Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard/Archive 1

Trakai Voivodeship

Background:

Trakai Voivodeship is a historical, geographical entity (it existed from 1413-1795, first in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and after Union of Lublin 1569 still in the Grand Duchy in the federal state of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as one of the voivodeships of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Unfortunately there are no clearly established name in the English literature for the terms related to the administrative division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; voivodeships are sometimes reffered to as palatinates or provinces, and geographical names like Trakai are referred to in spellings of various nations once controlling the territory). There are very few English language sources making reference to this entity (a discussion long ago at WikiProject History and Geography of Poland has concluded that voivodeship is the proffered term to palatinate or province, and this has not been challenged). Trakai is a Lithuanian name (the city of Trakai is currently in Lithuania), and Troki is a Polish name variant of the city. Lithuanian was not an official language in the Commonwealth; Polish was (see Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Languages_of_the_Commonwealth); the historical name in official language of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Polish - was województwo trockie). It is likely that the province has been referred to in Ruthenian language (as before the 1697 the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the Ruthenian language, albeit Polish was increasingly used due to polonization after Union of Lublin in 1569).

Conflict:

A recent discussion and vote about renaming Trakai Voivodeship (not a single source has been found to support this name) to a slightly better referenced Troki Voivodeship (supported by three references in English, all three however written by Polish authors publishing in Engish) has generated a stalemate on talk (with voters relatively clearly divided among national lines). Lithuanian editors prefer Trakai despite no English source supporting this name, Polish editors support Polish name, and the discussion is dominated by the "Poles vs Lithuanians" attitude. The stalemate, if continued, will result in keeping the ORish name Trakai Voivodeship. No side has suggested using the Ruthenian spelling (personally I am not even sure what it would be, and I've found no reference to it in the sources I've read). Input and mediation by neutral editors, who would attempt to mediate between Polish and Lithuanian editors, is requested.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:

It looks like there's a fairly civilized WP:RM discussion going on at the talkpage. Some editors feel the name is OR, others feel it's appropriate. Mediation might be helpful. Have you attempted to submit something at WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM? Or filed an RfC? --Elonka 15:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if "fairly civilized" applies, as most of the editors vote (and argue) only to support the argument "my national version is right". A name that is not used in English sources is obviously ORish. I agree that a mediation of an RfC could help, hence I posted here - the intention of this board is to offer mediation and comments for issues related to ethnic/cultural conflicts (and this is obviously a one).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:DSuran and the issue of "Sikh"

User:DSuran has been attempting to edit the IPKF article to try to portray it as a predominantly "Sikh" Force, and/or as a sperate entity from the rest of the "Indian" forces in the IPKF, subsequently labeling the Sikh units as Special Forces, and has deleted the Hindi script from the article lead and ifobox. All his edits are factually blatantly wrong, and smacks of Sikh Nationalism, and is moreover very PoV. Can somebody please have a look since I am do not wish to deal with this if I introduce my own biases. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this is related to Sri Lanka. Have you tried bringing it up at the talkpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation? --Elonka 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue in my opinion is not anything to do with Sri Lanka at all. It is more to do with views on Sikh/Punjabi contribution to the Indian forces etc and can be pushed on to "righting historical wrongs". Have a look at Dsuran's earlier edits. I wrote half the page (if not more) on the IPKF, and the references listed in the bottom are mostly journal articles or reliable websources on the Indian military. DSuran, on the other hand, has only ever edited or made unreferenced edits making generalising and factually wrong content that attempted to portray the IPKF as a "Sikh force", or the Sikh Light Infantry as a force seperate from the Indian Army, and now that it is a "Special Force". His last edit was inclusion of Punjabi text to the name for IPKF (which I think is to redress the seeming bias of having hindi text there).The bias I hope will be self-evident. Also see IPKF history for a previous edit conflict with DSuran to see what I am saying. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. You may also wish to look through the steps at Dealing with disruptive editors and dispute resolution. --Elonka 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Content Problem: The anti-Americanism article labels people as anti-American who don't accept that label for themselves. Typically, it does this to people of cultures who aren't equally represented on Wikipedia. It has a section that consists almost entirely of calling people of other cultures anti-American. There is no way there would be a consensus on any of the "Regional Attitudes" section if the people being labeled in those sections were equally represented hereon the English Wikipedia. The article labels these cultures explicitly, and also implicitly by discussing aspects of the cultures in the context of anti-Americanism. It also gives undue (exclusive) weight to the position that the term "anti-Americanism" depicts prejudice in a meaningful way; the article itself says the term may be propaganda. At times, it reads like a laundry list of what anybody has ever called anti-American. Examples:

European anti-Americanism well predates the invasion of Iraq and the Bush Administration, with criticisms of American "hegemonism", the coining of the term "hyperpuissance", and the dream of making the EU a "counterbalance" to the United States all flaring up in the '90s. The usual criticisms were also levied, that America was enforcing sanctions against Iraq for oil, and attributing sinister motives to the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Serbia.[53] French anti-americanism predates the founding of the United States with the belief that it was a barbaric land and all who went there also degenerated.[54]

The Middle East region has been a focal point of much anti-American sentiment in the latter decades of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, often blamed on specific U.S. policies in the region, particularly its close relationship with Israel and its stance on such matters as Sudan's civil war and Darfur. However, some argue that the real roots lay in government policy as reflected in state-directed media. By this reasoning, America is blamed for failed systems in the Middle East, as a means of re-directing internal dissent outwards, towards what Osama Bin Ladin has called "the far enemy", America, instead of at indigenous regimes.

(Note: the above paragraph is entirely unsourced.)

Cultural anti-Americanism in the Middle East may have its origins with Sayyid Qutb, an influential Egyptian author, who Paul Berman titled "the Philosopher of Islamic Terror".[59] Qutb, the leading intellectual of the Muslim Brotherhood, studied in Greely, Colorado, from 1948-50, and wrote a book, The America I Have Seen based on his impressions. In it he decried everything in American from individual freedom and taste in music to Church socials and haircuts,[60].

(The above leads to an enormous quote from Qutb, followed by more extensive quoting of Paul Hollander explaining how this shows all Middle Easterners are anti-American)

In Latin America, anti-American sentiment has deep roots dating back to the 1830s and the Texas Revolution.[69]Other significant 19th century events which led to a rise in anti-American sentiment were the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, in which Mexico lost almost half of its territory to the US, the 1855 American intervention in Nicaragua and the Spanish-American War of 1898 - which turned Cuba into a virtual dependency of the United States.[70][71][72]Perceived racist attitudes of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of the north towards the populations of South America also caused resentment.[73]In the twentieth century American support for the 1954 coup in Guatemala against Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the United States embargo against Cuba, the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état, Operation Condor, the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, the Salvadoran Civil War, the support of the Contras and the refusal to extradite a terrorist, continued to fuel anti-Americanism in the region.[74][75][76]Similarly, U.S. support for dictators such as Augusto Pinochet, Anastasio Somoza, Alfredo Stroessner has influenced regional attitudes.[77]Fidel Castro the revolutionary leader of Cuba has throughout his career tried to co-ordinate long standing South American resentments against the USA through military and propagandist means.[78][79]

Solution: "Anti-American" tends to be a negative term applied by outsiders to others. It suggests prejudice. Furthermore, it tends to be applied by one culture (Americans and their allies) to other cultures (French, Middle Easterners, etc.). As such, it is not neutral for Wikipedia to state or imply what is anti-American and what is not. The term itself has a strong connection to propaganda, as the article itself suggests. So, the article should not consist of a long list of what people have called anti-American (sourced or not). That runs the risk of promoting the propaganda. The mere idea of a "Region Attitudes" section carries the implication that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to be telling readers which cultures are anti-American and which are not. Since the article violates neutrality blatantly, and since there is undue weight problem as well as many particular violations, I think the best approach is to shorten the article. The most potentially neutral part is the discussion of the way the term is used; the rest should be dramatically shortened and/or brought into balance.

Behavior Problem: The other two editors disagree with this analysis and refuse to discuss it. They have disrupted informal mediation, refused formal mediation, refused a truce, argued against arbitration, and explicitly stated an intention not to discuss any of these problems with me. Right now, it's a slow-moving edit war. Life.temp (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Notified: Marksel [1], who immediately deleted the notice from his Talk page, Colin4C [2], and Henrik [3]. Life.temp (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A typical instance of a fundamentally uncollaborative approach: After I left notices on the editor Talk pages, Marksel deleted his and told Henrik he's undoing all my edits without discussion: "At this point, I'm generally reverting LT on sight. I do check the edits; it's the same troll pattern." [4]. Life.temp (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Life.temp has been blocked indefinitely by David Gerard as a returning sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor. Durova^Charge! 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the problems with cultural bias in the article. So, I took out the "resolved" marker. Hope I did it right.

Persian Gulf

Resolved

Background:

The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. It is the most commonly referred-to name by most nation-states and NGO and has been for quite some time. However, an alternative name, Arabian Gulf has also ben present for an equally long time and is in use today by citizens of many Arab nations. This has lef to significant conflict in the RW, as noted by the wiki-article, Persian Gulf naming dispute.

Conflict

A vehement discussion regarding the inclusion (not replacement) of the alternative name in the Lead has been ongoing and unproductive. Edit-warring has resulted in blocks and warnings, resulting in the article being dispute-locked since March of this year. The locking admin advised that once a consensus was reached, to contact him regarding the unlocking of the article. To date, no one has, as there is no consensus for the addition of the alternative name. MedCab was enlisted to help negotiate a compromise and break the stalemate, without success. The case has been silent since May 8. The proposed working solution:

The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Arabian Sea located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. It is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arab countries or The Gulf, although neither terms are recognized internationally.}}

had not met with any amount of success, though endorsed by both the mediator and the some of the parties.
The dispute is mostly factionalized along cultural and ethnic lines. Editors with a leaning towards excluding the Arabian Gulf alternative name usually tend to be either anti-Arabian or pro-Persian. Editors opting for inclusion are mostly either pro-Arab or anti-Iranian. There is also a small group of editors who are apolitical and still support the inclusion of the alternative name. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I may be listed in your books as a "Pro-Persian" editor, but indeed "Arabian Gulf" and the euphemism "The Gulf" are used often enough to warrant inclusion to the lead. We might also provide a link to the Persian Gulf naming dispute. I also noticed that you have changed Indian Ocean into Arabian Sea. While both are technically true the frequency of using of "Arabian" in the lead will be somehow too high. Maybe we should keep Indian Ocean? I propose:

The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. It is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf or The Gulf, although neither terms are recognized internationally.

I suggest to move the discussion to the talk page of the article and unless reasonable oposing arguments are found made a pretected edit Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I have looked into the mediation and the most supported version was Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-12-14_Persian_Gulf#5:

“ The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water, for political reasons, is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arab countries or The Gulf, although neither terms are recognized internationally or commonly used in English. ”

• • I would personally prefer to refer to the Persian Gulf naming dispute, but Iit is better to follow the community preferences here. Thus, I suggest to make an editprotect as discussed above Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have implemented a slightly modified version of the working solution, and unprotected the page. Further discussion can go at Talk:Persian Gulf#Unprotected - compromise. Khoikhoi 05:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Here's to hoping it lasts. Yay, ECCN! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sambalpuri/Kosali (India)

The article on Sambalpuri/Kosali, a region in the Orissa state of India, could benefit from a few more neutral eyes. It seems to be the product of a single editor and efforts to improve the English and make the article more encyclopedic are met with wholesale reverts. Every part of the article could use attention, starting with the title. The follow links suggest the primary editor’s motivations: here and here. Aramgar (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of WP:OWN, and I agree with you, the article is a mess. Not only that, but we apparently already have a Sambalpur article, and I can't even figure out from the intro what is going on. "The term 'Sambalpuri' takes into account the vast geographical and culturally homogeneous area of Western Orissa, which is also known as Koshal/Kosala." This is not how an article should start out, and the rest of the page contains unecessary lists (including a very long one about the towns many different festivals). The creator of this article should be explained the policies of Wikipedia (WP:RS is an important one in this case). But first off I would start off with a merge suggestion to the Sambalpur article. Many of the information he has added appears to be based on original research - he failed to cite any sources for this entire article. Anyways, per WP:AFG, I would give him a very long explanation on his talk page about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and why the article he created does not follow any of them. So far, I only see two vandalism warnings there. If he refuses to cooperate, I would list the article at WP:AFD. Khoikhoi 03:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Byzantium

I would appreciate some tips how to deal with that problem. Some users (including me) reverted edits like this one as it appeared to be vandalism, and now disputes flared up like the one mentioned above and User_talk:Jons63/Archive_1#Byzantium (already archieved). I would be grateful for your opinions, →Christian.И 13:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to get into the details of this dispute, but this comment by the anonymous, Turkish (I presume) IP [5] ("I wıll ask you one last tıme, revert the entry to correct Byzantıum flag or I wıll pursue cıvıl rıghts vıolatıons agaınst you ın a court of law") is totally unacceptable and a violation of our policy on legal threats. --Folantin (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: That particular issue has been dealt with. Details here [6]. --Folantin (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "diaspora"

I've got a question about the Romanian diaspora article - see also the recent edit history. What exactly defines a diaspora? Specifically, with regard to Ukraine, here is the situation. In the 2001 census there, 150,989 declared as Romanian and 258,619 as Moldovan. However, Romanian sources consider both (self-declared Romanians and self-declared Moldovans) to be Romanians. Examples: [7] ("Over 400,000 Romanians live in Ukraine.") [8] ("According to the 2002 census, the Romanian minority in Ukraine numbers 410,000 members.") [9] ("Over 400,000 ethnic Romanians live in Ukraine according to the 2001 census.")
I'm being stopped from making a note of that, but why not? Sure, they call themselves Moldovans, and we should say that, but Romanians see no difference between the two groups. Surely some solution (a footnote?) can be found. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have put a foot note to the table with some explanations. Would it be sufficient? Usually the self-identification is the main criteria, the opinions of their supposed home states is of much lesser importance Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a step in the right direction. However, the Saxons and Swabians in Germany self-identify as German (but were born in Romania), while the Timok Vlachs of the Serbian Banat (distinct from the Romanians of Vojvodina) identify as Vlachs, not as Romanians. So you see, there's no compelling reason not to have the note right up above. It informs readers of their existence and the fact that Romania claims them as part of the diaspora, while at the same time making note of their self-identity. (And as an aside, even though we can't speculate with certainty, it's quite likely the self-declared Moldovans do participate in the same sorts of activities the self-declared Romanians do, like taking Romanian-language classes.) Biruitorul ^Talk 04:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Flemish vs. Dutch

Hello. The user HP1740-B denies the existence of a Flemish ethnicity and states that Flemish people are of Dutch ethnicity. He removed all content from Flemish (linguistics) with the edit summary "what it should be", and he's always reverting to his version of Dutch (ethnic group) and Flemish people. I can't find any information stating that a Flemish ethnicity doesn't exist. He always arguments that he has sources (two books; I'm not going to buy a book to see what they say). SPQRobin (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not base myself on 2 books, as anyone will see I base myself on a wide array of sources. This user continually confuses nations with ethnic groups, as does the article which I thoroughly revised and am going to revise further.HP1740-B (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger of the Celebrations of September 11 to the Reactions to September 11 article

Resolved

 – No action taken by anyone. Of course. This noticeboard is pointless.

Multiple pro-Palestine editors are working in a coordinated manner to squash this merger. User:Pedrito has even gone as far as to label attempts to merge material into the target article as "slurring Palestinians". I have placed a warning on his page that this is not useful as we discuss this merge but his friend User:Nickhh has stepped up to support him in his tendentious behavior. He is also trying to circumvent local discussion by shopping his opinion on other noticeboards then suggesting that involved editors should not have a say in the discussion at RSN. I'm trying to do my best but when faced with suggestions of racism, it is really difficult to work with these folks. The relevant talk page is: [10] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm not sure I can agree with your depiction of a Palestinian nationalist cabal working against the neutral editors' consensus. As Nsk92 noted on 12 July, "In view of the results of the new poll and of the recently closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, it is clear that there is a substantial consensus for the merge. So, although I personally disagree with those favoring the merge, the RfC should now be closed and a merge should be affected." Please note that AFD was closed by User:Sandstein who is hardly a Palestinian nationalist! <eleland/talkedits> 01:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Taxila

The Taxila article presently has a pro-pakistani annon editor (several actualy) constantly changing "Ancient India, modern Pakistan" to just "Ancient Pakistan". The editor also removes india from several other spots ont he pages, tags, categories. Several editors have reverted but the perticular editor has the tendency to leave derogitory comments on anyone talk page accusing them of being "islamaphobic and pro western". If someone can assist with this content dispute. Knowledgeum (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lidia Bastianich

Bastianich is an Istrian-born American chef who specializes in Italian cuisine and publicly identifies herself as an Italian. A persistent IP editor is disrupting the article to claim that she is Croatian, despite having any sources to back up this claim. The editor has been at it for months, and I'm getting tired of reverting him. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page but still have not seen any sources about her ethnicity. Note that this is the same editor who has left trolling remarks on the talk page, poking fun at the subject's physical appearance[11]. Can someone step in here?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Arabistan, Iranian Arabs and Racism in the Middle East

Assistance is required regarding the Arabistan Article. As part of an ongoing ethnic dispute between Arabs and Persians, my attempt to create have an article based on facts has been met with opposition which does not seem too interested in constructive discussion. This also extends to the articles of Khuzestan, Iranian Arabs and Racism in the Middle East. I have already been forced to request Wikiquette intervention with regards to one particularly uncivil editor. Editors which have been involved are User:BehnamFarid, User:CreazySuit and possibly User:Farmanesh as well. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MiS-Saath, you appear to have been spamming this message (or a variety of it) across several noticeboards. Comments such as these are exactly why we have policies such as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Please read WP:DR more carefully, and once you make an attempt to get a consensus with your fellow editors, then you can come back and ask for the opinion of a third party. But please don't jump the gun here and refrain from mass-reverting across multiple pages. At a quick glance of the Arabistan article, it appears that it has been a disambiguation page for about a year. It is nice that you are being bold in this instance, but since it looks like there's a great deal of opposition to your changes, I would recommend that you don't make any more controversial changes without a clear consensus to do so. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and protect the above pages you've mentioned. Khoikhoi 06:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Khoikhoi. i was forced to use DR as i believed discussion was futile. for the overwhelming most part, i was not engaged in talk pages nor was i engaged in a civil manner and in all circumstances (no exception). in ALL said cases, discussion with regards to the actual merits or lack thereof did not take place. no serious discussion regarding the reliability of UNPO took place, nor did any discussion regarding the merits of the Arabistan disambiguation (such a discussion DID take place with an uninvolved editor, who quickly backed up). With that considered, i believe that the prospects of a consensus are very dim and thus i turned to this forum as the (currently sole) form of 'formal' resolution. i also reject the term 'spamming' applied to this message - i've posted it to two wikipedia groups who might be interested in the conflict. I'm unhappy with your decision to protect the pages. furthermore, i did not mass-revert and strictly adhered to 3RR, so no edit war took place. MiS-Saath (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In short, the call for consensus does not override WP:V and WP:RS, which was quite disrespected in the conduit regarding those articles. MiS-Saath (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. with regards to your claims about the Arabistan article, please use Talk:Arabistan to discuss the merits of the disambiguation. the stability issue has been discussed there. this is not the appropriate forum for it. If you do that, that would make you the first involved editor to actually engage the issue of the quality of the disambiguation. MiS-Saath (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MiS-Saath, if I recall correctly, all of these disputes started only today. Instead of trying to achieve a consensus yourself you immediately went to several noticeboard‎s asking for help. Yes, you did indeed leave comments on the talk page. That's a start. But the fact that you continued to revert did not make things any easier. A better way to go about solving conflicts is to revert only when necessary. See The BRD process:

1. Boldly make the desired change to the page.
2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!
3. If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.

If I hadn't protected the pages, would the edit warring have stopped? I highly doubt it. And simply because you adhered to 3RR does not mean that an edit war did not take place, see Wikipedia:Edit war. When I mean "mass-reverting", I am talking about reverting across multiple articles. Khoikhoi 08:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well, it's just that the third step was impossible to accomplish as no talk was started. no one so far (including you!) have engaged any of the statements in the talk pages in a constructive manner! the only response i recieved was 'this is a disambiguation page' and 'UNPO is not a reliable source'. no one bothered to explain why arabistan is inherently a disambiguation page and/or address the claims made in the talk page, and likewise no one bothered to explain why UNPO is not a reliable source, challange its posting to the RS noticeboard or engage in discussion about it. therefore, the BRD process was unachieveable in these circumstances. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any of the disputes you've mentioned, so I don't see any reason why I would be making any comments on those talk pages. You might try leaving a note on the users talk page explaining yourself and inviting them to engage in the discussion in the talk page. If they don't respond, then you can go to a third party or try other methods. Khoikhoi 08:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I already referred editors to talk pages. using edit summaries for example, with the words 'see talk page' or 'join active conversation in talk page please'. I assume people know how to read. for example:

03:55, 4 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Arabistan‎ (Undid revision 229650164 by CreazySuit (talk) this is the last time before i turn to DR. this is NOT a POV fork. the talk is active - join it!) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Arabistan‎ (Undid revision 229642268 by CreazySuit (talk) rv well sourced article with disucssion. please join discussion before reverting). I don't think that i have to beg them to talk back to me. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is purely a content dispute where the user has been putting non-historically correct data in the Arabistan page. I have responded to him in the talkpage of Arabistan and have shown that UNPO fabricates its own material for political purposes. --Nepaheshgar 12:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The primary source for the Arabistan article was a Journal of Iranian Studies article. the UNPO is a secondary source. There actually is an even better article, called 'Arabistan or Khuzistan', though i can't access it. if anyone manages to access it and shows that it refutes the existance of the emirate, i'm more than willing to back off my claims. MiS-Saath (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This process seems to be a failure. Few users engage me constructively and address the issues i present in talk pages, without first reverting sourced material and not following procedure when i am. i regret to say that i'm forced to take it into formal mediation, wikipedia is not owned by a group of editors and while it has to echo the persian position, even as a dominant one, it still needs to leave place for alternative opinions. the attempt to stifle UNPO's human rights work record is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at the dispute, and although I must admit I don't fully understand the dispute, and I'm not very well-read on the Arab-Persian political conflict in Khuzestan/Arabistan, I think I can offer at least some help.

First of all, Arabistan should stay a disambiguation page, conforming to the normal style for dab pages. The real locus of the dispute is the article Khūzestān Province, and related articles like Politics of Khūzestān Province, Politics of Khūzestān Province, Origin of the name Khuzestan and Iranian Arabs. Even if improper decisions are being made on that article, it is not appropriate to try and sidestep the issue by adding the information to Arabistan. There is only one geographical area at issue here, and it is properly discussed by the page Khūzestān Province (which is properly named by WP:NAME policy, as it is the official name of the area, and the most common name in English-language sources.) The argument that the page Arabistan should be a page for the word "Arabistan" is a non-starter.

However, there appears to be a very unhealthy atmosphere on the article Khuzestan Province, which may have contributed to the problem of POV forking. All editors must accept that relevant information which is cited to reliable sources cannot be removed simply on the basis that it is false or "propaganda." Edits like this and [12] are not acceptable. User:BehnamFarid appears to be show classic signs of a nationalist problem editor; see User_talk:MiS-Saath#On_the_Khuzestan_Province.

In the broader coverage of Khuzestan/Arabistan across Wikipedia, there seem to be possible issues of neutrality, WP:UNDUE weight, and the avoidance of WP:ORiginal research, including synthesis of sources to advance a position. For example, Origin of the name Khuzestan appears designed to advance the position that Khuzestan is the original, correct name, and Arabistan the new, usurping name. Regardless of whether this is an accurate assessment, we need actual academic sources that say this, not a collection of ancient documents which are claimed to prove this. The interpretation of ancient primary sources is well beyond the remit of Wikipedia editors. There is too much room for error or selectivity, and virtually no editors have the ability to check these sources and WP:Verify the claim. We can only pass on what scholars and academics - ie, secondary sources - have said on the subject. If they have said nothing about the subject, we cannot write any article at all.

Editors must also accept that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, U.S. State Department reports, and reports from United Nations agencies are considered top-grade sources. When they raise concerns about human rights in Khuzestan, they certainly can be cited, and they should be given proportionally large weight. This is not to say that criticism or counter-claims should be ommitted, but I am very concerned to see paragraphs like this:

Contrary to the arguments put forward by human rights groups, Arabic is taught in all public schools throughout the country [13] as a mandatory subject. This despite the fact that 97%-98% of Iranians are not ethnically Arabic speakers. [14]

This is a straightforward original synthesis of sources; two sources which have nothing to do with human rights groups' statements on Iran are being used to "disprove" their statements. If officials of the Iranian government - or any reliable sources - have refuted the claims of human rights groups, both sets of claims should be cited, and framed as a dispute between two groups.

For another example, the demographic composition of Khuzestan is not given anywhere in its article. It is briefly mentioned that the Iranian government does not take censuses there, in the context of an unrelated discussion. However, I find several strong human rights sources placing the Arab population in a clear majority - something like 70%. These estimates should be cited, and not buried in sub-sections either. Even if the demographics of Khuzestan were not a key issue of contention, articles on national sub-divisions generally have a top-level "demographics" section anyway. Such a section should probably exist in this article. Again, if Iran disputes the demographic estimates, their figures should certainly be cited as well.

Again, I don't fully understand either the on-Wiki or the off-Wiki conflict, and nobody should take my statement here as an endorsement of a particular position. However, Wikipedia's content policies are important and should be understood and followed. <eleland/talkedits> 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Amnesty and UNPO are not sites for history, geography and etc. Some of these sites don't even have authors with any serious academic degrees. For example I have written something on the history of Khuzestan here: [15] all backed up by sources. Where does amnesty gets its version of history from? It is not a verifiable site for history. As per census, I know the area well and again has amnesty done any census work? I can name most of the cities and it is only the SW portion of Khuzestan which is largely Arabic speaking. Anyhow, I have my Arabic textbooks from Iran and Arabic language is not banned, but mandatory. So if amnesty blatantly lies that Arabic is banned, while the Iranian government has made it a mandatory subject and has t.v. stations in the language, then it should not be used in Wikipedia. We don't have to wait for the Iranian government to issue a rebuke to amnesty. Or take UNPO for example. They claim the name Khuzestan was adopted in 1936! Despite the fact that there is more than enough historical evidence that is not so: [16]. Or the author claims there was an independent kingdom in the area, yet we can see all the maps from the Qajar era show it as part of Persia. It is simply best to resolve content dispute in their talkpage and the user who initiated this did not do any serious research into the topic. This is in the end a content dispute and can be resolved through individual talk pages. --Nepaheshgar 19:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On the point user:Eleland brought up. For example, I refer to the Iranian constitution:[[17]] and I quote:Article 16 [Arabic Language]. Since the language of the Koran and Islamic texts and teachings is Arabic, and since Persian literature is thoroughly permeated by this language, it must be taught after elementary level, in all classes of secondary school and in all areas of study. Now if amnesty international wrongly states that Arabic is banned (while I have my Arabic textbooks), and the Iranian government does not take amnesty seriously (even serious enough to respond to it), then why should users not have the correct information? Arabic is a mandatory subject. Amnesty gets some of its information from political organizations whose main ideology is simply to separate a piece of land from Iran. These organizations, many times (not all the times) provide bogus reports with regards to history, geography, demography and human rights. Has amnesty ever bothered to check that Arabic is not banned in Iran and is a mandatory subject? Or the fact that there is local media in the language? It will just go with what these organizations state and in the end we have a report with no author and no academic credentials. As per census in Khuzestan, there is none, but one can get a relative figure from different cities. --Nepaheshgar 20:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

All these are content disputes and users after editing one day on topic can not go directly to conflict noticeboard.s They should discuss contents on the discussion page. --Nepaheshgar 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleland - my version of the wording was in no way hiding the source of the allegations. it explicitly stated that UNPO alleges those discriminations. there's a concentrated objection to UNPO being used as a source, something which should surprise no one because its position is in stark contrast to the iranian government. however, i contend that it has enough notability and human rights record to deserve having its claims echoed on various article but even that is hotly contested, perhaps because it exposes a view which is discomforting to many editors. i believe the campaign against using UNPO as a source for citing its own list of alleged human rights violations is very well within the boundaries of wikipedia. Since you're not familiar with the subject, i think a good analogy is the claims by COHRE, BADIL and adalah with regards to israeli policy. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the arabistan disambiguation, i think the other meanings have no merit in an english wikipedia as its use is extremely archaic if existant at all. If you think it does not deserve an article of its own, that's fine with me, if Arabistan would redirect to Khuzestan and a hatnote added to khuzestan article 'Arabistan redirects here. you may have been looking for 'Saudi Arabia' or 'Arabian Peninsula. However, with the problem of inserting even that detail into the Khuzestan article, we can't progress much. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also to prevent posible misrepresentation - the UNPO is not formally affiliated with the UN, despite having 'UN' in its name. However, it has been party to several UN human right workshops and has close relations with it in various issues. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, considering the points you've brought up above, and in case we cannot reach a compromise that acts upon presenting both views, what is the possible recourse for resolution of this conflict? MiS-Saath (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I shall be relatively brief, as I have already wasted too much of my time on this utterly senseless and contrived problem. As I have already indicated in several other places, I am mystified by the actions of User:MiS-Saath. What are User:MiS-Saath's motivations for so avidly interfering with issues about which she demonstrably knows absolutely nothing? I believe that the onus is on User:MiS-Saath to clarify her interests here. I should like to combine this issue with the rude and baseless assertion by User:Eleland, made here-above, that I appeared to show "classic signs of a nationalist problem editor"; for this baseless accusation I expect an unequivocal apology from User:Eleland. It is remarkable that both User:Eleland and User:MiS-Saath are rich in their dictions (extremely rich), but poor (extremely poor) in their use of logic (to quote the King in Shakespeare's Hamlet, Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.). On last Sunday, User:MiS-Saath wrote the following to me [18]:

The amount of material i've written on wikipedia with relation to iranian subjects is also totally irrelevant. i could be an iranologist, or i could be the village idiot, it doesn't matter - As long as my writing adheres to the rules of wikipedia, in particular with regards to important guidelines in areas of friction such as WP:V and WP:RS, is to stand by itself detached from whoever wrote it. [...] I would be willing to concede if you give me a reasonable historical authority which rejects the existence of such an emirate in the early 20's. I will of course re-insert this information as a debated fact if i manage to find a serious historical authority which asserts the existence of this entity.

The statements are clear enough (though mostly utterly devoid of logical consistency) and speak for themselves. The essence of the supposed argument by User:MiS-Saath seems to be that the burden of proof rests on me, to prove that there has not been an Arab emirate in Khuzestan in the early 1920s. In other words, even though User:MiS-Saath is in possession of no document proving the existence of an Arab emirate inside the internationally-recognized borders of Iran, she demands from me to prove lack of existence of such an entity. As any student of logic should know, proving a negative is in general impossible. I can prove that a pencil is on my desk, but I cannot prove that there is no pencil somewhere in my study (read the celebrated philosophical discussions on this very same issue that took place between Betrrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein). Aside from this, what is that obliges User:MiS-Saath to come up with such a demand? Why does she not come up with a positive proof that such an Arab emirate exited inside Iran in the early 1920s? I see madness played out before my eyes, and for some stange reasons have to waste my precious time to call a spade a spade. Is it not evident that what User:MiS-Saath says amounts to sophistry?!

Now I wish to make a detour, and do something along the lines of User:MiS-Saath's practice. I take this liberty because firstly I am aware that User:MiS-Saath is a resident of Israel (and I have told this to User:MiS-Saath already on the occasion of my first encounter with her), and secondly because I have personally a considerably close bond with the Jewish community; I can therefore not be accused be being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. Here is an article by the celebrated theoretical physicist Guilio Racah (of the Racah coefficients in group theory and atomic physics), entitled "On the self-energy of the electron": [19], published in 1946. The affiliation given on this article is: "The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Palestine" ("Palestine" is explicitly mentioned on all the pre-1949 papers by Racah, as can be verified here: [20]). The following article by Guilio Racah, entitled "On the Decomposition of Tensors by Contraction": [21], is published in 1949. The affiliation given on this paper is: "Einstein Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel." As the Wikipedia entry concerning Israel indicates, the partition of Jerusalem into Arab and Israeli sections, proposed by the UN in 1947, was rejected by the Arab League, but on 14 May 1948, the Jewish provisional government declared Israel's independence. Two questions that I should like to ask from User:MiS-Saath and User:Eleland, who brazenly called me a "problem editor" and accused me of showing "classic signs of nationalism", are the following: First, what happened to Palestine? Second, is Jerusalem part of Palestine or Israel? Following these questions, I should like to ask whether these esteemed editors approve of the action of an utter outsider editing the Wikipedia entries concerning Israel and Jerusalem, indicating that Jerusalem is part of Palestine on account of the above-mentioned papers by Guilio Racah? After all, the papers that I cited above are published in one of the most prominent journals of physics on the global level. Will they also show "the classic signs of nationalism" as I am accused of showing, or will they welcome the mentioned edits?

I close my discussions by quoting from Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution by Nikki Keddie (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2003), pp. 84 and 85:

Regarding foreign investments, while Millspaugh and the Iranian government were eager to attract American capital, Great Britain, still the most influential power, was hostile to inroads by others. [...]

Millspaugh tried to prevent Russo-Iranian agreement on the Caspian fisheries and on tariffs, though his claims on these points went against the 1921 Russian-Iranian Treaty. No agreement on these issues was reached while Millspaugh was present, and Russio-Iranian trade suffered. Millspaugh's failures made him increasingly unpopular, and disagreements with Reza Shah led to Millspaugh's resignation in 1927.

The British, rebuffed in their attempt to control all Iran, continued to try in the south. They took four years to evacuate their troops there, and considered plans for an autonomous state, including Khuzestan, the main oil province. These plans centred on Shaikh Khaz'al, the powerful Arab tribal chief. The British negotiated with Khaz'al and promised support against the central government. At the end of 1923, Khaz'al formed a group aiming at an independent south Iranian federation and got some Bakhtiari and Luri [both non-Arab] groups to follow him. The government put down the Lurs, but Khaz'al and his allies declared independence. The central government was now too strong for the rebels, however, and Khaz'al was met with the army and forced to surrender in 1924. Soon after this, Reza Khan negotiated with the British, who saw it was in their interest to come to terms with the newly powerful regime. The British henceforth supported Reza Khan. [My italics.]

So much for the Arab Emirate of User:MiS-Saath and her associate. As the above quotation unequivocally shows, Shaikh Khaz'al was just an opportunistic rebel, declaring independence on the instigation of a foreign government. The technical term for this action is high treason and the person committing it is called a traitor. The unequivocal message of the above quotation is that rather than an Arab emirate ever having been located inside the borders of Iran, the above-mentioned Shaikh Khaz'al was a traitor of Arab lineage; he could equally have been a traitor of Persian lineage. That is all. Now take any sovereign country. Set up a rebellion, on the instigation of a foreign country, leading to an unlawful declaration of independence, and the action is called high treason. This is nothing specially Iranian and I cannot be accused of showing the classic signs of nationalism for saying the evident. Rather, those who accuse me of such thing, are suffering from an acute form of brazen arrogance combined with unbounded ignorance on matters that they have the temerity to opine upon. Read the American Constitution, and the extensive writings by Orestes Brownson on the interpretations of this constitution, and you will know that it is equally a high crime in the United States of America to just leave the Union; in such event, the Federal Army will be ordered to use all necessary lethal force to suppress the rebellion (Brownson is insofar relevant to my discussions here as he is the person who most consistently has posited and advocated the idea that American State and Constitution become void on even a single state leaving the Union). Do User:MiS-Saath and User:Eleland know what the American Civil War was all about and how it came about? I shall be frank, it is my considered opinion that User:MiS-Saath's unhealthy obsession with a supposed Arabistan inside Iran is part and parcel of a concerted effort aim at the Balkanization of Iran. The onus is on User:MiS-Saath to prove that she has no ulterior reasons for being so enamoured with the concept of an Arabistan inside Iran (Dear User:MiS-Saath and User:Eleland, as you must realise, I am paying you with your own currencies; prove a negative for us to show that you mean business; if I am a "nationalist" "problem editor", as User:Eleland asserts I were, then you must be ... . I leave the connecting of the dots to you esteemed editors). Well, I have said enough. --BF 07:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Add this [22] to the piling conflict. I see no reason why some article should presumably be free of HR issues, if they pertain to the particular minority at hand. MiS-Saath (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear MiS-Saath, since you deleted a message that I had placed on your talk page, under the dubious pretentation that I had personally attacked you, I place that message here below for all to see:

With due respect MiS-Saath, you seem nothing else to do in your life but to request arbitrations. Someone with your language skills, your impeccable command of the English language, should not have difficulty finding a gainful occupation in, for instance, some advertising company. Or, am I missing something? Please kindly leave me in peace, and it has not been a pleasure meeting you. --BF 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me tell you that you are not as innocent and as helpless as you pretend to be. As User:Jdforrester has pointed out here [23], you are guilty of Forum Shopping. You call your addressees as "Fellow arab editors". This is not all, you futher say: "If we can't prevent what's happening on ground, the least we can do is prevent it from happening in wikipedia." Who is "we"? And what business do you have to "change" anything? You are disingenuous to the utmost, being an Israeli citizen, you make yourself appear as though you were an Arab! Of course, you could be an Arab Israeli, but knowing several languages, I can testify that your use of English is not that of an Arab. Further, all the Israeli people whom I have the pleasure of knowing (as I mentioned above, I have a very close bond with the Jewish community), and who are concerned about the condition of Palestinians in Occupied Territories (Palestinians are Arabs, as you must know), work for B'Tselem; never in my life have I met an Israeli who sympathises with Arabs and goes as far as prodding Khuzestani Arabs, as you have shown to be doing here on Wikipedia. --BF 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

<<attacks removed>> by Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, first of all, I'd like to suggest that all editors make a conscious effort to dial back their rhetoric, and to keep things WP:CIVil. Frankly, comments in this matter have long since passed te point where administrators who read them will probably issue blocks. I'd advise that any editors who may have, for example, insinuated that other editors are Jewish disinormation agents should withdraw such comments immediately.

Now to discuss two content issues. First:

Amnesty International writes, "Prior to 1925, although nominally part of Iranian territory, the area functioned for many years effectively as an autonomous emirate known as Arabistan, until Reza Khan reimposed central control by military force. Its name was changed to Khuzestan in 1936." This information was added to the article Khuzestan Province in an appropriate location. In fact, the version without this paragraph leaves a puzzling gap - it states that the area was Arabized and was under the protection of an Arab sheikh, then it jumps ahead to 1980, with Iran defending Khuzestan against Iraq.

Amnesty is a reliable source, and other reliable sources have much the same information. British policy in Persia, 1918-1925, by Houshang Sabahi, pub Routledge discusses the issue in great detail, and confirms the Amnesty account. http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/khuzestan.htm has the same information. But, as is evident from this page and from User talk:MiS-Saath#On the Khuzestan Province, B.F. does not seem to be actually disputing the information itself - rather, he seems to be disputing the moral and political legitimacy of the emirate, and arguing that since the Sheikh was an unlawful rebel, the fact that his emirate was effectively autonomous should be removed.

This type of behavior is what I refer to as a classic sign of a nationalist problem editor, and I am afraid that given the facts I cannot withdraw that remark. Objecting to a straightforward description of history because you personally condemn the historical figure in question is, to be blunt, inane. Mentioning that an autonomous emirate existed is in no way an endorsement of that emirate, or of its leaders. This is obvious.

Second. User:Nepaheshgar objects to several pieces of information on grounds which are clearly indefensible by Wikipedia policy, and in some cases seem to be logically fallacious.

1. Nepaheshgar claims that Amnesty cannot be used as a source on the question of Arabic language instruction in Khuzestan, because "amnesty blatantly lies that Arabic is banned." The problem is that Amnesty does not claim that Arabic is banned at all, rather, they claim that "schools are reportedly not allowed to teach through the medium of Arabic;" a different statement, which seems to say that the primary language of instuction is Farsi, even where the local population speaks Arabic as a first language.
2. Nepaheshgar also has not responded on the issue of original research, and indeed appeals to his personal experience as a superior source over Amnesty. This is not acceptable. Wikipedia does not have the ability to vet and fact-check editors who claim to have personal experience of a subject, hence, we have a long-standing and non negotiable prohibition on citing personal experience as a reliable source. Even taking Nepaheshgar's claims at face value, it is not clear to me how his knowledge that Arabic is taught in Iranian high schools would invalidate Amnesty and HRW's claims that Arabic instruction in Khuzestan is insufficient to meet the needs of the Arab population there. # Nepahesgar's claim to invalidate Amnesty and HRW's demographic estimates on the basis that "I know the area well" and "I can name most of the cities" is, to be blunt, absurd. Their estimates need to be cited - attributed as estimates, noting that no formal censuses can be taken - but they still need to be cited, and the personal disagreement of one editor who "can name most of the cities" is in no way relevant. If this editor is really determined, he should found an NGO, conduct his own census of the area, and then get his work cited approvingly by established authorities. Then we can include it in Wikipedia. Otherwise, no thank you.
3. On the issue of UNPO. I am leaning towards the view that UNPO is a generally unreliable source, and should only be used sparingly, if at all, to present the views of Arab irredentists / separatists in the province. It is not any kind of authoritative body and its reports do not seem to have the established reputation for accuracy that WP:RS demands.
4. On the issue of the province's name. The statement that the province was renamed Khuzestan in 1936 appears to be accurate. Note that this is not at all the same thing as saying that the name "Khuzestan" has no historical basis, or is not a "correct" name for the area, or was not used continuously by many people throughout the whole period. No, the point is that the governmental administrative unit was renamed "Khuzestan" from "Arabistan." It's like renaming "Stalingrad" to "Volgagrad." It doesn't mean that the term "Volgagrad" was never appropriate or was without historical precedent, it means that the official government-issued name was altered.

In summary, there appears to be something of a "hornet's nest" atmosphere on these pages, which no doubt explains some of the evident lapses and ommissions. Editors need to realize that this is a global encyclopedia and has a global perspective. It may at times include information which is troubling or offensive to certain nationalist narriatives. While it is sincerely not our intention to offend individuals, Wikipedia is not censored. <eleland/talkedits> 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty International is semi-reliable only as far as Human Rights issues are concerned. It is not a WP:RS in regards to historical issues, as AI reports are not authored by academics or historians. The page Eleland cited ( http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/khuzestan.htm ) is not a WP:RS either, it's a poorly-written wabpage that cites Wikipedia articles as a source. --CreazySuit (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

On amnesty I recall reading Arabic is banned in one of their reports. But I might be wrong. What is interesting though and biased is that amnesty does not mention that Iranians/Persians in Bahrain or UAE are not thought through the medium of Persian. Or for example it does not say every language group in the US does not have medium through their particular language. So I feel raising such points (most countries have a standard teaching language) has nothing to do with human rights. The point is that Arabic is not banned, it has t.v., newspapers and it is mandatory language subject. Now can that be said about every ethnic language in US or Canada or Britian? Probably not. Also amnesty has no observors in Iran, and I do not even see an author for their report. But on the name Khuzestan, I have written here:[24]. I note that the name was being used as a province of Persia in the Qajar era before 1936. In parallel to it, Arabistan was also used. Arabistan was used in the Safavid, Qajar era. Khuzestan is a much older name and has been continously used well. Geographical standardization occured during the Pahlavi era and the more ancient name Khuzestan was chosen over Arabistan. But it does not mean that Khuzestan was not used officially before 1936. Only that standardization (one name for each region) occured in the 20th century and of course the older name was adopted. This is much different than saying it was called Arabistan and then changed to Khuzestan. Note the maps in the page as well foreign reports specifically saying Chusistan province of Persia. Note one map has Khuzistan and then (Arabistan). I will be busy, but I think there are some agreements on UNPO and issue of reliability. --Nepaheshgar 18:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I have established that User:Eleland has not apologized; in fact this person explicitly states that he will not withdraw his insulting remarks addressed to me earlier, that I were "a nationalist" "problem editor". That is of no significance, as I had not expected a better behaviour from this person who somehow parades here as an Iran specialist.

Mr User:Eleland: I know the history of Iran through the recountings of my parents, grandparents and great-great grandparents; for instance, my great-great grandparents were contemporaries of Amir Kabir and I know the history of that period of Iran directly through them; what I know of this period through this channel exactly coincide with what one reads in the most authoritative histories of the period. This was a short introduction of who I am insofar as is relevant for the present discussions. Now, who are you and what are your academic qualifications? From your writings on this page, I am confident that you know absolutely nothing about Iran, about her history, her languages, her folklore, her culture, etc. If this is indeed the case, don't you think that it is a rather impertinent act on your part to teach me/us the history of Iran by citing a worthless piece of paper whose heading may or may not contain the words "Amnesty International"? To my considered judgement, insofar as the history and geography of Iran are concerned, Amnesty International is utterly irrelevant (people and organisations must know their space of competence, otherwise they end up discrediting themselves, just like drunkards - I applaud Amnesty International for their humanitarian efforts, however this does not qualify them to act as conduits of falsehoods manufactured by discredited political organisations).

If there are three contemporary Western academics who can tell something meaningful about the history of Iran, Professor Nikki R. Keddie is one of them. I quoted her above, but for some mysterious reason User:Eleland has decided to neglect my quotation and has harked back on the aforementioned report by Amnesty International, a worthless piece of paper that I cannot dignify by setting my eyes on (it is simply like wishing to read something on string theory and consulting the Play Boy magazine for that). User:Eleland has further chosen to cite a report by at best a third-rate university teacher by the name Gregory Noll.

Concerning the above-mentioned report by Gregory Noll, cited by User:Eleland, this report is hosted by the website of American University. Firstly, never in my entire professional life have I encountered an academic by the name Gregory Noll. My search on Google reveals that a certain Gregory Noll has written a chapter for a book; the title of this chapter is "Hazardous Materials Operations" [25]. This suggests that Gregory Noll may be an employee of e.g. a fire-fighting department. As I said, in my entire professional life I have never come across an academic by the name Gregory Noll. In fact, looking through the list of the references provided by Gregory Noll [26], one will readily verify that there is not a single reference authored by Gregory Noll himself. This strongly suggests that Gregory Noll may be a ghostwriter. Be it as it may, it is highly remarkable that all those who have territorial claims on Iran always rely on dubious reports by non-academic organisations and/or those written by mercenaries and at best by third-rate academics, as Gregory Noll appears to be one. The explanation is simple: no self-respecting academic is prepared to falsify history for the sake of earning a living. It is here where mercenaries prove most useful. I should like further to add that never in my entire professional life have I read a paper by an academic from American University. This place is not known for academic excellence. Can we even imagine that Gregory Noll's scriblings would be hosted by websites of Harvard, Princeton, Yale or Columbia? The answer is a definite no. Please do not take my word: search the website of American University, and find an academic of any note. I did, and found none.

User:Eleland knowingly, and despicably, refers to "Jewish disinfomation agents", while any person who has read the comments on this page will testify that no such qualification has ever been used by any person here, and certainly not by me. User:Eleland knows what he does: misleading readers by demeaning the language is a common technique used by those who intend to avoid facts. The word "Jewish" refers to the ethnicity and/or the religious beliefs of a person, so that "Jewish disinformation agents" is an oxymoron; no individual with at least two brain cells would use such term as User:Eleland must be accusing me of using.

Lastly, do we not wonder where User:MiS-Saath may have gone? She initiated this page, but for some reason has entirely disappeared from Wikipedia; no arguments from her in defence of her indefensible dubious activities on Wikipedia, such as her infamous forum fishing, to which I referred in my earlier comment on this page. --BF 02:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Slavic/Macedonian toponyms in Greek Macedonia

Resolved

 – Resolved with the help of admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on the 16th December

Problem:

Solving the naming dispute on Many Greek Town's with a large Slavic speaking population (regardless of ethnicity) which are situated in Central or West Macedonia. What language is usable? Macedonian, Macedonian Slavic, Slavic, Local Slavic, Nothing, Bulgarian, South Slavic even?

Background:

*NOTE: This post concerns the Slavic language spoken in Western and Central Greek Macedonia (which is considered as Macedonian or Macedonian slavic), not East Macedonia which is Sometimes considered Bulgarian'

For hundreds of year the Whole region known as Macedonia was part of the Ottoman Empire. When the empire disintegrated many new Balkan States took control of Areas previously controlled by the Ottomans. Most of the Slavic populaiton of Macedonia was considered either Bulgarian or Slav Macedonian, they were the majority population in Macedonia but many large minorities existed (Greeks, Turks, Roma, Aromanians, Albanians). The Greek army took control of the area today known as Greek or Aegean Macedonia after the first Balkan War. They consolidated their rule after World War One. (This is where the Politics Start :) ).

After World War One Many people Bulgarian's left Greek Macedonia and Thrace for Bulgaria as part of population exchanges (in Greece they are referred to as Slavophone Greeks or simply Slavophones), this mainly affected people living in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, an estimated 50,000 - 70,000 left Greece. Before World War One, Slavs were the majority population in Greek Macedonia while Greeks constituted a Minority. Yet during the years 1913-1926 major demographics changes would take place. Hundreds of thousands of Greeks were resettled from Black Sea, after 1926 Greeks made up the Majority population in greek Macedonia. They are often called Prosfiges or Refugees, while the original Slavic Inhabitants are often refered in greek as Dopii or locals.[27] Although a language primer (Abecedar) was printed in the local Slavic Dialect (which is now considered Macedonian by most non-Greek linguists) the general policy in the inter-war period was the restriction of the Macedonian language at all levels of society. The use of the Macedonian language was forbidden and people were forced to attend night school.[28] Toponyms and Personal Names were changed from the local slavic to the Greek version, ie. Lerin → Florina, Ovčarani → Meliti. (Note: Greeks refer to the local slavic dialects as a "local idiom with a mixture of Greek, Turkish, Slavonic and Vlach influences)

During the Second World War many Slav Macedonians joined the KKE, soon the Slavic-Macedonian National Liberation Front (SNOF) was established. The Macedonian language was freely taught in Greece, and many macedonian langauge newspapers, schools, theatres and other establishments flourished. The language which was taught was the same language as the language in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia or the Macedonian language.[29] SNOF soon developed into the National Liberation Front (Macedonia), an ethnic macedonian dominated organisation fighting for the Communists. Many of the Slav's who previously identified as Bulgarians began to identify as Slav Macedonians.[30] But the KKE was defeated and tens of thousands of Ethnic Macedonians fled Greece, today they are known as Aegean Macedonians. The 1951 census recorded c.41,000 speakers of Slavic, although this is widely considered a undercount. By 1959 language oaths were introduced in greek villages whereby the villagers claimed to renounce their slavic dialect and speak only Greek.[31] Depite this Slav speakers (regardless of ethnic identity) still made up a large proportion in Florina, Kastoria, Eddessa and the surrounding areas.[32] An estimated 65% of the Florina Prefecture considered themselves Dopii or Locals ( a term synonymous with Slavophone Greeks). An Ethnic Macedonian political party was founded in Florina in the 1990's, it has had most support in that Prefecture with the election of a member to the post of prefecture counselor. Today the estimated number of Slav's (regardless of ethnicity) is between 50,000 to 200,000.[33], [34], [35]. (Note: The Macedonian language is often refered to by scholars as "Macedonian Slavic" or "Slav Macedonian" when the language is in Greece)

Greek POV

Only a few thousands elderly bilinguals speak a local idiom in the border reagions with FYROM. The idiom is a mixture of Slavonic (mainly bulgarian), Greek, Vlach, Albanian and Turkish. The slavic language should not be confused or indentified with the "Makedonski" (Macedonian) spoken in FYROM. Consequently the language used in FYROM although related should not be identified with the idiom spoken in some regions of Greek Macedonia.[36] There is no Slav Macedonian minority in Greece.

Ethnic Macedonian POV

The [slavic] dialects spoken in Greek Macedonia form many of the dialects of the Macedonian language. The macedonian language is widely spoken throughout Greek Macedonia. Some Macedonian activists assert that there is over 1 million Ethnic Macedonians in Greece.[37]

Linguist's Opinions

Peter Trudgill : Greek non-linguists, when they acknowledge the existence of these dialects at all, frequently refer to them by the label Slavika, which has the implication of denying that they have any connection with the languages of the neighboring countries. It seems most sensible, in fact, to refer to the language of the Pomaks as Bulgarian and to that of the Christian Slavonic-speakers in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian.

Roland Schmieger: Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, which in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and in the Rhodope Mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to Macedonia diasystem.

Most Linguists agree that the Slavic Language spoken in West Macedonian (eg. the Florina/Kastoria region) and Central Macedonia (Pella, Kilkis, Imathia) is Macedonian.

• Note: Many Slavic/Macedonian language speakers who identify as Greeks do not associate their Language with their ethnicity, nor do they call their language Macedonia. Dopia is a term often used by Slavophone Greeks.

Conflict:

To put it simply. Most Macedonian editors claim that the language spoken in West and Central Macedonia is Macedonian, this veiw is shared by most linguists and scholars although many of them use the term "Macedonian Slavic". Greek users claim it is not Macedonian, but rather Slavic (which even states that the language spoken in Florina is Macedonian} or remove any name other than the Official Greek Name. There have been many revert wars over towns like Florina and Kastoria. I Would like to achieve a wiki-protocol which can be applied on most Wikipedia pages. Input by Neutral Mediators and Administrators would be appreciated in order to achieve a decision on wikipedia, and to mediate between the Macedonian and Greek users.

PS. I have tried to make the intro as neutral as possible.PMK1 (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:

Per everything I've learned from my time on Wikipedia, I'd say only the Greek name should stay. The ethnic (or linguistic) minority is not huge, but tiny and it doesn't justify having the name in the lead. It might be added in the history of the article with its Slavic name prior to the Balkan wars when Greece took hold of the region. Most scholars consider the Slav people that used to live there Bulgarians and their language Bulgarian. We know what the view in RoM is - they were ethnic Macedonians and their language Macedonian etc. So the only NPOV way of putting things is having the language as Slavic - no matter if its Bulgarian or Macedonian, it is definitely Slavic (we have to discard some ridiculous views regarding the ancient Macedonian language). SO the only NPOV way of saying it, is Slavic. Or local Slavic or whatever, but with now wikilinks to some alleged dialect that is viewed as such only in RoM. --Laveol ^T 11:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

<scratches head> Do we have a policy on this? Or a guideline? IMO putting alternate place-names in the lede of articles is fairly harmless, provided that place-name actually exists and is used (not just an invention). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: when the dispute is over the actual naming of the article, then the most common name should be used. Most common among all of humanity, that is, not just Macedonians and Greeks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of it is about the title of the article - it's obviously the Greek names for that. It's the name of the language of the alternative name. Should it be called "Macedonian", "Macedonian Slavic", "Slavic" or "local Slavic" or....BalkanFever 05:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN was designed to address the issue of alternate names in lead, among other things.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

At Florina, it was decided that the alternate name could go in the lead, but what to call that language was the point of debate. BalkanFever 05:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't looked at the condition of the Florina article and talk page until after I wrote this. BalkanFever 09:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well that is essentially the problem. People have agreed that a large Macedonian/Slavic speaking population is in Florina. Linguists agree that the language spoken in that part of Macedonia is clearly macedonian. Even the article "Slavic dialects of Greece which Local Slavic directs to clearly states that the language spoken in West Macedonia is Macedonian. That is the idiocracy of the whole subject!. The Language can be called by it's proper name on article, but when it comes to a naming link the standards have changed. PMK1 (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: say "[Name X] in the local Slavic language" then discuss which language precisely in a footnote. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user Laveol. The Slavic minority of Macedonia was almost entirely referred as Bulgarian from every historical source. The term “ethnic Macedonian” has appeared recently. (If we want to mention historical Slavic names in the region we should clearly refer to them as “Bulgarian”.)The present status of the Slavic dialect is almost confined in 2-3 villages.(Further more most of the people that still speak these dialects considered themselves to be Greek.)

So the only NPOV way of putting things is having the language as “Slavic” but with now wikilinks to some alleged dialect that is viewed as such only in RoM.Seleukosa (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Skopje has a huge Albanian population do we really need the name of the city in Albanian? At least we do not have to make linguistic research to determine which language they speak. The same goes for Spanish in Los Angeles, Chinese in Kuala Lumpur, Idish in Vitebsk, etc. Usually we provide non-English names of a city in the lead of a city's article if either it is an official language in the city, it was an official language for hundreds years. We do not provide additional names because of minorities living there, it is especially true if the very existence and identity of the minority is disputed. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, we can just scrap other languages in leads altogether for the Balkans. As this entire episode has shown, it leads nowhere. BalkanFever 10:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

support - I've always said this is the only way.--Laveol ^T 10:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know when this became a vote :), but I'm sure there are others who have been long time fans of this, apart from us. BalkanFever 11:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I say YES. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not a vote - I simply had to express it in some way. And mind you I come from the country that has territorial claims on all of its neighbours (at least nominally per San Stefano Bulgaria). --Laveol ^T 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for me. Go damn New Zealand separatists. BalkanFever 13:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We all know that the other languages wont be scrapped. But, if the linguistic opinion is that the language is macedonian why can macedonian or macedonian slavic be posted? PMK1 (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We have the problem that until fairly recently Macedonian (now the official language of the FRYROM) was itself regarded as a dialect of Bulgarian, and the languages are very close. Going by some comments earlier, it may well be the case that in most parts of northern Greece, where a local Slavic dialect is spoken, it is closer to Macedonian than Bulgarian, but there are some areas in the far east of the country where the reverse is true, and it would to some extent be artificial to draw a clear line on the map of Greece. "Slavic" is the least problematic term, nobody disputes that Bulgarian and Macedonian are Slavic. PatGallacher (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See Slavic dialects of Greece. PatGallacher (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War

Background:

2008 South Ossetia War is an ongoing conflict between Georgia, Russia, and multiple ethnic groups within the area.

Conflict:

The article has been fighting between those attempting to keep it unbiased and those with a definitely Russian one. For a list of people that have been caught up in this you can go to the 3R section and other places where "edit wars" become visible. Today I opened the page again to see Russian quotes filling the introduction and the only Georgian quote had been erased. This article has become heavily biased.

Discussion:

I am requesting more protection for those that have been attempting to counter the Russian bias. The abilities of the people supporting the Russian bias seem pretty good. And, I as a supporter of the unbiased positions do not have the skill to continue. Thank you for any help. And, I am requesting that editors with more knowledge about bias then myself participate. PlanetCeres (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Within the last few minutes it has been looking better. But, since this problem has been ongoing I will leave this up for now. PlanetCeres (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are now a number of admins and experienced editors working with the editors of the article to try and improve this and related articles. Neıl ☄ 12:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I poked my head in just before I saw this posting, and yeah, clearly there's a bit of chicanery going on. Stuff like, "British-based news agency Reuters claims that the South Ossetian government is 'funded by Moscow' however it does not provide any reliable source or evidence for this assertion" needs to be dealt with.

If things don't improve, does anybody think the Russia/Eastern Europe ArbCom sanctions might need to be extended to the other former Soviet areas? Just a thought. <eleland/talkedits> 19:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that as this is a current event, some messy writing is bound to be in the article, which has been in continual flux. I would imagine that now a ceasefire and withdrawal seems to be underway, that over the course of the next few weeks the article will coalesce. If things don't go smoothly then, then yes, the Digwuren sanctions (for reference: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions) would be applicable. Neıl ☄ 08:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is my hope too. Activity levels on wiki have significantly slowed down since the fighting has stopped, and I think we'll now be able to get these articles into some sort of neutral shape. If not...well, then the gloves will really have to come off. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This was posted in the talk section and since it seems relevant I'm reposting here. (Feel free to edit.):

-- Cityvalyu Edits on Aug. 17 --

I don't want to get caught in an edit war, but the majority of the edits made to the article today by Cityvalyu have so unbalanced it to a pro-russian point of view and seriously calls into question the further neutrality of it. I reverted one edit he/she made taking Georgia's stated reasons for initiating the attack on S.O. out of the Intro. section, and leaving only the reasons stated from Russia. This type of rampant nationalism/bias/vandalism(?) editing needs to stop to preserve the integrity of this article. --Jmedinacorona (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PlanetCeres (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir & Pakistan occupied Kashmir

I am creating this thread to centralize discussion regarding a nationalist dispute over Azad Kashmir and the alleged POV fork Pakistan occupied Kashmir. I am asking parties to civilly discuss the articles' title & content here. Until a consensus is achieved, both articles will remain under full protection. I will continue to monitor progress here. Thanks, caknuck _° is geared up for football season 05:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

the following needs mention in POK article..pahari sahib has vandalised the summarised intro and removed the obvious location..similar location removal vandalism has not been done by the same user at j and k, aksai chin , northern areas and ajk..why he bullies my edits ???Kashmircloud (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC).am quoting removed content:start quote:"

According to the instruments of partition of India, the rulers of princely states were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan. Hari Singh, King of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir appealed to Mountbatten for assistance in 1947 when pakistan invaded the region , and the Governor-General agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India." Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, India drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state that constitutes present day "PoK".

The United Nations security council passed the resolution that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained. The Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru promised a Plebiscite under UN supervision which never happened as one of the pre-conditions for the same was Pakistan should withdraw all Military forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir." . After the end of Indo-Pakistan War of 1947 , Pakistan has retained control over the disputed territory of POK till now.

==Location==

It borders the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir to the east, Afghanistan and China to the north, the North-West Frontier Province and the Punjab Province of Pakistan to the west and south respectively. India has control of 60 percent of the area of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir; Pakistan controls 30 percent of the region, the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir and China has since occupied 10 percent of the state in 1962.

"the end of quote..Kashmircloud (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

UNITED NATIONS

Kashmircloud, what do you mean when you say I "vandalised the summarised intro and removed the obvious location..similar location removal vandalism has not been done by the same user at j and k, aksai chin , northern areas and ajk..why he bullies my edits " do you have evidence for this? I haven't even edited the Aksai Chin article. Please provide some diffs to back up your claim. All I have done was to redirect the Pakistan occupied Kashmir article as can be seen here and here. After that I just tagged it as being POV and unbalanced and did not actually alter the contents of the article in anyway. I redirected it on these two occasions as it seems pretty clear to me that it is a POV fork and it was I who actually brought the dispute to Caknuck's attention as can be seen here. Pahari Sahib 19:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

posting STOP HIJACKING discussion here

''POK INCLUDES NOT JUST AJK..IT ALSO INCLUDES TRANS KARAKORAM TRACT, GILGIT AND BALTISTAN..117.193.33.134 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a blatant POV fork and should be a redirect. And it is a little bit ironic that you accuse me of hijacking - and why this part of WP India? Pahari Sahib 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

cant u understand that ajk not equal to pok..pok is three times larger than the area of ajk..check!!Please dont indulge in wp:vandalism..use valid arguments..give references to prove "pov" and contribute to wiki.but dont vandalise by removing referenced facts..Cityvalyu (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse others of vandalism, please try and read Wikipedia:Vandalism before proceeding. On the subject of POV - did you notice this? This page was moved to a neutral title, changes that you have reverted. Pahari Sahib 03:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

pahari sahib, you are vandal.why self doubt? you didnt talk on discussion page before blanking and making controversial removal of content...you also removed previous talk page discussions..what else is vandalism???? ..you removed all my edits and blanked the page without developing consensus..see history..you escaped by putting a namesake "redirect" edit with a silly fork excuse to avoid automatic vandalism detection by bots..you are hijacker and vandal both..not mere vandalKashmircloud (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kashmircloud why not try to assume good faith and discuss this in a reasonable manner. Despite your manner of editing I have not actually insulted you. Pahari Sahib 00:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

proof of vandalism/ undiscussed massive removal of content by [[Pahari Sahib]]

proof1

• 20:09, 30 August 2008 Pahari Sahib (26 bytes)
• 15:35, 30 August 2008 86.153.132.156 (6,236 bytes)
• 15:22, 30 August 2008 86.153.132.156 (6,208 bytes)
• 15:19, 30 August 2008 86.153.132.156 (6,181 bytes)
• 14:44, 30 August 2008 86.153.132.156 (6,214 bytes)
• 14:41, 30 August 2008 86.153.132.156 (6,201 bytes)
• 06:44, 30 August 2008 117.193.38.121 (6,167 bytes)
• 06:33, 30 August 2008 Kashmircloud (6,188 bytes)

proof2

• 02:20, 31 August 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (9,421 bytes) (removed vandalism...add npov tag if you cant contribute towards neutrality..all content fully referenced and NOT FORKED..stop false summaries)''
• 02:01, 31 August 2008 Pahari Sahib (Talk | contribs) (26 bytes) --'added a redirect page with a false edit summary again
• 01:55, 31 August 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (6,659 bytes) (added referenced text)

This is not proof of vandalism, I have already explained that I redirected this article twice as it seems pretty clear to me that it is a POV fork. If you were to read Wiki guidelines, you will see a POV fork is a "content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". We should avoid POV forks as they "are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." To reiterate what I have said before, I redirected the article twice as can be seen here and here after that I bought the dispute to the attention of an admin as can be seen here. I was going to ask for a third opinion but there seemed to be more than two of us involved. Although I am beginning to wonder if Kashmircloud is also 117.193.33.134. Pahari Sahib 00:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

POK is term used exclusively by INDIANS and no other nation of earth pakistan also regards indian administered kashmir as indian occupied kashmir (IOK) if this goes ahead i assure you there will be edit wars for the next decade kashmir cloud is simply stirring up trouble with a heavily pro indian agenda he is indian after all so i propose scrapping POK and the whole article which if you read you can blatantly tell its PRO INDIAN it shows how desperate kashmir cloud is about vandalising. 86.163.154.87 (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC) +

user ip starting with 86.****... is a proven vandal (see pok talk page)Kashmircloud (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a few things that should be taken into account: 1) AJK is a formal name of a Pakistani administrative unit. Jammu and Kashmir is the formal name of an Indian administrative unit. These should have two separate articles, and its better to have one AJK article and one J&K article. For NPOV we use the formal names, but shortening AJK to Azad Kashmir is ok with me. 2) PoK is a term frequently used in Indian news media. It is a concept not identical to AJK, but also encompasses the FANA. However, I would strongly oppose having an article (or a redirect) titled PoK. The fact that the Indian government considers the areas administered by Pakistan as PoK can be mentioned in the lead of the AJK and FANA articles, but we don't need a separate PoK article for that. Likewise, the Pakistani claims should be mentioned in the lead of the Jammu and Kashmir article. --Soman (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You oppose even a redirect titled PoK, but couldn't is simply redirect to Kashmir conflict? __meco (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Soman and the IP editor from London, UK; what makes you think that PoK is a PoV term only used by the Indians? Can you show any country, other than the rogue Pakis, showing the piece of land as AJK? Evn Pakistan does not officially recognise AJK. Come on guys, I can show many articles, which show Tibet as the last colony on this civilized world, which is being ruled by an evil empire. Shovon (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Shovan whether it or not it is used just used by Indians it is still a POV term. Pahari Sahib 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize, I had a response for Meco written yesterday, but forgot to press 'save page' before closing the computer. Certainly Kashmir conflict is a better redirect. PoK is not synonymous to Azad Kashmir, as India claims both AJK & FANA as 'PoK'. However, in usage at wikipedia PoK should be used to describe a term applied by Indian govt and Indian media. It should not be used to describe a geographic location. I found several pages linking to the PoK page as if 'PoK' would be a geographic location (see past version of Balti language for example), a pov problem that will take some time to fix. --Soman (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I think the debate can be summarized in this way: The state of Kashmir and Jammu was divided in 1947, one part under Indian control and one part under Pakistani control. Both governments have lengthy arguments to support their claims to the entire Kashmir/Jammu region, international orgs like UN have simply taken the compromise to see all of the area as disputed. On the Indian-controlled side, a state called Jammu and Kashmir was formed. India claims all of the old princely state as part of its J&K state. Pakistani divided its areas of the old Kashmir-Jammu state into two (as well as trading off some areas to China) Azad Jammu & kashmir and FANA. I'm not sure if Pakistani govt conisders all of the Indian-controlled areas as parts of AJK, but I'd suppose so. Now, the issue is how to deal with this issue. The current option is that we use the formal names for administrations used by the two states; Jammu and Kashmir for the Indian state and Azad Kashmir for the Pakistani administration. Some Indian editors dislike the usage of the name 'Azad Kashmir', since it literally means 'Free Kashmir' (implying that the areas under Indian control would not be 'free'). However, Azad Kashmir (or more correctly Azad Jammu & Kashmir) is a formal name of an existing administration. Some editors might not consider the Democratic Republic of Congo as a democratic state, but that doesn't warrant a move. We could have moves to Jammu and Kashmir (Indian state) and Azad Kashmir (Pakistani state), but I don't really see that as an improvement. --Soman (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Soman, one of your edit was removed by our ip-friend (check history). I think that as WP editors, we should accept status quo rather than taking stands with one of the governments: for us, there is no point in fighting over this. From this point of view, I would suggest considering to have a single article on administrative units as they are named by administering country: like Jammu and Kashmir and Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir and Federally Administered Northern Areas (FANA) as they are. Also, I do not see the point of mentioning the exact administrative units bordering the area in lead section, I suggest mentioning it like 'Jammu and Kashmir borders Pakistan on west and north-west' (we don't usually list which provinces of other countries are bordering), however, see also section at the bottom of the article 'can' list articles for those areas. Why is the target page for Federally Administered Northern Areas (FANA) titled as Northern Areas (Kashmir)? That's a POV name too. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Areas article should be I think located at Federally Administered Northern Areas as that its official name and doesn't contain anything in it that could be considered to be POV. (Federally Administered Northern Areas (FANA) was originally created as a redirect to an existing article) Pahari Sahib 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a move to Federally Administered Northern Areas (without '(FANA)'). --Soman (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Pahari Sahib 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is totally nonsense to have two seperate articles on one subject such as azad kashmir a blatantly biased article such as "POK" shouldnt even deserve to be a page on wikipedia what makes it worse is that some nationalists such as Shovon,kashmir cloud and GDibyendu always seem to put a redirection to this pathetic page they also frequently put there foot into pakistani articles i.e azad kashmir and create problems i notice a pattern of abuse. The azad kashmir article barely survives a week without indian interference while the Jammu and kashmir article is based totally on the indian veiw unless indians stop creating biased articles such as "POK" and stop pushing there point of veiw by brute force without no consensus in the first place i will continue to correct your wrong doings thats a promise freind 86.153.130.184 (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are sure that you can establish any wrongdoing from me, feel free to complain in appropriate place with references. Good luck! --GDibyendu (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you, the sock of an earlier blocked user. Do mind your language before saying or rather writing anything. Why don't you ask for intervention from the appropriate authority (Admins), so that I am stopped from reverting your so called biased and PoV edits? Go ahead, what's stopping you? Btw, the way you are going, you are sure to find yourself under a range block. Shovon (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Shovan edit summaries like this are not helpful. Pahari Sahib 19:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the provocation, try not to insult people - just focus on the issue under discussion. Pahari Sahib 19:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

only way out: merge ajk, northern areas and trans karakoram tract under pok/(whatevername u people finally agree to) solution

if status quo is not preferable (i can't understand why!), then the easiest way would be to bring all three parts of PoK or pakistani administered " erstwhile J and K kingdom" (so called northern areas, so called ajk and the trans karakoram tract) under one banner under a unified single article on POK..stop using word "azad"..do you know that the independendence of kashmir is not even recognised by their own constitution!!! pity!! see references on POK page ..i came to know a lot on the blindness of wikipedians there (present version throws light upon these facts) ..please use "so called azad j&k" instead of "azad" since pakistan and pok itself does not recognise its independence! ..even the supreme court of pakistan pities the lack of rights in pok territories!!! ajk citizens are implicitly inferior to pakistani citizens according to its constitution where in 5 out of 11 members are pakistan puppet appointees..they need to get a single pok voice out of the remaining to push the pok slavery agenda smoothly(this i learnt from azad k page ironically!!) and pakistan punjab rules that disputed area Kashmircloud (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

clamp down not good for wiki articles..(anyway, pok not equal ajk is well explained at thePOK talk page) ..Only when clampdown is relaxed (say,example: {{semi protect}tag- to avoid above proven vandals like 86.), can the article become balanced..there is no request for merger of three articles as suggested by kashmir cloud..status quo of all the articles with semiprotect will be fine!Cityvalyu (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clamp downs are necessary when articles such as POKwith only one pont of veiw i.e Indias is given and since the POk page was only made by editors who show a consistent pestering in azad kashmir and northern area articles relating to pakistan its safe to say there BIASED only deletion of the POK page will do 86.162.67.217 (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

KASHMIR CLOUD IS 117 ****

Your claims are as polluted and dilluted like a smog cloud over mumbai freind go away 86.151.123.126 (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Pahari Sahib is a respected editor look at his awards and compare them with a recent editor who probably was a past sock what have you done except use abusive langauge and create feel good article like POK 86.151.123.126 (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)POK will not be mentioned thats final bye bye86.151.123.126 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

kashmir cloud is like smog which will clear eventually this guy is trying to make big decisions and thinks he dictates azad kashmir i propose sending him to the cloud permanently the world AZAD WILL ALWAYS BE USED now please go and try to die at the computer screen please your india has shown the world how it deals with kashmir look at the land row monkey and maybe do meditation under a tree your proposals are PATHETIC no one is listening dude because your a biased Indian moron with a hindu facist agenda are related to modi? 86.151.123.126 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Article proposed for deletion

I have requested that an admin lift the protection so that the article can be tagged for AFD. I've given reason for this on the talk page, and as soon as the AFD is under way, I believe that process will put an end to this debacle. __meco (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

you can just look above and see what problems this POK article created by a single editor kashmir cloud who seems to be 117 ip86.162.67.217 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I seem to have reached an understanding with our IP friend. I hope this puts an end to this small issue made big.  S3000  ☎ 09:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood the process, but I never saw reconcilition with the pro-pakistani IP as the main issue. The problem of the separate POK article remains. --Soman (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Really sorry. I initially thought this topic was set up to discuss his edits as he is a sock of another user. Didn't read properly. Sorry again.  S3000  ☎ 17:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi S3000 just wanted to let you know this talk whole discussion was not about me lol its about the very controversial POK page just letting you know as you seem to be confusing it with me 86.156.211.157 (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised that.  S3000  ☎ 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir __meco (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning claims?

A edit disputive erupted at Muzaffarabad, regarding how to mention Indian claims on the region. This poses a question on how to deal with the Indian and Pakistani claims across various articles.

• First, what exactly are the claims? I think its quite clear that India considers all of the erstwhile Kashmir-Jammu state as its territory. But are we therefore to suppose that it claims all of these areas as parts of its Jammu and Kashmir state? As per Pakistan, does it claim all J&K areas under Indian administration as parts of AJK? (Including Ladakh?)
• Second, I think its quite basic that Indian claims are mentioned in the leads in the AJK and FANA articles, as well as Pakistani claims in the lead of the Jammu and Kashmir article. But what about other geographic locations. Should all geographical articles on the erstwhile Kashmir-Jammu state include comments on the contradicting claims in their leads? Just the administrative capitals? District/tehsil capitals? Districts/tehsil? Parliamentary constituencies? Rivers, mountains? There should be some consistency in this.
• Third, what about categories? I added a note at Category:Cities, towns and villages in Azad Kashmir, thinking of adding a similar note at Category:Cities and towns in Jammu and Kashmir, but I don't know exactly how to formulate the Pakistani claims. The current policy is to accept the LoC as the de facto border in geographical categorizations, the other alternative would be to have completly separate Kashmir categories, separate from both India and Pakistan categories.

--Soman (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does Pakistan-administered Kashmir (also called Pakistan occupied Kashmir) link somewhere else? Its the same geographic place. all one needs is to add another history/background section. That is blatantly Indian POV, just the same as saying Indian Occupied Kashmir for J&K. Obviously there should be a part in the article saying what it is referred to as in India (not to mention maps of India within India, and, I imagine, Pakisan maps in Pakistan), but within the land itself, within Muzaffarabad it is called Azad Kashmir, so it's officially called that by the people and institutions there. Now trying to mention some fringe minority to get away with this would be like saying J&K shouldn't be so because the "fringe minority" there think it ought not to be. Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone actually monitoring this? or is it going to be left to fester? As it stands the Pakistan-administered Kashmir article now has a POV lead section, and the Azad Kashmir article is locked, the latter article was stable until August when there appeared to be a campaign to POV push. Thus far the POV has gone through an AFD, due to canvassing the result was to speedy close it and redirect it. The Pakistan-administered Kashmir is introduced with POV, as it is a disputed area the lead section should be similar to the Jammu and Kashmir article - as I tried to do here, I asked for a third opinion and we got this version which I agreed with (NPOV). However this was reverted by one editor and the issue remains unresovlved Pahari Sahib 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, have you seen my latest attempt at removing the POV without encouraging another edit war? Shovon (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

World War II persecution of Serbs

I'm involved in a long running dispute with little or no end in sight. I'm using the WWII persecution of the Serbs as an umbrella header, because the conflict encompasses many related articles like Magnum Crimen, Miroslav Filipović, and Ljubo Miloš. In addition there are several sock farms involved, and some of the checkuser results can be seen here and here. Editing relations have almost completely broken down, there's pointed incivility, endless arguments, sock and meat-puppet allegations, and slow moving edit wars. I've considered mediation, but with the number of articles affected, number of editors involved, and the continuous socking, I'm not sure it would do any good. I noticed in the "See also" below that Wikiprojects and at least one experiment have been formed to help editors in contentious areas edit productively. I've let the majority of editors involved in the various discussions know that I'm attempting to start a project to help stabilize editing in the affected areas, though I haven't informed them of this thread, as almost inevitably both sides begin accusations that have spanned many noticeboards, talkpages, and user talkpages. Help is not only appreciated, but necessary. AniMate 23:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have recieved your message about this site on my talk page. Users outside of Balkan are afraid of enter this discussion, but in this case everything is "OK". Nobody is disputing facts, but only thing in question is editorial style of this articles.--Rjecina (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Şebinkarahisar, Turkey

Anonymous ip editors persist in removing a short section on the Armenian resistance from the article on the Turkish city of Şebinkarahisar. The section has reliable sources and valid wikilinks (Shabin-Karahisar Resistance, etc.). I have restored it three times but do not wish to be associated with a protracted and sterile revert war with anonymous nationalists. Would other editors please take a look at the passage to see if it is worth defending? Aramgar (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• It looks more like a vandalism. I have semiprotected the article and have given the IP a warning Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Putinisms_(2nd_nomination)

It's on the verge of becoming a political WP:CIRCUS. Some uninvolved admin should perhaps move off-topic remarks to the AfD's talk page. VG ☎ 16:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC request

At Talk:Żydokomuna#Prominent_individuals, concerns ethnic/cultural issues related to Polish-Jewish history. Comments appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Šar Mountains

Unresolved

An anonymous editor with a strong Serbian POV 70.80.93.11 (talk · contribs) is engaging in an edit war on Šar Mountains. The range is located on the border between Kosovo and Macedonia. His edits consist solely of sterile reverts of "Kosovo" to "Serbia" or insisting on the formulation "Kosovo, Serbia", or some such. Several editors have argued in edit summaries that stating that the mountains are located in Kosovo is sufficient geographical precision for the article and implies nothing about Kosovo’s status as a political entity. Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs), whom I believe is unaffiliated with the ip, has made similar changes, while several Albanian editors in recent days have sent the article skating around the namespace via a series of undiscussed moves. The article certainly needs more eyes. Is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo relevant here? Aramgar (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The same ip is making similarly chauvinistic edits at Kopaonik. Aramgar (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

In the article, I have re-edited the religion section, because I thought it was biased and only looks at the point of view of secularism or kemalism of the country, therefore I believe that section does not provide a neutral point of view for the readers on Wikipedia, because nothing is mentioned about the conservatism present in Turkey, for example the rise of Islamist-governments and the headscarf controversy - which is banned, but worn by many. I have then added this information about the culture clash between both of these ideologies, with reliable sources and is an important information which should be available in the article based on the impact of Religion in the country.

Furthermore, I have also added the Kemalist ideology to balance between both of these concepts. But in the article it is reverted by two users: User:Turkish Flame and User:Ayça Leovinus (<Part of the 37 Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma), their reason mainly given: No Islamist ideology allowed on the article, and only favoring secular information, but I have provided two balanced information for the article section, so I believe these two users are reverting my edits due to based on their own ideologies, but not caring about how information is provided for Wikipedia users, and that is what I have done by editing the section, providing a neutral point of view, but however these users are trying to hide these facts and informations, which I think is not a valid reason to revert my edits. Please review this, Thank you!!! My neutral revision :[38] against this:[39]

Many biased reason's against my edit: There is no place for your islamist agenda in wikipedia..., I know that it tickles your Islamist nerves., The top paragraph entirely for religion, the bottom paragraph entirely for secularism., especially when you are the "dedicated Islamist" of Wikipedia?, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology, Mr. Bangladeshi Islamic fanatic in England, why don't you "get a life" and leave Turkey to the Turks - who definitely know their country much better than you do?, Enough - go see a doctor, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology - Note the word Islamist mentioned in these quotes by User:Ayça Leovinus.

My reason's for edits: I have shortened the section because: the section looks cluttered and unorganized; various info moved to subs; reducing article size (not removed secular), Balancing and adding information (ie Kemalism, political situation), fixing info, now clear according to NPOV, good edit (AGF, NPOV), My revision: shortened sentences, and transferred to related articles, adding few relevant political sit., reducing article size (previous cluttered and unorganized) now), re edited section, added more comprehensive populations of Christians and Jews, and fixed Kemalism, with sources, entry referenced, based on NPOV, balanced of view. Conservate and secular present, not only secular, this should not be hidden., NPOV version: providing info based on two sides of point of views, not only one, but two present in society. Secularism/Kemalism, Conservatism/Headscarf - Note no insults given to users, but giving suitable reasons for the edits.

Mohsin (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have re-edited it again for a more neutral perspective: [40] Mohsin (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bishopric of Ermland/Warmia

The Bishopric was created by William of Modena in 1243 as a German Prince-Bishopric that was secularized in 1772, after the date it continued to exist as not a state any more but just a German Bishopric until 1945 when the lands and the bishopric became part of Poland.

now, the thing is that between 1466-1772 it was also part of Poland and first of all there is a controversy between the German and Polish naming versions Ermland vs. Warmia. The result is that there are currently at least 3 articles on WP on the subject Episcopal Duchy of Warmia, Archbishopric of Warmia and finally one about the modern bishopric Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia. There was a long and nice discussion about the problems at Talk:Episcopal Duchy of Warmia (in case anybody can take thier time and get more into it) that unfortunately didn't produce a clear consensus how to go about it. So the mess remains and recently has got worse since a number of IP editors have taken it over, see the edit history of this one [41]. So any help would be appreciated to clean the subject up on WP. thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you made Episcopal Duchy of Warmia, which had suffered from some editing by socks, into a redirect to Prince-Bishopric of Warmia. That seems reasonable. Let's keep an eye and see if any more semi-protection is needed. No other recent sock problems are visible in the history, though the article quality could of course be improved. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What I did exactly, renamed the previous "Archbishopric of Warmia" to Prince-Bishopric of Warmia and redirected the first title to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia since the bishopric has been an Archbishopric=Archdiocese only after 1992. Then I redirected the "Episcopal Duchy of Warmia" and threw everything that seemed useful to the section of the main article that deals with the Polish period. It's a start I hope, now there is an article about the medieval ecclesiastical state that's divided into the Teutonic and Polish periods; and another article about the modern Archbishopric... a lot of cleanup work still remains to be done of course.--Termer (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ethnic conflicts in western Poland

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ethnic conflicts in western Poland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic conflicts in western Poland. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Welfare State" Article IS Overly American-Flavored

I'll try to make sense of that! The article in question, dealing with the general concept of a Welfare state, has a POV that goes all over the map - but it is especially overburdened by a libertarian/conservative perspective which cites very few references. In trying to counter that viewpoint, others have countered the criticism... so now, the article is a MESS, to put it mildly. It's a battle of sides adding more flame to the fire, instead of snuffing the fire out - so instead of achieving any sort of NPOV, all that the editors are achieving is an increase in the size of the article, and increased confusion to any reader who might genuinely want to learn something from the page.

By "overly American-Flavored" - the majority of the point/counterpoint material is comparative - basically, comparing every OTHER situation in other countries to the United States situation. Not only that, all figures of monetary value are in US dollars - and some figures and graphs are horribly ambiguous, confusing, or downright wrong! I guess it has to be seen to be appreciated.

I thought about doing some editing myself; then, I knew that it would be a mistake to do it on my own - because I live in the United States, for one! Not only that, I do have a pretty strong left-leaning POV when it comes to the material, and so I might not be the best to do it.

In my opinion, there is one major thing that would improve the article; deleting several major sections. It's too long, and like I said, it's longggg because of the back-and-forthness of the material between sides. Thanks to anyone who takes a look at this. Dmodlin71 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure there is a strong ethnic underlying for the possible conflicts around the article. It does not look like Americans against Europeans but rather the libertarians against the socialists (or the conservatives against the liberals). Maybe it is worth to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology or Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics for help? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama

I wrote in the discussion area for Obama that he is not African American, he had a white mother and a black father, but everyone calls him African American. This is Bias, one sided opinionated nonsense and I am surprised Wikipedia would allow such a racist issue to go on. He is not African American. Why do half African Americans always insist they are full African American? Please just say he has African American Blood for goodness sakes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.222.247 (talk) 6 July 2008

I'm not sure what the above apparent WP:SPA IP editor means by taking the complaint to this forum. The editor has made, and reverted after deletion, racially inflammatory statements in at least a couple article talk pages: accusing Wikipedia of running "bias one sided BS" [sic] for using term "African American" to describe Barack Obama[42], and engaging in a peculiar Godwin's Law-like argument involving repeated use of the N-word to make a minor unrelated point in the l33t article.[43] Seems to accuse me of racism, vandalism, censorship, etc., for my removing the comments. There have been extensive discussions and a strong consensus on adopting the common terminology "African American" to describe Barack Obama's ethnic heritage. Because of some reasonable concerns, as well as stray complaints, fringe material, racial anger, soap-boxing, etc., the editors on that page describe this issue in the FAQ section. The editor posting this comment seems to have a problem with it and wants to leave a rant on the talk page to call things BS, but does not seem to offer any kind of constructive attempt to edit the encyclopedia. The Obama talk page is volatile and has been subject to repeated insertions of the N-word from IP editors, so racially inflammatory rants are a problem I believe should be summarily removed. Wikidemo (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We usually follow the self-identification of a person. Obama seems to consider himself African-American despite having also the Anglo-Saxon and Arabic heritages. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, if he considers himself African-American, let it go at that. My own kids are half-Thai, so I have some experience in this area of mixed heritage people. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when have people been allowed to choose their own race? Why should WP readers be assumed to assume that statements about someone's race should be interpreted in this way? Peter jackson (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

People have been allowed to choose their own race, at least in the United States, for years. Race is considered a question of self-identification by the United States Census[44]. (As the official demographics organization of the US government, the US Census should be a good reliable source for the answer to the question of how to determine the race of an American citizen.) A respondent may choose one or more races that he/she identifies with. For the US government, you are whatever you say you are, basically. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008)‎

There has been some extremely visceral mutual disagreement over whether this article should be in Category:Homophobia or not. The culturally and religiously liberal side says absolutely yes. The culturally and religiously conservative side says absolutely no, and questions the validity of using the word "homophobia" at all. Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)‎#Category:Homophobia is where it's being discussed. No one (including myself) seems to have been neutral and detached enough from the issue to offer a possible NPOV that isn't strongly opposed by another editor. I have considered the possibility that for me this is a conflict of interest and I would prefer to excuse myself from the discussion. However, the issue still remains, and someone neutral and detached enough needs to decide whether this category is appropriate for this article, and possibly also to clarify the appropriate criteria and appropriateness of Category:Homophobia itself. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly fits into "issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia". Also inclusion in such a category is not an accusation per se, for instance the ADL is included in Category:Antisemitism because it exposes anti-semitism.--Bsnowball (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• As there is no reference in the article that indicates that the subject is related to homophobia this category is problematic. See Categorization - Some general guidelines, 7, an article should demonstrate that it belongs in the category, and that condition is not satisfied. I guess I could say more, but looking at the talk page all what I could say has been said already. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Bsnowball's view over BlueSalo's. Common sense reading of the article says it fits rationally into that category. [Disclaimer: I have a COI and have refrained from editing the article, as a California attorney, and voter (who has voted and campaigned against 8 and donated to its opponents).] Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Silesia

This 3RR case ended with semi-protection of History of Silesia and Silesian Piasts, due to revert-warring by IP socks. Though socking and edit warring are against policy, it is not clear who is right about the underlying dispute. The warring IP was trying to put a Polish cast on the article, while the other party, LUCPOL, seemed to be removing mentions of Poland and stressing the independent destiny of Silesia. Can't a well-crafted compromise just factually narrate at what periods various parts of Silesia were, or were not in Poland or the various other surrounding countries? Should this be very difficult? Can anyone think how to get a better quality discussion going at Talk:History of Silesia, so that people are critiquing sources instead of exchanging insults? :-) Can anyone think of a polite way to insist on having Talk discussions and edit summaries in English rather than Polish? EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw your note to Piotrus, I've added some reference of when/where to the article's talk page. Also, interestingly, Silesia was ecclesiastically (Catholic church) under Poland when it was actually no longer under Polish sovereignty (mid 15th century). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) 23:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Warmia isn't part of Silesia if you meant that. 84.139.226.24 (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh look, a Silesian nationalist. That, at least, has some novelty value. "Jesteś polakiem a nie Ślązakiem. Widziałem dzisiaj na ulicy murzyna i on jest mi bliski jak wy - polacy. Wy tylko tu żyjecie, nic więcej. Ten murzyn też może powiedzieć (jak ty) że tu mieszka - ale to nic nie znaczy. Więc nie pisz więcej takich bzdetów". Translation: "You are a Pole and not a Silesian. Today I saw a black man on the street and he's as close to me as you Poles are. You just live here, that's all. That black man could also say (like you) that he lives here - but that means nothing. So don't write such rubbish." Clearly a valuable contributor to the project. --Folantin (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Among Poles and Silesians exist ethnic war. This user pretends Silesian, though it is Pole. Therefore I wrote this. Poles often bad write about Silesians, therefore I wrote this. This is controversy argument, but argument. Let's do not continue this subject. LUCPOL (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no war between Poles and Silesians. There is a fringe Silesian autonomy movement, which is nonviolent, and barely makes even regional news.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should write: "ethnic a'la war" or "ethnic conflict" or "ethnic short-circuit". Really war (guns etc) as yet it has not. In Silesia exist the separatist organizations (under in relation to nation or/and culture or/and state etc) - example: Silesian Autonomy Movement (Ruch Autonomii Śląska), Union of People of Silesian Nationality (Związek Ludności Narodowości Śląskiej), Young of Upper Silesia (Młodzież Górnośląska) and other organizations but they do not attempts of bomb yak Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) or Óglaigh na hÉireann (IRA) and they do not be well-known on whole world, but only locally. Let's do not continue this subject. LUCPOL (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

???? Was Vecrumba talking about Warmia, or not? If he meant Warmia - it's not in Silesia. Whatever you want to express, I don't understand your POV. 84.139.218.5 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Magosci, and this should continue on the talk page, not here, Silesia is mostly represented as an ethnic/historical settlement region, after all, it's named after the Silesians, the Slav tribe that settled in that area. With reference to ecclesiastical boundaries, do you mean Wrocław? ca 1450, Silesia was within the boundaries of the Polish archdiocese. (Continue on article talk, please!) —PētersV (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba write: Silesia ...after all, it's named after the Silesians, the Slav tribe that settled in that area.-

Correction: Silesia (Slesia=Schlesien) is named for the Silinger a Vandalic, of the Germanic tribes, who lived in Germania Slavs started moving into Germania after the 6th century and Silesia was conquered by the first duke of the Polans, Mieszko I around 1000 AD, but shortly after lost again. Polish name is Slask. An Observer (71.137.197.97 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

pagus Silensis (Thietmar of Merseburg), Sleenzane (Bavarian Geographer)

It is now commonly accepted that the name Silesia (Slask-Śląsk) derives from the name of the Silesian mountain Sleza (Ślęża) known in German as Zobotenberg. The name of the mountain comes from old West slavic word ślągwa and ślęgnąć which means moisture, humidity etc. It was given to the mountain and the nearby river due to the humidity which was much higer here than anywere else in the region.

Befor the WWII some German nationalists tried to create a new theory as if the name derives from the word Siligi a Vandalic tribe that passed through the region during the Migration Period. It was strongly defended by Karl Mahr in his Bemerkungen zu den Steinbildern am Siling, "Schlesische Blatter", 1940-1941. It is worth mentioning that this and similar "historical works" are nothing more than part of the Nazi propaganda.

Even more obious it is when we see who edited those books. For instance the "Ostgermanen und Nordgermanen", edited in 1940 in Leipzig and Berlin as a third volumin to the "Vorgeschichte der deutschen Stamme" part of which was "Gcrmanische Tat und Kultur auf deutschem Boden" was edited by the "Reichsbund fur deutsche Vorgeschichte" and "Reichsamt f. Vorgeschichte der NSDAP". Authors of those books are nowdays mostly a shamful topic in the German historiography but as I can see some people still use those "arguments" even though they were invented by Nazi Propaganda.

When we look at the name of the province carved on the tomb of Boleslaus the Tall. We can see the name Slezia. It those times the latin name of the province was not yet stable. For instance Thietmar calles it pagus Silensis and in Bavarian Geographer the name of the tribe is Sleenzane. In a Bohemian document from 968 there is province of Slensane. So the name on the tomb could be just one of the Medieval versions that were in use. What is more interesting this name Slezie directly corresponds with the name of the mountain Sleza as well as with the name of the tribe Slensane and therefore could be older and of more Slavic origin than the later latin Silesia. Cheers 213.238.120.27 (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Jewish ethnicity from leads

Please see discussion at Mos(b).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted a tickler there, that no one else has responded rather seems to indicate that mention of "Jewish" is not an issue as long as it can be reasonably deemed to be relevant. I can only see this surfacing in relation to historical contexts. So, Elie Wiesel is Jewish (historian/activist role regarding the Holocaust) while Howie Mandel (comedian) is Canadian, and that his family origin was Jewish appears immediately in the first paragraph of the article. —PētersV (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Romanians, Roma and 'Disclaimers' posing as DABs

I've recently noticed that the Romanians page begins with a redivert 'Not to be confused with Roma people'. Including dabs for other groups that might also be confused with Romanians has resulted in their being reverted, apart from the Roma Dab. I strongly suspect that the singling out of this group is motivated by prejudice rather than any disinterested perceived 'ambiguity'. My attempts to address the issue on the Talk Page, in the face of determined resistance, only produces repeated edit reverts. Is there a policy on the use of such 'disclaimers', and guidelines to determine if this one is appropriate? Any advice greatly appreciated. RashersTierney (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The following are some recent examples :

Not to be confused with Aromanians.

Not to be confused with Romans.

Not to be confused with Roma people.

Not to be confused with Romulans.

Not to be confused with Romansh people.

RashersTierney (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the issue is currently being discussed at the appropriate TalkPage.
RashersTierney (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment there that as things stand, more divisive than informative. —PētersV (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer as outlined above removed. Similar retaliatory at Romani people also removed. RashersTierney (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oji-Cree v. Severn Ojibwa

Problem

There are indigenous peoples of North America called the Anishinini located between the Cree in the north and the Ojibwa in the south, located across northern Ontario to central Manitoba. Culturally, these people identify themselves as "Cree" but linguistically, their language is closer to Ojibwa. Linguistically, they are called "Severn Ojibwa," but culturally, this group take the "Ojibwa" identification as an insult and much prefer the "Cree" identification. The Canadian government's solution is to call them "Oji-Cree" and in Canada, this has become the accepted term for this group as well as the name for their language. However, all the anthropological works still refer to them as "Cree" and all the linguistic works refer to them as "Severn Ojibwa".

Resolution that is needed

We have a potential ideological conflict brewing that needs to be nipped in the bud. Pointing out a any appropriate Wikipedia policy would be helpful. In the article covering this ethnic group, the article was created as Oji-Cree. When the language article was created, it was originally Severn Ojibwa language, but due to the cultural tention associated with "Ojibwa" in the name, the article was renamed as Anishinini language, but as this name is considered a neologism, the article was then renamed as Oji-Cree language. There is a request to have the original Severn Ojibwa language name restored for the language article as this is the official ISO-3 name. As both the "Severn Ojibwa language" title and the "Oji-Cree language" title are verifyable, do we go with the official ISO-3 name or do we go with the culturally sensitive name that is official in Canada? (Discussion can be found at WP:IPNA talk, at article's talk, and at main language's talk) CJLippert (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the name to go with is Oji-Cree, as this is the English word which is in use in the area. http://www.windigo.on.ca/annualreport.htm , http://www.nan.on.ca/article/land-culture-community-120.asp . The word Oji-Cree is current, AFAIK, among Natives and Non-Natives alike. There's a definite line between Cree, Ojibway, and Oji-Cree, and speakers of the languages are very aware of the differences. Severn Ojibway gets a some usage in linguistic materials, as it rightly indicates that it is one of many Ojibway dialects. However, linguistic nomenclature for Northern Algonquian languages is very slippery: are Saulteaux, Algonquin, and Oji-Cree dialects of Ojibway or separate languages? Why is East Cree considered “Cree” while Naskapi isn’t (they are closer to each other than to any other “Cree” dialects). And for that matter, Atikamekw is arguably closer to “Cree” than “East Cree”. Labelling and dividing dialect chains is a risky business, and one which would not be profitable here. Best to follow on-the-ground political reality. And that would most likely be Oji-Cree (best to call people what they call themselves). Personally, I don't think the ISO designation is relevant, as a number of their language identifications are suspect. Anishinini or Anishininimowin (or derivations thereof) are not recognisable English words –yet– and would not be appropriate here. I disagree with the comment “all the anthropological works still refer to them as ‘Cree’ and all the linguistic works refer to them as ‘Severn Ojibwa’.” languagegeek (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer "Severn Ojibwa" since I am, and always have been, a linguist and we tend to draw a clear distinction between cultural designations and linguistic designations. Not all "Oji-Cree" speak "Severn Ojibwa". People denigrate ISO 639-3, but it is actually becoming the most accurate reference through its process of ongoing revision. Until there is a better reference, ISO 639-3 should be the baseline. I don't see any problem with a statement such as "Severn Ojibwa is the variety of Ojibwa spoken by the Oji-Cree community". (Taivo (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

Encyclopedias tend to use more formal/official titles for article names, and based on this ‘Severn Ojibwa’ is the best title for this Wikipedia article since it has the gravitas of informed usage by linguists behind it, and has the virtue of making it clear that the entity in question is a variety of Ojibwe. The best course would be to use ‘Severn Ojibwa’ with cross-references from other terms. Terms such as ‘Anihshinini language’ or ‘Anishininiimowin’ have no currency at all in English. Severn speakers in my experience are aware of the similarities between their language and other varieties of Ojibwe, and I disagree with the assertion above that Ojibwe is considered an ‘insult.’ We should also go back to the spelling ‘Ojibwe’ that is the norm among linguistics working on “Ojibwe” (this spelling was used in earlier versions of some Wikipedia articles and is retained in at least one), but that’s another issue.

There is merit in utilizing ISO 639-3 as a standard for naming language articles in Wikipedia wherever possible, since it provides a standardized framework that can be enhanced and amended through a formal process. With respect to Ojibwe, the ISO titles can be improved in a number of ways, particularly where they do not follow general linguistic practice (e.g. ‘Western Ojibwe’ is most commonly referred to as ‘Saulteaux’ by linguists working on Ojibwe, identifiable varieties such as Nipissing are not recognized, etc). However we could do worse.

There is no satisfactory universally accepted term in English for the dialect in question. I would not put a lot of stock in the usage of the Canadian Oxford; this is a linguistically uninformed choice on their part in my opinion; for the same reason there is little value in the Canadian government’s usages, which have changed over time.

The term ‘Oji-Cree’ is linguistically misleading since it implies some kind of equality between the Ojibwe and the Cree parts, but linguistically it is quite clear that Severn Ojibwe is an Ojibwe dialect with significant (but hardly overwhelming) amounts of Cree vocabulary, and modest amounts of Cree morphology. Valentine’s very fine 1994 study “Ojibwe Dialect Relationships” (PhD dissertation, U of Texas) makes this clear. Severn also has fairly significant relationships with Algonquin Ojibwe spoken a considerable way to the east, but nobody's suggesting that Severn be called "Oji-Cree-Algonquin."

With respect to some comments above: the Berens River communities (Pikangikam and Poplar Hill) are not Severn at all, the break is very sharp – Pikangikam has more southerly morphological and lexical features not shared with Severn. Albany River and similar communities (e.g. Fort Hope, Ogoki, Cat Lake, Lansdowne House) have fewer Severn features, and are intermediate between Severn and more southerly Ojibwe varieties. I would place them at the periphery of core Severn. (Valentine has some nice discussion of how this plays out as one goes north to south in the area north of Lake Nipigon).

So if we want to vote, I say Severn Ojibwa (or better, Ojibwe) with cross-references.

John Jomeara421 (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Canadian Encyclopedia says: Ojibwa (Algonquin, Central, Eastern, Northwestern, Ottawa [Odawa], Saukeaux, and Severn dialects).
• Google search hit counts: "Oji-Cree" language = 10,700; "Severn Ojibwe" language = 1,020; "Severn Ojibwa" language = 344; "Anishininiimowin" = 254; "Anishinini language" = 202; "Anihshininiimowin" = 90; "Anihshinini language" = 0
• Rand Valentine's Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar (ISBN 0802083897) says: "Oji-Cree (Anihshininiimowin, Severn Ojibwe). There is a variety of Anishinaabemowin spoken in northwestern Ontario that is commonly identified in English by its own speakers as Cree, a sister language of Anishinaabemowin found in the Hudson Bay lowlands adjacent to this dialect area. Oji-Cree is also used popularity to designate this dialect, because of its allegedly being a mixture of Ojibwe and Cree.... This variety is sometimes referred to as Severn (River) Ojibwe by linguists, in reference to one of the river systems defining its geographical locus...."

CJLippert (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Severn Ojibw(a/e) is the superior and most descriptive term. Oji-Cree refers to the people, perhaps, but not to the language. Google hits is hardly a "scientific" reference since my 13-year-old could post something on the internet. Linguists are nearly universal in their use of "Severn Ojibw(a/e)" for this language variety. (Taivo (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

Actually, your Google search was performed incorrectly. You must search "Oji-Cree language" (the position of the quotation marks is critical) in order to narrow the search to only those articles which deal with language or else you can also get articles that are culturally based. "Oji-Cree language" only yields 356 hits while "Severn Ojibwa language" yields 342 hits ("Severn Ojibwe language" yields zero hits). (Taivo (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

Sveta Gera

There is disagreement at Sveta Gera about whether or not the article should be named Sveta Gera, Trdinov vrh, or something else. Outside views and similar assistance would be appreciated at Talk:Sveta Gera#RfC: Article naming. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Romanians living abroad at Romanians

There's an ongoing problem there with User:Danh claiming that the hundreds of thousands of Romanian citizens living in Spain and Italy are ... not of Romanian ethnicity. It may be true that not all of them are, but seems a ridiculous to insist on this given the overall ethic composition of Romanian citizens. Danh also claims that those living in Spain and Italy are migrant workers, so they shouldn't be counted as living abroad, even though the census bureaus in these coutries do count them as living there. He's basically pushing his own version of WP:TRUTH, i.e. ethnic Romanians don't live abroad in large numbers. He's also labeling editors that disagree with him as "rudimentary trolls". Pcap ping 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was intended that this space would be a noticeboard for disputes with individual editors. The fewer forums opened on a specific dispute, generally the easier it is to resolve. RashersTierney (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancient population of Nagorno-Karabakh

Already many months I have been involved in the discussion about the ethnic composition of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) and of the right bank of the Kura river (Artsakh and Utik) in ancient times. Unfortunatly no consensus was so far reached. I have been trying to use the "dubious" tags in order to avoid edit-warring (espacially with User:Grandmaster). However this did not help long, as they are now removed by a user who even did not react in the relevant talkpage. I therefor want to ask some third-party users to see if they can help us in the following talk pages:

• Talk:Caucasian_Albania#Dubious_tags
• Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Sources

Thank you beforehand.--Vacio (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for some reason this user tried to remove from the article information about the population of the large part of historical Caucasian Albania, and when this had no approval of other editors, he attached tags, claiming that information from reliable sources was dubious. I don't understand why Wikipedia articles should conceal important information about the ancient population of the region, when such information relies on notable third party scholars. Grandmaster (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it seems to be a nationalistic battle about whose ancestors, either the Armenian or Azerbaijani settled at the Nagorno-Karabakh region first in order to justify the claims to the area in modern times? Since there are 2 conflicting perspectives, let me guess, the reputable Armenian scholars claim it was originally an Armenian territory and reputable Azerbaijani historians say it was first settled by Caucasian Albanians, ansestors of Azerbaijanians and the Armenians are late migrants and the Armenians say exact opposite. Since there are 2 conflictive perspectives, that's what the article needs to say. According to Armenian sources Armenians were the first and according to Azerbaijani it's all ancient Azerbaijani territory. the problem you're having is that each side trys to represent their opinions in Wikipedia as an established fact, the truth. But in fact there is a debate among opposing scholars and the debate is mostly fueled by nationalistic feelings. For WP purposes, the opposing POV's have to be simply clearly separated pr WP:NPOV: "where conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly".

Here is a citation from 'The Caucasian Knot' By Levon Chorbajian, Claude Mutafian which could be used as a starting point:

Armenian historians...argue that Caucasian Albanians were absorbed by the Armenians...Azerbaijani historians in stark contrast view Caucasian Albania as the precursor of modern Azerbaijan.

--Termer (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The person who mediates the dispute proposed a different approach, e.g. to use neutral and reliable third party sources. In that case we can avoid nationalistic POVs from both sides being introduced to the article. Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did the suggestion help? And the exact "neutral and reliable third party source" suggested by the guy that should be used would be...? Exactly, -none, that is the reason you haven't solved anything because the suggestion doesn't count on realities. Such sources do not exist simply because there is no King Solomon around among historians who'd be able to be "neutral" enough so that any Gordian Knot could be solved so easily in practice. The only proven way to solve any such disputes on Wikipedia is to list opposing POV-s side by side and in that sense the citation I provided above, it can't get more neutral than that. Please read the WP:NPOV -> WP:YESPOV. 'the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints...The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly...etc. Good luck!--Termer (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, such sources do exist. The conflict is quite well researched, I would say. The thing is that some insist that the sources representing their side of the story are the only true ones, and they should be used, while the sources from the other side should be rejected. Of course, such approach leads to nowhere. We should either use the sources from both sides, or rely on neutral ones. There's no problem with representing the opinions of both sides, but in addition to that there's an opinion of the international scholarly community with regard to the ancient history of the region. I think the opinion of international scholarly community, i.e. top international experts on the ancient history of the region, should prevail. Only with such approach we can maintain neutrality. Grandmaster (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So what do the "top international experts on the ancient history of the region" say differently from the citation above?--Termer (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

They actually disagree with both Armenian and Azerbaijani authors. Grandmaster (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My question was, how do they disagree? And what makes anybody "a top international expert" on the ancient history of Nagorno-Karabakh?--Termer (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

People like Vladimir Minorsky, Kamilla Trever, Robert Hewsen, Charles Dowsett and a number of others are internationally recognized specialists in this field. They reject the idea of Armenian nationalists that Armenians always inhabited the region, and they reject the ideas of Azerbaijani nationalists that Armenians never lived there. If you have an interest in this topic, I can provide you the quotes from the works of experts, which clarify the issue. Grandmaster (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Middle Eastern food fights

Hummus and Za'atar saw ethnic clashes recently, believe it or not, and now the batttleground is Tabbouleh. It's being asserted that the term "Levantine cuisine" is a racist, offensive colonial slur to divide the grand Arab nation. It's enough to give one indigestion. <eleland/talkedits> 05:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Middle Eastern food fights again (December 2008)

Another round has started up, related to Hummus and Felafel this time. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Of_all_things_..._Hummus and the article talk pages; there appears to be disagreement over when you cross the line between documenting a verifiable ethnic/cultural conflict over the origins of national cuisines into actually participating in such a conflict. (See for example this al Jazeera English piece on Jerusalem street food, and its reception and critique in the Jerusalem culture guide, a site about local culture from an Israeli-Jewish perspective.) There is also question over the use of the term "Palestine," with some arguing that it is anachronistic and could be confused for the nascent and unrecognized State of Palestine, and others (incl. myself) arguing that it is a natural and normal geographical term and will be understood in context as referring to Palestine (region). More eyeballs welcome. <eleland/talkedits> 02:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism in Algeria

While discussing Anti-Arabism section about Algeria a dispute arose concerning the relvance of information (such quality of life, speaking french, being christian secular) and some unrelated stated sources. I asked for a section rewrite and put a dispute frame to invite more contributors in good faith. I want to apologize for playing the Don't call the kettle black game but I have no options. The user Nabilus_junius has been causing disruptive edits and undoes, including edit warring, racist attacks against a whole race and people (he said in French: ..Il est interessant de voire comment les arabes vivants en europe savent user des failles de la démocratie chrétienne pour imposer leur lois (bien plus loin que ce qu'ils leur est du)..), personal attacks, accusations of Conflicts of Interest, a hostile tone, writing in a language other than English (I think Kabyle + French), misusing Wikipedia policies and guidelines and refusing to reach a consensus on the topic.

You can check the disucssion here Talk:Anti-Arabism#Algeria_section_rewrite, click here for my last edit snapshot. I am waiting for third party opinions and assistance to resolve the dispute as I cannot continue playing the do/undo game forever. Bestofmed (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

Irish politics in Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom

A section of this article entitled "European plates and the GB controversy" describes the various country codes found on European-format number plates of vehicles registered in Northern Ireland. This section has been subject to persistent sporadic edit-warring since July 2008, with (suspiciously similar) edits expressing a distinctly non-neutral POV on the status of Northern Ireland being made by Theraven77 (talk · contribs), 81.158.101.130 (talk · contribs), 217.42.114.133 (talk · contribs) and, most recently, 81.158.100.23 (talk · contribs) and 86.157.227.132 (talk · contribs). Ironically, all the IP addresses are from BT Broadband customer IP pools. None of these edits are referenced or have edit summaries, and no attempt has been made to engage in debate on the talk page, despite me adding a request for such. They also tend to be badly written with spelling and typographical errors. Letdorf (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

I've now deleted the section; it was largely unreferenced and of peripheral relevance. Letdorf (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC).

Pejoratives for the Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)

There seems to be an edit conflict over the inclusion of the pejorative "Tomb of an Unknown Rapist" name for the Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park). The monument is a major War World II grave and one of the main international symbols for the victory over Nazism. While every major monument in existence has more or less funny pejorative nickname I do not think the inclusion of such an information satisfies WP:UNDUE. I do not think it is appropriate for the article on this War Memorial and I would not want a race in finding pejoratives for other graves and national icons that would follow inclusion of this informations Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page, there is 1 scholar result, 2 news results and 4 book results, meaning this is a WP:FRINGE view, and should be dealt with as per WP:UNDUE. I also would not want to see other pejoratives finding their way into similar articles, and heaven knows, I am sure that one could find some fringe pejorative terms for other war memorials. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more than fair to mention that while the Red Army reached Berlin first, what was done to its civilian population was reputably documented to be more pillage and rape than to liberate. The Germans didn't erect the monument after all. Perhaps if the Red Army hadn't raped countless thousands of women while making the world safe from Nazism, the nickname might not exist. Let's not whitewash what happened during the liberation of Berlin.

   The challenge is to include the additional content in a manner that the reason for the moniker is quantified and qualified (for example, 5 raped = undue, I have seen estimates of 80,000 to well over 100,000 raped = not undue), and done in a manner which does not denigrate those of the Red Army who made the ultimate sacrifice being an honest soldier defending their homeland. This news article on a book regarding such war crimes presents a NPOV account which concludes with the pejorative in question, note, used by women of the era.

   Arguing against including the darker parts of the Soviet legacy is nothing but whitewashing. That this dark legacy doggedly follows the Red Army is the fault of none but the Red Army and the consequence of nothing but its actions. PetersV       TALK 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm responding here first as this article is on my watchlist, while "Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)" is not. PetersV       TALK 15:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, put in "monument" and "rapist" in German into Google and the very first match is an article about a study regarding the hundreds of thousands of German women raped by the Red Army (Google translation here). I'll put any further discussion in article talk. PetersV       TALK 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph article is basically a review of the book which is used as a reference. It is not independent reporting. And I would again draw attention to Google results: 1 scholar result, 2 news results and 4 book results. It's a WP:FRINGE view which has to be dealt with as per WP:UNDUE. Remember, this is an article on the war memorial, not on goings ons in Germany during WWII. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate response then is to simply cite the book. The moniker exists, and it exists for a reason. Please discuss in article talk, this is not a contest about getting in the last word here. I should mention your search is far too restrictive, I've found statue, monument, memorial, tomb all used, ending with the term "unknown rapist" or "rapist Russian"--and referring to more Soviet memorials in Germany than just the one being discussed here. The more I look the more disturbing the results. Referring to Soviet monuments in Germany as honoring rapists appears to be a phenomenon worthy of the Anti-Russian sentiment article. PetersV       TALK 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Turkish genocide

Resolved

 – Resolved with the help of admin User:SheffieldSteel on the 16th January.

An anonymous ip is constructing an elaborate propaganda piece at Turkish genocide, a disambiguation page. Assistance needed. Aramgar (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Syriac issue

hello, to get you in the context of things, there was an issue between assyrianists and arameanists about the 'assyrian people page' arameanists claim that Syriacs are not assyrians rather arameans, while assyrians claim syriacs are infact assyrians. Long story short, some admins got involved and we compromised that the pages should be one, and that instead of just "Assyrian" they be "Assyrian/Syriac" or "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac", as seen here: [[45]], and [[46]]. This was the norm for a while and everyone was happy. User:The TriZ took liberty of changing all previous "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac" and everyone was fine with that too. Now the issue is that when I tried to do the exact same thing he did but changing "Syriac" to "Assyrian/Syriac" he undoes my posts ... I ask for explanation, and he asks for sources (mind you he provided no sources for Syriac), then I provide him with sources, and he does want to continue to discuss the issue. He impliments his POV in every page without any sources, and when we try to put the accepted neutral stance of "Assyrian/Syriac" title (Which he agreed upon) he is against it. This is POV at its fullest. The pages I am talking about are: [[47]], [[48]], [[49]], [[50]], and he recently changed "Assyrian" to "Syriac" just recently on this page [[51]]. I have asked him as to why he keeps doing this on this talkpage but as you will see he does want to discuss. P.S. his moves threaten the neutral "Assyrian/Syriac" titles implemented by admins, If he continues like this then what is the point of keeping his changes from "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac"? Malik Danno (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Malik Danno did we not vote for splitting the article into one Assyrian article and one Syriac article to avoid all those problems? I think we won that vote but what happened then? There is still a Assyrian/Syriac article? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pula (disambiguation) reverts

Background:

Pula in Romanian means basically dick. This is accepted in the country, and the page on ro wiki is protected for these obvious reasons. Even the wiki disambig page is getting vandalised by Romanian prankers, but many seem to turn a blind eye to this. As a side-note, I notice that Dick has a similar definition for penis, and is as well protected.

The introduction of the term on Wiktionary was as well controversial, and not permited until an established user added it in a very clear form. Before that, some users were even banned for daring to add this definition there.

Conflict:

I've made an edit on the page, reverting the revertal of an unaware bot of the definition. Before this, I looked in the history and I notice many good-faith edits by Romanians have been reverted as vandalism or diverse reasons. There's no discussion on the talk page and I doubt the undo-happy-trigger-people would take too much time to check it out. I've asked some established users on ro wiki to introduce it themselves, but it seems I'm talking to the walls and noone wants to bother.

What I don't understand is why people from other nationalities, that probably most of the times don't even know or bother to find out about words in other languages, take it upon themselves to revert good-faith edits without a second notice.

I'm requesting some form of introducing and keeping it in that disambig page, as the English slang has one on the dick disambig page, it's only fair enough - it's an "important" word in Romanian slang, mainstream (although I have little idea on the references, but if it was finally accepted on Wiktionary some time ago, I guess they found some, anyway this isn't about making an article about it or its uses, just a short line about the meaning of the word).

I'd like to underline again that the word "Pula" in Romanian language has the same meaning and same wide-spread as "Dick" has in English. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Probably relevant statement> Last revert reason> "No need for this über-crappy factoid". --Anime Addict AA (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged anti-Polish POV

An editor started two threads. Dispute is about whether Rostock was a Polish WWII war aim and if the source, Naimark, has an anti-Polish POV.

• Talk:Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II#Naimark.27s_credibility
• Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Polish_war_aims

Since the discussion has become somehow personal and the sentence in question was outright deleted [52], I guess it would need some neutral input. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Naimark, I'd have to read through his materials and compare to other authors I respect and have read regarding Poland during the war. That said, his is the first I've seen of any account contending Poland had "war aims." Poland no longer existed, so the entire Naimark paragraph with or without your addition seems speculative and subject to interpretation--that is, were these (a) statements wishful thinking by individuals in exile and with no territorial authority or (b) Polish leaders plotting a military campaign of conquest? Naimark clearly believes the latter. PetersV       TALK 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

While it seems reasonable to argue that the exiled Polish government by stating war aims failed to recognize its low importance in the big picture, that does not contradict the fact that war aims were stated, but is rather an evaluation of how realistic these aims were. However you have to include in this evaluation that there were in fact Polish armies participating in WWII, and at least during the second half of WWII it was clear to everyone but the Nazis that Germany would be defeated and Central Europe would be subject to a major reorganization. Nevertheless, though thankful for your response, the thread on the respective talk page is a wp:dead horse by now. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

South Tyrol uproar

Sometime might remember this. The issue of naming in the South Tyrol (Italian names versus German ones) is now making its way around the noticeboards as a bitterly-fought issue. For example, it's now being contested at ANI. Does anyone know if Arbcom has ever considered the South Tyrol issue? This seems like an area where restrictions like those of WP:ARBMAC could be useful. There seem to be hundreds of kB of discussion in the archives about the South Tyrol naming dispute, but no clear precedent that you can ask people to abide by. In the Gdansk case, at least there was an answer given, and an accepted procedure for changes. If anyone has pointers on where to look, it would be appreciated. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

There is a very persistent attempt to insert an excerpt from a 1949 CIA Report that is completely unrelated to the article (on the 1947 resolution) and let alone to the section in which it is inserted. The March 1949 CIA Report does not deal with the UN Partition Resolution and is simply a POV written by anonymous writer whose significance and influence are not clear (but even if it were influential and accurate it has nothing to do with the article). Also the cited paragraph is an extreme POV without justification or relevance. two users insist on inserting it. One of them give arguments that are simply off the wall the other one simply calls preventing the insertion "bad faith". I think that it is high time for an intervention. Mashkin (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact the report specifically mentions the failure of the United Nations to enforce the partition plan and the quote mentions the failure of the Great Powers to set and enforce any borders. This is a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT harlan (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The report mentions the UN Resolution in passing and not in the quoted stuff. Mashkin (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilians

There's a single purpose account attacking any information about Italian people in the article White Brazilian. He has clear "pro-Portuguese" aspirations (in a sentence he writes about his "Portuguese" grandparents, when nobody asked him about it[53] then he starts a discussion to include informations about Portuguese not even listed in his sources [54]) then he started to claim that Portuguese are the majority of White Brazilians, and started to undermine the influence of other peoples.

This user was already blocked 2 times (on the same week) for attacking this same article.[55] Now he's dedicated to undermine the influence of Italians, Germans, Arabs, Spaniards, etc, in Brazil [56] [57]. Notice how he tried to enflate the Portuguese and undermine Italians, Arabs and Germans in this edit[58]. Ethnic persecution? Opinoso (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Hindu nationalist edits on Black Stone

I'd be grateful if editors could keep an eye on Thebuddah (talk · contribs) and his recent contributions to Black Stone. He's repeatedly pasting in an unsourced personal essay which, if I understand Dbachmann correctly, is a fringe Hindu nationalist viewpoint that asserts that the Ka'aba in Mecca was originally a Hindu temple. I've advised the editor about Wikipedia's content policies, but the message doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's totally fringe Hindu theory that the place used to be a temple. It cannot be supported by historical evidence and so should not be given any importance. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Was the Kaaba once not a non -Muslim place of worship?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Marian Cozma article

I don't know if this is the right place to present this, but I would like somebody that is more familiar with ethnic issues and neutrality policies to take a look at the Marian Cozma article. Marian Cozma is a Romanian hand ball player that was killed by two Hungarian Romani (Gypsy) individuals in Hungary. This led to strong anti-Romani feelings in both Romania and Hungary. I do not mind that this feelings be represented on Wikipedia, but the article is written in such a way so as to enforce those feelings. I think that most of the people that have contributed to the article just used Marian's death as a pretext to promote xenophoby. I have tried to add some other views to add more balance, but I think that the article is still anti-Romani biased in the way that is written. I would like to ask especially to those that understand the Hungarian language, as many of the sources, as well as an Youtube movie, are in Hungarian, a language that I don't understand. Thank you! Kenshin (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway Massacre

This Dunmanway Massacre, is a an article about an act of political violence in Ireland in April 1922, in which up to 14 people were killed (11 certainly and three disappeared). At least ten and up to thirteen of those killed were Protestants and this has been cited as a sectarian atrocity by the Irish Republican Army - especially by controversial historian Peter Hart. The current version, which I feel is highly Irish Republican pov, advances the thesis that there was no communal conflict between Catholics and Protestants in the area, that those killed have been identified as informers and that the IRA or its members have not been proved to have been responsible. An alternative version, User:Jdorney/Dunmanway_Massacre the details of which have been deleted from the current article, tries to present details of communal conflict - such as the identifiaction of sections of the Protestant poplation with Loyalist politics and the IRA's prior targetting of them by burning thiers houses. This version also tries to take a more neutral tone regarding the modern interpretations of the event. I would appreciate it if editors could compare and contrast the two to try to reach npov in this article. Thanks. Jdorney (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Yousaf465 on an Anti-India Propoganda

Yousaf465 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on an Anti-India propoganda for sometime now.He began with complaining of too much India bias for FAs on Mainpage at time when there was 59 Indian FAs and 1 Pakistani FA. He is now on a spree to get all images that decipts Pakistan as terrorist hub like [59]. His new interest is to push Anti India POV on State-sponsored terrorism (history) article. With this edit he removed everything related to Pakistan and replacing with India and Israel. His edits were repeatedly revereted by many users including YellowMonkey. YM blocked him for edit waring and POV push on the article. User:Seicer who is soft on Yousaf , unblocked him ( saying that YM didnt respond back in time) and blocked User:24.28.83.178 who had been also reverting Yousuf's POV additions. A new user Maijinsan (talk · contribs · count) came up from no-where an adding sock tag to many usernames including the above IP editor... It is evident that he himself is a sock. Seicer semi-protected the article and allowed Yousuf to continue to add Anti-India POV statements referenced to Pak dailies which cannot be considered as reliable . I dont want to "edit war" with him and request for third opinions here.-- Tinu Cherian - 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yellowmonkey blocked someone he was edit warring with? Is that what you are saying? Theresa Knott | token threats 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the edit you (Tinucherian) complained about ([60]) is a) over two weeks old and b) has not removed the Pakistan part, but moved it to a different location in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please note this was originally brought up here, where seicer has responded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Please see this for related discussion. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal Union

There is small danger that SPA account Bizso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) will start nationalistic edit warring between Croatian and Hungarian users and because of that I will like to see administration decision about personal union problem.

During edit warring in article Croatia in personal union with Hungary user Bizso is not disputing existence of personal union only validity of document with which union is created [61], but in articles he has started to delete title King of Croatia from rulers of this personal union ? For example I will use article about Ferdinand I Habsburg [62] . I really do not have time for looking on internet for old money or old documents about all articles which he has started to change like I have done for Ferdinand I [63]. On money of Ferdinand I is writen: "Ferdinand, by the grace of God king of Bohemia, Hungary, Dalmatia & Croatia, prince of Spain, archduke of Austria, duke of Burgundy & Silesia, margrave of Moravia".

My point is if user has accepted existence of union then it is not possible to question fact that ruler of 1 country of this union is ruler of second country.

Maybe, maybe there is good faith mistake of user Bizso because for him Lands of St. Stephen=Kingdom of Hungary [64] which are in reality different things. Link for article Lands of St. Stephen before massive rewriting of user Bizso [65].

Can somebody please stop this massive rewriting and edit warring ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• The above text was written in a slandering manner ( = calling the accused SPA account, instead entering into discussion with the opponent - user Rjecina started with accusations). Also, Rjecina is known for forcing the Croatian nationalistic POV across many articles and was engaged in many edit wars. --141.156.253.196 (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• The above comment was removed by Rjecina with 'explanation' (cur) (prev) 07:38, 1 March 2009 Rjecina (Talk | contribs) (129,688 bytes) (→Personal Union: removing comments of stalking puppet of unknown user ?) (undo) - which is jet another proof of his/her incivilty.--138.88.15.10 (atalk) 14:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina, you state that I am an SPA account like you state many more things without reference. I do not introduce anything disputable, what I do is correct factual inaccuracy introduced into the articles. In a broader sense I revert the artcles to earlier versions (before the incorrect facts were introduced) and provide references. The articles about the rulers of Hungary were all correct and in accordence with Britannica and Encarta at the date of their creation, 2001/2002 and it wasn't until February 2008/November 2008 when they got changed by various IP addresses. Also, articles in other languages are correct as well, it's only the English and Croatian ones that have problems. This is not a nationalistic dispute, what it is that it somehow hurts your patriotic emotions. That's different things. I would be glad if you you metnioned that I solely use verifyable english sources such as Britannica 2009 and Encarta and that I also discuss them on the talk page. So first I think you should answer those questions there on the talk pages.Talk:Croatia#Questions,Talk:Triune_Kingdom_of_Croatia,_Slavonia,_and_Dalmatia, Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_in_the_Middle_Ages, Talk:Croatia_in_personal_union_with_Hungary,

I do no edit warring, the one one who doesn't like historical facts is you because you somehow have a conflict of interest with the history of your country, Croatia. Furthermore, you do edit warring, and you revert my changes without discussion and remove Britannica and Encarta references. Please respond on the talk pages.

I would like to mention that I filed a report against Rjecina earlier that he has a conflict of interest due to his nationalistic feeling. He has been in Conflict with previous Hungarian and Serbian users. See a copy of the report on my talk page.--Bizso (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina, so I would like to ask you that read BRitannica and Encarta.

And Lands of the St Stephen were the official name for Kingdom of Hungary. It misght be worth stating that you introduced the factual inaccuracy there too. What you think Kingdom of Hungary was is called Hungary proper. Please consult to a historian!--Bizso (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I only remove other titles of rulers because they had like 150 and they should be listed in a separate section like the one I created called "Titles". I deleted king of Croatia among other, because King of Hungary includes king of Croatia as croatia was part of Hungary. However King of Hungary doesn't include king of Bohemia for example so I listed it in the lead. I do this based solely on Britannica 2009, and Encarta 2009 references.

From Hungarian regional admin board:

The title of the Hungarian rulers was King of Hungary, and not King of Hungary-Croatia. Croatia was governed by a ban. Please, check it on www.britannica.com All the articles are wrong. Most of the articles were changed in February 2007 by various IP addresses. the King of Hungary was not crowned separately as king of Croatia. He was king of the Croatian people as well as king of the Slovaks and king of the residents of Buda and so on, but these are not mentioned in the articles. Croatia was governed by a ban at that time.--Bizso (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• • user:141.156.253.196 - Verizon Internet Services Inc.
  • user:138.88.15.10 - Verizon Internet Services Inc.
  • I am sure that we will have new stalker. Maybe he will not be Verizon, but 100 % will be from Washington metropolitan area.--Rjecina (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks like it is a crime to be a Verizon Internet Services Inc customer? Which way, may I ask you? The only truth is - the Verizon Internet Services Inc headquarters are in Reston VA - which might be considered as a Washington DC area. Instead of getting apology for already thrown incivilty and false accusations - this person continues the same way. Can this person be enforced to consider learning some manners???--138.88.15.10 (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina, All you can say is that other users's are SPA, vandal, disruptive...etc. without any basis. Your claim that we are somehow all socketpuppets of one another is ridiculus. You can bring up nothing for your defense in the report below either, just keep on asserting that I am a socketpuppet for the 20th time now and attempt to deviate from the point. Yur arguments are in the bottom section of Graham's negotiation diagram and Your ad hominem attacks and gross uncivility are beyond belief. I would really like to request admin intervention because this cannot continue.--Bizso (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Revolutionarybpp

• This user's edits seem to carry a racist agenda. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjecina

Rjecina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Reporting User:Rjecina: Censoring Wikipedia. Misleading Reader. Conscious and Intentional Violation of Wikipedia policy on Balance, POV forks Do not hide the facts,Characterizing people's opinion Biased statements and on the general concept of Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy. The issue is with regard to the Current Academic Level Dispute around the validity of Pacta Conventa and the circumstances of Hungarian-Croatian historical relations. He also seems to have a conflict showing an impartial attitude towards Croatian-Serbian relations, which results in edit warring between him and multiple other Wikipedian users. On the occasion I continue to insist on presenting all competing academic viewpoints and correct factual inaccuracies, He threatened to block me. He removes sourced, reliable, verifiable, third party English reference provided by various editors so that only one of the viewpoints that is supported by his/her patriotic or nationalistic feelings, are maintained in a double-edged academic level dispute. The issue is still disputed among historians to this day, and Wikipedia policy states to allow all significant viewpoints to exist in an article beside one another. In addition, He also changes historical facts in non-disputable areas, and refuses to be corrected by proper sourced reference. He "patrols" all relevant articles and intentionally maintains Factual Inaccuracy, Ambiguity and Biased Point of View.
  
  

Croatia was part of Kingdom of Hungary from 1102/1091-1918. It is disputed whether Croatia joined to Hungary by a personal union in 1102, or was conquered by Hungary in 1091.It is not disputed that Croatia was given limited internal autonomy over some of her affairs; sometimes more, sometimes less. The Lands of St Stephen was the official name for Kingdom of Hungary. This is stated in virtually all reliable, verifiable sources and historical maps including Britannica 2009 and Encarta. Rjecina cannot accept this fact owing to his patriotic/nationalistic emotions, thus he alters history at least on Wikipedia. What user Rjecina presents is that Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia were two separate independent kingdoms and the only common between them was the ruler. This is in fact not true. Croatia was ruled by Hungarian kings and a ban was appointed to the administrative district that was Croatia. When he asserts these facts, he furthermore doesn't provide any references, or when he does so, the references he cites in fact support the contrary what he states or refer to entirely different historic periods (Kingdom of Croatia before the Hungarian rule). Hence, in fact he attempts to manipulate the reader hoping that she/he doesn't check the references. See.[66] and [67].

See some example sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 and Encyclopedia Encarta 2009 that state the academic level viewpoint that Croatia was in fact ruled by Hungary, Britannica 1911 especially stating the Croatia was a province of Hungary. Rjecina cannot accept this, thus he censors Wikipedia and engages into edit wars. See Talk:Croatia_in_personal_union_with_Hungary titled Croatia-Slavonia in the Kingdom of Hungary. but it appears he has removed other users relevant and valuable comments again for I don't know how many times now.[68] [69] and again [70]. He deleted my comments too, removing circa 30 sources including Britannica and Encarta among other English academic sources [71] He is stating the Britannica and Encarta peddle Fringe theories Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_in_the_Middle_Ages The problem is that Rjecina cannot discuss nor edit these articles in an objective manner, beause he doesn't acknowledge all competing viewpoints. Although this is fair enough, because everyone is entitled to have an opinion regarding a matter. But Wikipedia should be objective on the other hand, and should not include personal reflections and assertions of the users who edit it, without any references.

He introduces false facts[72], in addition he removes Britannica refernces [73] and doesn't respond on the talk page Talk:Croatia#Questions and also fails to explain himself here when he removed references againTalk:Croatia#User:Rjecina. He cannot accept the validity of Britannica, nor the 1911 edition nor the 2009 edition, just because it says something else that he would like to hear. Hence, as he can't edit britannica or encarta, he changes articles on Wikipedia. see Talk:Triune_Kingdom_of_Croatia,_Slavonia,_and_Dalmatia As a result he removes Britannica 2009 refernces 1st time[74], 2nd time [75], 3rd time[76]. 4th time [77] Now, he removes references from Encyclopedia Encarta.[78]. He calls Academic references "Spam"[79] He deliberately maintains ambiguity and makes disruptive edits here[80], [81], here [82], here again [83], again [84], he sometimes deletes it altogether [85] in addition to the citation needed tags[86]. When I add the other competing academic viewpoint (that he personally supports) to an article to balance it out and include all significant viewpoints, he changes that too![87] Even the one that he supports, which suggests that he is simply stalking me now.

He maintains ambiguity although article is tagged for in need of Copy-Editing[88] However, he also engages in nationalistic conflicts with other users hereTalk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Removal_of_images and censors images that hurt his nationalistic feelings regarding history of Croatia and Serbia.[89]He not only deletes talk pages, but also censors articles by removing additional realibly sourced information because he can't take it. He removed sourced information from Encyclopedia of the Holocaust by Shelach[90]

He blanks talk pages that do not suit his personal view. He removed sourced references from talk page.[91] [92]Removed even more sourced references from talk page but left other viewpoint there. He deletes the competing academic level viewpoint and on top that removes references and replaces unreferenced tag and maintains a POV frok[93]. He removes citation needed tags and introduces inaccuracy to suit his views, removes other additional information thus maintains biased sentences[94]

On top of all this, he is constantly accusing me of being a socket puppet of other users that dare to question Rjecina's neutral point of view and of those who also oppose Rjecina's nationalistic POV pushing. He calls me Vandal[95], and my edits disruptive[96] without any basis.

He now has started reverting other users' edits too, because he believes that they are me.[97][98][99][100][101] [102]

Some quotes:

You are facing with group of people coming from Croatia whose hurt nationalistic pride cannot stand seeing these pictures here. These people want only to destroy this article - if not completely then just as much as they can. This is a consequence of Mr Wales' idea that everybody can contibute knowledge - which makes this and other articles unprotected against malice and ignorance.--71.252.55.101 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Actually that groups of people only refer to Rjecina, as he simply patrols pages.

You deleted the truth. You didn't care about the sources, there were only 11 about the conquer of Croatia, but you deleted it Toroko (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the status of Croatia in the Kingdom of Hungary is still disputed; according to all sources here: Whether you call it conquer, annexation, addition or union; the important thing is that Hungary had control over Croatia, but gave her some extent of internal autonomy within the Kingdom of Hungary (Lands of St. Stephen) and in this relationship Hungary and Croatia were not equal parties--Bizso (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Related talk pages: Talk:Croatia#lol.2C_funny_-_Union_with_Hungary,Talk:Croatia#Congratulations.21, User:Bizso/Reporting_Rjecina#Discussion_2

Therefore I would like to Request the following: User:Rjecina has shown no sign of being capable of distancing himself from his nationalistic/patriotic emotions with regard to the issue on the Valditiy of Pacta Conventa and historical Croatian-Hungarian relations and history of Croatia-Serbia. Hence, User:Rjecina is unable to positively contribute to Wikipedia in an objective manner, which is required by Wikipedia's Policy on Netral Point of View. He is effectively censoring Wikipedia due to patriotic feelings for his recently independent country. He furthermore deliberatly prevents the improvement of Wikipedian articles with regard to these topics by engaging in edit wars and calling other users vandal and disruptive.

Therefore, I request that User:Rjecina be blocked or banned from English Wikipedia for an unspecified period of time.--Bizso (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• While patrolling Special:Recent changes I noted that User:Bizso is canvassing comment in respect of their complaint against Rjecina. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because Rjecina has posted his accusations twice already, here and on the other noticeboard. I'm sorry, I didn't know that informing other people about this thread is bad. All I wanted is that users who have conflict with Rjecina could express their opinions regarding this matter.--Bizso (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's actually the very reason this board exists, but comments like "canvassing" seem intended just to make editors feel afraid to use this board. B'er Rabbit (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not even comment this section. There is enough data from earlier section for checkuser demand. Sad thing is that I am not having enough time during next few days, but in next 15 days--Rjecina (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides your usual accusations, you don't need to comment anything. Your edits speak for themselves.--Bizso (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• What I clearly see is - this Rjecina was engaged in incessant edit wars with a great number of users accusing them for being sock-puppets, SPA accounts - never entering into serious discussion with his/her opponents. Rjecina goes so far that (s)he misinterprets Wikipedia rules, tries to disqualify scholars, claims that all references must be Internet visible, etc, etc. I re-viewed his/her activity for the whole 2008 year - and if necessary, I could support my statement by more explicit pointers to his/her behavior, based on his/her edits during 2008 year.--138.88.15.10 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• To LessHeard - I'd like to advise you to do more thorough patrolling through Rjecina's contributions and dissatisfactions with her/him expressed by many editors and many administrators during the last year - in order to understand the real nature of the problem called Rjecina. --138.88.15.10 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am already familiar with the editor named Rjecina - or at least the frequent noting of his name in various comments made to the various noticeboards, and the many Requests for Arbitration naming him as a party. While Rjecina's POV issues are familiar to me, and are not supported, so is the campaign by a few (despite the very many account names) to remove the editor from contributing to certain articles. I look forward to the day when both sides of the discussion realise that NPOV means that all viewpoints should be represented... LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, you should address this point to Rjecina, because I do not delete references to other current academic viewpoints! What's more I add them both to articles that lack either one or the other. It is Rjecina that is suppressing one of the viewpoints that doesn't suit his ideology and feelings. Furthermore, he changes facts that are on the hand, non-disputable, and makes contributions that contradict to Britannica and Encarta among other reliable verifiable English sources!

Not surprisingly he has deleted talk page comments again, [103] many times now...-

He is unstoppable :) [104] [105] [106] should I keep on listing edit diffs?---Bizso (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Browsing Rjecina's edit history I have come across some pretty interesting edits. He increases the population of Croats in the world around 3 times in some countries without updating the reference and includes that "unless you have a reliable source, don't even think about changing these numbers". I checked the sources and, naturally, they support the old numbers that were there before his edits. Sometimes he provides different sources like at Italy where he increased population by 2 times to 41,360, but actually, his new source supports the old numbers too. At Sweden he incremented the number of Croats by more than 10 times to 64,900, wheres the source he cites says 6,063. Then he undoes any edits that try to correct his false numbers.[107] line 47-95, his original [108], and another reverted user who wanted to correct his "numbers"[109]. This is just another instance how he attempts to manipulate the reader, hoping that they don't question his edits and check the sources, and just shows that he has indeed a conflict of interest with his Croatian roots and cannot subdue his nationalistic attitude. He intentionally degrades the quality and reliability of Wikipedia. --Bizso (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[110] [111] [112] sigh, this is vandalism now, again removed Britannica refs--Bizso (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• The very bad thing is that this user Rjecina always gets away without any punishment by finding an administrator shielding him/her. I've got his/her 'explanation' for reverting other people's contributions here [113] which says: If not your edits are without discussion vandalism or POV pushing. I've called him/her to explain his/her reasons for apparent vandalism - which was rejected by this 'explanation' - in a very poor English and against the very letter of Wikipedia. May I ask LessHeard (as an administrator)- why he/she is not shielding Wikipedia? As to the so is the campaign by a few (despite the very many account names) - I could count at least 10 of them and, saying 'despite the very many account names', is in the Rjecina's line to call everyone who opposes him/hes a sock-puppet, SPA account,etc. --138.88.15.10 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, when there is a dispute around Rjecina, he simply logs off and that's it. He occasionally comes back, reverts some edits and goes away again. Then after 3-4 days he comes back again and starts rigorously pushing his POV . Actually if you check Rjecina's log he was already blocked once in October and was about to be blocked again recently User_talk:Rjecina#Your_editing_and_your_English--Bizso (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can comment this of user Rjecina: While I labored hard in manouvering between the different view points of what is, perhaps, the most problematic subject in Yugoslavia's history -- Jasenovac, I was accused in "POV pushing" and my edits were brutally transformed or tagged. At first I thought he was just skeptic, and wished to look deeper in order to establish facts and assertions I brought up. I actually liked the opposition, and I did not accuse him of anything. Later he began to simply attack the reliability of sources, historians, survivors and others, bringing up obscure and made-up accusations eventually against me. Not till later did I realise that dear Rejcina is indeed a nationalist with a narrow POV. Perhaps not the most acute sort of a nationalist, but still a nationalist none-the-less. When in disscussion, he would simply ignore claims, evidence and well-articulated questions, using a most uncivil tone of sarcasm and being very narrow minded. Gratius Pannonius (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As an admin who has had his own fair share of arguments in this section, including a few arguments with User:Rjecina in particular (includes blocking threats), there is probably a part of me that is sympathetic to this request. However, I am not going anywhere near this. I believe I will never block someone solely based on POV-pushing until I am certain that the people opposing are being reasonable, and frankly I'm not going to be confident of that when the other side is blasting away with demands that people be banned without any discussion of alternatives. Do you people honestly believe that nothing short of a full ban is appropriate? Do you people believe that admins will look at this and go along, or don't you think asking for the most extreme situation might turn some people off? Words of advice: you will never get any admin to help out when you blast a wall of text like this. If you have a specific point about conduct, mention that and that alone (with diffs). If you have a specific point about a specific article, point us to the article, the talk page and again with the diffs. Focus. If your argument is that someone else disagrees with you and disputes you and therefore should be banned, that's not going to fly. And Bizso, get rid of all the reports on Rjecina on your talk page if you want to taken remotely seriously. You are turning even the moderates against you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

77.253.65.101

There is a problem on this caegory page: Category:People from Elbląg. As its name states this is a list of people from Elbląg. The city was from 1466 to 1772, and since 1945 again is, part of Poland. Various names were used for it (see here). Despite this situation user 71.137.194.48 constantly changes the description of the category to People from the Prussian city of Elbing since 1945 known as Elbląg in Poland.

At first he stated that the name Elbląg was invented in 1945. Even though I proved him wrong he still changes the description in the Category People from Elbląg into People from the Prussian city of Elbing. It is a compleatly different description than the categorys name. What is more we all know that state of Prussia does not exist now in any political form and if we wont to say that it "lies in Prussia" we can only refer to a historical region. In Poland those territories that were once part of that region are refered to as Warmia, Pomorze Gdańskie and Mazury. And the city of Elbląg itself lies in a modern region called Warmian-Masurian Voivodship.

In my opinion there are three solutions:

• 1 Delete the whole description (That is the usual way those categories look, especially when the categories list people from the cities in the so called Recovered territories)
• 2 Leave the description that corresponds with the category name and the current city name. That's my proposition : This is a category of people born in or strongly associated with the Polish city of Elbląg (untill 1945 also known as Elbing) in Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship lying in the historical region of Prussia.
• 3 Create a different category for people that were born in Elbląg before 1945 when it was oficially known as Elbing but when the name Elbląg was also used. There a description can be put about the current status and name of the town.

Could you do something about it? I will of course accept every decisiion made by the Admins. Best Wishes 77.253.65.101 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

SSNP Slander, POV and vandalism

Hello, can someone take a look at the malicious and politically motivated editing that has been added to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party article recently. Over the past few days the page has been attacked and remade framing the party as a fascist Nazi spin off. The sources being used are all polemicists with a hostile agenda against the party. It seems probable that the editing is being done by a Jewish pro-Zionist editor and his sockpuppets. I suggest reversing the past weeks edits to around this edit [114] and fully protecting the page from any further changes for a while. What do you think? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Self-reporting_.22vandalism.22 also refers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not every user disagreeing with you is a sockpuppet of an evil person. Some of them are legit users that just happen to pass by.

I have been cleaning and sourcing that article, and adding extra sources for the nazi-inspired origin. I guess I'm also a sockpuppet of a Jewish pro-Zionist editor? :P --Enric Naval (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Stale

May I draw your attention to Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#RfC: Polish politicians and army comand call for punishment of Germans for Nazi aggression. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II

Stale

A POV-tag has been placed because the article relies much on German sources and therefore must be biased. I strongly disagree a) that there is such a thing as a "German POV", and b) that articles based on sources primarily written by natives of a certain country are automatically biased. If we place POV tags this way, what happens is that articles dealing with topics primarily researched by natives of a particular country have no way to get rid of that tag, regardless how neutral different POVs of these researchers are presented if even these different POVs exist. Please comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II/Archive 2#German POV. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I also find it disturbing that with the POV-tag, a refimprove tag was added to the article, because it is containing paragraphs missing inline refs. It makes the article look "in-credible" in the literary sense, despite sources are given and most of the important stuff has inline citations. Even the FAs could be tagged with that refimprove tag, and articles without sources should obviously enough display their need for sources even without that tag. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2009 (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.

Sfiha

• Sfiha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit-warring over which nation invented this dish. I tried to be peacemaker, and got personally attacked because of it, and I don't care enough to put up with the tsuris. THF (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, there has been no edit warring about 'who invented this dish' as stated by THF. His behaviour is subversive and WP:GAME. See the Sfiha talk page. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the edit histories, 94.192.38.247's accusations appear to be completely false, while his edit history shows some significant civility problems. Edward321 (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Černová tragedy

This is an article that seems to be undergoing some minor edit warring. Apparently, both sides have edited and deleted each others edits, all due to POV. Looking at the previous edits, the crux of the matter is the view of Hungarian vs. Slovak POV on the event. CardinalDan (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Having just come across the existence of this noticeboard, it seems relevant to mention here the edit warring going on at this article, with currently rather little discussion on the Talk page of the actual edits being made (instead general discussion about the issue, due to the disagreements being so fundamental). If people here have experience of this sort of thing (I don't), their input may be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Origins to 1967

An editor spent several days attempting to rewrite the existing article on this topic, got shot down by consensus, so s/he set up a new page to explain the history of the conflict as it really happened. Like other nations, the Palestinians have their own proprietary universities and university chairs for this kind of special pleading.Historicist (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, this article has been nominated for deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia terminology on articles relating to Greece

A straw poll is currently ongoing about how the Republic of Macedonia should be described in the article Greece and related articles. The name of the RoM is a controversial issue in Greece and a number of articles relating to Greece use a different terminology from that in operation in the rest of Wikipedia. The straw poll proposes that the terminology should be standardised across Wikipedia. Please leave comments at Talk:Greece#Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic comments

User 92.27.15.246 has been adding "grossly offensive racial comments" on some pages. Please see contribs. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Judaization of Jerusalem

New article undergoing an AFD. Article presents broader issues. The word “Judaize” is an old term referring to the attraction of some Christians to Jewish theology and practice. This old term has been put to a new political use in the last couple of decades, almost exclusively by individuals, some with university appointments, who are outspoken opponents of the existence of the State of Israel. Islamization is an old coinage referring to the spread of Islam, both political and religious. There is a large literature on Islamizaton going back centuries and covering most of the world. In many parts fo the world, memories of forcess Islamization still rankle. If we are to go this route, it would be equally useful to have articles on the Islamisation of Constantinople the Islamisation of Budapest the Islamisation of France – we can cover the globe! How would we argue against a Greek nationalist who wanted to wirte on Islamization of Constantinople if we have an article on the Judaization of Jerusalem? Do we really want to go there? This material, after all, could form a short paragraph in a more balanced article on Jerusalem.Historicist (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. You're completely wrong. This is not exclusive to individuals who are outspoken opponents of the existence of the state of Israel. Meron Benvenisti, of all people, to note just one of many distinguished scholars, in his City of Stone (1998), on Jerusalem's hidden history, uses it several times, and he also uses it, and 'hebraization' in his Sacred Landscape (2002). It is quite acceptable, since used by scholars, in Israel and abroad, for its descriptive value. Secondly your examples are from the past, whereas the 'Judaisation of Jerusalem' is an ongoing programme by the muncipal authorities, described explicitly as such every other day in Israeli newspapers.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishdani, have you so little knowledge of ethnic strife? These issues are hardly "mere" historic arguments. If we have the Judaization of Jerusalem it will be hard to argue against including equally POV articles on on the Islamization of Bosnia, the Islamization of Baghdad, the Islamization of Indonesia, the Islamization of Nigeria and, of course, the Islamization of Europe. I believe such topics are better included within balanced articles on the history of these places.Historicist (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a POV article intrinsically, though it needs a good deal of revision and improvement. There is an extensive literature on the judaisation of Jerusalem, dating back decades. The phrase is an old one. Even Elad, which is systematically clearing out the inhabitants of Silwan calls it that. Ask any Israeli or Jerusalemite. It is a informal but consistent programme of long-standing, and this hysteria, as if there were some scandal in devoting a page to what is Israeli government policy (see any history of muinicipal planning), is patently ridiculous, playing on editors' unfamiliarity with Israeli newspapers, who report on this on a day in day out basis. People are being kicked out of their homes every other week, from Silwan to Shuafat. Your opposition, like everyone else's there, is an ethnic-block hostility to articles that focus on a deeply troublesome aspect of Israeli discrimination against Palestinians. If you are worried about NPOV, join the article to ensure that only the best sources, and criteria, are employed in the article. Deletion is censorship of a very topical and historical subject.Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is no reason why we shouldn't have an article such as Islamisation of Bosnia. It's an interesting, well-documented and topical subject which is extensively covered in reliable sources. There are aspects which are controversial from a local nationalist perspective - for instance, some Bosnians don't like the generally agreed view that they are descended from Christian Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam - but that isn't by itself a reason to avoid such a topic. By parallel, the discomfort of some Israelis about this particular topic shouldn't be a reason to avoid it if it's notable and reliably documented. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

One difference is that the word "Judaization" has a history of use with antisemitic connotations (for one example, the image and caption at the top of the page here), and its use in the very heated subject of this article is problematic. I suggested that the name of the article be changed to a more neutral name, per WP guidelines for descriptive names.

There is another problem related to the name of the article that I find problematic. Pro-Palestinian activists have been saying for decades that they are not anti-Jewish or antisemitic, but anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. Virtually all such groups (no matter how radical in other respects) have been very careful to distinguish between these. Yet the name, and section headings frame [115] the article in terms of exactly Judaism. This article says, by its very name, that the problem is the Jews Judaization of Jerusalem. The name frames the problem of the demographics changes in Jerusalem in terms of a Jewish problem. This goes directly against all those decades of claims to the contrary. An amazing development. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The word 'Judaization' has a history of positive use. Israeli historiography uses it of the cultural process whereby secular Israelis return to an orthodox observance of the faith of their fathers. In Israeli usage, extended, it is used of the transformation of the multicultural historic city of Jerusalem into one where the Jewish tradition and Jewish people predominate. There is no obloquy in the term, since it is used by people as varied as the former mayor of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert, and by numerous Israeli scholars. Neither the former nor the latter are in the habit of using terms which smack of anti-Semitism, or indulge in language likely to conjure up images of Nazis. We are all familiar with Lakoff's frame theory. It works everywhere. Try it on 'Judea and Samaria' on the Arbcom page, and a thousand other points within the I/P area. Throwing Lakoff around like this is pointless. Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That there is some neutral use of the word "Judaization" -- I do not think there is much "positive" use of the word -- does not mean the term is suitable for naming the article where its negative use connects the word to its more negative history. In the Defining Judaization: Means and effects in Jerusalem section of the article there are about nine sources cited that use the term, and every one of them gives a negative spin to Jewish demographics in Jerusalem, and to perceived Israeli policy. A more neutral name for the article is needed to comply with WP descriptive names|guidelines for descriptive names.

As for my frequent mention of frame [116], the reason is that this is an important concept for understanding the nature of this problem, and not everyone is familiar with George Lakoff's important contributions to understanding this problem. In the article, and its subheadings, the word "Judaization" is used to frame the discussion of changes in Jerusalem demographics in a negative way. That is why the name needs to be changed to a more neutral title. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lakoff's 'framing' is what all handbooks of rhetoric talked about since Cicero's day. See Brian Vickers. Nothing new there. What you are doing is questioning the use of a word like 'Holocaust' because it denotes emotive realities: the Lakoff-minded, per Finkelstein, could call the 'framing' 'shoah business' etc., and push for NPOV by saying the other party is poorly represented, which would be a foul misreading. Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article clearly violates all core Wikipedia policies, the subject is defined by pro Arab, anti Israeli sources and is therefore far from anything that would be close to WP:NPOV or even WP:YESPOV that could describe the dispute instead of geting involved with it. As far as I'm concerned, the article could be also named Rejudaization of Jerusalem considering that historically the city was established by Jews and later taken over by Arabs etc. So this is slippery road that the creators of this article have taken and I'm just amazed that such one sided political propaganda like the article is full of is tolerated on Wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources are as often as not Israeli sources, which both you and Malcolm are calling, without evidence, 'anti-Israeli sources'. You don't know the history of the city, which was not 'established by Jews', but existed a millenium before the mythistorical King David, who invaded it. Over 4 millenia it has been ruled predominantly by goyim. This said, no one in his right mind would doubt the exceptional attachment to it in Judaism, and the extraordinary potency of its emotive, poetic and figurative redolence for Jewish people.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

NB: Nishidani has not answered a single objection to the article, but has attempted to change the subject time after time. For example, he claimed that "The word 'Judaization' has a history of positive use." But when I challenged that, instead of giving examples of positive use of the word there was then just a claim the some Jews have used the word to criticize perceived Israeli policy. While there may be a few examples where the use of the word is relatively neutral, it is hard to find positive use of the word. On the other had there is a know history of antisemitic use, as seen in the image at the top of the page here. This grossly POV article undermines the claims of all anti-Zionists that they are not antisemitic, particularly since in this article no one could rationally claim that the word is used in anything but a negative, anti-Jewish, sense. . . .thereby linking the article with that word's worst history. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

NB. You haven't made a case, have reverted sourced information on the page, have a one-man ideological conviction of antisemitic winds in the air on the use of that term, have never answered the fact that it is a term used by the mayor of Jerusalem in 1995 (Ehud Olmert) and by a dozen Israeli political scientists and scholars who are not 'anti-Israeli', to describe the process of transforming the city (like so many others) along ethnic lines. I gave you an essay on 'positive use', and a source: you didn't read it. I gave you an essay on the history of the term, you shrugged it off, without answering it. You've repeated the jejune analogy about Der Stürmer, underlining you really know nothing of the Nazi period, its jargon, and viciousness. You can't answer queries about the Hebrew words which correspond to the perfectly neutral English phrase. You keep hammering away on your one-man band campaign, while editors are actually building the article. At last when I tried to relieve the heavy atmosphere you created with a little humour about switching the admin chair to a bed, you raise accusations of a possible WP:NPA infraction. You have no argument, Malcolm, you have an enormous amount of attitude. The article is up, greatly improved, here to stay, so collaborate on editing it productively. There is no point to this insistance that you alone see it for what it is, an anti-Israeli, quasi Nazi-like attack on Jews. To persist only creates an air of hostility and altercation that has long passed its use-by date.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, please review WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. I would suggest that you refactor your comments; which, in any case, still leave unanswered my objections to the article, resorting instead to accusations against me, and denials of the problematic nature of the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

. . . . . Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard, it seems, is functioning only as a place for frustrated editors to vent their frustration, making a noticeboard of no real interest to me. I will close this discussion, with my original point: the article does not comply with WP policy for descriptive names, and at minimum needs to be moved to a new, and more neutral, name. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba and a history of conflict

This article has been plagued with issues in its history. Just recently it was subject to two BLP Noticeboard threads ([117], [118]), a request for comment ([119]), an Edit-Warring Noticeboard thread ([120]), to name a few. It was even brought to arbitration which eventually passed resolutions, although they have had little effect as evidenced by this stale Arbitration Enforcement thread ([121]).

There are legitimate BLP and NPOV concerns (weight, direct quoting, weasel wording), but there is also a pattern of tendentious editing such as removing tags, reintroducing heavily-weighted quoting, etc. The article needs fresh eyes, and I'm nearing the end of my rope on this one. ←Spidern→ 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia

I renamed Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia earlier to address a long-running dispute over the article name; the policy rationale is at Talk:Macedonia#Article move. Input from editors with an interest in ethnic conflicts would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You did not address a long-running dispute. You just destroyed the delicate balance there was between the two communities and singlehandedly sabotaged all relating articles, which will naturally be attacked after the fanaticism you brought on. You knew perfectly well what would happen and you decided to ignore logic and common sense to create a problematic situation. Well done! GK1973 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Although the move is backed up by valid sources, I'm not sure whether that was a good idea, given the existing tensions. It was not a bad thing per se, but it'll definitely draw heat. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Al Qamishli

Does anyone know anything about Kurds, Syrians, and the best reliable sources for writing about them, and want to wade into the waters of this article? It looks like there's an edit-war between two different not-very-neutral versions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Pejorative terminology

I'd like to notify editors that there is an RfC here where the request is that the term Hamastan be described, first and foremost, as a pejorative. The issue is whether this meets NPOV standards and is reliably sourced. Outside views would be welcomed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A big problem with an easy solution

it is known to majority that in islam, making pictures of living things is near to be forbidden. it is being told in islam clearly that peoples who make pictures of living things and humans will be punished the most on the day of the judgment. for that reason islamic culture move towards calligraphy etc. In wikipedia when i search for the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, there are some pictures who portray Muhammad peace be upon him. which not only hurt muslims as muslims themselves have never tried to made any sculpture or picture of said personality. nor this practice is being done for any other famous figure related to islam and its history. offcorse not by muslims. i humbly requests wikipedia to delete those pictures. i dont think they are very relevant to the topic also. i found that article complete without them too. ofcorse its not wikipedia by which i or we learn our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, as we have much more trusted medias to do so. but i came to know about this by facebooks cause. this is no good practice. i really pledge for this issue. to be addressed as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocent danger (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Syriac issue

hello, to get you in the context of things, there was an issue between assyrianists and arameanists about the 'assyrian people page' arameanists claim that Syriacs are not assyrians rather arameans, while assyrians claim syriacs are infact assyrians. Long story short, some admins got involved and we compromised that the pages should be one, and that instead of just "Assyrian" they be "Assyrian/Syriac" or "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac", as seen here: [[122]], and [[123]]. This was the norm for a while and everyone was happy. User:The TriZ took liberty of changing all previous "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac" and everyone was fine with that too. Now the issue is that when I tried to do the exact same thing he did but changing "Syriac" to "Assyrian/Syriac" he undoes my posts ... I ask for explanation, and he asks for sources (mind you he provided no sources for Syriac), then I provide him with sources, and he does want to continue to discuss the issue. He impliments his POV in every page without any sources, and when we try to put the accepted neutral stance of "Assyrian/Syriac" title (Which he agreed upon) he is against it. This is POV at its fullest. The pages I am talking about are: [[124]], [[125]], [[126]], [[127]], and he recently changed "Assyrian" to "Syriac" just recently on this page [[128]]. I have asked him as to why he keeps doing this on this talkpage but as you will see he does want to discuss. P.S. his moves threaten the neutral "Assyrian/Syriac" titles implemented by admins, If he continues like this then what is the point of keeping his changes from "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac"? Malik Danno (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Piracy in Somalia Edit War

There is an edit war with the Piracy in Somalia page. I suggested to the two editors involved that their edits were taking on characteristics of an edit war, and asked them both to take a one week holiday from editing the article... however both insist on having the last word. Both insist that what they are doing is needed for NPOV, and one of them uses [OR] to justify removing anything that he disagrees with. Both are clearly well-intentioned people. It really needs some neutral people to become involved.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Piracy in Somalia article contained a great deal of original research and statements of fact from opinion pieces. I have removed such statements again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. Let me give three of the more noticeable cases that used to be in the article. Most of the first paragraph in the history section of this article contained original research which did not have a single reference in it. An opinion piece which was also self published was added to the article as statements of fact. And information about a UNEP report which reported illnesses in Somali had original research added to it which stated that alleged nuclear and toxic waste dumping caused it even though there was no statement from UNEP in the reference which stated that.

Also excluding statements of fact from opinion pieces here is some of the original research I have removed:

"Since the Somali government collapsed in 1991, including the coast guard, there have been a lot of questions regarding the motivations and intentions of the so-called "pirates"."

"However, no efforts from the international community have been conducted on behalf of the people of Somalia to deter and punish multinational corporations for their violation of international law."

"In terms of territorial sovereignty, there has been a lack of questions regarding the illegal presence of these "victim tankers" off of the coast of Somalia"

"European ships began dumping millions of barrels of toxic waste into the ocean off the Somali coast."

As for the current issue with the other editor despite the fact that he has added several quotes from the Ould-Abdallah, UN envoy of Somalia, he has twice removed this quote about nuclear and toxic waste dumping without giving any explanation:

"I must stress however, that no government has endorsed this act, and that private companies and individuals acting alone are responsible,"

The other editor has also changed how some quotes are presented which I added to the Piracy in Somalia article. Here is what was said in the reference:

Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping.

"The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said.

"What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs."

Here is my edit:

that piracy will not prevent the dumping of waste, "The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment,", and "What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs.

Here is his edit:

that piracy will not prevent waste dumping: "The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," and "What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs.

Though adding a colon is a small change it does make an implication that was not stated in the article itself. The other editor has accused me of censorship which is a bit surprising since I am removing a colon not found in the original article, which I have explained, and he is removing a quote from the UN envoy for Somalia without giving any explanation. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Horn of Africa

Horn of Africa is a region with many serious international conflicts and problems. Sadly, the section on 'culture' was in a state of serious neglect until my edits of the last few days. One of the editors seems to think that my edits threaten his nationalist interest, hence he wrote the following comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scoobycentric ... "I constantly find myself caught in the most retarded edit wars on this silly site. Right now brother, there are two I'm involved in. The first I've pretty much got under control and that's on the Piracy in Somalia page. However, the second one could be a major problem. Some Afrocentrist has just targeted the Horn of Africa page, and he's been adding things that don't really jibe with reality and that are too pro-Ethiopia (you know how they're obsessed with Habesha! lol)."

I suspect it is me that 'Middayexpress' is falsely labelling an 'Afrocentrist'. I approached the article with the clear and stated intention of dealing in a neutral way with all of the states and ethnic groups in the region and an absolute hostility to any kind of ethno-centricism - a position I have outlined and defended in the talk page. This is not true of Middayexpress, whose primary interest is Somalia. That is fine, but what is not fine is his belligerent attitude and his absurd removal of a picture of the leading sportsman of the region just because he is Ethiopian. I'd be grateful for some assistance in helping this editor to realise that there are four states in the region, not just the one. Ackees (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Ackees (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

lol My comments on Scoobycentric's talk page were specifically about your edits. I was poking fun at your obsession with Habesha, not of Habesha themselves. Viz:

"Some Afrocentrist has just targeted the Horn of Africa page, and he's been adding things that don't really jibe with reality and that are too pro-Ethiopia (you know how they're obsessed with Habesha! lol). I've re-balanced the page, but he'll probably be back soon enough... Nice edits bro. The page was too Ethio-centric, so I tried to add some Somali info to it to balance it out a bit."

As can be seen above (and unfortunately for you), I did not insult Habesha and actually have no reason to. Your relentless Ethiopia-centric edits on the Horn of Africa page, on the other hand, are definitely worth taking umbrage at, as I and another editor have already neatly logged on the article's talk page. By the way, the image I added in this edit is of an Eritrean ethnic group (the Tigre), not Somalis. That's in direct contrast to all of the almost exclusively Ethiopian images and text that you have been relentlessly spamming the page with. So much for your notion that I'm on the same ethnocentric wavelength as you. Also remember that:

• It's me that had to restore the sourced statement upholding the linguistic and ethnic similarities of the people of the Horn of Africa ("Besides sharing similar geographic endowments, the countries of the Horn of Africa are linguistically and ethnically linked together") that you tried to delete
• That it was you who casually and ungrammatically insisted on the article's talk page that "Somalian sport has been hampered by the continuing conflict in Somali", and then callously defended that statement with the following unprovoked ethnically-directed cheap shot: "I really don't think that it is 'dismissive' to acknowledge the great difficulty which decades of invasion and civil war are causing. Are these the type of things that you think 'shouldn't be discussed'?", whereas I made no such pronouncements with regard to Ethiopia or any other country in the Horn
• That it was me who ironically first called you on ethnocentrism in your edits.

Next time you want to accuse others of wrongdoing, try and make sure that you yourself are not guilty of those same wrongs you have the temerity to accuse others of. Middayexpress (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the WP:HOUNDING by you Ackees. Suspicion of you having a 'agenda' is not without 'warrant' I remember your name from when i visited the E1b1b article's talkpage(only a month ago) when you were edit-warring with several wiki-editors about the image of a Somali politician and how he in your eyes didn't look Somali[129]. Other than stating that the Somali Politician resembled a Greek/Mexican you failed to make your point why he didn't look Somali and resorted to blame it all on the 'White racist Boogeymen'. If anyone is feeling their 'interests are 'threatened' by reliable sources it would be you since you have a clear pre-conceived image of what Somalis are supposed to look like and therefore probably also the Horn of Africa! Your history again on a deleted section of the E1b1b clearly demonstrates that you have an agenda that you are pursuing[130]. There another editor made it clear that 'race' was not an obselete term but was still very much a subject of debate, Middayexpress also made the same point here[131]. The majority Ethnic groups of the Horn of Africa constitute a clear distinct population from the rest of Africa. Wether it's the majority Cushitic/Ethiopic languages that are only found there, the unique Cultural heritage, the classical Horn of African phenotype evolved over thousands of years, or the genetical markers predominant in Horn Africans and which originated in the Horn of Africa. Highlighting this is not 'racism' as Midday has given you plenty of scholars that follow this line of thinking. Your edits on sports page with regards to countries such as Somalia and Djibouti were horrible hence why both me and Middayexpress began balancing it out by adding Somali athletes --Scoobycentric (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Scooby,

First you falsely accuse me of WP:HOUNDING - and then immediately admit that after hounding me a month ago on the Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA), you faithfully obeyed Middayexpress's command to come and hound me some more on the Horn of Africa page[132]. All 'populations' are distinct from, or are indeed linked to, all others - depending on whatever arbitrary measure one wishes to use. For example, if we were to take the 'far right' as our arbitrary category, then crypto-fascist Euro-Americans pretending to be Somali nationalists are a 'distinct population' from neo-fascist North Italians eager to relive the glories of Il Duce. Nevertheless, both are linked by a common pseudo-scientific anti-rational heritage that remains obsessed with 19th-century myths about 'race', 'racial purity', 'racial difference' etc, etc. However, I'm glad that you, Middayexpress and all decent editors are uniting with the consensus to purge such ideologically-driven nonsense from the scientific pages of Wikipedia. Ackees (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you weren't hounding Middayexpress(who you followed into my talkpage) why is my Userpage here? Don't flatter yourself, me being at the E1b1b article had nothing to do with you(nice way at red herring my point), it's a haplogroup flowing through my veins hence why I was interested in it. That i remembered your name is only a testimony to how bizarre your theory on what a 'Somali man' is supposed to look like was to me as a Somali individual. I really don't get the continues references to 'boogeymen racist crusaders' when there are none on the Horn of Africa article, unless me and Midday are your 'Crypto-facists Euro-Americans turned Somali nationalists', which would be comical indeed!--Scoobycentric (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Scooby,

I don't get the continuous 'boogeymen' references either - so that makes two of us! With regard to 'comical' fake Somali nationalists, the word I used was 'pretending', not 'turned' - but it was just a point for illustration only - don't take it personally. I'd love to be able to actually verify what is flowing through your veins, but sadly that's not going to be possible. Still, you should feel free to demonstrate the point to everybody you meet! Ackees (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

Main article: Soviet historiography

Could a number of more informed fellow admins take a look at this thread (and its sub-threads) over at Occupation of the Baltic states? User:Dojarca who represents what I'll call the current Russian nationalist view of events asked me to take a look at the POV of the article with concerns that it is anti-Russian in tone, which given the topic of the article should not be a huge surprise. My request is for others to weigh in on trying to hash out some more neutral middle ground, either with a page move, or changes to the article. I really haven't made much progress as everyone on the talk page seems to be shouting past me. I also have not made any changes to the article itself. All thoughts are greatly appreciated! Hiberniantears (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI. If anyone decides to take a look at the article itself, I have made changes minus the paragraph on the de-jure non-recognition which was added by a different editor. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is not "anti-Russian" in tone. If Russia fails to acknowledge Soviet occupation and insists on passing resolutions that the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law with no basis in fact, the article will not be "pro-" the Russian position, nor will the article paint the official Russian POV as a "balance" to the Baltic so-called and derided with the nationalist label "POV". It will discuss the facts of the situation and mention Russia's current official position which, perhaps someday, will reflect facts and not left-over Soviet fabrications of history. Apologies to be blunt, I'll be glad to trade facts with any editor interested. PetersV       TALK 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I should mention the article started as being about the occupations and events, not a contest with defenders of the current official Russian position that "you can't occupy what belongs to you." I would very much prefer the "anti-Russian" and "anti-Soviet" and "nationalist" tar-brushes to be put down for a change. PetersV       TALK 02:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a good point... I could have chosen a better phrase than simply saying "anti-Russian", which suggests that the solution is rephrasing the article to be "pro-Russian", which is not the case, nor a desirable outcome. There is, however, a valid Soviet/Russian POV which I think may need some greater weight in the article, but only in the sense that there exists a reasonable tone in the politics in many former Soviet states that seeks to emphasize a break with all things Soviet and/or Russian. I'm not sure what that balance is, and that is essentially what I am soliciting opinions on. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A valid Soviet/Russian POV? which you think may need some greater weight in the article? Again: there is the POV of the current Russian government spelled out in multiple sections of the article: Policy_position_of_the_Russian_Federation, Soviet_sources_prior_to_Perestroika, Russian_historiography_in_the_post-Soviet_era, Official_position_of_the_Russian_government vs. the POV of European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council [133], the governments of the Baltic countries,[134] [135]the United States,[136] and the European Union,[137]. So how much more weight the POV of the Russian government should have in the article exactly and why? If anything, the contradicting viewpoints should be spelled out more clearly in the lead section perhaps.--Termer (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't recall exactly which article it was, perhaps this very one, but amid all the WP:IDONTLIKEIT POV tagging and all, I was actually the first editor to put in an objective factual accounting of the current official Russian position. The supporters of that position couldn't even be bothered to do it themselves they were too busy shouting "nationalist!" "nationalist!"

   That there is a (current official) Russian/Soviet "version" (not POV, that would involve differing opinions on the same set of verifiable events) of history is noted, that is a valid addition to the article. It is not a "valid"--as in substantiated by facts that any editor has brought to the table--"POV."PetersV       TALK 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If someone would wish to write an article regarding the impact of the false propaganda of the Soviet era and its continuing impact on Russian collective memory, I would be glad to collaborate. PetersV       TALK 02:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The changes I made yesterday go a long way to bringing the article back to a more NPOV presentation... and I did that without adding or removing a thing. That said, we can probably move the conversation back to the article page since it appears nobody reads this board unless they are monitoring my own contributions. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Seriously... does anyone read this page? Its like I'm smashing my head on a wall over at the Baltic page. Any third parties are greatly appreciated. It is just the usual plague nonsense. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A few do, given the other comments. The fact that the Baltic states are not a field of expertise to most of us might be part of the problem. Give me a minute to finish assessing articles in the category I'm working on and I'll give it a look. Unfortunately, I'm not really knowledgable about the subject, but I'll do what I can. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Much abliged... I'm in the same boat as you, as far as having detailed knowledge of the Baltic states is concerned. I jumped in without getting proper background, but now find myself all turned around. Very briefly, the article deals with a premise that the Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were occupied from 1939-1991, rather than simply being parts of the Soviet Union. Now, as an American who grew up at the tail end of the Cold War, I always thought they were just a part of the Soviet Union, regardless of how they became so. That they were considered occupied for the entire period of 1939-1991 is news to me, but my efforts to have a civil discussion on the topic were pretty quickly buried by a number of Baltic oriented editors who were initially peeved that I was brought the page by an editor who appears to be Russian. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Experience. There's been more than one -- by an order of magnitude at least -- of concern trolls who, not understanding the topic, not having any background, jump to set right imagined wrongs. Meanwhile, check out Latvian diplomatic service. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick clarification: I'm not asking anyone to jump into the debates and arguments on the article talk page, as that seems to be something of an exercise in futility. Rather, I'm just looking for as many admins as possible to spend a little time reading the article and weighing in on whether the article's scope seems a bit too expansive. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:SOUR

• Comment, clearly this report is inappropriate, there is no ethnic conflict involved here, looking for as "many admins as possible to spend a little time reading the article and weighing in on whether the article's scope seems a bit too expansive" seems to be Hiberniantears goal rather than resolve some imagined "ethnic conflict" Martintg (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Update, Hiberniantears has just created Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states, which is a more appropriate venue to resolve his issue than here. Suggest closure of this report. Martintg (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible convassing concern

Moved from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Possible_convassing_concern

Sorry, I'm not particularly familiar with the rules behind WP:CANVASS but do people think User:Kasaalan listing Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie and the deletion as a cleanup projection and a deletion review (it's actually at AFD) at Portal:Palestine/Opentask could be a issue? Since I was the one who nominated it for deletion, would it be appropriate to list it somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration so that everyone collaborating on the topic can review? I consider Rachel Corrie a topic that affects both sides of the dispute but it seems Kasaalan disagrees. An outside view? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is canvassing, but of the benign variety as it falls under Wikipedia:CANVASS#Friendly_notices. So long as the notice is neutrally worded, it is OK. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with that. However, when would requests to individual users [138] [139] be a concern? The editors in question never edited the particular article in question (nor its parent) nor were involved in either the prior AFD or DRV. Both subsequently voted to keep the article (with one suggesting that it be rated as higher class article). I've informed Kasaalan of this discussion generally but if someone else could see if I'm missing something. I'm not sure of what criteria I should be using if I wanted to inform someone. I assumed it would be prior editors at least but that's not even a requirement, it would seem like a free-for-all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding, if Ricky81682, as the AFD nominator, notifies a relevant wikiproject and the article's main contributors that it's up for deletion, that's a friendly notice. When Kasaalan, as an article contributor with a desire to keep the article and a certain POV, notifies editors and a project believed to be of the same viewpoint as him/her, and none believed to be of opposing viewpoints, it's votestacking and meatpuppetry. Somno (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, even I admit, that's doesn't fair or right. Kasaalan I guess should be freely allowed to notify the relevant project (I do have an issue with using the opentasks section of a portal to do "deletion notices" under the requested articles section, which I think is fairly unique and not its purpose, and question whether calling it a "cleanup" issue would be appropriate as well). However, since it doesn't look like the Israeli project has this article on its radar (which seems odd to me but I don't know the scope of the projects that well), then while strange, it would be appropriate to list it only there. My concern is about the two editors and I would hope Kasaalan would be willing to simply explain why he chose to notify those two particular individuals, since I don't see any connection to the article or the prior discussions. I do see that they have similar views on the subject matter, clear from their user pages, their editing history and their votes, ex post. Full disclosure: I've notified User:Enigmaman here because he had both edited on the page (for a redirect which was reverted) and on the followup discussion at MBisanz's talk page. I think that particular individual makes sense (as was notifying MBisanz both as the closing admin from the AFD and one of the people who edited to force a redirect, again reverted). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to put "at worst, it's" in front of "meatpuppetry", so my comment sounds more dramatic than I had intended, but I do see Kasaalan's notification of individual editors who share the same viewpoint as an attempt to influence the outcome of the !vote, and I look forward to his/her explanation. Somno (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The notices to individual editors definitely falls under votestacking, and represents a problem, so long as he is only individually notifying editors who he knows agrees with him. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly canvassing, IMO. Look at his user talk contributions and look at which editors he's notifying. Enigma^msg 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, asking editors that share your viewpoint to come comment on an AfD is a common practice. I disapprove of it though, and wanted to say something to Kasaalan about it but didn't want to come off as rude. BTW, user Ceedjee is more biased towards the Israeli viewpoint as indicated on his userpage and I have seen many pro-Israeli users ask him for his input, so this user may not share Kasalaan's viewpoint. The right course of action in order to avoid escalation, Ricky (I know you to be a reasonable, sensible person), is to ask Kasalaan to refrain from selectively inviting people. If you were not sure on whether Kasaalan's actions were against policy and you are merely seeking advice, you should have made your post more general. Noticeboard isn't a helpdesk. Since we are casting suspicion on voters at the AfD, are you going to comment on Somno's involvement? I don't think Somno in particular is in the place to accuse Kasaalan of policy violations such as "votestacking and meatpuppetry". It is clear on Kasaalan's talk page that s/he had/have a dispute with Kasaalan over another unrelated article. I don't see Somno in the AfD, DRV, editing history. Perhaps s/he is trying to antagonize Kasaalan by voting delete for an article Kasaalan wishes to save? See the bad faith allegations can be thrown from both sides. I don't think they are useful and I hope people would stop making them. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Enigmaman you simply trolling, after my edits for adding the critic speech of Gerald Kaufman to Tzipi Livni and Eitan Livni pages, I don't want to discuss again on your user warning policies. You tried to warn only me claiming edit war, simply ignoring editors, who started it if there is any by trying to remove the exact same info in Eitan Livni page for the speech is "a criticism of Tzipi, not him", yet in Tzipi Livni page they remove info for "this belongs in Eitan Livni, not here", while they trying to keep pro political comments about Tzipi Livni in the article, and trying to delete critical political comments with a clear bias. But you try to push on me, trying to complain me to admins to cover your own actions, because our recent serious conflict.

Also you are fully aware that I asked the single user that replied me on my discussion page to read the topic before voting, not asked any canvas vote.

Very much appreciated, my motive is letting editors know about the voting beforehand. Since I created a deletion review, yet most of our dedicated page editors not voted, it turned on a contrary base. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_CorrieWikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_16 Most users don't even read before they vote, and on behalf of their political views. So if you please have a look to the articles first. Last revision [1] copy of the article is available for your review.

Somno, Let me clearly state that after your deletion of Philip Munger article, before warning it on copyright but deleting it immediately, though it mostly consisted of some clearly referenced 1 paragraph blockquotes waiting to be wikified, you preferred to completely erase it, without letting me know about your concerns or discuss with me, so I cannot take your POV accusations on me seriously. Your deletions possibly lack of the collaborative work and discussion spirit of wikipedia.

I did not canvassed for a various of reasons.

First of all I created public notices first, in main article page, also 3 project main pages. Yet since 2 of the project pages aren't active only Palestine project left. I am not even member of Palestine project by the way. Yet I feel they have a balancing attitude for some of the clear POV and biased edits that coming from Israeli side. Opposing views helps neutralizing the article.

The main and project pages holds discussions between conflicting editors, and watched by them if they are interested. So first I tried creating public notices in project and main pages.

Yet after a long while nobody replied or payed attention, I tried to post in some of the active editors' talk pages for sharing their views. The message was same text, simply linking to deletion review. Because this votes has some time limitation.

By the way, at that time I didn't even know what canvassing is. But since I publicly let others know, and waited a long while for anyone replied, I assumed letting others know about the issue is better. Since they have not noticed or cared or away, but the vote closing date is not so far. In the first deletion review only a few main page editors voted, since the rest of the active editors taking breaks somehow, and nobody took any time on getting their opinions. And I felt that is not right.

Also my edits continuously trolling by some users, I replied their blatant accusations, even in the talk pages of admins who verdict the deletions. So since some users, always vote in the same manner, without even reading the articles, it is not helpful to vote for a deletion without project and main page editor's consent and notice and vote. Otherwise their opinions simply getting ignored, but they are doing all the work.

I even tried to put a notice in the main page, so every reader can see the voting, yet it is removed by another user.

Ricky has no contribution to the article but 2 simple edits, but tries to verdict important decisions about important matters like sub articles without discussing in main page, and trying to getting it deleted, in a time where most of the active editors not paying attention to the article or taking wikibreaks. Most possibly you didn't even read the 2 articles completely yet.

By the way let me clearly state you payed no interest or time in discussing this issue with main page editors beforehand or took their opinions, before nominating the article to deletion, yet you just put a notice in the discussion page after you nominated it.

Also vote stacking won't work anyway, since the deletion admin clearly stated his policies publicly to anyone and me, his verdict not in favor of quantity but quality of the arguments. Deletion admin clearly not cares about vote count as a policy. So any attempt to raise vote count won't succeed in any way. If you wonder much, he verdicted, contrary of the majority of votes last time.

Yet with more relevant editors views on the matter is important for better explanation of why to keep the article.

I am truly against the case most of the voters didn't even read the article before they vote, or hiding behind the policies they didn't read. So acted accordingly. I don't like to over and over getting afd or drv. So the more editors share their opinions, the better. Kasaalan (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me. First you came to my talk page to threaten me and now when I make statements of fact (only notifying users you agree with is blatant canvassing), you claim I'm trolling. I am not biased in this matter. Your entire claim is because I warned you for edit-warring. You had violated 3RR on multiple articles. When I see people doing that, I give a 3RR warning. You claim that other people violated 3RR. Please read the policy and then prove to me that other people violated 3RR on the article I was talking about. Then I will warn them as well. I always strive to be fair. Enigma^msg 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I notified every user publicly in relevant pages, yet also asked some active editors, actually I haven't even have any discussion with falastine before this deletion review. And as Falastine simply explained above, yet again you chose to ignore yet ceedje publicly declares

"My potential biases about this subject are : * a higher empathy for Jewish culture and history than for Arab or Islamic culture. * a higher empathy for Zionism than for Arab and Palestinian nationalisms. * a categorical rejection of antisemitism; a rejection of any form of racism as a rule and rejection of racism towards Arabs and/or Muslims ie Islamophobia.

My only criteria was being active in relevant project page, and being civil and constructive somehow in the project page, I didn't make any research on user histories anyway. I was aware some of the users has opposing views to discuss in project page, but since we are trying to build a consensus from various opposing views in most pages, as long as being constructive any opinion is useful. But deciding the future of an article by a few people is not a real justice by any terms.

I clearly explained, I meant only ANI in various pages [140] to you, after you deleted my comments claiming threat involved, also you already involved admins in the matter for warning me. Also stressed my threats, which may only be ANI as worst case which I haven't even used once for anyone.

And if you wonder much, I deleted my exact same comment from another page and about to delete same comment from your page too, sometimes I say harsh comments, but I generally remove them myself after I read them. Actually I claimed you acted POV, even maybe your edit warning was in favor of my own good, but that users edits has more than 3 revert rule.

Yet, you put some pretty much effort on this deletion, and building suspicion on me afterward, trying to getting me warned, and since you had no involvement in this particular case yet involved it just after we have a conflict like this, as far as I know, yes that is trolling.

Also about the 3 revert rule, maybe I wrongly acted, yet when I made the edit in 2 pages, they being reverted by some editors who was "trying to remove the exact same info in Eitan Livni page for the speech is "a criticism of Tzipi, not him", yet in Tzipi Livni page they remove info for "this belongs in Eitan Livni, not here", do those conflicting claims to delete same info in 2 related articles sound logical or neutral to you. They also claimed and suggested I talk them in discussion page in their undo reasons, and I created according discussion titles based on their undo reasons, but guess what only 1 editor bothered to discuss with me, yet he has different standards on pro and con political speechs on Talk:Tzipi_Livni. You know everything is not about 3 revert rule, there are some categorical POV reverts by illogical claims, involving highly questionable deletions, by conflicting reasons with each other in those pages. You can easily read the discussions, conflicting reasons in Talk:Tzipi_Livni and Talk:Eitan Livni or in page histories [141][142]. They even claim a senior officer of armed gang is not responsible for his armed gang's other actions as undo reasons. Kasaalan (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A 3RR warning is a heads up in case you are not aware of the Wikipedia policy. That is not the same as going to someone's page and threatening them with "consequences" if they do not do as you say.

As for the canvassing point, I think it's pretty well established that most of the people you notified were already established as having agreed with you on the issue in the past. Enigma^msg 01:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I simply explained you the deletion discussion is not about voting. But yes I do need more opinions on the matter, because some users just vote on delete this, delete that approach by not even reading the articles.

The full quote was beginning with "stop acting POV" that was what I felt like at that time. Also you can get a clear idea on what I am talking about by following the discussion and history links, which are on your watch list anyway. You don't have to be a genius for understanding what happened in those 2 pages.

I put in every page relevant publicly for the deletion review for a long time. My addition in main page about the discussion got deleted by another user. If you put a warning on main page which holds both Palestinian, Israeli and independent users it might be better, I suggested that already.

That case depends what you ask. Most of the project users are civil and more experienced than me somehow, even the Israeli-view ones. But again their vote not matters, but their views and edits on the page are required. Because without their effort, and if the article will depend on my sole edits, I am not a great editor and still inexperienced. So I just left some parts as blockquotes so that other editors can wikify them, since they have better writing in English and better editor skills.

Yet that doesn't mean I am not improving the article, or create its foundations. Most of the time I make the best research on quotes and sources. While I also read most of the sources, I have a good perspective on the articles.

On the contrary people can claim non-notability for they don't bother to read all of the sources I provided. We have long discussions in the past even on adding HRW human rights watch as a source, which one of the world's leading organisations.

Anyone that have previously discuss with me may know, I am in favor of adding sources even the ones that I think POV if they may have a point, I fully support addition of opposing views to the article whatever my own view is. Yet some users not in the same view, they argue when they delete some views based on their own political beliefs article gets better, but that is not the case. Kasaalan (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reply has nothing to do with what I posted. Enigma^msg 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, Philip Munger is irrelevant to this discussion - this is about your selective notification of others about an AFD. I have explained copyright violation to you several times, and it's off-topic here. Please feel free to look into my involvement - I tried to clean up a copyright-violating article in February, which unfortunately was created by Kasaalan. I have recently monitored his/her edits to protect the encyclopedia where possible, and I do not care about Rachel Corrie, Israel, Palestine or any of the related topics. I am just tired of Kasaalan's tendentious editing, insults, edit warring, POV pushing and possible votestacking, and I wish this situation were resolved. Somno (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You could easily tag the article for improving. I took 3 different copyright classes in university and published a number of academic papers, so don't accuse me with copyright infringement claims. You have a point the article had 4, 1 paragraph long blockquotes from 4 reliable sources, yet they were clearly referenced, and deleting the article completely is not a constructive approach. And they could converted into proper format by especially more experienced editors. You are right they need to be wikified, but instead putting any effort on wikifying them, ask for help from other editors or discuss with me, you deleted it yourself completely, without return. That is not a constructive approach, you know it, but you have a delete this, delete that approach in applying guidelines. When I asked your opinion on my notability proofs for another case you claimed "I am very busy at the moment with off-wiki stuff" to give opinion, yet you have time for all the pages that "needs to be deleted". Kasaalan (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, why not you just list Munger at WP:DRV and get it restored instead of bickering about that? You may be able to convince people it was fine. Heck, if you want, I'll list it for you, and quote your arguments if that'd make you stop it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky why don't you try discussing first before nominating anything including Munger case, instead bickering on it yourself. Actually instead bickering, or nominating you should also try to edit them yourself. Kasaalan (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can complain, or delete, but not anyone can improve an article. Yes deleting the blockquote is not a constructive approach, but converting it into a more proper summary or rewording it is. Kasaalan (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, anyone can improve an article, which is why this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. When people edit though, they need to make sure their edits meet the policies and guidelines. As Ricky said, if you have a problem with the speedy deletion of Philip Munger, take it to WP:DRV. Bringing it up in multiple unrelated venues is not productive, but then, it does illustrate your pattern of wearing other editors down. Somno (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes anyone with a constructive approach can improve an article. But creating a whole article is harder. So without the required wikifying you preferred to delete it. Deleting is easy editing is hard, base research is even harder.

That is the long way that I generally not prefer. Why trying to discuss user actions afterwards, when you have a chance to discuss with them beforehand. If you bothered to discuss with me first, there would be no need for this discussion or any DRV. Kasaalan (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Other editors do not need to seek permission before editing "your" articles. Again Kasaalan, please stay on topic - this is the Geopolitical Ethnic and Religious Conflicts noticeboard. Take any other issues somewhere more relevant. Somno (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I suggest them to edit the articles in a collaborative approach, and discuss previously for nominating for deletion. There are some steps you can easily take before deletion review, for the sake of the articles. Deletion is a last case resort, which you should try to avoid. Yes this is the noticeboard where you continuously criticize my actions, yet I try to explain my edits because of your actions in the meantime while you accuse me. Kasaalan (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apparently mostly the mistake on wording by my part on that case, between so long recent edit traffic. Somno didn't willing to provide the content, yet offered the links from page, which I apparently forgot during debates or missed, which can be considered fair enough to be considered good faith. But I also have already found a copy of the article at that time anyway. Still cannot agree on your deletion approach, but again my mistake for wording in my talk. So he deserves an apology for wording on my part. Kasaalan (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Reply Ricky as I previously asked to you numerous times, can you possibly tell here publicly, if you have fully read the 2 articles yet, or still speculating without reading them fully. You have lots of clear false arguments, like number of my edits being 2 which are actually over 75, as I clearly proved wrong because you didn't read discussions and not familiar with content or edit history. You made no effort on discussing your concerns with other main page editors or with me, or attempted any improvement in the article before you nominated it for deletion. You also known I asked the single member that replied me back to read the articles before voting, because I don't want any politic vote.

Also if you were right about "your might-be-canvas-concern" I should have also left invitation for overturn keep voter if I had vote-in-the-bag approach. Why do you think I didn't do that. I posted messages on active project and main page editors, along with public announcements. But I will copy Alansohn's overturn reason from previous deletion review.

Overturn Deep down inside, before I saw the details, my personal political biases on the subject were assuming that this couldn't possibly merit a standalone article; This had to be a blatantly POV fork. In reviewing the article under discussion, I see clear encyclopedic handling of a topic that has received far more media coverage than I ever realized, providing several dozen reliable and verifiable sources to support the material in the article. In looking at the parent article, there is a section on tributes, and a merge would largely overwhelm the parent article. This is exactly what forks are for. The consensus in the AfD was extremely muddled, and while there were calls for a merge, there seems to be no way that the results of the AfD could have been read to support any one result, and least of all merge. I would suggest using a lower case "t" in the second word of the title. Alansohn

Moreover if you really bother to do a search, you can easily see I picked the editors to be noted, from project and main page discussions, not from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie keep voters, if that would be the case, I would also notify alanshon, mgm or yamanam. You make every effort to spread your concerns everywhere systematically, and how do you expect me to discuss it only here. I wanted this case to be discussed, by help of relevant editors, which are active main and project page editors apparently. Some dedicated delete or keep voters won't help the discussion anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC) It is not right to discuss a page's existence with only afd watchers, and simply putting a link in the discussion page didn't lead much discussion about the content, but turned out a keep or delete voting. Kasaalan (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I discussed before, I saw the article, say it as an article that should have been merged, listed it for AFD, another admin decided to do so, it was agreed at DRV, and you chose to ignore all of them, revert warring anyone against you. You moved the page and claimed it was a new article so, instead of just making it a redirect, I decided to listen to you and listed it for AFD again. I have no clue why you keep bringing up Alansohn's opinion from before. I'm not him and it's not just my job to argue what he wanted before. You should ask him. I'm sorry you disagree but policy is that only AFD watchers are the ones who decide issues. It's improper for you to select who you think are qualified to decide. You listed it at specific noticeboard, on the upper page's talk page, and even specifically asked some users. Those who came are those who came. You don't get to keep berating me because not enough of the people you wanted came. The ones you picked all voted keep (including one saying it is a good article, a featured article or a featured list in some way), and I'm sorry to tell you this, but people can disagree with you and whoever you think is qualified. If you want to keep arguing this yet again, go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and argue that you should decide when the properly qualified individuals have offered their opinions. Otherwise, why are you arguing this here and at the AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I can go on discussion fully, but after the related admin closed the discussion in 3 days, without letting people fully talk and get the issue over with approach, I am fully frustrated that, even if anyone ban me for my inexperienced yet good-intended public attempts to getting this issue discussed, I couldn't care less. So can the admin tell me what is the worst punishment I will get, if I say I have the worse intention on earth in history, while accusers are angels from heaven. 3 month ban, 6 month ban, article ban, anything but a full account deletion is fine by me, just get this over with. Yet I will never quit from my approach of inclusion instead censorship, creation over deletion, voicing minor voices over major ones, alternative media against mainstream ones, local yet notable artists over famous ones, and the ones that have been killed over the ones who killed them. I can clearly say, all the jurisdical process in wikipedia currently is highly bureucratic, non-productive and most of the case either a waste of time or dependant of the judgement of 1-2 admin most of the cases, so a better review system required. And wikipedia needs a better organisation, simpler, shorter and better guidelines, that can be fully read, understand and applied by every editor and admin, even in highly disputable cases. Bias and prejiduce applies by lots of the users in all the article page discussions that I have been participated over recent months. All the user and article dependent personal approachs to the guidelines are ultimately harmful, and can be considered as the leading threat that keeps wikipedia from reaching to a higher quality with better integrity. Kasaalan (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You really should just ask the closing admin. I sure as hell didn't want it closed early. This would be a legitimate argument for a DRV relisting. Otherwise, yeah, whatever your views on how to restructure the entire encyclopedia, that's on you. I'm not going to bother with that anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But I do wish you would quit trying to claim that everyone who disagrees with you is censorship. It's not productive and not even worth dignifying with a response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

While there was a debate on the page with arguments given for the conservation, you didn't answer. On the contrary, you allegdly accused Kasaalan of Cavenassing the AfD with me. You did this accusations without warning us. More, then you went to the AN/I. And, as expected, a sysop closed the AfD without reading anything.

In other words, you are the guy who canevassed this AfD (complaining at places where you knew the expected result) and you were unconstrutive, refusing the debate.

You should take distance with this topic where you are clearly involved and not intervene in it. Ceedjee (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Purging of Armenian-related content at Elâzığ

New user Mystery.sin (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing all references to the historical Armenian community from the article on their alleged hometown. I have warned this user about blanking and removal of content and also left him or her a note regarding their insistence that nobody is interested in historical figures. I don't want to get caught in an edit war and so would appreciate some extra eyes here. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic issues in the Filipino people article

PinoyFilAmPride (talk · contribs) has been dispruptive in this article for the past week. This user has also been distruptive in the talk page article, such as providing personal point of view information and other issues. The user has also removed academic reference in the information article with out providing a valid reason. Please help, investigate and resolve this problem. Thank you. IQfur01 talk 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also here to report PinoyFilAmPride (talk · contribs). This user has made distruptive edits on the Filipino people content and various talk pages. The user seemed to have engaged in a fanatic edit war. JfdrU talk 23:23 13, May 2009 (UTC)

LTTE

We've recently made some efforts to remove the strong anti-LTTE POV in Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, but some disagreements with the article persist. At Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam#Improved Intro, John harvey125 (talk · contribs) first argued that organizations cannot commit crimes, only individuals of an organization. He has also claimed, much to my chagrin, that since LTTE members have not been convicted of committing murder and assassinations, then we cannot report the parties as being guilty. However, numerous sources have attributed the LTTE to a variety of attacks and assassinations over the last 25 years. I have argued that we are supposed to report what the sources are telling us, but John harvey125 believes that this is defamatory and against real life laws. Could someone please comment on the talk page? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I should add to Nishkid64's assessment, that I have no problem with explicit attribution from reliable sources and where some act has not been proven to be perpetrated by a party, the word allegedly should be used, with claim and counter-claim both being present to provide a neutral point of view. John harvey125 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

that is not entirely true John harvey125. you made information from FBI website sound like it was not reliable and removed it. fringe counterclaims that are not backed by reliable sources do not make an article NPOV. WP:DUE clearly states that due weight needs to be given to all claims ( provided they are backed in reliable sources) NOT equal weight. LTTE is Designated a Terrorist organization by more than 30 countries after careful review ( many of these countries have the most developed legal systems in the world). I would be very cautious in trying to put in any info which argues against this fact and seek multiple reliable sources before adding such info Wikireader41 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you check my edit, I had moved the statement to the proscription section [143]. You apparently jumped the gun and claimed I removed the statement. I agree the statement from the FBI belongs in the article but there are complications with having it in the lead. John harvey125 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Whats this got to do with the 30 countries ? There is already a statement in the lead that mention LTTE has been proscribed in 32 countries or whatever. Your arguments seem to be all over the place. John harvey125 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanna point out that everytime LTTE is mentioned in other articles its almost always followed by "they are proscribed as terrorists by 32 countries". this seems pointless and unnecessary and some sort of attempt to circumvent the WP:TERRORIST, I mean you could just about follow every mention of the sri lanka government with "they have been kicked out the UN Human Rights Council for gross human rights violations". I mean you can see how rediculous that is. --Icemansatriani (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to call them "terrorist organization" but that is of course POV, which is why it is attributed in that clumsy way. In most of the articles, the LTTE are mentioned because of their militant activities, which probably warrants the inclusion of some background info. In articles unrelated to war, the so-called terrorist nature of the LTTE probably need not be mentioned, but there do not seem to be that many of them. Internal structure of the LTTE probably would not require the "terrorist 32" info, neither would List of villages founded by the LTTE or similar articles. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GoSL are no angels either, but there is a difference in degree between being kicked out of HR council and being called "terrorist". The latter is much more notable than the former. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus naming dispute

There is currently some discussion regarding whether the name "North Cyprus" should be included as an alternate name of Northern Cyprus on the article's talk page, as I have recently been informed on my own talk page. There seems to me in any event to be some justification for the use of the name, as some Google news hits here, google books hits here, and Google Scholar hits here, all clearly use the name "North Cyprus", even if not all of those hits use it necessarily as a proper name. Any reasonable input on the matter on the article's talk page would likely be welcomed. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall

In my view there are some problems at the Cornwall article, although i am the only one who appears to see it and everybody there would like to ignore my concerns. Cornwall is a county of England and has been part of England for 100s of years and this is not disputed by the vast majority of the population of Cornwall. The main problem at the moment is in the introduction where it currently states

"Cornwall is the homeland of the Cornish people and diaspora, and is considered one of the six "Celtic nations""

My concern is the article is declaring Cornwall a "celtic nation" despite this not being a majority held or mainstream view and without valid neutral 3rd party sources. Now there is no doubt Cornwall has a rich celtic history and that organisations such as Celtic League (political organisation) and Celtic Congress consider Cornwall one of the 6 Celtic Nations, but these are political organisations with a clear interest in promoting a certain point of view. In my opinion the sentence does not even belong in the introduction, but the other editors on the article have refused to even allow an explanation as to WHO describes Cornwall as a Celtic Nation. Without that explanation, this seems grossly misleading and could be offensive to some. There also seems to be a problem at Celtic Nations where i am not the only one who has raised concerns about declaring a place like Cornwall a Celtic Nation, without proper explanation as to who has and what others think about it. At the moment because i am the only editor who seems to have a problem with the wording, it is impossible for me to make the changes with out them being reverted, so i placed some tags on the article but those are also continuing to be removed. Please can someone suggest what i should do next or should i simply leave the article the way it is if i think its misleading the reader? Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC) I have restored my post as the recent change which removed the problem has been undone and the editor responsible said i should see what the admins say here. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that "nation" is not synonymous with "state" or "country", viz. Tibetan nation, American Indian nation, Aboriginal nation. You do seem to be the only person, as of yet, who takes issue with the article's wording. The article has used that wording for ages. Could you possibly be mistaking your own opinions for fact? --Joowwww (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nation can mean different things to different people. If i was born in Cornwall i may consider myself Cornish but that doesnt mean i consider myself "celtic" so i still dont see how the whole of Cornwall can be described as a celtic nation, if only a small number of people think that way. Either way, i do not see how its not possible to explain WHO describes Cornwall as a "Celtic nation" rather than an open ended claim which sounds like its a mainstream view. Earlier on Ghmyrtle added that Celtic league and Celtic congress call it a Celtic nation.. this change was far more accurate which is why i removed my post from this board. But then User:Daicaregos undid the change and in his normal friendly way suggested i repost my comment here. It should ofcourse be pointed out that on Daicaregos's user page he lists Cornwall as a country he has visited, so im not sure how neutral his views are on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also just because something has been a certain way a long time doesnt mean its ok, i was reviewing the history of the article and in the first few years it seemed some people refused to even describe Cornwall as a county of England, which is a very radical position to hold. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In my view, issues over detailed wording on the Cornwall page, and on the tone of individual editors' comments, don't need to be discussed in any detail here - they can be addressed adequately elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, had i seen the change you made to the article moments before i posted on here i wouldnt of posted it (which is why i removed it), but at the time it seemed like this matter was being ignored as its lasted several days now. I agree progress can be made on the articles talk page, but it didnt seem like that this morning. The only reason i reposted it was because of User:Daicaregos saying i should, and i do think a neutral point of view on this matter may be helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The interesting thing about your comments British watcher, is that although you feign objectivity with your calls for 3rd party sources etc etc, you are blatantly using this for your own particular poltical agenda. Your username and Union Flag with motto shout out your Unionist political views, to which you are entitled no doubt- yet render your comments on Cornwall, the Celtic nature of Cornwall and so on, completely and utterly biased and one sided. As a Cornishman, I could tear your argument about Cornwall being part of England to bits. You make assumption after assumption about what is mainstream view or not, based on what may I ask? Where are your facts? I ask myself if you have ever been to Kernow..oops, that's a bit too Celtic, Cornwall?

)

14.05.09

You are one person from Cornwall, you do not speak for the 500,000 people who live in Cornwall, or less than 40,000 who described themselves as Cornish in the 2001 census. Wikipedia can not declare the whole of Cornwall is a Celtic Nation when this isnt recognized by the British government or by mainstream or neutral organisations.

Im a British citizen, my user page makes very clear my loyalties but certain people involved at the Cornwall article clearly also have their own interests and agenda. We have several confirmed separatists, one of whom declares on his userpage that Cornwall is infact a country, which is an even more radical view than just saying its a "Celtic nation"

My request does not seem that unreasonable. I simply think that if Cornwall is declared a celtic nation in the introduction we should say BY WHO, otherwise it sounds like this has universal support which is certainly not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording has now been cleared up and consensus reached. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page comments on Rachel Weisz article

• Rachel Weisz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the bottom of the Talk page for this article, a Wiki user makes comments saying that "for their own safety," Jews need to hide their Jewishness. (Apparently, this user pulled something similar on an article about Mila Kunis and the Adyghe people.) I'm new, and I'm wondering how to play this and if anything can be done.(DarkKnight613 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the notification. I have removed it here. It was unhelpful and a personal attack against Jews. American Eagle (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

qualified Brazilians

This is related to the short thread "Little monkeys" close above. That part of it can be considered resolved. Unfortunately the bad feeling underlying it cannot.

There are multiple disputes among a number of editors, and particularly between two, over White Brazilian, German Brazilian, and so forth. These seem to reflect two points of view, which I think I can describe very simply here but about which I'll remain silent: those interested are free to work them out for themselves, and I'll avoid the risk of being accused of misinterpretation.

I first noticed complaints at WP:AN/I. I was a late arrival to this and noted the tiredness with which people greeted these complaints. At least one of the dismissive comments made on a complaint struck me as fatuous and I took the time to look at what was involved. I was surprised to see that some of the complaints were about apparently clearcut matters; see Template talk:Largest cities of Brazil.

The closest I have been to Brazil is Manhattan and I know very little about Brazil and its history. So I'm uneducated and uninformed, but I hope I'm open minded. I arrived with the intention of being evenhandedly sceptical and firm, and I hope that I am still fair. However, I've gradually come to respect the efforts of one of the two parties in this brouhaha and think I may be on the verge of losing patience with the other. I don't think that this would necessarily be bad. Still, if I did lose patience I'd probably be accused of bias. And so I invite another administrator to take a long look through Talk:White Brazilian and to step in. (Another reason: "RL" is about to take up a lot of my time.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is more or less the tale of two strong-willed editors with clashing PoVs (some underlying) who were both skirting en.Wikipedia editing policies (knowingly or unknowingly, doesn't matter) to edit war in the name of Truth (TM). The first task was to stop the blistering loops of personal attacks flying between them, along with the edit warring. Happily, this seems to have happened. Next, editing had to be targeted only onto sources, in chunks, which also seems to have happened. Hoary helpfully stepped in whilst one of the editors began trying to deal with the content much more carefully, from the outlook of sourcing. The other editor answered this only with a sweeping revert as before, which is worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What's alarming is that there's a pile of these articles, and while one editor is amenable to an invitation to concentrate on one knotty point in the talk page of one article, the other pays rather less attention to this and freely edits another article. I start to suspect that the fact that one editor's time and energy is taken up in the talk page of one article is taken by the other as an opportunity for relatively carefree editing elsewhere, though I am busily attempting to "AGF" and all that. Neither editor is an extremist; both understand WP:V and the rest (even if they have their lapses): there's hope here, but more eyeballs would be welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, one of them has been saying for some time that he's been snared by an utter lack of any other outside input on these topics and has only been answered by reverts by that single editor. When one looks beyond the blizzards of personal attacks and edit warring going both ways, this is more or less supported by the contrib history. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Addressing naming guidelines in West Bank - Judea and Samaria by July 13th

Voting or commenting on each segment of the Proposed guidelines in relation to remedy 13.1 of the recently closed West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. Please comment here on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009.

The more comments/votes/consensus, the better. We really need to firm up consensus by community input into some of these areas to reduce the drain on admin and editor resources in policing naming disputes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Mytestid1980 is damaging an article

See [144] and all contribs. He is putting hoaxes on 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra even when we warned him. All warnings are gone from his talk. Some more bad eits also ocurred. See history

i hope its the right place (WP:AIV asks for recent disruption and I don't smell a 3RR violation.) Hometech (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo organ theft

This article urgently needs an eye. I toned it down a bit, stating at the beginning that the story is an "allegation". I hope I've done it correctly, but I'm not an expert on the former Yugoslavia conflict. It does seem to be a very important issue and our article on it ought to be impeccably in line with NPOV policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009

Is it Ok that almost half of the article is dedicated to "controversies", most of which are not even notable? For instance, allegations in Belorussian media were never officially confirmed, and their reliability is doubted even in Belarus. The Iranian image was never a controversy, because the Iranian government never objected to its inclusion. The only real controversy was the Armenian-Azerbaijani picture scandal, and it received enough coverage. It now seems that the controversy section is being expanded beyond any reasonable limit, as if the speculations in non-notable media are the most important info about one of the top 3 Eurovision 2009 entires. Grandmaster 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I should comment that User:Grandmaster's description here is not entirely factual or neutral and it is mostly his point of view regarding this topic. There is an ongoing debate on the talk page that discuss all angles of the question:Talk:Azerbaijan_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009#Maqbaratoshoara--St. Hubert (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Controversies aren't required to have factual confirmation (e.g. the suspected Berlusconi-Noemi Letizia affair). If there's enough of a hubbub generated in the media, then it's something worth mentioning in the article. That being said, WP:UNDUE should always be applied as appropriate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia centralized discussion

Following the conclusion of the recent Macedonia Arbcom case, there is now a new centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, to decide on the final page title for the Macedonia (country) article and to finalize a general guideline on how to refer to the country in other articles. Fresh input will be welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Little Monkeys

User Ninguém reported that Argentine "love to call Brazilians macaquitos (little monkeys in Spanish).

Systematically using the verbiage "afro-brasileiro" instead of negro is POVed: it is the Point of View that Brazilian culture is not essentially different from North-American culture, and that American usage can be employed in explaining it without further clarification and qualification. In this way, Brazil become a mere intellectual suburb of the United States, a country with no cultural autonomy, or - like our "hermanos" would love to point - a pack of macaquitos, always trying (and failing) to copy the intellectual fads in the metropolis.[145]

I think this is an ethnic issue, since this user is claiming that people from Argentina call people from Brazil of "little monkeys". This type of comments should be allowed to be posted in talk pages of articles. This is a mere disruption and offensive for both Argentine and Brazilians. Opinoso (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time you raise this issue ([146]). Is there something new you want to say, or are you going to repeat this again and again? Ninguém (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Greater and Lesser Tunbs dispute

We need a few more eyes (again) on Greater and Lesser Tunbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about a minor territorial dispute in the Persian Gulf. Two editors stubbornly revert-war to monopolise the article with the POV of their country, denying even the existence of a dispute (which, needless to say, is abundantly sourced and notable). This is very much a long-term problem and has been going on with interruptions for years. It has reached a point where further discussion seems senseless: these two editors simply do not want this project to be neutral; there is thus no basis for cooperative dispute resolution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved in this, but looking at the page history, I'd suggest the following:

• The page should be semi-protected - it's being disrupted repeatedly by someone editing from 75.75.*.* IP addresses.
• I suspect that this IP editor is the alter ego of Axamir (talk · contribs), who is also disrupting the page along the same lines. I recommend a checkuser of Axamir to determine whether he's the IP editor. If he is, he's engaging in repeated and ongoing edit-warring.

Hope this helps. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Things look to have settled down since yesterday. It looks like the IP vandalism has gone on for some time though, so I would be happy to place a 3-6 month semi-protection on the page if you think it is still necessary. Let me know on my talk page. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Axamir was blocked 24 hours per a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. I'd support semiprotecting the article six months if we see further edits from 75.75.* IP editors who don't participate in discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel#Religion and references to sites in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

This is a reference to something I've been trying to get changed over the past couple of days but I keep being reverted. The relevant paragraph currently reads:

The city of Jerusalem is of special importance to Jews, Muslims and Christians as it is the home of sites that are pivotal to their religious beliefs, such as the Old City that incorporates the Western Wall and the Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Other landmarks of religious importance are located in the West Bank, among them the birthplace of Jesus and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

My issue that all the sites mentioned lie in East Jerusalem or the West Bank. Neither of these Occupied Territories are generally regarded as part of Israel and therefore should not be mentioned in this section without qualification. There have been numerous UN motions in both the security council and general assembly on this matter and most Western nations regard the final fate of Jerusalem as a matter to be settled. For this reason, it is my view that the unqualified inclusion of these sites in an article on Israel carries with it an implication that they are in that country and therefore violates WP:NPOV by giveing WP:Undue weight to a nationalist position. My last three edits (one each for 20th, 21st and 22nd of this month) are attempted fixes. I've tried approaches such as describing the Old City as "administered by Israel since the Six Day War" but keep on being reverted with the reverters either stating baldly that the Old City is in Israel, nitpicking about one part of East Jerusalem (Mount Scopus) being already Israeli pre-67, or claiming that the mention of the occupied territories as an issue in another section is sufficient. In all cases the text qualifying the implication that these sites are in Israel has been removed. I don't think the text as it stands is acceptable but the discussion thread I started Talk:Israel#Religious_sites_in_Old_City_are_not_internationally_recognised_as_being_in_Israel has received no response. Therefore I feel the need to escalate to this board.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents to the thread on the article talk page. This is the wording you are trying to add, and I don't see any reason why it should not be allowed in the article, since it doesn't make or suggest a value statement on the legitimacy of Israeli control over the area. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that "occupied", while the majority terminology was certain to trigger an edit war while "administered" had a chance of sticking.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass rape in the Bosnian War

Originally, I was going to go to ANI but this issue is big. Mass rape in the Bosnian War has a section that was reinserted even though it was a strong BLP violation: Individuals convicted of war crimes related to mass rape. Even though there is no such thing as "mass rape", there is a list for this neologism. Furthermore, the list is not an attempt at fairness, neutrality, or anything. It is a part of a great claim that Serbs, not individuals but the whole ethnicity, committed "mass rape". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

The Centralized discussion set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Anatolia

Reporting IP 69.116.12.93 for deleting references to Armenian and Greek ethnic conflict in Turkey in 20th century. Requesting comment and administrator action. Thanks! Jaybird vt (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cities by time of continuous habitation

This is in regard of the article "List of cities by time of continuous habitation". The location keeps getting changed by diferent parties from Israel to Palestine to Israel/Palestine to "see status of Jerusalem" etc... East Jerusalem is considered by the international community as part of the occupied territories of Palestine and hence the location should indicate such as issue. I believe this needs a resolution.

I see a back and forth on this from early June, but nothing recently. Could your provide more details on your request? Hiberniantears (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping for some sort of lock on the editting of the location, to change the location to something that's more internationally accepted such as Israel/Palestine or a link to "the status of Palestine". I am not sure if that's doable, but i sure there is a way to make sure that the location doesn't keep getting editted to something that suits the editor's Point of view! -- 02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use_of_.22disputed_territories.22.2C_.22occupied_territories.22_and_related_terminology_in_the_context_of_the_Arab-Israeli_dispute

This is a notice of a request for arbitration I initiated to try to force a centralised discussion of a roving content dispute. Comments welcome. (I started it at a time that really wasn't the most practical from my own POV so am being a bit slow at issuing notices and deciding who to add as parties, but hopefully will be catching up this week.)--Peter cohen (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism#India

I think an administrative eye and eprhaps action could be useful regarding recent edits to this section. This edit for example is captioned "rv unRS" and removes material referenced to 13 different sources some of which (Turkish weekly and the Indo-Asian News Service, for example) certainly striek me as reliable.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Aram_Khachaturian

There is an edit war currently escalating as regards the composer Aram Khachaturian: he was born on the territory of Georgia in the family with Armenian roots. From yesterday on I spotted more than 10 corrections of the article opening from "Soviet-Georgian" to "Soviet-Armenian". My attempt to [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aram_Khachaturian#Proposal_of_a_compromise mediate and to elaborate a more neutral wording] was not accepted. Alaudo (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro- and Anti-Israel Lobby articles

Over the last several days a major incident has occurred which puts Wikipedia’s neutrality concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict in question and on the line. It deals with the creation of the Anti-Israel lobby in the United States,[147] as well as a non-discussed page move [148], which changes the Israel lobby in the United States to the Pro-Israel lobby in the United States[149]. These major changes are the work of a single editor, using largely biased and one-sided references and great amounts of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Because this is growing rapidly, it is beyond what any set of editors can correct, and must be discussed at an admin level and corrected.

The SYNTH, appears to revolved around the assumption that any criticism of the Israeli government/policy equals being “anti-Israeli”. This is not the case generally (though those may exist at the fringe); It is more accurately opposion to particular ideologies within that body politic. Is synonymous with saying that any American or foreigner who disagrees with US government policy is “anti-American”? This is ridiculous on its face.

To do this quickly, there are two quick examples included in the "anti" article I can provide, which will refute some of the new article’s SYNTH. The first is WRMEA, which states on its ‘about’ page, “The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. In general, the Washington Report supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play.”[150] This it their official stated position; it is not “anti-Israel”, though may be seen by some as such. That is not NPOV; that is POV’d synth. The second example is the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which states its position regarding the Middle East as “Encouraging a balanced U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.”[151] This likewise is not by neutral definition “anti-Israel.” This article must be discussed and should be deleted immediately; it is only one biased side of a very complicated issue. I can see lfew other neutral alternatives.

The undiscussed name-change for the Pro-Israel lobby in the United States, is based on one new reference which notes that particular phrase being “calculated” as the "mildest" opposition. It does not say that the ref is by a columnist that has strong pro-Israeli credentials (it will take me a while to find that RS). I should note that the ref was added by the same editor and has been accepted; I myself improved its grammar and have no argument with the thought. That however, did not mean that it was accepted as neutral and is sufficient to move the page.

This issue is of extreme importance and must be dealt with quickly and effectively. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Israel lobby article is concerned - the government of Israel has little if any direct or recognized influence over the group. AIPAC claims to be run by American supporters and individuals with no ties to government officials, or at least not to the extent where the government is passing off orders to AIPAC though you know how it is. This is counter to say...the Arab lobby, or Armenian Lobby, etc...which have stong ties to the host nation and at times act in coordination with the embassies. I find all the titles to be pejorative and intellectually dishonest IMO but this is wikipedia. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The same editor, Historicist, has created POINTy articles about the Armenian American lobby, Irish American lobby, and African-American lobby. This is becoming another "allegations of apartheid" situation, in which an editor seeks to "balance" an article she/he views as anti-Israel by creating a slew of synthesized articles about other countries. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this. Historicist and I have been talking about creating other lobbying group articles, and he has clearly taken the initiative. If you think there is something wrong be explicit in the appropriate talk page. Misconstruing reality with bad-faith and elementary generalizations is not particularly persuasive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Historicist also changed Jewish Lobby to Jewish American lobby without discussion or giving anyone a chance to address his concerns. According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names: The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All these changes should be reversed, but the last is particularly bad. After enormous struggling, the Jewish Lobby article is largely about the phrase "Jewish Lobby" (not just in the USA), not the novel and unusual phrase "Jewish American Lobby" , so the title is non-descriptive and just plain wrong..John Z (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just put in a request to revert it back at WP:ANI since for whatever reason can't be done by regular editor. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Roald Dahl and anti-Semitism

Please see section in question here ► RATEL ◄ 15:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on Roald Dahl has long had a section on his anti-Semitic remarks. It was there before I reached the article; however, I contributed to the section, by looking through the biography of him by literary scholar Jeremy Treglown, which I happened to own, and by finding an interview from shortly before his death where he seemed to admit to having become anti-Semitic.

Every now and then, a user would try to delete or alter the section. Their argument was that his statements were anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish. I disagreed, pointing out that his most notorious remarks were specifically directed at Jews, though they were framed in the context of his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I've seen many famous people accused of racism or anti-Semitism, and I've rarely seen a more clear-cut case than Dahl. To deny it is ludicrous, effectively denying the ordinary definition of words. It should be noted that the biographer Treglown, while suggesting that Dahl's grievances with Israel (during the Lebanon War in 1982) were justified, still unhesitatingly called Dahl an anti-Semite.

A while back, a user named Ratel came to the page. We argued for a while, but finally reached an agreement on how the section should look. Both of us compromised a little, and I don't think either of us were satisfied with the final product, but we were willing to accept it. Part of the disagreement was over the section's title. It was originally called simply "Antisemitism." Others wanted it to be called "Allegations of Antisemitism," but those of us who think Dahl's remarks were clearly anti-Semitic find the idea of it being a mere "allegation" insulting. For a while, I had the section titled "Antisemitic remarks," to make it clear that the article wasn't casting a judgment on Dahl himself, but simply reporting on what he said. Ratel and I eventually agreed on calling it "Literary Review controversy," because most of what was included in the section sprang from that one incident, though Treglown's biography mentioned other incidents.

Ratel put into the section information about Dahl's views on the Lebanon War, and I agreed to include a quote from a friend of Dahl's who defended him from the antisemitism charge (sort of). It stayed in that form for a while, but recently we've begun arguing again over it, and I feel we're at an impasse. The record of our arguments can be found on the Talk Page to the article on Dahl, and I'm going to invite Ratel to this page, to provide his/her side to the story. marbeh raglaim (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less correct, but it needs to be said that:

1. This is denigrating material in a BLP, sourced to a single book (without online access).
2. The single source, Treglown, is someone making a buck from the publication of a hatchet-job biography that was slammed by Dahl's widow for being full of lies.
3. The short article on Dahl does not justify this big paragraph on his supposed hatred of Jews, so undue weight issues arise.
4. Notability doubts — Dahl did nothing in his life to materially affect the life of any Jew in a negative way. He belonged to no antisemitic organisations, wrote no antisemitic screeds, etc. IF (and it is still an "if") he voiced these opinions, who cares? It would only ever be a footnote in his life. Millions of people dislike the Israeli state and its actions, and confuse Jews with Israelis. This is a bagatelle. ► RATEL ◄ 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A few points. I'm not addressing everything, because I don't want to get too bogged down, but I'd just like to know how you answer a few things. (1) What's a BLP? Biography of Living Persons? Dahl is deceased. (2) The section cites three different sources (including an interview with Dahl), not just the Treglown biography. (3) Could you show me where Dahl's widow slammed the Treglown book as a hatchet-job? You never mentioned this before, and I've never heard of it. We previously went to an editor to determine if Treglown's book was a reliable source, and the editor said it was. Also, the Literary Review incident can potentially be corroborated by going to a journal database, as many universities provide. marbeh raglaim (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course RD is dead, but his immediate family are not, so when we label him an antisemite (in effect, as the article does), on very flimsy evidence, and make it a big part of his one page biography, then we are in a grey area inasmuch as it affects living people and the continued reception of his works. Felicity Dahl considered Treglown to have betrayed the confidences given him [152] and the book was published without the family's consent [153]. Although the section cites different sources, the stuff that has any teeth is from Treglown, and it's third hand tattle-taling at that. What's more AFAIK Dahl was never given a chance to answer these reports, made by people who possibly had an axe to grind with him. Looking at your sources, besides Treglown, one is behind a paywall and cannot be verified, another (the Appleyard interview) does not exist when I search for it other than on the wikipedia page, so may be inadmissible. And none of these quotes really prove that he was an antisemite in the strict sense of the word. Yes, he had major issues with Israeli aggression and murder of civilians, but so do billions of people (I use the word billions advisedly). He said he was an antisemite inasmuch as he disliked British Jews who championed the actions of Zionism and Israeli aggression. So what? He's a writer, for heaven's sake, not a politician. And he's famous for his books written for children, in which these issues are never raised. You have used the article to soapbox your own small interest in him, which is not of general interest. So weight and notability issues are overwhelming here. ► RATEL ◄ 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the BLP policy - it affects only living people, not dead people who have living relatives. Its scope is intentionally limited and efforts to expand it have been rejected routinely by the community.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, but my current opposition to the extensive coverage of these trivia in this biography does not rest on the BLP policy in any way. ► RATEL ◄ 04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The links you provide only show that Felicity Dahl did not authorize the biography; they do not say she accused it of being full of lies. The book has been positively reviewed in many credible media outlets (New York Times: "Mr. Treglown has produced a scrupulously fair-minded and revealing, if hardly affectionately intimate, account"; The Independent: "Jeremy Treglown treats his complex subject with admirable objectivity"). In any case, Treglown's book provides several sources for the incidents discussed, and these can be corroborated. Here are the secondary sources he mentions:

The New Statesman, Aug. 26, 1983

Sebastian Faulks, The Daily Telegraph, Sep. 18, 1983

files of the Literary Review

He also mentioned interviews with Sir Isaiah Berlin, Robert Gottlieb, Brough Girling, and David Wolton.

Your statement that Dahl's views never made their way into his fiction isn't true; his book Sometime Never reportedly featured a negatively stereotyped Jewish character, and "Madame Rosette" describes its title character as a "filthy old Syrian Jewess." The Literary Review fiasco was not an isolated incident; he not only made the "trait in the Jewish character" remark later, he also accused Jews of being cowards, and falsely claimed hardly any of them served in the British Forces during WWII. Treglown's book claimed he had a history of telling anti-Semitic jokes and engaging in stereotypes. None of this is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, because only the Literary Review incident received wide publicity, but to say he had no pattern of anti-Semitic behavior is simply false.

Your contention that Dahl's explicitly and undeniably anti-Jewish remarks constitute only "very flimsy evidence" of anti-Semitism is absurd. All you're doing is making excuses for them, then hiding under the "notability" criterion as an excuse for removing this material from the article and depriving readers of the opportunity to judge the evidence for themselves. Numerous Wikipedia articles of public figures discuss accusations of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, and most of the time these are based on far more ambiguous remarks than what Dahl said. I have bent over backwards to help make the description of these controversies as fair and objective as possible, but they do deserve to be mentioned, because the perception of Dahl as anti-Semitic did affect the public view of him before and after his death. marbeh raglaim (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Before we go further, could you please supply a working link to a free online resource that documents the anti-Semitism in his books in a credible way? Thank you. If you can prove that, then you have a case. If you cannot, then there is scant reason to include this peripheral and contentious trivia in the article. Even the page on Ezra Pound, a famously anti-Semitic poet/writer, who actually committed his views to paper and broadcast them on radio, contains less on anti-Semitism than does the Dahl page. ► RATEL ◄ 06:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: this review makes it clear why taking Treglown as the main source for the huge 3 para section on antisemitism is unwise. The biography was a nasty hatchet job. And you have selected a small part of it to shoehorn your personal preoccupations into the tiny biography we have there. ► RATEL ◄ 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I have read this review two times and I still cannot see why this biography could be characterized as a "nasty hatchet job". And btw, the requirement of a working link to a free online resource is outright ridiculous. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that sources have to be freely available online; in fact, sources that are readily available in libraries or scholarly databases are preferable to mostly inherently freely availabe webpages. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From the point of view of verifiability, online accessible data is by far the best. In any event, if Dahl's antisemitic writings were notable, there would be online resources, not only obscure offline ones. In any event, for the purposes of this debate, even offline sources are welcome. Where are they? ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is obscure about a biography written by a scholar and published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and reviewed in leading newspaper? I wouldn't call this obscure, but rather a very good source according to Wikipedia's. Surely if the book was a "nasty hatchet job" there would be plenty of refutals and damning reviews. Maybe you could help us find them, offline or online, there must be some.

But anyway, a quick search in Google Books and Google Scholar shows dozens of other topical hits for the keywords "Roald Dahl" and antisemitism. For example: Bernie Raskas, "Seasons of the Mind" page 154 / Richard Abel, "Speaking Respect, Respecting Speech" page 31 / Christopher Winch, "Should Children's Books Be Censored?", International Journal of Research & Method in Education, page 41-51 and so on. That clearly shows notability, in particular given that this controversy dates back to the 1980 when there was no internet and no online coverage of this controversy. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. I'm not talking about Treglown, and I'm not asking for vague search engine hits on "Roald Dahl and antisemitism". I am asking for sources for allegations of Dahl's writing having clear antisemitic aspects. A previous editor commented about a phrase "filthy Syrian Jewess" (seemingly an WP:OR observation by the editor) which is not enough evidence of antisemitism in his writing to make it notable enough for more than a brief passing mention, if at all. ► RATEL ◄ 08:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is really hard to continue assuming good faith here. I even gave you the page numbers of a few books alleging that Roial Dahl's writing was anti-semitic. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're Marbehraglaim? Then why not login and answer as yourself? As to your reply, I see no page numbers and book titles here (I must be blind, or you perhaps made the argument on another page), but in any case you have proven my point, and that is that by giving no online sources for your argument, you prove its obscurity and lack of notability. ► If this famous writer's books were antisemitic, there would be many online resources to prove that and scholarly expositions to that effect◄. But you cannot find one!! Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, and all you can find are book refs? You need to study the concept of npov and undue weight more carefully. Also, the extensive research and collating of material you've done smacks of WP:OR and heaps of WP:SYN. So it's case closed for me, thanks for the debate. I'll live with the shortened version now on the Dahl page. ► RATEL ◄ 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your shrill comment confirms my point about the lack of good faith. If you would just look three paragraphs above you, there are page numbers and book titles. Quoting you: "All you can find are book refs?". Yes, indeed, I beleive the book references are far superios to almost all online reference. And if you think that finding the same information again and again in different sources (i.e. that he has been accused of being anti-semitic) is NOT WP:OR or WP:SYN. That is a very funny interpretation of what original research actually is. Pantherskin (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop morphing from username → IP → new username to give the impression of numbers. You may not realise it, but admins can do a checkuser on you and spot sockpuppetry. I checked the book refs that you gave (on another page), and they are rubbish, plain and simple. You have no argument worth considering that I can discern. I ask any sysop reading to close this silly debate please. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 03:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, so you are requesting comments from other uninvolved editors, and then, not liking the outcome you smear them as sockpuppets. Pantherskin (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC

There has been an RfC started at Talk:Jerusalem#RFC: Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. A few uninvolved admins watching over and stopping any inanity would be appreciated. nableezy - 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Question of Palestine

As anyone can tell by checking my contribs, I edit a lot of Palestine-related articles, and have for over two years now. Lately, its been confirmed for me that Palestine is treated differently than every other disputed political entity here at Wikipedia. Though there have been incremental improvements over the last couple of months, with the restoration of the article State of Palestine and the creation of Outline of Palestine, serious issues remain.

Currently, there is an issue at the State of Palestine regarding the infobox there, which was added by an IP. Its being reverted out by an editor on the basis that there is no country of Palestine. Having been alerted to the presence of pages on other disputed political entites (like Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland which were cited as examples in an RfC on Jerusalem), I've noticed all of them get better treatment of their sovereignty claims than Palestine. While Palestine is recognized by more than 100 countries, and Northern Cyprus only by one (Turkey), somehow its allowed to include things on its page that Palestine's page can only dream of.

The problem, as I see it, is that editors who oppose the existence of Palestine, are basically given free rein to impose their POV all over Wikipedia. Imagine if a bunch of Georgian nationalists kept arriving at the Abkhazia page to delete the infobox claiming it was not a country, or that it should be redirected elsewhere or deleted. Imagine if Palestinian nationalists blanked the infobox of Israel saying its a state with limited recognition. People would treat them as trolls, not good faith editors. And yet in the case of Palestine, this behaviour by those opposed to its existence is tolerated, and even sometimes encouraged. We are told we have to bow to consensus, instead of having people called out for imposing their POVs when no such imposition is warranted or fair.

I just had to get this out of my system really. I really do hope that people who read this board will begin to take notice of what is going on in the case of Palestine. Tiamut^talk 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring one importnat distinction between the State of Palestine and the other disputed political entities (like Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland): All the latter control the territory that they claim - they are the de-facto sovereign power in those areas. The State of Palestine is unique in that it is an entity which although has been recognized by numerous other countries, it controls no territory, and even its own officials acknowledge that the "state" is something that does not yet exist. As such, it reasonable that the other entities will be treated differently and be allowed to include things on their pages that the somewhat unusual 'state without any territory' concept that is the State of Palestine is not allowed- and good faith editors can make those changes without being called trolls or POV-pushers. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the Gaza Strip and the cities and major towns of the West Bank and the immediate surrounding areas i.e. Area A territory? Those are areas controlled by Palestinians. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They are controlled by the PNA, not the 'State of Palestine'. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering how English speaking governments and media totally support Israel's 60 plus years of colonization and tend to squash other information, wikipedia is relatively open to getting out the facts. It's frustrating, for sure. I didn't come to wikipedia to end up spending most of my time on the issue, but those who love truth and good WP:RS gotta do it sometimes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the opening statement is so presumptuous, it's approaching insulting. Frankly, Tiamut, I have long gotten extremely tired of your attitude which suggests that you have facts, and everyone merely just has opinions. Tiamut, you have a box on your userpage entitled Israeli Apartheid: A Chronology. And, yet, here you are pretending that you're the defender of neutrality while there's this trollish, racist, politically-motivated faction out to get you and Palestinians. Please; just cut it out. There's nothing to see here. -- tariqabjotu 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Listing the death and injury count of the IRA in the article lead.

 Note: This issue affects Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 and Provisional Irish Republican Army.

Hi there, I'm following the advice of User:Durova and WP:DR in an effort to help get the Provisional Irish Republican Army out of protection, so that editing can continue. At issue is a sentence recently added to the lead IRA campaign 1969–1997&diff=306487413&oldid=306486375 here. The sentence is:

It is estimated that between 1969 and 1997, the IRA was responsible for the death or injury of over 20,000 people: over 14,000 of these being civilians.

This resulted in this discussion and something of an edit war, which was put to a stop when User:Nja247 protected the page. As things stand now, it seems that User:O_Fenian is unwilling to engage in discussion about how to reword the sentence for as long as m:The Wrong Version is protected, and there is no consensus to revert to the version of the article without the contentious sentence during the dispute.

Which leaves us at an impasse.

I'd like some assistance to come to the article to help the editors reach consensus, get the new sentence (whatever it might be) in place so that the article can be unlocked. Lot 49a^talk 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually my advice was to seek formal mediation (either WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB). Durova²⁹⁸ 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh! So then the idea here would be to try to convince user:O_Fenian to be willing to go into mediation as well as, I guess User:Mooretwin? Lot 49a^talk 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If the diff you provide supports your assertion, can you explain why I have posted to the talk page on a number of occasions since then? Retract your false statement please. Also you claim there is no consensus for removal, can you show me where there was consensus for the sentence to be added in the first place? The sentence is unsupported by the source in every possible way, this has been pointed out and accepted by the other editors (including the "administrator" who involved himself in the dispute then abusively indefinitely protected the page) in the dispute, yet the reader suffers. There is a right version and a wrong version, the right version does not contain policy violating material that misleads the reader. O Fenian (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess my question for you is whether you are willing to hammer out a new version of the sentence (or try to reach consensus to have it removed utterly) while the wrong version of the article is still live. I understand your concern that there is NO consensus for the current sentence, and I agree with you that consensus does not exist. This is why there is a dispute in progress. The problem with a dispute is that when it's active, there is by definition no version which has consensus. It's under dispute! Given the edit war that occurred, a line was drawn. It's necessarily an arbitrary line and none of us should be satisfied that it's currently in place.

The way out of this situation is for consensus to be achieved on a new introduction, that everyone involved can live with. My personal opinion is that the lead should be shorter, not longer, but we'll see how it all pans out. Lot 49a^talk 17:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have repeated maybe three times now, there is a proposal to replace the current sentence with this:

• • McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that by 1986 the IRA had injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.

Mooretwin (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Were was the consensus to insert misleading information into the article? There was none! Since when do we need a discussion to remove misleading information which had no consensus in the first place? Why do Admin's insist on leaving misleading information in an article, and insist that it can not be removed until it is agreed what we will replace it with? The information which was removed did not contain policy violating material that misleads the reader, but pig headedness is preventing it being put back in. Lot49a has attempted to mislead readers here with an personal attack on O Fenian and should be asked to support their claim or withdraw it! Lot49a accepts there was no consensus for the information to be inserted, accepts that an edit war occurred to insert the misleading information. Now they are saying that information that is misleading, which replaced information which did not contain policy violating material that misleads the reader should be left in and reward edit warring! What is the story with that? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you're really frustrated by the situation. The fact is that there isn't consensus for the version without the sentence either. There's a dispute happening, so there is no consensus by definition. Due to WP:BOLD we can frequently expect that additions will be made without immediate consensus. Most of the time this is fine. Sometimes, disputes like the one we are resolving now will crop up. The way forward is for everyone involved to come to agreement about a suitable sentence ASAP. Lot 49a^talk 03:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is very simple, how will the removal of information that is incorrect prevent the matter from being discussed? This is not about the wrong version being protected, it's about misleading information being removed pending didcussion. So stop stonewalling! I'm not really frustrated by the situation, I just don't agree with rewarding edit warring. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right that if the article had been locked on a version without the sentence in question that we could still discuss the changes. By the same token, having the sentence in place should not prevent a discussion about the page. If anything, it should accelerate it so you can get the bad version out! With or without the offending sentence in question, we could be discussing this dispute. The point at which an admin steps in and protects a page is by necessity arbitrary.

You are unhappy with the sentence and the state of things. So is everyone else involved. Let's work together to get a version that we all like and then get that in place and get this article unprotected so work can continue. I've suggested an entirely new wording of the introduction to the article. I'd love to hear your comments on it. Lot 49a^talk 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence should be replaced with the reasonable proposal mentioned above by Mooretwin, its important information which belongs in the introduction, as long as it can be well sourced. I can quite understand why certain editors would not want such information so clearly presented. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lot49a the fact that you are being deliberately obtuse will not deflect me in the slightest. So I'll ask again, what is to prevent the removal of information that is incorrect and misleading while the matter is being discussed? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my position is unclear to you. My feeling is that I'd be fine with the sentence being removed or left in during the protection phase because the important thing is what comes after. Given that the situation is that the page is protected, my intention is to concentrate on coming up with an acceptable to everyone fix. Two admins have already rejected requests to revert to the version without the sentence, so in my opinion the best way out of this mess is for all of us to work on an acceptable version as quickly as we can and get that live.

As you can see on the talk page, I've asked the administrators to mark the article with a {{POV}} template to highlight the issues that you see in the lead. The article now clearly highlights that there is a content dispute ongoing, so readers will know that there is a problem. I hope that this helps address your concerns. Lot 49a^talk 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the origional version be put back in, I'm simply saying that the incorrect and misleading sentence be taken out. Unlike you, I'm not fine with this misleading information being left in during the discussion. Removing the sentence is not coming down on the side of any version, as both will have then been removed. Your suggestion that by leaving misleading information in will have us all work on an acceptable version as quickly as we can is bizarre. If the sentence was removed, remember, one sentence, a sentence that is incorrect and misleading is removed, there is no need for a {{POV}}, the article can still remain locked, and we can still work on alternative wording! So once again, what purpose can leaving this sentence in possibly have on the discussion? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to be clear here: I have no objection to the sentence that you would like to see removed being removed. However, I am not an administrator, I do not have the power to edit a protected article. The request to have the sentence removed has been denied twice by administrators, so my belief is that we should work with the tools we have available to us - namely trying to reach consensus on the talk page - so that we can unprotect the article as soon as possible. I hope that this clarifies things and I hope that you will be willing to comment on the alternative introduction that I have proposed which I think addresses everyone's concerns. Lot 49a^talk 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually three times, and that's because there wasn't consensus to do so. Reagrdless, in the time this back and forth moaning has been happening, I believe a final wording, along with where it should be located in the article could have been agreed. Instead people wish to Wikilawyer about policy and abuse by admins rather than actually sort it. This is why mediation has been recommended, but unfortunately that suggestion hasn't gotten very far either. I'd do it, but it's not my dispute. All of this is totally up to you lot to resolve, and moaning about a sentence over and over again rather than fixing it will not solve or remove it without consensus to do so. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the nonsense! There was no consensus for the edit warring POV IP’s edit, period! You locked the article, and have dug your heels in, claiming that the lock is arbitrary. Arbitrary can also mean uninformed, illogical, and capricious which sums up your attitude and rational quite well. Removing the information which is incorrect and misleading would in no way prevent discussion, and no matter how you try to Wikilawyer your way out of this fact the more pig headed you stance becomes. We have policies on this project such as WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV and on them we have consensus! Most of us also agree that we should never reward edit warring IP’s by having articles locked! But like I said, that is something most of us agree on, but not all obviously. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea that sums up all disputes, ie there was no consensus for the edits in the first place and the wrong version has been protected. You've been told this many times, yet instead of sorting it you continue with the circular moaning here and on the article's talk page. As told to you numerous times already by multiple parties, if you want something removed get consensus to do so. Consistently repeating yourself isn't the way to do it. Or, instead of writing your obligatory repetition of the situation as you see it, take the time to draft a proposal to seek consensus on the article's talk page or for mediation; that way something actually gets done. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out your aversion to the use of common sense and after having the issue clearly pointed out to you and then rewarding of this disruption is not considered moaning by rational and reasonable editors. Your pig headedness in my opinion which allows readers to be misled deliberately is just as much an issue with me as the edit summary and edit itself. You’re in a position to replicate this type idiocy, and while we all have to accept that we will have edit warring IP’s, we should not have to accept Admin’s who encourage them! Edit warring to remove correctly sourced information, should never be rewarded! --Domer48_'fenian' 07:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lida Vorig

Hell, I have complain about user named User:Lida Vorig. She puts small contributions but I found she is adding a lot of unrelevant info to Azerbaijani articles by disinforming the people due she is armenian and got negative views about Azerbaijan.

1st case could be in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huseyn_Arablinski&action=history and writing comment that Seems to fit his personality 2nd case, writing that Shusha is not part of Azerbaijan, despite whole UN and world counts as this city is part of Azerbaijan. It is questioning country's soverigny. See for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latif_Karimov&action=history 3rd case, removing the word "Azerbaijani" from categories about Azerbaijani people by disinforming the nation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masud_ibn_Davud&diff=prev&oldid=310307129 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_ibn_Sa%27ad&diff=prev&oldid=310306985 4th case, adding again not notable info, saying Eynulla Fatullayev is kidnapped, actually this stuff never happened to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Kidnapped_Azerbaijani_people&diff=prev&oldid=310315717

This user is previously warned by user:CaliforniaAliBaba for adding speedy deletions to Azerbaijani!!

I think there is enough evidence to ban her from editing Azerbaijani articles.--NovaSkola (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chodaczkow Wielki massacre

The article is about a massacre of Poles by Ukrainians during WWII. The article creator appears to be Polish. Most but not all of the editors !voting to delete appear to be Ukrainian. And things seem to be getting heated. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism vs Pan-Albanianism

Albanian nationalism is an article full of highly biased claims like "These ideologies and Greater Albania have proponents that are not only nationalists but criminals[9] and terrorists[10] involved[11] in drug trafficking, Human trafficking and other activities motivated by profit [12].". It is completely fallacious to identify an entire nation as criminals and terrorist. Even if there are references citing such claims (there are not) it is not encyclopedic to make such claims.
It is also misleading to cite Us Gov. listing KLA as a terrorist organisation. What their website actually says about KLA is this: "They established a parallel government funded mainly by the Albanian diaspora. When this movement failed to yield results, an armed resistance emerged in 1997 in the form of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The KLA's main goal was to secure the independence of Kosovo." (state.gov). There is also a different, more neutral POV in Greek nationalism, Serbian nationalism and other Balkan states nationalisms that should be also present in Albanian nationalism. AnnaFabiano (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anna is lying and misleading and harrasing the article,pretending not to be able to understand the references,points made in the talk page including myself.Megistias (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Greek nationalism, Serbian nationalism are similar to National Renaissance of Albania , Albanian nationalism in the form it takes today is what is stated in the article.Megistias (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

From the KLA article itself Kosovo Liberation Army.Terrorists.The KLA was regarded by the US as a terrorist group until 1998 when it was de-listed,[3][4] and then the UK and the US lobbied France to do the same.[5]Megistias (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are references for all claims made in the article but of course Anna is interested only in harassing and disrupting.I ve had enough.Megistias (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

I would like to seek help in resolving all the nastiness going on here. There is alot of POV warring by editors with a history in the subject. I don't want to point out specifics as that would be just a list of personal attacks, however we can clearly see bias here among the editors. Help????? Triplestop x3 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above observation and call on any uninvolved administrator to take proper action. Otto (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Prophet Mohammad PBUH

Dear admin

Kindly remove all sort of pictures relating to Prophet Muhammad PBUH as we muslims do not consider it as an appropriate deed. There has been numerous petitions around internet but nothing has been done. Please review your policy as it is hurting moral and religious values of millions of muslims around the world Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.115.192 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 5 September 2009

This has been discussed several times, and always to the same conclusion: Wikipedia has a long-standing policy against censoring relevant and well-sourced content merely because it offends someone. This will not be changed. You might also consider reading our article Depictions of Muhammad. There you will find that there is a long history of visual depictions of Muhammad by Muslims, showing that the notion that such depictions are inherently offensive is self-evidently not universal within Islam. --FOo (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Separatist movements of Pakistan

Can someone take a look at Separatist movements of Pakistan, I think a certain viewpoint is being presented here. It would be good if some could take a look at this. Thanks Pahari Sahib 08:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yue / Cantonese

Not sure this is quite the right board.

There is strong disagreement as to the name of the article currently at Yue Chinese. Several alternatives have been suggested, with some editors adamantly opposed to each one. Perhaps we can get some outside views?

The problem is that the primary meaning of the name "Cantonese", per the OED and other dictionaries, is "of or concerning Canton", with Canton being the city of Guangzhou. Re. language, "Cantonese" means two things: (1) the dialect of Canton and environs, which has spread to Hong Kong and Macau, and (2) the primary branch of Chinese, cladistically a separate language, to which this Canton-ese dialect belongs. This is frequently called "Yue" in the linguistic literature, especially when dab'ing from Canton-ese, and includes dialects such as Taishanese which are often contrasted with Canton-ese. The phrase "Yue Chinese" is taken from Ethnologue, which has long been used as the default source for language information on WP.

In the opinion of myself and several other editors (including at least one Cantonese speaker), the term "Cantonese" is unacceptably ambiguous as the name of the article, since it more frequently means "Canton-ese", and indeed some Yue dialects may not be covered by the name Cantonese even in its broader use. The primary dispute appears to be from some Cantonese speakers, who are adamant that the term "Yue" is unacceptable, because it comes from the Mandarin pronunciation of the lect rather than the Cantonese pronunciation, even though only the Mandarin form is widely seen in English. Many subsequent arguments against this word would appear to be motivated by this objection. There are, however, Taishanese speakers who counter-argue that "Cantonese" is not acceptable, because in their view Taishanese is not a dialect of Cantonese. Others simply find the current title to be awkward. In English, both "Yue" and "Cantonese" are used for this topic; however, we have two articles on WP, one on Cantonese = Canton-ese, currently at Canton dialect, and the one on Cantonese = Yue that is being debated at Yue Chinese. Cantonese is currently a dab page, partially because there's one faction that wants it for Yue, and another that wants it for Canton-ese.

This being a variety of Chinese, both the words 'language' and 'dialect' will be unacceptable to some editors, making the obvious solution of "Cantonese language" vs. "Cantonese dialect" untenable. (There have recently been outraged arguments that Yue is / is not a 'language', even though that is not the current dispute. This problem does not extend to the name Canton dialect, since everyone accepts that as a dialect.)

Yue also has a secondary meaning, of the Yue peoples who populated the region prior to the arrival of the Chinese, and their language. Dab'ing the article from such subjects is also relevant.

I moved the article to its current Ethnologue-based title, which is also the default at WP:Chinese naming conventions (cf Mandarin Chinese, Wu Chinese, etc.), after strenuous objections to its previous location at 'Cantonese'. kwami (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad of Ghor

I've corrected some information in the Muhammad of Ghor article, concerning the ethnic (or race), religion sect, place of death, family relation, etc. There are these 2 users (User:Adil your who is Pakistani and User:Tajik) who are reverting it back to the totally false version, they claim that my corrections are POVs. How is it a POV if sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia University, Nancy Dupree (an American specialist on history who spent over 30 years inside Afghanistan studying the history of that nation) from Kabul University, Encarta, John Walsh from Shinawatra University, and others all mention the same exact thing I've add into the article? Can someone please help settle this and keep eye on the page or protect it from these 2 disruptive users? I'm trying not to break the 3RRs.--119.73.6.155 (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP is that of banned User:NisarKand/User:Khampalak/User:Alishah85, by now banned with over 100 sockpuppet accounts. The information he inserts in the article is POV and falsification. Though it may seem "sourced" to someone who is not into oriental studies, major reference works, especially the Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI) and Encyclopaedia Iranica (EIr), do not support his POV at all. He distorted the main article on the Ghurids as well. His comments on the talk page prove that he is absolutely no expert on the subject, nor does he have the slightest understanding of oriental or Islamic history. He makes some search on google and then quotes selectively. There is an excellent scholarly article available online, written by Clifford Edmund Bosworth, the world's foremost specialist on Ghurid history: see here. The IP also claims that he has used scholarly sources, which is not true. Encarta is not a scholarly source, it has never been, and - as the Wikipedia site explains - it will be shut down in the comming few months. His reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica is misleading, because he does not cite the main article on the Ghurids but a side-reference in an unrelated article, which is not reliable. His claim that he has cited works of the Columbia University is totally wrong, because he has not. In fact, he has removed the EIr which is a grand project of the Columbia University, edited by Prof. Ehsan Yarshater. Anyone who has even minor knowledge of oriental studies or Iranistics knows that the IP - the banned user NisarKand/Khampalak/Alishah85 - is propagating unscholarly, pseudo-scientific, nationalistic POV. Unfortunately, there is not a single admin who has any knowledge of oriental studies or who knows how to differentiate between sources and references. That's why the main article of the Ghurids was protected in a factually wrong version, contradicting itself. I frankly ask the admins to restore the last stable version of the article (16:28, 18 September 2009 by User:Adil your), before it was distorted and falsified by banned users and anon IPs. Tajik (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Creativity Alliance

Could some additional eyes be turned on Creativity Alliance? It is a White Supremacist organization with an editor who thinks that Wikipedia is the place to present the organization's mission statement, holidays and other information that is not supported by third party sources. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 07:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the article about? A group? A web site? As far as I can tell from the text of it, this could be one guy with a blog, i.e. not notable for Wikipedia purposes. --FOo (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Abductive (reasoning) 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Creativity Alliance is a 'secular religion' which touts white supremacy. They've got quite a following. Not pleasant but definitely notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1953 Iranian coup d'état

There is a discussion on the talk page that is rapidly acquiring overtones of national conflict. The edits at issue are probably best summarized in terms of this diff, and there has been a discussion on the talk page to which fresher eyes and opinions would be most welcome. Ray^Talk 05:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish by birth" vs. "ethnic Jew"

There is some ongoing, rather heated, discussion about the use of these terms in the Judaism article, which has recently been protected because of this discussion and the accompanying reversions. Any input which might help resolve the situationn is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Asian fetish

"Asian fetish"/Asiaphile/Asiaphilia is a neologism that appears to be used to refer to liking Asians and/or Asian things and also applied to primarily white men with a sexual interest in Asian women that appears to be characterized as a form of racist love or sexual objectification or sexual fetish. It has been a controversial article with thirteen talk page archives and five Articles for Deletion discussions, several related AfDs, several 3RR reports and an appearance of unreported further edit warring in the article history, Wikietiquette reports, RfCs, etc. The talk page, 3rr reports, etc. discuss how (I am not sure I can adequately or correctly summarize, but I shall try): (1) the (perceived/actual) interest of some/all white men in Asian women might or might not be racist on the part of those white men (2) the characterization of the (perceived/actual) interest of some/all white men in Asian women may be a racist aspersion cast by some Asian men (3) that the concern about a perceived/actual) interest of some/all white men in Asian women may be a racist suspicion by Asian women, etc. This article could use some new eyes with expert knowledge/mediation/constructive input; I've posted to several places seeking community help. (Other ideas just about where to seek help are also welcome). Article was created 06:51, 20 April 2004 by an IP. There are, last that I checked, 122 watchers and about 400 daily page views on average. Has never reached much of a consensus regarding the subject, content or sources AFAIK. Concerns touch on many points, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:Synthesis, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:WAR, WP:DISRUPT, and probably some others. Posting here because chauvinist and nationalist sentiment may (or may not) be one of the factors preventing consensus, for the reasons identified above. I defer to your judgment as to whether it is appropriate for this noticeboard. Thank you! Шизомби (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Demonology and Demonologist

few months ago he/she already had waenings, now and again

Revision history of Demonology:

(cur) (prev) 04:05, 9 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Getting rid of redirecting link.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:07, 9 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,706 bytes) (now it is not a redidirect!) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:31, 8 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Removing a link that redirects here.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:55, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) m (21,706 bytes) (orpho) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:53, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,705 bytes) (agree) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:46, 7 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (This article isn't about the demonologist class in some games.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:35, 7 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,663 bytes) (Undid revision 336140734 by Gordon Ecker (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 04:28, 6 January 2010 Gordon Ecker (talk | contribs) m (21,632 bytes) (removing from the character classes category) (undo)

the sitation is following: 1. the Demonologist is a character class in D&D 2. Ian.thomson removes any info abot that fact from Demonology and Demonologist articles which is a kind of vandalizm (Idot (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

There being a demonologist class in a number of games does not justify that the article about demonology in our world be messed with (as you have done in the past), nor justify that they have a separate article (which you have repeatedly tried to create with original research and some outright misinformation). Also, it is a lie and nothing more to say that I got any warnings from your actions in the demonologist and demonology articles. Adhering to notability guidelines and trying to ensure the quality of articles has nothing to do with ethnic or religious conflict. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Massacres of Albanians in the Kosovo War

There is an ongoing neutrality dispute. Because only few of us are involved, and because I have a reason to be skeptical regarding their good intentions, I decided to ask the help of third party. I just want the opinion of others on this highly controversial article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to do this, but this user came in front of me. I will ask you please to see the history of edits of the previous user and mine to see what is really happening here. He talks about "good intentions", but he oposes to the opening of any discussions against his highly politicized and non-NPOV edits. He has political agenda, that consists in editing in favour for Kosovo independence, wich is not illegal, but when comes to rewritting lies about historic facts, the case changes. Mine intervention just came after watching the maps and words changing in some Serbian historic articles. About the Massacres in Kosovo article, I have nothing against it, just dont want to see the proposition of another editor (to merge the article) to be completely ignored, and the editor called "nobody". This user (Mladifilozof) needs to learn about respecting other points of view, and wears like sheep but is really a wolf. FkpCascais (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This situation is escalating. User:Mladifilozof is a heavy Albanian Kosovar extremist that after making edits and articles about Serbian atrocities in the recent wars (perfectly legal, even thou, someone neutral should review those texts) he edits now Serbian historical articles. Please, I urge you to intervene. FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether he is or isn't - he is right to say that an editor who adds a POV tag needs to explain on the talk page the issues behind the tag's insertion, pointing to specific issues or problems. The only people who can get away with not doing this are administrators. Meowy 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Usage of the word Tatars

Recently the article Shusha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has suffered from editwarring over proper usage of the word 'Tatar'. The relevant background could be found at Talk:Armenian–Tatar massacres 1905-1907, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 12#Proposed addition and Talk:Shusha#Photo attribution. Since associated RfC turned ineffective, an ultimate solution is highly appreciated now. Brand[t] 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Brandmeister. I took a look at the RfC you mentioned above, and I'm willing to provide an outside opinion in lieu of a formal third opinion, which I don't think you can get because more than two editors are already deeply involved in this dispute.

So, my question is whether both sides in the RfC can agree to the following:

1. "Tatar" is a broad term for Turkic peoples.
2. Azerbaijani people are a Turkic people, and thus fall under the term "Tatar."
3. The term "Azerbaijani" did not originate until the 19th century, when Azerbaijan was governed by Russia. It is used commonly in modern times to refer to that ethnic people, however.
4. The term "Azeri" predates the term "Azerbaijani," but it is still in use today. Those terms refer to the same ethnic group, however, and can reasonably be used interchangeably.
5. The girl in the image in question (taken 1898) is certainly a Tatar and most likely an Azeri/Azerbaijani.

If the editors at the article talk page can register their agreement (or disagreement) here, I'd appreciate it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, nowadays Tatars is not an umbrella term, but a separate ethnic group, as the article says. A literate editor would confirm, that the girl in question is not a Tatar, but from some other ethnic group. WP:CAPTION requires unambiguity in identifying the subject. The secondary sources at Shusha's talkpage, provided for WP:PRIMARY purposes, indicate that the girl is obviously an Azeri. However my most recent edit was reverted once more. Brand[t] 10:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "Azerbaijani people" is not correct the way you are using it. An "Azerbaijani person" (i.e. an Azerbaijani) surely is just a citizen of the modern country called Azerbaijan. Membership of an ethnic group has, theoretically anyway, nothing to do with having that citizenship - though these days it is impossible to be an ethnic Armenian Azerbaijani, difficult to be an ethnic Russian Azerbaijani, and best to be (or live like you were) an ethnic Azeri Azerbaijani. If you mean "ethnic Azeri", then they are mostly not "Turkic people" - they are, genetically it seems, mostly Islamicised and Turkified descendants of the populations that were there before the arrival of the Turks. But that doesn't help us much in deciding what word should be used. What source do you have that says the word "Azeri" predates "Azerbaijani"? Meowy 02:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I expected you to comment like that, so a bit of parroting from me: does a featured article on Azerbaijani people refer to the citizens only? :) Brand[t] 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The label most readily used by the Russians to refer to the Caucasian and Central Asian Muslims was Tatar, driving from the Turkic Tatar tribes whom the Russians had encountered centuries earlier. [source: Azeri women in transition: women in Soviet and post-Soviet Azerbaijan by Farideh Heyat, Central Asia Research Forum Series. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. p. 51]

Britannica 1911 edition: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks mingled with Armenian, Georgian, Lesghian and other blood. But the name is often loosely applied to any Mahommedan Caucasian tribe.

In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... Source: Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, by Stephen F. Jones, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19

So the problem is also in the fact that Tatar did not necessarly mean a Turkic speaking person, but was applied to most Muslims in the region by Russians. Claiming Azeri is retrieving more information from the source than it contains, it amounts to original research. While it's true that probably it was a Turkic speaking person due to the demography, more than raising this fact would be original research.

Nothing like the original research is here. Wikipedia is not a 19-th century encyclopedia, we should apply secondary sources to interpret what primary ones say per WP:SECONDARY. The existing policies deal with that pretty clearly. Brand[t] 06:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles related to Palestinian statehood

The discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Articles related to Palestinian statehood per User:Taprobanus's suggestion. Please make your comments there. DrorK (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of Baltic States

Please take a look at this article with long standind and ongoing dispute between pro-Baltic and pro-Russian editors. Any RFC and mediation procedures proved ineffective (meditation has been rejected by the pro-Baltic side [154]). Currently the page represents Baltic point of view as the only correct with some users argue that Russian sources sould be completely removed because "Russia is underdeveloped authoritarian country"[155] with accusations of extremism and nationalim from both sides.--Dojarca (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A good example how a stable article can be turned into a mess in a short period of time.--Termer (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A lie here. The article has a separate sections with Soviet and Russian views - and the sections have been there for years. --Sander Säde 09:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fake references

Editor Galassi is inserting he was significant proponent of the Blood libel against Jews into Vladimir Purishkevich article. Galassi supports this with two refs.

• http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/17_r/rez/reznik.html - Russian-language source that calls Purishkevish "leader of early Russian fascism" but says nothing about Purishkevich connection to blood libel. I guess, putting this fake reference, Galassi hoped that most readers of English Wikipedia will not understand what was really written in Russian-language text.
• http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/studies2.html - text by William Korey (lobbyist on international issues for B’nai B’rith). There are two sentences about Purishkevish in the text. "One of the Union's reactionary leaders, V. M. Purishkevich, was referred to by his Sovbiographer as a “fascist” who had set an authentic style for a movement that would blossom forth in Europe a decade later.", "While the Union's chairman was a physician, Dr. A. I. Dubrovin, and his two deputies were a nobleman-landowner (Purishkevich), and an engineer, the majority of the membership ranged from petty-bourgeois elements to unemployed workers, peasants, skilled proletarians, and professionals." Again, nothing is written about Purishkevich's connection to blood libel.

Attention from uninvolved editors needed. DonaldDuck (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Serbophobia

I found the above in the articles in need of wikification, but I think it needs an eye casting over its neutrality, especially in regard to the sourcing. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Name "Marianna" in Russian culture

In article Anna (name) user Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs) said that name Marianna is in use in Russia. But it is not true. I'm Russian. I've read many books about Russian history and Russian classics literature and i've never heard about any Russian named Marianna. I heard about Americans, Mexicans, even Britons but never Russians. To prove my poont of view i've found few links. On these pages listed all the most popular and even rare names of Russian culture. These links are posted on discussion page Talk:Anna (name). But user Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs) cant prove his point of view. He told about Marianne Pistohlkors who lived in Russia but she wasnt Russian - she was Latvian. --RussianSpy (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• That the name is and was used is obvious to anyone who can type it into google. You may argue that Marianna Vertinskaya is Chinese (she was born there) and that Marianna Maksimovskaya is an Israeli (she worked for Gusinsky), you may even argue that Marianna Strizhenova is in fact Marina (she changed name to Marianna), but spamming irrelevant links will not advance your statement as presented.
• However, labeling the name as a "Variant form of Anna" in Russian language (not culture neither territory) is quite dubious. This link seems weak. NVO (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnographic map caption

User:Kostja is going around adding the following [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] to the caption of an ethnographic map from the 19th century, on the grounds that it is sourced. Yet upon reading his source, it is quite evident that it doesn't say what he claims, namely that the cartographer A. Synvet. is "pro-Greek". He is clearly misquoting the source. I have already brought this up with the user, but got (predictably) nowhere. Thus, it would be nice to get input from some uninvolved editors to gauge where community consensus lies. Athenean (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't claim that you brought it up with me, but got nowhere. I haven't even have time to respond yet.

To Athenean's objections, I'll reply the same way I've replied at Talk:History of Kosovo. Synvet was closely connected to the Constantinople (Greek) patriarchate [172]. He has also been claimed to have "adopted a novel method of belittling the Slavic claim" and is claimed to have been a Greek schoolmaster though I understand this may be wrong [173]. I would say that this is quite convincing evidence.

Still, if it's objectionable that the quote is not correct, then perhaps a compromise could be suggested where the caption is changed to "a pro-Greek map". Kostja (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You did it just some minutes before when Athenean reported it. First you added a misleading caption about A.Synvet being pro-Greek while the source says nothing about him, then you brought an utterly unreliable reference saying the ridiculous that A.Synvet was a Greek schoolmaster. As I told you he was not, he was a Frenchman, and the Ottoman Imperial Lyceum of Galataserai was not a Greek, but a Turk high ranking college, which had always Turk-national and prominent nationalist governors, known in being well connected with the entire Young-Turk movement. Also the opinion that everything that "belittling the Slavic claims" in Balkans is pro-Greek, is also ridiculous. A map "favourable to the Greek cause" is not pro-Greek. Is favourable to the Greek cause. Please stop playing with the words and misusing refs. That's unacceptable. --Factuarius (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The utterly unreliable source is the same one from which you took the statement that the Vidal Lablache atlas was pro-Bulgarian. SO if you think the source is unreliable then you would agree to removing that statement?

It's you who are playing with words. Of course a map favorable to the Greek cause can be called pro-Greek. You need to read Wikipedia:LAWYER. Kostja (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a good place to discuss similar cases of captions in other ethnic maps. Another case which has raised significant arguments and edit warring is the insertion of "pro-Bulgarian" in the caption of this map [174], for example at First Balkan war#Background and Demographic History of Macedonia#Independent_point_of_view. This is based on a citation which says: "For example ... Vidal Ladlache atlas all contained pro-Bulgarian ... maps" [175]. I need to add that this this statement has been inserted by Athenean [176] and other users who have opposed my caption about Synvet ont the grounds that it was misquoted despite the fact that this is also blatant case of misquoting. Also, unlike in Synvet's case we don't have the context about the Atlas and we don't know the circumstances or inclinations of it's author. An Atlas can also contain maps with different viewpoints and there is no actual evidence that this is the map being referred to. This seems to be an obvious case of double standards so it would be a good idea if a general decision was reached on the topic of such map captions so that conflicts like this could be avoided. Kostja (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1)The reference about "Vidal Ladlache atlas" is not mine. 2)A reference saying "Other maps (not other geographers) amongst other ..(three geographers)... were "favourable to the Greek cause" is perfectly clear. Maps favourable to the Greeks doesn't make the persons themselves pro-Greek, and cannot use it to input a text that characterize the persons like "..by the pro-Greek A. Synvet". That's the issue here. And as you may know actually they were not, at least definitely the one of those three.

3)As for the double standards If I remember well you removed the ref about Vidal Ladlache atlas from every single article having that map because it said that the maps were pro-Bulgarian. --Factuarius (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1)It's not yours but you have reinserted it multiple time: [177], [178], [179], [180], [181] and so on. 2)The source says "contained ... pro-Bulgarian maps. An Atlas can contain different viewpoints, also any evidence that this is the map being referred to? 3)I removed it because it was quoted incorrectly.

From your statement above it seems that "Maps and politics: a review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia" is an unreliable source because it wrongly mentions Synvet as being Greek. Therefore, this source is also unreliable on the question of the Vidal Lablache atlas.

Kostja (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that all such labels as 'pro-Greek', 'pro-Bulgarian', 'pro-Serbian', 'pro-Albanian', 'pro-Macedonian' etc. ought to be removed and their further use discouraged (at least in the case of maps) by means of some WP regulation. They put a patronizing, disproportionally heavy connotation (generally negative), and what is more important, even if properly sourced such labels are after all the opinion of someone else who may well in turn be 'pro-something' and 'anti-another'. I propose to discuss this and consider the introduction of some WP recommendations to that effect.Apcbg (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Off course I reinserted it. It's unacceptable to add a reference about a map, in particular that of Stanford's, in being pro-Greek and then to edit warring in the same article for not allowing another reference about Vidal Ladlache's maps for being pro-Bulgarian. And after finally succeeding to remove the pro-Bulgarian ref about Ladlache atlas with pure edit warring tactics, now you come again and by clearly misquoting a source, you are trying to push another characterization for another mapmaker, this time A.Synvet, in the same article while you continue denying to permit such a ref for the V.L. maps. What you really want Kostja? This is a ridiculous situation and nobody can accept it. Can't you understand that? Anyway I agree with Apcbg. It is a matter of time to find a ref characterizing pro-something every single ethnological map of the era. Not to mention what will happen when we will find for the first time two conflicting characterizations for the same map or mapmaker. One in being "pro-something" and another "neutral", which is also a matter of time. Whenever we have different points of view to present in an article about the ethnological situation two-three different maps presenting the respective points of view are by themselves enough. This fashion feeling with pro-something refs the captions Kostja already introduced in some 10 articles is leading to nowhere than continuing conflicts.--Factuarius (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My position is we should not just remove those political characterisations from the captions, we should instead, in many of these cases, remove the maps themselves. It has unfortunately been a long-standing favourite game of various national POV-agenda editors (among them several whose names I see in this thread) to play around with these historical ethnographic maps, always misusing them as implied arguments to bolster up some POV position maximising the historical role of an editor's favoured ethnic group and marginalising the role of some other. What we need to recognise is that all historical (i.e. late 19th - early 20th cent.) maps of disputed Balkan areas (like Macedonia, Epirus, etc.) were heavily politicised, and convey the biases of their various authors. Every such map is a primary, not a secondary source, and needs to be used with great caution. They should be included in articles either in such a manner that their political background can be explicitly discussed based on good sources, or they shouldn't be included at all. In practice, this means reducing their use to some very few, centralised places (e.g. the article on Demographic history of Macedonia), where a full, detailed discussion of the politics of demographic cartography can be done not just in a short caption but in the article text itself, and where the article will explicitly discuss as many maps as possible in comparison with each other. The POV games about pushing individual maps in and out of articles elsewhere based on editors' political preferences needs to stop.

The edit-warriors should also recognise that the whole attempt at pushing (or defeating) this or that POV through the use or non-use of maps will in most cases be utterly futile: outside readers will never read and understand the fine detail of the maps anyway. Certainly not to the extent that they would "get" the intended (or feared) messages of ethnicities "laying claim" to this or that bit of territory. Readers don't know Balkan geography, and won't learn it from these maps. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cannot understand a word of what Fut says, except that of his usual opinion that the best solution for a head on pain is to cut it. I said: Every time we have an historical situation based upon conflicting points of view between the belligerents, let say between Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbians (like the Second Balkan War) the best solution is to allow three maps presenting the respective points. This will allow the reader to fully understand the points of friction and the reasons behind that. What Fut says: "They are all POV and must remove them all or nearly all". In such situations the best solution for a NPOV presentation of the events is to clearly and in summary present the point of view of every part. Or what else? Is there any more clearer and more summarized way to do it except by a map? Showing fully graphically every part's point of view. What to understand of the Balkan events without ethnological maps? That all the nations were just conquers of the only true and original people, that of Macedonians, unfortunately nowhere in the maps under consideration (as almost in any other of the era). Well is not my fault, and certainly also not a reason for removing every Balkan ethnological map of that era from WP. --Factuarius (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Very bad idea. What you are saying amounts to accepting that we should in fact be using historical maps to bolster up the POV of our national editorial factions. That, in itself, is the mistake. As soon as you are fixated on the idea: "this map presents my POV, therefore I want it in", you are the problem. The solution then is not to give each faction its quota on how much it gets to push its POV through abuse of maps; the solution is for everybody to stop abusing maps. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And now you understand nothing of what I said. In your aggressive way of thinking you believe that what I am doing is to defend a "POV", "my quota" from an article. Well you are wrong. In the past two months I asked by personal mails two times, two different admins, to cancel sanctions against fellow Bulgarian co-editors having disputes with me in various articles. Let me know if you want their names. I am not what you think I am. From my part what concerning me is your inclination to "give" the truth to the reader rather than to "let him decide" giving him info. Whatever you say, two or three ethnological maps are the most clear and summarized way to present a conflict of interests based upon ethnic issues. The issue in abusing maps has already a wise solution User:Abcbg gave. --Factuarius (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems most rational people agree that all so called ethnographic maps of the Balkans prepared in the eve of the Russo-Turkish and Balkan Wars by foreign authors (foreign meaning people not representing the Ottoman Government under which these territories situated, and the only able and capable body of conducting any type of meaningful census and population classification) are a simple pretext to illustrate a more favourable ethnic disposition and thus justification for grabbing Ottoman lands in favour of one or other neighbouring Balkan fraction. Having this in mind I find Kostja’s behaviour of going about in dozens of articles and marking certain maps only as pro-Greek and leaving those that are pro-Bulgarian untouched as just a pro-Bulgarian POV pushing. This kind of behaviour achieves nothing and leads only to edit-wars. I find it strange that after being recently banned from Wikipedia Kostja does not seem to have any intention of changing his editing behaviour. Quite funny that e.g., Synvet and Stanford are pro-Greek, but e.g., the maps of Thrace by the linguist Lyubomir Miletich are not POV…the man claims to have single-handedly counted the whole population of Thrace even doe during 1912 Bulgaria had no control over the area and in fact for the next 2 years the territory in question was a stage for a savage war. Since Synvet and Stanford contradict Miletich for the ethnic composition of Thrace and the legend of Bulgarian ethnic domination of the area Kostja in an orderly Bulgarian fashion for historical correction has marked them as pro-Greek lol...keep up the good work Hittit (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hittit, are you participating in this dispute to discuss policy or to share your opinion about me? None of the things you said have anything to do with POV. To declare a map pro-something a source is needed. You may not believe but I searched quite long to see whether Lejan, for example, was described pro-Bulgarian. You and anyone else are welcome to add this information map that is properly sourced. However, instead you remove sourced information with the spurious argument that I haven't added information about all maps, which is really ridiculous. If everyone behaved like you, no differing viewpoints could be listed on Wikipedia, because someone would always remove it with the argument that not all viewpoints are listed.

I don't see what Miletich's map has to do with this. Of course it's pro-Bulgarian, that's implied by the fact that it was made by a Bulgarian. However, it has little to do with the Issue, as it's not even included in most of the maps under discussion. By the way, ethnic insults like "Bulgarian fashion" are unacceptable on Wikipedia, so stop adding them.

And I find it almost funny that your nationalist POV is declared the position of rational people. Kostja (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

About ethic maps, I agree with Factuarius (yes, surprising :)). Ethnic maps certainly have a place in those articles (though there shouldn't be as many as there are now). They must, however, be placed in their proper context and in the correct balance. This brings us back to our discussion. About Synvet, I see now that the evidence about him being pro-Greek is inconclusive, so I don't insist on it any longer. I do insist on adding "pro-Greek map" to the caption as the evidence there is conclusive. About the Vidal Lablache Atlas, according to Factuarius, it's based on an unreliable source, so the "pro-Bulgarian" caption must be removed. Kostja (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, it seems you are the only one who insists on politcial qualifications to the map legends. As far as I can see, everyone else on this discussion agrees they need to go. Going around adding "This map is pro-X" from article to article is tendentious editing. Athenean (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A small detail for Kostja: But you had removed the Vidal Lablache reference in being pro-Bulgarian long before I said a word about the reference's claim for Synvet. Why you did it? And why after that you came back using that very source in your effort to prove that Synvet was a pro-Greek mapmaker? Adding to Hittite's opinion, I found your general behaviour in the issue by definition uncharacteristic and that is what is all about here. Anyway, I co-sign every word of Hittit and I agree with the Athenean's proposition, (I have already explained the reasons why I agree with Apcbg). --Factuarius (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean: You might not understand it but constantly accusing other editors of various offenses is certainly not the spirit for productive discussion. Of course I see that map captions might be accused of not being objective but in this case we must observe strict balance in proportion. You might have forgotten it but the first caption I added (to Stanford's map) was because you and other Greek editors insisted on it remaining in multiple articles despite that everyone could agree that it was an outlier. As a compromise it was agreed that the map would be presented in its proper context, ie with a caption. Now you want to remove all captions, so I hope you'll be more flexible on the question of which maps should remain in articles. You have demonstrated quite tendentious behavior (another reason why your accusations are misplaced here) in the past, for example insisting that Lejean's map be removed with the same arguments - that it was wrong - which you dismissed in the case of Stanford. If this issue is to be solved in a constructive manner, we should all try to be a little less hypocritical.

I agree that there are too many maps. I propose that for a start we remove all maps, except those in articles about demographics and about ethnic groups where the objectivity at those map can be discussed at length. But the practice of adding and removing maps for tendentious reasons needs to stop.

@Factuarius: You have mixed up the chronology. I was always against the caption because I believed it was misquoted, not because I thought the source unreliable. This is why I used the same source on Synvet. Since I understood that this source is unreliable, I have stopped defending, but I insist that if it's unreliable on the question of Synvet, it's also unreliable for the Atlas - we can't have a source that is reliable for on article, but unreliable for another.

And what exactly do you mean by agreeing with every word by Hittit? You have added such captions yourself, so you are hardly in a position to criticize. Kostja (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that removing the maps themselves would be too radical, depriving the articles from a valuable and informative encyclopaedic resource. What ought to be decided carefully however is the balance, keeping the proportion between existing old maps and ones presented in the articles here, reflecting the obvious fact that some maps are percieved as more favourable to one or another ethnic group (which does not mean such maps are necessarily incorrect or biased). Apcbg (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a very sensible proposal. Removing all the maps from every article except Demographic History of Macedonia is a bit radical, but the current situation is also a bit excessive. There are articles where such maps are not really needed. In any case, our readers are smart enough to realize that these maps are 100+ years old primary sources, and not to take them at face value. As long as the date of the map is included in the caption and the maps properly discussed in the article text using secondary sources, there shouldn't be a problem. Trying to cram political qualifications into every single caption is OTT. The captions should contain nothing more than "Ethnographic map of the Balkans by the X cartographer Y, date." Which cause the map is favorable to should be discussed in the main text, using secondary sources. Athenean (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed that too, presently some of the articles have too many maps, which are more likely to confuse rather than make it easier for the reader. This situation is probably the result of editors adding more maps in order to improve the balance — if that balance, the suitable number and choice of maps is discussed and agreed in advance, then the problem could hopefully be managed better. Apcbg (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that in articles that are not about demographics, the question of the neutrality of those maps could be properly discussed. That's why they should be no ethnic maps where they are not directly relevant. Kostja (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names for Romanian localities

Hello

I would like to ask your opinion about the format that should be used in the lead sections of the articles about localities from Romania with an important Hungarian population

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.".

My opinion is that according to wiki rules Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name)

I just want to respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule

Sorry if it wasn't a good idea to open this thread here (Umumu (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC))