Jump to content

Talk:Svans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latest changes

[edit]

Dear Maunus, despite you being an admin and apparently interested in linguistics and ethnography, I'm being bold to point it out that both claims displayed in your edit summary "there is no such rhing as an "ethnographic group" or "georgian proper" Svan is not a variety of Georgian it is more closely related to Laz" illustrates your apparent lack of information regarding the Kartvelian groups. So I would ask you to discuss your rationale before eliminating the information from the article. You can refer to my response on the 2008 Fringe Theories board to a user who had also questioned the very existence of a notion of "subethnic/ethnographic group". A quick search through Google Books does yield quite a few hits for both ethnographic group and subethnic group. In this particular case, I would prefer the term "subethnic group".

Subethnic groups exist within dominant ethnic groups or along-side other subethnic groups of the same genera. Subethnic groups share a common culture and maintain a sense of cultural homogeneity, but they vary to the extent that one sub-group may be distinguished from another in some cultural traits. The nature of subethnic groups can be rather complicated. (Milton Kleg, 1993, Hate, Prejudice, and Racism, p. 40. SUNY Press, ISBN:079141535X)

This definition makes it pretty much clear that nothing is as simple as it seems to modern conservative linguists and their followers. The Svans have long considered themselves as part of the Georgian ethnos, despite the difference in some cultural traits; such as their primary tongue, which is different from, albeit related to the Georgian language. Regarding "Georgians proper", this is a long-accepted designation for that part of the Georgian people, who speak the Georgian language primarily. Thus it excludes Mingrelians and Svans. Although I agree the term has become somewhat out-of-date.

Regarding the erroneous assertion that "Svan is not a variety of Georgian it is more closely related to Laz". How so? Just look at a genealogical tree of the Kartvelian languages. Svan broke away from the Proto-Kartvelian language long before the separation of proto-Megrelo-Laz (aka Zan language) and Georgian. So linguistically Laz and Georgian are closer to each other, than Laz and Svan, and Georgian and Svan. Next, Laz and Svan are geographically rather separated. The Svans dwell in the extreme north of Georgia. Then come the Georgians of the provinces of Racha and Lechkhumi, then Mingrelians, than the Georgians of Guria and Adjara, and then, across the border of Turkey, the Laz. Religion also plays an important role in shaping the identity of these groups. The Svans are Christian, adhering to the Georgian Orthodox Church, while most Laz, living in Turkey, are Muslim. Quite interestingly, the smaller part of the Laz who dwell in Georgia (primary in the villages of Sarpi and Gonio near the Turkish border) are Christians and proudly self-identify as Georgians. Again the problem of identity in the region is not as simple as it seems at a first glance. There are many shared identities and many divisive factors. For a more detailed and quite an even-handed discussion of the Laz identity by a first-hand observer see Uncertain divides: religion, ethnicity, and politics in the Georgian borderlands by M.E. Pelkmans, 2003. Thanks, KoberTalk 04:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Laz who dwell in Abkhazia self-identify as Laz. Apswaaa (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, please? I hope you won't produce a Russian-operated Bagapsh website and an Abkhaz web-forum. I need reliable, third-party sources for your claims. Clear? --KoberTalk 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Visit Abkhazia and check it. Laz language used to be written in Abkhazia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Okitxuseni_Supara.jpg Apswaaa (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Visit Abkhazia and check it"? Heh! And you think this is how Wikipedia works, right? You're simply ridiculous. --KoberTalk 15:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not editing a wiki article, I just informed you about their self-identification in Abkhazia. Apswaaa (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM. --KoberTalk 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And what has your post to do with the above discussion? --KoberTalk 04:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apswaaa, for propagandist editors such as you, Laz or Mingrelian self-identification does not matter. The only thing that matters for you is to portray them as different as possible, stoking ethnic tensions and separatism. This is why you always target Georgia-related articles. Spreading secessionist propaganda is your only goal.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 22:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aren’t you tired of using the word “separatism”? Laz are Laz in Abkhazia, professional Georgian wiki-liars can’t do anything with it. My goal is to spread truthful information which is so dangerous for Georgia. Apswaaa (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you are spreading is lies and secessionist propaganda. I will get tired only when you stop this endless POV pushing as a means of bringing the criminal statelet Abkhazia to prominence.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 01:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apswaaa, our brave warrior for the Truth, stop attacking others on their ethnic background. Don't you see that your behavior creates a malicious circle and prevents any meaningful discussion from taking place here? --KoberTalk 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Does not this talk page belong to the Svan article? Please bring the discussion to the relevant talk page. --KoberTalk 04:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups

[edit]

The same motivation: Talk:Mingrelians

Svan language and Megrels are a Svan group languages of Kartvelian languages family) - it is a fact research (see sources: Ethnologue. Language Family Trees-Svan; Joshuaproject; Stephen F. Jones: Svans).

Do not understand the motivation to remove the scientific point of view of (linguistic) and do not understand the motivation for removing the carrier distribution maps of the Kartvelian languages, including Svan

Please do not cancel and do not violate the rule neutral point of view --PlatonPskov (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is it?. Changes in the comments said - template. What prevents a template (pattern)? Each point discussed? Template standard for ethnic groups and sub-ethnic groups. Please do not cancel without explanation. Please do not carry the war revisions in the standard templates and revisions --PlatonPskov (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are the arguments against the template? --PlatonPskov (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't jump from page to page. Let's discuss your grievances on Talk:Mingrelians.--KoberTalk 14:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last two sources say that the Svans are a subgroup within the Georgian people. The first one say nothing about their ethnic status or identity. It provides just a list of more or less distinct groups of the population of Georgia, without going into details regarding their identity.--KoberTalk 16:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read carefully these sources. Please read carefully these sources, especially the first: Svans have a separate section. Do not need your opinions. There are facts in the source.--PlatonPskov (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not wage war --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Separate section in a book does not make the group ethnically separate. Your impressions are irrelevant. Please give the exact citations from these sources characterizing the Svans as a separate ethnic group. --KoberTalk 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war is what you're pursuing here. The discussion is still ongoing. In order to change something what is deemed controversial you'll have to consensus on talk page. --KoberTalk 16:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An edit war is what you're pursuing here. You do not look for consensus, you will roll back all my changes (paired war against all of my design edits). All my changes - the damage the war. Admins are needed, not politicians in science. --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. You wanted admin involvement and I reported you. Let them decide who is responsible for inciting an edit war when the discussion is still ongoing on talk pages. --KoberTalk 16:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kober|Kober]]Talk 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get your last remark. I'd still like to ask you to focus on sources and respond to the issues I raised in my previous post.--KoberTalk 17:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"separate book chapter=/=separate ethnic group" formula, it is an original research. "...as it seems to me..." - Yes, as it seems to you. Conversely we can say as well. You are all the rules and facts come near for you opinion. You My facts reject: linguistic sources.
There is no consensus in, and due to the policy of the Georgian SSR and Georgia. That's the uncertainty in the sources. But there are two points of view - the official (as Ruthenians in Ukraine), and linguistic. You reject linguistics in this matter.
My questions and did not answered. Do not have given an example of people groups with two languages ​​from two different language groups. Do not answer the question on the template. --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited an authoritative source citing as examples many groups in Africa and India, which are subgroups of a larger ethnic category, but still speak different languages. I've also cited sources which say that ethnic identity is a complex set of social and cultural values and traits. And the linguistic factor, albeit important, does not always play the decisive role in identity formation. In short, "one language=one ethnos" formula is not always true. That's also the case here: Mingrelians and Svans speak languages different, albeit related, to the Georgians proper. They consider themselves to be Georgian and are characterized by scholarly sources as subethnic groups of the Georgians on account of their shared culture and ethnic identity. The process of ethnogenesis is not that simple as you see it. I'm tired of copy-pasting the citations here and there. But if you insist I can copy them here too.--KoberTalk 17:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make things worse, there's a considerable languages barrier between us, but I'm going to be patient enough to once again explain the examples taken from Breton's Geolinguistics as simply as possible. Let's take two peoples, A and B. The A group speaks the language A and the B group speaks the language B, but they share many other cultural traits and values and are, therefore, characterized as subgroups within larger ethnic category. How else to explain anything this seemingly simple thing. The Mingrelians speak Mingrelian (+Georgian, both natively), the Svans speak Svan (+Georgian, both natively), the Georgians proper speak Georgian. These three languages are different, but related and placed within the same Kartvelian family. All these three groups share the ethnic identity and numerous cultural traits. Furthermore, Mingrelians and Svans identify themselves as Georgian. That's why they are considered by sources I've cited several times to be subethnic groups of the Georgian people.--KoberTalk 18:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subethnic groups exist within dominant ethnic groups or along-side other subethnic groups of the same genera. Subethnic groups share a common culture and maintain a sense of cultural homogeneity, but they vary to the extent that one sub-group may be distinguished from another in some cultural traits. The nature of subethnic groups can be rather complicated. (Milton Kleg, 1993, Hate, Prejudice, and Racism, p. 40. SUNY Press, ISBN:079141535X

The number of Mingrelian speakers is declining, and most Mingrelian speakers positively identify themselves as "Georgian" (Kartveli). Prof. Stephen F. Jones of Mount Holyoke College, "Mingrelians", in: David Levinson [ed., 1996], Encyclopedia of World Cultures, p. 262. University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0816118086

The Georgian or Kartvelian nation comprises an impressively diverse set of local sub-ethnic communities, each with its characteristic traditions, cuisine, manners and dialect (or language). The Svans number about 40,000, most of whom inhabit... Prof. Kevin Tuite of Université de Montréal. The Meaning of Dæl. Symbolic and Spatial Associations of the South Caucasian Goddess of Game Animals. Université de Montréal website.

All these are ethno-linguistic studies published in the West, not in Georgia. Stephen F. Jones and Kevin Tuite are two leading experts on the Caucasian cultures. What else do you want? --KoberTalk 18:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: By the way, these authors used the original Georgian sources and use - there is clearly no, and will not be a linguistic point of view. Again, I do not reject the official point of view. --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you want? I did not remove them

Kevin Tuite ([1]): «Some may know the languages of neighboring ethnic groups (e.g., Mingrelian, Balkar).»
Stephen F. Jones ([2]): «Some may know the languages of neighboring ethnic groups (e.g., Mingrelian, Balkar).»
These are the facts from sources. If this is speculation - it is only your opinion (original). What else do you want?
If you do not remove the controversial articles (where no is subethnic group, Subgroup or are not thematic (1.Politics of the Black Sea: Dynamics of Cooperation and Conflict, by Tunç Aybak, p 185 - Only the word: «...Georgians (Megrels)...»; (2) Andropov, New Challenge to the West, by Arnold Beichman, Mikhail S. Bernstam, p 116 - Only the phrase: «Georgia [!] consists of three ethnics tribes: Imeretians, Kartvels, and Mingrelians.»), then do not delete the 2th linguistic point of view. --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to stick to those bypassing notes. Mentioning Mingrelians along with Balkars under the same epithet is not particularly informative in this case. In you own words, it is just "only the word" occurrence along the lines of Aybak's «...Georgians (Megrels)...». The citations I've posted above provide clear-cut definitions of the term "subethnic group" and the reasons why the Mingrelians and Svan fit this category. Tunç Aybak can be removed. It is complementary to the cited sources, but of no particular value here. «Georgia [!] consists of three ethnics tribes: Imeretians, Kartvels, and Mingrelians.» In this case, the author apparently implies "Georgians" as the country of Georgia obviously consists more than three ethnic groups, such as Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Abkhaz, etc. But this can also be removed from sources. And Levinson should also go as it does not even classify the Svans in ethnic terms.--KoberTalk 18:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic group is in the sources. Levinson identified Svan separately - this is his view on the ethnic group (Although classify is no details not in detail, but the selection alone - it is a fact). Also, you make a conclusion on the point of view of the subgroup (subgroup although not all is in the sourses). --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

source

[edit]
GeorgianJorjadze, please do not make edits without discussion, please not to wage war. Does not roll back changes reasoned. This edit is destructive. It contains incorrect references and data.
  1. For example in the link - Levinson, David. Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1998. p 34 - no information about the Svan not. On the contrary, on page 35 there is a separate article about the people Svans.
  2. In joshuaproject have information about the peoples (Georgians, Megrels, Svans), but not about the subethnos of the Georgians.
  3. Here (Stephen F. Jones. Svans. World Culture Encyclopedia. Retrieved on March 13, 2011) is it: The Svans are one of the dozen or so traditionally recognized ethnic subgroups within the Georgian (Kartvelian) nation... Some may know the languages of neighboring ethnic groups (e.g., Mingrelian, Balkar).
  4. In Ethnologue. Language Family Trees and Svans there is a linguistic structure of the Kartvelian languages​​, including separate from the Georgian, Svan language group
  5. Re you put a link to Stephen F. Jones: Svans?
  6. Here (The Svans Kevin Tuite Université de Montréal 1992) is the same as above: The Svans are one of the dozen or so traditionally recognized ethnic subgroups within the Georgian (Kartvelian) nation... Some may know the languages of neighboring ethnic groups (e.g., Mingrelian, Balkar).

More reasoned edits, and links to validated data and sources: The Svans (Georgian: [სვანი, Svani] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) are a subethnic group of Georgians (Kartvelian)[1] or Caucasian ethnic group[2][3][4][5][6] with their own language[7][8][1], living mostly in Svaneti, a region in northwest Georgia.

  1. ^ a b Stephen F. Jones. Svans. World Culture Encyclopedia. Retrieved on March 13, 2011
  2. ^ R. Wixman. The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook (p.181): «Svan ... The Svanetians are one of the Kartvelian peoples of the Georgian SSR»
  3. ^ Levinson, David. Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1998. p 35
  4. ^ joshuaproject
  5. ^ D.N. Ushakov's Dictionary
  6. ^ Modern Dictionary of Russian language. Efremova T.F. 2000
  7. ^ Ethnologue. Language Family Trees-Svan
  8. ^ The Svans Kevin Tuite Université de Montréal 1992

Explanations:

  1. Here (Stephen F. Jones. Svans. World Culture Encyclopedia. Retrieved on March 13, 2011) is it: The Svans are one of the dozen or so traditionally recognized ethnic subgroups within the Georgian (Kartvelian) nation... Some may know the languages of neighboring ethnic groups (e.g., Mingrelian, Balkar).
  2. Here (R. Wixman. The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook (p.181)): is it: «Svan ... The Svanetians are one of the Kartvelian peoples of the Georgian SSR»
  3. On the contrary, on page 35 there (Levinson, David. Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1998.) is a separate article about the people Svans.
  4. In joshuaproject have information about the peoples (Georgians, Megrels, Svans), but not about the subethnos of the Georgians.
  5. Here (D.N. Ushakov's Dictionary) is the definition of Svans
  6. Here (Modern Dictionary of Russian language. Efremova T.F. 2000) is the definition of Svans
  7. In Ethnologue. Language Family Trees and Svans there is a linguistic structure of the Kartvelian languages​​, including separate from the Georgian, Svan language group
  8. Here (The Svans Kevin Tuite Université de Montréal 1992) is the same as above: The Svans are one of the dozen or so traditionally recognized ethnic subgroups within the Georgian (Kartvelian) nation... Some may know the languages of neighboring ethnic groups (e.g., Mingrelian, Balkar).

My edits reasoned and substantiated link. Your edits, GeorgianJorjadze, is destructive and do not correspond of the sources. Once again I ask you not to conduct destructive edits on Wikipedia, and not to wage war --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the "In the pre-1930 Soviet census, the Svans were afforded their own ethnic group (natsional'nost) category." text that GeorgianJorjadze deleted without giving any edit summary/explanation. It appears to be properly sourced - and (presumably) data from that census would be available to use in the article at some point. Meowy 19:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GeorgianJorjadze and others... Is there any explanation of these changes? My arguments is higher. And higher - criticism of these obscure changes (There are many references to sources where there are no data on sub-ethnic groups of Georgians). Please do not edit without explanation, much less no wage a war of edits (with destructive changes, changes to destructive informativeness). --PlatonPskov (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for an explanation. As long as, i remove a sources, in which there is no information where Svans is "sub-ethnic group of Georgians" --PlatonPskov (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgianJorjadze, You'll be a long time wage war update your edits without explanation and without discussion? --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Until now, there is no argument for these changes = these changes. My arguments against - the above (1-6 points, with quotations)
  2. So far there are no arguments against this change. My argument above (Explanations: 1-8 points, with quotations). --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there was no argument against these changes, then i is return the reasoned version of a neutral point of view with references (two point of view). Amended the wording more neutral. --PlatonPskov (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added a template. Objections should not be. --PlatonPskov (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond being very poor English, your edits are not supported by the sources cited. Plus the "with their own language" is a meaningless emphasis as the Svan language is mentioned in the very next sentence. The parenthetic "Kartvelian" following the word "Georgian" is also meaningless as the link leads to the article about the language group.--KoberTalk 19:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also removing Russian from the language list. In 2012, it is not the major secondary language for the Svans. I bet more Svans speak English than Russian nowadays. :)--KoberTalk 19:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your bad English is pretty much a problem. I understand nothing from what you have just posted. What I know for sure is that your sources don't support your awkwardly "formulated" statement and your use of parenthetical explanations only makes the things worse, bringing your style of editing very close to WP:OR. "The Svans (Georgian: სვანი, Svani) are... sometimes as ethnic group (linguistically)" makes no sense. Plus I've already explained you that there is not need to mention "their own language" in every sentence of the lead section.--KoberTalk 18:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again

  • 1 and 2 this is one and the same source (but different authors?) - not authoritatively. Does not it seem strange that the two sources are copies of each other? And they have two different author?
  • The Georgians (Kartvelians) and just Georgians - two different things.
  • The Georgians it is the ethnic group. "Georgian (Kartvelian) nation", Kartvelian nation" it is the a Kartvelian language family (the peoples of the Kartvelian language family). As well as Indo-Europeans, the Sino-Tibetan, and so on. Therefore, the language (linguistic) point of view is a very important.
  • 1 and 2 is a uncertain source (uncertain data) with uncertain authorship. But I admit, these sources with the wording. Since this is a point of view. (What Svans speak and think in Georgian - no one denies). The view that Svans a sub-ethnic group of Georgians - is the first point of view.
  • But there is another point of view. Linguistic data. And sources that emit Svan separately. There are important rules for a neutral point of view. There is a second point of view.--PlatonPskov (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you ignore my "strange" sources and quotes, , but you not ignore to acknowledge your sources? (though they, too strange and non-authoritative). Arguments do not see, except for games with rules. --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, it is not strange at all as the author is exactly the same: Kevin Tuite here and Kevin Tuite here.
  2. "The Georgians (Kartvelians) and just Georgians - two different things.".. Err... So, "the Russians (Ruskye) and just Russians - two different things"? Care to explain, please...
  3. A "nation" is a nation, an "ethnic group" is an ethnic group, and a "linguistic group" is a linguistic group. You're confusing, intentionally or unintentionally, these categories.
  4. No, it is a published source. The entry on the Svans is authored by Kevin Tuite, a well-known expert on Georgian ethnology and Professor at the Université de Montréal. How came it is not a reliable source?
  5. "Linguistic data. And sources that emit Svan separately." What do you mean? I think noone denies that the Svans form a separate linguistic group within the Kartvelian family. But you have not proved that this fact makes them an ethnic group separate from the rest of the Georgian people. You'll have to provide more solid sources for your claims or prove that you are a spokesman for the Svans capable to express their ethnic identity.
  6. "Why do you ignore my "strange" sources and quotes"... I cannot accept the sources such as joshua project which uses a simple template for all groups and then classifies the deaf people as an "ethnic group". Your puerile stubbornness to see this simple fact is really surprising.
  7. "but you not ignore to acknowledge your sources? (though they, too strange and non-authoritative)"... Which sources do you mean? If Kevin Tuite and his article on Svans, then I have already proved that this is a printed work, not just a template-based half-amateurish website like Joshua Project. And Kevin Tuite is a respected scholar and specialist in the Caucasian linguistics and ethnology. Deal with this. --KoberTalk 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45... Russia. It significantly (census), as the Georgians and Svans is border with Russia and the estimates of the above. Russia - the country of resettlement of Georgians Svan including - one of the most numerous. Is nothing funny here. --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again. Again.
  1. Strange. The one source is given as two sources. (and in the notes - "various" authors) (In both cases - in the link is no "sub-ethnic group of the Georgian people," and is Especially since there "Georgian (Kartvelian) nation" - ambiguous generic term with no clear classification)
  2. "So, "the Russians (Ruskye) and just Russians - two different things"" - Err no. Is an example of a bad. You do not understand. Russian is not included in the Ruskye language family. Georgians is included in the Kartvelians language family. Georgians (Kartvelians) is narrow language family. Therefore, the values of the Georgians and Kartvelians - a few. The ethnic groups, the self (original name), the peoples of language family. (See Kevin Tuite and ... - "Georgian (Kartvelian) nation") Therefore, the language (linguistic) point of view is a very important
  3. I'm not confused. Confusion due to vague classification, misuse of reading and writing. Generalization of the concepts. (See item 2 above)
  4. Kevin Tuite. Even he is not unique and does not give an unambiguous classification. . See above item 2 and 3)
  5. No comments. See above item 2 and 3. See above (Kevin Tuite, Joshua project, David Levinson…)
  6. "I cannot accept the sources such as joshua project which uses a simple template for all groups and then classifies the deaf people as an "ethnic group". - That's your opinion and all. Joshua project is popular and authoritative source - this is my opinion. And do not make fun of the deaf. Census of the population of Russia also allocated language of the deaf. So what? This is your personal opinion (opinion not professional) or project (professional opinion).
  7. You have not shown a clear classification. Sourses have not shown a clear classification. And Kevin Tuite. Joshua project, David Levinson... Except repetition, have not heard anything new. Language classification gives the right to allocate ethnic groups. (See Mokshas). Other examples no seen.
  8. And remind. Is 2 a different point of view (and these two point of view in this sources is fuzzy). You see are only one point of view. It is not neutral for Wikipedia. Do not play with the rules (supposedly authoritative only what I see, "on the rules"). All sources here are authoritative and have the right to be two points of view, not just one. Your fear of the word "ethnic group" is a strange phobia and not neutral. Especially, sub-ethnic groups, and ethnic groups of the Georgian people, these authors often used interchangeably. Clear classification and they do not give because the Kartvelian language family is narrow and they all live in one country - Georgia (except Lazes, which often separate and isolated). However, the linguistic point of view, the Svans is an ethnic group of Svans group, Kartvelian language family. This is a scientific classification practice. Find you the opposite example - no other examples. Therefore, the language (linguistic) point of view is a very important.--PlatonPskov (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Svans in Russia

[edit]

Pskov, I don't know how else to express myself in order you to get my reasoning. The section in the infobox should list Regions with significant population. According to you, there are only 45 Svans found in the Russian census. How come it is a significant number? Are there any sources for higher estimates? If yes, please provide. I would eagerly agree to include them in the infobox. But 45 is way too much a minuscule number to be included in the infobox.--KoberTalk 17:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You specifically provoke me? Georgians in Russia a lot. Svans in Russia (according to the census) are part of "the Georgian people." Of course, there are actually more than 45 people (as most of Svan, Megrelians call themselves " Georgians"). In addition, in other countries - they are equal to zero (0). A 45 is greater than 0. What is unclear here. What prevents you with information about Russia? May be enough to use the rules, where do you want. Enough you is to require sources for elementary (basic) information. --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you mean by "specifically provoking", but let's put that aside. From what I can understand you're insisting that the significance of the number "45" lies in the fact that these guys in the Russian census specifically identify themselves as the Svans, not Georgians in general. Am I correct? Even if we tentatively assume that the fact I mentioned somehow makes the number "significant", it still creates a confusion for the reader who is not aware of the situation. I see three ways out of this. Either we should add a note that this 45 is the number of the self-identified Svans in the Russian census and not a real figure for this group, or add a source for higher estimates, or eliminate this not really important information at all. But we will still need a source for the note in the first of my suggestions. Regarding your claim that there are no Svans in the countries other than Georgia and Russia, it is not true. I've personally been to a district in Barcelona, which is pretty much densely populated by Georgians, specifically, by the Svans. Of course, I am not going to add this information to the article as I have no published sources for that. Any thoughts? --KoberTalk 17:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"45 is the number of the self-identified Svans in the Russian census" - and so it is understandable, since the census includes the self-identified. The census is the self-identified of peoples. Or make a determination of the census in note? This is elementary information. Note can and do. But the source of the assessment Svan in Moscow (Russia), and Barcelona, - is too. (It is clear that in New Yoke can be 7 Svan, in Barcelona - 10, ..., but it is not the source. In Russia, such a source - the census. At a minimum, this is encyclopedic and informative, as a maximum of 45 is greater than 0 in other countries, where there is no self-identification of the Svans) Large data do not, then 0 is less than 45, and 45 is essential information. --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possession of Svan language in Russia, according to census 2002 (сванским) - 153 people, census 2010 (сванским) - 71. It is already talking about statistics greater number of Svan, Svan-Georgian and Georgian ("exSvan").--PlatonPskov (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to your link, the Russian census includes different categories for the speakers of a particular language (Население Российской Федерации по владению языками) and for ethnic groups (Национальный состав населения Российской Федерации). Obviously, the current infobox can use the data from the latter category. The information from the former belongs to the Svan language, not here. And the 2010 census still puts the number of the Svans at 45 and, btw, lists them under the category "Georgians" (gruziny, not kartvely).--KoberTalk 19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These numbers - 71 - Language (2010, or 153 in 2002) and 45 - sub/ethnic group (2010, or 41 in 2002) and show that the Svan in Russia is more than self-identifications (45) of the census. Nothing new. The figures for the language - this is an additional source (for reflection), and not to replace 45 to 71. ["...lists them under the category "Georgians" (gruziny, not kartvely)..." - and it come in? Again, as most of Svan, Megrelians call themselves "Georgians". Language family (Kartvelian, kartvely) official census is never considered.]--PlatonPskov (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 30 June 2014

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svan people → Svans – Common and standard form. Jaqeli 22:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
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.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Svans&oldid=1205524344"