ordu 

There's nothing wrong with using Armenian sources except when they are the only sources that are used to support a disputed and an inflammatory Armenian claim.

Then it becomes POV and biased - even if it is true. And it may very well be true but nobody has provided unbiased or NPOV sources in 5 months. Just one passage from an Armenian hardly qualifies as a source and reverting over and over again isn't going to make it a fact either.

If you have a logical explanation why this guy is not biased or not POV, let me hear it. 

Also, when talking about 90 years ago, you can't put it in the Population section of Ordu today. How is that irrelevant? What next? Apes and homo-erectus who lived there 10,000 years ago? Let's be serious.