Talk:Satala Aphrodite

Current Title
I have doubts that this title exists outside of extremist nationalist Armenian sources that consider historic truth to be subservient to national interests. The recent opinions and actions of those extremists, and the responses given to them, needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. "Bronze head of Aphrodite / Anahit" is how it is described by the British Museum curator Vrej Nersessian in his book "Treasures From the Ark". So Satala Aphrodite would seem to be the most appropriate title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is described as the Satala Aphrodite in the British Museum online catalogue. . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have many rather strange doubts (usually unfounded, as I have seen), but I see it they are synonyms. It could work with either; I don't mind - just like this person Nersessian says, they are basically the same thing. --92slim (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Synonyms" does not disguise or excuse the fact that you claimed "Per British Museum's own description" as the reason for making the name change - but the British Museum's own description actually refers to it as the "Satala Aphrodite". If you "could work with either; I don't mind" then please revert the article back to the old name. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --92slim (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop reverting
The article Tiptoeblabla. It's obviously obsolete information that needs to be fixed; and it is sourced. --92slim (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what age you are - maybe you have never done any research or you would know how invalid your "The webpage of the British Museum says" wording is (as was your earlier OR "curators at the British Museum" version). The British Museum is not a person - the anonymous author of its webpage is just reproducing the opinions of experts and some of the sources of those expert opinions are indicated on that webpage, such as the two citations for the statue's past exhibition which should refer you to the descriptions in the exhibition catalogues published at the time. You have been repeatedly deleting the content of one such catalogue and replacing it with an inferior and superficial source - the British Museum website. It is inferior and superficial because it is not the original source of the opinions and is summarizing those opinions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is indeed true, provide the "superior" sources or stop disrupting the article and calling names. Just because you say the British Museum website is "inferior" doesn't make it so. I cannot see any "original sources" referenced anywhere. --92slim (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The "Armenian goddess" reference inclusion
As per usual, Tiptoe, you push your own version of events. "Anahita" is an Armenian goddess, so the reference will stay in the lede, whether you like it or not. Yes, have a go; also, valid sources shouldn't be deleted randomly. The webpage (inferior or not does NOT matter) says what it says, don't push your own research here, maybe ring the British Museum and complain, but the reference will stay. No OR, SYNTH or other BS excuses; it's verbatim as it's written there. Oh and please don't bring me the "Roman Armenia isn't Armenian" BS again, or I will personally complain again about you, something I'd rather not do as it won't make you realise the problem. --92slim (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)