Talk:Kingdom of Iberia

message: Does anyone know the origin of the name "IBERIA" as it pertains to Georgia? 
There are several, and often contradictory, arguments regarding the origin of the name as it pertains to SPAIN. I wondered if I could find some linguistic link that would bind the two, however apart geographically, but in the case of the Georgian "Iberia" - I'm drawing a blank, online. All I find is information that Georgia was so called in antiquity, but not WHY. (unsigned comment added by 67.0.114.28)
::"There are several, and often contradictory, arguments regarding the origin of the name as it pertains to SPAIN."
::HISPANIA... Lusitano Transmontano 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's unsourced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.112.4 (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Its not true Basque connection with Caucasus still has tons of evidence and research is initiated long time ago. Its not discredited. Euskera 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iberia 

message: I've removed this image because:
*It's not about a Causasian Iberian soldier but an Iberian warrior.
*It's not a Roman relief but an Iberian relief.
*And it's not in Rome but in Madrid, at the National Archaeological Museum of Spain.
I took an image of the piece myself, which is at Commons. --Zaqarbal 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources for that claim? Ldingley 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removed 

message: "Iberian" peninsula comes from the name of the Iber (Ebro) river.
Also, most speculation and purported similarities between Basque and Caucasian languages focused on Northeast (Nakh-Dagestanian) languages; Kartvelian, which is forms another language family, is not considered as similar.KelilanK 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Can anyone remove this line "cris is funny looken"?
Someone put this in early history and it don`t seen related.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.154.2 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove line 

message: The number of footnotes in the first paragraph renders it virtually unreadable. Would it be possible to combine the strings in a note? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Iberia and Colchis, both, were ethnic Georgian kingdoms.
Iberia was eastern Georgian kingdom when Colchis was western Georgian kingdom of Svans and Mingrelians.
Stop vandalising the article and stop removing the sourced information. GEORGIANJORJADZE 09:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, GJ, I don't think one can consider Dbachmann's edits vandalism. The lead was overburdened with barely relevant sources, the infobox overextended, and you also blindly reverted improvements in style and layout. You need to discuss without accusing people, and please don't reinsert this useless barrage of sources - better to have 1 good reference clearly linked to a claim in the article than 20 google books search results for uncontroversial parts of the lead. If you have objections to specific parts of the article, please list them here for discussion.Susuman77 (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Iberia and Colchis were ethnic Georgian kingdoms where Georgian and other Kartvelian languages were spoken. They spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet and were Georgians. This is an established fact. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Where do you see a Georgian source here? All the sources say it was a Georgian state. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had bothered going through the changes I made, you would have noticed that the role of Iberia and Colchis in Georgian history is prominent in the leads I rewrote. I object mostly to your pile-up of mostly irrelevant sources that clutter the opening sentences. No one here is denying the "Georgianness" of Iberia and Colchis. I even put forward Toumanoff's judgment on Colchis being the first Georgian formation. You just have to understand that we have to follow an encyclopedic style; that having the word "Georgian" in the very first sentence of the article, while satisfying nationalist pride, is not the encyclopedic way to go to describe ancient political entities, and that your accumulation of references from books and authors whose primary field of study is not ancient Georgian history only weakens your claims.Susuman77 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You say you don't deny its Georgianness and on the other hand you DO NOT mention that it was a Georgian state? How did they speak Georgian language and wrote in Georgian if it was not a Georgian state? Where is the logic? And what is that its name starts with its Greek name? Where is Georgian name of it? Colchis and Iberia both were Georgian states and this is not a nationalistic pushing from my side. It is the fact. Those people were Georgians and the states were also Georgian. Put the wording as it has to be. GEORGIANJORJADZE 21:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "you DO NOT mention that it was a Georgian state?" : for Colchis, see 3rd paragraph of the lead, for Iberia the 3rd sentence (plus mentions of their georgian names, the big history of Georgia infobox, etc.) There's no risk that people will not see the link between Iberia and Colchis and Georgia. "And what is that its name starts with its Greek name? Where is Georgian name of it?" Greek names come first because that's the language from which those names came into English - for Iberia at least, the Georgian name is different - Kartli, even though Iberia was later reappropriated into the Georgian language. Still, I added the Georgian transcription of it so that it's more clear. For the rest of your comment, I think we're all aware of the importance of those states for Georgian history, there's no need to restate it at every possible occasion. Susuman77 (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article starts with: "...was the name for a kingdom of the Southern Caucasus" What is this? What will the reader understand what or whose kingdom was that? If they spoke Georgian then how on earth it was not a Georgian monarchy then? In case of Colchis is the same. Put the right wording in the lead as it confuses the reader. GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just calling them "Georgian kingdoms" is an oversimplification of what the sources say. Colchis is not only a Georgian monarchy, it is also a cultural region, defined by the interaction between local Kartvelian culture and Greek culture, as witnessed by its role in Greek mythology. Only the progressive cultural and political fusion of Colchis and Georgia gave birth to Georgia; before that process (starting with the Conversion of Kartli), Iberia, strictly speaking, is Iberian, or Kartlian; the nation-building process is only starting. Also, as far as language is concerned, the unification of Georgian language is also linked to evangelization and the development of the alphabet - all later processes - Colchis and Iberia spoke Kartvelian languages that evolved into Georgian. Anyway, we might need a third opinion about the phrasing of the lead if you cannot agree with those arguments; please keep me informed if you want to pursue such recourse. Susuman77 (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I do support perfection in every way of these two articles. But your words don't make any logic at all. Do you say that there was no Georgian language in Iberia and Colchis? Well that is just ridiculous. Iberia was 100 % Georgian monarchy while Colchis was the mix of all Kartvelian tribes and not only Mingrelo-Lazs but Svans as well. Why don't you mention Svans in there? I am partly Svan as well and it is unacceptable. And yes Georgia with real sense of Georgia was after these 2 kingdoms united but it does not mean they were something different when they were seperate. Colchis was a Georgiano-Svano-Zan monarchy when Iberia was 100 % Georgian monarchy. This should be definitely mentioned. Svans should be mentioned by all means as we Svans are the most ancient Georgians in the Georgian subgroup of our nation. GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reliable sources to back up your assertions? National pride is not the best way to build wikipedia, I'm afraid, as it can lead to a loss of any idea of proportion and objectivity. Susuman77 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Again you're talking about nationalism. Colchis was a Georgian-Svan-Zan monarchy of all Kartvelian tribes when Iberia was 100 % Georgian monarchy with it's language, script etc. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suggest to move this page to Iberia (Kartli). GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:Dbachmann]] Stop vandalising the article 

message: I am proposing to move this article to Iberia (Kartli) as it needs to have its Georgian name as the kingdom was a Georgian one and needs to have its own name within the article name. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose – Kartli already exists, as an article about the region. Caucasian Iberia is about the ancient history of that region and the political entity that existed on its territory. The usual and easiest way to disambiguate it from its obvious homonym in Spain is to use "Caucasian"; most readers more familiar with Ancient history than with Georgian history won't know what Kartli is, and won't be helped by your suggested title. That Iberia is Ancient Kartli is made clear in the lead, and Kartli is bolded; your statements of "need" seem only motivated, once again, by national/ethnic pride and not NPOV. Susuman77 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose per above. I want to note this is not how you request a move. Lacking the proper templates, this will never be closed or resolved. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move on instructions how to do this.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving [[Caucasian Iberia]] to [[Iberia (Kartli)]] 

message: :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 as nominator. Jaqeli (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Why this article don't mention them ? İberia was ruling Albania and Armenia in their times. Meambokhe (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I. Pharsmanes and Rhadamistus 

message: Greetings User:Awibs. For moves the WP:MOVE should be utilized. Also the names are different for those two polities and dates are incorrect. Please discuss before the moves. I appreciate your feedback. An emperor /// Ave 01:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move