Talk:Georgian scripts/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Any progress? Let's start working on the history text already.

Time goes and the history section is frozen like that for too long. Let's start working on the wording in the history section already. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And what about new sources? Are there any objections to this information? Divot (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No more Armenian fairy tales here. GEORGIANJORJADZE 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

GJ, what is your opinion on the material which has been brought up by people posting at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN)? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe we should definitely use those sources. GEORGIANJORJADZE 00:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"No more Armenian fairy tales" ??? Nicholas Marr's mother was Georgian, Истрин (Istrin) - Russian. Divot (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No Georgian source. Enough is written about how Georgians concern the topic. For being as objective as we can, we should use only foreign sources. I think User:Susuman77 clearly explained why the pre-Christian origin should not be mentioned. No serious scholar writes such tales. But of course, the legend of mythical king Parnavaz should be mentioned. Хаченци (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me offer a summary of how I think we should organize the history section; I believe that in accordance to wikipedia guidelines regarding sources, we should not include/exclude them on the basis of their POV/national origin (i.e. "No Armenian fairy tales!" or "No Georgian source" is not the way to go), but according to their scientific nature and their age (recent scientific literature trump old). With this clear, here are the points I think the section can be based upon:

• The origin (date, creator(s), influences) of the Georgian alphabet are poorly known. First attested examples - 5th century (Bethlehem, Bolnisi) (source to Hewitt).
• The scholarly consensus points to the alphabet (that is the Asomtavruli script) being created in the 4th century AD, latest early 5th century (Haarmann), as part of the process of christianization of the Georgian lands (Colchis and Iberia) and of the whole Caucasus (Hewitt, Rapp).
• A point of contention is the role played by Armenian clerics in that process. An Armenian tradition, originating in Koryun, holds Mashtots as the creator of the Georgian alphabet as well as the Armenian. This tradition has been quoted in western sources until recently (Rayfield), but has been criticized by scholars, both Georgian and Western, though many agree that Armenian clerics must have played a role in the process (Rapp, Greppin).
• A competing Georgian tradition, first attested in medieval chronicles, assigns a much earlier, pre-Christian origin to the Georgian alphabet, and names King Pharnavaz as its inventor. This tradition is now mostly rejected by scholarly consensus (Rayfield, Rapp), and has found no documentary confirmation. Tamaz Gamkrelidze offers an alternate interpretation - the alloglotographic hypothesis (as quoted in Kemertelidze).
• Another scientific controversy regards the main influences at play in the Georgian alphabet: Greek or Semitic (as explained in Kemertelidze, also Shanidze). Also hypothetical role of pre-Christian cultural symbols/clan markers (Haarmann).

Also, this section could be more precisely labeled "Origins" rather than "History", as it does not touch the development of the other scripts, the evolution of letters, etc., all matters covered later in the article.

In any case, I can attempt to write this paragraph following what I suggested above in my sandbox to integrate in the article if consensus allows it. If you object to any of the sources, claims, phrasings, etc., please make it clear here so we can discuss, same if you think more should be added. Susuman77 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I support Susuman in this case but the Georgian tradition should come first and then Armenian one as this article is about the Georgian alphabet after all and not about an Armenian one to give it the preference. I also support renaming the section into Origins over History. GEORGIANJORJADZE 14:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! As to the order, it does not matter that much to me; I put it in that order as the question regarding role played by Mashtots is directly linked to a 4th century/christian origin, whereas the Pharnavaz hypothesis relies on a totally different assumption. Let's see what others have to say on the matter. Susuman77 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman77s text looks nice. Few comments.

The scholarly consensus points to the alphabet (that is the Asomtavruli script) being created in the 4th century AD, latest early 5th century (Haarmann).

I can't see any consensus accepting the existence of Georgian alphabet in 4th century. This view also goes back to Armenian alphabet creation story, which was in 405/6.

A point of contention is the role played by Armenian clerics in that process. An Armenian tradition, originating in Koryun, holds Mashtots as the creator of the Georgian alphabet as well as the Armenian. This tradition has been quoted in western sources until recently (Rayfield), but has been criticized by scholars, both Georgian and Western, though many agree that Armenian clerics must have played a role in the process (Rapp, Greppin).

Well, Koryun is not the only source, as is mentioned in earlier discussions on this TalkPage, so we better write early Armenian sources of V-VII cc. And which Western scholar criticizes that view?

I support Susuman in this case but the Georgian tradition should come first and then Armenian one as this article is about the Georgian alphabet after all and not about an Armenian one to give it the preference

Why? It's not about traditions, it's about scholar view on the subject, which has no nationality. The scholars mostly prefer the view, that the Armenian clerics and/or the Armenian alphabet has influenced the creation of Georgian alphabet. Hence it should be written first, as a more popular opinion. The Georgian tradition comes next, as a traditional, but rejected by most of modern scholars, point of view. In other articles the ordering is the same (first scholar, then traditional).

I also support the change of History to Origin.Хаченци (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! To answer your comments:

• 4th or 5th century? You can see how I put it in my sandbox text. Sure thing is Bethlehem 430. Then we have various scholars linking creation of alphabet to christianization following Mirian's conversion (337 latest). Rapp writes: "Thus by the end of the fourth and certainly by the start of the fifth century, Christian clerics had equipped themselves with a script", and "all three Caucasian scripts were fashioned by a Christian impulse at about the same time, in the second half of the fourth century or early fifth century". Hewitt: "Most, however, would concur that it was probably created some time in the 4th century". So at least 2 specialists put forward the 4th century; I admit that not all do, and I think my proposal reflects that an early 5th century date is also possible.
• Koryun/other sources. Koryun, as a contemporary of Mashtots, is the most important primary source in favor of that hypothesis, and as such has been the one most subject to criticism. For "Western" criticism, see Rapp ("surviving manuscripts of the vita of Mashtots, like those transmitting The Life of the Kings, postdate the schism between the Armenian and K‘art‘velian Churches, and it is altogether possible that both have been manipulated so as to give their respective parties precedence", which also applies to sources from the 7th century, times of conflict between the Arm. and Geo. churches), and Seibt (paper linked in the article, extracted from a published academic book: W. SEIBT – J. PREISER-KAPELLER (eds.), Die Entstehung der kaukasischen Alphabete als kulturhistorisches Phänomen. The Creation of the Caucasian Alphabets as Phenomenon of Cultural History (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 430;Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 27). Vienna 2011. Seibt also strongly rejects the Pharnavaz hypothesis). Still, we could change the wording to admit that other early medieval sources (but later than Koryun!) make the same claim.
• Order of presentation: I agree with your point here. Susuman77 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman77s text makes sense but User:GeorgianJorjadze's comment does not. The text should put most emphasis on the assumptions and theories that are most extensively mentioned in reliable academic sources. And that theory is the Armenian origin of the Georgian alphabet. The length of the text(s) also should be representative of the preeminent points of view. If the predominant theory is X and the theory that challenges X is Y, then discussion of X should have more real estate that the discussion of Y. Now we have the opposite: fringe theories that affirm the nativist, i.e. exclusively Georgian theories (Parnavaz and other myths, as well as awkward insinuations of some modern Georgian nationalist authors) enjoy most real estate. Sprutt (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman77, thanks. Well, your points are convincing and I agree with you in general, but the claim of Mashtots's creation (or better contribution, since the role of Mashtots is not completely clear) is based not only on historical sources (Koryun (V c), Moses of Chorene(V or VIII c), "Book of letters" (VI c)). There are indirect 'proofs', like similarity of Arm. and Geo alph., the Geo Bible being translated (partially) from Arm Bible, etc. One should not mention all this stuff, as well as its critic, so maybe writing Armenian tradition (see W. Seibt, "Die armenische Tradition schreibt dem Maštoc‘...") is better than naming Koryun. We should not forget, that there is a suspicion that the famous part of the text in Koryun's "Life of Mashtots" has been added later, but still some scholars who mention this "addition" and agree with it, accept the possible participation and/or contribution of Mashtots to the creation of GA. I guess it means, that Koryun is not the only reason pointing out to Mashtots theory. But this is just a minor comment. I am actually not against your version of text. :)

Perhaps the first book written or translated in Georgian may also be mentioned. The first original book is I think "The martyrdom of Shushanik", ca. 480. The first translation should have been the Bible, but I am aware of its dating. We agreed before, that the text in this section should not be large, but "The martyrdom of Shushanik" is a masterpiece, and I beleive it deserves to be mentioned as the first (known) book written with Georgian alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments and appreciation. In my proposed text, I indeed use first the phrase "Armenian tradition". I mention it originates in Koryun, but that shouldn't be taken to mean that it is not found elsewhere; similarly, I mention where and when the Georgian tradition is first attested. As for Shushanik, that's a great text, but I doubt it has a place in this paragraph: from what I can tell, the oldest manuscript preserved of it is much later (and an Armenian translation!). If you have a source claiming it was the first literary work created using the GA (that is, not a translation), maybe we could put it, but I cannot find it (admittedly, I did not perform the most thorough search, so you may be more lucky...). Susuman77 (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Хаченци. Koryun is by far not the only reason why the Armenian theory is the predominant theory on the origin of the Georgian alphabet (this is something that should be mentioned more explicitly, by the way). There are other reasons too. One of the them is the timing of emergence of Georgian and Armenian alphabets, and first samples of writing. Don't forget that the oldest sample of Armenian writing is also a mosaic and it comes from the Holy Land, just like the Georgian inscription in Bethlehem [1] - dating is almost exactly the same, 430s-440s. Second, let's not forget the striking graphical similarity between the Armenian alphabet and the oldest version of the Georgian script, Asomtavruli. Sprutt (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This stuff should not be mentioned in the article, we're just discussing whether to use "dating back to Koryun" or "according to early Armenian tradition". However, I don't think the difference is that big. Susuman77 looks to be familiar with the topic, maybe he knows what to write better than we. I hope he will start working on the article soon, and if someone will have comments/protests - there is always enough place in talk page. No more EW. Хаченци (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I finished writing down my proposed version of the "Origin" section in my sandbox, and invite you all to take a look at it (or would it be more convenient if I copy it here??). Thanks a lot for your remarks and comments, and keep them coming! Hopefully we can find consensus and ask an admin to unlock the article and integrate the new text in it. Susuman77 (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is about origin too. Divot (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"but has been criticized by scholars, both Georgian[8] and Western" -> "but has been criticized by Georgian and some Western scholars". Divot (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"who judge the passage in Koryun unreliable or even a later interpolation" - Rapp, Studies in medieval Georgian historiography: early texts and Eurasian contexts, Volume 601 "There is also the claim advanced by Koriwn in his saintly biography of Mashtoc' (Mesrop) that the Georgian script had been invented at the direction of Mashtoc'. Yet it is within the realm of possibility that this tradition, repeated by many later Armenian historians, may not have been part of the original fifth-century text at all but added after 607. Significantly, all of the extant MSS containing The Life of Mashtoc* were copied centuries after the split. Consequently, scribal manipulation reflecting post-schism (especially anti-Georgian) attitudes potentially contaminates all MSS copied after that time. It is therefore conceivable, though not yet proven, that valuable information about Georgia trans¬mitted by pre-schism Armenian texts was excised by later, post-schism individuals."

So, we need to say "who judge the passage in Koryun may be (though not yet proven) unreliable or even a later interpolation" Divot (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I support Divot. It should be made more clear that most scholars agree with the role of Mashtots in the creation of the Geo alphabet. Is this a coincidence that ALL THREE alphabets - Armenian, Asomtavruli and Gargarian ("Caucasian Albanian") - are basically invariants of the same script: [2], [3], [4], [5]? Furthermore, we should mention that serious scholars (e.g. Alexidze and Blair [6]) do care about the curious graphical similarity among the three alphabets attributed to Mashtots. Sprutt (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Most scholars agree? Can we have some sources? — Lfdder (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Please consult the sources in the earlier version of the chapter [7], sub-chapter International (traditional) view on origin - [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Sprutt (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

None of that is scholarly opinion. Some (most?) are not even RS on the matter. — Lfdder (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

None of that is scholarly opinion.

Have you actually checked who the authors are? Хаченци (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

To Lfdder: Sir, is your comment some kind of strange joke? Please advise. Sprutt (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Rayfield 2000 says "it has been believed"; this seems to be neither his nor other specialists' opinion, i.e. it's been generally believed
• Grenoble 2003 same as above
• Campbell 1998 says "traditionally invented", somewhat unclear
• Catholic Enyclopedia, Bowersock et al. 1999, Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia 1995, and Ackroyd et al. 1975 are not specialist lit.

— Lfdder (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to answer all those comments. I think there is a confusion between 2 claims:

1. Armenian clerics played a significant role in the creation of the Georgian alphabet, together with Georgian ones. Modern scholarship seems to agree on that, based on external arguments (tight relationships between the churches at the times) and internal ones (graphic similarities).
2. Mesrop Mashtots is the creator of the GA. This relies on Armenian historical tradition, mostly Koryun, and modern scholarship is very skeptical of this particular claim. To support that claim with sources that only show graphical similarities is WP:SYNTH if not WP:OR.

As for sources, first I agree with Lfdder's assessment. As to the sources brought up by Divot (Marr, Muradian, Istrin), I would not consider them reliable sources for the purpose of this page. Marr's linguistics, and most Soviet linguistics, rely on outdated theories and are rejected by modern linguists - they also were very politicized; see Shnirelman's works for more on that. Alexidze & Blair: you only provided an image: are they recognized specialists? Have they published peer-reviewed literature relevant to the debate here? If so, their POV would be relevant, if not I'm afraid we cannot quote them.

For those reasons, I stand by my version. Divot's suggested phrase, "but has been criticized by Georgian and some Western scholars", does not correspond to the state of modern scholarship, as I haven't found any post-1990 specialists of the subject who explicitly endorse the Armenian traditional version; actually, Haarmann and Hewitt call it a legend, Rapp is neutral but skeptical of Mashtots' personal role, Seibt rejects the traditional narrative and calls Mashtots an "indirect initiator". As for the phrasing on Koryun, we indeed have Rapp, who is neutral, but the straight-on source regarding interpolation that I quote is Seibt, who writes: "Yet there is also another chapter, with an astonishing and highly suspect report. (...) We assume that it is a later interpolation to Koriwn’s text, and one of modest quality. The Armenian historian Ghazar Parpetsi (Łazar P‘arpec‘i) (writing before the end of the 5th century) and Eznik, a younger contemporary of Mashtots, do not mention anything about the invention of a Georgian alphabet by Mashtots." Susuman77 (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just found another source: Robert W. Thomson. Rewriting Caucasian history: the medieval Armenian adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles : the original Georgian texts and the Armenian adaptation. Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 0198263732. Pp. xxii-xxiii. According to him, "the impetus to provide an independent script in which the native language could be written first came in Armenia." After detailing the creation of the AA by Mashtots, he then writes: "According to Koriwn, Mastoc' also composed alphabets for the Georgians and the Caucasian Albanians (Aluank')." Thomson does not endorse that theory, but rejects the Pharnavaz hypothesis: "The Georgian alphabet came into use about the same time as the Armenian, but there is no early tradition ascribing the invention to a local figure. The legendary attribution of the alphabet to King P'arnavaz many centuries before Christ has no historical foundation." So no explicit criticism of Koryun, no endorsement of him either = a similar neutral posture to Rapp. Reflecting that, I suggest adding a sentence to that paragraph, quoted to Rapp or Thomson: "Other scholars quote Koryun's claims without taking a stance on its validity." (see my sandbox, I added it) Susuman77 (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I found some of above-mentioned claims logical but some (plainly bizarre).

• Rayfield 2000 says "it has been believed"; and that means that there is a lazy/imperfect consensus (but consensus!) on that matter. You can't dismiss it.
• Grenoble confirms the lazy consensus.
• Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar. This source was entirely disregarded by Lfedder (why?). They say clearly "Mastoc' also created the Georgian and Caucasian-Albanian alphabets, based on the Armenian model." Plain, affirmative, clear.
• The Catholic Encyclopedia is considered a reliable WP source. Please do not arbitrarily dismiss it. It speaks affirmatively of Mashtots' role too.
• Campbell 1998 says "traditionally invented", and it is "somewhat unclear" (have to agree with Lfedder on that) but that too points to an affirmative (however not strong) opinion.
• Marr, Muradian, Istrin are reliable sources. Susuman77's point on Marr is laughable. Marr is a historian as much as a linguist, and a giant in academia. Some of his linguistic opinions are outdated, agree with Sasuman77; this, however, has nothing to do with his brilliant credentials of a historian. Muradian and Istrin are first class historians.
• Eznik and Lazar Parpetsi do not mention Mashtots' invention of GA. Fine. But Mashtots' disciple and Armenia's No.1 historian Movses Khorenatsi DOES that. That's good enough.
• Bottomline: there is a consensus on Mashtots' role in inventing the GA but that consensus is not as strong as many would like it to be. This, however, is a CONSENSUS. And it is an inclusive consensus, meaning it accommodates opinions on the possible role of Georgians themselves. All this mean that people here CANNOT dismiss, mis-characterize or water it down (it comes watered-down enough already). It is a predominant opinion. There are those in academia like Rapp who do not like the opinion of this majority. That's fine, and some of such opinions can be mentioned. Sprutt (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus among whom? I think you're confusing popular opinion with academic/specialist opinion. You can't extrapolate "it has been believed" and "generally attributed" to mean it's academic/specialist opinion. I did not "arbitrarily" dismiss Catholic Encyclopedia and the others; I dismissed them because they're not -- like I said -- specialist literature. — Lfdder (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Specialist literature? These are encyclopedias and scholars, who, though may not do their original scholar research, but they are familiar with what has been written in specialist literatue and their texts are based on academical sources, not on their personal opinion. I don't think ecnyclopedias are writing whatever they want. Хаченци (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

First, my apologies regarding Marr - I did not mean to demean his work, that I indeed respect and admire. I mostly think that recent research has drifted away from what you call the former "lazy consensus" (good way of saying it), and that recent scholarship seems to be either neutral or skeptical regarding Mashtots' personal role and Koryun's account. I don't think this article should go into more detail as to the many theories regarding the origins of the GA; we should create a specific article for that (although I recoil in fear at the future edit wars and nationalistic bombardments that will entail).

To address some of your other points, I know about the Movses Khorenatsi mention - however, recent scholars discuss the Mashtots' hypothesis mostly from Koryun, and do not assess Khorenatsi. I was only quoting Seidt about Eznik and Parpetsi, that was not my own OR or opinion. As to the Catholic Encyclopedia, I would call it a reliable tertiary source: we should not forget that it can be based on previous research that has been outdated by newer historians, and so the CE should not be made to represent a current consensus.

All in all, we mostly seem to disagree that the Mashtots' hypothesis is still "predominant opinion". It was, for sure, but things are not so clear nowadays, especially as that previous consensus was "lazy" and that no recent researcher argues in its favor. Consensus is that Armenian clerics must have played a role, direct or indirect, and influenced the creation of the GA, which is pretty much what I wrote. Further, it is controversial. Susuman77 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Come on guys, we will never rich a consensus in this way. Eznik, Parbetsi, Istrin, Marr, etc. Susuman77's text gives clear answer to the question. The theory that Mashtots created GA is supported by some scholars, but many authorities reject it in such simple way and give their own theories on the contribution of Mashtots. Some say Mashtots has contributed or influenced, the others say it may not be Mashtots, but the Armenian clerics in general, etc. We can't write Mashtots is considered as creator of GA, since this is an obvious exaggeration. We also can't mention every such theory as separate, since there are many of them but all of them are variations of the same story. I like the Susumans version in general, but I also have few comments, which I will write later. Хаченци (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that take on the situation, and welcome any further comments... Susuman77 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman, I appreciate your efforts, but when talking about the role of Armenian clergy, the phrase "Many agree" seems problematic to me as it invites the infamous {who} tag. I think Rapp is making his point clearer in another of his papers:

It is certain that the Armenians’ memory of Mashtoc‛, as it has reached us, at the very least represents a multiethnic, regional project to invent scripts for the major ethno-political and linguistic communities of southern Caucasia. On the basis of extant texts and their later manuscripts there is simply no way to prove definitively which script was invented first and whether it served as the direct prototype for the others. But what we can say is that all three were intentionally invented by a pan-Caucasian project, almost certainly with the participation of the learned Mashtoc‛, within a decade or two of the year 400. — Stephen Rapp. "Recovering the Pre-National Caucasian Landscape," in Mythical Landscapes Then and Now: The Mystification of Landscapes in [the] Search for National Identity, Ruth Büttner and Judith Peltz eds. Erevan: Antares, 2006. Pp. 13-52.

In addition, I would like to see the exact quotation from Greppin's work. Either way, I think we should not present their(?)/Rapp's assertion, however probable, as a scholarly consensus, but rather make this passage closer to what Rapp actually says and attribute it to this scholar. I would suggest to reword the passage in the following way:

As the modern Caucasiologist Stephen H. Rapp suggests the Armenian literati, being in possession of the largest Christian church organization in the Caucasus, would have played an active role in the simultaneous "multiethnic, regional project" of creating scripts for the Armenian, Georgian, and Caucasian Albanian communities.

--Kober^Talk 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

More detailed discussion of the obsolete theories regarding the origin of the GA can be found here. --Kober^Talk 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The website is Georgian and contains some strange statements. For example,

For some time there existed a view of the Armenian origin of the Kartuli Asomtavruli alphabet. The stance was based on a passage in Koriwn’s The Life of Mashtots, which ascribed the creation of the Kartuli Asomtavruli alphabet to his teacher, who, interestingly, possessed no knowledge of the language. This view refuted by Georgian scholars several decades ago, is, unfortunately, still mentioned as a theory in western scholarship.

So, even they accept, that the Mashtots theory is a western scholar theory. And why "unfortunately"? Because they do not agree with Georgian scholars? Sounds quite arrogant. Хаченци (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether you find it arrogant or not is not relevant at all. Yes, the site is Georgian and it illustrates a Georgian POV. Either way, I explicitly said that the link is useful for earlier, obsolete theories which is interesting from a historical point of view. --Kober^Talk 19:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The obsolete theories are of course interesting, but in this article we should not go that deep into past. Maybe another one - an article called "Origin of Georgian alphabet", will be needed, and there the source will definitely be useful. Хаченци (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

" I haven't found any post-1990 specialists of the subject who explicitly endorse the Armenian traditional version; actually" - Mouradian "The problem of St. Sahak's and St.Mesrope's 'Perfect history'" // Patmabanasirakan handes (Erevan) 169, 2005, nr. 2, 154-165 and Serge N. Mouraviev. "Erkataguir, ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien". Academia Verlag, 2010. P.29 note 23, Pp/ 202-203. Divot (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Serge N. Mouraviev. "Erkataguir, ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien". Academia Verlag, 2010. P.29 note 23: "L'opinion fort commode, qui fait de Korioun la source unique de toutes les informations dignes de foi rapportées par les autres historiens et permet d'ignorer les autres, me semble parfaitement insoutenable. Ses partisans interprètent tout ce qu' « ajoutent » les autres sources comme des erreurs ou des inventions destinées à « combler les lacunes » de Korioun (exemples : MARTIROSSIAN 1988, 78, 81-82...). Elle est d'ailleurs actuellement en passe d'être démentie par les traces de plus en plus nombreuses d'une Histoire parfaite des saints Sahak et Mesrop que rassemble Parouyr Mouradian (MOURADIAN 2005, 154-165)." Divot (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, according Rapp, "Consequently, scribal manipulation reflecting post-schism (especially anti-Georgian) attitudes potentially contaminates all MSS copied after that time. It is therefore conceivable, though not yet proven, that valuable information about Georgia transmitted by pre-schism Armenian texts was excised by later, post-schism individuals.". "potentially" in the original Rapp's text in italics [16]. Thus Rapp specifically emphasizes that this is only a potentiality, but not a fact. Divot (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Divot's commentaries well complement my suggestions above. I am for Sasuman77's text, but it should be modified to reflect a much more prominent role of the view that GA was the work of M. Mashtots. Sprutt (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman, Georgian tradition should be mentioned first and then you can continue about Armenian tradition. Also this part where it says "Many agree, however, that Armenian clerics, if not Mashtots himself, must have played a role in the creation of the Georgian script" should be changed to Some, as some people who support the Armenian fairy tale does not mean it is believed by many. GEORGIANJORJADZE 00:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In brief, there's the possibility that there's some truth to the Mashtots legend 'cos the timeframe and his background fit. But to attribute the creation of the GA to Mashtots in the absence of evidence is simply laughable, and sources that claim it was his work in a 'plain, affirmative, clear manner' should be dismissed. — Lfdder (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

sources that claim it was his work in a 'plain, affirmative, clear manner' should be dismissed

Aren't those sources academical and neutral? Хаченци (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Are they reliable? No. — Lfdder (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't you tell more precisely - Who, from overmentioned sources, supported Mashtots as creator of GA, is not reliable, abd why? Хаченци (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not gonna keep repeating myself. — Lfdder (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot you wrote on it already. But you comment does not make sense.

• Rayfield 2000 says "it has been believed"; this seems to be neither his nor other specialists' opinion, i.e. it's been generally believed

In an academical article one does not write about "general beleifs" but about "scholar beleifs". Rayfield points out that this is the general beleif among scholars, hence Mashtots theory is not only his personal point of view, but (as he claims) the main theory among scholars. You have a very strange interpretation of his words.

• Grenoble 2003 same as above
• Campbell 1998 says "traditionally invented", somewhat unclear

Well, traditionally invented is really unclear statement, I have to agree. But - does he mention the other tradition?

• Ackroyd et al. 1975 are not specialist lit.

One does not need to be a specialist in Georgian alphabet, any scholar of Middle East studies or Caucasus studies also has to be familiar with the modern academical opinion, with the "state of the art". Therefore, one cannot ignore them. Хаченци (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@GEORGIANJORJADZE, I suggest you calm down and stop the unnecessary attack on the Armenians. If it was an "fairy tale", it wouldn't be so popular among non-Armenian experts. See WP:WEIGHT --Երևանցի ^talk 01:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The possibility of a guy who knew no Georgian language and that very guy creates a Georgian alphabet well that's a totally laughable and epic at the same time. Same applies to the Caucasian Albanian alphabet as well. That's the most funny joke in the region btw. GEORGIANJORJADZE 01:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Laughable or not, you are neither a historian, nor an archaeologist. I think you're behavior speaks for itself. You like it or not, there are many sources that say that he invented the Georgian alphabet (or participated in the invention or influenced it). You are free to think otherwise you and believe in whatever legend you want. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which bases itself on reliable sources and not on believes of its users. If most experts believe in the "Armenian fairy tales" as you claim, then something must be wrong with the world. Maybe Armenians are conspiring to take over the world too? --Երևանցի ^talk 01:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, so all those scholars, who accept Mashtots participation are jerks? Хаченци (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Susuman, concerning the centuries. Is there anyone claiming GA was invented before AA? Because the date for the later is 405/6. So, one wonders only, how on one side it could exist before AA, and on the other side, Mashtots has participated in its creation. Rapp's theory is somehow problematic to me. I mean, after the decipherment of Albanian palimpsests it became quiet clear that the invention of their script belongs to Mashtots (see, e.g. latest articles by J. Gippert). So, in general Rapp's theory about simultaneous invention of three alphabets must have been reviewed in recent years. I will search for new articles. However, which dating is more popular ? I guess early 5-th, since the authors who mention the 4-th century, mention also 5-th century. I don't think there is anyone directly saying it has been invented in 4-th century, is there? Хаченци (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Georgian tradition should be mentioned first and then you can continue about Armenian tradition

Absolutely impossible. The section is about origin, the scholar view on the origin. The Georgian tradition is a legend, which noone takes serious (except some paranoic Georgian pseudo-historians). Hence it has to be mentioned in the end, as an old, nice fairy tale. Хаченци (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze should be advised to adhere to WP standards of debate; otherwise his participation should be restricted. Making pejorative nationalist and other untactful statements is unacceptable. Sprutt (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No interest in this article any more? Хаченци (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The Davati Stela is an early Christian ivory artifact from the mountainous part of eastern Georgia. It is a cross-shaped stela, carrying a bas-relief, depicting the archangels Michael and Gabriel, with one of the earliest inscriptions in the ancient Georgian script (asomtavruli). The stela was discovered in 1985 in a small church of the Virgin in highland village of Davati. The Georgian scholar R. Ramishvili has claimed that the combination of letters კ [k], ტ [t] and ჭ [tch](კტჭ) correspond to the number 5320(კ-5000; ტ-300; ჭ-20) and has attempted to calculate from it the alleged date when the Georgian alphabet was created (284 BC). Mesrop Mashtots was born in 362.

What does this mean?!--MEDGEORGIA  talk  19:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)--Medgeorgia (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It means only that Ramishvili thinks Mashtots did not create Georgian alphabet. But practically all other Georgians also thinks so, hence it does not mean anything related directly to this article. Хаченци (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What Ramishvili?

The Davati Stela is important and crucial to the dispute! Davati Stela is oldest Georgian artifact. Date of inscription is considered 367 years. AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362.

Bibliography

• R. Ramishvili, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1986, #8
• K. Tsereteli, Stellas from the village Davati “Dzeglis Megobari” 1984 #68
• G. Narsidze, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1987, #4
• G. Narsidze, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1987, #8
• K. Machabeli, Stellas in the Georgia. 1999
• G. Javakhishvili, early feudal epoch in Georgia. 1999

--MEDGEORGIA  talk  15:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

“ Any discuss about Armenian Origin is not serious. There are few Georgian scripts made in 3'd century BC saved in National museum of Georgia. I am from USA, i study Kartvelian history in NY state university. I have seen this scripts done in III BC and talked to famous historians such like Chilashvili and others. Georgian Alphabet was made by Pharnavaz I of Iberia, 7 centuries earlier when Mesrob mashtots was born. - ChelseaFCG ”

--MEDGEORGIA  talk  20:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, you can write that POV on talkpages or in Georgian Wiki, but not here. It has been written a lot that this is solely Georgian point of view. Western scholars laugh at the people who beleive in that. Davati Stela is dated to 367 by Georgian academicians, there is no script from III c. BC, there is script which is dated by Georgian scholars to III c. BC. The legend of Parnavaz should be mentioned as a Georgian traditional legend about the origin of the alphabet, but it cannot be written as an academical point of view, since no academician outside of Georgia considers it possible. Search for western sources, the origin of GA is studied not only in Georgia. If you study Kartvelian history in NY state university, it would not be a problem to point to a dozen of western kartvelists who beleive in Parnavaz legend. Хаченци (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What Parnavaz Legend? I'm talking about Davati Stela!!! Yes, Davati Stela is Georgian Heritage, Georgian alphabet is also Georgian and not the Armenian, and Georgian scholars explores Georgian heritages. And yes, Davati Stela is dated to 367 by Georgian scholars and academicians. AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362. So once again,

• AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362—Davati Stela is dated to 367
• AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362—Davati Stela is dated to 367
• AND MESROP MASHTOTS WAS BORN IN 362—Davati Stela is dated to 367

Bibliography

• R. Ramishvili, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1986, #8
• K. Tsereteli, Stellas from the village Davati “Dzeglis Megobari” 1984 #68
• G. Narsidze, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1987, #4
• G. Narsidze, Discovery in the village Davati. “Mnatobi” 1987, #8
• K. Machabeli, Stellas in the Georgia. 1999
• G. Javakhishvili, early feudal epoch in Georgia. 1999

--MEDGEORGIA  talk  09:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Improving article and under construction

Hello guys. Just wanted to let you all know that I'm working on to improve the article concerning the Asomtavruli, Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli scripts. I've done the Asomtavruli today and the next few days I'll do Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jaqeli, please discuss your edits. Your grand ambition to improve the article does not empower you to gratuitously delete the inputs of other users without discussion. Thanks. Hablabar (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This article subject to general sanctions

As a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted. The specific details are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Parent system

to Jaqeli: The parent system of Georgian alphabet is the Greek alphabet. The ordering of letters is such an obvious proof of it, that it is not rejected by anyone, not even Georgian scholars. By the way, the fact that it's modelled on Greek (and not on Armenian, like Caucasian Albanian alphabet) has been the main point for scholars who reject its creation by Mashtots. The concept of "parent system" has nothing to do with what is written in "Origin" section, it does not mean a Greek origin of Georgian script, or that the forms of Greek letters have influenced the form of Georgian letters, it simply means the alphabet as such has been modelled on Greek alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Jaqeli's behavior is highly disruptive with no apparent desire to discuss. If this continues, I suggest you go to Arbitration Enforcement per Talk:Georgian_alphabet#This_article_subject_to_general_sanctions. There is no reason for him to remove Greek as the parent sustem of the Georgian alphabet. It is backed up by a reliable source, which he prefers to overlook. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I beleive in this case it's only a misunderstanding of the concept of "Parent system". The different versions of origin of Georgian script are not saying anything about the parental system of the alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Further changes by Jaqeli, without any discussion. By parent system, Jaqeli, one means the alphabet on which the current one is modelled. For the case of Georgian alphabet it was modelled on Greek. This fact is neither rejected by anyone, nor is it disputed. The origin of Georgian alphabet, its creation, history, modifications, etc. may be unclear, but the fact that the alphabet, as we know it today, was modelled on Greek is not something disputable. It has nothing to do with the form of the letters, etc., it is just that the Greek alphabet was used as a basis for Georgian alphabet. I hope know you understood. Хаченци (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The category seems ambiguous to me. Usually by "parent system" we mean direct descent. "Modeled on" works for me. But the sorting order is not "modeled on" Greek, it *is* Greek. Whether that and the few obvious Greek letters in Georgian mean that the Georgian script is actually derived from Greek I don't think anyone knows. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would never claim Georgian alphabet is derived directly from Greek alphabet, the two scripts are simply too different from each other. It is though a descedant from Greek (in the sense it was modelled on Greek) whereas the intermediate steps remain unclear. While creating a new alphabet, you need a basis, don't you? For Georgian alphabet it was Greek, wasn't it? That's what I am trying to say. Correct me if I am wrong. Writing "The parent system of Georgian alphabet was Greek alphabet" absolutely does not mean that Georgian script is a sort of evolution of the Greek alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Хаченци, stop inserting the disputed wording in the "parent system". It is not important if you would never claim anything about the Georgian alphabet but it is important for the average reader of the encyclopedia to understand what does that mean. It is highly confusing and such wording like "modeled on Greek" can not stay in that bar. Exact wording which is "alphabetic order modeled on Greek" is clear and such statement better explains its role when "modeled on Greek" can mean anything from copying the Greek letters to the origins of the alphabet itself. Jaqeli (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been going on for so long that I don't know what the status quo is. But we have a ref for it being modeled on Greek; if it were descended directly from Greek we wouldn't need a clarification such as "modeled on". — kwami (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To Jaqeli, Why should it matter what an average reader would understand, if the written text is from reliable sources? The details are described in the article itself. The Armenian alphabet is even more far from Greek, but I can hardly imagine any Armenian feeling somehow offended because of the fact that Greek alphabet is a parent system of AA. You need to compare with other articles on scripts, the world is not moving around Georgian alphabet only. Хаченци (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Direction of writing

Are ზ and ხ really written in the opposite direction, one beginning with the tick atop the bowl, and the other ending with it? — kwami (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ზ is written starting with the top loop (going clockwise) and ending with the bottom loop (counterclockwise). ხ starts with a downward vertical stroke and ends with the bottom loop (going counterclockwise). Aronson's Georgian: A Reading Grammar contains several pages (21-25) illustrating what I understand to be the "correct" way to write all the letters. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We got the first one wrong, then. I don't have access to Aronson. Could you check to see which others we got wrong? I'll correct the image if you can describe them as well as you did ზ. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Aronson book is available online (see "Reference grammar of Georgian by Howard Aronson" in the article's external link section).

The directions in the "Writing order and direction of Mkhedruli" section of the article seem to be mostly correct, but I would say the following:

• The stroke direction for ზ is all wrong, as I already pointed out above.
• Is there any way to use curved arrows? The arrows currently on თ and ფ, for example, do not (IMO) adequately express the idea that the circle should be done first (counterclockwise), followed by the hook or hooks (clockwise).
• I would add another, upward-pointing arrow to the end of პ, to make it clear that the letter is written bottom-to-top. Same for ჰ, and also ა.
• The directional arrows on ჯ don't really make sense, since (as far as I'm aware) the form of ჯ shown in this chart — like an X with hooks on all four ends — is exclusively a printed (typeface) form and is never used in handwriting. The common handwritten ჯ is made by first doing a vertical stroke, with a hook on the bottom (kind of like handwritten კ), and then adding a horizontal stroke (which may slant slightly from upper left to lower right).

Please remember that I'm a student of Georgian (not a native speaker), so I'll gladly stand corrected if Jaqeli or other native speakers would like to correct me. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello @Richwales: and @Kwamikagami: I should state that none of those letters are written wrong. All of them are correct. I should also say that usage of printed version for ჯ is also handwritten by some though majority of course write it with the hook so we can discuss the possibility of changing of printed ჯ into handwritten ჯ. Also I want to say that I would definitely support the curved arrows as well as Rich suggested. As for პ, ჰ and ა there is no need for additional arrow as those letters are written with 1 move. Jaqeli (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So, ზ and ხ are written in opposite directions, ზ bottom-to-top, and ხ top-to-bottom, pace Aronson? — kwami (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No. ზ is written middle-to-top-to-bottom, roughly like a slanted figure-8. After the first (left/top) loop, the rest of ზ is written more or less like ხ. Also, the final tail (tick mark) on the end of ხ (and ზ) is an optional flourish, kind of like a serif — it's common in many typefaces, but it's not an absolutely mandatory distinguishing characteristic — some people's handwriting includes the tail on ზ and ხ, while others don't, and AFAIK it's considered OK either way. The essential difference between ხ and ს, as I understand it, is that ხ has a closed loop, whereas the ending of ს is open. My impression of the font used in Aronson's book is that the ს's look way too much like ხ's — Jaqeli, could you let us know what you think of the Georgian font in the Aronson book (available online via the first external link in this article)? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Richwales: I've seen the book and the handwritten words and their direction is indeed right. By the way, all kids at schools at first learn the Georgian alphabet in that kind of barred notebooks as Aronson used for the letters. Rich, you seem to know many things about the Georgian alphabet so well done. Indeed, the tail on ხ and ზ are used by many and those letters are considered written complete when used in that way so yes it is very common and is used by many. What do you mean about the letter ს being too much? Jaqeli (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So, as you said above; you and Jaqeli then disagree as to whether Aronson or our illustration is correct. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What I disagree with Rich exactly? Jaqeli (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Aronson says ზ is written top-to-bottom, as ხ is; you say it's written bottom-to-top, the opposite of ხ. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My motivation for suggesting additional arrows was to make these writing issues clearer to readers who may be totally unfamiliar with the Georgian alphabet. If one looks at a letter like პ, with absolutely no prior knowledge of this or any other Georgian letter, one's first assumption is almost certainly going to be that the letter must obviously be written top-to-bottom — the opposite of reality. Regarding ჯ, it wasn't until I saw the common handwritten form of this letter that I realized the most important identifying feature is the hook on the bottom (lower left), and that the other three hooks are basically just an artistic thing (kind of like serifs in the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Richwales: I think that ჯ the way it is now in the image should stay that way as there is an additional section for those letters who have alternative forms for Mkhedruli just above that section. As for the upward arrows I think the best solution would be the curved arrows which would describe their direction at its best. Jaqeli (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think curved arrows will make them clearer. ა especially might be confusing with a second arrow, but they might be useful with the others. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So we've got:

clockwise: ბ გ დ ე ვ ი კ ლ მ ნ ო რ უ ქ ღ შ ძ წ ჭ ჯ

counter-clockwise: ა პ ს ც ხ ჰ

both: [ckws–cntr] ზ; [cntr–ckws] ჟ ტ თ ფ ყ ჩ

— kwami (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, as I see you're mostly confused with letter ზ? You can first write the same kind of letter like ხ and then just add a circle at the top. It will be more easy for you. By the way many write like that. Jaqeli (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why it's the opposite of ხ, and if Aronson made an error. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would not really call it an error. It's just recommended to write ზ like that. Though as I've said many write it as they want. Jaqeli (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I found the font Avaza SP online. It's closer to handwriting than Sylvaen, and so is probably a better font for the image. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, you mean this font? Jaqeli (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's not beautiful, but it's easy to copy with pen and paper, and it leaves out the optional serifs, and thus illustrates the necessary parts of the letters. (Unless that first left-to-right stroke of l is necessary?) — kwami (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot agree. That font has nothing to do with the original shaped Mkhedruli alphabet. The font which is currently on the image is the perfect font for the Georgian alphabet meaning it represents all the originally-shaped letters for the alphabet. As for the so called serifs for ხ and ზ can be removed if it is that important. Jaqeli (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant to the question. — kwami (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph separator

Please delete the line

"Georgian symbol (჻) was used as the paragraph separator and punctuation."

from the Punctuation section. This is based on the Unicode name for the glyph, but Unicode is not a RS for anything but Unicode, and in this case they are (once again) wrong.

Signature of king Alexander II of Kakheti, with the divider ⟨჻⟩

Please add the image at right.

Please change

"one (.), two (:), three (:.) and six (:.:.) [[Full stop|dots]]"

to

"one (·), two (:), three (჻) and six (჻჻) dots."

for proper punctuation & to rm overlinking.

— kwami (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Georgian scripts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This article has some problems: large parts (mainly in the second half) lack citations, (and that's enough to keep it from passing GA in itself), and the script display is problematic - which could be helped by making image files for the script, leaving the Unicode versions to the unicode tables.

The content itself is good, and occasionally excellent, particularly in early sections - I appreciate articles that can handle ambiguity and conflicting claims well, and this article definitely does that.

If the citations can be fixed, this will easily pass GA, and be well on its way to FA. If it can't be fixed in the short term, I'm happy to come back and re-review when it can be; just leave a note on my talk page in that case.

In any case, I'll give a couple days for things to be fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Adam, thanks for starting the review. Can you please tell me exactly which sections need more references or on which sections should I work on to make it suitable for that criteria? Jaqeli (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure:

The "Nuskhuri" section (including all subsections) only has one citation in its first paragraph, we need a source for the information, and I'd say at least one citation per paragraph (can be the same citation, of course, just use ref name=)

The "Mkhedruli" section, and all subsections, lack citations.

"Ligatures, abbreviations and calligraphy" needs citations for the descriptions of the last couple scripts.

"Punctuation" is uncited.

"Unicode" is uncited.

"Keyboard layout" is uncited. It needs a cite for "Most keyboards in Georgia are fitted with both Latin and Georgian letters." and probably for the keyboard layout itself, though that could go on the image description page. The image actually appears to be wrong, by the way; according to [17], there are several additional letters and symbols available with the alt-Gr key, as well as two alternate layouts.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Any reliable sources will do; in English or Georgian (Or other languages, but those are most likely.) The sources need only be appropriate for the information -

Thanks. I'll make sure everything there to have their own reference. If such won't be found I'll remove it from content for sure. How long time do I have to correct those? 2-4 days would do it. Jaqeli (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've updated it as much as it was possible. Can you please check it? Jaqeli (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a lot better, but a couple bits still need cites: Obsolete letters, Additional letters, "Mkhedruli has the most developed calligraphy in comparison with Asomtavruli or Nuskhuri.", first two paragraphs of "Punctuation", the "Unicode" section, and the Georgian keyboard needs fixed still. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation's Georgian source covers the first part as well. It is just devided with the image in this case. I'll need some time for the obsolete and additional letters but even though if I found none I don't think it is that big deal I mean it just says how they sound and some corrections can be made or some info without source can be removed. Though their sounds are well known. As for Mkhedruli's complex calligraphy if no source is found that sentence can be changed into just as an example for the Mkhedruli calligraphy. Jaqeli (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made some updates. How is it now? Jaqeli (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot better, but the Keyboard section is still problematic: it leaves out the Alt-Gr key combinations. I think that needs fixed before it can be promoted. A few places that need citation made explicit, I'll mark those, but it's mostly well-sourced now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

On keyboard I found nothing but does it need any source? I mean that's are just undisputed facts that Georgian has 33 letters without capital letters and logically it would need to use the shift key for other letters to type so I think that's not a big problem as the statement does not state anything extraordinary. Don't you agree? Jaqeli (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the problem. IOn many keyboards - not American ones, but certainly the Icelandic one I use (long story), the Alt-Gr key (the right Alt) is used in combination with certain keys to provide extra symbols. For example, if I press the key left of the Z, I get "<". Shift+that = ">". Alt-Gr+that = "|". Completely different symbol.

Go to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/goglobal/bb964651.aspx choose the Georgian Qwerty keyboard, and click Alt-Gr. You'll see numerous additional symbols that can be got that way, and these are different to the ones gotten by shift. . None appear on the graphic, meaning the graphic is misleading. WP:Graphics lab can probably help.

In addition, Georgian QWERTY is only one of the possible layouts. There is also a Georgian and Georgian (Ergonomic) on that site. I don't know which is most common; but then, there's no source saying QWERTY is, so I'd say that, at the least, the default Georgian should appear as well. File:KB_Portuguese.svg will give you an idea of the standard way this is presented. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What if we just remove that pic from the article and just link that into the "See also"? I have no understanding of keyboard things in details so I can not do anything about it. I will remove it and link it to its article. Is it better now? Jaqeli (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The link you've just posted above can be used as a source that it is indeed a QWERTY keyboard so I will insert back the image there. Jaqeli (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're quite understanding my point... Never mind, I'll sort this out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See the layout section. I think I'm gonna fix everything very soon. Jaqeli (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Now? Jaqeli (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been hoping this would get done. I'm adding a couple tags. It may well be that they're covered by the next reference, but standard practice in that case is to put the same citation at the end of both paragraphs, so every paragraph ends in a citation. It's because people move text around. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Those are covered in that source. I've already done the keyboard. Any corrections towards that keyboard? It's better than just an image. Jaqeli (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the keyboard's right. I'll go over it again and double-check. In any case, once all the tags are resolved, I'm happy to promote Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede needs work:

• it's probably too short
• begins with describing the Georgian script (in bold) -- yet the article's called 'Georgian alphabet'
• we're given the etymology of the Georgian word 'alphabet' -- but what's the relevance? does the word mean any alphabet? the Georgian alphabet? which one?
• '... the names of the first two letters of the three Georgian alphabets, which, although they look very different from one another, share the same alphabetical order and letter names' -- 'which' to refer to the alphabets, but could easily be thought to mean the letters the way it's been worded; split into two sentences or rephrase
• 'The alphabets can be seen mixed in some context ...' -- 2nd mention to some unspecified Georgian alphabets -- what are these alphabets?

— Lfdder (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I actually welcome to comment here? I've no idea. — Lfdder (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: Of course you are. And good points. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: What about now? Jaqeli (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Review tomorrow, saw this right before I sleep. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I received on my talk page a message that the nomination for a good article has failed. Is it true? Jaqeli (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The nomination still appears on WP:GAN, so it isn't true. I think the message you received was a side-effect of the article being moved from "Georgian alphabet" to "Georgian scripts" before this GA1 page was moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Really sorry, absolutely exhausted because of rehearsals the last two days combined with my dodgy sleep schedule. Should be able to tomorrow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Methinks this will do. Let's promote. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

comparison with Armenian

Graphic similarities between Armenian and Georgian, with apparently OR implications about their historical relationship.

What's the point of the img comparing Georgian w Armenian? Is it just to show a common calligraphic tradition, as you get between the Latin and Thai alphabets, or is there an implicit claim of a common origin? Today, Georgian and Armenian often look like the Latin alphabet, but that doesn't mean they derive from Latin, or even that Latin influenced their creation. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cmon, that's already not serious. Similarity between early Georgian and Armenian scripts can hardly be compared with similarity of both with Latin. Possible influence of Armenian alphabet on Georgian is written in sources, and the similarities of letters is one of main points why people think about common origin. It's not only graphical similarity, but some of the same letters, i.e. the letters corresponding to the same (or almost the same, due to differences of the languages) sound, look extremely similar in both alphabets (e.g. k (Կ), i (Ի), p' (Փ, from Greek), v (Վ), ts' (Ց), zh' (Ժ) ) . However, I have to agree, that the shown picture does not show that similarity. And such a picture is probably better to include in a detailed article about the origin of Georgian script. Хаченци (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User Hablavar is making highly disputed edits in the origins section and attention should be taken with all such edits for avoiding disruption on Wikipedia article. As for this picture this shows only the calligraphic similarities and not of the letters. And it is Nukshuri alphabet which first appeared in the 9th century so what does that image have to do with the origins section as it has nothing to do with the origins of the first Asomtavruli alphabet. Jaqeli (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To: Jaqely - Why are they highly "disputed edits" and where you see "disruption?" Highly disruptive is your avoidance to comment on the substance. Hablabar (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You are engaged in highly disruptive editing. You seem to not understand that the origin's section is not a play ground for edits here. Admins will most likely monitor all your edits for avoiding such behavior. As for the content please bother yourself and see my comment above. Jaqeli (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything "disruptive" or "controversial" in Hablabar's edits. Additionally, we need something a picture? or table? comparing graphics of Armenian and Georgian alphabets and showing their graphical unity, which is pretty self evident per Хаченци. Zimmarod (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Zimarod, please read above. My comment is addressed to you as well. Jaqeli (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Jaqeli continues displaying an attitude toward the edits and advice of Zimmarod (talk · contribs), Hablabar (talk · contribs), Roses&guns (talk · contribs), Хаченци (talk · contribs), and Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) that is inimical to the constructive editing of the article. I had to file an AE request. Hablabar (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd advice you to see WP:EW to be more aware what it really means. Jaqeli (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My question still stands: What is the purpose of the comparison? As Jaqeli and Хаченци pointed out, it does not support a common origin, but that's what a naive reader might take away from it being in the Origin section. But it looks like the img has been removed, so the point is moot. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I am disturbed by Kwamikagami's drive-by rv. Changes in the section were extensively discussed for several months. Hablabar (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The article's been stable, and now you're resurrecting an edit war. This comparison chart is, well, idiotic. How about I put a comparison of Georgian and Thai in the origin section? I'm sure I could make just as convincing a case. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not resurrecting an edit war just confirming and further developing the work of 3 other editors who worked on this passage: User:Zimmarod, User:Хаченци, and User:Roses&guns. "How about I put a comparison of Georgian and Thai in the origin section? I'm sure I could make just as convincing a case" you said above. No, Kwamikagami, you would not be able to "make just as convincing a case" because any such similarity would be accidental. In case of Armenian and Georgian alphabets you can argue that would not be accidental since because of a strong historical connection between these alphabets. Plus, I added 7(!) new immeadetely verifiable references that that you so gratuitously deleted. Also, you, Kwamikagami, I can't spot you ever contributed anything of substance to the discussion on the alphabets, only brief dismissive remarks and, now, obscenities. Hablabar (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You can always cherry-pick sources to support a POV, so that means nothing. The img is unsourced and so can be gratuitously deleted at any time. Now, if you had a source comparing these letters, explaining that the similarities are due to (a) Georgian deriving from Armenian, (b) a common author randomly recycling letter forms in a second alphabet, (c) a common a calligraphic tradition in Armenian and Georgian causing the letter forms to converge, or (d) some other reason, then I would support inclusion. But placing a chart showing similarities in the origin section suggests that the similarities with Armenian are due to a common origin with Armenian. AFAICT, that POV is not accepted by philological sources, so we have no business making it. For all we know, the similarities are simply due to the Greek calligraphic tradition of the Christian communities of the area, and so say nothing about any connection between Georgian and Armenian except that they arose in the same cultural environment.

Dismissive remarks are appropriate for such edits, and I haven't used any obscenities. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added sources that support a particular academic viewpoint on the subject according to WP:BALANCE. This is very different from cherry-picking which tries to suppress other viewpoints. You are free to add sources that would support alternative points of view, which have already been well represented in the very same paragraph. You have called the edits idiotic, and that is an obscenity, and your gratuitous deletionism is unacceptable. You are no better than anyone else editing this article and the rules are for everyone. Hablabar (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so "obscenity" means anything you don't like. You are also using obscenities like "gratuitous" and "no better". I request that you stop using obscenities of WP by saing anything I don't like, and by always agreeing with what I say.

How about this for a comparison, proving that Armenian derives from earlier alphabets. Should I make a chart of this for the origin section of the Armenian article?

Ա U, Բ F, գ q, դ η, ե t, զ q, է t, թ p, ժ d, ի h, Լ L, Ծ Θ, ծ δ, Կ Ч, հ h, Ձ Q, ղ η, Մ U, Յ З, Շ C, ո n, Պ ϡ, Ջ Q, ռ n, ս u, Տ S, Ր Γ, ց g, Փ Ф, Ք R, Օ O

This "proves" the origin of Armenian much better than your chart "proves" the origin of Georgian. — kwami (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

all this "proves" is that a couple of Armenian characters (not the extensive line that you have compiled) resemble Greek and Latin letters, which is indisputable because the alphabet's inventor M. Mashtots did apparently use Greek and Latin letters. Hablabar (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't even prove that! I could find similar resemblances with Thai, Ethiopian, or Hindi, especially with calligraphic styles that have been influenced by European conventions. I suspect that a common calligraphic tradition in Greek, Latin, Cyrillic, Armenian, and Georgian is important, but we need sources for any claims or even implications that we're making. Z's chart of random similarities is unsupported OR and so has no place in WP. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And please go ahead and make a "chart of this for the origin section of the Armenian article" if you can find a series of primary and secondary references that the Armenian alphabet was created by a Greek and Roman inventor. In case of Georgian alph. the argument is much stronger because of a straightforward and direct historical record, not supposed, believed or imagined reference, such as in the case of your line of letters above. Hablabar (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time with WP:POINTy OR, and neither should you. You rightfully would want RS's for it, so why not require RS's for your own edits? — kwami (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the moron that should've been topic banned. — Lfdder (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that Kwamikagami deleted absolutely everything, not only the chart he does not like, including the many references from credible academic sources. I believe the argument on cherrypicking is plainly false, period, and I added even more references about Mashtots but without compromising the counterargument-slash-doubt that he might not have been the one inventing it. Zimmarod (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While I won't comment on any of the content questions, other than to say that the image is badly in violation WP:OR - and as a scholar of writing systems, many of the relationships it suggests are shallow and amateurish, and should never be included in Wikipedia in any form - Kwami is correct on procedure: you added content that was reverted, so you need to get consensus in discussion before adding it back. In edit conflicts, the pre-existing state of the article is the default, and all changes from that base state need to attain consensus. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is in line with earlier edits of User:Hablabar, User:Хаченци, User:Roses&guns, and User:Divot. Zimmarod (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the history of edit-warring, bad sources, and outright silliness in this article, you should state here what you want to change and why. I will revert everything, not because I disagree with it, but because you should gain consensus for contested edits. If you're not willing to do that, you shouldn't be editing the article. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This concerns everyone. Drive-by reverts by come close to vandalism and will not be tolerated. Discuss details of what you disagree with. Please note that you are not exempt from gaining consensus either. The reference to you refer to as "stable" is a manipulation by a banned user Jaqeli, and restoring his inadmissible edits - especially without substantiation - is highly controversial. Hablabar (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And I dont see any "outright silliness" in my edits. Please stop insulting editors. Hablabar (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop beating your wife.

The chart is outright silly, as explained above. It also violates fundamental WP policy. You want to make changes, so you need to justify them. Simply labeling the existing text as a "manipulation" or "inadmissable" means nothing: You need actual reasons. — kwami (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here are my objections, which I expect to be addressed rationally before changing the article:

• The chart: Unless we have a good ref to support the unlikely proposition that Armenian m and n are related to Georgian p and h, the chart has no business being anywhere on WP and should be deleted from Commons. Хаченци and maybe Hablabar seem to agree w me here. If we have a RS for specific similarities, that would be nice to include, but this chart is just OR. [A few of the letters, but only a few, resemble Greek, but that could simply be a common inheritance. A few, but again only a few, seem to connect Georgian and Armenian, but we'd need a very good source to claim that this indicates a common origin rather than just coincidence or common calligraphic styles.]

• The img of Mashtots: This seems undue WEIGHT, given that there is no scholarly consensus that he had anything to do with Georgian. It feels like a nationalist claim on regional history, or as our sources put it, inter-church historical revisionism, and therefore IMO inappropriate.

• Date: The current version has been twisted to make it seem as early as possible, but the proposed wording does not reflect the full range of the sources. One ref says early 5th c., the other says 2nd half of the 4th to the early 5th. They both say it was contemporaneous with the invention of the Armenian alphabet, which we should mention too if we're to be true to our sources. Those are just two sources, however, and their authors are not experts in the field, so we really should find better sources.

• The text third paragraph differs in style rather than substance. There's something to be said for both versions, but I assume there's nothing contentious here. However, 11 refs for the Armenian tradition is overkill and disruptive to the article. I haven't reviewed the refs, but some have been criticized as not being RS's.

So I oppose either img. I support more NPOV wording for the date. I'd prefer better sources for the dates, but if the ones we end up using say Georgian was contemporaneous w Armenian, we should too. However, other than maybe some minor copy-editing, I fail to see anything else of value in the proposed version.

For the date, assuming new refs don't change anything, maybe "The scholarly consensus points to the Georgian alphabet being created sometime in the late 4th to early 5th century, contemporaneous with the Armenian alphabet." Is there anything I said here that's unreasonable? — kwami (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• The chart is controversial but it is ridiculous to think the similarities are accidental.

• Image of Mashtots. Everything depends on the notation accompanied the image. Mashtots is the only probable historically-confirmed originator of the Georgian alphabet with so many references. It can be undue WEIGHT if we say affirmatively that Mashtots is the inventor, period. But if we show that he is just a probable figure in the invention process, then it is due weight. Not giving Mashtots due prominence as a probable factor is undue WEIGHT. Most references regarding the origins of the alphabet point to Mashtots, regardless of how strongly they affirm it.

• Date. The scholarly consensus points unequivocally to the 5th century. Other opinions are fringe opinions and should be treated according to WP:FRINGE.

• kwami:{{A source is only considered a RS for the topic its author is expert in, so we should restrict ourselves to philological and paleographic sources, rather than sources on religion or history, for actual claims of a historical connection between the scripts, though of course religious history sources are fine for attesting the competing claims of the rival churches.}} Here it seems kwami is making his own rules instead of following WP rules. Well ... we may do that but then we will need to purge the text of all other references that dont comply with this unreasonably strict requirement. All references that doubt Mashtots and are authored by historians would need to be purged as well then. i.e. W. Seibt, The Creation of the Caucasian Alphabets. In addition all un-translated foreign language sources such as this Georgian source - ივ. ჯავახიშვილი, ქართული პალეოგრაფია, გვ. 205-208, 240-245 - need to be purged; if not - one can easily quote 40 references from Armenian-language sources confirming Mashtots, something I don't think is a good idea. Hablabar (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You need sources to change the article, not just talk. Your claim about the chart is your opinion only; w/o sources, it would be OR to include it, as others have pointed out. To claim Mashtots is the "probably" inventor is also not supported. Date: You're contradicting your own sources, but you don't want to improve them, which is ridiculous. We do need to follow the sources we use. Policy: Perhaps you should read up on WP:RS, you don't seem to be familiar with it. — kwami (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish you good luck editing WP with an attitude like that. Hablabar (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish you good luck editing WP if you don't have an attitude like that. Purposefully misrepresenting sources will only get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

????? Purposefully misrepresenting sources? You cannot drive by throwing up accusations like that. What do you mean? Hablabar (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're using a ref that says it may date from the 2nd half of the 4th century, yet you were edit-warring to make us say that it dates from the early 5th century. That was the whole point of my "date" objection; I assumed that you read it, since you gave a counter-argument. Me, I have no idea when it was invented, because I wasn't there. But either the source is wrong, in which case we should get better sources (another point I made, which you objected to), or the source is correct, in which case we need to reflect it in our text (which you also object to). We can't say "A" and support it with a source that says "B": They need to be either both A or both B. I'm not arguing that it's either A or B, but later in that very same paragraph we state that we can constrain the date to ca. 330–430. Again, we can't say A in the first sentence of the paragraph and B in the 2nd-last. My proposed wording for the first sentence is consistent both with the sources that we use for it, and with the claim of that later sentence. If your dating is correct, then we need to change much more than what you did. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So, given that the sources we use in that paragraph say that the Georgian alphabet was created sometime in the late 4th to early 5th century, contemporaneous with the Armenian alphabet, do you have any objection to saying "The scholarly consensus points to the Georgian alphabet being created sometime in the late 4th to early 5th century, contemporaneous with the Armenian alphabet"? — kwami (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Stephen H. Rapp Jr in his article that is brought as reference does two things: 1) dismisses the Georgian medieval claim that the alphabet was created by King Parnavaz 2) says it as plausible that Georgian and Armenian alphabets were created as the same time, either in the late 4th century or early 5th century. That is what he says. However, it has never been questioned really that the Armenian alphabet was invented earlier or later than 405 or 406; and good as Stephen H. Rapp Jr might be as reference, there is NO CONSENSUS that Georgian alphabet might have been invented earlier than the 5th century. Most opinions in academia congregate around early 5th century. And that is what the article should claim - most RSs date the Georgian alphabet for the 5th century AD. Hope that is clear. Hablabar (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's utterly ridiculous. You can't use a source saying it was created in the 4th c. as a ref to claim it was created in the 5th c. — kwami (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So, as the user who drafted last September the current version of the disputed paragraph (Jaqeli only inserted it in the article after the discussion had died out) (and let me apologize for abandoning the discussion, as real life obligations make it hard for me to devote time to wikipedia on an extended period), let me voice my support of Kwamikagami's position.

My main effort, in the discussion last summer, was to trim the absurdly high number of doubtful sources being used by both sides of the dispute in a battleground-y way, and come to an NPOV version through sources that we could deem reliable, based not on what they say but where they come from (peer-review, reliable publisher, source by a specialist of history/philology of Caucasian languages and societies, etc.). This discussion about sources, and the version it led to, though not perfect, were in my opinion more constructive than this topic usually invites.

Anyway, what I see now is an effort by some users to twist what some of the reliable sources say to fit their thesis (i.e. the whole discussion above about Rapp), and to add yet another flood (or bombardment) of mostly poor-quality sources cherry-picked for their support of Mashtots. The image of Mashtots adds undue weight to his hypothesis. The alphabet comparison chart is OR, tendentious, and many more good arguments have been made against it by various editors in the discussion above.

As for the change from "quoted in some Western sources" to "supported by many authors in Western sources", I think it goes too far, and "many" always invites non-productive debate; of the 3 sources cited here, Rayfield quotes, Russell supports and Campbell goes for the 'collaborative with significant Mashtots input' version: no "support by many" here — I'm open to a change to "quoted and supported by some" or some similar formula, but it would have to find consensus on this talk page. I'll try to stick around a bit more this time to help, but cannot promise it absolutely. Susuman77 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea that Mashtots was the inventor is indeed "quoted and supported by some," as suggested by Susuman77, and I also agree that it should be changed to that or similar formula. Hablabar (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Although "quoted and supported by some" does weaken the point that is made, I would go for that version at the very least. Roses&guns (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet → Georgian scripts – The original name in Georgian is "ქართული დამწერლობა" i.e. "Georgian script". Also it is not only the Georgian language that the script is used to write for but it is used for other Kartvelian languages as well. Also it was used for Abkhaz and Ossetian in the past and for other languages in the North Caucasus so the correct form what is the Georgian script it should be definitely renamed back to it so I suggest we move it. Relisted Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Jaqeli (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the comments below, what do you think about changing the proposal to "scripts", plural? — kwami (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I still support the singular form, at least for now. Jaqeli (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? — Lfdder (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It will confuse the readers. Jaqeli (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support - per "Latin script" and "Cyrillic script". Script refers to the writing system whereas Alphabet refers to the letters used within that writing system. Also languages other than the Georgian language use the Georgian Script, therefore they'll have different alphabets whilst using the same script. IJA (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There's more than one 'script' in the article, and they've all at one time been the Georgian alphabet. Anybody correct me if I'm wrong, but the Georgian alphabet (Mkhedruli) has only come to be used by other Kartvelian langs only quite recently. Also, I don't think your definition of alphabet reflects general and/or academic usage. — Lfdder (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose — Georgian uses a true alphabet (with distinct characters representing all consonants and vowels), and it is appropriate to use this specific term rather than the more generic "script". To me as a native speaker of English, "script" is a general term referring to any sort of writing system, and especially to non-alphabetic writing systems. With respect, I disagree with the terms "Latin script" or "Cyrillic script"; native speakers of English will normally use "alphabet" in these cases, and despite what the "Latin alphabet" and "Latin script" articles currently say, I believe "Latin alphabet" is in fact the most common term for describing modern writing systems based on the letters of Latin. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's besides the point. The Latin script includes multiple alphabets, including the English alphabet. Cyrillic is likewise not a particular alphabet. We've agreed on the word "script" for such things. Read this article, and you'll see that the Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz and Svan alphabets (plural) all use the same Mkhedruli script. The problem as I see it is that the article is not restricted to the Mkhedruli script, just as it is not restricted to the Georgian alphabet. — kwami (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Welsh Language uses the Latin Script, but the Welsh Alphabet doesn't contain the letters/ characters J, K, Q, X or Z which are used in other languages which use the Latin Script. The German alphabet uses the Latin Script, however the German Alphabet contains the umlaut (ß), which is auxiliary to the Latin Script. IJA (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this in reply to kwami? What are you trying to say? — Lfdder (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my objection. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems#Article naming convention, there appears to be a consensus for using the term "script" in the way that is being proposed here. I'm not sure I agree with this, but any rehash of that issue should take place amongst the WikiProject participants, not here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

a) WikiProjects don't call the shots; they can put out suggestions, but we're under no obligation to follow them b) is the Georgian 'script' not a collection of scripts? are these called scripts in the lit., or are they referred to as forms of the same script? how would this be addressed in the article? c) the script's (scripts) only been used to write Georgian for much of its history. I mean, it's sometimes a useful distinction to make btn the Georgian script and the alphabet, but does it warrant splitting the article? — Lfdder (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per writing systems naming convention. The article "Georgian alphabet" should contain the content fork containing the use of the Georgian script for writing the Georgian language, while Georgian script is about the overarching script, regardless of the particular language it happens to be representing. VanIsaac_WS^cont 20:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the general idea, but isn't this article almost entirely about the Georgian alphabet specifically? There is only the briefest mention of other alphabets based on the Georgian script, not much more that we might expect for an article on the Georgian alphabet itself. And then there's the question of what exactly we mean by "script": Wouldn't the Georgian script (singular) be Mkhedruli? We spend quite a bit of the article on the other Georgian scripts. If we're going to move, wouldn't the plural be more appropriate? — kwami (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's a bit of a philosophical question. Are Asomtavruli, Nushkuri, and Mkhedruli analogous to majescules, miniscules, and italics in Latin, or are they better thought of like manyōgana, katakana, and hiragana. In other words, do they constitute distinct scripts, or are they best seen as just the three forms of an overarching concept of the Georgian script? I don't know the answer to that question one way or the other, but I think that's the parameters of the issue. VanIsaac_WS^cont 06:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Two of them have separate Unicode ranges, not that Unicode is a RS. I think they're more like Etruscan and Latin. Perhaps if Latin caps had been largely abandoned, but retained for peripheral uses the way roman numerals have been, so they were seen as a distinct script from medieval miniscules, then we'd have a better parallel to Georgian. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you that the division of blocks is purely historical accident. In fact, Unicode classifies them all as script=Georgian. ISO 15924, used for library classification of texts, does, however, distinguish between mkhedruli and the other two. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed name is factually incorrect, per the comments below. The existing name is conventional, and nearly the entire article is about the Georgian alphabet stricto sensu anyway. I would support a move to the plural "scripts", esp. if we split off the Georgian alphabet, but even if we don't. — kwami (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per kwami's and my own comments here. — Lfdder (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So you both support its plural form? Jaqeli (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I support keeping the article here + a new 'Georgian scripts' heading. — Lfdder (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you mean in keeping the article here. What do you mean? Jaqeli (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

At "Georgian alphabet" — Lfdder (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you support moving it to "Georgian scripts"? Jaqeli (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: @Lfdder: I changed my mind. Better to move it to the plural form. So I've updated and changed the requested move to its plural form. Please state again your position on the issue. Jaqeli (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support, though the new name would imply a different emphasis than what we currently have. If the article is to be about the Georgian scripts in the abstract, then I think the Mkhedruli stuff should be less about Georgian in particular, with more emphasis placed on other languages written in it. Okay, a couple are hardly written at all, and Georgian would still be first among equals, but we should discuss literacy and literature in Mingrelian and Laz, and maybe others. The Georgian alphabet itself might be split off, or maybe moved to the language article the way the Mingrelian alphabet is. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes we should expand if good sources are found. Svan, Mingrelian and Laz are much needed to be written at least some part of it describing the current situation written by Mkhedruli. Jaqeli (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Is it a single script? Maybe we should use the plural? — kwami (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In Georgian it is known just as "script" though it recognizes and includes 3 scripts into 1. It is called as "დამწერლობა" not "დამწერლობები" (plural). Jaqeli (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But Georgian usage isn't relevant to English. — kwami (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1 Georgian script includes 3 Georgian scripts. That's how it is. Jaqeli (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to argue this, you need to show that's how it is *in English*. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you see as a problem in its singular form? Jaqeli (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's wrong: It's not a script. — kwami (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So what is it? Jaqeli (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What we said: It's three. There is no single Georgian script. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems, inviting people interested in the general subject of writing systems to come here and comment. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Kwamikagami that “Georgian scripts“ would be a better title, or perhaps “Georgian alphabets” or “Georgian writing” (although this might be confused with Georgian literature). I certainly agree with the proposer that the present name is unsatisfactory, as the article covers three distinct scripts, and at least alludes to the existence of more than one mkhedruli alphabet. That said, I don’t have a strong objection to “Georgian script”, which would at least be an improvement, and seems to line up with the Latin and Cyrillic articles (the latter seems to me particularly worth emulating) in comprising a range of regional & historical varieties.—Odysseus1479 08:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: What about Georgian writing system? like Japanese writing system? But that would be too long title for Georgian I think. Jaqeli (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I considered mentioning it, but thought it a little too technical or formal—and longish, as you say: I guess my third suggestion was a shortened version of it.—Odysseus1479 07:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please state your support or oppose in the above section maybe? Jaqeli (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The lede needs a rewrite. — Lfdder (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)