Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia

Gamsakhurdia's alleged chauvinism

Should we restore this: According to George Khutsishvili, the nationalist "Georgia for the Georgians" hysteria launched by the followers of Gamsakhurdia, part of the Round Table—Free Georgia coalition, "played a decisive role" in "bringing about Bosnia-like inter-ethnic violence."[13][14] His ethnoreligious chauvinism increased tensions between ethnic minorities in Georgia.[15] The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes that Gamsakhurdia's anti-Ossetian discourse is one of the main causes of the Georgian–Ossetian conflict.[16]? Sources:

• [13]: Bloodshed in the Caucasus: violations of humanitarian law and Human Rights in the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict (PDF). New York: Helsinki Watch, a division of Human Rights Watch. 1992. ISBN 978-1-56432-058-2.
• [14]: Khutsishvili, George (February–March 1994). "Intervention in Transcaucasus". Boston University. 4 (3). Perspective.
• [15]: Zakharov, Nikolay; Law, Ian (2017). Post-Soviet racisms. Mapping global racisms. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 118. ISBN 978-1-137-47691-3.
• [16]: Sartania, Katie (2021-04-27). "Struggle and Sacrifice: Narratives of Georgia's Modern History". Carnegie Europe.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As I have noted and provided source, Gamsakhurdia never used that slogan. Here is also a video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRXrX467l0E . This was slogan of his opponent, opposition politician Gia Chanturia, but as Chanturia said, this slogan was just used to support Georgia's national liberation movement against Soviet Union, it was not directed against ethnic minorities. And also, writing something like "Gamsakhurdia/Georgia is to blame for Georgian-Ossetian conflict" is very huge violation of Wikipedia's rules about neutrality. This is clearly POV and not a fact, and erroneous one, since Ossetian separatism, started way before Gamsakhurdia, in 1918-1920, see Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918–1920). Gamsakhurdia can not be blamed for Georgian-Ossetian conflict. Moreover, this is a false claim repeated by Russian President Medvedev, he justified Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 by saying that "Gamsakhurdia under slogan "Georgia for Georgians" ordered an attack on Tskhinvali and Abkhazia, then Saakashvili did the same, so we had to intervene and save them". This is totally false since Gamsakhurdia never even used that slogan and he did not order any "attack", so this is just a false narrative pushed to support Russian messianism and justify Russian imperialism. It is very similar to what Russia does now to Ukraine, Russia accuses Ukrainians of being "Nazis" who "genocide" Russians, they did same thing in Georgia in 2008, they falsely accused Georgia of being "Nazis" who genocided "Ossetians" and "Abkhazians" (this is totally false as showed by evidence - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121874784363742015), so it is very important for Wikipedia not to repeat Russian propaganda in this matter.Silveresc (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. The fact that Medvedev said something is not a reason to remove it from Wikipedia. The above paragraph is backed by reliable sources, that's all what matters. No one wrote "Gamsakhurdia/Georgia is to blame for Georgian-Ossetian conflict". But The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes that Gamsakhurdia's anti-Ossetian discourse is one of the main causes of the Georgian–Ossetian conflict. => It's the position of Carnegie Europe, that's it.

Additional sources:

• Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies: Nationalistic and xenophobic sentiments ran high and Georgia’s then president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was calling for a Georgia for the (ethnic) Georgians.
• De Facto States The Quest for Sovereignty: Gamsakhurdia’s increasingly xenophobic rule exhibited an an intolerance and violence that rejected the political participation of 'minorities' that had lived as neighbours of the Georgians for centuries. (p. 148)
• Multi-Ethnic Society in Georgia: A Pre-Condition for Xenophobia or an Arena for Cultural Dialogue?: The independent Georgia of the post-Soviet era, led by President Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1991), began to build a new state based on a mono-ethnic principle. The extreme nationalist position of the government and of certain sections of society is well illustrated by popular slogans of the time such as ‘Georgia only for the Georgians’ (Dzhavakhishvili & Frichova 2005). Against the background of the drive for independence, chauvinist rhetoric and extremist nationalism led to tensions in relations between ethnic groups and later to armed conflict in Southern Ossetia. The vast majority of ethnic minority citizens who emigrated from Georgia between the declaration of independence and the present day left the country at precisely this time. (p. 38)
• LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY IN GEORGIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LANGUAGE POLICIES IN THE PERIOD 1991-2012 Gamsakhurdia started the state-building process by excluding minorities. [...] is best characterized as a period of flourishing extreme ethnic nationalism and a tyranny of the majority. Since the government of Gamsakhurdia started the state-building process coined with the motto “Georgia for Georgians” by excluding minorities from it, national minorities were not able to participate in the shaping of state institutions and became marginalized within Georgia. The ethnic minorities were treated as an inferior group and perceived as an assault on the Georgian language and culture [...]

If you fail to provide reliable sources, I'll revert. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

All reliable sources have already been provided. The Youtube video was just used for further confirmation. You seem to reject every reliable source. Pushing NPOV is prohibited on Wikipedia. You are trying to write in the article that Georgia and Gamsakhurdia are to blame for Georgian-Ossetian conflict based on The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's article, but, it is worth noting that at the end of that same article, we find the statement which you chose to ignore - "Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees". So this is not even Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's position as you tried to present it, this is personal opinion of author Katie Sartania, and biased one, it violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRNG. Wikipedia articles should be written in neutral manner without giving precedence to positions of some fringe authors and personalities. Russian propaganda uses all of this disinformation against Georgia and falsely accuses Georgians of being "Nazis" and committing "genocide", similarily to Ukraine. This fact is very important because Wikipedia should not be turned into a place for Russian propaganda.

Discourse on Ethnic Minorities and Civic Integration in Georgia during 1991-90: Analysis of Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s Official Speeches, Statements and Interviews "In each of his official speeches, statements and interviews, Gamsakhurdia was trying to avoid any rhetoric discrimination to ethnic minorities and not address official laws and regulations, where one is not able to find discriminatory facts."

European Journal of Transformation Studies, 2298-0997, A Political Discourse on Nation and Nation-Buildng in a Post-Communist State: The Case of Georgia Under Zviad Gamsakhurdia "In an interview with the Russian newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, Gamsakhrdia admitted that it would have been a totally wrong view if he had accepted the policy of “Georgia for Georgians”. He regarded such a view “as rumour against him and his country disseminated specially by the central (Russian based) newspapers". In his words, as long as his anti-Soviet agency was intertwined with the best members of Russian society, especially in publishing of most of the literature of “Samizdat” in Tbilisi, Georgia, unacceptance of non-ethnic Georgians in Georgia from his side is just a big false injustice” [Newspaper “Republic of Georgia # 36 (56), 22/02/1991]."

Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War - "By March 1990, the Georgian nationalist movement was split. Gamsakhurdi was the leader of the Round Table / Free Georgia coalition that had agreed to compete in the upcoming Georgian Supreme Soviet elections, but was opposed by Gia Chanturia, leader of the more radical Georgian National Independence Party and National Forum. Chanturia's slogan was inflammatory "Georgia for the Georgians"

Myths about Zviad Gamsakhurdia - "To this day, many people think that the slogan "Georgia for Georgians" belongs to Zviad Gamsakhurdia, however, he has never used such a phrase in any statement or rally. Actually, this call was written in the program document of Giorgi Chanturia's "National Democratic Party". Chanturia then explained that "Georgia for Georgians" was not a slogan against ethnic minorities. The situation changed so much that he and his supporters "congratulated" Gamsakhurdia with this slogan and baptized him as an enemy of other ethnic groups."

Silveresc (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

• The first source you cited (Abashidze, 2019) is just the abstract of a speech. I don't think it's a reliable source. Anyway, it says: There is a quite widespread view on Gamsakhurdia in Georgian as in foreign literature that he employed the slogan “Georgia for Georgians” as an integral part of his official policies, while his principal goal was to establish ethnically homogenous society. => This "widespread view" is worth being mentioned here on Wikipedia (even though it may not be correct, that's something different)!
• The second source you cited is also from Abashidze. And it doesn't seem to be reliable (typo in the title = not serious paper + unknown journal). In any case, even if the source were reliable, it only says that Gamsakhrdia denied the accusations against him. But it confirms the existence of such accusations. Again, for this reason alone it's worth being mentioned. And even this paper says, in both the introduction and the conclusion: The article concludes that a hybrid model of a nation was used by Zviad Gamsakhurdia instead of a pure ethnicity model widespread in relevant literature. [...] Thus, as the above study shows, the post-communist nation-building or nationality policies shown in the Georgian case from 1990-1992 can be regarded as a model based on a hybrid understanding of “nation” rather, then on pure ethnicity, as is widely accepted in social sciences. So Abashidze confirms that the widespread academic consensus is that Gamsakhurdia had "a pure ethnicity model" of nation building.
• Modern Hatreds: this quote says nothing about Gamsakhurdia
• Myths about Zviad Gamsakhurdia: as I've already noted, this opinion is not a reliable source because it's the blog section of the Georgian language edition of RFE: "ძვირფასო მეგობრებო, რადიო თავისუფლების რუბრიკაში „თავისუფალი სივრცე“ შეგიძლიათ საკუთარი ბლოგებისა და პუბლიცისტური სტატიების გამოქვეყნება." "თავისუფალი სივრცე – თქვენი პუბლიკაციებისთვის" ["Dear friends, you can publish your own blogs and journalistic articles in Radio Liberty's "Free Space" section." "Free space - for your publications"] (see WP:BLOGS).

So you failed to provide reliable sources denying the claims supported in the paragraph above. Unless you do so, I'll revert. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that you noticed the first point and reverted your edit to remove the part of the quote about the "widespread view on Gamsakhurdia"... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You keep readding material without the topic being settled on the Talk page. You act uncooperatively and apparently, based on your edit history, you are engaged in POV-pushing which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Basically you are Armenian and your edits are all about Turkey and recently about Georgia with the aim of casting it in negative light. So what is your goal? POV-pushing? You are apparently not neutral in this case.Silveresc (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue is settled. I provided all the required secondary sources. You provided 0 reliable sources.

Basically you are Armenian:

1. Please read WP:NOPA.
2. Is it a problem to be Armenian?
3. For what it's worth, I'm not Armenian, no one in my family is Armenian, I don't speak Armenian and I've never been to Armenia so I find the "accusation" of being Armenian quite funny. (I'm actually way closer to Turkey...)

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It might indicate that you are not neutral in this case and engage in POV-pushing. Basically almost all your edit history is about Armenia and additionally unhealthy amount is about Turkey (in negative light), which might indicate something. But anyway, you keep acting uncooperativly and fail to address the issues:

You keep readding the text which supposedly indicates Carnegie Europe's opinion (you previously justified adding the material by saying that "It's the position of Carnegie Europe, that's it."). However, it has been shown that this is not Carnegie Europe's position: on the Carnegie Europe's webpage, it reads: "Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees".

You keep readding personal opinion of Gamsakhurdia's opposition, George Khutsishvili, which is stated as fact. Moreover, non-neutral terms are used against Gamsakhurdia such as "hysteria" (as if Gamsakhurdia and his supporters were "hysterical", clear POV violation). And you totally ignore the fact that "Georgia for Georgians" was not Gamsakhurdia's slogan, this is even attested personally by Gamsakhurdia with video footage being provided.

You keep readding text which blames Gamsakhurdia for Georgian-Ossetian conflict, despite it being shown that Ossetian separatism caused the conflict way before Gamsakhurdia was born (in 1918–1920). Moreover, personal opinion of Katie Sartania is used as source, which violates WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.

You keep deleting text which states that Gamsakhurdia is considered as national hero of Georgia, despite all polls indicating that Gamsakhurdia is considered as such in Georgia, Gamsakhurdia officialy being awarded title of National Hero in 2004, streets, avenues, parliament's hall and other places being named after Gamsakhurdia, and etc.

So all of this combined might indeed indicate that you are engaged in POV-pushing, which violates WP:NPOV.Silveresc (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Again: stop personal attacks. There's nothing "unhealthy" about contributing to Armenian and Turkish articles.

I removed Carnegie's article as you may be right.

Calling someone or something "hysterical" is not clear POV violation if it's backed by reliable sources and if it's attributed.

Good reliable sources are cited. You may disagree with them, but there's no reason to remove them.

It's already written in the intro that He was rehabilitated by the President Mikheil Saakashvili and awarded the title and Order of National Hero of Georgia. so there's no need to add it a second time: that's why I removed it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It was not personal attack, but POV-pushing is not allowed on Wikipedia.

The source is George Khutsishvili, Gamsakhurdia's opposition, the line starts with "According to George Khutsishvili" and he is cited as source for describing Gamsakhurdia and his supporters as "hysterical". The non-neutral opinion is presented as fact. This is violation of NPOV. Gamsakhurdia's opposition is not a reliable source in this case.

The sources which are used are not reliable or neutral. For example, one of the cited books is De Facto States: The Quest for Sovereignty, a chapter from which the quote which is used in the article is cited from is called The Abkhazians A national minority in their own homeland. It is written by Edward Mihalkanin, a pro-Abkhazian scholar who takes side against Georgia in Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. The article is written in a way to justify Abkhazian's claim for independence from Georgia against international norms and international law. Claims about Gamsakhurdia are written in here to justify Abkhaz's claims. This article is not in any way examination of Gamsakhurdia's ideas and views, it is just pro-Abkhaz separatist propaganda which happens to include anti-Gamsakhurdia propaganda to justify its point. Another source Post-Soviet Racism has Georgian section written by Russian scholar Nikolay Zakharov, which might indicate anti-Georgian sentiment and an attempt to justify Russia's war against Georgia. The reference used in the article is from this chapter. In short, these sources are questionable and not reliable.Silveresc (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc: Silveresc, refrain from personal attacks. I hope this thread won't devolve into personal attacks and edit war. Otherwise, I also think that just writing that Gamsakhurdia was "chauvinistic" and "xenophobic" does not accurately and neutrally illustrates his ideas. Anyway, I hope the issue will be solved through discussion on Talk page. -- Cutoc (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not engaged in personal attacks. I just provide evidence which might indicate some kind of bias. Since POV-pushing is prohibited on Wikipedia, there is nothing wrong in indicating potential bias. On the other hand, the edit was is indeed not allowed on Wikipedia, which you chose to ignore. Which might indicate your bias as well. There is nothing wrong in pointing out potential bias when backed by evidence.Silveresc (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc:, Hello once again, I am not sure what you mean by "chose to ignore", but I agree that edit war is prohibited on Wikipedia, but personal attacks are also phobited. Since your recent activity might indicate use of personal attack, it was just a reminder to respect civility and prevent this page from devolving into battlefield. All issues should be solved with peaceful interaction on Talk page without edit war and personal attacks. -- Cutoc (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc: Criticizing a person in an article does not make the article "non neutral". Being pro-Abkhaz or having a Russian name does not make an author not reliable either (which might indicate anti-Georgian sentiment and an attempt to justify Russia's war against Georgia: what kind of xenophobia is this? He's an associate professor at a Swedish university).

And what are your objections to the following reliable sources?

• Georgia and the Russian Aggression, Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Diana Janse (formerly Sweden’s ambassador to Georgia): Nationalistic and xenophobic sentiments ran high and Georgia’s then president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was calling for a Georgia for the (ethnic) Georgians.
• Multi-Ethnic Society in Georgia: A Pre-Condition for Xenophobia or an Arena for Cultural Dialogue?, Marina Elbakidze (a Georgian!): The independent Georgia of the post-Soviet era, led by President Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1991), began to build a new state based on a mono-ethnic principle. The extreme nationalist position of the government and of certain sections of society is well illustrated by popular slogans of the time such as ‘Georgia only for the Georgians’ (Dzhavakhishvili & Frichova 2005). Against the background of the drive for independence, chauvinist rhetoric and extremist nationalism led to tensions in relations between ethnic groups and later to armed conflict in Southern Ossetia. The vast majority of ethnic minority citizens who emigrated from Georgia between the declaration of independence and the present day left the country at precisely this time.
• Human Rights Watch: The October 28, 1990, parliamentary elections in Georgia brought to power the Round Table coalition, led by Zviad Gamsakhurdia. A fiercely nationalist grouping of dozens of political parties, the Round Table staunchly advocated complete independence from the Soviet Union and popularized the slogan, "Georgia for Georgians".

So before reverting, provide reliable sources. So far, you only provided one low quality secondary source: Abashidze. But even this source which tries to defend Gamsakhurdia agrees that there's a "widespread view", both in Georgia and abroad, seeing Gamsakhurdia as a xenophobic nationalist: There is a quite widespread view on Gamsakhurdia in Georgian as in foreign literature that he employed the slogan “Georgia for Georgians” as an integral part of his official policies, while his principal goal was to establish ethnically homogenous society. Abashidze's other article also concludes: Thus, as the above study shows, the post-communist nation-building or nationality policies shown in the Georgian case from 1990-1992 can be regarded as a model based on a hybrid understanding of “nation” rather, then on pure ethnicity, as is widely accepted in social sciences. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Gamsakhurdia's opposition is not reliable source to describe Gamsakhurdia and his supporters as "hysterical". It violates NPOV. George Khutsishvili needs to be removed.

The article in question was written from pro-Abkhaz perspective, so it is not coincidence that it mentions Gamsakhurdia in negative light. Such articles can not be considered as neutral, they are written explicitly to justify some POV.

Additional sources confirming that slogan actually belonged to Giorgi Chanturia and National Democratic Party (Gamsakhurdia's opposition), not Gamsakhurdia:

25 Years of Independent Georgia: The National Democratic Party went further, introducing the slogan “Georgia for Georgians” and questioned the presence of autonomous areas in Georgia, as “historical territories that belonged to Georgia from the beginning”.

Securitization (management) of minor differences security and conflict in the South Caucasus during the late 1980s and early 1990s: In an interview to the Russian newspaper, Sobesednik, Gamsakhurdia explained that the allegations that he was campaigning for “Georgia for the Georgians” were "total lies".

Georgia's battle for independence looms: Nodar Notadze, another presidential candidate as leader of the Popular Front, said he wasn't on good terms with Gamsakhurdia, "but no one here ever uttered those words "Georgia for the Georgians' in public here."

The Politics of Memory in Post-Authoritarian Transitions: The Two-Stage Transition in Georgia: Those decisions were followed by the politician’s victory in the general presidential election of 26 May. 9 The nationalist slogan of “Georgia for Georgians”, however, was not a part of some comprehensively planned activity

And stop removing mention of Gamsakhurdia being a Georgian national hero. You previosly agreed on one mention of Gamsakhurdia being national hero in the lead, so only one mention was left. More concrete description was moved to the other parts of the article.Silveresc (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you wish to continue, I posted to ANI.  // Timothy :: talk  03:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Silveresc in this case. There is documented evidence on video where Gamsakhurdia denied that he ever used the slogan. And this video was recorded when he was already a head of government (in 1991). Moreover, the slogan appereantly belonged to political program of Gamsakhurdia's opposition, which makes even less sense to attribute the slogan to Gamsakhurdia. I think Wikipedia should be neutral in this case and not repeat some allegations and accusations which are unfounded. -- Cutoc (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the long term disruptive edit warring that characterizes this article history for the past month.  // Timothy :: talk  03:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, edit warring is not productive in any case. Both users should engage in discussion without edit war. -- Cutoc (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cutoc: it's Wikipedia, we use reliable secondary sources, not primary sources like a video of someone denying something that everyone else accuses them of.

Even the second source sent by @Silveresc (Securitization (management) of minor differences security and conflict in the South Caucasus during the late 1980s and early 1990s, which is a WP:THESIS so not necessarily RS btw) acknowledges Gamsakhurdia's chauvinism but Silveresc posted a truncated quote! Here's the full paragraph (in italic, the truncated excerpt that Silveresc chose to share...): Georgia was intended for Georgians, and minorities were excluded from the future post-Soviet project of the nation-state. In an interview to the Russian newspaper, Sobesednik, Gamsakhurdia explained that the allegations that he was campaigning for “Georgia for the Georgians” were "total lies". However, he elucidated, "Georgia, being in a catastrophic demographic predicament, cannot grant citizenship to all. In any country foreigners, hostile to the state are denied citizenship." (1991: 7), Gamsakhurdia’s narrative demonstrates that he was in favour of the selection and limitation of “foreigners”. Note also his use of the modifier “hostile”, which specifically securitizes minorities. Such views were destroying the multicultural legacy of Georgia, but Gamsakhurdia was able to gather enough supporters, and the choice was made in favour of nationalism. As Thomas Goltz puts, it he did all the right things at the right time, including becoming a member of the Helsinki Human Rights Committee, and was an intellectual who translated European books (2009: 5). Perhaps this secured him support along, with promoting the policy “Georgia First”, which pleased ethnic entrepreneurs but alienated everyone else in Georgia and abroad (Goltz, 2009: 6). However, Stephen Jones observes that Gamsakhurdia’s period was more than just “nationalism”, as the leader believed in a “semi-mythological” and “racially pure” Georgia, which helped him to appeal to nostalgic Georgians who yearned for “the innocence of pre-Soviet times” (2013: 52). By enticing the “little man” who had missed out on privileges and idealistic youth, he reflected “Georgia’s crisis of modernity” (Jones, 2013: 52-53). His language and its semantics appealed to those who lost out,saw a truncation of opportunities and had no access to power. They felt bewilderment and perceived a Messianic figure in Gamsakhurdia. What kind of bad faith is this? The same source has many accounts of Gamsakhurdia's chauvinism, for instance: The discourse of national identity and nationalism transformed multicultural Tbilisi into an arena for chauvinists and nationalists. They looked for ‘others’ in their midst, which led to the disintegration and segregation of society. Georgia was heading toward a rift between Zviadists (those who shared Gamsakhurdia’s nationalist views) and antiZviadists — the section ofsociety that knew nationalism was a self-defeating tool and rejected Gamsakhurdia’s stance. One of the participants of those events and a prominent film director, Goga Khaindrava, confirmed during an interview that Gamsakhurdia’s discourse was a deliberate attempt to stir enmity through his speeches (Khaindrava, 2013). [...] Gamsakhurdia was a radical who manipulated the moderate 261 Georgian populace into a chauvinistic mob (Jones, 2006: 257). [...] His discourse was the source of the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy in Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian relations. He openly claimed that the Abkhaz as a nation does not exist at all, and that it was just a name of a Western Georgian province (Chagelishvili, 2002a). [...] Gamsakhurdia’s vision of a unitary Georgia was translated into nationalist discourse and stirred up ethnic sentiments. [...] The Tbilisi society questioned the right of the Abkhaz to live in Georgia. Radical chauvinism became popular as many renowned writers, artists and public figures supported right-wing ideas. Georgia was depicted as a privileged nation and all other ethnicities had to accept the reality or leave. [...] Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s political allies particularly supported this stance.

The third source, TampaBay, is old and it's just Gamsakhurdia saying that his innocent: not RS.

The last source doesn't prove much but here again @Silveresc truncated it: The nationalist slogan of “Georgia for Georgians”, however, was not a part of some comprehensively planned activity, but was an expression of social sentiments of the time (see: Nodia, 1994). I couldn't find Nodia, 1994 but I found Nodia, 1997: Of course Georgian nationalists, especially in the Gamsakhurdia period, were far from sensitive to minority issues. According to many accounts, Georgia for the Georgians was Gamsakhurdia's slogan, which in fact is not true. I personally never heard anything like this slogan at his rallies and have never seen anybody cite a source for it. But it probably expressed his true attitude. Moreover, one can find many truly racist quotations in the Georgian press in that period. So even Nodia acknowledges that 1/ "According to many accounts, Georgia for the Georgians was Gamsakhurdia's slogan" and 2/ whether he actually said it or not did not matter much as he agreed with this slogan in practice.

I presented countless secondary reliable sources that @Silveresc keep removing.

How can we move forward @Cutoc @Timothy? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEKHELP, I've just requested other editors' help on WP:POLITICS, WP:GC, Wikipedia:WikiProject Abkhazia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ossetia, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Another recent RS, The Geography of Ethnic Violence, by Monica Toft, published by Princeton University Press: The individual who came the closest to fitting this description is Zviad Gamsakhurdia, an outspoken Georgian chauvinist. [...] Although it could be argued that Gamsakhurdia in fact stirred nationalist passions among Georgians prior to his ouster, more than eight months passed between his ouster and the firing of the first shots in the Abkhaz civil war. [...] Gamsakhurdia’s political dominance unnerved the ethnic minorities. His earlier dissident writings often invoked the peril of the Georgian nation and blamed both Moscow and the minorities for the destruction of its land, language, and culture. So his slogan “Georgia for the Georgians” was interpreted as a battle cry for the suppression of minorities. [...] But his [Gamsakhurdia] response to that threat was to incite Georgian nationalism, even chauvinism. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I will note that while Gamsakhurdia may not have used the slogan, that it is attributed to him is notable, and has been discussed extensively in literature. Noting that he was accused of stating "Georgia for the Georgians" while clarifying he did not actually say that should be mentioned on the article, as his alleged statement was used as justification to start the fighting to some extent. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @Kaiser matias. What about: According to George Khutsishvili, the nationalist slogan "Georgia for the Georgians" launched by Gamsakhurdia's followers, part of the Round Table—Free Georgia coalition, "played a decisive role" in "bringing about Bosnia-like inter-ethnic violence." While commentators disagree on whether Gamsakhurdia actually used the slogan, they agree that his ethnoreligious chauvinism, nationalism, and xenophobia stirred tensions between ethnic minorities in Georgia.? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! One minor quibble, the tensions were mostly not *between* the ethnic minorities but rather between the Georgians (the majority) and certain minorities. So I would suggest stirred ethnic tensions in Georgia. Alaexis_¿question? 20:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in @Alaexis. So the proposed wording is: According to George Khutsishvili, the nationalist slogan "Georgia for the Georgians" launched by Gamsakhurdia's followers, part of the Round Table—Free Georgia coalition, "played a decisive role" in "bringing about Bosnia-like inter-ethnic violence." While commentators disagree on whether Gamsakhurdia actually used the slogan, they agree that his ethnoreligious chauvinism, nationalism, and xenophobia stirred stirred ethnic tensions in Georgia. (using the above references) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, it should be noted that those ethnic minorities (Abkhazians and Ossetians) were Russian-backed separatists and they pursued their separatist objectives even after Gamsakhurdia was overthrown (War in Abkhazia started in August 1992, Gamsakhurdia was overthrown and in exile since January 1992). It should be noted that they were Russian-backed and separatist from the beginning, before Gamsakhurdia became President or head of the government. -- Cutoc (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That's as far from neutrality as it gets. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you questioning? That Abkhazians were and are separatists? Or that they were and are Russian-backed? Or that War in Abkhazia started after Gamsakhurdia was overthrown and exiled in Chechnya? These are not opinions, these are facts. -- Cutoc (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So, it seems like no one has written anything against what I suggested few hours ago, it does not seems like anyone is againsto, so I will add the relevant information to the article. -- Cutoc (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't mention this, so don't add it. What's the point you want to make "He was xenophobic but it's because there were separatists"? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to add that his sentiments and rhetoric were also caused by separatism of some ethnic minorities and Russian backing of them. I don't think any leader in the world would react softly to separatist claims over territories of his country. Moreover, Russian backing, which was an attempt to preserve influence in the Caucasus, also may be assessed as one of the most important factors. Additionally, I also want to add important stepts which Gamsakhurdia took to defuse ethnic tensions among minorities: He granted wide-overrepresentation to Abkhazians in Abkhazian parliament despite them being only 17% of population, also, he confirmed Abkhazian-supported candidate Vladislav Ardzinba on the post of chairman of Abkhazian parliament. Additionally, Gamsakhurdia and his allies passed law on nationality which granted citizenship to all ethnic groups. I can provide all sources on Russian backing, separatism of some ethnic groups and Gamsakhurdia's steps. If there is no objection, I am going to make these edits with reliable sources cited to make article more in line with WP:NPOV rule. -- Cutoc (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cutoc: Silveresc has just been topic banned so I think this article is now a disputed topic and, for the next few days, I suggest we reach consensus in the talk page before making changes.

In particular, when you write I don't think any leader in the world would react softly to separatist claims over territories of his country.: our personal opinions don't matter on Wikipedia, beware of WP:OR. We need reliable sources that directly link his actions to separatism. Please also see Stephen Jones's analysis below. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about situation of Silveresc and whether he can provide more additional information about this, but I have read comment of Silveresc and I liked his comment below, particularly quotes from Stephan Jones. I am talking about these ones:

In circumstances like those of 1990–91, with the threat of dissolution of the state, economic collapse, and hostile declarations from a still militarily powerful imperial overlord, it is hard to imagine even “civic” European nations, let alone newly independent states led by inexperienced elites, abjuring militant nationalist ideas. But a closer look at Georgian nationalism from 1989 to 1992 shows this was neither the resurgence of latent ethnic hatreds nor the expression of a violent political culture. Rather, it was contingent on extraordinary economic, political, and physical insecurities brought about by the collapse of Soviet power. It is worth remembering that from 1989 to 1990 those leading the Georgian national liberation movement tried to divert popular focus from national minorities. Representatives of the Kurdish and Armenian communities, among others, took part in the early rallies for Georgian independence (there was a similar pattern in the Baltics), and Georgian radicals in these early years saw the “ethnicization” of Georgian politics as a deliberate Kremlin provocation.

This explains how Gamsakhurdia's rhetoric was born, that it was not particularily ethnic issue ("this was neither the resurgence of latent ethnic hatreds nor the expression of a violent political culture"). Rather, it was complex blend of many factors: State failure caused by collapse of Soviet Union, collapse of economy, Russia ("a still militarily powerful imperial overlord") trying to exert its influence on Georgia using Georgia's internal problems (including ethnic minorities).

I also want to bring attention that there was equally strong anti-Georgian sentiment among ethnic minorities, Abkhazians and Ossetians. There is another book of Stephen Jones, Georgia: A Political History Since Independence, on page 42-43:

Georgians feared that with separation from the Union, their national minorities, particularly the Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Ossetians, would seek union with their co-ethnics and dismember Georgian territory. This had happened during the first Republic of 1918–21

Georgian and non-Georgian insecurities fed on one another, widening cultural antagonisms and increasing political uncertainty.

So situation was much more complex than "Gamsakhurdia was xenophobic", Gamsakhurdia was nationalist, but there were equally nationalist leaders in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Those leaders were also separatists and it contributed to the conflict. Moreover, Russian interference and support for separatism made situation even worse. All of this should be noted, with these soures cited.

As I noted above, I also want to include in the article Gamsakhurdia's steps which he took to defuse ethnic tensions. They are relevant to this discussion and should be noted in the article for NPOV. -- Cutoc (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Please suggest here the text that you want to add. As I said below, the rest of Stephan Jones's book is clear that Gamsakhurdia was a radical nationalist, chauvinistic who threatened, bullied, and belittled Georgia’s national minorities even though, sometimes, he was capable of pragmatic calculation. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Another quote from Stephen Jones's book (I think you were talking about article, not a book, since your quote is from the article, not a book), page 43: 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.

This is important and it should be noted. You previously said that your goal was not to implicate Georgians (or Gamsakhurdia, basically when you are talking about Gamsakhurdia you are talking about Georgians since 95% voted for Gamsakhurdia) in conflicts, so I believe that, therefore, you should not object to the edits illustrating the reality that Georgians were fearful of separatism of ethnic minorities and Russian interference with a goal of stopping Georgia's pro-independence movement (I want to emphasize that we simply can not ignore Russian factor, which has immense role, while discussiong this issue - Russia did everything it could to encourage ethnic confrontation).

It is also noteworthy that Stephen Jones here is talking about 1989 Sukhumi riots, which happened because Abkhazians did not want Georgians to open their own university and teach in Georgian language in Abkhazia (so, they were anti-Georgian, as Stephen Jones rightfully mentions). Moreover, it is also noteworthy that this riot occured before Gamsakhurdia became a head of government (he became head of government in October 1990, while Sokhumi riots happened in July 1989).

Another quote from Stephen Jones's article: Driven by a mystical vision of Georgian unity and the threat of multiple enemies, Gamsakhurdia's radical nationalist rhetoric helped shape a psychological state of siege. Leaders like Vladislav Ardzinba (Abkhazia) and Torez Kulumbegov (South Osetia) followed suit. They used the demographic card even more effectively, defending communities that numerically were in a far worse situation than the Georgian. 33 To Georgians, the anti-Georgian statements of national minority leaders, fed by Gamsakhurdia’s own threats, proved their disloyalty.

What I want to note is that distrust and fear was mutual thing between Georgians and ethnic minorities. As Stephen Jones notes:

Georgian and non-Georgian insecurities fed on one another, widening cultural antagonisms and increasing political uncertainty.

So, according to Stephen Jones, which is a reliable source already cited in the article, both sides had antagonism towards each other, not just Georgians or Gamsakhurdia. So my addition would be:

However, the equally nationalistic leaders, such as Vladislav Ardzinba in Abkhazia and Torez Kulumbegov in South Ossetia, existed among ethnic minorities, who pushed for independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. Moreover, they were supported by powerful military elites in Russia, which wanted to maintain their influence in the South Caucasus through aiding separatist forces. These exacerbated fears among Georgians that ethnic minorities wanted to dismember Georgian territory. In order to defuse tensions, Gamsakhurdia acted pragmatically, and took several steps: he accepted a proposal which granted Abkhazians wide-overrepresentation in the local Abkhazian parliament, despite Abkhazians being only 17% of the population, Gamsakhurdia agreed to grant them majority of seats. This arrengment made Georgians, who were plurality (46% of population) in the republic, a minority in the parliament with twenty-six of sixty-five seats, while Abkhazians had been allocated twenty-eight seats under ethnic quota. Additionally, Gamsakhurdia confirmed Abkhazian-supported candidate Vladislav Ardzinba on the post of Chairman of Abkhazian parliament based on pragmatic considerations, thinking that his appointment would prevent separatism. In July 1991, Georgian parliament passed a law on nationality, which granted citizenship to all residents in the country, including ethnic minorities. Gamsakhurdia's actions arguably helped to delay War in Abkhazia, which started monthes after Gamsakhurdia was overthrown.
I am going to make corresponding edit if no one raises objection. -- Cutoc (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm citing a book: Stephen Jones, The Making of Modern Georgia, 1918-2012, published in 2014 (not the one from 2009, and we should ideally use the latest sources if they come from the same author).

All sources agree that Gamsakhurdia was a radical chauvinistic nationalist. We can add one line about his "pragmatic calculation" but not a massive paragraph like this per WP:WEIGHT. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I am citing Georgia: A Political History Since Independence, authored in 2012, which makes it recent enough.

WP:WEIGHT is not really applaciable for the second part of my text since it does not discusses opinions but policies (I am talking about part when I discuss about Gamsakhurdia granting wide-overrepresentation to Abkhazians, appointing Abkhazian-supported Ardzinba, passing citizenship law which granted citizenship to ethnic minorities). His policies need to be discussed in his article and the section about presidency is very short anyone, lacking practically any meaningful discussion about his actual policies.

As for the first part of my suggested paragraph, well, it can be shortened, but the main idea is to note separatism of ethnic minorities and Russian backing. Basically I talking about this quote from Stephen Jones which summerizes situation quite well and is quite short, but we of course can not just copy-paste his text, but we can reword it:

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. -- Cutoc (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't notice that you cited a 2012 book, thanks for pointing my mistake.

Yes, we can definitely describe Gamsakhurdia's policies (in general), and especially those towards minorities. But this should not be used as a way to diminish or hide what all reliable sources describe as chauvinism/nationalism/xenophobia. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So my second suggestion to add this text:

However, equally nationalistic leaders among ethnic minorities, who pushed for separatism and were backed by Russian military elites trying to preserve their power in the region, also increased Georgians' fear about Georgia's territorial integrity and contributed to stirring up tensions between Georgians and non-Georgians. Gamsakhurdia, through pragmatic calculation, took some steps to reduce tensions: the Abkhazians, making up only 17% of Abkhazia's population, were granted wide overrepresentation in the local Abkhazian parliament, which secured their rights, Abkhazian-supported candidate was approved on the post of Chairman of Abkhazian parliament and a citizenship law was adopted granting citizenship to all ethnic minorities in Georgia. This arguably delayed starting of the War in Abkhazia, which began few months after Gamsakhurdia was overthrown.

It is shorter by approximately 90 words. -- Cutoc (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for every single sentence of this paragraph? For instance "through pragmatic calculation, took some steps to reduce tensions"? Jones writes that his negative policies toward national minorities [...] triggered the first ethnic clashes and that he threatened, bullied, and belittled Georgia’s national minorities. Not really a pragmatic way to "reduce tensions"...

Also: if we want to write in WP:WIKIVOICE, we have to find the consensus of reliable sources. We cannot only use Jones. For instance Monica Toft writes: Although it could be argued that Gamsakhurdia in fact stirred nationalist passions among Georgians prior to his ouster, more than eight months passed between his ouster and the firing of the first shots in the Abkhaz civil war. and his [Gamsakhurdia] response to that threat was to incite Georgian nationalism, even chauvinism. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, every quote I have cited and every sentence I have written, can be supported by the book of Stephen Jones I have already mentioned (in addition to other sources, of course). The quotes are directly from the book or the article discussed below (written by Stephen Jones).

The term "pragmatic consideration" was used by you, so I included it, moreover, Stephen Jones uses the term several times to describe Gamsakhurdia's policy. Stephen Jones says that Gamsakhurdia's motivations may have been:

calculation that things would change in Georgia’s favor or that the alternative would lead to a conflict with Abkhazia and ultimately Russia

So this quote shows that Gamsakhurdia wanted to avoid conflict and defuse tensions, because of which he took pragmatic steps. The term "pragmatic" is used by Jones several times.

There are other sources too saying that Gamsakhurdia attempted compromise with ethnic minorities (even though they were separatists):

Russia’s Recognition of Independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia – Causes of Deviation from Russian Traditional Recognition Policy, p. 130Popular Forum "Aidgilara" established in December 1988 became the nexus of separatism in Abkhazia, similar to Adamon Nikhas in South Ossetia. “Aidgilara” played instrumental role in mobilizing Abkhaz public in drafting the “Likhni Declaration” aimed at upgrading the status of autonomy into union republic. Nevertheless, in contrast to South Ossetia, in 1990-91 Abkhaz authorities did not adopt any secessionist acts. This could also be attributed to the public attitude towards the issue. In March 1991, 61% of eligible voters in Abkhazia participated in Georgia-wide referendum on Georgia’s independence and almost 98% of them voted in favour, even though most of the ethnic Abkhaz did not go to the polling stations.380 Another big contributing factor to the relative stability was the compromise formula offered by Georgian leadership under President Gamsakhurdia to the Abkhaz elite in August 1991. The formula envisaged creation of new electoral districts according to which the Abkhaz who made up only 17% of the 550 000 strong population would get 28 mandates in the Supreme Council of Abkhazia, whereas Georgians – (46% of population) only 26 and the other ethnic groups – (37% of population) – 11 mandates.381 Although, far from any democratic standard of representation and obviously favouring the minority ethnic group, this compromise preserved peace in Abkhazia for the time being. In order to safeguard the interests of the majority, Gamsakhurdia’s formula provided for 2/3 majority rule for adoption of constitutional acts or organization of referendum on amendments to the constitution of Abkhaz ASSR as well as appointment of ministers. This ensured that neither Georgian nor Abkhaz delegates alone could amend the constitution, change the status of Abkhazia or appoint a government. This formula was officially accepted by the Supreme Council of Abkhazia in August 1991 and included in the constitution. Subsequently, elections to the Supreme Council of Abkhazia in September 1991 were conducted accordingly and Vladislav Ardzinba was elected by Georgian and Abkhaz deputies to the post of the chairman of the SC.

Russian Soft Power in Eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, p. 21In effort to keep tensions from escalating, Georgian President Gamsakhurdia tried to strike a compromise between Abkhazians (who made up roughly 17 percent of the population) and Georgians (who made up about 45 percent) in Abkhazia.

The Georgia conflicts: What you need to know, p. 6After the July 1989 violence, tensions between Georgians and Abkhaz were partially alleviated by a power-sharing deal struck under Gamsakhurdia. it provided for disproportionate representation in Abkhazia’s political institutions to the Abkhaz, who according to the 1989 census were 18 percent of Abkhazia’s population compared to 46 percent who were ethnic Georgians, many of whom had settled in Abkhazia during czarist and Soviet rule.

The dynamics of electoral politics in Abkhazia, p. 172Attempting to assuage the fears of the Abkhaz, Gamsakhurdia assented in 1991 to a legislature in Abkhazia that saw the largest portion of seats (28 out of 65) go to the Abkhaz despite numbering a mere 17.8% of the population, and exceeding representation afforded to the Georgians (26 seats) who constituted almost a majority (45.7%) of Abkhazia’s population.

Scaling-up Multi-Hazard Early Warning System and the Use of Climate Information in Georgia, p. 59Georgian moves towards independence exacerbated Abkhazian fears, leading to the outbreak of clashes between local populations in Abkhazia in 1989. Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which encountered resistance from the Georgian side. President Gamsakhurdia of Georgia negotiated a short-lived power-sharing agreement with the Abkhaz in 1991, which was violated due to the clashes between Georgian and Abkhaz military groups in August 1992;

Quote from Wikipedia's article about Abkhazia, which cites this and this source:

Under Gamsakhurdia, the situation was relatively calm in Abkhazia and a power-sharing agreement was soon reached between the Abkhaz and Georgian factions, granting to the Abkhaz a certain over-representation in the local legislature.

So, it seems like sources in one way or another indicate that Gamsakhurdia wanted to defuse tensions and achieve compromise with one source even writing that he acted "to assuage the fears of the Abkhaz". Therefore, this indicate's that Gamsakhurdia, through his pragmatic steps, wanted to defuse tensions and negotiated power-sharing agreement. This agreement went so far that it even gave privilages to the Abkhazians. Also, a number of sources say that Gamsakhurdia's actions were instrumental in keeping peace in Abkhazia. -- Cutoc (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So, consdering these points and other points I have already made throughout the discussion above, I think this addition to the article would be due:

However, equally nationalistic leaders of ethnic minorities, who pushed for separatism and were backed by Russian military elites trying to preserve their power in the region, also contributed to stirring up ethnic tensions between Georgians and non-Georgians. They increased Georgians' fear about Georgia's territorial integrity. Gamsakhurdia, through pragmatic calculation, took some steps to reduce tensions and achieve compromise: the Abkhazians, making up only 17% of Abkhazia's population, were granted wide overrepresentation in the local Abkhazian parliament, which secured their rights, Abkhazian-supported candidate was approved on the post of Chairman of Abkhazian parliament and a citizenship law was adopted granting citizenship to all ethnic minorities in Georgia. This delayed starting of the War in Abkhazia, which began few months after Gamsakhurdia was overthrown.

If there is no objection, I am going to make corresponding edits to the article. -- Cutoc (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What's your source for equally nationalistic leaders of ethnic minorities? And the whole first sentence?

You only mention Abkhaz. But what about Ossetians? And other minorities (Armenians, Azeris)? (one source cited above: Against the background of the drive for independence, chauvinist rhetoric and extremist nationalism led to tensions in relations between ethnic groups and later to armed conflict in Southern Ossetia.).

Also: if you only use Jones as a source then I think you should start with "According to Stephen F. Jones,".

Anyway, if you believe every single sentence is sourced you can WP:BEBOLD and add this as a new paragraph in Zviad_Gamsakhurdia#Ethnic_tensions and then we can work from this. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will make the relevant edit.

I will also restructure article's sections and add new sections such as "Biography", "early life" and etc. Most of the articles about notable people have such composition, and this is a generally accepted standart, the consistency on Wikipedia is also encouraged. -- Cutoc (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes the whole article needs a lot of work... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Please make sure that all statements are properly referenced. Ardzinba was definitely a nationalist as well (I don't know where equally or not), I'm not sure about the other minorities, some of which had no recognisable leaders. Alaexis_¿question? 21:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why is someone trying to remove mention of Gamsakhurdia being a Georgian national hero from the lead. It was stated in the lead even before I started editing and all the mess started with the reverts, but it is now completely gone. It is noteworthy and very important. Moreover, there are numerous sources confirming that he is regarded as a national hero in Georgia:

First, and the most important thing, that he has been officially awarded the title of National Hero of Georgia:

Georgian president awards National Hero title posthumously to Zviad Gamsakhurdia and Merab Kostava Georgian president awarded National Hero title posthumously to the country's ex-president Zviad Gamsakhurdia and Meab Kostava. This was declared by Mikheil Saakashvili on Saturday at the opening of the memorial of the hero of Georgian-Russian war in 2008 Giorgi Antsukhelidze in Kvemo Alvani village. "At the time when almost no Georgian thought about his country's freedom, when the majority of conformists were among us, Zviad Gamsakhurdia was a leading light of the national idea, fought for it, and we have gained this freedom. Yet he was left alone in a distant Megrelian village, was betrayed and died. He could say that he is Georgia. Like his colleague Merab Kostava, who was sitting in Soviet jails for many years, and didn't refuse the idea of freedom in Georgia. Both of these heroes deserve the title of National Hero," the president said.

Moreover, there are numerous sources, which indicate that he is treated as a national hero in Georgia by both state and government:

Official webpage of Parliament of Georgia Archil Talakvadze commemorated the first President of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia. The Speaker, Archil Talakvadze and the Prime Minister, Irakli Garibashvili visited the Mtatsminda Pantheon to commemorate the first President of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia and laid the wreath on his grave. Zviad Gamsakhrudia would turn 82 today. The national hero was born on March 31, 1939, in Tbilisi.

Parliament's Plenary Room to be named after Georgia’s first President “April 9, the day of restoration of our state independence, as well as the first President of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, is the symbol of our statehood,- Irakli Kobakhidze, the Chairman of Parliament, said today.

Prime Minister's statement, official webpage of Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili Another reason why March 31 is so special is that today marks the 84th birthday anniversary of President Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the referendum's inspirer and a symbol of Georgia's fight for independence.

PM congratulates Georgians on Referendum Day "This day is also linked to the Georgian national hero, the first Georgian president, late Zviad Gamsakhurdia. His contribution to the restoration of the independence of Georgia is immeasurable. Zviad Gamsakhurdia was the inspirer and the main creator of this historic day," PM wrote on his Facebook page.

PM pays tribute to memory of Georgia’s first President Zviad Gamsakhurdia Prime Minister of Georgia on Thursday paid tribute to the memory of Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the late first President of the country. The Government Administration said Garibashvili had visited the Mtatsminda Pantheon of Writers and Public Figures, where he laid flowers at the grave of the historical figure who led the country in its restoration of independence from the Soviet Union.

Collective memory and reputational politics of national heroes and villains Our survey results show that according to a representative sample of the Georgian population, the main heroes from the beginning of the twentieth century include Zviad Gamsakhurdia, Ilia Chavchavadze, and Patriarch Ilia II.

Politics of Memory in Independent Georgia, p. 10 After his death – officially ruled a suicide – which followed the military coup that overthrew him in 1992, his repatriation to Georgia and his reburial in the Mtatsminda Pantheon in 2007 and President Saakashvili's declaration of Gamsakhurdia as a national hero in 2013, Gamsakhurdia himself became a part of the narrative and culture of memory.

So yeah, it is undeniable that he is considered as a national hero in Georgia by both current government, previous government (opposition), pretty much entire political spectrum, population and etc. I don't think anyone has even tried to deny this in this thread, so why remove it? I remember there was a debate not to mention him twice in the lead, but to mention him only once, but now the mention of him being a national hero is completely gone! @Cutoc:, it seems that you removed the mention with your last edit, so why did you exactly do that? What was your motivation? Do you object to He is considered a Georgian national hero being mentioned in the article? If not, I will ask you to add this in the first paragraph, because it is notewothy, and objecting to it does not really makes sense from your side since there are numerous reliable sources for this matter.Silveresc (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Silveresc, yeah, it looks like I removed the part of the lead which talked about him being a national hero. But I can assure you I had no "bad motivation", I just was reworking article and created new sections, so maybe I accidently deleted it or removed it to some new section, I don't remember, but it was not intentional. Could I ask you though generally to use softer rhetoric? I think peaceful discussion is the best way to go for this article. Otherwise, I do agree with you, Gamsakhurdia being a national hero should be mentioned in the lead, so I will add text as you requested to show you I did not have any "suspicious motivation" while removing it, it was just an accident. I will use the sources you provided, but generally, please refrain from conflicts or whatever, there is just no need for such rhetoric. -- Cutoc (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally to the sources I have provided, there is also this reliable source, authored by Stephen Jones, who is already cited in this article, which disapproves of many claims presented against Gamsakhurdia:

Zviad Gamsakhurdia was a radical nationalist. Brought to power by a wave of popular nationalism in the October 1990 Supreme Soviet elections, he was not simply an ethnic entrepreneur who, using nationalist slogans to gain authority, manipulated a formerly moderate Georgian populace into a chauvinistic mob. Resource theories of nationalism, which stress manipulation by elites, are inadequate explanations of nationalisms’ successes. Gamsakhurdia, after eight months as chairman of Georgia’s Supreme Soviet, was elected president in May 1991 with 87 percent of the vote. His success was based on ideas and anxieties that resonated among Georgians—the threat of Georgia’s disintegration, the fear of Russian military power, and the perceived neglect of Georgian interests. In contrast to 1918, almost every party by 1989–90 was advocating independence, the great panacea for Georgian ills. This was a time of national trauma; twice in 1989 Georgians had been killed in conflict with Soviet interior troops—on April 9 at a popular demonstration outside parliament advocating independence and on July 15 in clashes with Abkhazians in Sukhumi. Georgians, in Gamsakhurdia’s view, were being victimized in their own state. The reaction of both Georgians and the minority Abkhazians and Osetians to Gamsakhurdia's militant nationalist rhetoric was understandable. In a time when physical and economic security was unprotected, national solidarity and self-reliance were the obvious answer. In circumstances like those of 1990–91, with the threat of dissolution of the state, economic collapse, and hostile declarations from a still militarily powerful imperial overlord, it is hard to imagine even “civic” European nations, let alone newly independent states led by inexperienced elites, abjuring militant nationalist ideas. But a closer look at Georgian nationalism from 1989 to 1992 shows this was neither the resurgence of latent ethnic hatreds nor the expression of a violent political culture. Rather, it was contingent on extraordinary economic, political, and physical insecurities brought about by the collapse of Soviet power. It is worth remembering that from 1989 to 1990 those leading the Georgian national liberation movement tried to divert popular focus from national minorities. Representatives of the Kurdish and Armenian communities, among others, took part in the early rallies for Georgian independence (there was a similar pattern in the Baltics), and Georgian radicals in these early years saw the “ethnicization” of Georgian politics as a deliberate Kremlin provocation.

However, even Gamsakhurdia in his most intense moments of nationalist apoplexy did not advocate the forcible expulsion of national minorities or question minorities’ cultural rights in Georgia. And although his government abolished South Osetia’s regional status in December 1990 in response to a South Osetian declaration of independence and unsanctioned elections to the South Osetian Supreme Soviet a few days before, he did not question Abkhazian autonomy. In 1991 he negotiated a consociationalist agreement with the Abkhazians which put Georgians living in Abkhazia at a political disadvantage. The Abkhazians, who made up only 17 percent of the autonomous republic’s population, received twenty-eight seats in the sixty-five-seat Abkhazian parliament; the Georgian community (46 percent) received twenty-six seats; and the remaining population (37 percent), consisting mainly of Armenians, Greeks, and Russians, received eleven seats. No constitutional change was possible without two-thirds of the vote, which gave Abkhazians relatively secure protection of their existing legal rights.

Whatever Gamsakhurdia’s motivation—calculation that things would change in Georgia’s favor or that the alternative would lead to a conflict with Abkhazia and ultimately Russia—the consociationalist policies in Abkhazia show inconsistencies with Gamsakhurdia’s reputation as an uncompromising nationalist who believed in “Georgia for the Georgians.”

So I think we can say that presenting Gamsakhurdia just as "xenophobic" and "intolerant" violates NPOV and does not fully explains the peculiar context of 1990-1992. It needs to be removed. It fails to explain the context of the rhetoric of Gamsakhurdia - Russia, "a still militarily powerful imperial overlord", was directly supporting separatism and trying to fragment Georgian state. Therefore, Gamsakhurdia's rhetoric was caused by concerns about security and fear of losing control by Georgians over their own republic. It was not simply "Gamsakhurdia was xenophobic who caused problems with ethnic minorities", it was much more to that, including imperial Russian threat, separatism, state failure and so on. This article highlights it.Silveresc (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I also want to bring attention to the fact that in July 1991, during Zviad Gamsakhurdia's presidency, Gamsakhurdia and his party drafted and passed citizenship law, which granted citizenship to all ethnic groups in Georgia.

DEFINING THE NATION IN RUSSIA'S BUFFER ZONE: THE POLITICS OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN AZERBAIJAN, MOLDOVA AND GEORGIA: In 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Georgia passed a draft law on Citizenship of the Republic of Georgia. While it failed to become law, the draft set an important precedent inclined toward the “zero” option of admitting the majority of the state's residents into the initial body of citizens (there was no years of residency required but instead a legal source of income) although it didn't go as far as the full “zero” option adopted in Moldova and Azerbaijan. It did not address dual citizenship at all (Gugushvili 2012:3)

"Zero option" is defined as - "admitting all residents of the state to the initial body of citizens" on page 65.

All of these once again disapprove A455bcd9's false and non-neutral claims.Silveresc (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Silveresc. Once again, you cite a source that eventually says the opposite of what you want to prove. Indeed, your quote starts with Zviad Gamsakhurdia was a radical nationalist. and elsewhere in the chapter, Stephen Jones writes:

• Whatever Gamsakhurdia’s motivation—calculation that things would change in Georgia’s favor or that the alternative would lead to a conflict with Abkhazia and ultimately Russia—the consociationalist policies in Abkhazia show inconsistencies with Gamsakhurdia’s reputation as an uncompromising nationalist who believed in “Georgia for the Georgians.” The argument is not that Gamsakhurdia was a liberal nationalist; he was not. He threatened, bullied, and belittled Georgia’s national minorities. But the evidence of these years, including the expulsion of Gamsakhurdia in January 1992, suggests that Gamsakhurdia, though a bully, was capable of pragmatic calculation. Not all national groups were equally bad or unacceptable as partners in the Georgian state.
• helped diffuse much of the chauvinistic hysteria that dominated the 1992–95 parliament. Undoubtedly, the reality does not reflect legislative ambition, but the political context has changed radically since Gamsakhuria.
• The Georgian government of 1990–1992 inexperienced, and chauvinistic, confirmed their fears.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I like how you choose to ignore the parts which you don't like. What about:

the consociationalist policies in Abkhazia show inconsistencies with Gamsakhurdia’s reputation as an uncompromising nationalist who believed in “Georgia for the Georgians.”

In 1991 he negotiated a consociationalist agreement with the Abkhazians which put Georgians living in Abkhazia at a political disadvantage. The Abkhazians, who made up only 17 percent of the autonomous republic’s population, received twenty-eight seats in the sixty-five-seat Abkhazian parliament; the Georgian community (46 percent) received twenty-six seats; and the remaining population (37 percent), consisting mainly of Armenians, Greeks, and Russians, received eleven seats. No constitutional change was possible without two-thirds of the vote, which gave Abkhazians relatively secure protection of their existing legal rights.

However, even Gamsakhurdia in his most intense moments of nationalist apoplexy did not advocate the forcible expulsion of national minorities or question minorities’ cultural rights in Georgia.

"What about these quotes? I have not cited quotes that confirm your point, but these quotes definetly prove my point, which makes your edit biased and non-neutral. And what about citizenship law? Answer about these particular points and quotes.Silveresc (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything. These quotes just show Stephen Jones's point that Gamsakhurdia, though a bully, was capable of pragmatic calculation. But he's still considered a chauvinistic nationalist who stirred ethnic tension. And that's what the disputed paragraph is about. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you ignored my points, including about citizenship law. Moreover, quote says "Gamsakhurdia was not uncompromising nationalist who believed in "Georgia for the Georgians", but he was not also liberal nationalist either, he did not have good relations with ethnic minorities, but he was trying to make compromise". This disapproves your point that his "Georgia for Georgians" (which Jones says Gamsakhurdia did not believe in) slogan caused ethnic conflict, while in fact he was trying to negotiate compromise and did so with Abkhazians. Article needs to be edited to match this reality.Silveresc (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you're modifying the quote. The quote says: Whatever Gamsakhurdia’s motivation—calculation that things would change in Georgia’s favor or that the alternative would lead to a conflict with Abkhazia and ultimately Russia—the consociationalist policies in Abkhazia show inconsistencies with Gamsakhurdia’s reputation as an uncompromising nationalist who believed in “Georgia for the Georgians.”

So the quote confirms that Gamsakhurdia is widely seen as an uncompromising nationalist who believed in “Georgia for the Georgians.”

Stephen Jones describes Gamsakhurdia as a radical nationalist, chauvinistic who threatened, bullied, and belittled Georgia’s national minorities.

However, Gamsakhurdia was capable of pragmatic calculation, such as to compromise with Abkhazians. That's why Stephen Jones notes "inconsistencies" with his image of "an uncompromising nationalist".

But that doesn't change anything to him being a chauvinistic nationalist who stirred ethnic tensions. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc: why did you revert this edit? And what about this one? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I accidently copied you text and reverted that.Silveresc (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You didn't copy my text here at all: this was your text. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, your point is just logically inconsistent, if you agree that he was pragmatic and trying to reach compromise (as in case of Abkhazians), how did he "stir ethnic tensions"? How does stiring tensions goes hand in hand with making compromise? He granted majority of seats in Abkhazian parliament to Abkhazians who were 17% of population!. I love how to try to ignore this. How does this goes in line with Gamsakhurdia believing in "Georgia for Georgians"? How did he grant citizenship to all ethnic groups if he campaigned around slogan "Georgia for Georgians"? This does not makes sense! Moreover, The quote says that Gamsakhurdia did not advocate anyone's expulsion or limitation of rights! It is you who tries to modify quotes, Jones explicitly says that Gamsakhurdia's image of someing uncompromising believing in "Georgia for Georgians" is false, the quotes does not says anywhere that Gamsakhurdia uncompromisingly believed in "Georgia for Georgians", it disapproves of this claimed reputation of him, just what you are trying to claim now. Gamsakhurdia believed in Georgian rights and wanted to improve situation of ethnic Georgians in Georgia, but he was not trying to oppress other groups, he did not advocate oppression of other groups! The quote proves that, it directly says: "even Gamsakhurdia in his most intense moments of nationalist apoplexy did not advocate the forcible expulsion of national minorities or question minorities’ cultural rights in Georgia". He did not question rights of anyone! This is stated and disapproves your point that he caused conflicts with others. What you are claiming just disapproves author's point. Silveresc (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

He stirred ethnic tensions because he threatened, bullied, and belittled Georgia’s national minorities. That's it. We don't need anything else. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, in that quote, it does not says anywhere that Gamsakhurdia stirred tensions, he may have done the things you mentioned when tensions were already high, those ethnic minorities were advocating for separatism way before Gamsakhurdia, even in 1918-1921, precisely, and then from 1970s, so tensions were high even before Gamsakhurdia, the text does not says anywhere that Gamsakhurdia stirred tensions. So, for example, if he threatened (and did so) to abolish autonomy of South Ossetians when they declared independence, this is whole different story, and many would consider this to be justified. So that part does not proves your point that Gamsakhurdia stirred tensions, moreover, right after that quotes, the author saying that Gamsakhurdia was still pragmatic and trying to secure compromise. If your read entire 29 pages, in the entire text the author is trying to argue against your point of Georgians or Gamsakhurdia in particular being some kind of "chauvinistic xenophobes" or whatever you are trying to argue. The whole paper is denial of that.Silveresc (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

For example, Abkhazians demanded independence from Georgia in 1957 after 1956 Georgian demonstrations, when Soviet government was anti-Georgian. Also in 1978, when Georgians were trying to defend status of their language, Abkhazians started to demand independence, trying to secure support of Soviet government in face of Georgian demands. So those tensions, caused by separatism of ethnic minorities, were present before Gamsakhurdia, and the quote you mentioned does not says anywhere that Gamsakhurdia caused tensions, he may have been reacting against separatist demands.

And answer all my questions, please. Just pointing out what you like and answering it does not helps the discussion. Why are you ignoring that he granted majority of seats to ethnic minority in Abkhazia? That contradicts your claim of Gamsakhurdia "stirring up ethnic tensions", and author's is using that as an argument as well.Silveresc (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Which questions? Stephen Jones writes that Gamsakhurdia was a radical nationalist and that his government was chauvinistic. He writes that he threatened, bullied, and belittled Georgia’s national minorities. That's the definition of "stirring ethnic tensions".

If you like Stephen Jones, The Making of Modern Georgia, 1918-2012, published in 2014 (the other one is older, from 2009), he writes: Gamsakhurdia took an overly hostile position towards minorities, showing little concern for accommodation of their claims and interests. Shevardnadze distanced himself from such an overly nationalistic approach but still did not develop any targeted policy or establish any institution specifically dealing with national minorities. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, answer me about these particular questions:

If he did not make accommodation for claims of ethnic minorities, why did he grant majority of seats to Abkhazians in Abkhazian parliament?

Why did he grant citizenship to all ethnic minorities?

Moreover, you are trying to wrongly interpret the author, ommitting the parts which you don't like, the author explains right after the quote you cited that Gamsakhurdia was still trying to reach compromise, be pragmatic (which means not stirring tensions!), that he did not question rights of anyone! Answer about this in particular.Silveresc (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Two interesting excerpts from the same book:

• There is a lack of awareness that minority problems in Georgia may have domestic causes too. The tensions between the Georgian state and its minority communities are regarded as an imposition from the outside, serving the geopolitical and strategic interests of external forces. Even though the role played by outside powers such as Russia should not be underestimated, it has become the justification for a “denial strategy.” Georgians often refuse to see the variety of causes behind inter-ethnic tensions.
• Nationalists, led by former Soviet dissident Zviad Gamsakhurdia, formed the first government in post-Soviet Georgia. Their negative policies toward national minorities led in large part to their failure to gain international recognition. The decision to abolish South Ossetian autonomy in 1990, justified by the fear of territorial autonomies and their use by the Kremlin, triggered the first ethnic clashes and the de facto secession of the region. Relations with Abkhazia were equally strained. Gamsakhurdia tried to strike a power-sharing deal, but without success. Gamsakhurdia became increasingly authoritarian, leading to a military overthrow in January 1992.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And? That does not proves anything, especially first quote - separatism of ethnic minorities causes tensions, not Georgians or Gamsakhurdia. But the most important is Russian factor, since they would not be able to achieve separatism without Russia supporting them to realize its imperial ambitions in the region. Are you disapproving this?

Second quote also does not proves anything, since its blatantly not true. Which negative policies? Granting Abkhazians over-representation was bad to Georgians, not Abkhazians. Moreover, he granted citizenship to all ethnic groups. And third, Gamsakhurdia abolished autonomy of South Ossetia in December 1990, after South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia in September 1990. So, South Ossetian separatism stirred tensions and caused war. And they were not "fist ethnic clashes", Ossetian separatism caused Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918–1920). What is interesting, back then there was not even such term as "South Ossetia", it is totally Russian creation. Silveresc (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc: your questions are unrelated and your reasoning is WP:OR. You can stir ethnic tensions and still be a pragmatic politician, that's what Stephen Jones explains above: Gamsakhurdia's overly hostile position towards minorities [...] triggered the first ethnic clashes.

"Second quote also does not proves anything, since its blatantly not true.": if you refuse to accept reliable sources that you quoted yourself it's not great. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not original research, just read what original research means, everything I say is direcrly stated word for word in the Stephen Jone's text! Stephen Jones disapproves that Gamsakhurdia uncompromisingly believed in "Georgia for Georgians", he says that this view in inconsistent, but you ignore what you don't like, cite only what you like, and give a conclusion which supports what you want. Basically, what are you trying to claim? that Georgians are evil who literally ate alive non-Georgian children? Or that Gamsakhurdia was evil who literally ate alive non-Georgian children and wanted to exterminate entire population of the world who was not Georgian? Just give your position, since it is not understandable at this point what are you arguing in favor. I have provided million sources disapproving narrative that Gamsakhurdia believed or argued in favor of "Georgia for Georgians", yet you conitnued to push that point. Stephen Jones has stated directly: Gamsakhurdia did not want to limit anyone's rights, the view that he was uncompromising and argued in favor of "Georgia for Georgians" is inconsistent and thus false, but he was not liberal nationalist. That's it, his relations with ethnic minorities were not good either, but he made many compromises. This disapproves your points that: He argued for "Georgia for Georgians", and that he "stirred tensions" because you can not stir tensions while giving an ethnic minority majority of seats in local parliament despite being them 17% of population! This is literally the main argument in the cited source! Just read instead of cherry picking some parts without context. This is what neutrality means, not pushing some pro-Armenian or pro-whatever POV.Silveresc (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Different editors have already told you: refrain from personal attacks. I'm not "pro-separatist" or "pro-Armenian".

My position (I repeat) is to add this text: According to George Khutsishvili, the nationalist slogan "Georgia for the Georgians" launched by Gamsakhurdia's followers, part of the Round Table—Free Georgia coalition, "played a decisive role" in "bringing about Bosnia-like inter-ethnic violence." While commentators disagree on whether Gamsakhurdia actually used the slogan, they agree that his ethnoreligious chauvinism, nationalism, and xenophobia stirred stirred ethnic tensions in Georgia. Two other editors above seem to agree.

Stephen Jones writes that Gamsakhurdia's negative policies toward national minorities [...] triggered the first ethnic clashes and that he threatened, bullied, and belittled Georgia’s national minorities. If you don't understand that this means that he stirred ethnic tensions, then I don't understand how we can continue this discussion. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc:, please refrain from personal attacks. You have already been blocked for 14 days and further attacks may result in additional ban if they continue. There is no need for such behaviour. -- Cutoc (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Silveresc, @Cutoc, you need to state clearly what you want to change in the article or in the text proposed by u:A455bcd9 and show how it's supported by reliable sources.

The proposed text is well-sourced. If you want to challenge it, you need to find reliable sources that contradict it (e.g., that say that he respected and empowered the minorities, or that he was not a nationalist). Your own inferences are not considered valid arguments per WP:OR.

Having said that, the article can certainly be improved. Gamsakhurdia could be pragmatic, as shown by his compromise with the Abkhazian leadership, and this can be added to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There are unfortunately two parallel discussions within this thread, but that's exactly what we concluded with @Cutoc in the above discussion: add a paragraph about Gamsakhurdia's pragmatism and compromises + improve the rest of the article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Gamsakhurdia was nationalist, but there is nothing wrong in being nationalist. Nationalism means defending interests of your own nation. In fact, modern countries are still largely based on nationalism, because they are nation states (a primary concept in nationalism), this is legacy of 19th century nationalist movement. Nationalism led to unification and creation of such countries, as Germany, Italy and etc. Modern states are nation states and thus they are based on nationalism, this is not some "bad" concept. Even today, we have nation states with predominant national groups after which the country is named (Germany - Germans, Italy - Italians, etc). Even though, there is erosion of this concept today, it still persists.

Gamsakhurdia was nationalist, he defended rights of Georgians and wanted independent Georgia, he promoted Georgian interests which were not protected under Soviet rule, so Georgians had to fight to protect their interests in their own country. Georgians were basically deprived of control over their own country. Ethnic minorities did not needed to be empowered, Georgians needed to be empowered, ethnic minorities were already over-represented and over-empowered, while Georgians were losing control over their own country! If you look at statistics, during Russian and Soviet rule, Georgian population in Georgia was just 60-70%, while ethnic non-Georgians were migrating and increasing in number, threatening a titular nation (very basic concept even today) of turning into a minority in their own country. Gamsakhurdia protected rights of titular nation (Georgians)! But he did not oppress or hated anyone, he just loved his own people! That's it. As he rightfully noted, Soviets, who occupied Georgia, turned Georgia into "laboratory of internationalism"! He want to protect Georgian interests and fought against anti-Georgians who wanted to deprive Georgia of their own country. Thus he was nationalist, but out of love for his own nation. He did not hate any other nation! All of this (his nationalism) can be reasonably stated in the article, but this user right here, just wants to write inflammatory statements like "Gamsakhurdia was hysterical xenophobe and chauvinist who stirred ethnic conflicts", but this is far from reality (even this user noted that Gamsakhurdia was pragmatic and even made deal with Abkhazians, which was not good solution in my opinion and only empowered separatist Abkhazians to launch war against Georgia, but anyway, this is not part of this discussion). The user is ignoring Russian role at all, how Russia planted these ethnic bombs against Georgia and used against Georgians whenever they made any claim! In 1956, Georgians demonstrated against Khrushev's anti-Georgian policy, Soviet authorities in response mobilized Abkhazians who started to demand to withdraw Abkhazia from Georgia! Same in 1978, when Georgians defended Georgian language, they again mobilized Abkhazians! Read about these events! And same again in 1989, when Georgians started to demand independence, Abkhazians started to demand to secede from Georgia! But you know what is interesting? They did not even want independence, the Lykhny Declaration, written by Abkhazians in 1989, did not say that they wanted independence from Soviet Union, Abkhazians demanded to remain in the Soviet Union as union republic or directly join Russia! Georgia wanted to secede from Soviet Union, but these allegedly independent-minded Abkhazians wanted to remain, they did not even claim to want independence from USSR before the USSR collapsed! Why did not Abkhazians protest against Russia, but protested against Georgia? Why did they want to join Russia or remain in USSR (Russia)? Because they were russified significantly, same with Ossetians and others, many Abkhazians did not even know their language! Gamsakhurdia knew Abkhazian language, and went to held a meeting with some Abkhazian leader, they had to talk in Russian because that Abkhazian leader did not know Abkhazian! So they were pro-Russian orientied. Read about these, they were used by Russia. But this user right here, wants to ignore Russia totally and just blame eveything on Gamsakhurdia and Georgians, is not it fun? He just tries to ignore this complex and difficult situation in favor of his simplistic explanation that Gamsakhurdia was just bad guy who caused bad things which is totally not true and just serves anti-Georgian propaganda!

Anyway, to return to our topic, I have previosly added to the article a paragraph summerizing Gamsakhurdia's views, but of course this "neutral" user deleted it without any explanation:

Gamsakhurdia's program was based on Georgian nationalism. It prioritized protecting Georgia's national interests, condemned Soviet authorities for turning Georgia into "laboratory of internationalism", sought to protect native Georgian population from Soviet era immigration and improve demographic situation of ethnic Georgians, as well as uphold rights of Georgians as a titular nation in their own country, including institutionalizing Georgian language as official language and Georgia Orthodoxy as state religion. In economics, Gamsakhurdia's followers warned against mass privatization and shock therapy, thinking that such policies would have disasterous effects on economy. Instead, they wanted to implement mixed economy and state capitalism. These ideas were notably voiced by Besarion Gugushvili, Gamsakhurdia's nominee for the post of Prime Minister, during his confirmation hearing in Supreme Council on 26 August 1991.

But instead of this, this user added the text which just reads as anti-Gamsakhurdia (and thus anti-Georgian, Gamsakhurdia is Georgian national hero) tirade which blames Georgians for ethnic conflicts and totally ignores everything else:

According to George Khutsishvili, the nationalist slogan "Georgia for the Georgians" launched by Gamsakhurdia's followers, part of the Round Table—Free Georgia coalition, "played a decisive role" in "bringing about Bosnia-like inter-ethnic violence."[13][14] His ethnoreligious chauvinism increased tensions between ethnic minorities in Georgia.[15]]

This just reads as "Bad Gamsakhurdia caused everything bad", without explaining a complexity of situation at all!

Moreover, Gamsakhurdia did not even use the slogan "Georgia for Georgians", I have provided numerous sources, even the video of him in Feburuary 1991 denying this, but this user keeps adding it for propaganda! This was slogan of Gia Chanturia, Gamsakhurdia's opponent, but even Chanturia said that this was not slogan against any minority, it was slogan to empower Georgians in their own country, which were subject to foreign rule and their country was turned into laboratory of internationalism!

This user keeps claiming that he only addes "reliable" sources, I have challenged his sources many times, most of them are pro-separatist and anti-Georgian, but he keeps ignoring it. Moreover, I have added tons of sources, which he deemed "unreliable", but then I added Stephen Jones, who this user used to justify his claims previously, so he could not say "this is unreliable", but then he started to cherry pick what he liked from the article, taking phrases out of context to justify his claims, and ignoring my quotes and answers to him! POV-pushing at its best!

Moreover, there are indeed sources which can be used to push anti-Gamsakhurdia and anti-Georgian propaganda, but these sources are biased and non-neutral, they are basically written by:

Western internationalists who just hate nationalism.

Pro-Russian actors who try to justify Russian agression against Georgia.

Abkhaz and Ossetian separatists with absurd claims like "Kingdom of Georgia was not Georgian, it belonged to Apsuas, be quite Georgians or we will storm and retake Kutaisi" and "Mtskheta belongs to us, it was always Ossetian city"!

So yeah, using these sources, this user tries to construct his anti-Georgian claims, but thanks god there are tons of neutral sources too, which I have provided, but nothing worked of course!

I want to note also why I used term "pro-Armenian", without explanation, it really looks like a personal attack, but it is really not, but I don't expect anyone to dig up this long thread to find what happened. When this user started his disruptive editing on this page, he initially started it by adding that "Gamsakhurdia was known for Armenophobia"! Only later started he writing that "Gamsakhurdia was chauvinistic and xenophobic to everyone"! His initial motivation was to emphesize supposed "Armenophobia", but I managed to get hand on sources which he used and there was no mention of term Armenophobia, so he had to remove it, but he started even worse disruptive editing, now he added into article inflammatory buzzwords like "chauvinistic, xenophobic, hysterical" and etc! So his edits became even worse, now he tainted article with non-neutral information even more! I was actually surprised why would anyone rush here, to the page of Georgian national hero and write something like "He is known for Armenophobia" (What Armenophobia? He actually has even visited Armenia during his presidency and met Armenian President, who then said that Armenia and Georgia had constructive relations), but then I dig up his edit history, and all I saw was him editing Turkey-related pages, and writing bad stuff about Turkey there! I mean, there is a reasonable doubt based on these evidences that the user is Armenian, but he may actually not be Armenian, just trying to stir tensions between Armenians and Georgians by writing such stuff, but I don't know, it is suspicious. I can understand about Turkey since difficult Turkish-Armenian relations (although disruptive editing is still wrong), but why Georgia? Well, he might be just anti-Georgian Armenian, but anyway, I don't get why would he resort to being anti-Georgian, however, all of these are just my suspicions, I am not engaging in personal attacks, this is just a (very) reasonable doubt and I am just trying to show how non-neutral and biased he is by pointing out this fact. Silveresc (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I sent this article to my Adjarian friend and today he learned for the first time that he is not ethnically Georgian (: 149.3.83.160 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-English content

არ ვიცი რა ვქნა რა, ისეთ აბსურდს წერს, რას დაამსგავსა უბრალოდ სტატია, ზვიადი კაციჭამიად გამოჰყავს მარტო იმიტომ რომ ზვიადს ქართველი ერი უყვარდა. თან ამდენი ვწერე და მაინც არაფერი არ ჭრის მოკლეს, რაღაც მიკრძოებული წყაროები აქვს და თავისას მიჰყვება :) ჩვენი მაშინდელი ოპოზიცია არ აკლებდა ზვიადზე ცუდი ხმების გავრცელებას დასავლეთში და აგერ შედეგიც, ნუ ეს დასავლელი მკვლევარებიც ძალიან ლიბერალები არიან და ნაციონალიზმი ეზიზღებათ ზოგადად, ხოდა ბევრი აბსურდული ინგლისურენოვანი ნაშრომი აქვს შესაბამისად ზვიადის საწინააღმდეგო :) მაგრამ ეს მართლა ძალიან ზედმეტად აბსურდია უკვე, აჭარელები თურმე ეთნიკური უმცირესობა ყოფილან, რომლებსაც ზვიადი თურმე "უმადურ სტუმრებად" და კრემლის აგენტებად მიიჩნევდა :) მაგრამ სადღაც ვიღაცის სტატიაში ექნება ეს აბსურდი ამოკითხული და რამდენიც არ უნდა ედებატო მაინც ვერაფერს გახდები ამასთან :) Silveresc (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC) მალე, ალბათ, იმასაც ჩაწერენ ზვიადმა ჩუმად ოსი ბავშვები შეჭამაო. მაგრად მუშაობს რუსული პროპაგანდა ): 149.3.83.160 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) მედვედევმა რომ თქვა ხომ იცი, 2008 წელს "სამხრეთ ოსეთის" და აფხაზეთის დამოუკიდებლობის აღიარებისას, გამსახურდიამ ბრძანა "საქართველო ქართველებისთვის" ლოზუნგით აფხაზეთის და სამაჩაბლოს შტურმით აღება, რის გამოც მოგვიწია ჩარევა და მათი შველაო :) აი ასეთი დონის აბსურდი ჩაამატა და თავისიანები მოიხმო ამის გასაპრავებლად, ბარემ პუტინი დააციტიროს კიდევ :) ბევრი წყარო შევამოწმე და პრო-სეპარატისტულია პირდაპირ, ზოგი რუსების მიერ დაწერილი, ნუ რაღაცეები დასავლელი ლიბერალი მკვლევარების რომლებიც "უმცირესობების უფლებებზე" ზედმეტად არიან ჩაციკლულები და სამწუხაროდ ჩვენ გვადანაშაულებენ (რუსეთის როლს კი ჩქმალავენ). ტიპმა დამიწერა, ქართველები რუსეთზე საუბრით ცდილობთ გადაფაროთ თქვენ თვითონ რომ შოვინისტები ხართო თუ რაღაც მსგავსი :) ანუ რუსეთი რომ აღვივებდა ამ სეპარატიზმს ამის საერთდ დაიგნორება უნდა და რუსეთის როლის მიჩქმალვა :) დავუწერე, თუ მართლა დამოუკიდებლობა უნდოდათ აფსუებს, რატომ მოითხოვეს ლიხნის კრებისას 1989 წელს საქართველოსგან გამოყოფა და სსრკ-ში დარჩენა ან პირდაპირ რუსეთთან შეერთება, რატომ არ მოითხოვეს თვითონაც სსრკ-სგან გამოყოფა, მაგრამ საერთოდ არ გამცდა პასუხი :) რუსეთი და გარუსებული აფსუები და ოსები გვებრძვიან და ამის მიჩქმალვას ცდილობს ყველანაირად როგორც შეუძლია, მაგრამ უკვე ძალიან დავიღალე მასთან დავით :) 2 კვირიანი ბანიც ამკიდა სამწუხაროდ :) თავიდან იმის ჩამატებას ცდილობდა აქტიურად "გამსახურდია არმენოფობიით იყო ცნობილიო", საბედნიეროდ ამოვაღებინე მაგრამ მის ედით ისტორიას რომ გადავხედე სულ თურქებზე წერდა ცუდ რაღაცეებზე, მაგიტომ ვიფიქრე რომ სომეხია და მარტო ამის გამო ბანი დამადეს :) პირდაპირ რუსულ პროპაგანდას ავრცელებს თვითონ და მედვედევის პერიფრაზი ჩაწერა ფაქტობრივად სტატიაში მაგრამ ამაზე არაფერი :) Silveresc (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC) ეს კი არა, აფხაზეთის გვერდზე ის ვერ ჩავამატე რომ რუსეთი ოკუპანტია :) სადღაც ბოლოში აქვთ მიჩქმალული, საქართველოს პარლამენტი თვლის რომ ოკუპანტია რუსეთიო, როგორც ფაქტად არ აქვთ დაფიქსირებული (პროსტა პოზიციააო რა), ჩემ პირად გვერდზე ერთმა საერთოდ მომწერა სახელმწიფოების უმეტესობას არ ჰყავს რუსეთი აღიარებული ოკუპანტადო :) Silveresc (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC) დარწმუნებული ვარ, რაიმე მიზეზს გამონახავენ და მალე სამუდამო ბანს აგვარტყავენ. მიმიქარავს კიმ ჩენ ინი :) 149.3.83.160 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) ჩემზე აქვთ სადღაც ადმინების გვერდზე თემა გახსნილი და ამტკიცებენ რომ წესებს ვარღვევ, ხოდა მეორე ბანს ველოდები :) მაგრამ ისე ძალიან ცუდი იქნება ამათ თავისი თუ გაიტანეს და ეს აბსურდი ჩაწერეს აქ, მაინც მთავარი ონლაინ ენციკლოპედიაა ეს საიტი, ვიღაცამ რაღაცა რომ არ იცის გუგლავს და პირველ რიგში აქ შემოდის, ხოდა თუ შემოვიდა ვინმე და ეს უაზრობა დახვდა, რომ თურმე ზვიადი აჭარლებს "უმადურ სტუმრებად" თვლიდა, და კიდევ ბევრი მსგავსი აბსურდი, არ წაგვადგება არანაირად.Silveresc (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Recent additions

I'll consider the above debate settled. Thanks for improving the shape of the article @Cutoc.

What are the precise sources/quotes for (you can add in the article |quote=, it's not mandatory but it helps a lot for paywalled resources):

• However, equally nationalistic leaders of ethnic minorities, who pushed for separatism and were backed by Russian military elites trying to preserve their power in the region, have also stirred ethnic tensions between Georgians and non-Georgians. (Public Policy and Politics in Georgia is not RS per WP:SPSLIST: I removed it)
• Gamsakhurdia took pragmatic steps to reduce tensions and achieve compromise: the Abkhazians, making up only 17% of Abkhazia's population (while Georgians were 46%), were granted wide over-representation and a majority of seats in the local Abkhazian parliament, an Abkhazian-supported candidate was approved on the post of chairman of Abkhazian parliament and a citizenship law was adopted granting citizenship to all ethnic minorities in Georgia.: can you move each source after the part that it is referencing? (otherwise hard to check which is used for what)
• This helped to preserve peace in Abkhazia as War in Abkhazia started only after Gamsakhurdia was removed from office. (I removed one source, not RS)

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The following quotes from reliable sources (the quotes which I have already cited above in this thread) have been used for sentences added in the article:

For the first sentence of my addition you have cited:

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.

Georgians feared that with separation from the Union, their national minorities, particularly the Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Ossetians, would seek union with their co-ethnics and dismember Georgian territory. This had happened during the first Republic of 1918–21

Georgian and non-Georgian insecurities fed on one another, widening cultural antagonisms and increasing political uncertainty.

Driven by a mystical vision of Georgian unity and the threat of multiple enemies, Gamsakhurdia's radical nationalist rhetoric helped shape a psychological state of siege. Leaders like Vladislav Ardzinba (Abkhazia) and Torez Kulumbegov (South Osetia) followed suit. They used the demographic card even more effectively, defending communities that numerically were in a far worse situation than the Georgian.

This quote in particular shows that ethnic minority leaders had same rhetoric and arguments as Gamsakhurdia.

Quotes from reliable sources about the second sentence you cited from my addition:

Attempting to assuage the fears of the Abkhaz, Gamsakhurdia assented in 1991 to a legislature in Abkhazia that saw the largest portion of seats (28 out of 65) go to the Abkhaz despite numbering a mere 17.8% of the population, and exceeding representation afforded to the Georgians (26 seats) who constituted almost a majority (45.7%) of Abkhazia’s population.

In 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Georgia passed a draft law on Citizenship of the Republic of Georgia. While it failed to become law, the draft set an important precedent inclined toward the “zero” option of admitting the majority of the state's residents into the initial body of citizens (there was no years of residency required but instead a legal source of income) although it didn't go as far as the full “zero” option adopted in Moldova and Azerbaijan. It did not address dual citizenship at all (Gugushvili 2012:3)

Quotes from reliable sources about the third sentence you cited from my addition:

Although, far from any democratic standard of representation and obviously favouring the minority ethnic group, this compromise preserved peace in Abkhazia for the time being.

Quote from Wikipedia's article about Abkhazia, which cites this and this source:

Under Gamsakhurdia, the situation was relatively calm in Abkhazia and a power-sharing agreement was soon reached between the Abkhaz and Georgian factions, granting to the Abkhaz a certain over-representation in the local legislature.

I will add all of this quotes in the article itself using "|quote=", I will also move each source after the part that it is referencing.

You have added some new information in the article. Please note, that you have stated in this thread yourself:

I think this article is now a disputed topic and, for the next few days, I suggest we reach consensus in the talk page before making changes.

Yet, you have made changes, without consulting or asking opinion of other editors on Talk page.

Moreover, you have added information, which is disputed in this thread. I am referring to your addition: ", he supported it,". There has been a long discussion about this topic in this thread, with many editors challenging that he supported the slogan "Georgia for Georgians". You have reverted many edits in this regard. In the end, you agreed on this version of the text, which others users also agreed with. Moreover, the users asked to note that while the slogan is attributed to Gamsakhurdia in the literature, he may not have actually said it. Right now, you have modified text to add that "he supported the slogan". This is particularly problematic, since Gamsakhurdia himself denied that "Georgia for Georgians" was his slogan in 1991. The previous version of the article stated that while many commentators attributed the slogan to Gamsakhurdia, he did not say it. This was added toy show that Gamsakhurdia did not express in any way his support for the slogan. This was consensus of editors here, you agreed with it, but then you single-handly changed it without discussing reasons and justifying your point. Note that you have been warned two times about edit warring on this page, and you have been warned that this is contentious topic, so only 1 revert is allowed. Yet you reverted previously agreed version of editors and added the version which claims that Gamsakhurdia supported the slogan, without discussing it and obtaining new consensus. This corresponds to your previus attempts to attribute the slogan to Gamsakhurdia. You have made numerous reverts related to this since 5 October. I ask you to remove the information which you added without discussion and remove the revert you made without obtaining new consensus from editors (this would entail restoring this verion of article). I am sorry, but if you are not goining to observe the rules of Wikipedia and your previous statement and consensus of editors on Talk page, I will have no choice but ask administrators to take appropriate steps, since edit warring is very big problem on this article. So please don't resort to actions which may cause edit war. -- Cutoc (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you did not do anything about problematic edits, I asked the administrators to clarify the situation. -- Cutoc (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cutoc,

There's no need to declare WP:ULTIMATUM. If you believe something is wrong you can start a discussion here (as you did) or WP:BEBOLD and revert (although I don't recommend doing it in this case :) ). Also, people live on different time zones and have a life outside of Wikipedia, so at the very least, you can wait a bit more than 3 hours ;)

Anyway, I clarified the text by adding a quote and attributing it. I hope it solves the problem. Indeed, the vast majority of reliable secondary sources declare that "Georgia for the Georgians" was either Gamsakhurdia's slogan or his coalition's slogan. Ghia Nodia is the only reliable secondary source to deny that it was Gamsakhurdia's slogan but still according to Nodia "it probably expressed his true attitude."

Thanks for providing quotes, I'll add them to the article and I'll modify accordingly because your text is not faithful to the quotes. As another user commented above: Ardzinba was definitely a nationalist as well (I don't know where equally or not), I'm not sure about the other minorities, some of which had no recognisable leaders. For instance, I didn't find sources mentioning that Armenians, Azeri, Greeks or Muslim Adjars had nationalistic leaders who stirred tensions. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cutoc: can you please give me the supporting quotes for:

• and approved an Abkhazian-supported candidate as chairman of the Abkhazian parliament
• This helped to preserve peace in Abkhazia as the war only started after Gamsakhurdia was removed from office.

Thanks. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9:, I will, I just don't have time right now, but I will be free soon, so please don't remove anthing to avoid it devolving into edit war. -- Cutoc (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. If it's not properly sourced it's better to remove it now. But if you're sure that you can find the reliable sources soon then I trust you and I'll wait for you to add them. Thanks. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is properly sources, but I don't have time right now to write this, I will be back soon. If you still remove it, I will readd it with reliable sources and it won't be considered as edit war. -- Cutoc (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not an edit war if a contributor removes unsourced content and another one add the content back but this time properly sourced. Especially if both editors discuss in the talk page and agree to do so. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You used as a source Tabachnik's PhD thesis. I think it's not RS per WP:THESIS. Tabachnik published a shorter version in a peer-reviewed paper here but it doesn't contain anything about the 1991 law. So I'll remove that part. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually it looks like they republished in Citizenship, Territoriality, and Post-Soviet Nationhood. So let's check if the same quote appears there and it would be RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the book contains the same quote (In 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Georgia passed a draft law on Citizenship of the Republic of Georgia. While it failed to become law, the draft set an important precedent inclined toward the “zero” option of admitting the majority of the state’s residents into the initial body of citizens (there was no years of residency required but instead a legal source of income) although it didn’t go as far as the full “zero” option adopted in Moldova and Azerbaijan. It did not address dual citizenship at all (Gugushvili 2012:3) but the latter came to the forefront of the debate as the parliament took up the law again in 1993 after the ethnic nationalist president Zviad Gamsakhurdia lost office as a result of a coup d’état.) However, I don't understand many things:

• The Supreme Soviet of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic was disbanded in 1990. So it couldn't pass a draft law in 1991.
• The source doesn't say why the law didn't pass: was it because of "the ethnic nationalist president Zviad Gamsakhurdia"'s opposition?
• Did Gamsakhurdia initiate this law? What was his opinion on the law?

Jones doesn't mention this law either. So I'm inclined to remove this content. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Adjarians

Dear A455bcd9, I don't know how to write this so you don't consider my comment as personal attack and demand to ban me, but please, if you don't know what you write, don't write it, because Adjarians are not ethnic minority, they are Georgians, sub-ethnic group of Georgians, they reside in Georgian region of Adjara, that's why they are called Adjarians, they are ordinary Georgians just like Imeretians, Kakhetians, Kartlians and etc. There are sub-ethnic groups like this in every nation, including Armenians and etc. Just read Wikipedia's article about Adjarians: The Adjarians (Georgian: აჭარლები) are an ethnographic group of Georgians living mainly in Adjara in south-western Georgia and speaking the Adjarian dialect of the Georgian language. Zviad simply could not have thought of them as "ungrateful guests", they are native and ordinary Georgians, it is just impossible and very absurd :) if you go to Batumi and tell any Adjarian that he is not Georgian, that would be an insult to them and they will be agressive to you, just like any other Georgian :) Silveresc (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Section needed

This article needs a section on the subject as a writer and a literary critic. Some information (unsourced as is much of the article) is there, but given the significance of writing to the subject's influence, it needs to be addressed with citaitions.  // Timothy :: talk  03:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have started cleaning up the article by

• rm unsourced content when references couldn't be located for up to Zviad Gamsakhurdia#Pro-independence movement 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)

References

Adjarans are not "ethnic or religious minority"

@A455bcd9: 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)

@Cutoc: 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)

@Timothy:, 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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

• Sander Christensen, Carsten (2020). Analyzing Political Tensions Between Ukraine, Russia, and the EU. IGI Global. ISBN 9781799829089.: 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.
• Bozkurt, Giray Saynur (2014). Blue Black Sea: New Dimensions of History, Security, Politics, Strategy, Energy and Economy. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.: it is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a predatory source (see WP:QUESTIONABLE), and therefore not WP:RS.
• Chervonnaia, Svetlana Mikhailovna. Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia and the Russian Shadow. ISBN 9780906362303.: 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 Wikipedia: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 (Researchers agree that ethnic conflicts in Georgia, such as the South Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts, were actually initiated by Russia to preserve its influence in Georgia), 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#Soviet Abkhazia and History of Abkhazia#The Abkhazian War).

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 @Alaexis:, 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 the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This means that you shouldn't restore challenged content while the discussion is ongoing. Alaexis_¿question? 07:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Zip18:, 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#Introduction to contentious topics for information on controversial topics.  // Timothy :: talk  09:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alaexis and Timothy. FYI, I created this yesterday: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fodrid. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources say Russia instigated conflicts in Georgia

User @A455bcd9:, 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 @A455bcd9:, 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 @A455bcd9:, 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)

@Alaexis:, 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)

@Zip18:, (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#Introduction to contentious topics 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 ([1], [2], [3], [4]). 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 @TimothyBlue:, 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 Wikipedia: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)