Talk:Ilia Chavchavadze

Birth date

Kober, are you sure Chavchavadze was born in October? As I know he was born on June 07 (they celebrate his birthday every year in Georgia) Ldingley 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More info needed

This article desperately needs more information and additional information about the following:

1. Chavchavadze's activity in creation and editing newspaper Iveria

1. His relations with Ivane Machabeli, Nikoladze, Tsereteli and the Georgian bank which Ilia chaired.

1. More information about his poetic and literary work

1. His role in national-liberation movement and national awakening, political aspirations, trips and representations in 1905 First, Second Duma, etc

1. New facts about his assassination (involvement of Bolsheviks and alleged involvement of the Social Democrats)

In other words, this article needs tons of input and help. Thanks to all. Iberieli 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Is a human a man?!"

In the article, his famous play is translated "Is a human a man?!" While I was in Tbilisi this summer, it was performed under the English title "Is He Human, This Man?"

I don't know Georgian, so I don't feel qualified to change the article--but does anyone know for sure? At any rate, the play' title should be in title case. --Andrew 24.193.79.91 03:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Andrew. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. The title is corrected.--Kober^Talk 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See also this. Geagea (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Constantine I

It is said: "...It is thought that the noble Chavchavadze family came from the Pshav-Khevsureti region of Georgia, and, in 1726, King Constantine I granted the Chavchavadze family the rank of Prince in recognition of their knighthood and valor to the nation..."

Or the year is wrong or Constantine I. Geagea (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right Geagea. I'll fix that. Thank you, --Kober^Talk 04:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

fake photograph

What possible reason is there to have a fake colourised photograph in this article? It's contrary to all reasonable conventions for the use of images on wikipedia. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This digitally colorized image derived from an original period monochrome photograph with color enhancement guided by known color image taken from the subject's museum site is neither a "fake photograph" nor is it "deceptive" but instead serves as an appropriate and properly sourced illustration of the individual who is depicted in both. In this case, this file is being reasonably used in the article's infobox as a means to best illustrate what the face of the subject looked like in life, and to avoid any misunderstanding is clearly identified in both the caption and the image's host page as being a digitally colorized illustration. As such, this image is not intended to be "faithful copy" of the original photograph, nor is it meant to illustrate the portrait work of the photographer, but instead is an image that has been enhanced to more realistically depict what the subject individual truly looked like "in the flesh". (The neutral colorizing of the suit and background in this illustration are irrelevant to that purpose and thus are not in any way "deceptive".)

The use of the digitally colorized image of Mr. Chavchavadze would, of course, certainly not be appropriate to use in the article about Alexander Roinashvili as a means to faithfully illustrate Mr. Roinashvill's work as a portrait photographer, and that's why it is his unaltered original monochrome photograph file which appears in that article. But the Chavchavadze article is a different issue and the colorized image serves a different purpose. I am not aware of any WP policy or guideline that prohibits the use of this type of digitally colorizing image enhancement in the project for the fully disclosed purpose it is used for here, and you have not cited any such existing policy or community consensus against it, only your own personal view. While all editors are certainly entitled to having and expressing their personal opinions, such views do not constitute WP policy unless and until they are broadly adopted by the community by the process of achieving wide consensus to support them. Centpacrr (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello all.
I am here to raise a flag that back in February of 2021, almost one full year ago, there was extensive discussion on an exact parallel situation regarding the Wright Flyer article, along with the John T. Daniels article, the person who clicked the shutter on the most iconic photograph of this event.

I happened to find the situation here in realtime so that I could cite it as precedent which established an extremely long-held stable Consensus, over on the Talk page HERE, going so far as to present the HARD STATS of the many dozens of editors who had supported this Consensus, along with untold tens of thousands of readers who had the ability to voice objection, yet none of them did. Over a period of well over 6 years.

I was the lone editor who argued this position, that it was totally proper to use a well-referenced colorized image for the article about the historical event which was witnessed live in color with the human eyeball, while preserving the black & white historical image in the separate article devoted to the photographer.

Many other editors weighed in on this, and absolutely everyone else refused to uphold the Consensus which had been long established, more than 6 YEARS earlier over here. An Admin was summoned to help resolve the situation. He asserted a position that Consensus is needed to be established in every article independently. He then attempted to support his view by presenting an Essay (not any WP) to me. (See my User Talk page, HERE.) What was even more curious was that this essay explained the need to maintain consistency across all of Wikipedia. So it actually supported the position which I was upholding. Which I still maintain through to this day. Not only is their position ripe for breeding inconsistency, having this supposed need to rehash exactly parallel situations in the Talk pages of each and every article is extremely wasteful.

Why I have not reverted back to the colorized image

In the wake of that Wright Flyer discussion, on February 12th, 2021, someone came here to this article and switched, after almost 7 years of stable consensus, to THIS edit with a black & white image. I would have reverted it immediately to the colorized, long established infobox image, except for the fact that the justification that was presented in the Edit Summary was:

"replace digitally colored photo with more natural looking"

Followed 5 minutes later with:

"better quality photo"

This rationale was regarding image quality, with nothing to do regarding whether the image was colorized or not. And that is where the situation remains today.

So it is clear that the nearly 7 year Consensus on proper use of colorized images still stands. Once again, over on the Wright Flyer article, everyone else involved there absolutely refused to follow this Consensus. And the Admin who intervened, likewise refused to uphold Wikipedia Policy regarding Consensus. In the end, I was blocked. And voluntarily, I left the issue through the end of the calendar year. I did this in hopes that others would come around to see that Consensus & Consistency are vital principles to uphold.

I am back now. My first edit since returning to editing here was to ADD an extremely high quality colorized historical photo of the Wright Flyer, with Wilbur Wright still at the controls. I am very glad to see that this colorized addition has been supported over there, into its fifth day now. That appears at the very bottom of the article. (The infobox has been maintained as the non-colorized image, with my continual protest and objection that Consensus was refused to be upheld.)

So it is clear that there is proper use of colorized images of historical import. Yet my repeated introduction in the infobox of the colorized version of the most historical image was vehemently rejected, going against WP, in a manner which can be characterized as nothing short of cyberbullying. The prevalent attitude over there took on the apparent form of:

"I do not like established Consensus, therefore I will refuse to follow it."

I experienced it like a virtual "storming of the Capitol" moment. A mob refusing to follow the rule of law, given WP regarding Consensus, etc. Except there is one major difference. And I had expressed this PRIMARY POINT quite early on in our exchange:

The primary problem we were dealing with was the absence of a Wikipedia Policy regarding the use of colorized images.

That was the fundamental problem back in 2014, when Consensus was established here regarding infobox use of a colorized historical image. It was likewise the fundamental problem when I jumped into this issue in February of 2021. And it remains the underlying problem today.

But even without any WP on Colorized Photos existing, it REMAINS a problem today that the Infobox Consensus, set and established and maintained here of this period of plenty of years, was violated over there in that article. And remains unfollowed to this very day. This is an issue that still needs to be fixed.

It is up to us as editors to either follow WP, with the policy on Consensus being one of the most important ones, or we don't. And if we don't, this introduces an unnecessary level of CHAOS to the Great Experiment that is Wikipedia. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ilia Chavchavadze. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://atlas.usv.ro/www/codru_net/CC19/2/georgian.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ilia Chavchavadze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223231724/http://www.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000099/Ilia%20works.pdf to http://www.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000099/Ilia%20works.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)