Talk:Sanigs

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Georgia 1st 2nd centuries AD.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ingorokva source shouldn't be deleted

@Alaexis What makes Pavle Ingorokvas work controversial? or what does year of the publishing have to do with whether or not its included? Lemabeta (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Transcaucasian Boundaries by John Wright et al (2003), p. 198

Though Ingoroq’va was discredited when the anti-Abkhazian policy of 1933–53 was reversed, it is essential to mention this distortion of history here, because his ideas are being enthusiastically redisseminated by certain individuals.

Kevin Tuite is slightly more polite, but still he calls Ingorokva's work historical revisionism, his claims controversial assertions and says To put it bluntly, Ingoroq’va’s project in Giorgi Merčule consisted in the erasure of non-Georgians, or those whose Georgianness was perceived as problematic, from the historical record of Abkhazia and southwestern Georgia.

The age of a source matters per WP:AGEMATTERS.

We have some newer Georgian sources in the article, I don't see any reason to add Ingorokva. Alaexis_¿question? 13:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis Pavle Ingorokva was an influential historian, whose main field of studies was Caucasus and history of the Caucasus. Your main reason of deletion of Pavle Ingorokva from the both Misimians and Sanigs pages is to Northwest Caucasianize the history of Georgian tribes. Unargumentative claims about Pavle Ingorokva shouldn't be taken seriously, if they have written the different opinion than provided by Ingorokva, then you can include it. But for example Ingorokva provided argumentative reasoning about Misimians being Svan tribe and you still deleted it.

I am asking now, why didn't you delete when the whole article was straight up claiming that Sanigs and Misimians were Northwest Caucasian speaking tribe? even naming their relative peoples as Circassian tribes?.

If there are newer sources provide them and change the text of Pavle Ingorokva instead of completely deleting. Lemabeta (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Per WP:ONUS it's your responsibility to achieve consensus for the information you're adding. You can see in the Misimians article that I've also removed spurious sources from the other "side." Alaexis_¿question? 21:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In the article of Misimians, argumentative conclusion of Pavle Ingorokva based on the writings of Strabo, Ptolemy, Faustus and other ancient, middle-ages writers/historians shouldn't deleted as he proved their origins by arguments and writings provided by the ancient writers.

In the article of Sanigs, its necessary to find newer sources and only after that delete the older source or the article will be left blank. Lemabeta (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that you've responded to my arguments about the issues with the source. I've raised it at WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 16:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

@Augmented Seventh, could you explain why you removed this content? Alaexis_¿question? 09:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely.

It appears to be LLM generated text, likely factual but with telltale signs of being written by AI.

I went to copy edit for odd markup and spacing, and came to this conclusion. I could be incorrect.

Should I take another look? Augmented Seventh (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That's unlikely considering that this text was written in 2012 . Alaexis_¿question? 10:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at it closer, and can find agreement with your assessment. I thought I noticed odd markup in the citations. Admittedly, this is not my field of study.

Thanks for catching my error, Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The version about the Georgian origin of the Sanigs should not be included in the article due to the lack of standards of scientific reliability.

About the first source in the section about Origins: ინგოროყვა პ. გიორგი მერჩულე, თბ., 1954 Ingorokva's theory of the Sanigs' Georgian origins was refuted by historian Zurab Vianorovich Anchabadze. This theory is not scientifically substantiated and is not recognized by the academic community. About the second source: მიქელაძე თ., ძიებანი კოლხეთის და სამხრეთ-აღმოსავლეთი შავიზღვისპირეთის უძველესი მოსახლეობის ისტორიიდან (ძვ. წ. II-I ათასწლეულები), თბ., 1974.

In this work, the author discusses the supposed Svan origin of the Heniochi. There is also a theory of the Abkhaz origin of the Heniochi, advanced by Yuri Nikolaevich Voronov. In any case, the theory of the Georgian origin of the Sanigs cannot be included in the article solely based on speculations about an ancient people/tribe that lived before the Common Era.

About the third source: Topchishvili, Roland. "Svaneti and Its Inhabitants (Ethno-historical Studies)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-10. Retrieved 2012-08-15.

Let's start with the fact that the history of a people is studied through archeology, anthropology, genetics, language, and the like, not through modern surnames. And this certainly doesn't mean that a particular tribe is the ancestor of a modern people. For example, in Russia, surnames like "Tatarinov" or "Cherkesov" don't necessarily indicate direct Tatar or Circassian descent. They're often simply nicknames given for trade, travel, or physical characteristics. Serfunoheda (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Serfunoheda, sorry for the late response. I agree with you about the first source, both because it's Pavle Ingorokva and because of WP:AGEMATTERS. The second source appears alright. As to the third one, I don't have an opinion on the methods used by the author but this work seems not to have been published in a scholarly journal or book and therefor it's not a reliable source. Alaexis_¿question? 19:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand, the author is a scholar so probably his work may be used with attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 19:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)