Talk:Tbilisi/Archives/2016/May

Whitewashing
Congratulations to chauvinistic users who have succeeded in removing any in-depth mention of the city's Armenian population from the Demographics section. Also good job in not featuring a single Armenian church in the collage. -- Ե րևանցի talk  10:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When was it there before it was removed? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed this as well. The demographic table was removed, despite so many other major cities in the region having demographic statistics. Someone had a clear agenda here to pretend Armenians had no involvement in the development of modern Tblisi. Tigernose (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored the data, renaming the table Historical demographics of Tbilisi. This edit, the most recent deletion of the demographics content, has a very deceptive edit summary. The content is sourced, and there is no talk page discussion agreement to remove it (in fact, as the above posts show, there is unquestionable support for its inclusion). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I see from an earlier discussion that this same deleting editor deleted the same content before, that time claiming "crowding", perhaps the most invalid deletion reason ever! And he replaces it with an OR synthesis collage of churches, synagogue and mosque (with, revealingly, not one Armenian church). This collage is not valid content - illustrations are required to support sourced article content, not to be used as a replacement for deleted sourced content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The replacement of the original content was discussed months ago with another set of users. It was replaced due to several reasons, prime of which was that most of the sourcing (such as this dubious link) was not in line with WP:RS. Another plausible reason is that inserting huge charts in a tiny paragraph screams of WP:UNDUE. The presence of Armenians in the city has been and continues to be clearly reflected in relevant parts of the article, such as this: "In the course of the 19th century, the largest ethnic group of Tbilisi were Armenians, who, at some point, formed 74.3% of the population." Repeating this over and over and over again is just agenda pushing.--Damianmx (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2
 * We have the two editors above, User:Yerevantsi and User:Tigernose, expressing dismay that this content has been deleted, and of the three editors involved in the earlier "Crowding" discussion, two - User:LouisAragon ("it has to be kept") and User:Ymblanter ("rather yes than no") - supported the retention of this content. Only you wanted it removed, and you gave not one word of valid reasoning to support that deletion. You have been deleting content that is valid content, that is adequately referenced, that is on-topic for the section it is in, and that consensus wants retained. And you replaced it with an OR SYNTHESIS collage of pov photos that has no relation to any content in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the collage, it was placed there for illustrative purposes. Since it bothered you so much, I went ahead and replaced it with an image of a historical church in Avlabari. Notwithstanding, the chart with non-WP:RS sources has no place here, especially in an overview as small as this. Again, I prefer to assume good faith, but one has to note that complaints by these select editors concern exclusively Armenians, which makes me think that this is some type of nationalistic agenda pushing and original research. The named topic is more than adequately covered in the article. Repeated insertion/regurgitation of the same thing is just an attempt to make a POINT, and an encyclopedia is not an appropriate venue for that.--Damianmx (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2
 * The partisan editing seems to be all from you - you don't like this content, it offends your agenda, you want it gone, and to hell with anyone else's opinion. You are in a minority of one here and are edit warring. I have pointed out your earlier deceitful edit summary, the one falsely claiming there was talk page consensus for deletion. Now you make a new but equally deceitful edit summary to "support" the same deletion "original research with non-WP:RS content" - there is no original research, all of the data has references, and you do not just make sweeping unsupported claims of non reliable sources without presenting the evidence.  Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the data does have references, but they are not WP:RS. runivers.ru and spam-ridden kavkaz.narod.ru, which form the majority of the sourcing, are not authoritative sources. In fact, according to Dr. David Anderson of the University of Aberdeen, the 1897 all-Russian imperial census did not even contain a question on nationality - "the 1897 all-Russian Imperial census did not contain a question on nationality, nationality was attributed to populations often through the local analysis of data on...social estate and occupation..." - that can hardly be described as reliable data.--Damianmx (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2
 * These substantive doubts aside, I am comfortable including estimates by Roland Suny, since Suny is at least somewhat reputable. But as I noted above, Suny's text is already incorporated into the article very clearly and I can't see a good reason why it would deserve a chart of its own. Everything the reader needs to know is already there. You are causing an uproar over nothing.--Damianmx (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2