Talk:2021 attack on Tbilisi Pride

Comments

@Reordcraeft: You are spreading misinformation and engaging in edit waring. MIA has announced that stabbing of Polish tourist is not related to the protests. Source. You have deleted many valuable and relevant information I have added in the article. You are also trying to put in article terms like "alt-right" which are not even used in Georgian political discourse and there is no source describing protesters as "alt-right". Besides, you wrote very biased article against groups opposed to the Pride what looks like is motivated by your own political views. Let me remind you that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reordcraeft: Are you gonna answer or keep engaging in edit war? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@ArsenalAtletico2017: I will reinstate some of your edits, but not all of them. Some of the information added by you was new and factual, but things I have accused you of are also present. I don't want to escalate, but I will protect the integrity of this article. P.S. No Georgian language sources can be used in this article as it is part of English Wikipedia. --Reordcraeft (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reordcraeft: You are not a supreme authority to decide what should be left and what should be removed from this article. Many things you wrote are factually incorrect, not backed by sources and biased. They will be edited. You can also edit anything I write which doesn't holds up to standards of Wikipedia, but keep in mind that this is not a forum for some users to spread their version of events corresponding to their political views. This is at least supposed to be a neutral website.

Where did you conclude from that Georgian sources can't be used in English Wikipedia? Anyway, Here is an English article pointing out that assaulter was mentally ill and attacked a person without a motive. I am editing that and many other things in article which are purposely added to make counter-protesters look bad. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Make your edits carefully, I will check them later. --Reordcraeft (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva: Don't remove sourced and relevant information from the article without writing explanation here ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

ArsenalAtletico2017, you are clearly here with an agenda, sole purpose of it to spread misinformation related to right-wing articles, your history show that clearly. This is not personal blog and the misinformation you probably get away with in Georgian social media is not going to stick on this website.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva: Do you even know what misinformation is? Information I added was backed by authoritative sources. Wikipedia is neutral website, don't add information and labels not backed by sources to make counter-protesters look bad. It is very clear who is here for agenda, pushing left-wing version of events. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I know what agenda-pushing looks like. Even with supposedly "authoritative" sources, it is still possible to push an agenda and present things in non-neutral way and give undue weight, which is what you have been doing by creating false moral equivalent between peaceful protesters and violent groups. You did everything possible to water down how violent these group were. You have no right to change objective truth by turning it into passive voice, like saying people were injured instead of stating who injured them.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva: The article was incredibly biased before I started editing, overusing labels such as: "far-right", "alt-right", "homophobic", "pro-Russian", "extremist" and so on. You might think about protesters whatever you want, but keep your personal opinions out of article. And there were instances of agent provocateurs at the counter-demonstration, so saying that counter-protesters are responsible for every single violent incident is also biased. But you don't mind because it is obvious which side do you take and what agenda you are pushing. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reordcraeft: Why do you protect homophobic ultraconservatives by label "hate groups"? Its like separating them and creating some "worse" from of ultraconservativism. Attacks were conduit by ultraconservatives, not some "hate groups", which is political correct name to not offend some right-wing ultraconservatives. This article is quite homophobic/transphobic!--78.102.53.207 (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@ArsenalAtletico2017: You added a number of new groups in the participants list, please capitalize and spell them correctly if you intend to keep them in the article and also kindly add sources where they are mentioned by name and which prove their existence --Reordcraeft (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reordcraeft: I have already added the source in the other part of the article where all these groups are also mentioned. Here is the source. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Reordcraeft: Yeah keep reverting edits while ignoring comments here and name-calling. So you really think like you're a neutral editor? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article is incredibly biased. It only uses sources supporting one side of the protests (only voicing opinions supporting one side) and overuses labels to demonize another side. The article doesn't meets the standarts of the Neutrality. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You have no evidence to support that. There can be no false moral equivalence between violent hate groups and their victims, which seem to be your definition of neutrality and that's simply not the case.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva: The whole article is an evidence. You again push your own point of view that counter-protesters are "hate groups" and others are "victims". Your opinions are not facts. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to substantiate what exactly is problem. Saying you don't like the whole thing is not acceptable. Also, saying it only covers one side is just not true, it clearly provides overview of different sides' stance in the background section. Without providing evidence, you tagging this page is a form of harassment, you just want it to look bad and be discredit by attaching these tags.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The "background section" is not enough, all sections should be neutral and cover all sides (not to mention that big chunk of the background section was edited by me and my edits were deleted numerous times by you and the other user):

1. Article only quotes members of the pro-Pride side and totally ignores views of the other side.

2. Whenever the counter-protesters are mentioned, numerous biased labels are applied like "far-right", "extremist", "hate group", "pro-Russian" (Yeah, apparently all counter-protesters are pro-Russian, even the 2008 war veterans who were present at counter-demonstrations /s). But no such labels are applied to the other side (for example, they are not mentioned as "ultra-liberal" or "radical progressives")

3. Only biased pro-Pride sources are used, other sources are neglected.

4. Various uncited claims like "priests engaging in violence".

5. Various controversial statements, like for example attributing death of the journalist to the violence at the protests.

6. The overall pathos of the article is very pro-Pride and anti-conservative even though it should be neutral and not favoring any side. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Once more, your argument seem to imply false moral equivalence between demonstrably violent homophobic groups and pride event and their supporters. Cited sources look reputable to me and of course can't be put on the same level as fringe news sources like "Alt Info".--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva: It is not editors' job to make moral judgments. Instead, they should provide raw facts and leave making moral judgements to readers. I have not added Alt-Info as a source (actually their website was shut down some days ago). However, many of the "reputable" sources in the article take stance against the one side and can't be considered neutral. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@ArsenalAtletico2017:

Okay, Mr. bias-detector.

You have added this to the article, from the far-right, fake news source to 'balance the narrative'. If you continue with your counterproductive edits, you may get banned from Wikipedia. If you then carry on by creating sockpuppet accounts, they will get banned too.

On July 11 during the "special broadcast" the political commentator of Alt-Info Giorgi Kardava claimed that the death of Lekso Lashkarava might have been pre-planned by liberal groups. He noted that Lekso Laskrava might have been used as a "sacred victim". He pointed out that liberal groups who might have been assasinated him with an intent to exploit his death to exalt masses and instigate anti-government riots. He invoked the death of George Floyd, suggesting that Democrats might have been involved in his killing in hospital to instigate riots and chaos. Zura Makharadze claimed that the liberal opposition parties like the United National Movement were creating the "emotional wave" to trigger anti-government protests and try to overthrow the government, like the 2019 anti-Gavrilov protests.

and you end that addition with this 'attempt' at being 'objective':

"The opponents have dismissed these accusations as "misinformation"."

Nice try. We are sorry for being distrustful of your neutrality, but you give us more and more reasons to be. Your unbiasedness has already been tried when you made edits to the George Floyd article during 2020. It failed. --Reordcraeft (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Reordcraeft: Well, that was the view of Alt-Info which is worth mentioning because it had significant influence on public discourse + Alt-Info is participant of the events. Did I somewhere imply or hint that their point of view is correct? No, I just added raw facts, just how it should be on wikipedia. I also provided other points of views including those of the media outlets like Mtavari Arkhi and TV Pirveli who joined the protests so readers can make their own judgments.

Get banned? lol I literally don't break any rules, you can request arbitration if you want, whatever. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@ArsenalAtletico2017: Their view? Alt-info were the violent group that beat that guy to death and you are quoting their version of events that it was in fact the Liberal groups that have killed him instead. You are basically making John Wilkes Booth write the obituary for Abraham Lincoln by quoting this lunatic conspiracy theory. Your edits are in bad faith and I will likely request arbitration if it goes on. You are revealing your true face step by step and it's not alright, it's altright. --Reordcraeft (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Reordcraeft: Their point of view had important influence on the public discourse as I have already stated so it should be in the article like the other points of views I have added, plus I have mentioned that their opponents are accusing them of disinformation campaign. "Alt-info were the violent group" - well, it is your opinion, it not the fact unless you show their members engaging in the violence, on the other hands, there is proof that they were discouraging the violence. "Your edits are in bad faith" - this is also just your opinion. Moreover, this is not a space for the discussion of my political views and even if I was alt-right, that doesn't prohibits me from editing. You are apparently leftist but I don't rant about that. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Reordcraeft: I have added what Alt-Info's opponents have said to balance their point of view. You can expand the section by adding other views but deleting the whole text could be considered as vandalism. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@ArsenalAtletico2017: If you stop edit-warring, I will reincorporate some of your edits, such as the MIA's claim that the journalist's body contained traces of drugs, but with additional clarifications and analysis. Not the one-sided POV you presented. --Reordcraeft (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Reordcraeft:First of all, What do you mean by "we don't quote conspiracy theories"? Do you even realize that not all conspiracy theories are wrong and many are right? All views have right to exist, especially until there is official report about the reasons of death. This view had gained significant social weight so it should be present in Wikipedia. The main goal of this site is to reflect the social reality.

You can add additional clarifications and analysis of the events as far as they are legitimate and backed by reliable sources, but Alt-Info's point of view still should be present for aforementioned reasons.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Reordcraeft: You apparently have no problem with current version of article stating Levan Vasadze's opinion about the reasons of the death of Lashkarava (which was distorted by the editor but anyway), yet Alt-Info's opinion is somehow not worth mentioning even though it was directly involved in the protests unlike Vasadze? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It is becoming more and more obvious that ArsenalAtletico2017 is here to push fringe far right view and some recent work is just vandalism and whitewashing. Appealing to "social weight" and "social reality" is just his way to say crazy content should be included. For example, some fringe far right think that Covid vaccine contains microchips that cause you to transmit bluetooth signal, should that also be included on wikipedia?--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Levan Vasadze's opinion was deleted because it is distorted to make him look bad and if Alt-Info's opinion is not presented about the causes of the death because it is "conspiracy theory" (yet not fully disapproved), why should be Vasadze's opinion, who was not even involved in the protests? Once again, there is no official statement about the causes of the death so opinions of all relevant actors which gained social weight should be added. And name-calling is against the rules too. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

2021 Tbilisi Pride protests → 2021 attack on Tbilisi Pride – This event is not notable because there was a protest against the pride parade. Counter-protests commonly occur any time there is a pride demonstration, especially in Eastern Europe. It's only notable because of the violence that occurred. The word "attack" is commonly used on articles covering events that are notable for the violence aspect such as 2021 United States Capitol attack. "2021" is needed in the title for disambiguation as this is not the first time that Tbilisi pride events have faced violent attacks. (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR _talk 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Most of the international news coverage are calling it an attack and/or highlighting the violence in the headline. Examples:

• "The Geopolitical Fault Line Behind the Attack on Tbilisi Pride" Foreign Policy
• "Fear and loathing in Tbilisi as homophobic attack pain remains raw" Euronews
• "Twenty Arrested As Ultranationalists Attempt To Disrupt LGBT Event In Tbilisi", Georgian TV Cameraman Injured Amid Anti-LGBT Violence Has Died RFE/RL
• "LGBT+ campaigners in Georgia call off pride march after office attack" "'We are winning' says Georgia's LGBT+ Pride organiser after violence" Reuters
• "Tbilisi Pride march cancelled after far-right attack on headquarters", "Georgia TV stations protest over far-right attacks on journalists" The Guardian
• "In response to pogroms, Tbilisi weighs conservative voters against Western pressure" Eurasianet
• "'I'm happy to be alive,' says LGBTQ campaigner after attack on Pride march offices in Georgia" CNN
• "Georgia LGBT activists cancel Pride march after clashes, office attack" France24
• Georgia: LGBTQ activists cancel Pride march after violence Al Jazeera
• "Georgia: Organizers cancel Pride march amid violence" Deutsche Welle
• ‘They came armed with stones’: Violent mob storms Tbilisi Pride offices Open Democracy

... you get the drift. The only international English-language media sources I found using "protests" for this attack:

• "Georgia: Tbilisi Pride cancelled amid violent protests" BBC
• "Journalists attacked, hurt in Georgia at anti-LGBT protest" AP

(t · c) buidhe 21:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• support per nom—blindlynx 18:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article describes series of protests which occurred during that weekend, not just the 5 July protest. Also, "attack" does not fits the context because it was a counter-demonstration where majority of protesters remained peaceful, while some sporadic incidents of violence occurred. No official body classified it as an "attack", and even though you named some sources that describe the event as "attack", majority of sources still denote to it as "protests" on the internet (and in the article too). Also, we already have similar event named 2013 Tbilisi anti-homophobia rally protests. It is also worth noting that Georgian version of the article is named "events of July 5 in Tbilisi". ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  majority of sources still denote to it as "protests". My searches indicated the opposite, as noted above. The 2013 article is likely misnamed but that's beside the point. "Protest" is usually used for peaceful demonstrations and if they're notable for the violence that occurred, it's called something else such as riot, pogrom, attack, etc. (t · c) buidhe 16:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. VR _talk 21:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Georgia (country) has been notified of this discussion. VR _talk 21:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Support. It is clear to me that the only notable aspect of this event was the actions by counterprotestors to stop the Pride parade(s). Thus, attack seems a more accurate title than just parade. However, a less loaded term would be much much preferrable. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.