Talk:Tbilisi/Archives/2011/October

Ethnic Groups Table (Removed)
I removed the ethnic groups table on the Tbilisi page because the table appears to have been a part of a larger attempt to portray the city as having "non-Georgian" historic roots (or by its population demographics at least...) The census figures provide data from the 19th century onwards, a period which was marked by the Russian annexation of Georgia and following the destruction of Tbilisi in 1795 by the Persians. The census is trying to portray Tbilisi as a town that had a very small Georgian population (minority) a couple of centuries ago, with that minority somehow gaining majority status during the "Soviet" Era. An analogous claim has been voiced over the years by the Abkhaz Separatists backed by Russia in connection with Abkhazia and its respective population, trying again to portray that region of Georgia as "not Georgian." In the case of Tbilisi, the census simply ignores or blurs the fact that the Russian annexation of Georgia and the following period of migration of other ethnic groups which was endorsed by the Russian Empire, altered the demographics of the city considerably in the 19th century. In addition, the census does not incorporate older, Georgian sources (17th century and earlier) about the population of the city which depict a completely different demographic picture. The table in question, again provides a publication that was published in Moscow ("Old Tbilisi"), in Russian, as its source. These claims which try to illustrate the "non-Georgian" roots and background of Tbilisi, that are in essence, quite similar to the claims and portrayal of Abkhazia as "not Georgian" and somehow becoming "Georgianized" in the 20th century seem to be stemming from the same propagandistic roots. Therefore, politicisized tables that are pushing particular interests of "certain groups" that are incorporated into Wikipedia, which is a neutral encyclopedia, should not be included within its articles... D.Papuashvili (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll bring data from before 19 cent period. Anyway, you had no right to do this only according on your relation to this table. And what you wrote - you are trying to politize demographics - which is unacceptable. I call all Wikipedia users to research this case - has or not this Wiki user right to remove and politize demographics history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.165.148 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an administrator who first saw this page a couple of days ago by sheer chance (reverting petty spam). Thus I have put the article on my watchlist and noticed the recent edit warring. It must stop and all discussions confined to this talk page rather than reverting summaries. What is crucial here is whether the cited sources are reliable and unambiguous. They do seem so (and they were published before the recent tensions). The table contained some math errors in percentages, and thus I went to some extra sources. They roughly agree with the previous numbers. The data are interesting (to me at least, as I never knew this before), and whatever someone might think about them is irrelevant. Materialscientist (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not in any way approve of the edit warring which took place but I sense nationalistic propaganda here. The paragraph in question is four lines long and I hardly see how it would merit a giant chart like this, especially knowing that it relies entirely on questionable Russian websites and considering that according to most sources, the first Imperial Russian census did not occur until 1897.

Anderson, David. The 1926/27 Soviet Polar Census Expeditions. 2001, p.29.

So I guess if you were a merchant or a tax collector,stereotypical Armenian professions in Georgia, you would probably count as an Armenian as well. To summarize, the data before 1897 came on those Russian websites from god knows where, and the first "real" census is not itself in a much better shape.--Tremer11 (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Can you provide evidence for "questionable"? How questionable (1%, 10%, 100%, 300% error)? I thought those are official government reports, and somehow the data seem consistent though they come from different sources and years. Wasn't Russian the official language then? Materialscientist (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See the above post.It does not matter what year they say they came from. The only book from the list that I can verify is the one that has ISBN number, the other ones could exist or not, or they may be from the stated year or not.--Tremer11 (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You bring up several interesting facts. The source that the table allegedly came from, even if it exists, is questionable.  I wouldn't be surprised if a publication like this was the work of one of the directorates of the KGB.  In the history section of this page, there's a reference to the demographic makeup of the city of the 19th century already. I don't know who inserted the text about demographics in the history section since it wasn't a part of my text when I wrote the history section for this page, but I think this reference needs to be checked for accuracy too.  At this point,  I suggest that we remove the ethnic groups table because it is neither neutral nor accurate. D.Papuashvili (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How referenced numbers can be "not neutral"? I can verify another book without ISBN. It is a 1003-page scanned manuscript written and printed in old Russian style and known on the web. It is hardly possible that it was fabricated. The point is that all those 6 sources of various origins roughly fit together. Materialscientist (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If "the 1897 All-Russian census was the first Imperial survey which aimed to interview every household head and relied upon solicited interview data rather than the lists compiled by local authorities", how can there be reliable data on the ethnic makeup of the city from the Russian sources, unless other official surveys were conducted prior to 1897? Are you suggesting that the data that are included in the table come from official demographic surveys that were conducted prior to the first Imperial census of 1897? D.Papuashvili (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. 1897 was merely the date of the first all-Russia census. Local authorities conducted censuses much earlier, and that djvu book of 1885 reads like one of those. Materialscientist (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. If you've checked and verified the numbers already across several different sources, there's no need to go deeper into the accuracy of the numbers.  What I have an issue with is that unfortunately, this table looks like it is politically motivated.  First of all, cities usually have data about the modern demographic situation of the location in question.  There are no time series associated with the ethnic makeup of cities from the past.  Also, 19th century demographic data is taken arbitrarily to form a time series as to what the ethnic makeup of the city was from the 19th century onwards.  The edits from the anonymous user who inserted this table into the demographics section of the page resemble very much the comments made by the user ArmenianNY from several years ago, who was in essence insisting that Tbilisi was not a Georgian city at all.  Therefore, I insist on a very thorough review as to why this table should be included on this page at all considering that most other cities do not have any tables  even resembling what has now been inserted into the Tbilisi article.  D.Papuashvili (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of interpretation of these data is a completely separate issue. Including demographic history into WP articles on localities and regions is a common practice, and I have first-hand experience with that. It is usually easy to find data for total population vs. year or nationality composition for one-two points in time. This might explain lack of demographic data vs. time in other articles. Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Somehow I don't see ethnic tables like this on the pages of New York City, Moscow, London, Baku or even Yerevan. I do not believe that it is appropriate to include an ethnic table on the Tbilisi page either.  The ethnic time series should not be emphasized on this page.  If someone wants to, they can look up the ethnic data, in the form of time series from a secondary source but not from the Tbilisi page itself. D.Papuashvili (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since there have been no responses on this subject, I again suggest that the ethnic time series be removed from the main Tbilisi page. This is a politicized chart and it is not appropriate to include an ethnic table like this within the Tbilisi article. D.Papuashvili (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No valid reason provided, thus no reply. Absence of something in some other articles (not all, by the way) is by no means a reason for removal of statistical information. Materialscientist (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you have it wrong. It is not an absence nor coincidence that the city pages on Wikipedia do not have designated ethnic tables, especially in the form of time series. This is a biased table trying to push a particular POV and cannot be considered to be neutral. On the contrary, it can be viewed as discriminatory in many ways to quite a lot of people.  And no, this table is not accurate in the sense that it completely omits the Kurdish population of Tbilisi which is very sizable now and was significant throughout the whole period that this table tries to capture. In this case in particular, the user who uploaded the data (who btw has been banned from editing Wikipedia) resembles the user ArmenianNY, who was claiming that Tbilisi was not Georgian at all.  Therefore, POV tables like this are not acceptable on Wikipedia.  This table will be removed.  D.Papuashvili (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)