Talk:Tbilisi/Archives/2007/August

Archives

Heavy POV

The article contains elements of modern nationalist mythology, including such recently introduced concepts as the "independence of Georgia" between 1917 and 1921. Many villages in of the former Russian Empire also considered themselves independent during the period, and some (like the Don Republic) were even accorded international recognition, something which the Menshevist administration at Tbilisi failed to achieve. Please refrain from revising history. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is just another manifestation of Ghrilandajo's Great Russian nationalist POV. Georgia between 1918 and 1921 was not "an independent Russian village" but an internationally recognized nation. Even you beloved Soviet government recognized it in the Treaty of Moscow (1920). Please refrain from ethnic insults and consult some scholarly sources.--Kober^Talk 15:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your tongue. The article about the treaty should be rewritten. It is ill-advised to recast the ideological clash between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions of the Soviets under modern nationalist colors and trumpet about "Russian invasion of Georgia". Following this logic, we'll have to rename Sochi conflict into "Georgian invasion of Russia". The point to hold in mind is that the "invasion" was engineered by Georgians active in Moscow, such as Stalin. Please leave Russia alone. This article is not a very suitable place for another round of Russia-bashing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to apply the same tongue standards to yourself also then. The treaty article is based on credible scholarly sources and documents found in secondary sources. Even Stalin's notorious role in engineering the sovietization of Georgia doesn't make this tragedy a "Georgian invasion of Georgia". Stalin, Ordzhonikidze, Beria and co were banned from independent Georgia, but embraced by the nascent Russian proletariat state. The 11th Red Army was entirely a Russian army, wasn't it? So, please leave Tbilisi and Georgia alone. I presume your resurgent aggression towards Georgia is precipitated by the appearance of Russian translation of the Red Army invasion of Georgia article.--Kober^Talk 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the two other articles on fellow "villages" (Baku, Yerevan) in South Caucasia also contain similar Independence sections. They also make references to the Soviet Russian invasion and occupation (sic), but you don't seem to find those articles "modern nationalist fantasies".--Kober^Talk 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the period between 1917 and 1921, the former Russian Empire was a patchwork of about 300 entities claiming "independence". The process was known as the Russian Civil War. I don't see why three entries out of three hundred should be singled out as particularly "independent" on the basis of their current political status. I don't appreciate your incivil comments ("your resurgent aggression towards Georgia", etc) and I will have to apply to the appropriate venue if I see a relapse of incivility on your part. Also, please stop removing the superior Aivazovsky view of the town. Please explain what's wrong with it. You are close to breaking 3RR. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blackmailing me and intentioanlly misleading the reader. I really enjoy Aivazovsky's view, but we've already got two pictures depicting downtown Tbilisi under Imperial Russian rule. Now care to explain what's wrong with the historical photo of the parading Red Army in the street of overrrun Tbilisi? As for the Russian Civil War, it was Russia's internal problem since Moscow recognized Georgia's independence in May 1920. All major powers followed the move and recognized Georgia. This is a textbook stuff. However, I'm not inclined to prove you anything. Just try to look through the scholarly publications.--Kober^Talk 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who chose to politicise the Bolshevik-Menshevik conflict (an internal ideological conflict between the Soviets) as "Russia's invasion of Georgia" and to trumpet it as such on this page. It was you who conducted a sterile revert war removing the superior historical image in favour of a politically motivated photo with an inflammatory caption. Does it have anything to do with the fact that the Armenians like Aivazovsky were the predominant population of Tiflis in the 19th century, one point that does not readily square up with the nationalist rewriting of the history of Georgia? --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My statements are supported by scholarly sources while your accusations and assumptions are as false as ever. Nobody in Georgia denies that Armenians were a largest single ethnic group in 19th-century Tbilisi due to several reasons including a preferential treatment of Armenians over Georgians at the hands of Russian authorities: please refer for a detailed account to A Making of the Georgian Nation by the Armeno-American historian Ronald Grigor Suny. Here's an article about Armeno-Georgian relations by an Armenian expert which agrees to what Suny says. I hope you don't consider him "a nationalist rewriter of the history of Georgia". As for the Bolshevik-Menshevik conflict, I agree that it was an ideological conflict (but nor between the Soviets as there were no Soviets in Georgia), but most importantly it was a conflict between two independent nations - Georgia and Russia. Next time you decide to waste my time and energy, please consider providing some sources for your claims and please wash your mouth when you talk about Georgia.--Kober^Talk 04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added the Aivazovksy work to Old Tbilisi to make you happy.--Kober^Talk 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, it's not a matter of my "happiness" as you seem to think. It's a matter of historical integrity. Removing the inconvenient image to a low-traffic page is never a solution. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an image gallery. We've got commons for that. If you want we can substitute Leromontov's painting with that of Aivazovsky.--Kober^Talk 04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions only demonstrate extreme Russian nationalistic POV pushing and agenda here. This should be taken into consideration when reading your comments. None of your arguments seem NPOV and can outweigh scholarly sources used by Kober. Iberieli 01:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I agree that those events in Georgia were part of Russian civil war, and Soviets occupied Menshevik Georgia, not too differentrly from as did they other parts of the former Russian empire. The "conflict between two independent nations - Georgia and Russia" and the spirit is also bit fancy. But, "independence of Georgia" between 1917 and 1921 is not a myth, and tagging the statement that Tbilisi was the capital of the country is an inadequate reaction and quite evil. Btw here --> Estonia they speak of [Soviet] "colonization". Tamokk 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I agree (with Tamokk, not with Estonians, obviously). Alæxis_¿question? 06:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entered\invaded

We are talking only about Tbilisi here. I think that the word 'entered' more adequately describes what happened. Alæxis_¿question? 06:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are talking about Tbilisi. Please read Red Army invasion of Georgia#Battle for Tbilisi. Tbilisi was invaded, looted and people were executed en masse.--Kober^Talk 06:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, are going you to invade any article I edit? --Kober^Talk 06:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really surprising to you that Telavi is in the watchlist of a major contributor to Georgia-related articles? I'm sorry but Tbilis is not a new article but predated your arrival here. You don't seem to have questioned anything in the article until you spotted the current discussion.--Kober^Talk 06:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo's double standards

After ru interwiki appeared in the Red Army invasion of Georgia, for the first time in my Wikilife, I got interested in Russian Wikipedia. There's an ongoing discussion about the article's title there and, to my surprise, I found Ghirlandajo's comment which absolutely contradicts his principal claims on this talk page:

Советую изучить en:Treaty of Moscow (1920). По этому договору Советская Россия признала независимость Грузии и обещала не вмешиваться в дела этого независимого государство. [Попытки задним числом «запамятовать» про этот юридический акт признания не имеют ничего общего ни с Саакашвили, ни с Бурджанадзе.] Вооружённый конфликт двух государств, взаимно признающих друг друга независимыми, — это как раз и есть война, а не установление чьей то там власти. —Ghirla -трёп- 15:34, 29 августа 2007 (UTC) [1]

This is yet another testimony to the provocative character of the current discussion initiated by Ghirlandajo.--Kober^Talk 06:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you I'd be happy Ghirla opposes anti-Georgian pov in ru-Wikipedia. Alæxis_¿question? 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? LOL. You gave me a good lough. And what about English Wikipedia where I live? --Kober^Talk 07:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]