Talk:Mingrelians

Mingrelians are Mingrelian.

Mingrelians are a South Caucasian people and not subgroup of Georgians.Dauernd (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mingrelians are a ethnic subdivision of Georgian ethnos and identify themselves as such. Please provide sources for your claims. --Kober^Talk 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The self-designation of Mingrelians is margali, not kortu. Apswaaa (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, quit the edit warring please, you are both at 7RR apeice. Kober, despite what you may think about Dauernd's posting history, I think he raise a good point that if we make claims in the articles that Mingrelians, Svans, or Laz are a subdivision of Georgian ethnos, they need to be sourced. What many westerners reading these articles will wonder is why Mingrelian, Laz, Svan are considered Georgians but Ossetians, Abkhaz, Armenians and Azeris all born in Georgia are not considered Georgians. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your appearance here was more than expected, but I don't really understand your question. Dauernd, possibly a Turkish-Laz nationalist, has a typical POV, ignoring anything that would hint to their relations with Georgians. The Laz are not a subdivision of a Georgian ethnos, but are a linguistically and culturally closely related ethnic group. They underwent a separate way of ethnocultural and social evolution infuenced first by the Byzantine and then by the Turkish world. They don't identify themselves as part of Georgian people while the Mingrelians and Svans do. How about you both ask Mingrelians and Svans first? The sources are numerous and can be provided at any moment. One of them, an article authored by the established American scholar of the Caucasus, has also been inserted. Ethnogenesis is a complex process; some groups have fused to produce a single ethnos; others have disintegrated, etc. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 16:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kober, I am not Turkish. But yours this very simple machiavellian move. If that is true that you say, we must change South_Caucasian_peoples as "Georgian Subgroups" under the circumstances. Dauernd (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we should not. South_Caucasian_peoples is a broader category which also includes the Laz. Georgian Jews are also sometimes (but incorrectly, imo) included in it. --Kober^Talk 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kober, I came here because of the Britanica link you provided in Talk:Ochamchira and I wanted to do some more reading. I guess the unanswered question remains is why are Mingrelians and Svans considered a subgroup of Georgians but everyone else born in Georgia is not? And what exactly does it mean when we say X and Y peoples are a subgroup of Z peoples? If we disregard that the source you provided is not a WP:RS, it talks about linguistic affiliation. My understanding is that Mingrelian is more closely affiliated with Laz than with Kartuli so why are Mingrelians a subgroup but not Laz? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have already answered why they are and we both know how and why you came here. But let's put that aside. Linguistic affiliation is not a sole determinant of ethnicity. The link I provided explicitly says: "The number of Mingrelian speakers is declining, and most Mingrelian speakers positively identify themselves as "Georgian" (Kartveli)."[1]. It is an online version of a printed material (David Levinson [ed., 1996], Encyclopedia of World Cultures, p. 262. University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0816118086) and the contributors are well-established scholars. --Kober^Talk 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More paranoia Kober, suit yourself. But on topic, if Mingrelians and Svans consider themselves "Georgian", then that is what should be in the article and not some vague unsourced wording about "sub-ethnic groups". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We all remember your own paranoia, dear Poco. And the term “subethnic group” is as much vague as “ethnic group” itself. By your logic, I should reconsider my ethnic affiliation as well.--Kober^Talk 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's another passage from Kevin Tuite, another leading scholar of the Caucasian cultures:

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...

[2]--Kober^Talk 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kober, now there are somebodies on the World who consider themselves Napoleon and say that , but we don't call them as Napoleon.Dauernd (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That’s actually a psychiatric case. Are you suggesting that all Megrels and Svans are insane? You are smart, though. Kober^Talk 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That is (so Napoleon cases) a psychiatric case but Megrels' is an assimilation case and NOT psychiatric, certainly .Dauernd (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what? --Kober^Talk 17:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Interesting...If Migrelian Thoughts That He/She Is Georgian, Then Why U(Dauernd And Poco) Say, That They Are Not?..I Guess I Understand Reason Of Your Conduct...U Are Simple Provocateur. U Better Go And Write Articles About Your Country, Couse Fortunately We Know Who Are We--Gnome(G) (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this troll and vandal user Dauernd is under investigation of sockpoppetry and vandalism (for which he will be baned). Than it is ridiculous to claim that Mingrelians are ethnic group as much it is to claim that Novgorodians or Kiev Ukrainians are separate ethnic groups. Where are your sources for such a stupid and ultra-nationalist claim? Where are any hint of references in any reliable book or scholarly article which even suggest such propasterous claim? Are we basing the arguments on the blabbering of a troll and vandal xenophobe who has used racist attacks on Georgian users here? And what a surprise a Georgianophobe Prococo comes along to further deteriorate and further provoke uncalled colesion between long time contributors of Wikipedia and some Vandal troll. We are not obliged to waste time just because some Laz from Turkey (having wild dreams of ultra-nationalist euphoric grandiose of mythic Mingrelo-Laz ethnic group) have his strong anti-Georgian POV. I will consult with admins to ban this individual for good. End of dispute! Iberieli (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli, have you ever heard of Islamic Emirate of Lazistan? Lool... It is a years-old product of one troublesome user with similar agenda. --Kober^Talk 04:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you tone it down. Calling someone who disagrees with you a Georgiaphobe is a personal attack. If we are to believe Kober source it says "Mingrelian is a Kartvelian (South Caucasian) language, not mutually intelligible with Georgian" so your comparisons with Kiev Ukrainians don't really ring true. I believe my question is a valid one, why are some groups within Georgia considered sub-groups of Georgians and others are not? Some of these other groups can claim a presence in Georgia for many hundreds of years and might even have a shared ancestry with Georgians. To summarize, Mingrelian, Svan, and Kartuli speakers are considered subgroups of Georgians, yet Laz (who speak a language closer Mingrelian than Kartuli), Abkhaz, Ossetians, Georgian Jews, Meshketian Turks (who are probably just Turkish speaking Georgians), and Armenians and Azeris in Georgia are not considered Georgian. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you to tone down your blunt attacks on Georgia related articles and consult references and sources next time you pose any questions. I will start attaching tons of references in 3 days which will close this discussion for good. Im not even go as far as to explain the ridiculousness of Mingrelians being ethnic entity or allow myself to fall into your provocations. I think that only referenced materials should present a reliable information (rather deleting them like that vandal troll). I'll starts slowly (as times will allow) to attach references from various books. Any removal of referenced material is vandalism and appropriate actions will be taken. Iberieli (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not made any attacks or provocations, I just asked a very reasonable question about claims made in this article and some other articles in Wikipedia. It baffles me why you and Kober are so hostile towards others who might take an interest in your small corner of the world. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop victimizing yourself. You always reject any reference that does not suit POV. I remember your allegations that the U.N. does not recognize Abkhazia as part of Georgia and it is only up to Mother Russia to make Abkhazia an internationally recognized as part of Georgia. You've probably missed that even the latest anti-Georgian resolution adopted by the State Duma confirms its recognition of Georgia's territorial integrity including Abkhazia. Back to topic, I've already explained that a linguistic factor is not the sole determinant of ethnicity. It is the sum of multiple factors. Mingrelians, Svans, and Georgians proper have evolved into a single ethnos through a complex way of evolution, and all groups now call themselves Georgians. If you are really interested in, I can draw a brief excursus how this happened (and about the ethnogenesis of the Georgian ethnos in general). Your obvious and honest lack of information coupled with your inherent bias makes you unable to understand many aspects of this discussion and to develop a clear picture on what message Dauernd is actually trying to convey.--Kober^Talk 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry Poco, I think they were simply calling a spade a spade. (PaC (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

How so? In other words, where have I made any attacks or provocations on this page? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So far added 9 refs, will add more soon. Iberieli (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pocopo, you've failed to demonstrate that the refs provided by me and Iberieli are unreliable. You're just enjoying this situation. Your latest accusations of canvassing are also false. Please consult WP:Canvassing and then recheck my post in the Georgia Portal talk.--Kober^Talk 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kober, I have replied to you in the talk page where you first posted this question. Despite what you may believe, my question about the different ethnic groups in Georgia is a sincere question. Also, how do you feel about the fact that Sopho Khalvashi‎ (Laz ethnicity) is in the collage at the Georgians article yet the Laz peoples aren't considered a sub group of Georgians, just "closely related"?

Khalvashi is a surname of Laz origin. She comes from the Batumi-based Laz community which has long integrated into the Georgians. There're many families that trace their origins to Abkhaz, Ossetian, Ingush and Armenian roots. Suffice to have a look at the long list of Georgian noble houses. Bagapsh is also a surname of Laz origin, but the guy is Abkhaz. I don't think that your comparisons are correct.--Kober^Talk 04:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And plus Khalvashi remark is completely irrelevant when confronted with question of vandalizing referenced materials. I'm half Mingrelian, and actually speak Mingrelian dialect, also I have Svan origins. So what? Next time "proco" instead of enjoying and further elaborating on some xenophobe attacks by anon Turkish Laz (if he is Laz, which I highly doubt), I would suggest you to concentrate your energies on real problems. Kober, is a long time contributor to Wiki who has amazing contribution (a very long list of articles which he initiated and finished) to this encyclopedia. Kober, there is no need for any further discussion, this vandal will be "rv"-ed every time he deletes referenced materials which will finally lead him into indefinite ban. Lets not feed trolls. Case closed. Cheers. Iberieli (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, There, it is very simple to visit Georgia, and ask Megrelians and Svans, are they Georgians or not. 188.129.249.40 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Note

A note for the participants of the discussion: User:Dauernd is possibly associated with multiple IP vandalism and sockuppetry that have been recently taking place on several interrelated articles. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dauernd for further information. He has been blocked and I'm sure either he or one of his anonymous associates will again come here to disrupt the article. I urge the users positively interested in the development of the topic to avoid multiple reverts and immediately report him (them) to the admin board (WP:AN3, WP:AIV). --Kober^Talk 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

hallo aus Georgien, aus Georgisches Wikipedia. Wenn sie sagen dass die Mingrelier und Swans sind nicht Georgiern, das fur mir und fur alle georgier sehr beleidigend! Georgien ist vielnationalische Land, weil hir wonen Abchasen und Osseten, die Georgier nicht sind, aber sie mussen behalten:

• die Swanen
• die Mingreler
• die Kacher
• die Adscharer
• die Imeren
• die Kartler
• die Racher
• die Lazer

und auch anderen, sind Georgier!!! Dato deutschland (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Theories notice board

I want to get broader input into this whole theory of subethnic groups because it seems somewhat odd to me so I've asked the Fringe Theories noticeboard for their input. Please discuss here if you would like to add your thoughts on the subject. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have come here from the noticeboard. I think it's quite clear that subethnic group is a useful category used by scholars. For example, English people can be seen as a subethnic group of British people. What are the fringe theories you are discussing? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try Poco! Its his hoax attempt to discredit reliable well sourced material Itsmejudith but you see when confronted with ton sof scholarly sources, its a waste of time not only for him but for all of us. Here [3], and there are tons more. Iberieli (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, we should keep our discussion at WP:FTN however to use your analogy vis-a-vis the Georgians, Mingrelians, and Laz, I think it would be the equivalent of the English people and the Scottish People being considered British but the Welsh people not being considered British. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources, Sources.... your POVs are irrelevant. Enough references were provided. Iberieli (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

• 20:54, 19 June 2008 Moreschi protected Mingrelians ‎ (Laz vandal [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming views from regular editors I've contacted Moreschi, the protecting admin. --TS 04:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mircan Kaia (Kaya) - a Notable Mingrelian

{{editsemiprotected}}

Mircan is a musician, a civil engineer and a professional earthquake engineer. The first album she put out was Bizim Ninniler (Our Lullabies), a first of its kind covering traditional Anatolian lullabies.This album was followed by Kül (Ashes), Sala, Numinosum and OUTIM (Once Upon a Time in Mingrelia).

It would be appropriate to edit the section " Notable Mingrelians" by adding "Mircan Kaia" who produced five internationally acclaimed albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suria Teona (talk • contribs) 10:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, one of the most influential Georgian writers of the 20th century
• Zviad Gamsakhurdia, first president of post-Soviet Georgia
• Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin's chief of secret police
• Merab Kostava (National Hero of Georgia)
• Katie Melua, British singer
• Levan Kenia, Georgian international footballer
• Mircan Kaia, Mingrelian singer songwriter, composer, civil engineer, earthquake engineer and specialist on historic buildings

Done I have removed the content which had mothing to do woth the request or this article per our policy on talk pages. Mircan appears to be notable as a musician, so I added a shortened version to the section on notable Mingrelians. Celestra (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mircan clealry identifies with Mingrelian ethnic tradition in the biography on her website. It passes current standards for inclusion in ethnic categories (WP:EGRS) as she defines her music as belonging to the mingrelian ethnic tradition and selfidentifies as mingrelian.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I just read the entire biography and the only mention of ethnic was 1. "ethnic tunes" 2."ethnic and traditional" songs. I saw no evidence of what you described as "Mingrelian ethnic tradition." Moreover, it seems that they are using word "ethnic tunes" in the sense of "folk tunes/folklore". In this ambiguity, your conclusion that she necessarily talks about Mingrelians as an ethnic group is clearly a result of your already expressed bias towards the secessionists active on this site.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I read too but i didnt see anything that she calls herself as Georgian. I am sure she wont be agree with you :), why do you persist on changing her identity? Arguni (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not look like she has spent much of her life in Georgia and I do not care to know what they have been teaching her in Turkish schools about Mingrelians and Lazs. All I know is that Mingrelian and Georgian are not mutually exclusive and that is sadly the assumption you both are making. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 00:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Mingrelian and Georgian are coming from same roots but she calls herself as Mingrelian. Leave the paranoia about seperating. Arguni (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If Megrelians are Georgians, then why do they identify themselves as margali, but not kortu. Apswaaa (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kortu simply refers to people from the core Georgian region of Kartli. Because the indigenous language of the east has spread to other regions, not just Kartlie, the term has also been extended to them. I am a native Georgian speaker and whenever I traveled to Mingrelia there were instances of me being called Kortu because that is the language I spoke. This does not make me any less Mingrelian because it has nothing to do with ethnic identification,the language differences predate the Georgians as a modern ethnic group. But sadly I do not think that you ever will or want to understand this. You goal is not to understand, your goal is wage a smear campaign against all of us from your narrow Abkhazian point of you. If you cared so much for us Mingrelians, you would not have throw us out of our homes, murdered and raped. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 22:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ქორთუ (ქორთუს) ქართველი. ტყები არძო თექ მიკობუ - რუსი, ქორთუ, მარგალიში: მ. ხუბ., გვ. 342 -- ტყავი ყველა იქ ჰკიდია: რუსის, ქართველის, მეგრელისა. ქორთუქ გეაფხაზჷ-და, მუთუნ აფხაზა ვემჲალენია: ხალხ. სიბრ., 1, გვ. 145 -- ქართველი თუ გააფხაზდა, ვერავითარი აფხაზი ვერ შეედრებაო. შდრ. ლაზ. ქორთუ ქართველი (ნ. მარი).

ქორთულ-ი (ქორთულს) ქართული. ეგებ ქორთული ვა გარჩქილე: ი. ყიფშ., გვ. 147 -- ეგების ქართული (ენა) არ გესმის. პატჷნც მაშინეს ქორთულო თე ნაჩიებუ: აია, 2, გვ. 72 -- ბატონს მოახსენეს ქართულად ეს ნათქვამი. შდრ. ლაზ. ქორთული ყომური ქართული ქლიავი (ნ. მარი). http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etca/cauc/megr/kajaia/kajai.htm Apswaaa (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that most of Mingrelians identify themselves as "georgian (kartveli)" i think this is their national identity (also they known as patriotic people in Georgia), but when they speak to eachother they use local words like "margali, kortu, svani, adjareli, guruli etc..." They use "kortu" word to describe people who stay in Tbilisi. Arguni (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean when they speak Mingrelian they say margali, not kortu (kortu means kartveli, according to the dictionary). Apswaaa (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The person is not that notable to be included in this short list anyway. After a quick review of your edits, dear Arguni, the only case of paranoia I encountered was your crusading across the entries related to the Kartvelian groups. Don't take this offend. I'm just calling a spade a spade.--Kober^Talk 04:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to protect my ethnic identity from fascist attacks, i dont care about your Kartvelian group, yes my edits were about it because you all tried to include Lazs into this group. Sorry but as a Laz I cannot agree with this "Kartvelian" name, today it is politic name to unity ethnic groups in georgia and as etymology it provides only an Iberian tribe's (Kartli tribe) name. Maybe this group's name can be "Karto-Zan group" but not Kartvelian. And i know this is not my business but please stop changing everything about Mingrelian to Georgian, this is too cruel, at least you can write like this "Georgian (Mingrelian origin)". I hope this situation will not bring deletion of Mingrelian name from history in the long run, already their language is in endangered list. As a Laz i am sad about them and of course about Lazs too, we are the last speakers of Zan language because of assimilation politics and if this kind of politics continue, these languages will die immediately as well as Laz and Mingrelian name too. This is my pain. And i must say that i support integrity of Georgia, not only Georgia but also other countries too, i dont have a secessionist aim. Arguni (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum and certainly not the right place to "protect your ethnic identity" which nobody here tries to strip you of. Accusing others of "fascist attacks" is a grave mistake which must lead to admin sanctions. Regarding Mingrelians, they consider themselves to be Georgian whether you like it or not. And your "tribe"-based arguments are not valid as the tribal thinking in Georgia has long been a part of remote history. Regarding "Kartvelian", it is the legitimate scholarly/linguistic term, not a "politic name". "As a Laz", you may not agree with it, but there is very little you can do about that. So calm down, tone down and don't waste anyone's time by posting irrelevant grudges here. I do sympathize with you, "the last speakers of Zan language", so try to protect your rights in real life in Turkey. In Georgia, the Laz culture is pretty much protected and valued as testified by the presence of vibrant centers in Tbilisi and Batumi.--Kober^Talk 07:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Makrōnes?

see Macrones article : They are frequently regarded as the possible ancestors of the Mingrelians (cf. margal, a Mingrelian self-designation), a subethnic group of the Georgian people / Makrōnes means "tall people" in Greek. So the Greeks changed the real name of this people! Megrel / Makrōn? Böri (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think yes. Their other name is Tzan (Chan). This is common name of Lazs and Mingrelians at history. Both of them were known as "Tzanni". Tzanni is greek pronunciation of Chani and today some Lazs use this name to call themselves. For example; Chanuri (Laz language) but "Laz" name is known well in Lazs. Argun (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

No. The etymology of this term is totally different. It appeared from a sentence - "me Egriseli var" (I'm Egrissian) -> Me egriseli ->megreli.--Diaoha (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

me egriseli var is in georgian, mingrelian would say in mingrelian 74.73.113.51 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic group and «...200 000 people of Mingrelian...»

Ok.

1. Approximately 180,000-200,000 people of Mingrelian provenance have been expelled from Abkhazia as a result of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict in the early 1990s and the ensuing ethnic cleansing of Georgians in this separatist region. - a falsification without proof and without sources. First, Megrels in Abkhazia have always lived in the east - they are no more than 50 thousand so far. Most of the refugees Georgians (and Megrels) in Abkhazia - is displaced (in 1920-30 -1950) and their descendants (1960-1980) of Georgians from central Georgia (never spoke to Megrelian language). Thus, the word "about 200,000 Megrels" - is falsification of sources and evidence (manipulation of concepts: political goals)

2. Second, Megrelian language and Megrels are a Zan group languages of Kartvelian languages family) - it is a fact research (see sources: Ethnologue. Language Family Trees-Mingrelian; Joshuaproject; Stephen F. Jones: Mingrelians).

here & here GeorgianJorjadze violated a rule neutral point of view ("Mingrelians are not "often" Georgians but Georgians always. No need of more sources as their language is mentioned already") and No original research ("200 000 people of Mingrelian provenance") - --PlatonPskov (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Returned the card carrier distribution Kartvelian languages, including Megrels (do not understand the reason for removal) --PlatonPskov (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand your language. As for the Mingrelian identity, it has been discussed ad nauseam here and the current version is the result of a long-established consensus. See this link for a comprehensive discussion of the topic.--Kober^Talk 04:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pskov, please stop edit warring. Instead, try to challenge the arguments and sources provided here.--Kober^Talk 14:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not a consensus, but one point of view. Wikipedia is usually a neutral point of view. We present two viewpoints: (1) general ("public and actual, as all Megrels know the Georgian language) and (2) scientific (linguistic). --PlatonPskov (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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. --PlatonPskov (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What are the arguments against the template?--PlatonPskov (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The template issue is negotiable. Regarding your "scientific (linguistic)" viewpoint, it is just your very vague claim not supported by sources or representing a minority view. Linguistic category cannot be equated to ethnic separateness. Serbs and Croats speak essentially the same language, but are two different ethnicities. Georgians proper, Mingrelians, and Svans have formed an ethnic unity despite the linguistic differences. Ethnic evolution is a complex process and language is not necessarily the sole determinant of ethnicity. "Scientific (linguistic)" sources for what I have just said can be found at the link I provided above. That discussion in response to one of your predecessors and compatriots who pushed for the same POV. Please don't waste anyone's time here, read my post there, and try to challenge the arguments and sources provided there. --Kober^Talk 14:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1.1 Georgian scientists & historians since Stalin write exactly what the majority sees: Megrels and Svans is Georgians. And all. This is what we see so far. Most recently, the secessionist authorities in Georgia’s breakaway republic of Abkhazia have embarked on a propaganda campaign to promote separateness of Mingrelians from other Georgians - is substitution of concepts (political). On the contrary. Today, politicians and scientists is not beneficial to move away from the Stalinist national policy in Georgian SSR and Georgia. Not about this now.

1.2 Language policy of Stalin and later in Georgian SSR (including failure of linguistic autonomy Svan and Megrelians) led to the adoption and Svans Mingrelians of Georgian language. It is a fact. Yes.

2. The Serbs and Croats speak Croatian and Serbian languages, which belong to the same language family (Indo-European), one language group (Slavic), and one branch (South Slavs). One group. One branch. Megrels speak a Megrelian language which is part of Zan language group (group or branch), a Kartvelian language family (the family!). Svans speak the Svan language, which belongs to a separate Svan language group (the group, not the branches), a Kartvelian language family (the family!). This is a big difference. It is a fact (Zan group languages of Kartvelian languages family) - it is a fact research (see sources: Ethnologue. Language Family Trees-Mingrelian; Joshuaproject; Stephen F. Jones: Mingrelians). --PlatonPskov (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Thus, if both Serbs and Croats are different ethnic groups (one group of languages ​​and branches), then all the more so Georgians and Megrels and Svans is all the more different ethnic peoples (ethnic groups). More reason.

4. Regarding "scientific (linguistic)" viewpoint, it is non general claim and it is supported by sources (or representing a minority view - scientific (linguistic)! viewpoint. Non minority view ). Wikipedia is usually a neutral point of view. Including and scientific (linguistic). Based on research and sources. (Zan group languages of Kartvelian languages family) - it is a fact research (see sources: Ethnologue. Language Family Trees-Mingrelian; Joshuaproject; Stephen F. Jones: Mingrelians). --PlatonPskov (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

5. It is one thing political motivation, and another thing - science (impartial, not Georgian science, not political science in the world). Ukraine does not recognize the Rusyns - most. The point of view of the majority (the majority of Ukrainian science). But the minority - recognize Rusyns separate ethnic group. it is or representing a minority view. This is a neutral point of view (including minorities).

6. By the rule of Wikipedia (the neutral point of view) propose only to supplement other and (scientific) point of view and sources. (And do not delete the point of view of "the majority") --PlatonPskov (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

7. What are the arguments against the template?--PlatonPskov (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I failed to extract any sense from your lengthy post. What do you actually want? Your sources such as ethnologue and joshuaproject say that Mingrelians speak Mingrelian language, without discussing their identity. So what? Anyone here argues that there is no such language as Mingrelian? Are we discussing here the existence of Mingrelian as a separate language or the group's identity? Please be more specific. As for the template, I have nothing against it provided it is adapted to the core text. --Kober^Talk 16:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You contradict yourself (see about the Serbs and Croats) and You themselves waging a war of edits without discussion. The substitution of political concepts and reasoning. Sorry to see the political unscientific approach to Wikipedia. Shame. --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that all you have to say? I asked you to be more specific when putting forward your grievances. I don't understand what you want. Again, are we discussing here the existence of Mingrelian as a separate language or the group's identity?--Kober^Talk 16:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the above. Do not bring it to the absurd point of discussion. --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I don't understand what you want and you are leaving my questions unanswered. What's the problem here: the existence of Mingrelian as a separate language or the group's identity? Btw, the Serb-Croatian example was given to illustrate how complex ethnogenesis is. How on earth do I contradict myself? --Kober^Talk 16:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic group and language are inextricably linked. If the languages ​​belong to different groups (Svan, Zan) family of languages ​​(Kartvelian) - does this ethnic group. Give an example of at least one sub-ethnic groups, speaking a language other language groups than the main carrier of the people. No more. There are opposite examples (Serbs and Croats) - they belong to the same linguistic group. A contradiction.--PlatonPskov (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you think that "ethnic group and language are inextricably linked". But that's not always true as the ethnic identity is a complex set of traits in no ways limited to the primary tongue as I proved with the help of several sources years ago (see the link to Fringe Theories noticeboard above). Do you have the sources of equal credibility proving otherwise?--Kober^Talk 16:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Give an example of--PlatonPskov (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Of what? --Kober^Talk 16:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Again. If the languages ​​belong to different groups (Svan, Zan) family of languages ​​(Kartvelian) - does this ethnic group. Give an example of at least one sub-ethnic groups, speaking a language other language groups than the main carrier of the people. No more. There are opposite examples (Serbs and Croats) - they belong to the same linguistic group --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in original research. What I say is based on sources which I've already cited.

1. Do we have academic definitions of "sub-ethnic group" stating that such groups may have different primary tongues but still share common ethnic identity? Yes, we do. Please see the link I've provided.
2. Do we have credible sources saying that the primary tongue is not always the single determinant of group's ethnic identity? Yes, we do.
3. Do we have credible sources characterizing Mingrelians as a subgroup of Georgians? Yes, we do.
4. Do we have credible sources stating that Mingrelians share with other Georgians common ethnic identity? Yes, we do.
5. What else do you want? --Kober^Talk 16:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You are a supporter of the state of science (where often pseudo-science) - and there - not important - the main academic. If there is a pseudo-science of academic work - the rest is nonsense minority. Pseudo-science in Wikipedia as a pseudo science. Your choice. Do not give answers. Refer to a dependent state and ideology (since the language policy of Stalin) academic work (in Georgia). Politics and Science of harm to each other. I'm sorry to waste time. --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make ad hominem remarks. I've cited many academic sources, but you are still refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion.--Kober^Talk 16:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You do not answer the questions, you take away in the direction of the debate and you refer to the misunderstanding of my words. You refer to unverifiable sources. And accusing me of refusing to discussion? The example you give? (Give an example of at least one sub-ethnic groups, speaking a language other language groups than the main carrier of the people) --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh, you might be kidding. So it now appears I'm diverting the discussion... How on earth are my sources unverifiable? They are on Google Books. I've given direct citations, with pages, isbn, etc. Regarding the examples, one of the oft-cited ethnolinguistic books , Roland J. L. Breton's Geolinguistics: language dynamics and ethnolinguistic geography lists some groups in India and Africa, which are classified as "subethnic", but have separate languages. As you can see, my arguments are based on sources, while you have failed to cite even a single credible source to back up your claims. And I'm asking you again to refrain from ad hominem remarks.--Kober^Talk 17:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 Comment:

1. Do we have an academic definition of "sub-ethnic groups" that such groups may have different primary language, but still common ethnic identity? ... - Languages ​​and dialects there is no denying (but not the different groups in the language family, it is as if the Austrians (Germans) were used ethnic group of Poles (Slavs).

Specific examples, I never saw

1. Do we have reliable sources say that the primary language is not always the sole determinant of ethnic identity groups? - It is the consequences of language policy in Georgia in the 20th century
2. Do we have reliable sources describing Megrels as a subgroup of the Georgians? - not the Georgians. the peoples of the Kartvelian language family as a whole - yes. --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your opinions are irrelevant here. Again, all my arguments are based on sources. I've given direct quotations. Please reread them. I can copy-paste them here if you want. I'm also waiting for the sources which would back up your claims? Where are they? --Kober^Talk 17:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

for example, Joshuaproject. Margaluri, Mingrelian of Georgia. No language, but the people. And Georgia – People Groups --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, joshuaproject is not the source of a quality that can be compared to those I've cited. It is just a web-project operated by an obscure U.S. religious organization. Second, it does not discuss the Mingrelian identity. The word "people" there does not imply that the Mingrelians are an ethnic group separate from the rest of Georgians. For example, the people of Kakheti are also a people with a strong regional identity, with their own subculture, etc., but not an ethnic group. Curiously, the list of groups you are citing also includes the category "Deaf" (details are here). Do you think they are also an ethnic group? In summary, "people" =/= "ethnic group". The source you have cited does not even touch the problem of ethnic identity. --Kober^Talk 17:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, hm... Joshuaproject is the normal source of. (Carping for the sake of nit-picking is not necessary)

Until 1930 the Mingrelians were considered a distinct ethnic group. - R. Wixman. The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook (s.134). /Why is the 1930? The answer above (language policy of Stalin in the Georgian SSR/. Politics, not science. And you, too. --PlatonPskov (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Joshuaproject is "normal", but of very little use here unless you want to assign the "deaf people" to an ethnic group category. Nitpicking is what you've been doing here by rejecting a number of credible sources here, making ad hominem remarks and making references to sources which actually prove nothing. The fact that the Soviet census policy-makers considered Mingrelians to be a distinct ethnic group and then changed their mind does not change the fact that the Mingrelians are a subethnic group of Georgians who identify themselves as such as it is supported by multiple sources I've already cited. Furthermore, I have already cited an academic source which says that even when the Soviets listed Mingrelians as a separate ethnic category, "more than half of the people thought by ethnographers to be Mingrelians had registered themselves in the census as Georgians. Ethnographers wondered aloud whether census takers had engaged in foul play or if the results reflected the population's self-determination." (Prof. Francine Hirsch, 1999)--Kober^Talk 19:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Where I rejected? Reject you. You reject another point of view. Do you think the "right" only one point of view. I think under the rules of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, you need to provide two points of view, rather than one.

The fact that the Soviet census policy-makers considered Mingrelians to be a distinct ethnic group and then changed their mind does not change the fact that the Mingrelians are a subethnic group of Georgians who identify themselves as such as it is supported by multiple sources I've already cited.

This is a big difference. This suggests the intervention of the state in science. (Language Policy of 1920-30 Stalin's and This will bring in 1950). What it does not change anything - only your opinion. --PlatonPskov (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The state had also "intervened in science" in 1926, when the Soviets classified the Mingrelians as a separate ethnic group, but as it appears more than half of the Mingrelians still identified themselves as Georgians despite the existence of the separate census category for Mingrelians. Why do you think that the 1926 census was based on "science" and the 1930 census was an "intervention of the state in science"? As I have already proved, citing many sources, a linguistic factor is not always the sole determinant of ethnic identity. Again, I'm asking how all these census manipulations change the facts that the Mingrelians are characterized by scholarly sources as an subethnic group of the Georgians, they identify themselves as Georgians, and "subethnic group" is a legitimate category even when there are linguistic differences. You wanted examples other than this and I gave them. --Kober^Talk 19:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The state had also "intervened in science" in 1926, when the Soviets classified the Mingrelians as a separate ethnic group... — That is your opinion (you are a supporter of Stalin and Stalin's language policy - it's weird).

...but as it appears more than half of the Mingrelians still identified themselves as Georgians despite the existence of the separate census category for Mingrelians — Non still. And now - of course. And now. Stalin's policy has reached its goal in mind. Even many Armenians and Ossetians now is Georgians (not to mention the Megrelians and Svan).

As I have already proved, citing many sources, a linguistic factor is not always the sole determinant of ethnic identity. — You have proved nothing (besides the obvious, that languages ​​do not always define.) But only language of the one language group . Example cause you could not. --PlatonPskov (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Until 1930 the Mingrelians were considered a distinct ethnic group — Addition and sources — it is an indisputable fact. --PlatonPskov (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You're becoming ridiculous. ...but as it appears more than half of the Mingrelians still identified themselves as Georgians despite the existence of the separate census category for Mingrelians — Non still. And now - of course. And now." What are talking about? I'm citing the exact quotation from the scholarly source about the 1926 census when the Mingrelians had their own census category.

"Until 1930 the Mingrelians were considered a distinct ethnic group." Yes, but only in the pre-1930 Soviet census, which should be made clear. Your own interpretations are irrelevant.--Kober^Talk 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Btw, did you notice that one of your sources for the 1926 census places the Mingrelians within the wider category of Georgians?

• Грузины
  • а) Аджарцы
  • б) Мегрелы
  • в) Лазы
  • г) Сваны

This is yet another proof that the "Mingrelians" in this case was just a census category.--Kober^Talk 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm asking you for the last time to abandon personal attacks and ad hominem remarks. If you dare to call me "supporter of Stalin", "supporter of pseudo-science", etc. again you'll be reported. Clear? --Kober^Talk 16:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently (2002 census) Megrels and Svans even as a sub-ethnic group are not allocated. This is a scientific approach? No. This is the official state approach (political context). I am against the policies in science. That's all. But in Georgia, science and politics are united. It is a pity. But not anymore about it.

Thank you even for that.

And. What does not match the template for an article? --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Source

Specified reference (the source does not contain а /The Meaning of Dæl. Symbolic and Spatial Associations of the South Caucasian Goddess of Game Animals./); i added a citation to this source (Stephen F. Jones. Mingrelians. World Culture Encyclopedia. Retrieved on March 29, 2008.). --PlatonPskov (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

These sources does not contain words that the Mingrelians are a "subethnic group" of Georgians:

• Politics of the Black Sea: Dynamics of Cooperation and Conflict, by Tunç Aybak, p 185 - Only the word: «...Georgians (Megrels)...»
• 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.»

Some sources are not thematic (ethnography, linguistics), and have a political context (political review).

• This source (Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War, by Stuart J. Kaufman, p 86) gives only the phrase: «Additionally, the Georgian category includes an array of politically important subgroups. especially Mingrelians, Svans and Ajarians.» - Eye for the political context. And "Subgroups" (no "subethnic group").
• The second source that contains the phrase "subgroups" (~"subethnic group") - is Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook, by David Levinson, p 34: «Included in the Georgian ethnic and national group are a number of subgroups such as Ajars, Khevsur, and Mingrelians.»

It is impossible to check these sources (Given the above, there are doubts):

• Political Construction Sites: Nation-building in Russia and the Post-Soviet World, by Pål Kolstø, p 8 ([4])
• Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, by Svante E. Cornell, p 142 ([5]) - Also, this source contains inaccuracies

Some sources are not thematic (ethnography, linguistics), and have a political context (political review).

Thus, only two sources mention the "subgroups":

• Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War, by Stuart J. Kaufman, p 86 («Additionally, the Georgian category includes an array of politically important subgroups. especially Mingrelians, Svans and Ajarians.»)
• Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook, by David Levinson, p 34 («Included in the Georgian ethnic and national group are a number of subgroups such as Ajars, Khevsur, and Mingrelians.»). --PlatonPskov (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All the sources are verifiable. Not all of them mention the word: "subethnic group", some of them say that the Mingrelians are a "subgroup", "subdivision", or just identify themselves as Georgian. Ethnic identity formation is bound to history and politics, whether you like it or not. So your claim that the references with "political context" can be dismissed is flawed. Want to prove something, provide the credible sources supporting your claims. "I don't like it"-type logic you've pursuing by far won't help your cause. Period.--Kober^Talk 16:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Not every publication is permanently accessible on the net. Sometimes you'll have to go to your nearest library if you are so keen to check the cited books.--Kober^Talk 16:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not wage war. Please do not wage war. It's time to respond to the admins. Please read carefully these sources. Please read carefully these sources. --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And here (from the article Talk:Svan people):

• Svans marked a distinct ethnic group Svans (Separate section Georgians (Mingrelians and and other sub-group); Separate section Kurds (and Ezids); Separate section Ossetes, Separate section Russians; Separate section Svans; Separate section other group): Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook, by David Levinson, p 35
• The Svans Kevin Tuite Université de Montréal 1992 and Stephen F. Jones Svans World Culture Encyclopedia. Retrieved on March 13, 2011: «Some may know the languages of neighboring ethnic groups (e.g., Mingrelian, Balkar).» --PlatonPskov (talk) --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please point out what exactly I should read carefully? I've read the sources I've cited very carefully and I don't think that they contradict to what I'm saying here. I've asked you several times to be more specific when putting forward your claims/accusations.--Kober^Talk 16:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your "separate book chapter=separate ethnic group" formula is an original research and, as it seems to me, your last resort argument. Your source, on p. 34 lists Mingrelians as a subgroup of Georgians. Do you see any difference between the Mingrelian and Svan cases? Of course, you don't. Does the book characterize the Svans as a separate ethnic group? No. Are there much more numerous sources outrightly characterizing the Mingrelians and Svans as Georgian subgroups or underlining their Georgian self-identity? Yes, and I've cited them. --Kober^Talk 16:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• You see all the one-sided (unilateral) -PlatonPskov (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Still my questions are unanswered. I once asked you to limit the discussion either of these two talk pages since the Svan and Mingrelian cases are identical. I have no time and energy to duplicate my comments.--Kober^Talk 17:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

the Svan and Mingrelian cases is non identical: Swan - is a separate group of Svan (Svan language), and Megrels - Mingrelo-Zan (Zan language), is a group that is closer to the Georgians. It is a science-based sources (linguistics) + Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook, by David Levinson, p 35

• I'm sorry, I'm not obliged to answer in a minute. English is not my native language. I, too little time. It is a pity to waste any time on you: you do not hear the arguments. Reply here: Talk:Svan people. --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Also like to remind you that I do not reject the official point of view, where Megrels and Svans is subethnic groups are Georgians. I am a neutral point of view on Wikipedia, a scientific approach. There are important two points of view. A collection of facts is not a single non-linguistic, political (including the fact that Megrels say and in the Georgian language, and Megrelian language) - is also a fact, he admits, too. --PlatonPskov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Oh, I understand that you very, very much "scientific" and you don't like "pseudo-sciences" and me, a "supporter of Stalin". But I still cannot understand why you are rejecting the sources I'm citing. They are all "scientific" and from the "pseudo-science" domain; they are not affected by "language policy of Stalin"; they are not published in Georgia or the Georgian SSR. I've cited verifiable sources for each of my points that I have recapitulated just a few minutes ago on Talk:Svan people.--Kober^Talk 18:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the springs^sourses, where there is no "sub-group." You are returned: and everything is clear.

I have given the sources, where there is an "ethnic group" or linguistic difference stands out. Here you will on the contrary, against to sources.

Original research - is the fact that linguistics is rejected as the source (the second argument to the point of view) --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a gaming the system and gaming facts --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean by "springs", but you'll still have to show which of your sources identify Mingrelians and Svans as separate ethnic groups in contrast to many sources which clearly classify them as subethnic groups of Georgians. Again, I'm waiting for direct citations supporting your claims. I've provided direct quotations. I expect from you to do the same. Gaming the system has nothing to do with this. --Kober^Talk 18:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Gaming the system Gaming the system. Later continue. Time is not always. You do not hear arguments about points of view. --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I added external links and citations of articles (where available). Where there is no - set the template for clarification (Template:Citation needed, Template:not in citation given). --RosssW (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • GeorgianJorjadze, Please do not wage a war of edits. This is destructive. Moreover, without debate and without explanation. --RosssW (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Added a template - no objection. --PlatonPskov (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Family names

I was going to edit to add that the suffix -ia is, in general, associated with the surname/family name of Mingrelians. Perhaps an editor might like to take this up?90.194.65.75 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The idea of Mingrelians are seperate ethnic group should also be mentioned.

Before I start I need to say that I have read the previous discussions. I have also read the definition of the subethnic group. My claim is that Mingrelians are a different ethnic group which should be mentioned in the article. The source of my claim is that their DNA, not their separate language. Source1Source2 As you can see from the DNA results, Mingrelians have a different DNA than Georgians. Additionally I can distinguish Mingrelians from Georgians by looking their physical appearance. It is logical because they lived in different areas for more than 3000 years (Mingrelians are lived near the Black Sea coast). They can be derived from the same ethnic group, but what we called "Georgians" are formed after the seperation Tzan language and Georgian language. So, It is wrong to say they derived from Georgians. I don't say that "subgroup of Georgians" statement should be removed, but the theory that Mingrelians are seperate ethnic group should be added. [6] . I can say the same thing for the Svan people. They also have different DNA than Georgians. Because only difference between Laz people and Mingrelian people is the country they live. Why we call Laz people as a seperate ethnic group then? Why they are not mentioned as subgroup of Georgians? Laz (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally most of the Laz people consider themselves as Turkish people. Why we are not adding "subethnic group of Turkish" statement to the Laz article then? Because It is completely incorrect. It is same for Mingrelian people. Even though most of them considers themselves as Georgian today, It was not like that before. Laz (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum. Also, your DNA sources prove nothing. There are no such things as "Georgian DNA" or "Mingrelian DNA". Neither is population genetics data a prerequisite for an ethnic identity, which is usually a complex set of cultural traits. --Kober^Talk 16:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Even it is an complex set of cultural traits, Mingrelian people used to have a different set of cultural traits than Georgian people in the past. DNA results prove that. Therefore, it should be mentioned that Mingrelians were a different ethnic group in the past, even though today they are subethnic group of Georgians. Laz (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In the past, even Georgians proper were not a homogenous group; and this is true for most modern ethnic groups currently peopling the planet. And again, DNA results are frequently misinterpreted and misquoted when it comes to the issues of ethnicity. They prove nothing in this regard. If yes, please provide valid, third-party academic sources.--Kober^Talk 19:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Queen Mariam Dadiani as a notable person

Queen Mariam Dadiani was Mingrelian. She's notable because she ordered a copy of the Georgian Chronicles. Her copy is one of the two remaining extant manuscripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.141.195 (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Notable Mingrelians

Among the notable Mingrelians are one of the most famous poets Terenti Graneli, and the creative director of Balenciaga Demna Gvasalia, and the most successful director of the Soviet Union Georgy Danelia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.113.51 (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)