mixed up with the effect.
 * The OP is right that seemingly-reliable Western publications sometimes use questionable Russian sources. You've used a work by Robert English to prove that "Gamsakhurdia ranted that subversive minorities should be chopped up, they should be burned out with a red-hot iron from the Georgian nation.... 'We will deal with all the traitors, hold all of them to proper account, and drive [out] all the evil enemies and non-Georgians'". Robert English cites Stuart J. Kaufman, Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War (Cornell University Press, 2001), p. 110. Kaufman's book in turn cites a newspaper article by Valery Vyzhutovich, published in Russian newspaper Izvestia in 1990, for this controversial quote.
 * George Hewitt is a representative of the Abkhaz government, so his work can hardly be considered a reliable source on the conflict between his employer and Georgia.
 * You are free to cherrypick all of the possible sources that can be found, but they won't hide the severe issues in the article that may well be beyond repair. Best Regards.178.15.173.228 (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not "impute" Gamsakhurdia, every source I cited imputes him. There is no ambiguity in the sources: they say the slogan existed, that it represented a policy, Gamsakhurdia is thoroughly implicated in the use of the slogan and in the carrying out of the ideology the slogan represented, and the "Georgia for the Georgians" ideology was a central cause behind the secessionist wars that broke out post-Georgia's independence. Our anon does not seem to realize that on Wikipedia the status and credibility of information increases according to the number of RS sources that repeat it, see WP:USEBYOTHERS. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War, by Stuart J. Kaufman, 2001, p.127, "Emotive slogans played a critical role in making all of this happen... perhaps the most loaded and effective of all was "Georgia for the Georgians" which so neatly encapsulated for both sides the Georgians' chauvinistic national goals. It was mentioned more than any other slogan as the one that brought Georgians into the street - and even more, that prompted the backlash amongst Ossetians and Abkhaz that eventually led to war." "Without understanding the central role played by these emotive slogans and uncompromising goals, it is impossible to make sense of ethnic mobilization and ethnic war in Georgia."
 * Guidelines and Recommendations for EU Conflict Prevention and Management: The Case of the South Caucasus, page 13, describes Gamsakhurdia as an "ethnic entrepreneur" who came to power "under the pretext of democracy", and that a "dangerous explosion of nationalism from the Georgian side" was "reformatting the Georgia-Ossetian and Georgia-Abkzas dimensions into a Georgia-Russia conflict". On page 14 - "In this atmosphere of hate and instability, Zviad Gamsakhurdia's "Free Georgia Round Table" coalition, which brandished the slogan "Georgia for the Georgians" won in an overwhelming victory the elections for the Georgian Supreme Soviet in October 1990. There is no doubt that the party and Gamsakhurdia were democratically elected, but actions and hate speeches of these figures opened the stage for what should become a bloody protracted conflict in South Ossetia and Abkhazia"
 * Georgia: A Political History Since Independence, Stephen Jones, 2015 - p.232, "Gamsakhurdia split with the radical opposition in May 1990 in preparation for the October/November Supreme Soviet elections, and used the demographic threat from within to garner support. Driven by an ecstatic vision of Georgian unity and the threat of multiple enemies, his rhetoric helped shape a psychological state of siege amongst Georgians." p.223 "Gamsakhurdia threatened and belittled Georgia's national minorities. He encouraged the persecution of teachers, farmers, and academics in Gori, Bolnisi, and Tbilisi simply because of their ethnic origin.", Gamsakhurdia was "a political bully and incompetant tactician" but "capable of calculation". "His appeal was linked to the identification of internal and external enemies. ethnic or not, who could be blamed for the crisis". p.234 - "Illiberal populism is a better framework for analyzing the full spectrum of the Gamsakhurdia phenemenon". Under Shevardnadze (Gamsakhurdia's successor) "The rhetoric of militant nationalism was expunged from the official lexicon, replaced by concepts of citizenship, minority rights, and federalism". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the material provided above address what I wrote in my comment. The problem is not if such a wording like Georgia for the Georgians ever existed, but if there is anything peculiar with Georgia for the Georgians in comparison with any X for the Xians. I question the intentions and sincerity of the creator of this article, for having created an article which had no parents (like Georgian nationalism etc.). I do understand you can disagree with me, but I neither opposed nor supported the deletion. There must be better ways to address subjects than using sensationalistic titles (which opens the door for reactive behaviours). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk)


 * Comment Exclusionism is the norm rather than exception during any process of nationstate building. It's a behaviour of a higher state entity, the same way as an individual will be possessing some innate characteristics (or behaviours). If this wasn't the case, nations wouldn't exist. The level of homogeneity required to sustain and maintain a national revolution requires some form of othering those who are perceived as alien elements. Editors should be careful not to impute general social behaviours to a group in particular. X for the Xians is an archetype which doesn't have an author. Often, the problem with this kind of article, is that it isolate arbitrarily one example and it's title will prevent anyone to adequately address the contexts and bigger picture. The opposition doesn't seem to be the information itself, but how and where this information must be presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update - Georgia is on the borderline of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Despite uncertainty, I added "ds/talk notice" in the talk page. I'll notify those about discretionary sanctions on pages related to Eastern Europe soon. As long as the title remains "Georgia for Georgians", I would say keep. Entirely notable on its right. Editorial conflicts are insufficient reasons to delete this article. --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination -- g. balaxaZe   ★  08:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Russian propaganda machine certainly had an incentive to exaggerate the meaning of some random rallying cry for demonizing anti-Soviet figureheads such as Gamsakhurdia. Then the Western media and scholars probably blindly accepted the Russian narrative or inaccurate reporting as a fact. As the origins and the meaning of the slogan are unclear, it is misleading to portray it as Gamsakhurdia's invention purportedly materialized into law and politics.178.15.173.228 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Mikheil  Talk 18:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The issue is not notability of the slogan, but unencyclopedic and POV nature of the article. The only purpose of the article is to cultivate anti-Georgian sentiments among those, who are not well-versed in modern history. The refusal of certain editors to accept the explanations of serious flaws of the article is disruptive.--Georgiano (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Draftspace - I am convinced by "delete" arguments that the page might not be appropriate for Mainspace. However, the arguments concerns me. The article may be anti-Georgian; so are the sources. However, the article is too large and valuable to be deleted. If moved to draftspace, users may still have time to balance the article and then not do this all over again. Also, most of those voting "delete" are ethnic Georgians (by looking at user pages) and felt insulted by the article. As said before, I added "ds/talk notice" just in case. Before I say "keep" again or "delete", I'm going to read "Wikipedia is not censored" rule, "WP:Propaganda" essay, and Offensive material. --George Ho (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.