User talk:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism

Falun Gong? There's an arbitration case on. Not sure if it counts as nationalist posturing, though the Chinese CP's position on FG would suggest so. It's puzzling. Hornplease 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to separate this from politics or religion in general. I am reluctant to include American patriotism and Israeli-Palestinian stuff, since they are much more political, while I am trying to sketch the irrational mindset that leads to irrational editing. It is perfectly natural that, say, during the Israeli-Libanon conflict, editors from both countries spam Wikipedia in honest outrage, nothing to do with nationalism as such. Falun Gong and the PRC don't show up on my radar as "nationalist", but as either a case of religious persecution, or politics. Maybe I'm missing something. What might count as nationalism would be separatist Uyghur or Tibetan movements within the PRC, but I'm hardly aware of much trolling going on in this respect. dab (𒁳) 12:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aim

ok, the aim of this page is getting the bigger picture of events that bog down articles in many not-so-widely-watchlisted corners of Wikipedia. As I am saying here, there is unavoidably "regional attention bias" on any WP-project. Casual vandalism to an USian topic sets of all sorts of scandals that come to qualify as a major milestone in Wikipedia history, but ongoing concerted efforts of pushing nonsense in non-Anglospheric topics go largely unnoticed. My intention is to collect arbcom precedents for this sort of behavioural pattern, to be able to deal with recurring cases more efficiently. Ultimately, there could be some sort of anti-nationalist taskforce channeling efforts of catching this sort of thing, and giving editors quick briefings on the topics involved. dab (𒁳) 12:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian people

May I suggest Assyrian people, that article has a very long history of wildly nationalistic edit wars. Its discussion page is a constant source of fun... No prospect for settling the dispute though :( Are you aware of the Indian priority wars in math subjects? Like Talk:Kerala_school_of_astronomy_and_mathematics and Talk:Calculus. 212.199.22.107 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, yes, how could I forget the Assyrians... dab (𒁳) 11:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduvata pseudoscience

Although--from my limited knowledge--I altogether agree with the characterisation as religio-nationalist based pseudoscience, we should not have an article devoted to saying so. I really regret having to disagree with you here. There is malignant nonsense I feel just as strongly about, but the way to oppose it is not to write an article saying Creationist pseudoscience (for example) but just Creationism. And so on through all the gamut of human folly (and even human evil). DGG 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree in principle. The problem is that the Creationists use the term "Creationism" themselves, while their Hindu counterparts simply babble about "recent discoveries by eminent scholars" without giving their thing a proper name. "Vedic Science" would be a possibility, but it's ambiguous. I would consider moving Hindutva pseudoscience to Vedic Science (Hindutva), or elsewhere, let's just discuss this on the article's talkpage. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the AfD has ben reinstated, I comment there. As you remark, it may not be possible to find a neutral term. DGG 19:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

Thank you for the good essay! You may want to tag it as an essay - I would have appreciated finding it sooner. Where would you rank the Sri Lanka conflict (see [affected articles]) in your list? You write "Problems [with religiously motivated editors] will arise only when their religious motivation spills over in [non-religious] topics". What would you say about the long struggle about the Prophet's pictures in the Muhammad article? — Sebastian 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently (in July) user Ttturbo tried to describe Red army crimes in different countries -created category and unfortunately published some stub poor sourced articles. He suffered attack imediately by user Mikallaj, who without any disccussion marked his articles for deletion, and he was supported by the other russians Alex Bakharev, IgorSf...and some other users. Ttturbo arguments from voting debate were removed by polishman Pan Gerwaz, then user Ttturbo talk page was hacked and even some foolishment was made and after sharp attack by Miranda he was falsely (and for some emotions - not falsely) accused and blocked indefinetely despite publishing articles about criminal wiki hacking. This is not only some kind of vandalism and criem, but example of some Red army fans nationalistic activities. Ttturbo was supported by some users, but attack was too strong.78.62.22.250 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a full Soviet war crimes article. If you want to participate in editing controversial articles, I suggest your first step should be getting an account. dab (𒁳) 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for strong and full of criticism help. I couldn't see sense to get an account, becouse my talk page will be hacked (illegal editing leaving no traces on history like it was for Ttturbo user page) making some fooolishment, quarells and blocking.I don't want to agree that Soviet war crimes article is full. Red Army commited military crimes starting from Russia civil war in 1918, starting the war against Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia the same year and finishing by massacre of Tbilisi in 1989, Vilnius 1990 and even killing some young men evn in Moscow in 1991. Their crimes are not the only raping and murdering thousands of poor German women in 1945, or shooting my grandmother in March 1945. We must remember Budapest 1956 and Praha 1969 too. Plus, Red army and Kremlin comunist leaders must share responsibility for lots of crimes.78.62.22.250 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do You suppose attack against category Red Army crimes Lithuania no to be nationalistic -slavic vs. Baltic?78.62.22.250 05:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am supposing no such thing. What I am supposing is that this isn't the place to complain about this. If you want to join the fray, your first step is getting an account. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian patriots?

This essay is a great initiative, and should be developed. However, I object to calling the Hindutva pov-pushers on wiki as 'Indian patriots', since the Hindutva ideology is contrary to Indian patriotism. --Soman 07:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds

You should add Medes into your equation, and how the Kurds are desperately trying to rewrite history and make the Median empire into a Kurdish empire. Some of the content on YouTube is pretty funny: Ancient Kurdistan (lol). Anyway, they're constantly trying to Kurdify the Medes article. Keep an eye on that. — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:54 12 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

This should interest you: [1] [2] [3] — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few more arbcom cases about nationalist POV

The Troubles (Northern Ireland)
Allegations of apartheid (Israel)
Dalmatia (More Yugoslavia)
Digwuren (Estonia)
Bharatveer (India)

All this from just October 2007! Argyriou (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren had nothing to do with nationalist POV, but with behavioral issues of certain individuals. The only ethnic aspect in this case was that the clerks nominated a group of individuals to be involved on the basis of an earlier check-user case, who all happened to be ethnic Estonian, even though a proportion of these users had left Wikipedia long before this case started and thus could not be involved. Martintg (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any Idea?

Do you know anything about the Macedonian matter? and what is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefendEurope (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia?

I don't understand why this case is included, in essence it was a dispute about whether the use of the term "occupation" is POV and crossed ethnic/national lines, involving Estonian, Ukrainian, Australian, Latvian-American, French and Finnish editors. Martintg (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]