Talk:Colchis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colchis article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Georgia (country) (Rated B-Class) Georgia (country) Portal Colchis is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the country of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) WikiProject Archaeology (Rated B-Class) Archaeology Portal This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article is on a subject of High-importance within classical antiquity. WikiProject Greece      (Rated B-Class) Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. If you would like to participate, you can improve Colchis, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments) High This article has been rated as a High priority article Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Contents 1 Negroids 2 Strange line 3 Official Georgian Propaganda 4 Removal and Replacement of Citation for Abasci

[edit] Negroids

"There seems to have been a Negroid component (which predates the Arab slave trade) along the Black Sea region"

Reference is needed... I did follow link in the text... But there's only "but modern history has no knowledge of such an expedition by any Egyptian pharao, though black communities are known to have existed in the area" there:(

And i dont see the sources for this statement. Pretty unclear one, i say:) "are known to have existed"... Some genetic evidence in modern people? Archaeological? --83.237.111.41 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange line

"The kingdom of Colchis, which existed from the sixth to the first centuries B.C.E is presented as the first Georgian state. [9] A second Georgian tribal union emerged in the 13th century BC on the Black Sea coast under creating the Kingdom of Colchis in the western Georgia."

I understood nothing! Why 6-1cc BC? As i understand, it existed long before... Why 'second'? What is the first? ...Iberia? I come to this just now. Somebody who understand - please, make it clear and correct. And then delete this section from the discussion:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.111.41 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official Georgian Propaganda

We have created this article as an very good academic article, but you as officers of the Assimilationist Georgian Goverment, have alterated and converted as Georgian official propaganda text from that academic article by your quackish bad claims.

You can get round wikipedist editors, now.

But you can't never camouflage historical facts and historical documentary materials evermore. You can't never camouflage archaic classicals, so Procopius , Jordanes , Agathias , Xenophon, Joannes Laurentius Lydus and others on Web.. And you can't deny these facts to the end of time..

For example, Cyril Toumanoff is your invalid references that you are using on three paragraphs.. Who is Cyril Toumanoff? He is a Georgian prince from 20.century and his real name Cyril Toumanishvili ! This is very absurd reference. Why didn't use archaic references for this archaic subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauernd (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While accusing others of fascism and racism, you’ve demonstrated yourself as an overt xenophobe and your unprovoked attack is a testimony to that. There is no sense in discussing the content-related issues with you until you learn to respect others and engage in a normal conversation. Kober^Talk 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kober, there is no protection needed. That user is involved in outright vandalism and spread of hate massage. This article is well sources from various scholarly publications which are clearly visible in the reference section. Protection shall be given against anon changes but not for disputing a well sourced material. Also that user should be blocked from editing after blunt racist attacks. Iberieli (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection for anonymous vandalism but the admin decided to fully protect the page. That guy, using various accounts and Turkey-based ip addresses, has long been crusading across Wikipedia pages insulting Georgians and accusing them of fascism and racism, characteristically capitalizing these words. Next time he appears, I will file a checkuser case and request an admin involvement. --Kober^Talk 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s I also checked his reference: Agathias (AD.536-594): The Histories (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Procopius (AD.500-565) : History of the Wars, translated by H.B. Dewing (New York: Macmillan, 1914). Its a false reference, i reviewed the Chronicle of Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Procopius nothing of that kind is written there (mind you its an ancient manuscript and according to that vandal, it mentions "Laz-Mingrelian" state, funny because word Mingrelian is a modern one). Anywhere is a fake reference and used to support false information. Iberieli (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And the passage refers to the early history of Colchis, i.e. before the differentiation of proto-Kartvelian into Georgian and Laz-Mingrelian (Zan) languages. Lazoi and Lazica are much later terms, and the Classical sources do not know the word Mingrelia as it is a medieval Georgian variation of the earlier ethno/toponym Egrisi. According to that user, Cyril Toumanoff, an outspoken critic of all kind of nationalist bias in the Caucasian history writing, appears to be a "Georgian fascist". That's simply ridiculous. --Kober^Talk 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Kober, he is a simply blunt vandal who has his strong anti-Georgian bias and is trying to undermine credible information with deletions, racist attacks on the Georgian users. Iberieli (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1-Why can't you reply to questions above that about your reference alteration, and why do you delete that questions? 2-What time is your office hours in foreign ministry of Georgia?(I wonder it realy)Dauernd (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your puerile accusations and personal/ethnic attacks. Nobody is going to waste their time challenging your trollish comments here. Go and read WP:Civility if you really want to join Wikipedia community.--Kober^Talk 05:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dauernd, for the upteenth time, we urge you to stop ethnic attacks and discuss content-related problems on talk page. --Kober^Talk 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you delete my questions above? Why did you alter orjinal form of this article for yourself ethnical fanaticism? Dauernd (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, please stop personal and ethnic attacks. Your questions have not been deleted and have actually been answered. Nobody seems to understand what you actually say. --Kober^Talk 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I say that want scientific thrue information in Wikipedia and not assimilationist etnich fanaticsm.Dauernd (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? And don't accuse others of "ethnic fanaticism" and "fascism". This may bring about sanctions.--Kober^Talk 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are as one each Georgian Nationalist ignore other South Caucasian people's existence in all your contributions. This is only an "ethnic fanaticism" and not Wikipedism. This is reality shown and not accusing.Dauernd (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I asked you several times to tone down and engage in a normal discussion. Next time, your case will be brought to an admin board. --Kober^Talk 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal and Replacement of Citation for Abasci

I recently noticed that Colchis article had a "citation needed" indicated for the statement that the ancient Abasci may have been ancestors of the modern day Abaza. I therefore provided a reference. The next day Kolkhuri-bichi removed it for no good reason I can determine. I am replacing the citation and providing it in full here. Before anyone removes it I would like to know what justification they have for this.

"The first known mention of one of these tribes, namely the (gens) Absilae (or Apsilae), occurs in the Naturalis historia of Gaius Secundus Pliny Major (first century AD). The modern continuation of this ethnonym is the Abkhazians' self-designation Apswa (= 'Aps(y)-wa). In the second century Arrian has the Greek Apsilai, whilst seventh century Georgian attests apshil-eb-i = Armenian apshel-k 'Abkhazians'."

and

"The name of the other ancient Abkhazian tribe, Abasgoi/Abaskoi, first attested in Arrian, is preserved in the form Abaza, which is the modern self-designation of the Abazinians (cf. also Turkish abaza 'Abkhazian (-Abazinian)', Old Armenian avaz and Old Russian obezu 'Abkhazian'). Conceivably the Greek plural Abasgoi has its source in Circassian abaze-khe, plural of abaze, which today signifies in Circassian only 'Abazinian(s)'. The modern name by which the Abkhazians are known in Russian and other European languages came via Georgian, where apkhaz-i "Abkhazian" appears relatively late, in the Middle Ages; its original form was most probably *abazkh-i (cf. Greek Abasgoi). The transformation of *abazkh-i into apkhaz-i could have occurred in Mingrelian (as was suggested at the start of the 20th century by Marr), where metathesis (transposition of sounds) is a regular phenomenon in consonant complexes."

These citations are from The Abkhazians, Ed. George Hewitt, 1998. Saint Martin's Press, pp 44-45. --Picatrix (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

George Hewitt is not a reliable source. Iberieli (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

George Hewitt is Professor of Caucasian Languages at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, and is the author of grammars of both Abkhaz and Georgian as well as numerous articles on the languages and politics of the Caucasus. The publication he edited was published by St. Martin's Press, a reputable imprimatur. Furthermore, this work is part of a recognized series on the peoples of the Caucasus and the Black Sea, edited by Nicholas Awde.

According to the School of Oriental and African Studies website, where he is listed as a member of the Department of the Languages and Cultures of Near and Middle East, his publications include:

Authored Books

Hewitt, George (2005) Georgian: a learner's grammar (2nd edition). Routledge.

Hewitt, Brian (2005) Abkhazian Folklore (with grammatical introduction, translation, notes, and vocabulary). Lincom.

Hewitt, George (2005) Georgian: A Learner's Grammer (Revised 2nd Edition). Routledge.

Hewitt, George (2005) Abkhazian Folktales (with Grammatical Introduction, Translation, Notes, and Vocabulary). München: Lincom.

Hewitt, George (2004) Introduction to the Study of the Languages of the Caucasus. München: Lincom.

Hewitt, Brian (1996) Georgian: A learners grammar. Routledge.

Hewitt, Brian (1995) Georgian: A Structural Reference Grammar. Benjamins J.

Chapters in Books

Hewitt, George (2008) 'Similarities and Differences: some verbal contrasts between Georgian and Mingrelian.' In: Huber, Brigitte and Volkart, Marianne and Widmer, Paul, (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift fuer Roland Bielmeier. Germany: Peter Schwieger, pp. 657-676.

Hewitt, Brian (2005) 'Towards a comparative syntax of the Kartvelian languages.' In: Haug, D and E.Welo,, (eds.), Haptachahaptaitis: Festschrift for Fridrik Thordarson. Norway, pp. 119-138.

Hewitt, Brian (2005) 'Caucasian Languages, and Georgian, and Abkhaz, and Georgia: the language-situation.' In: Brown, K, (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition). Elsevier.

Hewitt, Brian and Khiba, Z (2002) 'A selection of the Abkhaz corpus -- 10 stories translated from the Abkhaz Nart epic.' In: Colarusso, J, (ed.), John Colarusso's Nart Sagas from the Caucasus. Princeton University Press (USA), pp. 321-379.

Hewitt, Brian (1999) 'Morphology revisited: some pecularities of the Abkhaz verb.' In: van, H, (ed.), Studies in Caucasian Linguistics: Selected papers of the Eighth Caucasian Colloquium. Research School of Asian African and Amerindian St, pp. 197-208.

Articles

Hewitt, George (2007) 'Abkhaz comparatives.' Archiv Orientalni, 75 (2). pp. 215-237.

Hewitt, George (2005) 'The Syntax of Complementation in Abkhaz.' Iran and the Caucasus, 9 (2). pp. 331-79.

Hewitt, George (2005) 'North West Caucasian.' Lingua, 115 (1-2). pp. 91-145.

Hewitt, Brian (2001) 'Review-article of Svante Cornell 'Small Nations & Greta Powers'.' Royal Society for Asian Affairs, vol. XXXII.2 . pp. 196-199.

Hewitt, Brian (2001) 'Convergence in language-change: morpho-syntactic in Mingrelian (& Laz).' Transactions of the Philological Society, vol. 99.1 . pp. 99-145.

Hewitt, Brian (2001) 'Review-article of Anita Budett (ed.) Caucausian Boundaries 1802-1946 (Archive Editions).' Central Asian Survey, vol. 20.2 . pp. 229-248.

Other Hewitt, Brian (1998) The Languages of the Caucasus: scope for study and survival. SOAS.

I cannot imagine by what generally accepted standard you would assert that this individual is not a reputable source. In the absence of any reasonable justification I am restoring the citation. However, if you can provide me with a reasonable basis for claiming that this individual is not a reputable source, I will be happy to consider your point of view. --Picatrix (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He is well known for his anti-Georgian bias (he is married to Abkhaz wife and officially supports separatist regime in Sukhumi). Thats why i consider him unsuitable as a reference. This claim should be supported by other sources, otherwise its just a Hewitt claim. As you can see, there are multiple sources on the article supporting one claim. Same should be used for that sentence, in order to support its reliability. If you can find alternative source (rather than Georgianophobe scholar who has obvious bias) support for Hewitt claim, then we can count the statement as reliable and well referenced. Thanks. Iberieli (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You clearly recognize that there are two sides to the discussion. You frame them as pro-Georgian and anti-Georgian. You seem to feel that only pro-Georgian bias should be allowed. But this is an article about ancient Colchis, not modern Georgia. In any case we can at least agree that there is controversy. However, it seems that you wish to treat the subject as settled within this article and to dismiss the other viewpoint(s) as nonsense from "Georgianophobes". As for Hewitt having a Abkhazian wife, I cannot see how that disqualifies him as a reliable reference. By this logic if Hewitt had a Georgian wife and supported the current Georgian government he would be acceptable. This sort of pseudo-justification will get us nowhere. Wikipedia readers don't need to know about the details of partisan academic sniping between Georgian or Abkhazian scholars with nationalist agendas. However, they should be informed that there is a lively debate surrounding exactly who the inhabitants of ancient Colchis might have been. While you push back hard against any suggestion that Colchis be associated with ancestors of Abkhazians, this article constantly reiterates the theme of seamless and total identity between ancient Colchis and modern Georgia. In fact it really does show a fairly transparent Georgian nationalist bias, and I feel sure that any reasonable editor who bothers to look into the subject will see this. Bear in mind that the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which certainly provides a reputable standard, does not go into constant discussion of the relationship between ancient Colchis and modern Georgia. In fact the text does not mention Georgia (or Abkhazians) at all. The article on Colchis admirably confines itself to the actual subject by stating

"The local population seems to have been fragmented: many peoples are known, though classical writers are usually satisfied with all-embracing terms, 'Colchi', 'Heniochi', and later 'Lazi'."

On the other hand the word Georgia or Georgian appears in this article no less than 49 times.

I suggest the following compromise for your consideration:

1. After the list of ancient tribes mentioned, we can simply place the sentence "The question of any possible relationship between these ancient tribes and people inhabiting the corresponding regions today remains highly controversial." We can then footnote it as follows:

Footnote: Because of ongoing conflicts regarding territory and cultural identity in Georgia, and the Caucasus in general, questions regarding the ethnic and linguistic characteristics of populations living in the area known as Colchis in antiquity are highly controversial. A variety of scholarly arguments (some reputable, some pseudo-academic) have been advanced suggesting that either Georgians or Abkhazians (or a combination of the two in varying proportions) have the best claim to cultural dominance or control of territory based on anthropological studies, archaeological finds (e.g. 'dolmens'), and linguistic research (e.g. word reconstructions, analysis of toponyms, association of ancient textual references with modern population segments). Bearing this controversy in mind, certain identification of scarcely-attested tribes in ancient times with one or another population segment in the Caucasus today is extremely difficult, if not impossible. However some scholars have argued that evidence of languages spoken by groups in or near ancient Colchis (often place names) can be associated with the languages of modern population segments, suggesting ancestry. Proposed ancestry for languages spoken by groups today living roughly within the region of ancient Colchis includes the ancient Hattians and/or Kaskians of Asia Minor (Forrer 1919, Bleichsteiner 1923, Melikishvili 1960, Diakonov 1967 and 1968, Inal-Ipa 1976, Ardzinba 1979, Ivanov 1985); the Hurrians and Urartu of the Armenian plateau and surroundings (Diakanov and Starostin 1986); The Absilae or Apsilae (mentioned by Pliny the Elder) as direct ancestors of the Abkhazians (Chirikba 1991, Hewitt 1993 and 1998), and the Misimianoi mentioned by Agathias in the 6th century (Inal-Ipa 1976).

If you feel that the list of possible ancestors is incomplete we can simply add the viewpoints that you feel are missing, including them in the same basic format. I am not suggesting we remove the constant and unnecessary nationalistic references to Georgia. All I'm asking is that you allow an alternative point of view to appear in a footnote, not even in the primary text. Is this compromise acceptable? --Picatrix (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but I asked you for the supporting source for Hewitt claim and not for some compromises, nobody disputed Georgian identity of Colchis (there are plenty of sources which support that), but your claim carries a dubious assessment of the ethnic component which is not mentioned in any scholarly publication but only in Hewitts work. Frankly, I dont care who is he married to, however, I am aware of his bias and cant consider him as a neutral source. Please also dont quote Arzimba (its obvious biased reference from separatist rebel leader) . Im well aware of Kaskians, Hattians but please find any source from scholarly publication to support Hewitts claim that Abaza's of today are descendants of ancient Colchians (as there are plenty of references which support Mingrelian connection with Colchians). For example, there are numerous sources supporting the claim that Colchis is considered as an early Georgian state. Similarly, lets have more than one source on Abaza claim to balance the article. Plus, i dont see any "nationalistic" references of Georgia, the references are taken from scholarly publications which you can see in the reference section. I would highly advice for you to review the sources and again support Hewitts claim fir secondary or tertiary source. There is no compromise needed when the text is supported by number of good references. Iberieli (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Iberieli. Hewitt is notoriously one-sided and frequently manipulates historical facts in order to upheld Abkhaz secessionist cause. Please note that most of the contributors to his book are Abkhaz authors who hold various positions in the separatist regime. Hewitt did not even consult his colleagues and former mentors from Georgia, with whom he worked in the 1970s, to let them represent a Georgian vision of the subject in question. This is simply dishonest. Georgians wrote about Abkhazia and studied its land and peoples over a millennium before the Soviet campaign for eradication of illiteracy created the first native Abkhaz scholarship.

Back to the subject of the current discussion, from what I see here a sort of uncertainty is created by an ambiguity of the term “Colchian”. Colchians were a proto-Georgian\Kartvelian tribe, a product of the assimilation of the migrating Anatolian elements such as Kaskai (Kaskians) with local ethnic elements. In its larger sense, “Colchian” may mean all inhabitants of Colchis, including Abasgoi and Apsilae. Another issue is that ancient authors did well not distinguish the tribes and their territories along ethnic lines. Thus, many terms they applied were in fact collective and it is now near to impossible to identify them either 100% proto-Abkhaz or 100% proto-Georgian (see Talbert et al, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, p. 1227), partly because of the frequent relocation of tribes within Colchis or from beyond its borders. Here’s passage from Studies in Christian Caucasian History by the most prolific Western scholar of the Caucasus Prof. Toumanoff:

[...] whatever the subsequent, additional migration, Colchis can be justly regarded as not a proto-Georgian, but a Georgian (West Georgian) kingdom. Toumanoff, p. 69.

--Kober^Talk 05:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I appreciate your taking the time to reply. However the real issues here are basic:

1. There are other people living in what is now Georgia who hold different opinions from the ones that you hold. You dismiss these points of view because you claim they are not neutral. For some of you, if I have not misunderstood, it seems that only a point of view that asserts a complete identity between the inhabitants of Colchis two thousand years ago and the inhabitants of Georgia today is a "neutral" view. Consider this: sometimes in academic discussions there are two points of view and they are not neutral. Sometimes they are competing or antagonistic. Wikipedia does not (so far as I know) mandate neutrality on the part of a cited source, only on the part of the authors of articles. If I write an article about Russian imperialism in the 19th century I can cite Georgians who oppose it and Russians who justify it. The duty of an author of encyclopedia articles is to provide the reader with a summary of points of view regarding the subject of a particular article. What I am trying to say is that you don't need to approve of Hewitt or Cirikba for them to be included. All that is necessary is that their works meet Wikipedia's standards. They represent a point of view held by people in the region in question, relevant to discussions of the location in antiquity. This view has been published and can be referenced. Instead of allowing for this view to be represented you continue to indicate that it is unacceptable because it is held by "separatists". These are political criteria, not academic criteria. If I apply these same criteria to Georgian scholarship from a Russian perspective then legitimate and valuable studies could be dismissed because they were created by Georgian "separatists". Even though I know the Russian claim to have legitimately taken Georgia and held it in the early 19th century based on an 'invitation' from the Georgians is absurd, I would still be willing to represent that point of view in an article if it could be cited.

2. Constantly referring to ancient Colchis as Georgian is like referring to ancient Rome as Italian, ancient Carthage as Tunisian, or ancient Palestine as Israeli. It reflects a fundamental confusion of terms (ethnic, national and territorial) and results from a frantic desire to justify a nationalistic claim based on 19th century standards of criteria admitting of recognition of a state.

3. The population of Colchis in antiquity and the population of Georgia today are mixed. This is the scholarly consensus. The possibility that ancient references mention tribes that could be the ancestors of today's Abkhazians and Abaza is real, and this point of view has been published by a reputable source. I did not write the passage about Abasci in this article. I came across a note that said "citation needed". I then placed the citation. Instead of being thanked for working on this article and sharing your interest in ancient Colchis I have had my footnote removed without justification, after replacing I saw it removed again with a dismissive note, I then suggested a compromise and I've been told no compromise is possible. Before moving along in dispute resolution I would like to ask if any of you can suggest another compromise so that such a process will not be necessary. --Picatrix (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Picatrix, I'm getting bit frustrated and also tired. I completely understand your arguments and thanks for the interesting reading I would appreciate if you include references for your claims rather than claiming that there is consensus among scholars on any given topic, consensus between who? what? when? how? reference please). However, I do not require a detailed explanation on neutrality and on simple facts. I just made a simple request, to find additional source (besides Hewitts) on Abazg connection with ancient Colchians (and im not saying there were none, just want to verify the information so this article looks balanced). Thats all i asked. When I add some sentences to this article (look at history of editing of this article) I always use multiple sources (and although i would love to use Georgian scholars who are no less professional in their field, I insert sources from western scholars to avoid any further misunderstandings). Also I did not dispute your statement (there is no resolution needed and no compromises), I just asked you for additional source. But if you cant find one, than we can say that " according to George Hewitt Abazg tribes are descendants of ancient Colchians. Just as i wrote: According to the renown scholar of the Caucasian studies Cyril Toumanoff: "Colchis appears as the first Caucasian State to have achieved the coalescence of the newcomer, Colchis can be justly regarded as not a proto-Georgian, but a Georgian (West Georgian) kingdom." Thats all. Again for dispute resolution, you need a solid dispute which we don't have here (I dont know why you think we have a dispute, its simple discussion). Also i did not say compromise is not possible, i said there is need for one because im not against your statementIberieli (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)