Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard/Archive 2

Cyrus cylinder as a charter of human rights, redux

The issue of the Cyrus cylinder as a supposed charter of human rights has come up yet again on the Human rights article (summary version: Iranian nationalists and political figures claim that the CC is the world's first "human rights charter"; historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic). This has been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's being discussed at Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder, where the usual suspects are demanding that it be included. Some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Immigrant criminality

This seems like the right noticeboard for this, though there's no current heated dispute. This article, Immigrant criminality, seems to suffer from some of the problems that Race and crime in the United States has seen, which is just dumping in statistics and anecdotes of criminality among immigrants with no real analysis or discussion of the issues. Help would be appreciated on seeing if it can be knocked into shape. Fences&Windows 22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiruvalluvar

Someone seems intent on "proving" that this man isn't a Jain. I've removed the inappropriate "religion" section a few times but it has been reinserted. Pollinosisss (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009

There is an ongoing edit war over (mostly) the ongoing news coverage by major news media around the world. As United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 is of limited duration (Dec 7-18) this 'war' only needs to last through the 18th to achieve the goals of Arthur Rubin: only providing The Economist (a top source, one which I added), and no other news sources. As different areas of the world have different views, I had included what I considered the best and best-known representatives of such. This is an important international conference, and all views need to be recognized. As we've seen in other controversial ongoing event coverages, it's difficult to keep them balanced and avoid issues such as undue weight. Therefore, External links are essential for our readers. At first I thought Rubin was simply against any climate change conference, which would explain why he removed the Google Map tours and various official websites, but his insistence on leaving only The Economist made me think this might be more of a geopolical conflict. I would like the External links to remain in place at least until the Conference is over, at which time we might be able to have a calmer discussion. He does not agree. As time is of the essence, as the Conference is currently is session, I would appreciate a rapid resolution of this. Thank you. Flatterworld (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So this disagreement is over two points:

1. Including or not including official social networking links
2. Including a large number of media links, or fewer. Evil saltine (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this on this subboard of WP:AN? Are you implying that Global Warming is a religion? In any case, I concur with the scope of the dispute, except that I would accept a news article about the conference if it contains information unlikely to be in other news articles, but a news portal about the conference is quite problematic, regardless of article count, per WP:ELNO#16. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ethnic Macedonians

At this template there is a conflict about which (if any) symbol should be used on the template. Some users are suggesting using a lion banner which has no official status and never did, and is not supported by any reliable sources (beyond a handful of nationalist websites). Others including myself are suggesting using the nation-state's national flag or no symbol at all.

The lion banner appears to have been pushed into the article some time ago and the only real argument for keeping it is "it has been there a long time". Any attempt to remove the lion banner from the template is met by a prompt fly-by revert and a general reluctance to discuss the issue on the talkpage. At best we'll get one stand-alone comment, and at worst trolling comments which demonstrate no understanding of the concept of reliable sources.

This dispute goes way back (check the talkpage archive) and some assistance would be appreciated. Dispute resolution (discussion) doesn't seem to be working, and I doubt anything else will, as there appears to be a general unwillingness on the part of the pro-lion users to discuss as long as the template is in their version.--Ptolion (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Farabi ethnicity

The ethnicity issue is a heated subject and a cause of edit wars in this article and similar articles (I watch Geber and occasionally revert users who remove the Persian ethnicity claim [1], or the Arabic ethnicity claim [2]). In Al-Farabi article the dispute is about Persian and Turkish ethnicity claims. The current version of the article semi-endorse with original research and in a bias way the Persian ethnicity claim over the Turkish claim and give undue weight to Encyclopedia Iranica.

I tried to be non-selective by searching Google Books for "al-Farabi + origin" and "al-Farabi + ethnicity" to get a sense of how this subject is covered.

The sources that talk about his ethnicity in this search were few and mention it briefly, usually in one line. More sources mention the Turkish ethnicity than the Persian ethnicity [3] [4].

I suggest that we mention briefly that his ethnicity is disputed with refs for each claim, without endorsing any claim. Britannica takes this approach "born c. 878, Turkistan...his ethnic origin is a matter of dispute". I made this proposal in the talk page but received no response, but I suspect that once I change the article that it will be reverted so I came here preemptively.

My suggested version:

There is no consensus on the ethnic background of Farabi. All sources on his ethnic background have been written at least 300 years after Farabi and these few classical primary sources have described his ethnicity differently and modern sources differed accordingly. Some sources described him as Turkish(sources) and other as Persian(sources).

Some of the sources that mention that he was Turkish are listed here. Sole Soul (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A template language issue

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26#Template:Maros_.28Mure.C5.9F.29_County. Pcap ping 03:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

First Bulgarian Empire

A debate over the lead of that article is ongoing here Talk:First_Bulgarian_Empire#New_proposal_for_the_lead. After a promising start, the debate has now stalled. I don't think the question will resolve itself unless outside editors weigh in. Athenean (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cave of the Patriarchs massacre

I perceive a problem at this page. Several users who have caused problems in the past related to their propagation of Chabad beliefs all over Wikipedia[5] have been working to gum up the works at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.

The trouble lies in a tendency among this Hasidic group's beliefs to celebrate or rationalize the killings of Arabs in the West Bank, particularly in regards to the Baruch Goldstein massacre.[6][7] So what I'm faced with at the page is the endless blanking of any text which reflects badly on the Israeli extreme right, and insistence on endless (often circular) discussion about every element of deleted text. It's very difficult to presume good faith, in particular, from User: Debresser, who has often taken what seems to be a quite duplicitous tack in discussions. Revisionist historical accounts depicting the massacre as self-defense, which have roots in Chabad rabbinical writings, are a canard which will continue to haunt the page (see "Baruch Hagever").

Perhaps someone could look in? DBaba (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also welcome outside input, by all means. I hope we can keep it concentrated on the talk page section Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Persecution_of_Muslim. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian vs. Greek (editors)

Longest ever ANI post? It looks like such contents matters are best handled here, and failing that the behavioral dispute should go to ArbCom. ANI is ill equipped for dealing with massive amounts of evidence and arguments like that... Pcap ping 22:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki deletion in Kochari

Some users deletings interwikis to another languages about dance Kochari (dance is popular in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia etc. and there is articles in these languages) (Examples [8], [9], [10]). Can somebody stop them?

Or protect an article. --Interfase (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is safe to say that any Interwiki to its Azeri article which relates to AA matters should be removed. Users should be aware that Interfase has been involved in mass-scale falsification in Azeri articles which says a lot about his contributions here on the English Wikipedia. For those who never visit the Azeri Wikipedia... they have tagged every article they could get about Armenia and Armenians as Western Azerbaijan (Qərbi Azərbaycanda (indiki Ermənistan)) including this article which Interfase has reported as having its Interwiki removed. - Fedayee (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

I don't know if this is relevant, but 68.82.2.122 ‎keeps replacing the article on the Ulster Defence Association with IRA spam. This seems conflict enough, but I just warned them a couple times. I don't think it's that important though. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{what are you} _{looking at?} 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if the police would be interested in that? SGGH ^ping! 16:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD National revival

• National revival. AMuseo (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis

Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Jammu & Kashmir issue

I unfortunately do not have time to address this issue, but Jammu & Kashmir issue was the subject of a complaint e-mail sent to the vandalism OTRS address. I moved the article back to the userspace and asked the creator to read up on Wikipedia policies, especially in regards to citing sources and neutrality. The creator moved the article back to the main namespace, and told me they had no idea what could be wrong with the article. (the article with sentences like 9/11 provided a god sent opportunity for India to taint and defile uprising in Kashmir as terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism.) Anyway, as I said, I don't have time to help out this editor, and the article reads now like a soapbox/rant at times. So I'm hoping someone here can step in and have the time and patience to explain things to the creator. Thanks! -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflict at article Joseph Smith, Jr.

Background

Joseph Smith, Jr was the founder of Mormonism (or, more precisely, the Latter Day Saint movement). He was a very controversial figure in the 1830s and 1840s, whom his followers revere as a prophet and ideal citizen, while dissenters and opponents often view him as a fraud seeking power.

Conflict

User:Routerone, on several recent occasions, has attempted to provide balance to the article, which he considers to have a negative spin. He has stated that "There is an absolute plethora of information that discusses Smith in a very positive light that is missing from the article".

As can be seen on the talk page, Routerone's attempted balancing edits have been reverted time and again. Routerone loudly protests on the talk page and resulting discussion often leads to overall lack of WP:AGF.

Most notably, in my opinion, User:Duke53 seems to have made little contribution to the article aside from providing inflammatory comments and occasional reverts that only provoke Routerone to protest. In Routerone's exaggerated though seemingly not-too-distant-from-the-truth words, "Duke53 himself's only purpose here on wikipedia is to supress mormons by the nature of his edits and he is openly making fun of them on his userpage..."

Summary

Routerone, despite Personal attacks, at least attempts to amend the article with content; Duke only seems to show signs of disruptive editing. Admins, please review the situation and help Routerone, Duke, and the rest of us to play nice. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses

This is actually a multifaceted problem. Certainly routerone's recent personal attack is a problem ([11]). Duke53 seems to only be around to cause trouble- but Canadiandy, who edits as IPs and a username, isn't much better- at least duke53 makes valid contributions to Wikipedia; Canadiandy only posts on a few talk pages and has made few or no actual contributions, meaning both of the users are in the WP:SPA camp as far as I can tell. tedder (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't what your beef with me is Tedder. The conflict presented to you didn't even mention me, so why the ill will?

First, I'm not sure about the problem with me editing as "IPs." I don't know if I'm the only one who finds this confusing. I am assuming you are referring to my need to create a user name and be logged in? I believe I have been doing that since learning of it with a much greater frequency of late, though I admit I had a time when I was doubly confused after being accused of double signing in (I believe the concern was I was both logged in and '4-tildeing').

To the accusation that I make few or no actual contributions, that is, I feel, completely unfair. In the beginning I was trying to 'learn the ropes' and let the senior members edit while I simply offered insight for improvement. I don't think there's more than 3% of my postings that do not make recommendations for improvement. That I am of the opinion that the article is slanted, and that my opinions are critical of that slant do not mean I have no recommendations for improvement. In fact, on the several suggestions I have made (rewording the term 'movement', capitalizing the word 'prophet' to reflect title, adding references to 'dynastic' nature of temple marriages, exploring validity of Brodie as a reliable source, and recently editing the term 'materialist' based on redundancy) most are usually met with a wall of text against what seem to be very fair proposals. Perhaps this is the context that has Routerone so frustrated.

And now I am accused of being worse than Duke53?

In my defense, I have picked up an awful lot of procedural knowledge in the short few months I've been here. I have apologized readily if I have been insensitive or out of line. I have been busy and offered original insight into systemic challenges and how they might be overcome in an effort to bring real fairness to the article. To the accusation I am an SPA, I am an incredibly new contributor. In that short time I have posted here extensively, but I have also branched into the "Mark Hoffman" article, "Senator Paul Tsongas" "Beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," and I even posted on the "Martin Luther" board against what I feel are unfair accusations of his Nazi influence. Tedder, you have the right to your opinion, but is this how new contributors are usually treated?

You will notice I actually spoke up in opposition to Routerone's statements concerning COgden, though I fully understand his frustration. I believe I have been fair and cautious. I have been focused on improving the article primarily, though I do admit posting occasional responses to offenses I have felt based on the criticisms hoisted against a man I revere as a great religious leader of my faith. But then considering it was you who said, "...most mormons are leery of negative things," that should only be expected of me right? And this was done by me not as an attack but on the assumption others might not understand the impact it has on many orthodox (leery)'Mormons.'

Your post here is, I feel, uncalled for, unwarranted, and unfair. But if you are going to continue to moderate this section, and this is going to continue to be my experience here I have better things to do. I understand hearing these kind of accusations on the discussion page. But when it comes from a senior member it is beyond frustrating. So I surrender. You and Duke53 win.

Sorry Routerone, looks like you're the last leaf on the tree, and there's a stiff wind blowing.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I will admit I was wrong for endorsing personal attacks on various editors (this excludes those directed towards Duke53 however), but I will be sincere in this and question do they really deserve my good faith? COGDen and John Foxe are not "bad faith" editors in this aspect, but in regards to the Joseph Smith article and other LDS related topics they are being incredibly stubborn. One thing they do is preside heavily over these pages, they have an aggressive tendancy to revert anyone who attempts to make a sustained significant change to the content and the structure of the article. This has been going on before I even joined wikipedia. You cannot make a single addition, removal or adjustment to anything in that page without their objection, this is a severe problem considering that the pages in question have en masse of problems. This includes excessive synthesis (self made conclusions from cited sources added as fact), incredibly negative prose, deliberate exclusions and minimization of more positive information on the subect (Yes you try and add it and they revert that too). I just simply cannot see their editing tactics as apropriate or helping, especially when I just want to sort out the page (not vandalize it).

As stated, they have a tactic of reverting my cited additions, but if I was to revert theirs on the basis that I disagree in the same style as they do against me, there would be an outcry. Since december, nobody has actually been able to touch the body of the article apart from those two. The only changes people have actually been able to make (and this is with pushing debate) is to the lead paragraph.

As for Duke53, I really don't wish to give this editor an ounce of respect or good faith to be honest. He's an editor who doesn't contribute to the article (makes intentional fun of my faith on his userpage), or even have a real involvement in the subject. He simply just pops up to disrupt, doing this by reverting legitimate edits for scandalous reasons (eg; falsely accused me of vandalism last month) and generally trolls LDS editors because he has a clear prejudice against the faith, and that is the only reason behind his behaviour. The other two editors are here for a cause that they see as being "constructive", though the inability to admit their faults in the articles or let other editors actually edit them is their downfall. It has to stop, I want to be able to edit these pages freely and fix them. Routerone (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"... fasely accused me of vandalism last month Guess what ? I'm accusing you of vandalism again for your 'edits' here. You do NOT have the right to delete items from my user page, because they are 'offensive' to you. You don't like it: tough ! A simple solution that you might never think of is to stay off my user page ... nobody asked you to visit it in the first place. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, offensive material can be deleted from userpages according to WP:UP#POLEMIC. It was bad form for for Routerone to do it without involving admins, though. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, not items that an individual (or small group) finds 'personally offensive' because they consider it 'sacred'; you might want to check out check out the Mohammed article. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad form ? Even more than that, it is against the rules. I am tickled that 'you' took this Wiki-wide ... now there may be admins who are not so 'user friendly' to Routerone taking an interest in his posting habits and his complete disregard for rules he doesn't 'like'. But, what do you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Another little detail that might come in handy to neutral admins: since you self-identify on your user page that you are a byu alum, it might be safe to assume that you are / were a mormon; a detail like that might be handy in understanding your position in this dispute. But, what do you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Duke53 but stop trying to hide the truth of what actually happened. It was not your userpage your accused me vandalizing. But rather you reverted my legitimate edits I made to thethe actual article and in an act of bad faith branded them "vandalism" [12][13]. That is what you do, you don't turn up, you don't actually get involved, you simply just turn up and revert LDS editors for inapropriate reasons and then accuse them of being "moaning tbm's" when they complain against you. For me that is disruptive editing and trolling. Routerone (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! For a long time I thought that you were merely playing at being dumb ... you do realize that all your contributions here are visible through histories, right ?

To refresh your memory, here are the diffs for your 'edits' to my user page on 03/22/10:

deletion @ 14:52

me reverting you @ 14:56

me warning you at 15:01

Here are the diffs when you deleted items on my user page again (but then apparently thought better of it) on 03/28/10:

your deletion @ 17:22

you reverting @ 17:34

Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Just for the nuts of it here is your response to the warning that I gave you on 03/22/10 (within a minute of me placing the warning on your talk page):

you removing warning @ 15:02 'bogus warning ?

I really doubt you get the jist of things here Duke53, you're even showing up your crude and annoying nature on this very page. So what you're basically saying here is, you can revert any edit I made because I don't agree with the content on your userpage? Because technically this has nothing to do with the dispute, and aside from inapropriately reverting me neither do you really. I am offended by the content on your userpage and I won't make no mistake about it, when removing those pictures I follow WP:BOLD. Ok maybe I shouldn't, but I wont take any warnings from you because to be fair I can't take you seriously as an editor because of the way you troll me about, and why should I? Those things you have highlighted above in all respect, do not justify your attitude here on wikipedia, nor contribute to this discussion. Rather you've brought them on yourself. Routerone (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Make all the excuses you want to, rationalize things in any way you wish, but the bottom line is that I have have exposed you here as a liar ... nothing can change that. Anybody interested will always be able to see that little fact on this encyclopedia. Thank You. :) Almost too easy. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You really have him there Duke53. Impressive. Now for the coup de grâce! That's a French term meaning you should say "stamp stamp no erasies" and then you win for all time!

You know what, Duke53? Of all the attacks here against me, the most hurtful one was when I was compared to you. Seriously. I had hoped that all along my opinions had been taken as informed and educated. In fact, after thinking it over, I figured if I was that lousy a contributor I should pack it in. So I guess, in a roundabout way, you can take credit for my leaving. I know you'll probably take that as a compliment. (-: Smiles.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

When Routerone said that Duke unfairly accused him of being a vandal, he made it clear that he was talking about these edits (Mar 5) and their edit summaries. Had Duke not drawn his attention, Routerone probably wouldn't have visited his userpage and subsequently "vandalised" it (Mar 22). (Routerone removed what he saw as "offensive" on Duke's userpage.) ...comments? ~BFizz 06:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Routerone says (right here on this page) "It was not your userpage your accused me vandalizing" [sic] your newest 'theory' about misinterpreting doesn't hold water. (see diffs I provided) Nice to see you trying more of that 'same old, same old'. But what do you think ? Duke53 | ^Talk 07:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a theory; it was a summary of what should have been blindingly obvious. See Routerone's explanation below. I don't really see what 'same old, same old' you accuse me of. Perhaps it's assuming good faith of Routerone? In that case, guilty as charged. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You have "proven me a liar" how exactly? I have been very honest about this, I edited your page removing those pictures as I found them offensive, and I then removed the warnings simply because I can't take you seriously as a legitimate editor, nor can I respect you and actually think you have a point in anything you are saying. You actually read my last point wrong also, I never said you didn't accuse me of vandalizing your userpage because you did, but I was rather making the point that you falsely accused me of vandalizing the prophets page when my edits were indeed legitimate and meaningful. So please do not tar me with your sloppy "vandalism" and "liar" brush. As for a matter of fact all those diffs show is that I clearly have a problem with your userpage, and generally I can't see how actually being bold towards something I disagree with is vandalism, for to dare is to do and quite frankly I'm not scared of you. Yet at the same time, I wouldn't dream of doing that to any other editor (need I question why?). But rather I find you a WP:TROLL , and apart endorsing in inapropriate reversions in something you're not even working on for the sheer pleasement of your own backwards little prejudice, you really have no involvement at all and are proving to be a distraction. I class your edits towards me as a form of harassment, so please have a good long think before moaning about anything you feel I've done to you, not saying its all fully justified, but I can safely say its all been a matter of your own consequences. Routerone (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:AGF: "Although bad conduct may be apparently due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives (which mention would tend to exacerbate resentments all around)." This ridiculous Duke v Routerone debate is the a great example of what this statement says you shouldn't do and why. Aren't any administrators going to step in and help at all? Only Tedder has a good excuse since he has been involved already. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Following reading another statement on the talkpage of Joseph Smith Jr. I am prepared to now simply ignore Duke53 to avoid any further hassle. However if he makes anymore inapropriate reverts towards my legitimate edits on that page, then I admit I may find it difficult to keep my cool about the situation. Now by no means whatsoever does this justify any incivility by myself or personal attacks (and I now encourage action against me if this happens), but I simply don't want to see him get away from it and restrict my freedom of editing. Because as mentioned his talkpage comments can be ignored (if inapropriate), but inapropriate reversions would require a form sanction. However stating again, he has successfully driven this topic off course from what it actually started off as. Quite frankly, he has little involvement (apart from a couple of bad faith reversions) in the problems I see with this page. Routerone (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

•"You have "proven me a liar" how exactly? I have been very honest about this, I edited your page removing those pictures as I found them offensive, and I then removed the warnings simply because I can't take you seriously as a legitimate editor, nor can I respect you and actually think you have a point in anything you are saying. You actually read my last point wrong also, I never said you didn't accuse me of vandalizing your userpage because you did, but I was rather making the point that you falsely accused me of vandalizing the prophets page when my edits were indeed legitimate and meaningful. So please do not tar me with your sloppy "vandalism" and "liar" brush. As for a matter of fact all those diffs show is that I clearly have a problem with your userpage, and generally I can't see how actually being bold towards something I disagree with is vandalism, for to dare is to do and quite frankly I'm not scared of you. Yet at the same time, I wouldn't dream of doing that to any other editor (need I question why?). But rather I find you a WP:TROLL , and apart endorsing in inapropriate reversions in something you're not even working on for the sheer pleasement of your own backwards little prejudice, you really have no involvement at all and are proving to be a distraction. I class your edits towards me as a form of harassment, so please have a good long think before moaning about anything you feel I've done to you, not saying its all fully justified, but I can safely say its all been a matter of your own consequences. Routerone (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)"

•I have been asking for neutral admins to get involved for a long while; the above statement condenses the reason better than I could do it. Bans given to Routerone for sockpuppetry and edit warring have not seemed to convince him that he MUST follow the rules just like the rest of us. His lying and continued personal attacks should be addressed forthwith; his implied threats ("However if he makes anymore inapropriate reverts towards my legitimate edits on that page, then I admit I may find it difficult to keep my cool about the situation") indicate that he feels that he can still do whatever, whenever, as the mood strikes him. His vigilante attitude cannot, and should not, be tolerated any longer. But what do you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Final reply here

Dear Duke53;

1) Where have I lied? It is fully established amongst others that I clearly haven't. You taken out of context what actually I said.

2)"However if he makes anymore inapropriate reverts towards my legitimate edits on that page, then I admit I may find it difficult to keep my cool about the situation'" After I said this I followed with Now by no means whatsoever does this justify any incivility by myself or personal attacks (and I now encourage action against me if this happens)

3) "he MUST follow the rules just like the rest of "us".'" Us? I don't see you following these standards.

4) '"His vigilante attitude cannot, and should not, be tolerated any longer"'. I've agreed to cut out the personal attacks, ultimately, should your attitude be tolerated?

5) "His lying and continued personal attacks'". The ironic thing is, that statement is a personal attack within itself.

6) "But what do you think?" I think you're no better personally. I can admit I have engaged in personal attacks and incivility previously. However, you seem to think you have done no wrong.

I'm done here. Routerone (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully established? Odds are that you are not an attorney.

""It was not your userpage your accused me vandalizing" You said that above, but then added: " ... edited your page removing those pictures as I found them offensive, and I then removed the warnings simply because I can't take you seriously as a legitimate editor"

'Taken out of context' has become a catchphrase for you ... perhaps your writing skills need some sharpening if people often misinterpret you ?

You have been blocked for sockpuppetry ... you have been blocked for edit warring ... you continue to use personal attacks ... you have threatened to 'lose your cool' if things don't go your way in the future ... perhaps you don't have the proper skill set to be editing at Wikipedia; maybe the f.a.i.r. wiki would be more suitable for you. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Duke53, you're blowing one edit that Routerone made to your userpage (the one that he self-reverted can hardly be counted) way out of proportion. Do you really think he "lied" about it in bad faith? Do you really think he said that "lie" to hide "The Truth" and persuade people to support his argument? Notice that no one has agreed with you yet. While Routerone was talking about something else (hence the out-of-context complaint), he made an incorrect statement, and has attempted to correct himself. Routerone has both admitted to misbehavior and asserted his willingness to reform, at least partially. You, Duke53, have done neither. When an argument is raised against you, you frequently ignore it and change the topic to Routerone's flaws. You use loaded words like "liar" and "he threatens to lose his cool" to portray him in the worst light possible. You dig up the past and ignore Routerone's already-changed approach to Wikipedia. Routerone agrees to cut out personal attacks; you might try following his example. Or, if you don't wish to change your attitude, maybe a blog would be more suitable for you. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Do you really think he "lied" about it in bad faith?" Yes.

"Do you really think he said that "lie" to hide "The Truth" and persuade people to support his argument?" Yes.

"Notice that no one has agreed with you yet." Notice that the only other ones who have responded here are lds members? Way to 'circle the wagons'.

"While Routerone was talking about something else (hence the out-of-context complaint), he made an incorrect statement, and has attempted to correct himself. " If he was 'talking about something else' he probably shouldn't have stated unequivocally that I didn't warn him about vandalizing my user page.

"Routerone has both admitted to misbehavior and asserted his willingness to reform, at least partially. " Bully for him, but he hasn't proved anything of that sort yet. I wish him well.

"You use loaded words like "liar" and "he threatens to lose his cool" to portray him in the worst light possible." Only because he lied, then threatened to 'loose his cool'.

"You dig up the past and ignore Routerone's already-changed approach to Wikipedia. " WP is based on histories (hint: the incessant use of diffs) Care to point out all those 'changes' he's made that you are you are prattling on about ?

"Routerone agrees to cut out personal attacks; you might try following his example. I'd love to see the list of personal attacks I have used against Routerone.

"Or, if you don't wish to change your attitude, maybe a blog would be more suitable for you. Hmm ... just when I was thinking that maybe you'd also be much better off at the f.a.i.r. Wiki; I'd almost forgotten how adept you mormons are at playing the 'victim'( even after committing mass murder at Mountain Meadows!) But what so you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see the list of personal attacks I have used against Routerone. Well, you've called him a liar, vandal, sockmaster, and generally incapable of editing at wikipedia. You've accused him of playing dumb and/or being dumb. You've insulted all Mormons by accusing them of victim playing and mass murder. And you've managed to do all that in this discussion alone. Did you notice the response at WP:WQA#User:Duke53_inflammatory_comments? Someone spoke against your accusation (maybe he wasn't even Mormon). I will seek actual administrative action for your latest insults and general incivility. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've called him a liar He lied about me not warning him about vandalizing my user page.

vandal (see above)

sockmaster he was recently blocked (not by me) for sockpuppetry. He was also recently blocked (not by me) for edit warring.[14]

... generally incapable of editing at wikipedia. Unless he decides to follow all the rules, all the time, this might well be the best thing for him, and us.

You've insulted all Mormons by accusing them of victim playing According to some here, the mormons have never committed any transgressions unless they were retaliatory in nature; see Sidney Rigdon, Salt sermon and "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little"

and mass murder See Mountain Meadows Massacre

Someone spoke against your accusation (maybe he wasn't even Mormon) And maybe he was, and, after all, it is only one guy's opinion that calling a liar a liar is 'incivil'. Factual is factual ... let's call it the way it is.

I will seek actual administrative action for your latest insults and general incivility Be carefull what you asks for ... your recent actions ('unnecessary') will also be analyzed.

But what do you think ?

Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I never argued that your accusations were untrue (though some are certainly unfair). A true personal attack is still a personal attack, and it's still not WP:CIVIL. The list doesn't get any shorter just because you've "proven" that each personal attack is valid. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Duke53. Your statement, "Notice that the only other ones who have responded here are lds members?" is actually an interesting observation. One of the problems I have with COgden and John Foxe is their quickness to defend anti-Mormon researchers, and then their immediate silence when anyone speaks disrespectfully or insensitively to Mormons or their leaders. Thanks for providing evidence of this fact. And for bringing up what you point out what can only be described as bias. It only reinforces what Routerone and I have been saying all along. Thanks.

So I would ask people to lay their cards on the table. John Foxe, COgden, how comfortable are you with Duke53's postings? I'm really interested in hearing the response to this one.

I for one think Duke53 posts rantings which are inflammatory, offensive, and childish.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

((sigh)) Sometimes the hardest part of being 'gone' is the actual leaving. But what do you think ? Duke53 | ^Talk 03:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You will notice I am not contributing at Joseph Smith. I never said I would leave these loose ends undone. Again, poor form. And your making a mockery of BFizz' motto (But what do you think) which is actually a statement of respect and good will, is the intellectual equivalent of calling you "Dukesy Pooksy." Very childish. And don't worry, this is the only context where I will use the term as I refuse to stoop to that level.

Oh, yeah. I don't see John Foxe and COgden coming to your defense here. The silence is deafening.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I see this as just a personal dispute between Duke53 and RouterOne/Canadiandy, and I refuse to be drawn into their war, because it is a waste of time. I think the situation has been handled badly on both sides. I'm more interested in specific efforts to improve the article. COGDEN 17:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case, Cogden, but it leads to WP:TLDR and WP:DNFTT on the talk pages. Ignoring the war just leads to long talk pages and incivility on both sides. Keeping this status quo doesn't seem to help anyone, especially the 'pedia as a whole. tedder (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from Kww

I wind up editing a lot of LDS articles, primarily to protect images and descriptions that tend to be deleted on grounds of sacredness and to remove the occasional anti-Mormon vandalism that gets inserted. In my perspective, they are fairly neutral, and I don't think that material that is specifically pro-LDS/pro-Joseph Smith has much place in Wikipedia. In terms of reverting changes to LDS articles, there have been numerous times that Duke53 and I have been reverting edits in parallel.

That said, Duke53's editing, and the apparent motivation behind it, has always concerned me. His edit summaries seem intended to inflame conflict rather than explain his edits, and his talk page contributions are worse. Every small disagreement becomes a confrontation, and every confrontation becomes a fight. His distaste for the LDS is palpable, and I don't think that serves anyone well.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

I've had trouble with an editor each on two of the four articles, but expect there will be more if I continue, so it's probably best to try to get this resolves here or on wikiproject languages first.

South Slavic is a dialect continuum, like Western Romance or Scandinavian, which several varieties that have been elevated to the status of national languages: Slovenian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbo-Croatian (SC). Now, SC has four national standards: Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian (BCMS). They are all four based on the same subdialect, East Herzegovinian, of the same dialect, Neo-Shtokavian, of the same language, SC, of South Slavic. Thus they are not separate "languages" in the normal English sense of the word; they are only distinct because governments have declared them to be so. Macedonian and Bulgarian are also quite close, and many Bulgarians will say that they are dialects of the same language, but at least they are distinct dialects. This is not the case for BCMS.

Now, I do not wish to deny that BCMS are distinct national standards, and are distinct languages is that sense. But a speaker of any one of them is a speaker of all four, since they're all the same (sub)dialect, but if he said he's quadrilingual, we'd call him a liar. That would be like me saying I am quadrilingual because I speak Californian, Oregonian, Washingtonian, and Arizonian. Even if those states were to declare that their forms of English were distinct languages based on the speech of San Francisco, they wouldn't be so in the normal sense me being able to call myself quadrilingual if I'm from San Francisco.

Currently the Croatian and Montenegrin articles say that each "is a South Slavic language spoken by ...", which misrepresents the issue to the average English speaker. I would like to say that each is a standardized form of SC, for that is factually what they are. For example, something like,

Croatian ([hrvatski] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a standardized form of the Shtokavian dialect [of Serbo-Croatian] used as an official language of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

(some people get really uptight about mention of the word "Serbo-Croatian", so maybe we could drop that, but there is no other name for the language in English, and it would be confusing to just describe them as "Shtokavian".)

The articles go on to say that BCMS are spoken in various places. Again, this is factually incorrect; what is actually the case is that Croats, Serbs, etc. live in those places. The Croatian language is a legal construct; it's essentially meaningless to say that Croats in Serbia speak Croatian, since they speak the same language as their Serbian neighbors. Likewise, it's meaningless to say that the Serbs in Croatian speak Serbian, since they speak the same thing as their Croatian neighbors. We see this in the lists of Croatian etc. dialects, which are really just SC dialects spoken by ethnic Croats, so that a SC dialect may be simultaneously a dialect of Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Serbian. At least in the case of Macedonian and Bulgarian, we can say that dialects X are Macedonian, dialects Y Bulgarian, and that dialects Z are transitional.

So, can we come up with wording for these articles that does not deny their status as official and standard languages, without making the spurious claim that they are distinct languages in the common English sense of the word? kwami (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

While I certainly agree with you that these are standardized forms of the same language, not separate languages, it isn't quite true that they are all based on the exact same subdialect. There are dialectal differences between the written standards (standard written Serbian is ekavian, standard written Croatian and Bosnian are ijekavian [cf. sr:Река vs. bs:Rijeka (vodotok)/hr:Rijeka (vodotok)]; there are lexical differences as well, not to mention the different alphabets). Also, I'm not sure we want our article Croatian language (for instance) to be only about the standardized written language; it should cover all the varieties spoken within Croatia, even if these aren't linguistically monophyletic (cf. Austrian German, which is about all varieties of German spoken in Austria, whether the Austrian variety of Standard German, Austro-Bavarian dialects, or Alemannic dialects). +Angr 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Montenegrin language

"I was suggested by Wiki Admins to post this problem here, so I will just copy from the discussion:

" I wanted to ask for your help on fixing this problem. There was recent edit war on question of Montenegrin language. Until now, articles had written "Montenegrin language" on every Montenegrin articles, but now Serbs reverted it and adding Serbian. Their argument is that Montenegrin doesn't have ISO code. Montenegrin is official language of Montenegro, therefor is used in Government, school, TV etc... ISO standard is expected in one or two months. Here are e.g. of articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcinj
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podgorica Not to mention that battle was won a lot of times before with Admins agreement, but ever few months appear some clone to remove it."

So can you please answer and help me here? So for 2 years it was ok, but suddenly the ISO is the problem, which by the way will be done in couple months. Can Admins please help us with this?"

Here are some of answers concerning the topic only:

":::ISO? That would be more or less meaningless. This sounds like but another edit war over an eastern European topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)"

"I know, but Serbs use it a lot as the argument. Language is offical of the state, government files are written in Montenegrin, All the web sites in Montenegro put in Language selection Montenegrin as language of choose beside Eglish (if there is multiple choice), in school, books and all is written in Montenegrin... only here, there is "Serbian". None one says that those languages are much different but we must respect the most important set of rule in the country, and that is Constitution of Montenegro. It's not the Eastern Europe though :-). Rave92^(talk) 00:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)"

Sorry for copying but when we already started discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Language and just wanted to continue here the discussion.

Rave92^(talk) 11:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwen is right - this is "but another edit war over an eastern European topic" but we need to find a solution as there have been a large number of reverts on a large number of articles around this issue, leading to a fair number of blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article "Montenegrin language" needs to be rewritten per WP:NPOV to include all current interpretations and classifications of Montenegrin (dialect, variety, language) with their respective pros and cons, something along the lines of the corresponding article at the German wikipedia. If then "Montenegrin" is linked, everyone can conclude for himself which scholars he trusts to best judge the subject. There is a similar issue with Slovincian, the status of which as a language on its own is disputed, though in case of Montenegrin the "language" status might be given more weight by scholars as is the case with Slovincian. As long as the scholary POVs are not properly worked out in the Montenegrin language article, admins will have no way to put an end to the edit war of which POV should be promoted more than others. In my view, "Montenegrin" should continue to serve as the default, with a note added that it is a Serbo-(Croatian) dialekt only if that would be backed by the prevalent scholary oppinion. Which needs to be figured out by some linguists in the article first to enable admins to judge whether a POV is given to much weight or to less so. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't dialect, as it is the same like Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. They are all accepted as languages even though they have the same root like Montenegrin (like you said, Serbo/Croatian). Rave92^(talk) 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Watching this discussion, I do have a question about this issue. As I make footballers biographies, I tend to writte in the text the original way of name writting for nationalities that use different alphabet. Exemple: Serbian, Macedonian, Montenegrin or Bulgarian names are written in Cyrillic alphabet. For the Montenegrins case, I used to writte Serbian Cyrillic since the montenegrins use the Cyrillic alphabet that was originally inveneted by Vuk Karadžić and is worldwide regarded as Serbian Cyrillic. In many cases the word Serbian Cyrillic was replaced by Montenegrin Cyrillic or Montenegrin Language used as Montenegrin. I didn´t reverted those edits, what shall I do, since I have the autoreview right for some of the articles? FkpCascais (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Both are Montenegrin alphabet and in official use. My suggestion is to add like in case of Pedja Mijatovic, where it is written Montenegrin and written in both, Latin and Cyrillic script.

The latin is not a problem since the title of the article (players name) is already writen in "Montenegrin" latin. Thanx. My question goes more about the existence, or not, of so called, "Montenegrin Cyrillic" ? FkpCascais (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well we never called it Serbian or Montenegrin Cyrillic, but Cyrillic only, like Latin :-). Rave92^(talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an excellent solution. People used to writte it that way, I supose, because there are differences between the Serbian, Greek, Russian or other Cyrillics, but for Montenegrin cases that is the best solution. Thanx again. FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that I got tangled up in this, I figured that I should say something. I first saw the large scale edit war when one page on my watchlist was changed. The argument seems to be that there is no ISO code for Montenegrin, which makes no sense, how can you cite that something isn't there? On the other hand, the CIA factbook and other sources state that it is the official language (of a sovereign nation), which is pretty strong reasoning for allowing it. See my talkpage for longer discussions.--Terrillja _talk 02:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have nothing to do with edit wars, but as an editor, and I did some amount of Montenegrin biographies, I am quite interested in the subject with the purpose of making them in right way to avoid any polemics or edit warring in the future. However, as a Serb of Montenegrin herence (my grandparents from my mom side are Montenegrin) I do feel confortable dicussing the mather. The issue with Serbian is very much similar to English in this way: it is a language wich is spoken by a number of different countries, beside the language home-countries (U.K. for English and Serbia for Serbian). The main difference is that in English case, all countries accepted the naming as "English" for the main language spoken in those countries (Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Bahamas, etc.), while for Serbian, as historical events made the nationalistic tendency in the region, is begining to be named by the name of the region (country, republic, province, any geographical unit). The difference between Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin is the same as the difference between English spoken in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. It´s the same language with slight regional variations and dialects. Speaking Serbian I can perfectly speak and understand any person from any of this countries. The problem is that the recent political independencies of those countries are being followed by the tendency of separating everything else, the language as well. But, honestly, those languages, sorry, not languages, but their names, are completely "fabricated". The political independence of those countries shouldn´t interfere with the language. The fact that the language spoken in Montenegro is called "Montenegrin" or "Serbian" doesn´t mean that they are more or less independent, but there seems to be some missunderstanding about that (same is happening with the church, and in other areas). People in Montenegro has allways spoken Serbian, and still speaks the same language, only that now they want to make it called "Montenegrin". So if I, as Serb, speak the language, it´s called Serbian, but if a Montenegrin speak it, it´s called Montenegrin! Ridiculous! The language is the same, and during the Socialist Yugoslavia, Tito finded the solution to calm the Croatian nationalists back then, and it was accepted by the rest (Bosnians and Montenegrins), wich was to call the language "Serbo-Croatian". Exemple: What if tomorow the rest of Serbian splits by municipalities, being all sudently independent? Shall we have Belgradenian, Novisadian, Subotian, Nislian... basically all the same. Or what if all latin-american countries that speak Spanish start demanding that their Spanish should be named after the name of the country? Venezuelan, Mexican, Costarican, Argentinian... Or in English case: Canadian, Australian? We know what a language is, and the different countries that speak the same language shouldn´t have the right to call the same language with different names, not at least officially. The English spoken in United States is English, whatever you call it, but for Serbian that is sudently allowed. Hmmmm... FkpCascais (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that they are all similar. I lived in the region this fall for 3 months. I know the differences between the federation and republica srpska in BiH and the strong regional feelings. I'm not just some random editor who stumbled across the article with no clue to the history and national ties. Having said that, if Canada declares that their national language is Canadian and ratifies a constitution which states it is the official language, then it's their official language, regardless. If Kosovo declares that they have their own language as a sovereign nation, I would support that. And there is a difference between a city and a recognized sovereign nation, so avoid what if arguments. We are talking about past precedence and current law. Either way, there is already precedence here as Croatian is recognized as its own language and is the same spoken language.--Terrillja _talk 06:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never said you have no clue, just the oposite. And my argument wasn´t directed to you, but to everyone participating here (don´t get personal, I wasn´t). The question here is not if the parliament declares it, or if you agree or not, the question is if it is internationally recognised. By the way, the language is not similar, but the same. FkpCascais (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a few words here and there that are different. Not a lot different from regional variation though, if you learned northern US english and went to the deep south you would probably have similar differences and Zagreb Croatian is different from Dubrovnik Croatian.--Terrillja _talk 06:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and that doesn´t give the right to name it another language. You gave a good exemple of Kosovo. They are not willing to engage in that sort of "fabrication", and they simply named Albanian and Serbian the official languages, without trying to rename any of them to "Kosovar" or some other name. Speaking of Croatia, I saw there too a recent movement among linguists to stop this further breaking of the same language, by advocating that there are only two languages in the area: Serbian and Croatian, being the others just dialects of any of this two. FkpCascais (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Right or wrong, they did it, they made it official, the rest of the world seems to recognize that they did it, so it makes sense that wikipedia would as well. --Terrillja _talk 07:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It´s status is far from being as clear as you say. It lacks standardization board, and in the ISO codes, all that says is that is an alternative name to Serbian (and that does mather, it is the official languages body, way much important that some CIA factbook, mentioning him was quite funny). We really need somebody expert in linguistics to see if there has been some updates in the issue, because by the already known facts, in my view Montenegrin is quite far from being considered a language. Not even a finished debate within themselfs, in Montenegro. FkpCascais (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

But, if it does get recognised, I´ll receve it gladly, as would be able to say that I learned a new language overnight (quite a record!)! FkpCascais (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where the humor is, The World Factbook aka the CIA Factbook is the go-to guide for the US government and is prepared for the government as a world resource with a classified and public version. It's a pretty serious resource, not just some slapped together PDF.--Terrillja _talk 08:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry, did I heard US Government? Why I´m missing the word "X World Organisation" here? What they got to do with the subject here? Are they some kind of linguistical authority? FkpCascais (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source, explained why I felt that it was valid and you decided to mock me. Very mature. I can see that any further discussion with you will be useless, anyone else who wishes to contact me about this issue, please do so on my talkpage as I will no longer be monitoring this page.--Terrillja _talk 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not your personal issue, you really think so? Your point is clear, lets move on. We need some INTERNATIONAL organisation to decide those issues, and the CIA factbook can´t really provide that by just mentioning Montenegrin as language in Montenegro. Sorry, but far from enough. FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: @FkpCascais

Your arguments are no valid. First, you can't compare Balkan nations and language question with colonial nations like Canada, New Zeleand, Australia, they were all the colonies and the fact that they were settled by British (English) and language that is spoken is indeed English. Now you say like you Serbs colonized us and gave us the language, then it would be valid, but they didn't (I think it is more vice versa since there are over 2 million people which came from Montenegro to Serbia :-)). That language was always here, and you should know from where Vuk is, from where he got his standardization and for who was that language. We have rights to call it Montenegrin than others to call their nation name. Montenegrins spoke the language which was offical, and that was Serbo-Croatian, not Serbian. In census 1991 in Serbia most of people spoke Serbo-Croatian, not the Serbian, and not to mention it was offical untill 1997! Montenegrins and Bosnian agreed like they had some right to say NO. If you would know more about Montenegrin language, in 60's and 70' there were a chances to call it Montenegrin since in Croatia there were a movements to call it Croatian only. There are archives in Montenegrins State Archive for that. Also it was supossed to have Montenegrin in language name as I will quote Novosadski Agreement : "Narodni jezik Srba, Hrvata i Crnogoraca jedan je jezik". Also, none one from Montenegro signed the Vienna Literary Agreement. Now let's get to other stuff:
1) Montenegrin is stated as only offical language in the Constitution of Montenegro.
2) All web sites in Montenegro are written in Montenegrin.
3) Montenegrin has 2 extra letters than other languages even I don't think this should be more imprtoing then the first point I just wrote.
4) Montenegrin gots a standard and ISO code will be done soon, as you all know it is a big birocracy and that's why we have to wait this long.
5) All articles that mention Montenegro should have Montenegrin, like every article that mentions Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia haves their language.

Soultion:

1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.
Rave92^(talk) 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As response to the Rave92 comment, I must say that I never stated that Serbs colonised, Montenegro, or that anyone forced somebody else to speak the language. Right the oposite, as the language (call it Serbo-Croatian or Serbian or Montenegrin, in this case) is common to both people. Serbs and Montenegrins had BOTH contributed to the SAME language, that is what I´m standing for. Montenegrin literature had enormous influence in it´s evolution, and, by my point of view, if you find "unpleasant" to speak a language today called "Serbian", should stand to rename the language to "Serbo-Montenegrin" or "Montenergin-Serbian". But anyway, I have nothing against Montenegrin, I´m just being the "lawyer" of Serbian point of view, since I understand it, and since nobody here is doing it. Personally, I do beleve in everything I´m saying, and I can´t really understand the point of naming the same language in many different names. As I am also a Spanish native speaker, I do compare the situation of Serbian (within Yugoslavia) to the Spanish , Castillian, in Spain. What we call Spanish is in fact Castillian language, and is common to many other Spanish regions beside Castille itself. The Castillian spoken in Andaluzia isn´t called "Andaluzian" just because they have a different dialect or some words. The case is very much the same.

Anyway, in all this discussion, I still don´t have nobody giving any INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION recognising "Montenegrin". I´m just asking, is there any? And for the 3 different letters (you say 2, but in article I see 3, that would be an only "usable" argument among the points Rave92 made) I only see that they are PROPOSED, unless the article is not updated. And that move does sound as a way to make it different from Serbian, nothing else. About the Montenegrin Parliament recognising it, that doesn´t necessarily mean it must be that way. Even within Montenegro there is still a debate going on. About the number of websites, that just isn´t an argument. FkpCascais (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Are embassies for you international organizations?:

Crnogorski means Montenegrin

Poland: http://www.podgorica.polemb.net/
USA: http://podgorica.usembassy.gov/

Germany: http://www.podgorica.diplo.de/Vertretung/podgorica/de/Startseite.html

CEFTA 2006: http://www.cefta2006.com/en-index.php

etc...

It looks like US, Polish and other embassies didn't know that experts from Internet say that Montenegrin doesn't exist and that they should replace it with Serbian :-). You compared Montenegrins and Montenegro with colonial countries and nations, don't deny it. You said that Canadians, Americans etc.. speak English and not named their language after country, but they are colonized nation. Also you mention municipalities would get independent and proclaim their own language? This is even more offensive the the first comparing. I don't have anything against you defending Serbian but if you want to enter discussion you should know these things before even getting into discussion. 2 letters (not 3) are adopted, and Montenegrin language has the standard, here is the proclamation of standard:
http://www.gov.me/files/1248442673.pdf

So it has all, but I guess you should maybe search a bit before denying Montenegrin language on Wiki :(. You are right at one point, we have contributed to that language and that's why we have right to call it as we like, and no offense but don't tell us how to call language. We will call ti Montenegrin-Serbian when Serbs proclaim their language Serbian-Montenegrin :-). If it's the same, then I don't see why we would have Serbian instead Montenegrin, when Montenegrin is official.

So once again, I will repeat the solution:

1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.

Rave92^(talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And since you claim that Serbian and Montenegrin are the same, how come you have userboxe's:

Овом кориснику српски језик је матерњи. and Ovaj saradnik ne razumije ni riječi crnogorskog jezika'. Овај сарадник не разумије ни ријечи црногорског језика

To translate to someone who doesn't understand it says "Serbian language is this user mother tongue" and next one "This user doesn't understand a word of Montenegrin". Interesting...

Rave92^(talk) 18:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Starting from the end, I do have that userbox as an irony, of course. You may not know, but if you digg into the history of the page, I did had a userbox that said "Montenegrin native speaker", but after finding this userbox in another Serbian user page, I did find it funny, and because I do beleve in the cause, decided to adopt it. It is somehow humourous, you must recognise it. Other reason was, as I already have many language userboxes, with Serbian, Spanish and Portuguese (as native) and English and some others, plus all ex-Yugoslav languages, it makes me a candidate for one of the most poliglote editors here (when I really speak only 4 languages).

About ambassies, sorry, but Ambassies can´t be cosidered international since they represent the relation between only 2 countries... Come on, you know what I´m talking about, United Nations, (or FIFA if we were talking football). At least some European organisation...

I´m not an Montenegrin oponent in any other issue. I made exclusivelly, and edited mostly, football related articles, trying by any means to avoid any political or other controversies. But, I did break my role by participating here. But, take in acount that I (as footy editor) did contributed gladly to Montenegrin football related articles as well by making some Montenegrin footballers biographies, ex-Montenegrin clubs foreign players, also creating some club categories (before my, there were only categorised Budućnost players, as if other clubs were "small" doesn´t deserving a category, and I breaked that) and expanding some Montenegrin club articles. I even insist in Serbian club articles to consider all Montenegrin footballers Montenegrin, and not some Serbian, just because they may have "double nationallity", making some edit wars with Serbian editors taking the Montenegrin side! Plese, have in mind that by any means I am not "blind" nationalist. I just find this particular subject interesting as, in my teenage past, I did worked as a translator, by that having a close contact with languages. Could you translate Montenegrin to Serbian? How many book pages should we treanslate to find even 1 word or expression different? I´m sure we could translate entire books without finding any single difference. Just paste/copy and change language name. That is my point. And applies to Bosnian too.

We do need some other opinions here, preferably neutral ones, meaning, from people with no interess in the region,and with linguistical knolledges if possible. FkpCascais (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I found myself here, in the discussion about if Montenegrin Language is recognised or not, by the evidence (or lack of it) I came to a conclusion that the Montenegrin Language is NOT internationally regognised. Maybe (and only MAYBE) I could add a "yet" to the final of the sentence I just wrote. FkpCascais (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, some add vice versa as joke too (to speak Montenegrin, and not Serbian), but still. Ok, Embassy is not considered international? Sorry, but if embassy respects that, I don't see why Wikipedia wouldn't. You can't have on some international web site (I guess you mean UN) as there are couple official languages and that's it, and I don't see why requesting that when all web sites in Montenegro, school, government, embassies etc... accept it as normal thing, but some members on Wiki don't. Well I can only say thanks for expand articles about Montenegrin football, but don't see why you would go against Montenegrin language, especially as it is not considering you, and even having user box of native speaker. Like I said, Serbian wouldn't be total deleted from Montenegrin articles in my "suggestion/solution". Rave92^(talk) 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Embassies is that it represents the policy of one country. Exemple: Nazy Germany Embassies issued documents in witch the Jewish or Gypsy people were not considered humans! Does that, because an "Embassy" said it, make it throut? See? Embassies represent the Governament of one nation, and an encyclopedia must have in consideration way more than just one side view. Serbian Embassies certainly don´t recognise Montenegrin Language, and that also doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. When Montenegrin Language is going finally to be recognised (if...), it will certainly be a news that you and me (as relative followers of the actuality news) will know. Anyway, if something new comes up make it known to everybody. And I, as a compromise, will follow your proposition, and write only "Cyrillic" when in need. About the articles where Montenegrin Language or Montenegrin Cyrillic is written, I think it should be substituted until this issue is solved. (I also can´t understand what are you loosing in having "Serbian Language" written, but anyway...) FkpCascais (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mate, you can't compare those things. Embassies don't need to have language of countries host, for e.g. French embassy doesn't have it on their web site (at least I didn't find it) so beside French, that's it. They all add Montenegrin because it's official language. Serbian embassies have nothing to do with it, as I am giving you the links of embassies IN Montenegro, I couldn't really care more what Serbia thinks about anything Montenegrin, especially this thing as we didn't get independent after 100 years to have someone else to think for us. This question is complex, emotional and you go in defend of deleting Montenegrin language, even though you don't have anything against it :-/. Montenegrin language recognized everyone, and that proof is embassies, as if USA doesn't recognize it, why would they write in Montenegrin on their web site? I am giving examples of embassies as they are representatives of country. About your question on what I am loosing, I am loosing my dignity, my language, and most of all, breaking the highest rank of law, and that's constitution of one country. Rave92^(talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is hot, and needs to cool down!! I made this passive edit earlier today[15] as I realise there is a need to reflect two languages for Montenegro, even if they are currently identical. The Montenegrin language is in its infancy as regards coming to light and people noticing it. There is no Montenegrin Wikipedia yet and the preference is clearly for Ekavian which does disenfranchise westerners (western Balkan that is). Is it all right to use two forms for the time being?? Evlekis (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the suggestion of using language. I will copy/paste it again here: 1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.

Rave92^(talk) 15:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, Rave92, that just about every settlement in MNE which qualifies as a town has a skeleton Serb population; I doubt there is one in which no citizen declares Serb. On the articles pertaining to Serbian towns and subjects, there is a generous attitude towards outsiders with entire paragraphs devoted to the naming of the subject in all relevant languages, even those which are loosely connected. I fully support a Montenegrin mention for every subject remotely connected with Montenegro and Montenegrin culture but it might be a little insensitive to reject Serbian from Montenegrin subjects at this early stage of development. I think it needs some more consideration. We need to remember that however we treat this issue, it will set a precedent for identical scenarios. Evlekis (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So what? If the language is the same like everyone here says, then we can divided it that majority has their language. Majority cities of Montenegrins to have Montenegrin language, Serb majority to have Serbian Cyrillic (it's not the problem just to have that). All mentioning Montenegro or Montenegrins, to have Montenegrin like till now (until some recently changed that) and to have only Montenegrin. There is no point of having both languages, and official language is Montenegrin. I don't see what's the problem. It wasn't till now when someone changed it to Serbian (I say it wasn't problem as Admins in the end agreed with us). Rave92^(talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanx Evlekis for trying to help us solving this issue here. I´m not sure if you know exactly what my point has been here. I´m not trying to include "Serbian" in Montenegro pages, right the oposite. What I´m saying is that until now, I have been asking if there was a official recognition of Montenegrin as a official language, or is it still regarded as a dialect of Serbian. If it is recognised, I defend that Montenegrin language should be used, and I´ll see the changes in the language, and see if I qualify for having the Montenegrin language speaker userbox. I don´t defended the inclusion of Serbian in Montenegro related pages. That´s absurd! If the Montenegrin language is NOT officially recognised, than the use of Montenegrin should be replaced by Serbian, not using both. I even defend that both should never be used, since are quite the same, so there is no reason for having both.

My points may sound radical but they are:

• If Montenegrin is recognised, finish this debate and start using Montenegrin INSTEAD of Serbian in Montenegro related pages.
• If Montenegrin isn´t recognised, stop using Montenegrin at all, and replace it by the last official standard of the language, that is Serbian.

The point that I´m also trying to proove to Rave92 is that the documents that come from the National Asembly are "law" only in that country. Many National Assemblies may have many issues discussed and some documents are officialised, but this doesn´t mean all the world must accept it. There are usually some international organisations that must have a say on the issues (I´m just not sure in linguistics, althou Montenegrin lacks the IFO code). FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It lacks the code for the time being, that is all. The point you made about Montenegrin either being official or still a dialect of Serbian is complex. It can be both, either one, or neither. A good external example to investigate is Portuguese/Galician. Galician has official status and is recognised as a national language in Spain, but is linguistically closer to Portuguese than standard Spanish (I believe you know very well about this FkpCascais). It is often considered to be a dialect of Portuguese but Galicians can consider this an offence in quite the way that proponents of the Montenegrin language can also. If one is to be scientific and not political, then we address the issue as stating that the two forms are common dialects of a single language (not one owning the other). In any case, Montenegrin does not have to change anything about itself to be recognised as a separate language. You can have a realistic scenrario in which the register used in Montenegro is identical to Standard Serbian and still be allowed to call itself Montenegrin. I know it sounds absurd but that is the way of the world. Personally, I even think that Croatian is a form of the same language - no longing for Serbo-Croat but purely in the linguistic sense. If Montenegrin gains currency, then it will follow that elements of the language are gradually modified rather like American and British English. It does not have to be a radical shift from this pure Serbian to the local Centinje dialect. But if it helps you Cascais, yes I believe that Montenegrin is the official name for the national language, just like Bosnian in BiH. As Montenegrin will also outrank Serbian, it will need to be used everywhere; as Serbian is identical, it will only be used alongside Montenegrin by name: eg. Pljevlja (Montenegrin and Serbian Cyrillic: Пљевља. If the subject is different from its Latinic form name, then we remove mention of Cyrillic and give the two varieties. I say, use Montenegrin everywhere, and Serbian where applicable (as an addition in name only). Evlekis (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...yes I know very well the Galician issue... Iberic issues in general, and they have many precedents to Balkans issues as well. But, there is a difference, it is officialy recognised language, and nobody oposes that. Here are some things that are wrong in what you said: I allways defended that both are dialects of same language, thus, of course, not considering one to be the "owner" of another one. Montenegrin language was regarded as Serbian Language dialect, I´m not making this up, neither nobody forced others to be this way, come on Evlekis, don´t change my words. And the fact that lacks the code "for time being" is somehow speculation, wich is not used here in WP. When receves the code, it will be fact, until then, is speculation that will "certainly" receve. I know that Montenegrin doesn´t need to change anything to be language, that was more often donne in recent past by politicians, and not linguists, because they didn´t know that, and they touth it does need to be changed :). But, where I mostly disagree is that if a group of people calles the language in another way, that doesn´t mean the language is what they call, and has to be adopted by an encyclopedia. People calling things in another way, is one thing, an encyclopedia adopting it, is another. It can, or not addopt it. Anyway, Evlekis and Rave92, all we are doing is talking, and I get into answering to you both, wich I didn´t wanted. I´m just asking if the language is or isn´t officially recognised. Give me some international organisation, at least European. Your arguments (Rave92:National Parliament and Ambassies ; Evlekis: "...people have the right to call it whatever they want...") is just not enough. If this is all you have (sorry :) , I can conclude that the language shouldn´t be used "encyclopedically". And I could only add an "still" (shouldn´t be used still) in my last sentence. FkpCascais (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ISO code is irrelevant, it doesn't say if language exists or no, it's just bureaucracy. A lot of people will say you that, and already did. Standard of language exists and I gave you a link. How it can be considered as dialect of Serbian? Serbian doesn't have the dialect called Montenegrin, notice the "language" thing in the name. It's Montenegrin language, not dialect. Beside ISO, I am not sure from whom you asks recognition. None one can "recognize" your language, it isn't the country. Others just need to respect it (like embassy web sites). Anyway, it looks like a lot of people from Serbia "recognized" it:

http://www.bestjobs.rs/poslovi-prevodilac-sa-engleskog-na-crnogorski-jezik/51414/3

:-)

Rave92^(talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Rave92, many thanx. I really could use some extra cash. Just don´t tell those people from "bestjobs" I have that Montenegrin Language userbox ("ne govori ni riječi Crnogorskoga jezika."). It would be better time spent doing that, than discussing this here. All we were talking here, we could have gathered and had a drink meanwhile discussing this, or something else...

I am disapointed with all this. I think that has been a very honorable attitude that we (Evlekis, you, me,... not including the sensitive CIA Croat one) defended and stood to what we beleve. And discussed it all the way. Where I am very disapointed is that I touth that here, in this "Geo&ethnic&religious conflicts" wiki page, the debate goes on, and after all sides exposed their cases (like we did), someone from wikipedia intervenes and makes a "solution" having in mind the world rules and the precedent cases. Nothing of this happend, we lost time here, so we could have better have gone for a drink. Wanna go? FkpCascais (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:I agree you talk Montenegrin and I´ll respond you in Serbian. Can Evlekis join us? FkpCascais (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Drink goes after the solution :-). We just need to wait Admins to read all this and give their conclusion on this. After the decision is made, we will use it on Montenegrin related articles. So far, there is just one who is against adding Montenegrin language. Rave92^(talk) 12:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It´s not really about numbers (I could pay a bunch of guys and say to them to participate here on my side...), or, there could be nobody here oposing, that also wouldn´t give you the right, just because of it. Beside, people doesn´t know this discussion is taking place here. And, as you said "it´s just bureaucracy", but that "bureaucracy" is many times exactly what is needed to be considered equal by others and officially accepted. The embassies using "Montenegrin" it could just have been the programer that put it that way (some Montenegrin PC maniak), or, more probable and less speculative, they use it so no unnecessary polemics would appear between that country and Montenegro (that´s called diplomacy). And I was talking about Serbian Embassy in Montenegro, and you said you don´t even wanna know (as if it was inferior to the others you mentioned...). And I was not refering only to cities breaking from Serbia (so you get offended, dahhh), you know very well there are more separatist groups in Serbia, some in Vojvodina or Sandzak regions, so it does have some logic mentioning it, so we stop further criation of possible Vojvodinian or Sandzaklinian, or something... You even said that Montenegrins are colonising Serbia. Colonization, currently, has more to do with power and capital, not populational flow. Spanish and English took control over land, quite different from going somewhere in search for more education, or better life. I even gave you a better exemple of Castillian inside Spain. And, it does affect me, as same as all other Serbs. My native language will get poorer, we will lose half milion speakers, and it´s cultural heritage will get divided. If you consider that culture is not part of a person, and a personal issue, well, I could in same way add that you are also not loosing anything, because the word "Serbian" doesn´t take you anything, just add.

Wikipedia not allowing Montenegrin wikipedia, is also interesting. And we should know the reasons.

Anyway, while waiting for the "arbitrary comision" I am applying all we agreed before, so don´t warry. FkpCascais (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Montenegrin PC maniac? Mate, it's official GOVERNMENTS web site of that country. What is added on web sites doesn't control MONTENEGRIN government, but the government/embassy of the country. There is no polemic, they just add official language, that is called recognizing and respect. They don't have to add Montenegrin, but they did, and did it with purpose. I don't wanna know as SERBIAN embassy doesn't have to do anything with this, gee.. they are not less importing but don't see what embassy and what it has to do with this discussion? Give me the web site of that embassy since you mention it so much. It looks like you are just posting here so you can just write, not like you have some arguments. Colonizing was the joke, as you compared Montenegro with colonized nations, and a lot of Montenegrins moved to Serbia in 19th century. That's not the topic now, the more offending is that you compare Montenegro with Sandzak and Vojvodina. This just proves you know nothing about Montenegro. Montenegro was independent country before (and not just once if we have in mind Duklja), and Montenegro didn't separate FROM Serbia, but separate from STATE UNION OF SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO, and it renewed it's independency. Of course you don't know this, but you want to take in discussion if Montenegrin language should be on Wiki or not. This is just silly.

You loose cultural heritage if we remove Serbian, but we loose nothing if we keep Serbian. Interesting theory... /sarcasm

Montenegrin wiki was requested even when Montenegrin wasn't official, or just got official. It didn't have new standard and full use like it has today. Don't see how that be a point argument as Serbo-Croatian has a Wiki, considering that language isn't mention anywhere in the countries where it used to be official, and practically doesn't have ISO code either now. Rave92^(talk) 11:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, you just want to explore each other complexes. And don´t talk about what other people know or don´t about history. (Speculation). I never attacked you personally. Are you sure I don´t know Montenegrin history? Or you just want to hurt me? I told you, I´m a Serb with Montenegrin herence, so don´t give me some Montenegrin blind nationalistic pseudo-lessons. You say "Colonising was a joke", well I´m not joking, and I´m giving a very real exemple of Castillian (Spanish) within Spain. Or English or Spanish in other countries where its spoken (not colonisation, but linguistics "mate", linguistics...don´t get complexed with everything). And forget ambassies, they are not linguistics experts, nor international organisations... (even if it meant recognition, they are what? 5? 10? of more then 200 world countries!, but it doesnt clearly mean that). You say I don´t have arguments, but your arguments (and you insisted, when I was calling for a peace-deal while waiting) about numbers, like how many are oposing (just me...) or how many websites use it, are you serious? Those are arguments?

I was just here asking if there was a "official" recognition of the Montenegrin language, and gave some arguments why I find that it shouldn´t. We have not reached a consensus and we shouldn´t continue in the direction this was taking. We don´t decide anything, so it´s better to wait. And you should be pleased that nobody is engaging in edit wars, because it´s after all your POV that is all around WP. Montenegrin here, Montenegrin there, and we don´t know if it is valid, yet. So please, stay calm and don´t attack me in the meantime. And, we don´t need historical questions to be brouth here, this issue is about a yes or no answer, simple. FkpCascais (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:Linguistically, you are separating from Serbia (Serbian Language) and not from some "Union language" or SCG language or something... You are the ones mixing up political with linguistical independence. Those are two separate things. FkpCascais (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the complex, believe me, just the tired of reading none sense. You are not showing knowledge, so what if you are Serb from Montenegro? By default you know everything about Montenegro or what? I don't claime I know everything, but comparing language like this is just weird. I judge by your writing here, and I didn't doubt you are a Serb, especially after the phrase that you will loose cultural heritage, but we won't if we remove Montenegrin. Yes, colonizing was the joke (as Montenegrins didn't colonize Serbia) but when you compared MNE with colonized nations, I told you that Serbs didn't colonize MNE and leave their language, like British/French did. Language was always here and we keep the right to call it as we want. They are not linguistic experts, and you ask someone to recognize your language. Please tell me, who need to recognize it if you don't think embassies represent countries opinion on that question? CIA Fact Book states official language is Montenegrin, I guess that is not international recognizing, then what is? You say 20 embassies? Well sorry to disappoint you, countries can't recognize your language, they can just respect it, and that's what I am talking about, if they tough Montenegrin is Serbian, they would put Serbian, right? It's not like Montenegro will declare war to USA ;-). Even Serbia doesn't oppose it, because none can't oppose it, so you need to be more specific on what recognition you mean. And we can find web site of any international organization which residence in Montenegro to have Montenegrin.

P.S. We are not separating it from Serbian, there is no such thing as separating language from other, you are comparing countries with language, and that is politics. At least I never heard someone separated language from other and asks countries of UN to recognize it. I mean, how silly this sounds...

Anyway I notified Toddst1, so he will say what he thinks about this during the weekend, I guess we both presented our arguments. Rave92^(talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"...reading none sense...", "...You are not showing knowledge..." please, again, I didn´t attacked you ever. Who are you to tell me this? I asked you specificaly not to do so.

Stop insisting in colonization, I gave you a perfectly valid exemple, Spanish within Spain, but you seem to be trying to escape each time with your "colonozation" talk.

"...and you ask someone to recognize your language...", it´s not my fault that I don´t have to. (???)

"...CIA Fact Book states official language is Montenegrin, I guess that is not international recognizing, then what is?...", you´re joking, right? It can maximaly mean that the USA recognise it, so what? Its only one country. CIA=International, you really think so?

"...And we can find web site of any international organization which residence in Montenegro to have Montenegrin...", OK, so why you didn´t?

"...how silly this sounds...", why don´t you let others decide, will you?

You avoid answering directly to any of my points, you are not being serious, and you are taking this too personal and in an uncientific approach. I´m not discussing this with you no more. Please, lets wait in peace, can you? FkpCascais (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe to tell me WHICH organization? There is no such thing as international organization which will "recognize your language". Language doesn't equal country. Do you think Montenegro needs to recognize some language? No, because that's not of Montenegrin business. I didn't insist on colonization, I said I was joking (and you would probably understand if you were from Balkans), and you started mention Spain and some other things, not sure why, because there was never a colonization on Balkans (at least not between each others). When you tell me WHO NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE IT, I will tell you. I think Admins will see who here talks sense, because asking for some organization to recognize your language is funny. You can't recognize language. Who recognized Portuguese? UNESCO xD? Please...

P.S. Not a problem, it's you who started again when I said I notified Toddst that he will give his opinion about this. Rave92^(talk) 11:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we get some conclusion from the admins on this topic? It has been a while. Sideshow Bob 12:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, hopefully it would be done soon. Rave92^(talk) 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Soon? This century? FkpCascais (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to me, believe me. Rave92^(talk) 10:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe 3027? or 28? Oh! 3028 not, it´s the year of the Olympics... FkpCascais (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

98.204.183.125 (talk · contribs · logs)

On March 15th, I blocked this long-term problem IP (Block Log) for one month for racist editing, BLP-violations and disruption. Upon return, the IP has continued editing in the same articles and although most additions are referenced, I have concerns that they may be on sensitive BLPs and may be adding undue weight and/or pov problems because the IP appears to have a specific agenda when it comes to Arabism, Pan Arabism and Anti-Arabism.

His contributions to Anti-Arabism, Nidal Malik Hasan Andrew Warren and James Zogby (and, before my block, Patrick Syring) might need scrutiny. The reason I bring this here is I have little knowledge on the subject an might not pick up the undue weight and pov issues as well as someone more informed.

I'll provide some diffs below:

• James Zogby, 04:55, 15 March 2010 "anti-Semitic"
• Nidal Malik Hasan 02:39, 27 April 2010 "An American Iman" - Not in itself an issue AFAIK, but illustrates the IPs preoccupation with the nationality or ethnic/religious background of everyone. See [16] also.
• James Zogby 04:20, 13 May 2010 "targets" -> "identifies" changing ADL belief to presumed fact.
• James Zogby 04:24, 13 May 2010 "Zogby alleges that his office in Washington, D.C. was fire-bombed"

Most or all of the IP edits have been reverted, but I hoped for clarification and views. Regards, SGGH ^ping! 10:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

_{notified User:George (who brought issue to my renewed attention) and the IP. SGGH ^ping! 10:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)}

The editor continues to make the same racist edits, to the same articles, over an over again, and has been doing it for months when not blocked. More alarmingly, and why I think action needs to be taken now to stop this editor in their tracks, the IP address has been linked to someone who was sentenced to a year in jail for threatening the life of the very same people whose Wikipedia articles he has been editing. [17][18] ← George ^talk 08:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist blocked him for three months. Look out for socks from other IPs. SGGH ^ping! 13:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

jewish slur by en.wt admin!!

http://en.wiktionary.org/?diff=8417293---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Where to begin... First of all, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and we have no authority there. You may want to bring this up on Meta. However, it happened over three months ago, and was reverted within two minutes. Finally, it was a joke. It contains various references to things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Borat. Offensive? Perhaps. But not maliciously so. To wrap up: It was a joke, maybe bad, but it was fixed three months ago and we couldn't do anything about it if we wanted to. --Golbez (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if that is your signature please shorten it! It's huge and confusing! SGGH ^ping! 10:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

etnikjoks=nono,esp.ADMIN'dnodis>ilpost@meta+futhe ofenses[19],ta---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases

There seem to be a lot of reversions and bad faith edits going on, is it possible for some third parties to take a look? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina has had a "preferred" version of the article placed multiple times by User:Nemanjic starting May 6. This editor has also tried to create alternate articles for the same town as Skender Vakuf City, and Skender-Vakuf. Engagement at Talk:Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina hasn't panned out. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Update - I guess this can be closed. The editor has been blocked for sockpuppetry and topic banned. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Szekely land (inclusion of it`s maps and mentioning it in the lead or as some form of present location)

I started this thread with good faith for everybody to participate, centralize discussion and to try to reach a consensus. I would like to ask for every participant to refrain from personal attacks or any kind of comments that are not related to the subject we are discussing, that includes me too.

Parts of the discussion happened here:

• Lupeni talk page
• Sumuleu Ciuc talk page
• talk page (DerGelbeMann)

I will also copy last comment made by User:DerGelbeMann (with his permission) on this subject as a point from which this discussion could start:

Szekely Land (Székelyföld) was for more than 500 years an autonomous territory of the K. of Hun. Like for instance Bukovina, it is a historical region, not a geographical region.

The lead of the Suceava article specifies the belongness to Bukovina (region created only in 1775), so why wouldn't we include the part about Sz. Land where it is the case?

We must take into consideration the current realities, not possible vadimist scenarios about a virtual en-masse Szekely emigration. Szekely Land is an ethnographical and historical region, it was and still is a special area of Transylvania.

Many persons who visit these pages are probably ethnic Hungarians, so I think it is OK to include also the reference about the historical Sz. Land.

On the other hand I am not against inserting, in History section, maps showing the localization of the settlements in medieval Szekely Land

P.S. This is only my personal POV, maybe it could be good to post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania to consult other editors. In this moment the score is 2-2, so we need additional opinions. Another idea would be to take this to WP:ECCN (DerGelbeMann (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

All right - I'd like to ask everyone to take a deep breath and realize that, in the end, we probably agree on more of this than we disagree on. In that spirit, let's try to avoid making inflammatory statements accusing editors of irredentism and questioning the Székely's prospects for survival. It only makes people angry and it doesn't help. I am going to make a few points that may seem long-winded, but I am only trying to be absolutely clear.

First of all: the Székelyföld is a historical region; that much we agree on. There are, indeed, territories in present-day Romania (Harghita, most of Covasna, some of Mureş, a slice of Bacǎu, a tiny little bit of Alba) that benefited from a limited degree of autonomy under Hungarian rule. In that sense the Székelyföld is a historical region that once existed and that was set apart from other territories in Transylvania. We also seem to agree that it is a cultural region - that is to say that its historical experiences have imparted to it a certain degree of cultural difference from the areas that surround it. Now, where we seem to disagree is 1) calling it a "geographic region" and 2) mentioning it in the leads of articles. I contend that we should do both, and that this does not constitute any violation of wikipedia policies or any statement of irredentism.

The "geographic region" problem may be a result of people understanding this English term differently or incorrectly. (I do not mean to sound condescending, but I happen to be a native English speaker.) In English when we speak of a "geographic region" we do not generally mean anything political. The Székelyföld historically had borders (those of the historical region) and those borders delineated a certain geographic territory. That territory is, with a few minor exceptions, the extent of today's cultural region. The fact that it occupies a territory - not politically, of course, but the fact that the people who consider themselves Székelys are concentrated in a specific region with more-or-less clear borders - makes it a geographic region. The important thing to remember here is that calling it a geographic region does not make any political claim whatsoever, especially not for autonomy. Just as Transylvania, Crişana and the Banat can all be described as "geographic regions" without anyone raising the spectre of some revolt of irredentist Bihoreni - and despite the fact that according to many people's definitions, Crişana and the Banat are also parts of Transylvania - we can comfortably say that the Székelyföld is a present geographic region, without making any political statement at all. Whether it should be autonomous, whether its geographical extent should correspond with a political unit, is an entirely different debate. I would remind our Romanian colleagues, then, that referring to Székelyföld as a geographic region in no way reflects a lack of respect for the unity of Romania as a political entity.

The arguments against including the Székelyföld in the lead are difficult for me to understand, but they seem to hinge a very dubious point. Some editors seem to deny that the Székelyföld, despite being a historical entity, has any general relevance today, while tacitly accepting that to the Hungarian "minority" (in fact a sizeable majority in the Székelyföld), it is indeed important. This fallacious reasoning stems from a twofold mistake: first, that because ethnic Hungarians (including the Székely) are a minority in Romania, their opinions and views are somehow universally unimportant (clearly a biased position), and/or second, that because the Székelyföld is not currently an official political region, it somehow does not matter (clearly an oversimplified view of identity). The Székely are a majority in the geographic/cultural area called the Székelyföld; as someone who has lived there, I can vouch for its continued importance for the majority of its population. Even today, long after its political status has been revoked, the Székelyföld is a reality, a geographic area with a population that still has unique songs, dances, dialects, values, and ways of looking at the world. Saying it is important today is only saying that (to take an example) a Székely from Gheorgheni/Gyergyószentmiklós can feel that in certain ways, he has more in common with another Székely from Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy than he does with an ethnic-Hungarian from Cluj/Kolozsvár --- and that the songs, dances, embroidery, cuisine, etc. in Ditrǎu/Gyergyóditró have points of commonality with those from Csíkszentdomokos that they do not have with those from Salonta/Szalonta. These facts are still true today. They are conditioned by the historical autonomy of the Székelyföld, but the Székelyföld's current "unofficial" status does not change them. Furthermore, if you ask someone from, say, Ciumani/Csomafalva where they are from, they may say "I'm from Gyergyó," or "I'm from Hargita," or "I'm from the Székelyföld" - with just as much reason, and just as much innocence, as someone from Piatra Neamţ might say "I'm from Neamţ" or "I'm from Moldova." Its importance to people is unquestionable, and this importance does not translate into irredentism.

Now, the important thing to remember here is once again: just because the Székelyföld is a current reality (which it is to its inhabitants, who seem to be the most important people to ask about it) DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that it should be a political entity too. The majority of Székelys are loyal, law-abiding citizens of Romania. Calling the Székelyföld a geographic region is a simple statement of fact in English - even if it is not (and, according to many people, should not be) a politically-recognized entity. Recognizing its continued importance to people's identity and self-identification is crucial if we are to give unbiased information about the world through wikipedia. I understand and sympathize with any Romanian editors who are afraid that mentioning the Székelyföld's current relevance might somehow compromise the integrity of the Romanian state. However, I assure them that this fear is unfounded. The Székelyföld is real, even now, to those who live there, and is an integral part of a unified Romania. Mentioning it as a current political region is an affront to the Romanian state. Failing to mention it as a current cultural and geographic region is an affront to the hundreds of thousands of Székely who consider it a non-political reality. Wikipedia's take on this must avoid both irredentist insults to Romania and, by ignoring their identity, insults to Romania's Székely citizens.

In sum: I propose we return the mention of the Székelyföld (or Székely Land) to the lead of articles dealing with Székely settlements, and that we mention it not just as a historical region, but as a "cultural region" (perhaps the best compromise) or a "geographic region." I am curious to hear any more objections to naming the Székelyföld in the lead of articles dealing with it, or to mentioning it not just as a historical, but as a current cultural and geographic region. Hubacelgrand (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a serious discussion so I will assume good faith regarding several statements (/provocations) made above (the paranoia part, preconceived ideas and automatic right-wing labeling of the "Romanian" editors involved in this discussion). I will try to be concise and address the issues in descending order of their importance without ignoring the fact that the most pressing concern was overlooked.

• map inclusion: Including the map of what today is only an ethno-cultural region of a certain ethnic (sub)group in a settlement article, where only currently valid territorial-administrative entities and historical maps of internationally recognized political entities are present. Analyzing hundreds of articles about settlements on Wikipedia I have failed thus far in finding another example of such an inclusion. For example (the most important city in the historical/geographical region was considered):

1. no Bucovina map on the Suceava article;
2. no Moldavia (the geographic and historical region) map on the Iasi article;
3. no Oltenia map on the Craiova article;
4. no Muntenia map on the Bucharest article;
5. no Dobrogea map on the Constanta article;
6. no Basarabia map (not even mentioned) on the Chisinau article;
7. no Transylvania (historical region) map on the Cluj-Napoca article;
8. no Banat map on the Timisoara article;
9. no Crisana map on the Oradea article;
10. no Maramures map on the Baia Mare article;

no Galicia map on the Lvov article and so on; further examples can be found at any settlement article were Rokarudi (who started all this controversy) has not been a contributor. To make it more clear: Rokarudi, by his inclusion of the Székelyföld autonomy initiative map (he also used another map, made by himself, which is a hybrid between the past self-governed entity and the current initiative for autonomy) on certain settlement articles has tried to create the illusion that such an area is a reality. I have called this act a blatant and shameless form of irredentism and I have tried to discuss the issue with him but only managed to get further accused and mislabeled.

• mentioning Székelyföld in the lead of articles. Székelyföld is a ethno-cultural area holding a great deal of significance for the Szekely sub(group). But it is just that, a ethno-cultural area in the historical region of Transylvania. The medieval self governed administrative entity was almost always lumped together with the rest of Transylvania. More precisely, an example:

the inhabitants of the Banat region can be safely called Banatians (Romanian: Bănățeni) regardless of ethnic affiliation. However an inhabitant of the Székelyföld cultural area is always a Szekler because the cultural area itself is defined by the particularities of that ethnic sub(group). Self identification follows the same lines, Romanians in Bălan, for example, consider themselves Transylvanians(Romanian: Transilvăneni/Ardeleni) and not Székely, Székelyföld-ers or Székely-Land-ers.

Another example special tailored for the understanding of DerGelbeMann who previously misinterpreted the example made on his talk page:

Suppose all the inhabitants of the same Banat region would be temporarily displaced to another planet. The Banat region would still persist regardless of the new ethnicities that might arrive in their place. The unique culture of the Székelyföld area, however, would vanish if the Székely were to be displaced because their very presence is the only factor in maintaining the existence of this ethno-cultural region. The geographical extent of the Székelyföld cultural area is limited only by the spread of the Székeler (sub)group and not by geophysical particularities.

In a nutshell, Székelyföld is only a ethno-cultural area nowadays. The simplest way it can be something more, is the one pursued by the UDMR political party - the creation of an autonomous region.

Taking into consideration all the above, the fact that Many persons who visit these pages are probably ethnic Hungarians (citation from DerGelbeMann's previous comment) and the history of Wikipedia, I find it really strange that no one bothered to make such an inclusion until Rokarudi. This is an Encyclopaedia, we should not discuss about loyalty, fear or other irrelevant topics. Amon Koth (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In case I wasn't very clear, the Székelyföld area (past Székely seats) is exactly in the same category as the Universitas Saxonum the former seats of the Transylvanian Saxons. Amon Koth (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Many people would disagree with the idea that the Banat, magically divested of all its inhabitants, would persist as anything more than a memory; the Banat's particularities are shaped by the historical experience of its inhabitants, and in the absence of such inhabitants, of any ethnic group, the Banat, like any other region, would cease to exist in any meaningful sense. Furthermore, even if the Székelyföld is "only" an ethno-cultural region, that ethno-cultural region 'is a present reality' for its inhabitants. Calling the Székelyföld somehow "unreal" because it is not politically recognized only feeds the desires of certain irredentists who contend that the region will never be acknowledged under any other conditions. However, if if I'm understanding Amon Koth's points correctly, there might be room for a compromise here. For example: no maps of the Székelyföld in articles on individual settlements (the list of examples is convincing, at least to me), and mention of the Székelyföld (which we all admit is important to some people) in the lead only of majority-Hungarian settlements (Sândominic and Izvorul Mureşului, but not Bălan or Voşlăbeni), where it will be specified as an "ethno-cultural region" rather than anything more controversial (neither a "geographic region," which to some people might suggest political motivation, nor a "historical region," which to some other people might suggest it is no longer a reality.) Would anyone be averse to such a policy? Hubacelgrand (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ (regarding the Banat example). Banat, as a historical and geographical region would still persist and there are already examples which prove my point, see Lombardia, Thrace or even Macedonia (the ancient Macedonians were neither Slavs nor Greeks - the latter considering them barbarians).

Although I have some reservations because this would represent a precedent (mentioning cultural regions in the lead), I will support this compromise proposed by User:Hubacelgrand - to be clear - using Székelyföld in the lead as an ethno-cultural region. Because it is an cultural area of the Szekely people we should use its Hungarian name (Székelyföld).Adrian (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The parallelism with the administrative unit of the Transylvanian Saxons (which I think it was named Königsboden / Királyföld (Szászföld) / Pământul crăiesc) is perfect. I support the formula "ethno-cultural region" too.

The lead of Székely Land article itself defines it in this way: Székely Land refers to the territories inhabited mainly by the Székely, a Hungarian-speaking ethnic group (and not Székely Land is a geographical / historical region) (DerGelbeMann (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

We should use English in English Wikipedia as Iadrian yu always puts it when argues for the deletion of Hungarian alternate names. Székelyföld is in Hungarian and the place is called in English Székely Land or Szeklerland. As the article title is Székely Land, this is what should be used. (The Hungarian name is available through redirect). Rokarudi--Rokarudi 16:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Of the topic:Don`t want to argue about your previous actions but it was obvious that you were forcing Hungarian names, giving them special status...anyway, I thought that we could use the Hungarian name for it since it is an cultural area of the Szekely subgroup an it is important only for the Hungarian speaking population. If you want to use the official English name(or any other language version) i have nothing against it.Adrian (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like we're getting somewhere here. (I have been using "Székelyföld" here because that is how I think of it, but it makes sense in the articles to call it "Székely Land.") I will edit the lead of the article for Sândominic/Csíkszentdomokos to try to make a kind of "template" for how we might do this - see how you like the new "model intro." Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you made here. Adrian (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with this formula. Thank you for your contribution. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I offer my consent for this general agreement with some additional clarifications:

1. It should be present in the lead only of majority-Hungarian settlements (as Hubacelgrand specified).
2. I would prefer using the term Székely Land rather than Székelyföld; those not speaking the Hungarian language have enough trouble pronouncing Székely, we shouldn't force the föld term too. :-)
3. As Adrian already mentioned this is however a precedent because such an inclusion even in the present (i.e. ethno-cultural) form is not practiced. I support this regardless, for the sake of the spirit of Wikipedia. Amon Koth (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there it appears to be a problem [20], can we all have a clear vote here about the issue please to confirm the consensus above, the subject was: 1) The inclusion of the "Szekely land" map in articles 2) The inclusion of the Szekely land in the lead. The consensus was; 1) No map inclusions of the "Szekely land" and 2) We mention in the lead it lies in the ethno-cultural Székely Land region

• Support Support the consensus already discussed. Adrian (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Support the formulation discussed, tested and currently used (x lies in the Székely Land, an ethno-cultural region in eastern Transylvania). Would be amenable to reopening the map issue in the future if a different map (i.e. without reference to the autonomy movement) were provided. Hubacelgrand (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support the consensus, I am not against including in the history section maps with the location in the historical Sz Land (without reference to the autonomy movement).

P.S. There is a problem at Târgu Mureş article, where it is written that the city is considered the informal capital of the historical province of Székely Land.. Isn't Miercurea Ciuc the capital? [21] (DerGelbeMann (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Are there any sources for Targu Mures ? Any sources for Miercurea Ciuc ?Adrian (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a work about tourism in Romania written by English authors that presents M.Ciuc as capital of Sz.Land [22](DerGelbeMann (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I guess you can insert citation needed template at Targu Mures and if nobody comes with a reference in a couple of days you can delete it and write this at Miercurea Ciuc providing this reference. Adrian (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of a tricky one, since not everyone (not even all the Hungarians) in Târgu Mureş/Vásárhely considers it part of the (current cultural) Székely Land anymore. In my experience there is no real unofficial capital of the region; it's just another excuse for Odorheiu Secuiesc/Udvarhely (the oldest and the big town with the biggest Hungarian majority), Miercurea-Ciuc/Csíkszereda (capital of the county with the biggest Hungarian majority) and Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy (the biggest town with a Hungarian majority) to snipe at each other as they've been doing for fifty years or more. Offices of organizations and NGOs tend to be in Sepsiszentgyörgy but Csíkszereda is catching up, and you can find touristic pamphlets from all of those places that claim them as the "capital" of the Székely Land. It's probably best not to put anything on this anywhere, since there's no clear consensus on it even within the region. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hubacelgrand that this sentence must be thought over. On the one hand, historically, it is Targu Mures/Marosvásárhely that is the most important town of the Székely Land, but definitely not a capital as the Székely Land was never conceived as kind of independent or semi-independent county like 'Scot Land'. On the other hand, the Rumanization was strong here, and a lot more ethnic rights were granted / tolerated for the Hungarians in Harghita and Covasna counties than in Mures and especially in the county seat. While in Odeorheiu Secuiesc / Székelyudvarhely everything was bilingual even in the darkest period of Ceausescu era, in Targu Mures/ Marosvásárhely the issue of Hungarian commercial signs is still a delicate issue. So, the Hungarian-styled life enjoyed a greater freedom in Harghita and Covasna counties. However, Targu Mures is real town while the other Székely towns are only "field towns" as we call them. The Hungarian political and cultural elite is comncentrated there, too. So, I would change the expression 'informal capital' to the 'most important town of the Székely Land' or similar.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Little correction , it is Romanization(from Roman, Romania) not "Rumanization", and compared to the previous Magyarization policy it pales in comparison. Second, please use official names, I saw that now they are even changed by alternative names. We are talking about Romania-related issue and please use official Romanian names. About the "Szekely land" capital, I will put cittation needed at Targu Mures, and if no reference provided, I will deleted in a couple of weeks. The capital can be only one. It is a cultural region, and just because you are a Hungarian we are focusing on this matter so much. Szekely land isn`t worth mentioning that much as any other cultural region on Wiki. Adrian (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support the consensus as to lead. However, I also support including in the history section a map with the location in the historical Sz Land (without reference to the autonomy movement or advocacy of any kind) . Rokarudi--Rokarudi 09:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The inclusion of any sort of map of the Szekely land would be inappropriate, there are many examples already given and I could give some too where some location in not represented on a regional map, autonomous province map, or in this case on the cultural region map. It is usually presented on the municipality map, there is no need here to make a precedent also since the representation of the Szekely minority is solved (mentioned in the lead). Everything else would be inappropriate. If someone insists on map inclusion we can discuss it too, but taken into consideration that this consensus already generated one precedent, I don`t think that it would be good to generate another, without solid arguments from the user who wants to include it. Just a reminder, we din`t saw any argument for such an inclusion. If the cultural representation is needed after this consensus we can make an article about the cultural region and divert the Szekely land link to this article where it would contain special maps representing this cultural region. If someone really needs to see maps with "Szekely land" - they are a click away (click from the lead where this is mentioned). Including maps would be redundant and innapropriate folowing other examples on Wikipedia. Adrian (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Counter-Comment I think a map is not in principle a bad idea simply because the way things are structured now, it's a bit difficult to get your bearings with regard to where exactly settlements are. In most of the Harghita articles, for example, the only map given is an outline map of Harghita with commune boundaries shaded, which is very nice if you know Harghita well already but which will not help you if you don't. (It won't show you, for example, where Sândominic is in relation to Miercurea-Ciuc or Gheorgheni.) I think every article should have, first of all, a map showing the settlement's location on a map of Romania (like most of the majority-Romanian articles have already) - after that, it might be nice to include a map with a bit more detail, zoomed in on the general region, without having (necessarily) any mention of the "Székely Land" in the map itself. In this case I think the lack of a clear precedent is less important than making the articles more useful. But this is probably a discussion for another time. For now, consensus is against the maps. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Of course, that is the standard "policy" , but we use the municipality map for a "close up" , or even 2 or more municipalities represented on a map so we can see one settlement in comparison with the other. That is the practice on Wikipedia. With a map showing any settlement on a municipality map I have nothing against and I would support such an inclusion.Adrian (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Or even making a map representing municipalities Harghita, Covasna and Mures and represent any place there. As it can be seen, there are many possibilities to represent maps that don`t have any separatist connotation. Anyway maps with "Szekely map" are just a click away from the lead. Adrian (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I made only 3 such maps (Lunca de Sus/Gyimesfelsőlok. Lunca de Jos/Gyimesközéplok, Dariju/Székelyderzs. The maps we use for Romania settlements probably are not best on Wikipedia, I would be happy to improve them. My personal opinion is that if a map contains information on a settlement other than its location in a county with which no one is familiar (current administrative borders, past administrative borders, rivers, mountains, main neighboring city or even ethnicity, if relevant), can do no harm. The File:Szekely Land issues.svg (if we strip it from the political emphasis) could be used to create a nice map. It was, by the way, created by a Romanian editor, who did a very good job.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Don`t get me wrong, maps of the Szekely land MUST exist because this needs to be represented in some way, but this map, created by a Romanian or any other editor has no relevance since this user included this map in appropriate context, on the article about Szekely land. If in the future we discuss this issue there maybe some room for compromise, like representing this cultural area on a map of these three municipalities in some color where the Szekely people represent the majority, not borders. But again, this would be a second precendent on this matter so I don`t know if that is all right. After all we should respect the representation of the regions/cultural area in standard form and not making this a special case just because it is a Romania-related subject. Adrian (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Moderate Support . I condone the consensus - as per my previous comment (on this page); moderate because it established a precedent as such an inclusion (of cultural areas) is extremely rare on Wikipedia, if at all. The map inclusion was already discussed. Amon Koth (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

* Comment Why do not we agree like this: (1) Out the 3 maps I created (Lunca de Sus/Gyimesfelsőlok, Lunca de Jos/Gyimesközéplok, Dariju/Székelyderzs) we keep 2 (Lunca de Sus/Gyimesfelsőlok and Dariju/Székelyderzs) but not as a precedent or consensus supported item but just to exhibit it in the article as a sample for further discussion. On the other hand, we stop creating new maps unil consensus is reached in the future and (3) those interested may continue the map discussion on the Székely Land discussion page or elsewhere on possible regional maps. I think that nicer or more informative maps than the existing ones can be created, but working with maps is difficult anyway, and we surely need assistance from experts in this area even if we agree on the principals.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The maps you created represent borders of the inexistent political entity and cannot be used on Wikipedia on various villages. There is no need for further discussion or "exhibit". There are no maps with geographical nor cultural regions anywhere on Wikipedia and not a single argument why should we even consider such an inclusion. We should follow other examples and one precedent about this matter is a fair compromise for everybody. Map representation of this cultural region is not relevant, except for the people who are trying to promote something else, that have no place on Wikipedia. Adrian (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As it can be easily seen , at these places you mention, we have the location on Romania map and on county(judet) map, but we "need" the inexistent "Szekely land" map also? It has no sense nor arguments for such an inclusion. Respect the consensus and your vote here, no map inclusion. I believe we all agreed here because it is a compromise, a "win-win" situation, what you are doing now is "pushing it". It is funny that you still pursue this matter without any arguments to back it up. This compromise established this and you are already talking about breaking it. Matter closed. Adrian (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Analyzing the vote, we have a consensus(except Rokarudi) about this (no map inclusion, we mention in the lead the ethno-cultural region). This thread is considered closed. I hope we all respect the consensus. Greetings to everyone. Adrian (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

After vote status

I do not remember that Iadrian yu was elected chairman here. If you want to close this thread then the mediation you initiated yourself will continue. The Székely Land map unless represent advocacy or similar can be inserted in any relevant article. The judet map is one side of the picture, the Székely Land map is the other side. What is Samaria for one person, is the West Bank for another, life is so complicated. Representing all relevant view, this is neutral POV, inclusion of only dominant ethnie POV of a certain country, is a one sided representation. I am ready to change the map, delete what you regard as borders etc, but I do not accept your view that such kind of map is against Wikipedia rules. I offered a compromise, and a fair one.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, for stating the obvious (that the matter is closed). You are comparing Israel`s problems with Romania? In Romania we have clear borders and nothing controversial. And that is NPOV? You can change the map if you want, but it is against this consensus we have here, that you already want to brake, and against wiki policy. I guess we need the mediation then to continue, just for you, and maybe another edit war because of your battlefield mentality. For you there can`t be a consensus until we reach what you want. I guess all we talked here is for nothing. PS: If this consensus is not respected and not reported I guess the whole problem we talked here doesn`t stand anymore.Adrian (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not throw up our hands just yet - we've come to a good consensus on this page on most of the important issues. I also think we all agree on maps (sorry to mention names but I have to - Rokarudi obviously wants them, while Adrian and I aren't opposed to them as long as they're the right kind (Adrian: "Or even making a map representing municipalities Harghita, Covasna and Mures and represent any place there. As it can be seen, there are many possibilities to represent maps that don`t have any separatist connotation." Adrian, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you). I think this discussion is about done since we've reached consensus, and we really don't need to drag the overworked mediators back into it since we've solved most of these problems ourselves. What is unquestionable, however, is that we've already reached consensus and should respect it until we reach a new one, whenever that might be. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I was ready to cancel the mediation since we have a consensus [23]. The other user wants to continue. Adrian (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many ways to represent these villages on maps, official administrative maps. Maybe in the future(not right now) we could introduce these special maps, (Mures,Harghita and Covasna municipalities) and shade the area with the Szekely majority and say that this area is the cultural region, make a special article about that also that has no political connotation, only cultural representation, that is after all we are concerned here. As it can be seen there is a way for a compromise if our intentions are not others than to promote some inexistent separatist entity. This is not a matter of cultural representation anymore, this is about openly promoting the "Szekely land" as a "real" political entity. Adrian (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

From the last few paragraphs it appears this whole discussion was for naught, because Rokarudi, although stating his support for the consensus (I noticed a bold Support as his vote), shows a clear intent for disregarding it in the near future (already there?). He also had the possibility of presenting some arguments to back up his POV yet he failed to made any significant comment in this respect before the consensus had been reached. On a more light note, I believed I represented the most skeptical element regarding this consensus, however I remained one of the few who showed no intent of breaking it. Amon Koth (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus as Iadrian yu interpretes it is that the mention of the Székely Land in the lead has been such a concession that we can bravely put the map issue into the freezer for at least another 100 years to come. But if Hubacelgrand believes him, I will assume good faith too. Mentioning the Székely Land in exchange for a map (to be re-discussed in the future), I accept the deal. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First , it is not "my" interpretation , it is everybody`s else, except yours. Second, a consensus is not everlasting but neither it is to be dismissed the next second it is reached. Map of the "Szekely land" proper would be on hold until, and if, such an entity becomes a reality some day. As I said before, there may be a room for compromise but I never said that it would be the "Szekely land" proper map but the official existent county(Judet) maps as I explained in my previous comment. It is nice that you decided to respect the consensus you agreed upon but since you are the only editor with problems it doesn`t really matter if you agree or not because you did not present a single argument to sustain this POV. I will say now for the final time, unless you come with solid arguments for a map inclusion I will consider this matter closed. As it can be seen, when establishing the need and arguments for the Szekely cultural region representation in the lead we quickly agreed, even if it generated a precedent. If you need further clarification please contact me on my talk page. Cheers! Adrian (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am astonished by Rokarudi's behavior. He still insists on the map-inclusion while offering no valid arguments. I have failed to notice on Wikipedia an editor exhibiting such an obtuse behavior like him. This consensus, which has its flaws, shows however that there is a good deal of good faith on both sides involved in this dispute. If he wants to reopen the discussion on the map inclusion he is free do to so but I would kindly suggest presenting some real arguments for a change, since he is the only editor of the five involved in this discussion which has consistently avoided such a presentation. Amon Koth (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania

Caucasian Albania was an ancient state, the territory of which generally corresponded to the territory of the modern state of Azerbaijan. Recently there has been an attempt to remove the template "History of Azerbaijan" from this article. The reason given for that was that the ancient Albanians were not the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis. In my opinion, this is not a good reason for removal of the template, because the general practice in Wikipedia is to include such templates on the territorial, and not ethnic basis. For instance, we can see that the template of "History of France" is included in the article about Gaul, while Gauls were not French. In the article about Urartu we can see the "Armenian topics" template, while Urartians were not Armenian and spoke a completely different, non Indo-European language. Likewise, one can see "Iraqian topics" template in the articles about Sumer, Assyria and Akkad, even though those ancient nations did not speak Arabic, and "Peru topics" template in the article about Inca Empire. I can cite many more examples of similar usage of such templates, which shows that there's a general criterion for inclusion. The history of every country and territory includes all the states and nations that ever existed there, and thus, I see no justification for repeated removal of the template "History of Azerbaijan". Grandmaster 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical arguments! Armenia emreged just atfer fall of Urartu, barrowingg several of gods, culture, social construcshion etc. There is no gap as case with turkish Aberbaishan. Iraqian is a less restructiv term and equated with Mesopotamiah long before Arabs populated it; Arabs no equal Iraq. Azerbaijani or Azeri in modern vocapulari means Turgiz speaking peeple of what currently Azerbabijan and the Iranian province of Azarbaijan. Adding History of Azerbaijan in article about Caucasian Albania interpreted by historian as History of Iranian Azerbaijan prior to the Tzurko-Mongol invasion. Unless add a disabishguashion ecsplaining both diferent concept of Azerbaijan, it will remain misleeding. -- 00:56, 4 May 2010 User:Ionidasz

Please sign your comments in future. How does borrowing of gods and social culture justify inclusion of a template? You can see that the general practice is to include templates on the territorial basis, not on the basis of the language, culture, etc. I cited many examples above. See for instance Gaul, which is not related to France by language, etc. Yet we can see History of France template there. Such templates serve to inform the reader about the history of the territory, not history of the people. If you look at the History of Azerbaijan article, it has a section about Albania. Grandmaster 06:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Theres continuiti between Urartu and Armenia. There is no two Armenia, neither Gaul... with two different definition Azerbaijan refers to ancient non-Turkic Azerbaijan and modern Turkic Azerbaijan, two different entity with same name and two different place. Real Azerbaijan South of Arax as Iranian Province. Also, I don't see History of Armenia on Urartu article. Ionidasz (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly there were sometimes two Armenias -- at some periods, Roman Armenia vs. Parthian or Seleucid Armenia, and at other times the original Armenia vs. "lesser Armenia" in the Taurus. We have articles on Persarmenia and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Plus, I don't understand what continuity Ionidasz is talking about, and what it has to do with the history template. It is a fact that there's a country called Azerbaijan, and there's another fact that in ancient times a country called Caucasian Albania was located at the same place. So situation is no different from Gaul/France and other similar situations. Another example is Al-Andalus, Arabic state on the territory of Spain, not related to Spanish people by language. Yet you can find History of Spain template at the bottom of the article. Grandmaster 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There never were two culturally distinct Armenia. Ancient Azerbaijan was an Iranian civilization, currently Azerbaijan is a Turkic civilization and Azeri or Azerbaijan refers to a Turkic people. Both Azerbaijans are different, not only different location, they do not mean the same thing. That's the difference, when we say Armenia or France, we know what we're refering to. But the historical Azerbaijan was an Iranian province, which is still preserved currently as a province in Iran, but now is Turkic. Grandmaster main argument is to compare to other articles, two wrong don't make it right. Azerbaijan North of Arax was created in 1918, prior to that most of the time it was to refer to what we know of as Iranian Azerbaijan. For a historian, adding History of Azerbaijan in an article about Caucasian Albania, it means Iranian Azerbaijan which had a role in the history of Caucasian Albania (even then, not the other way around) not the modern entity. Again, we can't compare this to Armenia or Iraq, the Iraqian civilization in a historical point of view is the Mesopotamian civilization. Some Iraqian nationalists are pushing their position through it, but it should be renamed as History of Mesopotamia and/or a clarification on what Iraqian in a historical point of view means. To the reader, History of Azerbaijan, can mean many things, most of it wrong insinuations. Besides, I don't see History of Armenia in the article on Urartu, as implied by Grandmaster. When there is no time gap between both, the fall of one immediatly resulted with the creation of the other. If we're really going to use Grandmasters logic..., we should also add History of Azerbaijan in the article on Armenia on the same basis. A large part of Caucasian Albania was also part of Armenia, and Azerbaijan is significantly sitting on territories which were once Armenian provinces. -Ionidasz (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What does Iranian Azerbaijan have to do with this? There's a modern country called Azerbaijan. I hope you do not deny this fact. There also was an ancient country called Albania and located at the same place. Obviously, the history of the territory includes all the states and nations that existed there. Grandmaster 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Armenians certainly sometimes inhabited the lake Van area, but the ancient Urartian language written in cuneiform inscriptions seems to be closely related to Hurrian, and was certainly not linguistically Indo-European or Armenian... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sometimes, always. If we're to accept the scientific theory that Armenians migrated to Armenian Plateau ca. 1200 B.C., even then they settled in the area around Lake Van. They're presence continued there, from the ancient to medieval ages, right on 'till about 1915, when the Ottoman Turks decided to slaughter its Armenian population and push out the remaining survivors. In any case, there was continuity shared between Urartu and Armenia - the latter was the cultural heir of the former (Urartian forms of pottery and other forms of art were imitated and used by the Armenians), and there certainly was ethnic ties between the two peoples at the time Urartu was still extant. That partly explains the immediate manner in which Urartu was replaced by Armenia as the chief political and ethnic entity in the region after Urartu fell in the early sixth century B.C. It's ironic and somewhat amusing how Grandmaster is pushing the geographical side of this argument at this moment; why, just last year, he was having fun removing the History of Armenia template from the Urartu article, on the basis that the two had nothing in common, geographic, cultural, ethnic, or otherwise. But there clearly is a connection between the two, which is far more than what I can say about Caucasian Albania, which extinguished in about the seventh to eighth centuries, and the modern Republic of Azerbaijan.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that History templates are included on the basis of pottery, cultural ties, etc. The only criterion is territory. Can you show me any other connection between Gaul and France, Al-Andalus and Spain? Grandmaster 17:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am simply giving basic examples. Of course it's much more than simple artwork similarities. If the only criterion is geography, and no one seems to have implied or stated that yet, then answer Ionidasz's question: why did you and other editors feel so compelled to repeatedly remove the History of Armenia template from the Urartu article?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And according to whom that is? We're not talking about a historical relic, a building, we're talking about a state Caucasian Albania. Under the same logic, all the current countries in Europe should share each histories template under the basis that one covered the other. And you have yet to answer the last bit, that is that prior to Caucasian Albania, there was an Armenia there. Would you be adding a template History of Azerbaijan in the article about Armenia. Ionidasz (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

lol, could not resist answering to this. If so, then a History of Azerbaijan template should be added into Armenia..., since many of the provinces of Armenia are now in Azerbaijan. Why excluding Armenia then! And if what Marshal Bagramyan report about you having removed History of Armenian template from Urartu article is true, you sure lack consistency. Ionidasz (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about templates in the articles about currently non-existent ancient states. I showed you the general practice here. I would like to see some logical arguments why it should not be the same in case with Caucasian Albania. Taking it to a personal level is not a good response, especially from a brand new user whose only contribution are postings at this board. Grandmaster 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What personal level? And what new user? Please read my explaination here, second phrase. I hope you will stop bringing this off-topic attempt at fishing. On topic now, what general practice? You should be using arguments other than others do it to justify inclusion. The point here is that if what Marshal Bagramyan report is true, I don't see what we're arguing about. If it's true you removed History of Armenia from the Urartu page, then your view is even more restrictive than mine. So why it should be different for Caucasian Albania, please explain. Also, why should it be different for currently non-existent states? Please explain. Ionidasz (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained many times. It is a general practice here. See Gaul/France, Al-Andalus/Spain, etc. Grandmaster 05:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion assumes that I am respecting a user who continues fishing at the point of harassment. I don't have anything to add, expect no replies from me. Ionidasz (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All I know is that File:Map of Colchis, Iberia, Albania, and the neighbouring countries ca 1770.jpg sure seems to show Albania in the Azerbaijan area. Anyway, some "history of X" articles seem to start in remote geological epochs... AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of Azerbaijan and the state is now non-existent. Leaving Caucasian Albania out is like chopping off a few centuries out of the history of Azerbaijan. The examples given above (Gaul, Al-Andalus) by Grandmaster are sufficient enough. History of Azerbaijan template should remain in the artile Tuscumbia (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As all the comments are made by those involved in the article talk-page, let the discussion continue there, if there's more to add. At any case the geographical location doesn't bind a state to claim an other historical state, nation and culture as it's history. If Syria or Saudi Arabia can put their history tag on the Arabic Kalifat or Iraq can put its history tag on Babylon or Assyria, then I can easily claim myself the Pope of Rome too. Aregakn (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument. I see that there's a general practice here to include the history templates in accordance with the territorial principle. I cited above many examples, for instance the template of History of France in the article about Gaul, while Gauls were not French, History of Spain in the article about Al-Andalus, though Al-Andalus was an Arabic state, and even History of Armenia in the article about Urartu, even though Urartians were not Armenians. Either the practice should change on the basis of the community consensus, or we should follow it. Grandmaster 05:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Qur'an alone

Original WP:ANI report
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The User:Abd r Raheem al Haq is destroying the Qur'an alone by claiming that Quranists DO accept some hadith which is false as you can see from the edit summary and edit here. This notion is absolutely false and i have complained about him 4 days ago as well here. You dont have to be familiar with this topic, you only need to look at the title of this group. Quran ALONE. What does 'alone' mean? The very purpose of this group is hostility against hadith. Abd r raheems claim is the same as saying an anti-semetic group loves jews. Do you see my point? I have warned him already, and so have others, so i hope a warning or a temporary block is in order. His false edits are persistent and some of us don't have the time to clean up after him all the time. Or sign their posts ;) S.G.(GH) ping! 14:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC) This revision appears to use this page as its reference for the contentious area of the article, whereas Abd r Raheem al Haq's version does not contain a reference (though this alone is not unequivocal proof of wrong-doing). Is that site a reliable source? I can't work out who has written it. A better one could surely be found, a printed one. For example. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Likewise when the article states that that page is a suitable, unbiased source, it is referencing itself. Toyota claim on their page to produce the best cars but that doesn't make it so. I will remove the section as an attempt to promote the use of that source in the article as acceptable. And I will move this to the content dispute page and remind all users to take care when chucking around accusations of vandalism. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings all, I am moving the above report to here. An edit dispute at the above page regarding the validty of edits made by User:Abd r Raheem al Haq, disputed by User:Iwanttoeditthissh. Revolves around the level to which "quaranists" accept hadith. I also have some issues on the validity of this source, having removed a section int he article that served only to trumpet it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look at the last content of our edit dispute. There were numberous issues with Abd r raheem. you can find our last dispute here Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Look into it for yourself. It is plainly obvious that Iwanttoeditthissh wishes to revert any edit that modifies the article so as not to favour his POV and then call editing it, in and of itself, a form of edit warring? I have made substantial contributions to a number of rather tatty articles whilst Iwanttoeditthissh has been openly battling away with the undo feature whilst flaming me on about six different pages.

I'm really quiet tired of his 'voice' to be honest. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The user has decided to move this to their talk page and continue it there, sub-titling it under "escalation" in what I see as an application of "the rules don't apply to me". I did not expect such a disruptive turn and have given him a final warning. Should he continue, he will get blocked. He has also restored the aforementioned section on that website. Opinions please? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What an absurd claim. If you will take a few minutes to look at my page, you'll see quite plainly that all I have done is collate the exchanges between myself and Iwanttoeditthissh that took place over a week or so to ask the community's opinion on what I consider an attempt to take control of the Quran alone article for religious promotion and then call me a vandal if I make virtually any edit at all. I copied the above exchange into that section on my talk page as well, to show where it had gone so far. I wasn't 'moving' anything, I was making a copy where it was needed. Please also note that at no point has SG even once spoke to me? Never. He 'resolves' my disputes for me, sends me threats, but never actually talks. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There are also issues of WP:OWN and WP:DE manifesting. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how these issues might be manifesting please? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, your edit pattern suggests you react negatively to alterations to your edits, and despite (what I believe to be) sound policy resulting in the removal of that section on the website, you reverted the change. Aside from that, there are content disputes between yourself and Iwanttoeditthis which this board will hopefully assist with. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not react negatively. You made an edit that was wrong and that was made for the wrong reasons. You also made it without any attempt to discuss why that edit had been chosen in the first place. I love the way you accuse me of reverting the edit when you're edit was a revert? The citation you restored, as I've made clear on the relevant talk page, wasn't a citation, it was a link to a Quran translation. You noted that the citation was probably questionable, I went that bit further and read the document cited, twice, it is not a citation. It is just a link. I made a new edit to address your mistake, that's the idea here, easy to make mistakes, easy to correct them. I negatively react to hard work being undermined by Iwanttoeditthissh who spends his time trying to paint me as a baddy, while I'm actually doing some work here. Then I get more grief when he manages to convince someone. Can you please name something specific I have done? I have an ongoing dispute with Iwanttoeditthish, unfortunately, but beyond that I've just been working through the low quality Islamic articles trying to sort them out.Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I will concede that the validity of the source is up for debate, however the removal of the section trumpeting the website itself ought to stand, given that the source used was the own website. Don't forget that translations can be of varying degrees of trustworthyness and reliability also - there must be more suitable translations (perhaps printed ones) to use? I'm only convinced on that section, the rest I'm hoping users of this board will step in to assist (hence why I brought it here). Hopefully someone will step in about.... now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is not a citation. It is not citing anything. It is not a translation really, but the preface to one. If you read through it, you'll see it has no direct relationship to the statement that it was cited to support. It has nothing to do with the trustworthiness of the translation, which is actually pretty good in my opinion, but the fact that neither the preface nor the translation as a whole contains a statement anything like the one it is cited to support. As for 'the section trumpeting the website itself', it is nothing of the sort. It is not a section anyway, but a single sentence at the bottom of the Quranist organisations and communities section. It is there because otherwise we'll be back to having a messy Non-affiliated Quranists section which was so problematic. (Individuals don't become encyclopaedic because lots of them don't affiliate with one another, but then, they are, in this context, a very significant group) I would love to see what is essentially a workaround improved if you fancy trying to write it - and then get it in the neck from 19ers like you've been posting cartoons of Mohammed on Youtube - be my guest, but it's no fun. I do appreciate the effort you've gone to to try to arbitrate here SG, but it is more complex than I think you've got time to get into. A lot of the normal mechanisms by which Wikipedia functions, just break down on certain pages. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the three-revert rule? I've tried to make every edit an improvement and had to suffer many more than three reverts. Iwanttoeditthish should be looked at properly before anyone takes his accusations seriously. This has become a classic case of whichever child tells tales first will be believed. I don't think SG has done anything worse than been a little hasty and overly authoritative with the admin thing, and has obviously acted in what they believed to be everyone's best interest. Iwanttoeditthissh, on the other hand, displays overt contempt for anything that he doesn't agree with and seems to add little more to this entire encyclopaedia than arguments in support of his views. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a false accusation. I am reverting your edits because they are ridiculous. It's an article called QURAN ALONE specifically aimed at distancing itself from hadith, and then you come along this week linking this group with hadith. This shouldn't even be negotiated.

Its the same as having an anti-semetic group and saying this group loves jews. Ridiculous. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What a surprise! Another revert from Iwanttoeditthish, back to his personal point of view, based on more of his own, original arguments. Let's look at the content dispute in simple terms: I say that not all Quranists reject the hadith outright, many do follow hadith, the difference between a Quranist and an orthodox Muslim is that a Quranist does not interpret the meaning of the Quran by reference to hadith, Sunni and Shia do. To assert that this is equivalent to saying anti-Semites love Jews, is indicative of where Iwanttoeditthissh has gone wrong: Because he is anti-hadith, he insists that all Quranists are so too, because he believes they should be, but, the truth is, they are not. The following is actually from the article in question, Quran alone, (note that the article is not called Anti-Hadith) under the section entitled Quranist organisations and communities:

Tolu-e-Islam ("Resurgence of Islam") is an organization based in Pakistan, with followers throughout the world.The movement was initiated by Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, a Qur'anic scholar. In his writings and speeches, he re-interpreted Qur'anic verses with little or no emphasis on hadith. Tolu-e-Islam followers do not reject all hadiths; however, they only accept hadiths which "are in accordance with the Quran or do not stain the character of the Prophet or his companions". The organization is...

I think it is absurd to describe all Quranists as anti-hadith, or use words to that effect, then go on to point out that they're not. Iwanttoeditthissh has also failed, probably in haste to revert something, to address the point I made in the post he has responded to. That the citation he kept restoring was not actually a citation at all. I believe that he has accepted that this is the case though, as he has, finally, opted to revert the edit, but not include the content that was in dispute. That's the key thing here, the disputed content issue is essentially resolved, now he's stopped reverting the bulk of the disputed content, assuming he doesn't resume form, there is no real dispute. Now he instead insists on using this page to continue to relentlessly press his position, as an argument. Furthermore, he doesn't even bother to capitalise Semite or Jew, offering everyone some insight into how casually he throws this junk theology around. I have to listen to this guy everyday. Can someone please tell him to find something else to focus on. He doesn't seem to do anything, but follow me around ranting. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, members of Tolu e Islam generally take considerable offence to the implication that they reject the Hadith. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Iwanttoeditthissh has been blocked indefinitely (sock-puppetry). Thanks be to God. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose you both stop editing this article until consensus is established. And you can't make blaze sock puppet allegations without evidence. If you have evidence, go to WP:SPI, however I warn you that if your accusation is just out of spite you will loose all footing for your current debate here. From the look of things, no one here wants to touch this with a ten foot wiki-pole. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, as it turns out he has been blocked. Fair does. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Israeli_settlements

Could I bring editors' attention to the above rfc? While there have been a fair number of participants in the rfc, nearly all have history in this content area and it is all too easy to predict which arguments individuals support. Wider participation from those familiar with Wikipedia policy will be useful.

In the mid-term, we will also be requiring someone to close the rfc on 16 July. A thick-skinned admin experienced in applying WP policy to ethnic-related content disputes without getting too drawn into editing themselves would be invaluable here.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla's cargo

There's a dispute over at the Gaza flotilla raid article, about whether or not the flotilla's cargo can be described as "humanitarian aid". The sentence in question in the lead used to say "The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), was attempting deliver humanitarian aid and building supplies to the Gaza Strip..." (section in question underlined) The sentence now says "The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) was carrying cargo destined for the Gaza Strip..."

The relevant discussion can be found here. In that discussion, another editor wrote that "It is POV to make the statement that the flotilla was bringing in humanitarian aid... I have read them all and do not see a RS that explicitly states the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid." I replied with the following list of source, which I consider to be reliable sources that describe the flotilla as carrying humanitarian aid:

• United Press International (UPI) - "Israel, which has threatened to mount pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear installations, has also been in a state of high alert after a deadly confrontation with a Turkish-organized flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid for the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, blockaded by Israel for 3 years."[24]
• New York Sun - "In sending its defense force to raid the flotilla that was seeking to deliver humanitarian aid to Hamas stronghold in Gaza, Mr. Netanyahu was facing up to precisely the kind of problem Mr. Holder was facing."[25]
• Xinhua News Agency - "Since Israeli ships attacked one of the six ships of a relief flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza on Monday, May 31 with a death toll of two and 30 other injuries, and the denunciation of the Israeli assault on the aid convoy has been heated up worldwide."[26]
• Inter Press Service (IPS) - "It also succeeded in getting a large majority of U.S. lawmakers to fire a shot across the bow of the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which has led the international chorus of criticism against the Jewish state since the deadly Israeli seizure in international waters of a Turkish vessel carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza."[27]
• Toronto Star - "According to a report from Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, itself did not carry humanitarian aid but was part of the Gaza-bound flotilla that carried humanitarian aid."[28]
• Montreal Gazette - "Hundreds of protesters turned out for rallies in Montreal and Toronto on Saturday to demonstrate against Israel's blockade of Gaza, which has been brought back into the international spotlight by the Israeli military's deadly raid this past week on a humanitarian aid flotilla."[29]
• Washington Post - "Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, urged the U.N. Security Council in an emergency session Monday to condemn Israel's raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip and to set up a U.N. inquiry to hold accountable those responsible for it."[30]
• The Times - "He spoke as Israel released the first of hundreds of activists seized on board the aid flotilla which had been shipping humanitarian aid to Gaza."[31]
• BBC News - "Fears for Bolton Gaza humanitarian aid ship man" [32]
• Press Association (PA) - "Demonstrators also expressed their anger that the Israeli navy has boarded one of the last ships on the flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza."[33]
• Aljazeera - "South Africa has recalled its ambassador to Israel amid continuing diplomatic anger over Israel's deadly attack on humanitarian aid ships bound for Gaza."[34]
• CNN - "Nine Turkish citizens were killed Monday after violence erupted on one of six ships in a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to the Palestinian Gaza Strip."[35]
• Baltimore Sun - "Early Monday, Israeli navy commandos attacked a flotilla of humanitarian aid destined for the occupied Gaza Strip in international waters. The ships were carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian supplies that are banned from Gaza under Israel's directives, including toys, wheelchairs, athletic equipment and medicines."[36]
• Frontline - "THE international outcry against Israel's pre-dawn assault on a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for Gaza has been growing louder by the day, suggesting that West Asia is poised for a major change."[37]
• Christian Science Monitor - "An American-Turkish dual citizen killed during an Israeli commando raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla was among activists buried in Turkey on Thursday."[38]
• Haaretz - "State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss on Tuesday said he will probe Israel's deadly raid last month on a Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla."[39]
• Ynet - "Hamas is blocking the delivery of the humanitarian aid that arrived on the Gaza flotilla, defense establishment sources said on Wednesday."[40]
• People's Daily - "President of the General Assembly Ali Treki Monday condemned the Israeli storming of a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, which has resulted in killing of more than 10 civilians."[41]
• Agence France-Presse - "Nine Turks were killed by Israeli commandos who boarded a Turkish vessel carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, which is under an Israeli blockade."[42]

Another editor then chimed in, changing the term to "cargo", and arguing that we shouldn't describe the flotilla as carrying humanitarian aid because "there are plenty of equivalent sources that describe what the ships were carrying and do not describe it as 'humanitarian aid'". This seems like a nonsensical argument to me - in the same way that not every article about Barack Obama says that he is Democrat doesn't mean he isn't one, the fact that not every article describe the cargo as humanitarian aid doesn't mean that it wasn't.

I had initially brought this issue up at the reliable sources noticeboard, but was advised that this may be a better place to discussion the issue, as it may be related to POV pushing in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thanks. ← George ^talk 22:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of these sources are generally regarded as reliable, but just cite a few of the better ones including at least one Israel source (I suggest WP, UPI, Haaretz and Ynet). It is obviously not a serious argument that some sources don't call it "humanitarian" and there is no need to even mention that. The only issue, requiring extra text and citation, would be if some reliable source said explicitly that it was not humanitarian. Zero^talk 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with Zero on this. --Soman (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Controversies" section in the Roald Dahl article

There's a major problem with the entire section in that there is no source to say that any "controversy" ever existed. If Dahl's statement was "controversial", then sources should be found to prove that this was so. The fact that he didn't like the actions of Israel does not mean that there was a controversy.

There is a very long account of the controversy by Naim Attallah (the owner of both Quartet Books, who published the book in question, and the Literary Review, where the review was published), in his blog. While this may not be accepytable as a reliable source for all the facts stated, it must certainly be acceptable as evidence that there was indeed a considerable controversy. RolandR (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A blog post is not evidence of a significant controversy. --FormerIP (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case, considering the blogger involved, the role he played in this incident, and the many sources he cites, I think that it is. Have you read the piece? RolandR (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

RolandR: in that case, it's a self published source by an author who self-published his book through his own publishing company. I'm not exactly sure that it'd be a controversy either: not many people support Israel these days, and scathing criticisms of the country's conduct are ten a penny. Certainly if Mr Dahl was alive, the use of a blog would be against BLP policy: i'm not sure why it should be any different for a deceased person. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The blog would be cited only to confirm the statement that there was a controversy. Attallah was one of the central figures in this controversy, so his blog should be adequate to establish this fact, even if it can't be regarded as reliable on the details.

Since the only claim being contested is that the issue (the details of which are included and reliably sourced in the article) was controversial, I suggest that Attallah's blog should be sufficient. I'll see if I can find other sources; they should exist. As it happens, I remember the controversy well. Even back then, nearly thirty years ago, I was active in Palestine Solidarity. At the time, support for Israel was much stronger than it is now, and support for the Palestinians weaker. Even so, many who otherwise supported Palestine regarded Dahl's comments as, at best, crass and unhelpful, and some of us denounced him as antisemitic rather than anti-Zionist. My memory, of course, is not a reliable source; but this certainly appeared in the press at the time, although it may take a while to unearth something as many papers from then are not yet available on the web. RolandR (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire section is sourced from the blog; that's not really appropriate. All the quotes are taken from Attallah's blog, and therefore may well be spun towards Attallah's recollection of events. I think if we're going to make claims like this, we should be quoting from the original review. Just my thoughts on the matter as an impartial observer! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of the section is sourced from the blog, which is not even mentioned in the article. Rather, it is all sourced to the Jeremy Treglown biography of Dahl, surely a reliable source. Please check again. As I note above, the only fact that is questioned, and could be sourced to the blog, is that the unchallenged facts constituted a "controversy". RolandR (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Kenya's Freedom Fighters

This article's title may be inappropriate as per WP:LABEL, however I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable alternative title. One reference mentions the term "Freedom fighter". I initially tagged it with {{POV-title}} but it was removed by another editor. Any thoughts on what to do here? Is it okay to leave this as is? -- œ^™ 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends. In some countries (such as India), "freedom fighter" is an official criteria recognized by the government. In such a case, it could be ok with a reference. --Soman (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Vergonha

(copying here from fringe theories noticeboard) Occitan nationalist anger at Paris' ill-treatment of their language over the centuries, presented as incontrovertible fact and defended by very cross IPs. Could all be true, but... Itsmejudith (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a fringe theory, just a question of political WP:POV. On a related note, our coverage of the umbrella topic of linguistic discrimination is in a sad state. We get occasional and erratic contributions of the kind of Vergonha and Welsh Not, mostly by editors with a political agenda, but nobody has so far bothered to sit down and cover the topic from an academic perspective. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, wrong noticeboard. Copying it to ethnic and religious conflict noticeboard. I'll have a look at related articles, as you say. We need to cover language policy in Europe properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wittsun and racial issues, white nationalism, etc.

Wittsun has a long history of POV-pushing on articles relating to race relations; in particular, he seems to be advocating a strong white nationalist POV, which is definitely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. See, for example, the following edits to Reverse Discrimination (including one in which Wittsun attempts to use fringe antisemitic author Kevin MacDonald as a source): [43] [44] [45]. This user has also made similar edits to other articles, like [46] this one to White Supremacy and [47] this one to Hate crimes against white people, in addition to repeatedly denying that Craig Cobb and Podblanc are white supremacist (see his comments on Talk: Craig Cobb and Talk: Podblanc).

In particular, this user appears to have an obsession with the Frankfurt School, repeatedly adding conspiracy theories relating to that group into articles having to do with race relations ([48]). He also has shown a tendency towards personal attacks; see [49] this comment in which he appears to accuse other users of "gulagism" (as well as making the obligate Frankfurt School analogy).

I have warned Wittsun about his behavior multiple times, but he has generally been very uncooperative and has refused to admit any wrongdoing, instead accusing me of trying to push POV by objecting to his edits. Wittsun has been blocked once already (24 hours, for violating 3RR); however, his POV-pushing behavior has not changed at all, and has continued since the block expired. I think someone ought to warn him; I don't think I should do it myself, as Wittsun clearly hates my guts: [50] so I think that warning him myself will only provoke his anger further. That's why I think another user, perhaps an admin, should step in. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Stonemason89 seems to have a problem with balanced articles and different points of view. Having failed to argue successfully in various discussion forums, he has taken up his activism here in an effort to get me banned.--Wittsun (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold it! When did I ever say I was trying to get you "banned"? I never said that was my intent; I only wanted to bring the matter to the administrator's attention so they could decide what the appropriate response should be.

Personally, I think the best response is not a ban or block, but rather a topic ban from ethnicity, race, or religion-related articles. That way, Wittsun would still be able to edit articles on other topics. I think the topic ban is most appropriate since his disruptive behaviors (3RR, POV-pushing, and personal attacks) so far have only manifested themselves on articles and in disccusions relating to ethnicity, race, and religion (which represent a small minority of all articles on Wikipedia). I don't see any reason why he should not still be allowed to edit articles on other topics; besides, it would give him an opportunity to clean up his act and if he contributes constructively for a long enough period of time, we could consider lifting the topic ban. However, I think the final decision should be left up to the administrators. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This diff: [51] should give an indication as to why I included religion-related articles within the scope of the proposed topic ban; the comment in question could be construed as an attack on Christians. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To admins: In case any of you were wondering, I did leave the ANI-notice template on Wittsun's talk page, according to policy. However, he [52] subsequently scrubbed the page clean, leaving the impression that I didn't notify him. He had also scrubbed his talk page once before, too: [53]. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw it, no problem. I'm a bit confused with your mention of our Frankfurt School article, as the url refers to Reverse discrimination. And that diff, which is a substantial addition of text (ah, I see the Frankfurt School thing now) and which is clearly a pov off-topic edit - almost a hi-jacking of the article as it attempted to change it so greatly, claims to be an edit which "addressed poor writing style and vague terminologie" but was nothing of the sort. However, I see he has stopped. If this continues then it might be time to take it elsewhere as this isn't a forum for discussion of bans, but hopefully that won't be necessary. Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't stopped; see his comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Families of Berlin defending a racist bit of original research, synthesis and neologism-making. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and formally proposed a topic ban; see [54]. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Kalt wie stahl and racial hatred in Germany

This user is heavily into articles on antisemitism, Asian minority criminals in Germany and elsewhere, etc. He's also created several articles on German racist epithets not used in English. His edits are often hatefilled screeds, totally violative of WP:NPOV, assailing what he sees as left-wing conspiracies to blame the right for all hatred. Could other editors take a look at what I believe I'm seeing (since I'm a bit on the left myself)? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, before I saw this, I found this diff [55] which I was going to remove until I found you'd beaten me to it. We definitely don't need editors like this.

Looking at his talk page I note a number of notices about copyright problems with images. In each case he's now claimed fair use rationale. 4 of them are used at an article he created, Six Families of Berlin. I'm not convinced that he's right, but more to the point, [56], when you reduce the url, goes to [57] (and radio Freiheit itself seems racist from the little I can find out about it - looks like it's run by Deutscher Standpunkt). Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked into their contributions in detail, but it is unacceptable for a 21st century encyclopedia to talk about a "Nordic race" as if it really existed, and specify the supposed characteristics of that race, as they did in Potato (derogatory term). I have not corrected the multiple issues with this article as it is prodded anyway and I expect it to be deleted asap. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh.... why hasn't Six Families of Berlin been AfDed yet, or even prodded under G10? It's one long racist screed, more or less.radek (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Prodded, but Witson (see below), removed the prod, so now we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Families of Berlin. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please also have a look at Birthe Christiansen, who to my mind was not important and is just mentioned because she got stabbed by an immigrant.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The 6 Families AfD was closed early, deletion as an unsourced (for the phrase 6 families) attack page. I've deleted the Birthe Christiansen article, clearly created only because she was killed by someone of Somali origin. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Kalt wie Stahl" contributed to the article about Volkmar Weiss (Weiss is a controversial German scientist, who holds the opinion that there are race diverences in IQ, which are caused by genes,) calling him a polymath, who has an "extensive knowledge". After "Kalt wie Stahl"'s contributions had been reverted, another user showed up, making just the same points.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct attribution of sources in Maraghar Massacre

Hello. I have a dispute with User:MarshallBagramyan about attribution of sources in the Maraghar Massacre article. There are three sources telling about the events:

1. Caroline Cox, who supports the Armenians. So she is not a neutral source.
2. Thomas De Waal, who refers to the Armenians' reports and to Caroline Cox but mentions at the same time that she is a supporter of Armenians.
3. HRW, referring to the only Armenian eyewitness available (a member of self-fefence militant forces) and to the Head of NKR Parliament.

I suggest:

1. to attribute this sentence:"The Maraghar Massacre was the April 10, 1992 killing of the ethnic Armenian civil population of the village Maraghar by Azerbaijani troops during the Nagorno-Karabakh War." and to use "Armenians" instead of "civil population" because "killing of the ethnic Armenian civil population" is confirmed only by Armenian sources. HRW, for example, says "it is unclear however how the determination between "civilian" and a member of the self-defence was made"
2. to mention sympathies of Caroline Cox to Armenians as Thomas de Waal did in his book.

According to Wikipedia:NPOV and WP:BOLD I also suggest to remove the quotation from non-neutral sorce:

Maraghar: the name of this village is associated with a massacre which never reached the world’s headlines, although at least 45 Armenians died cruel deaths. During the CSI mission to Nagorno Karabakh in April, news came through that a village in the north, in Martakert region, had been overrun by Azeri-Turks on April 10 and there had been a number of civilians killed. A group went to obtain evidence and found a village with survivors in a state of shock, their burn-out homes still smoldering, charred remains of corpses and vertebrae still on the ground, where people had their heads sawn off, and their bodies burnt in front of their families. 45 people had been massacred and 100 were missing, possibly suffering a fate worse than death. In order to verify the stories, the delegation asked the villagers if they would exhume the bodies which they had already buried. In great anguish, they did so, allowing photographs to be taken of the decapitated, charred bodies. Later when asked about publicizing the tragedy, they replied they were reluctant to do so as ‘ we Armenians are not very good at showing our grief to the world

--Quantum666 (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My arguments have been stated and, repeatedly stated, in full on the article talk page here. Unless something new arises, or a question is posed here or extra clarification is requested, this is about as far as I'm going to comment.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Greater Albania

User:Sulmues has changed the lede of this article from this version [58] to this [59]. I find this problematic, as his edits are naively POV and the old version of the lead was much more encyclopedic. Specifically:

• He removed the mention territories typically included in Greater Albania (e.g. Kosovo, Chameria, etc..), with an attempt to blame "Greater Albania" on Mussolini [60] (as if there is a need to assign blame). A brief mention of the territories comprising Greater Albania in the lead is essential to help our readers get a quick grasp of the subject, while quoting sources out of context so as lay blame for the concept "Greater Albania" on outsiders is the height of naive POV-pushing. All Balkan nationalities have their irredentist movements and dreams, and Albanians are no exception. Mentioning in the lead that the concept of Greater Albania is kept alive by Serbian nationalists, while true, is unwarranted in the lede. Perhaps elsewhere in the article, but I don't think it's lede-worthy.

• He also mangled a sentence mentioning the League of Prizren, with whom the ideas of uniting all Albanian lands originated [61]. The sentence is now unreadably ungrammatical and incoherent ("...and under Albanian authority...").

• Attempts to discuss this on the article talkpage proved futile, as they immediately ran into a brick wall of obduracy and ignorance (e.g. he thinks Megali Idea is Turkish irredentist concept [62] [63]). Though he apparently knows next to nothing on the subject, he is extremely opinionated and it is impossible for me to get through to him. He cannot or will not understand anything I say, hence my post here.

In my opinion, the original version of the lede is far more encyclopedic. The territories included in Greater Albania should be briefly mentioned, the stuff about Mussolini and Serbian nationalist circles moved out of the lead and elsewhere in the article, and the sentence about the League of Prizren restored to its previous, more coherent version. I would like to hear the opinion of other editors on the matter in the hope of obtaining a consensus. Athenean (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which needs to be continued to the talk page, which user:Athenean deserted in order to come here. Let me start with the history and the related main problem of the article, which is the redirect of Ethnic Albania into Greater Albania done in august 2007 [64], and following this very brief discussion where no consensus was reached Talk:Greater_Albania#Merge_with_Ethnic_Albania. In 2008, a proposed merge into Ethnic Albania was made but did not succed, although no consensus had been reached previously, because the Greek users involved in that discussion wanted Greater Albania and did not agree to the proposal (see Talk:Greater_Albania#Merge_as_Ethnic_Albania_proposals_continue). Now let's talk content: Ethnic Albania is a different concept from Greater Albania and I entered many sources for that into the lead. Ethnic Albania is the term used by the Albanian nationalists and refers to territories inhabited historically by Albanians, Greater Albania as per Elsie is a Mussolini concept applied in 1941 and kept alive by Belgrade as per Elsie p.72. The lede that I proposed includes this source, which explains that Greater Albania is a reaction to the injustices to the Albanian people after the decision on its borders in 1913. The League of Prizren needs to be removed from this article because it doesn't just make any sense. Albania didn't exist in 1878, time of the League of Prizren, so a "Greater Albania" couldn't have existed either. The use of tertiary sources in the lede will be little by little filled with secondary sources in the body of the article. But for this we would need to collaborate for this article, rather than coming to noticeboards for content issues. Furthermore, I already recognized that I had not understood your comment on the Megali Idea [65], so there is no need to repeat it here. Just go to the talk page and read what I said. All this said, I am also very interested in listening to other editors' opinions. In fundis, before coming to an AN, there is Third Opinion, and RfC. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Insisting about this: but the term itself is actually never used by the Albanians, and has been kept alive in recent years by Serbian nationanlist circles in order to justify a Greater Serbia. Is just a typical wp:idonlikeit case. I don't see a reason to keep it and especially in lead. No matter what a specific author claims nationalism and irredentism is an everyday issue on all Balkan nations.Alexikoua (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I will quote the source, Robert Elsie, who says in p.72 the following:

The Albanians do not use the term Greater Albania and never have. The term has only been kept alive by in recent years by Belgrade in order to justify its push for a Greater Serbia. The Albanians speak at the most, of an Ethnic Albania in line with the writings of scholar Rexhep Qosja, i.e. one corresponding simply to the areas of majority Albanian settlement.

Alexikoua, this was a quote from Elsie, who is a reliable source. You may accuse me only of bordering wp:copyvio, nothing else. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

(not sure if this is quite the right forum)

According to numerous sources (I include a few below), there are two texts called the "Ten Commandments" (TCs) in the Old Testament: Exodus 34 and Deut. 5. Popular understanding is that only the Deut. 5 text is the TCs, and various attempts are sometimes made to explain away the instance of the phrase in Ex. 34, but this second version of the TCs has been noted since at least the 5th century. The Ten Commandments article only covers the Deut. 5 text (and its near copy in Ex. 20), while the Ex. 34 text is covered at Ritual Decalogue. For two years, there has been unanimous consensus that a note to this effect should be included in the lede of the main article.

Now there are several editors who wish to delete all mention of Ex. 34 from the lede, and restrict it to a controversies section near the bottom of the (rather long) article. Some of the editors seem to be motivated by religious factors, but for others I do not understand the motivation, except that they seem to be unfamiliar with the idea. Two of us wish to maintain the previous consensual version, or something like it. "Ritual Decalogue" may not be the best name for the other text, as it implies a hypothesis attributed to Goethe (that Ex34 is a primitive ancestor of Deut5), while many scholars, who accept that the phrase "TCs" in Ex34 applies to Ex34, have other explanations for it (that they are parallel Judean and Isrealite accounts of the TCs, that Ex34 post-dates Deut5, that the phrase "TCs" was added at a later date to an unrelated text in Ex34 as a gloss, etc). Regardless of which if any of those accounts one might believe, the fact remains that numerous mainstream scholars, and even annotated Bibles, are of the opinion that the phrase "TCs" in Ex34 describes the text in Ex34, a text that is not the TCs of popular conception, and therefore not covered by the TCs article. IMO, and in the opinion of the previous unanimous consensus on the article, it is thus appropriate to notify the reader of this fact up front, in the lede to the article.

Refs:

Commentary on the Torah, Richard Elliott Friedman, 2003. (Bible Review wrote "A remarkable work..Friedman is to be congratulated.")

34:28. the Ten Commandments. The second set of the commandments appears here in vv. 14-26. Three of them are similar to the commandments that appear in Exodus 20: the commandment against bowing to other gods (34:14-16), the commandment against molten gods (v. 17), and the commandment to cease work on the seventh day (v. 21). The other seven are different from the Ten Commandments that God speaks aloud over Sinai. In critical biblical scholarship we understand these two versions of the Decalogue to come from two different ancient sources. But how are we to understand them in the final form of the Torah? The answer may lie in a second contradiction: In the first verse of this chapter God tells Moses that "I'll write on the tablets the words that were in the first tablets." But now God tells Moses, "Write these words for yourself" (34:27). Perhaps we should understand this to mean that God writes the words on one side of the tablets, and Moses writes the words of the second set of commandments on the other side. As is commonly noted, the majority of the first set are ethical commandments, involving relations between humans and other humans: don't murder, don't steal, ... The second set are mainly ritual commandments: Observe the holidays, redeem the first born, don't sacrifice with leaven, ... The two sets are thus complementary, involving the two essential kinds of commandments: relations between humans and humans, and relations between humans and God.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Corss & Livingstone, eds. 3rd ed. 1997.

There is another and, acc. to many OT critics, older version of the 'Ten Words' preserved in Exod. 34:11-28, where much more emphasis is laid on ritual prescriptions.

HarperCollins Bible Commentary, Mays gen. ed. Revised edition, 1988.

34:1-28 The Proclamation of the Covenant: [...] the covenant stipulations are not the same as those in chaps. 20-23. This is surprising, because it is the clear implication of v. 1 that the new tablets are to have the same thing on them that the broken tablets had, and v. 28 states flatly that Moses writes 'the ten utterances' on the tablets. In the text of the chapter, however, there is a different list of apodictic laws (vv. 17-24) in place of the Decalogue. These difficulties have led scholars to the conclusion that chap. 34 preserves a part of the account of the making of the first covenant in the original J narrative, a parallel to the E and P account in chap. 20, even though it now stands as an account of the making of a second covenant, or rather a renewal of the first. The commandments in vv. 17-24 are sometimes called the Ritual Decalogue to distinguish them from the Ethical Decalogue that occupies the same position in the account of the broken covenant (20:3-17).

101 Myths of the Bible, Greenberg, 2000

These [Ex34] then, at least according to the Bible, are the true Ten Commandments, and they differ radically from the commandments verbally announced in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. From here on, I will refer to this new set of commandments as the ritual Ten Commandments. [...]

The Bible presents four different legal codes, each with a claim that it was the original version of God's covenant with Israel. The only version specifically and clearly identified in the Bible as the Ten Commandments is the ritual version.

The Old Testament: a very short introduction, Michael David Coogan, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 61

A third version of the Decalogue is found in Exodus 34:11-26. [...] this version is a very different set of "ten words" (Exod. 34:28), entirely concerned with proper and improper worship, which is why scholars refer to it as the Ritual Decalogue.

There were thus several versions of the Ten Commandments used in ancient Israel at various times and in various places, and, wishing to preserve them despite their inconsistencies, the editors of the Bible took advantage of the plot to include the Ritual Decalogue.

Like unto Moses: the constituting of an interruption, James Nohrnberg, 1995, p34

The exception is the "Ritual Decalogue" of Exodus 34:13-26: that is the table of laws that actually got inscribed, and in the Sinai narrative it is followed only by the single supplementation of the sabbath law.

The Old Testament in the Light of to Day a Study in Moral Development, William Frederic Bad, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009, p89.

As early as the fifth century A.D. an anonymous Greek theologian[note: Cf. Nestle, Miscellen, ZAW (1904), p. 134.] credited Moses with the writing of two decalogues, one in the twentieth, the other in the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus. Since then others have noted the existence of these two completely dissimilar sets of ten commandments. The German poet Goethe was one who discovered the fact during his student days, and made it the subject of his inaugural disputation, maintaining that the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus contained the original ten commandments.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition, New Revised Standard Version, 2007, footnote at Exod. 34

34.1-35: God renews the covenant by writing the commands again. The narrator here inserts a different version of the Ten Commandments (see v. 28), since the first version (20.2-17) has already been recorded. Scholars call this version (vv. 11-26) the "Ritual Decalogue."

These are hardly "fringe" views, as editors at the TCs article keep insisting. The consensus two years ago was,

The phrase "Ten Commandments" generally refers to the very similar passages in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21. Some distinguish between this "Ethical Decalogue" and a series of ten commandments in Exodus 34 that are labeled the "Ritual Decalogue".

To me, it isn't clear from this why we would mention it in the lede to the TCs article. (After all, there are lots of commandments in the OT; what makes these relevant?) I therefore propose a statement something like the following:

The Biblical text in Exodus 34:28 appears to identify a different list as the Ten Commandments, that of Exodus 34:11–27. Since this passage does not prohibit murder, adultery, theft, etc, but instead deals with the proper worship of Jehovah, some scholars call it the "Ritual Decalogue", and disambiguate the Ten Commandments of traditional understanding as the "Ethical Decalogue".

Regardless of the wording, there should be something in the lede to direct the interested reader. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Kosovo

Looks like there's a potential edit-war brewing at this template (and presumably at other related pages) after the recent UN court case on Kosovo's status. The talk page has all the details at Template_talk:Politics_of_Kosovo#This_template_should_be_updated.... I protected the page and banged a few heads together last time this flared up (I even literally "yellow carded" the participants - see Template_talk:Politics_of_Kosovo#Protection!) I'm semi-retired from WP now, though, and don't know much about the specifics of Kosovo's political situation anyway.Can I ask some admins who know more about Balkan politics than I do to cast an eye over this? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 23:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hungarian sentiment (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hungarian sentiment (2nd nomination), seems to be spill over argument from another language wiki. Extra eyes would be nice Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Demonym

Resolved

 – - Agreement reached on talkpage to remove all Demonyms from the infobox. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Stale

 – No resolution reached on which demonyms to use, demonyms removed entirely as a result WikiuserNI (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem at the Northern Ireland article over what should and should not be included in the infobox under the Demonym section. Northern Ireland has a troubled past and identity is very important. There are 3 main ways people identify themselves in Northern Ireland (some others also apply like Ulsterman), but the main 3 are British, Northern Irish and Irish. Here is a recent poll highlighting this [66]

At the moment those who view themselves as British are being discriminated against by their exclusion from the infobox, whilst Irish and Northern Irish remain. This is deeply offensive and clearly ignores one large part of the community.

I have no problem with Northern Irish being the only thing listed in that infobox, that is the only thing that applies just to Northern Ireland. Irish applies to the whole island of Ireland, a wider entity in exactly the same way as British applies to a wider entity the United Kingdom. How can it be fair to treat Irish and British in a different way?

In one of the sources used to back up use of the term Irish it states..

The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the UK are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish."

That clearly says people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are known as British. It then says the people of Wales are “also known as Welsh” then does the same for the other countries of the United Kingdom. The author in this case clearly has no need to repeat saying British because it is already covered in the same sentence.

We have spent a long time on the talk page about this matter but no consensus has been found and it is a very heated debate, further input from neutral admins would be very helpful. Thank you. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the other constituent country articles, there's no reason to include British whatsoever, as the others do not. This sounds akin to wanting "American" in the infobox for Texas. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Then Irish should be removed from the infobox. Irish applies to a wider entity just like British does. The article infobox currently discriminates against a large community, it is deeply offensive. This is not a serious problem on the other country articles, Northern Ireland is different because Irish is there. If it simply said Northern Irish i would see no problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon if I didn't understand which you wanted ex/included, as you never said. --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like "If I can't have the baby, no problem, but neither can she"... 68.238.21.153 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Irish should be removed from the infobox. Just use Northern Irish & Ulstermen. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Northern Irish is something that without doubt belongs in the infobox there. If Irish is included then British must also be because both are identities in Northern Ireland and both apply to a wider area (the island/the United Kingdom). So either Irish is removed or British is added, but at present the infobox over at Northern Ireland is discriminating against a large community in Northern Ireland and it is deeply offensive considering many people died for their right to remain British. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, there is also ample discussion in the article itself with regards identities which are different to the simple demonym. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

one of the sources used to justify Irish being in that infobox clearly also states people are British. If Irish can be there, British needs to be. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If anything, the current "conflict" is caused by those who refuse to accept what the demonyms are (one even going so far as to claim the person who invented the term in the first place is not a reliable source) and insist that what they believe the demonyms are should be in the article instead. These editors do not seem interested in adding the same additional demonym to England, Scotland or Wales, only the Northern Ireland article. I find the "Texas" analogy to be quite appropriate as well. O Fenian (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between Northern Ireland and the other 3 countries of the United Kingdom in this case. Scottish applies just to Scotland, Welsh to Wales, English to England. The trouble with Northern Ireland is it includes Irish which applies to the whole island of Ireland, not just Northern Ireland. Identity has also never been as controversial in the other parts of the UK as it is in Northern Ireland.

Sorry but at present that infobox is clearly grossly offensive by discriminating against those who consider themselves British. As stated before, one of the sources used to justify Irish clearly also states British applies to each part of the UK, there was no need for the author to repeat it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not grossly offensive, although it may be wrong. As I understand demonym it means a description of someone from a specific area. While a person from Milan, for example, may be considered a Lombard, an Italian and/or even a European, the person's demonym is Milanès. Similarly, the demonym for someone from Northern Ireland is not Irish, British or European, it is Northern Irish. Daicaregos (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I see lots of hyperbole and rhetoric and peoples' own extreme personal opinons, none of which have any place in an encyclopedia. O Fenian (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This question was brought to the reliable sources noticeboard (here) some months ago, but no-one from the noticeboard provided an answer (possibly because the noticeboard was swamped by editors from the Northern Ireland page). I recommend that the question is posed there again and the members of the noticeboard be allowed to answer without interference. Daicaregos (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was about 2 or 3 weeks ago, nobody replied so i do not see how posting there again is going to accomplish much. It is not about if a specific source is reliable or not. It is about the point you made. "Similarly, the demonym for someone from Northern Ireland is not Irish, British or European, it is Northern Irish. " . I would not have any concern about the infobox if it simply stated Northern Irish which clearly just applies to a specific area (Northern Ireland). The trouble is with Irish included which applies to a wider area, British has just as much right to be there as its part of a wider area too. Removing Irish and leaving Northern Irish there alone would be the best compromise, rather than having both Irish and British there.

I am sorry that you do not think this is offensive, whilst it is not a big deal for the articles over on Scotland, Wales and England. The history of Northern Ireland makes identity or "Demonym" very important and serious. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it's asking a lot of the CCN, but can we not resort to hyperbole like "grossly offensive" and "discriminating"? I suspect Wikipedia has never actually discriminated against anyone, and most people who are grossly offended by it do so on purpose. --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry i do think it is deeply offensive to discriminate against one community in Northern Ireland by excluding British from the infobox whilst allowing Irish to be there. It is very controversial, just putting Northern Irish there would resolve the problem but to mention Irish which represents a wider area, but not allowing British is clearly wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups." I'm not sure what opportunity is being denied here. No one is being prohibited from editing... is temporally denying a particular preferred term discrimination? Hm. Either way, if you can't express your opinions without hyperbole, that's a sign that perhaps your opinions are too hyperbolic, and need taming. --Golbez (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups" - that sounds about right. Im happy for us to focus on the issue rather than my description of the situation though.

Northern Irish applies to Northern Ireland. Irish and British apply to wider areas (the island / the country). British should not be excluded from the infobox if Irish is allowed. BritishWatcher (talk)

Please calm down. It could only offend one if they had a particularly extreme point of view. In which case they shouldn't be editing an encyclopaedia on that subject. I happen to agree with you on this point, though: The Northern Ireland infobox should have only Northern Irish as the demonym. The test is (or should be) if it can be used the other way around too. i.e. If someone says they are Northern Irish, would that specifically denote that they come from Northern Ireland? This test does not work for Irish, Ulsterman/woman or British. That is, if someone says they are Irish would you be certain they come from Northern Ireland? Obviously not. The demonym Irish means to come from Ireland - any part of Ireland, it is not specific to Northern Ireland. The question is: how to have the 'test' accepted by the wider community. I may just leave that here. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Please calm down. It could only offend one if they had a particularly extreme point of view" I think this is a very serious matter which would offend many who simply consider themselves British if they see Irish is accepted there but British is not. Identity is a big deal, our ongoing little debate about a former Deputy Prime Minister proves that.

I will try and keep more calm but i do think this is a big deal, i am glad we do agree on the issue though, that is very rare. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a long post from me on the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian keeps claiming he knows what Mr Dickson's definition of a demonym is. Well, let's have it then. What is a demonym according to Mr Dickson? Seeing as you seem totally incapable of spotting what the problem is with claiming a primary source as the reliable source, then you at least demonstrating you have the first clue what his actual definition as the primary source actually is, is going to be the minimum requirement for this discussion not to resemble the usual obfuscation and gamery. And also, anybody claiming in here that the idea that people from Northern Ireland are only ever called Irish or Northern Irish is not a grossly offensive assertion to make to a huge portion of that particular locality frankly needs to do some more research, or even just start their research, period. Texas has sod all to do with this dispute, but if we must spoon irrelevant analogies like Texas into this, then the best I can think of is a Mexican nationalist claiming that Mexican is an appropriate demonym for Texas, but then not allowing American for balance, and helpfully pointing out to support his case that he has a single primary source for a sort of dictionary definition for 'Mexican', without any evidence anyone treats this source as anything other than an interesting coffee table book, let alone as a respectable third party independent peer-reviewed source like, say, an actual dictionary for example. If that theoretical stance by the hypothetical Mexican nationalist editor sounds preposterous, then you are probably realising how a great many other editors who don't happen to be ardent Irish nationalists see this particular dispute. The position of even neutrals always has been that Irish does not belong, it is a gross distortion without British if it does, and enough people were more than happy with all three when they linked to the identity section for further explanation of what is a horrendously complex issue for it to remain stable for months. That was until this single primary source was found and the gamery started afresh, but with renewed gloating vigour because it now allows the rather simplistic arguments of 'V not T' to be trotted out while people just ignore great huge chunks of other core policy, which, what with this being the ethnic conflicts board, this tactic should be seen for what it is by experienced observers, hopefully. Nobody wants British in the box if Irish is not there, but if it is, then British belongs, or the whole credibility of Dickson being used as a primary source for what the demonym of NI is needs to be addressed - and understandably, the supporters of Irish are horrified at the propsect of the discussion going that way, to the point that they become truly deaf dumb and blind to entire sections of posts on the matter when it comes to that point, although as said before, this being the ethnic conflicts board, observers should at least be a bit more streetwise as to when this is happening. And also, comparisons to England, Wales and Scotland are totally, utterly, and completely irrelevant too, unless I've missed something and Irish nationalist claims to territory extend even further than they do currently. Infact, comparisons to any other country are irrelevant that I can see - I challenge anyone to find a comparable demonym problem exactly like this, not just sort of comparable, but exactly like it. I don't think you will find it. And Korea doesn't count - if you can't see why, then get out of the discussion now, for your own sanity and time, you are already way behind the curve to be able to deal with Irish conflicts, which are at a minumum, always at least three-way in nature. Comparison of apples and oranges does not solve this dispute or make this article's infobox any more credible from an NPOV standpoint. MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

From Mick's (long) post; "understandably, the supporters of Irish are horrified at the propsect of the discussion going that way, to the point that they become truly deaf dumb and blind to entire sections of posts on the matter when it comes to that point, although as said before, this being the ethnic conflicts board, observers should at least be a bit more streetwise as to when this is happening". It would help if the discussion might not be dragged down into accusations of gamery or political/nationalistic editing. Mick, can you not just describe the problem without getting bogged down in what you think of other editors' motivations? WikiuserNI (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of anything not specific to Norn Irn is an abuse of the demonym box. The only term that should be there is 'Northern Irish', because it is the only term which is A) specific to Northern Ireland; and B) applicable to everybody who is from there, regardless of their political, ethnic or confessional affiliations. I believe we can agree that not everybody in Northern Ireland regards themselves as 'British', nor as 'Irish'; and the Six Counties ≠ Ulster! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC) a 32-county republican Protestant, thank you

Orangemike, it sounds like you might have conflated demonym with identity. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference? Let me guess: identity is what people call themselves; demonym is what other people call them. Is that it? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In actual fact, there is a source where Dickson, the supposed singularly reliable source for demonyms, actually says himself that the word demonym comes from the idea that "people choose what to call themselves".[67]. Obviously this seems to go against this idea that British is not an acceptable demonym for Northern Irish people if Irish also is, or that there is some grand difference between a demonym and an identity. This is just one of the many things WikiUser et all keeps declining to address. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if it simply said Northern Irish i would have no complaints or concerns. But Irish being there and clear exclusion of British is the problem. Just saying Northern Irish seems to be more accurate because as you point out its the only thing that applies specifically to NI, and its also a more neutral term. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, you suggest that "clear exclusion of British is the problem". What "clear exclusion" is there? There's an attempt to exclude Irish it seems.

Peter, demonym is a name given to a person according to where they come from. Identity goes a bit deeper, relating to someone's politics and heritage. WikiuserNI (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Identity goes a bit deeper" - Source? MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The "problem", BW & I are saying, is the inclusion of 1 & exclusion of the other. Bias, pure & simple. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

BW is suggesting we unilaterally exclude Irish to make the article fair. If you do that in the face of a citation for Irish, that shows bias. Would you have anything to suggest bias for including Irish? Those who wanted it kept have done their work by providing a cite. All we asked BW to do was provide similar. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A demonym by definition is a specific term for a specific group. "Irish" and "British" are not specific to people from Northern Ireland/the Six Counties; nor is "Ulsterman"/"Ulsterwoman". Only "Northern Irish" is specific to the area under discussion; thus, only "Northern Irish" is a true demonym, and only "Northern Irish" should be in that slot. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Northern Irish" seems specific enough, and I disagree with the argument that this term excludes "Irish". That's really splitting hairs, but the truth is more like, it does include "Irish". 70.16.239.30 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you were to say someone is Irish, would that mean they came from Northern Ireland? If not, it doesn't belong there because it doesn't make sense - referenced or not. Daicaregos (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Orange Mike and Dai, both of your comments sound like reasonable reasoning. Only, they are explicitly contradicted by reliable sources. I might ask you to compare WP:OR and WP:V and ask yourselves which you are working from. Reliable source list, "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/ulsterwoman" as a demonyms for Northern Ireland. We need look no more deeper into it.

(Also, Dai, if you were to say someone is Irish, where on the island of Ireland would that mean they came from? It is a demonym that is common to both parts. Compare with South Korea and North Korea.) --RA (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, as you are quoting technicalities, we don't know they are reliable sources as the WP:RS/N haven't ruled on it (whatever their reasons). But back to your demonym point: If you were to say someone is Irish, it means they are from the island of Ireland (or from the state called Ireland). It isn't specific to Northern Ireland. The same argument would work for European too. While everyone from the island of Ireland is European, if you were to say someone is European, it doesn't mean they are specifically from anywhere other than Europe, let alone Northern Ireland. So using European as a demonym for people from Northern Ireland would be incorrect, in the same way that using Irish as a demonym for people from Northern Ireland is incorrect. And at the other end other scale, if someone is from Dublin, they are still Irish, but using Irish as a demonym for people from Dublin would be incorrect, as Irish doesn't define where on the island of Ireland they are from. Daicaregos (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. --RA (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's sourced it shouldn't matter what we think. And if there are disagreements as to use of this source then we should refer this back to the RS Noticeboard. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there an IAR noticeboard? Peter jackson (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a 'just answer previous questions' board? It's becoming beyond obvious with this further feedback that, to everybody except a tiny minority, that this 'sourced' fact is not supportable in any way except by shutting your eyes and having faith in the One True Source. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the situation in Belfast this week, I can think of a considerable number of demonyms, none of them complimentary... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Several people here seem to agree that it should just say Northern Irish in the infobox. So what can be done about this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"if I can't have the baby, no problem, but neither can she"... " – That about sums it up. There really is little to discuss here. We work off reliable sources. We work off them in a neutral manner. Reliable sources explicitly list demonyms for Northern Ireland (specifically, Northern Ireland) as "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/Ulsterwoman". If a source can be found to support "British" as being a demonym specifically for Northern Ireland then add it but we don't delete referenced material simply pander to (invented) nationalist sensitivities.

The complications around identity in Northern Ireland are noted in the infobox. There have also been suggestions as to how to include British in a manner that is supported by reliable sources and in a manner that draws more attention to the identifies issue. The facts still remain. "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/ulsterwoman" are listed as demonyms specifically for Northern Ireland in reliable sources. (Indeed as has been pointed out, in the source that coined the word "demonym".) We don't pick the demonyms we list solely to appease the sensitivities of a few. As the same editors are keen to point out elsewhere Wikipedia is not censored.

Additionally, there is now a forum shopping issue creeping into this issue. We've discssed this at Talk:Northern Ireland. It was raised at the reliable source noticeboard. And now here. Where is next? --RA (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, WP:RSN were silent on the matter - the thread being filled with editors from Talk:Northern Ireland but no one else. TFOWR 17:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to be fair, it was. I suspect this was because (a) they were scared off and (b) there was nothing to discuss anyway. The sources used to support "Irish", "Norhtern Irish" and "Ulsterman/Ulsterwoman" are perfectly reliable. For the benefits of other here they are again:

• "Irish", "Northern Irish": Paul, Dickson (1997). Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. p. 220. ISBN 9780877796169. Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• "Irish": Martin, Jeanette; Chaney, Lillian (2009), Passport to Success: The Essential Guide to Business Culture and Customs in America's Largest Trading Partners, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, p. 254, ISBN 978-0-275-99716-8, The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the United Kingdom are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish.
• "Ulsterman"/"Ulsterwoman": Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (Third revised ed.), Oxford Dictionaries, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953296-4, Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman): a native or inhabitant of Northern Ireland or Ulster.

--RA (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The reliability and appropriateness of which have been challenged a million times without any sensible reply. All that comes back in return is this sort of classic 'there is no issue' stonewalling, interspersed with posts like this where you just turn up and 'contribute' by repeating the exact same argument from two weeks ago that people are WELL AWARE of, and have been challenging constantly with many many unanswered points. Seriously RA, if you don't want to appear like a classic TE, then it is about time you either said something novel in this dispute, or demonstrated you have ever listened to anybody not agreeing with you, or just shut up. Any of those three would be better than this tediousness. MickMacNee (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is more of a neutrality issue. Irish applies to the whole island of Ireland just like British applies to the whole United Kingdom. One of the sources above clearly states British applies to all the people of the United Kingdom, there would be no need for that source to repeat "British" after saying people in Wales are ALSO known as Welsh, in Scoland as Scottish and Northern Ireland as Irish. So that source could justify saying British still. As for the other source that mentions Irish, we can not see the whole source to put it into context, we do not know what it says about the UK.

But at the end of the day it is simply not neutral to list Irish whilst on purpose excluding British, which is blatant discrimination against a large community in Northern Ireland and it is not accurate if Demonym is meant to be about the specific area of Northern Ireland, not Ireland as a whole. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the question should be asked again at reliable source noticeboard. There's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't answered because of the stampede from the Northern Ireland page. Jack 1314 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SO let me understand this, BW: If British is excluded, people are being discriminated against... unless Irish is also excluded, in which case no one (or everyone equally?) is being discriminated against. That doesn't seem like proper logic to me. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If it just says Northern Irish there then that is being accurate as that is the only identity that applies only to Northern Ireland. If it also says Irish there, an identity that applies to the people of the whole island of Ireland, but fails to mention British, which applies to all the people of the United Kingdom then yes that is pure discrimination and it is unacceptable. Especially as in this case clearly many people there feel very strongly about being British. One community can not be discriminated against, which is why the more neutral and more specific term of Northern Irish should appear alone BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, you've got to stop with the talk of discrimination. It really doesn't further your argument as Wikipedia doesn't take that into account. Have a look at List of national capitals if you don't believe me, where some people don't think Edinburgh, Cardiff etc belong there, even with good sources. If I were asked what the demonym of N.Ireland was I would say Northern Irish, but there is a reference that seems to say otherwise. It's the reference that you have to question and it's just a shame that everyone piled in when it was taken to WP:RSN, which in my opinion put off anyone other than those from the N.Ireland page from answering it. Jack 1314 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If it says just "Northern Irish", aren't both Irish and British people being discriminated against? If you say that omitting British is discriminatory in one context, isn't it discriminatory in all contexts? --Golbez (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nooo! Not logic, please : ) Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What's logic got to do with this current bizarreness? I fail to see what Golbez's line of argument is achieving in this discussion other than trying to wind up BW. It's got sod all to do with either justifying Irish as a demonym, or justifying the exclusion of British but not Irish. If someone wants to justify Irish based on logic, I'm all ears, but that's an argument that has yet to appear. The only argument offered is this seriously dodgy defence of the reliability and appropriateness of a single primary source that nobody has apparently ever read, and is not prepared to examine beyond the fact that 'it exists'. It's BS frankly, which is why, Golbez's meanderings aside, the only defence of it is dumbstruck silence and gamery. Infact, if we are taking the 'logical' approach, then that is what exposes this 'include Irish but not British' line for the indefensible garbage that it is, there is no logical standpoint on which the argument for including Irish does not also allow British, and vice versa. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully reserve the right to wind him up. I took offense to his prattering about "discrimination" and decided to press him on it. Anyway, The answer here is, Northern Irish, if only for consistency, and in a unified work, consistency matters. If we're going to say that we're more than a list of disparate pages without any links to each other, then fine, include a half dozen names backed up by references, but consistency demands the infobox say only Northern Irish, and other names can be dealt with in the text. Despite a hundred years of bickering from both sides, Northern Ireland is not a special snowflake that gets special rules. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol, i feel strongly about this matter and it certainly seemed like discrimination to me. Removing Irish and only listing Northern Irish would not be discrimination because it would be on the grounds that it is the only identity that applies only to Northern Ireland. Irish and British being treated differently was always the issue because both apply to wider areas. But i am glad we agree on the solution, i can live with people winding me up if we come to the right conclusion at the end of the day. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"[it is] the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British."[68] Also see [69][70]. Most Protestants in Northern Ireland identify as "British", most Catholics as "Irish", and "Northern Irish" is a minority identification (roughly 1/4 from either community). So put both "British" and "Irish" in as well as "Northern Irish" and "Ulstermen", with footnotes explaining why. The UK and Irish governments could agree on this, so we should follow their lead. Insisting on "simple" namings by outsiders doesn't help, as this isn't a simple situation. It might offend the sensibilities of those who want to neatly categorise to have these various names in the infobox, but it doesn't help our readers to pretend that people from Northern Ireland are simply called "Northern Irish". They aren't. Fences&Windows 00:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Re: "consistency demands the infobox say only Northern Irish": "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Fences&Windows 00:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fences&Windows, I beleive there is already a section in the NI article about self identity and citizenship, which addresses those issues. We're just looking into the issue of the demonym alone. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So the infobox Demonym should just say Northern Irish but link to the section talking about identity or having a note. Northern Irish is the only identity that applies to Northern Ireland alone. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, that would be to conflate demonym and citizenship and identity. I'm still bemused at the apparent angst this is causing. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Northern Irish is the only demonym that applies only to people of Northern Ireland? True of False? Irish applies to the whole island, not all of ulster is in Northern Ireland, British applies to the whole United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You have singularly failed to demonstrate you even know what the difference is between a demonym and an identity according to reliable sources throughout this whole dispute, and you have about ten times chosen to just ignore challenges to your idea that for NI there is a meaningfull difference in the concept such that it is not a giant steaming POV violation to assert there is in the article like this, and also you have repeatedly chosen to ignore the fact that Dickson himself says the word demonym comes from what people choose to call themselves, so it's no surprise to me that you are bemused about this whole issue. I am starting to think it's deliberate, rather than just an inability to read. MickMacNee (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We have sources for Ulster(person), Irish(person) and Northern Irish (person). We seem to be doing ok with those. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair WikiuserNI, it was a perfectly reasonable and straightforward question, and one that deserves a reasonable and straightforward answer. Daicaregos (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Daicaregos, to be fair the question was worded a little oddly, and I'm satisfied that the citation provided in the article provides for the items listed as demonyms. If a source can be found for British in that section of the infobox then I'm cool with that. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt (in my mind) that BritishWatcher is right here, but the source says otherwise. BW, all you're doing is banging your head off a brick wall unless you can prove it isn't a reliable source. I know I'm repeating myself here, but the only way you can do that is to take it back to WP:RS and ask those involved to stay away from it until an answer is forthcoming. What answer you would get is anybody's guess, but until then all the talk here will come to nothing. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on this but i dont see what the Reliable Source board will accomplish. The problem is not really the source (although there are a couple of issues with them), the problem is what we as editors decide belong in the box. If we allow demonyms that apply to wider areas or not. It would seem like most articles dont allow it, yet we list Irish an Ulster here. Ive not totalled the numbers, but i see more support for removing Irish and ulster rather than the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The RS board request is an irrelevance at best. You would no more take this issue to the RS board than you would take an editor rampaging around the pedia asserting that Jimbo was the anti-christ to the WQA board. I don't know about anyone else, but I have never disputed the Dickson source's reliability for saying what it says, as a PRIMARY SOURCE, but the issue of whether that translates to it being allowed to be used to assert on the NI article something that very clearly is a strong POV, that the ONLY demonyms are Irish and Northern Irish, is a whole different kettle of fish. I've detailed this at great extent here and at the NI talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A clear majority of people above support the removal of Irish, to leave Northern Irish in the infobox. Can someone neutral please look through this debate and suggest what action should be taken? otherwise we will simply keep going round in circles, but i count about 7 or 8 in favour of the change, only 3 strongly opposing any change at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, we don't go by a simple head count. I didn't see anyone suggesting that British couldn't be used as a demonym, just that we didn't have a cite for it just yet. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I know atleast 2 editors here will strongly oppose the inclusion of British even with a source saying its the demonym because it would mean it can be added to the Scotland and Wales articles. The best solution is to simply remove Irish and leave Northern Irish as several editors above have supported. Its not a simple headcount though, an overwhelming majority support some form of change and the case for removing Irish from the infobox and leaving Northern Irish is very strong. This is why i want a neutral admin to go through the debate and suggest what we should do. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been another 3 days. What should we do to conclude this matter, from the above debate a clear majority support change. Can Irish be removed? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't work on a simple head count. There are various points of view that should be addressed and discussed before moving on. WikiuserNI (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

people stopped discussing. Simple question.. Does Irish apply only to Northern Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't you address them? You repeatedly saying nothing in response to valid points, or worse, simply tendentiously repeating the same thing you were saying two weeks ago as an argument, is not going to make this issue go away. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, I hope the response from both myself and Mick is evidence enough that the debate isn't settled. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Errr, no. It's settled for me, because ample time has passed for you to answer the many issues with your arguments, and nothing has been forthcoming. There comes a point when this is just simple obfuscation, and the content changes with or without your consent. MickMacNee (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Rannpháirtí anaithnid has gone through the reasons for including the current demonyms (Irish, Northern Irish, Ulsterman/woman) very well and I can't see any problems with those. Certainly if another source were found to support British in the same way, I wouldn't have a problem with it's inclusion.

I don't see an appeal to anti-discrimination or anything not supported by sources being relevant. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You must be looking somewhere else then. All I see is him listing and re-listing the sources, stating and re-stating 'V not T', and intermittently buggering off. He, like you, has singularly failed to answer any challenge to his argument that he doesn't like/understand/care to answer. You are free to 'see nothing wrong' all you like, it's not a particularly convincing assessment, particularly as plenty of uninvolved and partially involved people have seen these restatements and assertions many many times, and have still flat out said that this situation and the resulting content is unjustifiable, so this rather puts you in the box of 'ignorable' after a set period of time if you are still peddling it. Your idea that you will accede to a source 'if found', as if that is the single issue, and not instead a wholly disputed idea or point of relevance in of itself, only shows that you really have not bothered to follow any of this discussion except the tiny bit of it you agree with. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Might it be the case that this issue just isn't as complex as you beleive? For something as simple as sourced demonyms (and there seems to be more than one source used), this is an awful lot of fuss. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how you can not see why some of us think this is a big issue. We all know identity matters in Northern Ireland and dressing it up as "demonyms" makes little difference. The fact is there are some people in Northern Ireland who feel Irish some who consider themselves Northern Irish but others who consider themselves British. Both Irish and British apply to a wider area than just Northern Ireland. We can not list one and not list another, it is serious discrimination and it is deeply offensive. Again i request an admin to read through the above debate, there is clear majority support for a change but someone neutral needs to do it please. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, nobody is dressing up identity as demonym, they're seperate entities and have separate sections in the article. And as was said in reply to you further up; "Either way, if you can't express your opinions without hyperbole, that's a sign that perhaps your opinions are too hyperbolic, and need taming". WikiuserNI (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

other editors have explained very clearly why a change is needed. The verdict of the debate above is clear, a majority want change and yet change is not happening because of your continued opposition but you fail to accept that Northern Irish is the only fair and accurate term to use in that infobox.BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, this could be more productive if you'd actually see what was happening. Nobody has asked for British to be excluded, we just asked for a source as there is for the other demonyms in place at present. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for Irish to be excluded because it does not only apply to Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been several rebuttals of this 'demonym <> identity' stance of yours in this section and before, which is one of the many things that you never seem to see or want to reply to. This selective blindess is presumably why you can't understand what 'all the fuss is about'. MickMacNee (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, there's a source that says otherwise. Mick, I just didn't see anything terribly compelling about the counter arguments. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Err, you haven't even given the first indication you are even aware of them, let alone what you think of them. Go back and actually ANSWER some of the many points, and even better, REBUTT them, if you actually want your opinion to be considered. Vague dismissal of unspecified arguments as 'not terribly compelling', is simply not going to make your opinion count for anything here, given the fact that what you apparently see or don't see as an issue or a problem in this issue, is a minority view. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't like the use of Dickson as a source and you believe those who disagree with you are Irish and therefore biased. That's pretty much the gist of it. As before, I believe RA (politely) summed things up nicely. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not even close. You clearly have not bothered to read a single thing in this debate, and thus, your opposition is simply worthless timewasting. Had you actually bothered to read anything said by me for example, you'd note that I do like Dickson as a source for some things - I like the part where he contradicts your bizarre idea about the differences between a demonym and an identity. Frankly, you don't seem to have the first idea what my objection to the source is at all, your 'gist of it' above is bloody clueless frankly. You have demonstrated you know nothing, not a sinlge thing, about how, why or when to use sources, or what NPOV requires in them for their use in particular situations. PRIMARY and other core issues seem to go right over your head tbh. And RA didn't sum up anything btw, he stated his view, then restated it, then restated it, told everyone else they were simply wrong, then fucked off. Still, at least he realised that if you don't intend on justifying you position in the face of objections, there's no point sticking around in the discussion wasting people's time. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's repeated because it's all quite simple. Ulster(man/woman), Irish, Northern Irish are all cited and fine. British will be fine once cited. No fringe theories or massive insults to the British in Northern Ireland (with whom I am related and on good terms with, just incase you thought I was one of those Irish yahoos who makes Wikipedia so terrible for you) at all.

If it was such a problem, how come so few other outside editors are bothered? WikiuserNI (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's all 'simple'. If I hadn't said it already (I had, a million times), your perception of what is and is not simple is not exactly the same as other people's perception, going on this debate. And with you banging on about fringe theories and percieved insults, you again show that you haven't got a clue what the actual objections are, certianly not mine anyway. Frankly, 'it's cited' without further explanation or defence, is an argument of barely Wikipedia 101 standard. And it is a pathetic defence in an issue as complex as this. It doesn't touch on barely half the relevant core policies, and even on the one it does touch on, WP:V, it is inadequate in the extreme. You'd be bloody amazed at just what can and can't 'be cited' in this topic. And how many people are interested is utterly irrelevant as to whether your views are common or not, and they are certainly at odds with the few people in here who have commented. And this issue has hardly been advertised widely anyway. We can punt it to much wider venues certainly, but we will need to restate the issue properly, and get rid of the obfuscation, diversion and non-answering that has, and still is, infesting it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it could be forum shopped some more, I'm not sure what that would do for the issue, such as it is. Perceived insult was the gist of what Britishwatcher was saying, for quite a bit. And I had thought you had mentioned WP:REDFLAG before, my bad if you hadn't. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus christ, it would not be forum shopping, certainly not if you are trying to argue here that not many people have commented. And yes, I have mentioned REDFLAG, but if you noticed that at the time, let alone addressed it, it's news to me. I will say again, 'it's not a fringe theory' is not a rebuttal. It's barely even an adequate answer, as this is not even a fringe theory in the usual sense of the term on Wikipedia, but the relevant points in RED FLAG are those ones about sourcing, and the simplistic 'it has a source' line does not cut it as a defence in that regard, not least when the single source has been challenged multiple times, and the definition of a demonym is even contradicted by the author of the one source. And the supporting source that came much much later is an absolute joke, a total pisstake, with regard to REDFLAG. Again, this is a point that went into the ether unanswered. 'Must try harder' doesn't even begin to cover it. So once again, you give me no confidence you have read anything in this dispute in any detail, let alone answered it, yet here you are, still insisting that it's all much ado about nothing and all points have been addressed perfectly adequately. It's clearly not the case at all. MickMacNee (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please read through the above debate and give advice on what steps should be taken, or see that there is clear majority support for a change shown in the above debate, and implement that change. We can not sit around here for the next few years. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A majority who say what? Some wish to add British and exclude Irish, others wish to only have Northern Irish, some wish to have Irish, NI, Ulster kept and British added when sourced, there's not a "clear majority" for any one change. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate so far

Ok i have been through this list, these are the positions people seem to have taken..

BritishWatcher - Supports the removal of Irish

Daicaregos - Supports the removal of Irish

GoodDay - Supports the removal of Irish

Orange Mike - Supports the removal of Irish

MickMacNee - Supports the removal of Irish

Golbez - Supports the removal of Irish

Jack1314 - Says BritishWatcher is right (extremely rare for him lol) so i think supports removal

Peter jackson - Opposes the inclusion of one (Irish) whilst excluding the other (British)

WikiUserNI - Opposes any change WikiuserNI - supports Ulster(person), Northern Irish(person), Irish(person) as cited, would support British if appropriately cited. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian - Opposes removal of Irish

RA - Opposes removal of Irish

Fences&Windows - All should be listed (including British), should not just be Northern Irish.

Mabuska - supports removal of Irish if British is not listed. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but to me that seems like a clear majority in favour of removing Irish. It is certainly the case a large majority oppose the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, you have misrepresented me on that list. I never said that I opposed any change, speaking for other people on Wikipedia is uncivil at the very least. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For further examples, Golbez stated originally; "there's no reason to include British whatsoever" and then "The answer here is, Northern Irish, if only for consistency". So, no mention of Irish, but a specific mention of the removal of British from the infobox. Orange Mike said no to Ulster/Irish/British(person) quite specifically, but you didn't care to mention that either in your "summary". Would you consider perhaps removing it completely, as it only muddies the waters. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i simply meant you oppose change (as in the removal of Irish) and you have been arguining against change for weeks on this page. I will change the wording to avoid confusion and say "Opposes removal of Irish". Golbezs last comments on this matter stated that only Northern Irish should be listed.

"The answer here is, Northern Irish, if only for consistency, and in a unified work, consistency matters. . If we're going to say that we're more than a list of disparate pages without any links to each other, then fine, include a half dozen names backed up by references, but consistency demands the infobox say only Northern Irish, and other names can be dealt with in the text."

Was the post BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as I dislike his 'discrimination' argument, BW has accurately represented my opinion. The box should say "Northern Irish", and anything else should be handled in the text. Infoboxes are not clearing houses for information, they are to concisely provide it. --Golbez (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No he/she hasn't, there also exists an Ulster(person) as demonym in the infobox at the moment, do you wish that to stay or go? BW was simply pulling the anti-Irish out of your comments. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he/she has. I said, just above, in the piece you're responding to, "The box should say "Northern Irish", and anything else should be handled in the text." That includes Ulsterman, Irish, British, whatever can be sourced. --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As for OrangeMikes position, my post was focused about Irish, not everyones views on ulsterman too. OrangeMike supported the removal of Irish from the current infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to say the above response is exactly why for some time i have been asking for a neutral admin to atleast offer some suggestion about what the next step should be. Sadly there has been no response. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

BW this whole section was opened by you as so; "There is a problem at the Northern Ireland article over what should and should not be included in the infobox under the Demonym section.". That's the problem exactly, as not just Irish has been requested to be excluded from the infobox. Ulster/British/Irish have all been put up for removal/exclusion. It is you who is trying to twist this into a simplistic Irish yes/no. All comments should be put on that list, or it's useless to us. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern is the fact Irish is in this list but British is not. I have made that very clear from my first post here that is the issue i consider so serious that it needed to be raised here. The above summary of responses shows a clear majority have said they support the removal of Irish from the list. I avoided mentioning the Ulsterman issue, which several support the removal of too (including myself), this was simply to highlight to you a majority support removal of Irish. I am sorry if my wording has not been as precise as it should have been, like i said, this is why i have been asking several times for a neutral admin to step in and help so i did not have to do something like list positions. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your list certainly appears less than neutral... WikiuserNI (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are the positions from where i am sitting people have taken, that is the majority i was talking about before. Like i mentioned (and should have stated at the top of the list), this is just about the issue of if the removal of Irish should go ahead, several have made comments about removing of ulsterman (a view i also take, but did not put next to my position). I want us to debate these other issues too, but the fact there is support for the removal of Irish is the important thing right now, because it is that inclusion which is causing the serious concern. And that is what the vast majority of the debate above has been over. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the removal/perceived exclusion of the term "British" as a demonym is your concern. There are a variety of opinions right now, which should all be covered in their entireity. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is a list of people who have said they support removal of Irish, oppose its removal, or think it must say everything. Clearly the long winded debate above with several editors making many posts masked just how clear a majority there is in favour of removal of Irish. The list shows this more clearly. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If British is to be excluded to cater for those who are attempting to hide the fact many people in Northern Ireland identify themselves as British - to which i have provided a source for in the past where in a Belfast Telegraph poll more people identify as British than Northern Irish - then Irish must also be excluded for fairness. Though that source despite being about how people see themselves was discounted by the anti-Brit brigade with claims its on nationality - but seeing as Northern Ireland isn't a nation i don't know how they came up with that. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

treating one wider identity (Irish) differently to the other wider identity (British) is the real problem here. I do not understand how people can not see its problematic. Personally my preferred option would be British be included on this infobox and on England/Wales/Scotland as well, but that would be disputed by quite a few editors. Removal of Irish seems the most reasonable alternative justified by the fact Northern Irish is the only specific term that applies to Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is nice to know, but your "debate so far" summary BW is simply your spin on other people's thoughts. Perhaps you might either amend the list to provide a proper summary, or leave it out altogether. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not want to have to do such a list which is why i have asked on many occasions for a neutral admin to take a look at the debate and offer suggestions or draw conclusions. However i feel my list accurately states the position people have taken on the removal of Irish. If you have specific concerns about an individual i put in the list, i will explain why i stated supports remove Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You can start with me. You completely misrepresented what I've stated, why? WikiuserNI (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained, my post was regarding the removal of Irish> Following your concern i changed what i put for RA and O Fenian to "Oppose removal of Irish" and that is your position too. The fact remains, a clear majority support the removal of Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, which is why this request for some input into the problem (such as it is) is so hard for you to come by. The question is very simple, it's the same as on the talk page for the article, what do we use as a demonym. You can't expect to turn around and start cherry picking. I changed the list to reflect what I actually said, you might have manners enough to do the same for everyone else. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The list reflects peoples position on the removal of Irish from the infobox. If you really want, i will copy/paste the relevant comments on this page that led me to state the individual positions in question. I think you are just a little shocked at the support for removal. I was when i made the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific concerns about other individuals listed, then i will post a message on their talk page asking them just to clarify if they are ok with Irish being removed or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or a collection of misleading templates. There is no reason for any demonym to appear in any article. infobox. And especially this one when the issue is more complex than a bald statement in an infobox can ever hope to do justice to. This is the worst sort of lameness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian - Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac

Dollareuro (talk · contribs · logs)

Dollareuro has been moving pages and replacing text to change "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" at Assyrian people, Assyrian diaspora, Assyrians in Canada and Assyrians in the United States. For a while we had cut-and-paste moves to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Genocide and Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac diaspora before they were reverted. There is a move discussion here now to talk about the moves, but the user has continued to change "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" around the place and is being backed up in his logic by one Yadamavu (talk · contribs · logs) - a user who also wears his colours on his userpage openly.

This thing has happened before, see here. here is the original ANI thread. Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool may be a target for meatpuppets

James Edwards, the host of The Political Cesspool (an antisemitic white nationalist radio program), has just posted a blog entry [71] in which he accuses me of being a "Zionist" and encourages his own listeners to edit the article to insert their own POV. I think The Political Cesspool (which is a featured article) could use a few extra watchers to keep any such meatpuppetry in check. I've also posted this to the fringe theories noticeboard. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

help to resolve dispute

Hello. There is a problem at the Yugoslav Partisans page. We need mediation, third, fourth, fifth, however many people to help resolve the dispute between direktor and me over there. The dispute is that direktor is negating the serbian role and trying to increase the croatian role in this particular military group. He negates my sources, which for example is from a Harvard based pier reviewed journal. Please help. I hope that some sort of mediation as is going on with the draza mihajlovic article could take place here. This would allow for comprehensive improvement of the article. Regards, (LAz17 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

Please?? (LAz17 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

Kingdom of Sardinia

Seeing from the history years back in the Kingdom of Sardinia article, there seem to have been a continuing conflict between two main versions of the article. The conflcit has escalated strongly in the last months or so. As one of the involved parties once quietly noted in the talk page, it seems that Sardinian revisionist nationalists are trying to change generally accepted history (which is sourced with reliable sources such as The Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopædia Britannica and The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia - the other version is not sourced at all). It is unacceptable to have an article on Wikipedia to change fundamentally many times every day. -TheG (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Jehovah's Witnesses page and Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page

We have ongoing editing disputes on the Jehovah's Witnesses page and the Criticisms page. I feel that the Criticisms page is very one-sided anti-Jehovah's Witness. Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted in many countries past, and present. And this type of thing tends to whip up anti-Jehovah's Witness sentiment. Jehovah's Witness died and suffered in concentration camps. I feel that some of what is being promoted on the main Jehovah's Witness site, particularly on the Failed Predictions section, and some other specific areas, is biased, and uses techniques such as WP:Original Research, and WP:Synthesis, which are against Wikipedia policy. It is one editor in particular who has an openly anti-Jehovah's Witness position and who is promoting what I feel are unethical methods on the Wikipedia pages. He is a former Jehovah's Witness who Jehovah's Witnesses refer to as apostates. He uses older articles in the Wikipedia Failed Prophecies section in a way that twists the original meaning of the articles and takes them to the next level. The articles are from 1959 and 1972. I don't feel that the ideas there are current and the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses from that time period are no longer alive. There have been significant changes in the thinking of JW since that time period. Most clarification that I try to make generally gets shot down by opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses who are the dominant editors. The Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page has statements which violate the WP:NPOV policy that I have outlined on the talk page. I am requesting a warning flag on the top of the page until these issues are cleared up. I feel that there are certain senteneces in the current main Jehovah's Witnesses article which also are not in harmony with the facts, errant in their interpretation, and which reflect a strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias. Natural (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

User:Naturalpsychology complains about POV issues raised by editors opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, but fails to state that he is a member of that religion who has doggedly pursued a campaign to delete all sourced material critical of his religion. He has raised a host of issues on a range of forums and continues to complain of a conspiracy when he discovers no one agrees with him. I have endeavoured to work with him in the past, only to be told I'm an apostate with an anti-JW agenda. He now imagines I am responsible for articles such as Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses which, under a couple of names, has existed here long before I began editing. The articles of which he complains are comprehensively sourced, balanced and accurate. It appears nothing short of a one-sided promotion of his religion would please him. BlackCab (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my position which is innacurately related by User:BlackCab. While I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I do not desire to edit out any facts which are against Jehovah's Witnesses. The opposite is true. There are facts on the Wikipedia pages which are taken out of context and give an impression of Jehovah's Witnesses that is not based on facts, but on interpretations and viewpoint. When efforts are made on my part to clarify this information, helping the reader to understand the context, it is User:BlackCab who consistently edits these clarifications. There is no other editor like User:BlackCab who is very intent in presenting any slander that can be found and creating his own slander of Jehovah's Witnesses on Wikipedia pages.

There are several books of Jehovah's Witnesses which endeavor to damage the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses. All of these are written by former Jehovah's Witnesses, apostates, or those who have grievances of one sort or another against Jehovah's Witnesses. Ray Franz wrote two books against Jehovah's Witnesses after he was removed from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and after he was disfellowshipped from his local congregation. His books try to justify his own actions and point of view, at the expense of damaging the reputation of the Governig Body he used to serve on. Wikipedia relies heavily on Ray Franz's comments in the Criticims of Jehovah's Witnesses page and in the criticisms raised against Jehovah's Witnesses on the main page. If Wikipedia editors quote mainly from biased sources, then the article will be biased.

There are plenty, many, many unbiased sources of information on Jehovah's Witnesses, unbiased 3rd parties, so it is not necessary to rely on apostate writings, or even on the writings of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. It is more convenient to do so, perhpas, but not necessary. Natural (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Franz's books meet the criterion of reliable sources. His first book, Crisis of Conscience, was widely commended and is included in many bibliographies of books about the Witnesses. Yet that book, like any other written by former Witnesses, is disparaged by User:Naturalpsychology simply because it contains material critical of his religion. In continuing to label me with the almost medieval term of "apostate" (a term used to create an almost Orwellian reaction of anger and revulsion among fellow Witnesses) and ignoring the efforts I've made to improve JW-related articles (including positive, negative and neutral material), Naturalpsychology displays a singularly bigoted outlook, evidenced by his rather sad and desperate efforts to justify and rationalize Witness practices that have attracted criticism.

I have stated many times that we are approaching the subject from different sides: he as an intensely loyal member of the religion, me as a rather cynical ex-member. What matters is that material presented in articles is well-sourced, accurate and balanced. I have always strived to achieve just that. Naturalpsychology, for his own curious reasons, makes a habit of challenging my edits as the dangerous work of an apostate. BlackCab (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan's Historical Relevance challenged

Please see and address the following NPOV request: [72]. Thank you. --RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Briland?

Some new conflict is arising from the separate cultural identities of Great Britain and Ireland as expressed in the new template {{Briland}} – which I will substitute below.

The conflict has evolved into a slow edit war in the article British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland and the related template {{British subjects}} as well as some hot edit warring and possible 3RR in Germanic Europe. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A few quick thoughts:

• The {{Briland}} template has (briefly) been discussed at WT:BISE; I gather the editor who created the template has been contacted but I'll chase them later today. (My thoughts on the template are that it could be useful - with a matching "consider merging them" template).
• British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland doesn't obviously fall within the purview of WT:BISE right now (at least, as far as the current dispute is concerned), but from a WP:CCN perspective the {{British subjects}} template seems logical as Irish citizens were British subjects between 1922 and 1937 (the period primarily dealt with by the article), and the template includes relevant articles such as the Ireland Act 1949.
• Including British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland in {{British subjects}} is more problematic: this edit adds Ireland to the "Commonwealth" section, which is incorrect (Ireland is not a Commonwealth member). Ireland's inclusion in this template needs to be handled carefully to ensure it is accurate (note that I am not opposed to inclusion per se, simply to inaccurate inclusion: I'd suggest a "non Commonwealth" section, if the article couldn't be added to an existing section).

TFOWR 08:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this template is appropriate, it gives legitimacy to a point of view that Great Britain and Ireland should not be grouped together, when in reality there are many occasions because of our history that this is required or at least justifiable. I will be keeping an eye on where this template gets used and removing it if added incorrectly, if it does not get used then it may as well be deleted. As for the British nationality law, i do not see why the British subjects template should not be included. Irish citizens are basically treated in exactly the same way as Commonwealth citizens, unlike any other non commonwealth nation. And of course Ireland was at one point in the commonwealth anyway. Although my real concern is the template. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Often when we speak of grouping Great Britain and Ireland together, we are talking of a political entity, so the correct term to use is "United Kingdom" and it can be linked to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". For those circumstances, the template is OK. --HighKing (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The template is an abomination. It serves no useful purpose save to reinforce an Irish nationalist POV which seeks to decouple all aspects of the strong relationship between the constituent countries of the British Isles. Its use will lead to conflict and edit warring. It should be deleted without further ado. LevenBoy (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see this being a useful addition to the encyclopaedia. The only time I could see where the islands would be included in the same area would be when the sentence/title says either Great Britain and Ireland, British Isles, or United Kingdom and Ireland. If it is the first one, and the information only pertains to one of them, the irrelevant one can just be removed. In case of the third one, the situation would have to be political, and information is likely to be included on both of them already, if not, remove irrelevant one again. In the third case, if information only pertains to one island, be it Great Britain or Ireland, then British Isles should be replaced by the island I stress heavily that this is only if the content is indisputably focused on just Great Britain or Ireland or the Isle of Man and other islands in the British Isles. In all cases, it would be easy for the editor who notices to simply fix whatever the problem is. If there is a dispute over whether both are applicable, it can just be brought up on the talk page, and WP:COMMONSENSE applied. The template seems like it will just cause trouble. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever else may be decided, the template shouldn't be substituted *unless* a corresponding category is added since it will otherwise be impossible to tell where it has been placed. But since adding the category would be unnecessary creep, better just not to substitute it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added that recommendation to Template:Briland/doc. TFOWR 10:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Hart (historian)

As per this diff, User:RepublicanJacobite rv wholesale my edit, at least once as of this writing, while refusing to provide any reason or justification, although I know the reason, which is pretty obvious. I do not wish to get into an edit war with this individual, so I would greatly appreciate some assistance. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment moved from talk page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sicilians becoming Illyrians

I have to report the campaign of illyrization of unrelated matters apparently launched by ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs)

06:44, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Ancient peoples of Italy ‎ (top)

06:36, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) History of the Alps ‎ (→The Eastern Alps) (top)

00:10, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania ‎ (→WPSQ's first featured article) (top)

00:06, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Sicani ‎

00:06, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Sicani ‎ (top)

00:05, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) Sicani ‎ (→History)

thank you for your attention in advance Cunibertus (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are sufficient sources for the Illyrian origin of many people that lived in today's Italy. Not only the Sicans are thought of as Illyrians by many scholars, but also populations in Apulia are often considered Illyrian. Can you provide sources that say the opposite? --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Sunni Islam

Criticism of Sunni Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a wee bit of too-ing and fro-ing here, and additional eyes would be appreciated. It's not a page I've been editing on, or even watching, but an editor has just brought it to my attention. I have some interest in tangentially-related topics, but very little knowledge of Islam, so I'm out of my depth... TFOWR 08:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to open up (again) discussion about the whole series of Criticism of [religions]? I cannot see the purpose of them at all. And since we already have Criticism of Islam, which can cover any issues specific to Sunni Islam and any issues specific to Shia Islam, then the only thing it would miss out is the Sunni/Shia split. Which I assume is laid out in full elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Sunnis make up almost 90% of Muslims, I'm inclined to agree that this could be merged to Criticism of Islam. However, there is now an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Sunni Islam) at which merging could be argued for. I take no view on the wider issue ("Criticism of [religions]"): I can see some validity in individual articles, but in general they do seem to be POV magnets. TFOWR 09:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bbeehvh

A new user Bbeehvh (talk · contribs) has started a POV campaign on Israel/Palestine topics – with some incidents of edit waring. Needs mentoring, unless this is a sockpuppet. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a sockpuppet! Bbeehvh (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange edits by User:The Universe Is Cool

This user has been making a pattern of edits replacing references to "white" or "caucasian" peolpe with links to White American and Caucasian American, seemingly as some kind of counter to the existence of the phrase "African American". He has already been warned that these variations are rather strange, and that they are plainly inaccurate when used with reference to Census figures, because the Census counts white people as "white" irrespective of whether they are "American". He has been chastised for this before, several months ago, and has not responded to efforts to communicate with him regarding his conduct. I have looked at a handful of pages where he has made these changes, but there are many, many more in his contribution history that I have not checked. bd2412 T 21:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Campaign to suppress Chinese characters representing name of former Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem

REQUEST: We need some educated involvement to push back against the censorship of relevant and sourced information by Vietnamese nativists. Thank you. WikiFlier (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Basic tone of discussion to date: Wikipedia readers "don't need to know ..." according to Itsmejudith. DHN is in accord. Actually, this is an excellent approach to Wikipedia as a whole.

Come to think of it, Wikipedia readers really "don't need to know" anything at all, so let them toddle off to Facebook and have fun, and forget about compiling verifiable information into Wikipedia articles. WikiFlier (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Various editors have repeatedly deleted the Chinese characters (呉廷琰) for the name of former Vietname president Ngo Dinh Diem - talk page here. WikiFlier has provided Chinese-language sourcing for the characters which have been used since at least 1957 and were used during a state visit by Diem to the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 1960 (as indicated in the cited source in Chinese). The name was mentioned in a book in Chinese in 1957 (see e.g. here and in numerous other sources here).

WikiFlier added not only the characters for the name and a supporting cite, but also linked each character to its entry in wiktionary.com.

Sadly, YellowMonkey in collusion with Amore Mio repeatedly vandalized the short but compex edit by WikiFlier. DHN previously deleted the characters. All three appear to feel threatened by the fact that Chinese characters and traditions continue to be of great significance throughout the Sinosphere as discussed in detail . The fact that three editors conspire to suppress well-sourced information on threadbare grounds is contrary to Wikipedia's mission to inform.

The desperate attempts to purge the page of all Chinese characters appears to reflect a narrow "nationalistic" and anti-Chinese view of Vietnam as discussed exhaustively on the talk page. Moreover, the fact that so many people wish to suppress the information - which was considered pertinent for inclusion in the Japanese and Korean pages - is itself an indication that the information is valuable and pertinent. WikiFlier (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The know-nothing attitude is perhaps best shown in this original quote:

Original Quote from Amore Mio, "academic writer" (from Ngo Dinh Diem talk page):

First, let me be straight. I don't care about how Chinese write down the name of Diem, or what assumption you got from a Chinese book. Let me be clear again, I don't have time to read all your document ...

Reposted by WikiFlier (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just seen this. A while ago one or more editors were inserting Chinese characters in the ledes of a number of Vietnam-related articles. We discussed it on WikiProject Vietnam and the consensus was that it is not appropriate. Chinese writing and its variants have not been used in Vietnam for about a century. Moreover, there is likely to be original research involved in working out what Chinese characters would be used to represent any particular name. It makes about as much sense as adding the Cyrillic transliteration of the name of Barack Obama. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference to original research is a red herring - the inclusion of Ngo's name was supported by a cite of the highest quality, numerous other cites (to contemporaneous sources) are given above. So no, this is not original research, although it may be irksome for editors not familiar with Chinese to have to accept the word of those able to read the language.

The purported comparison to Barack Obama in cyrillic does not hold water, and is based on a misunderstanding of how the Chinese writing system works in Vietnamese. A cyrillic version of Obama's name would simply seek to reflect the spelling or sound of the English name as perceived by speakers of, e.g., Russian and try to avoid adding or subtracting information. By contrast, Chinese characters carry information that the romanized spelling does not. The relationship between Chinese characters to corresponding Vietnamese readings (i.e. spellings) is many-to-one - numerous different Chinese characters may be read identically in Vietnamese (including tones). Conversely, each given (phonetic) word such as Đình or Diệm could generally be written with many different Chinese characters. The choice of specific character combinations was of great significance to Diem's parents at the time, and remains so among the educated elite in Vietnam. The fact that public education has long switched to romanized writing does not mean that the significance of Chinese characters has disappeared entirely. The matter is explained in exhaustive detail on the talk page here.

Since Itsmejudith states on her user page that she can read advanced German, perhaps she could take a look at the German version of the Diem article. (And no, the characters on that page were not added by or at the behest of WikiFlier.) And while you are about it, why not nip over to Vietnamesische Sprache. The introductory section contains an interesting and relevant statement:

Obwohl Vietnamesisch mit Chinesisch nicht urverwandt ist, besteht es im Wesentlichen aus Wörtern chinesischen Ursprungs. Dabei muss man zwischen den sinovietnamesischen und den vietnamisierten Wörtern unterscheiden. Erstere werden als einheimisch empfunden, obwohl sie eigentlich chinesischen Ursprungs sind.

Quick - which of these two categories, Sino-Vietnamese or "vietnamized" words would you think the name Ngo Dinh Diem falls under. Right - it is Sino-Vietnamese, NOT "vietnamized" Chinese, and thus NOT felt to be "native" Vietnamese by the Vietnamese themselves. Note that this is not as weird as it sounds - it corresponds to the common English and European habit of choosing noticeably Latin names for girls - Julia rather then Ethelreda. WikiFlier (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can give me some reference for your claim please? After all, you are only making groundless assumptions about Diem's name. You are not his parent, aren't you? How do you know what was in Diem parents' mind that clearly?--AM ^(talk) 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you give Vietnamese equal status as Korean and Japanese in the Sinosphere shows that you have no idea how Chinese characters are used in modern Vietnamese (hint: not at all). You're living in some fantasy world where people in Vietnam still know Chinese character and care about them, but it's not the real world. DHN (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the fact that public education and public culture have been switched to romanized writing does not mean that the significance of Chinese characters has disappeared entirely, particularly among the exclusively educated elite. The characters themselves bear significance far beyond what is conveyed by the romanized expression. Moreover, to a person of Ngo's generation and background (yes, even though he was a Catholic - see talk page), Chinese writing as a medium continued to hold a ceremonial significance that romanized Vietnamese did not. The matter is explained in exhaustive detail on the talk page here. WikiFlier (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can give me some reference for your claim please? After all, you are only making groundless assumption about Diem's name . You are not his parent, aren't you? How do you know what was in Diem parent's mind that clearly?--AM ^(talk) 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that we are writing for an English-speaking audience. They don't need to know the Chinese characters. They will never come across them in an English text or in a Vietnamese one either. I'm shutting up now; let's see if there are any more uninvolved responses. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

English-speaking readers without a basic knowledge of Chinese do not need this information and are unable to do anything with it other than get slightly irritated and perhaps conclude because there are Chinese characters on that Vietnam-related article, apparently the Vietnamese are still using that writing system. (Actually, they are unlikely to even see the Chinese characters, because most don't have the necessary font.) English-speakers with a basic knowledge of Chinese know where to find that information if they need it: zh:吳廷琰, easy to find through the interwiki link. Hans Adler 17:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

On the technology you are plain wrong - the vast majority (99%) of computer systems actively accessing Wikipedia have Chinese fonts pre-installed for Chinese and Japanese.

Your point about interwiki-links has some validity, but the reality is that less prominent articles about Vietnamese individuals will not have a Chinese version - Wikipedia remains largely banned in China. Chinese-reading users likely account for a substantial number of readers of the English version because the Chinese versions of articles are either non-existent or far less detailed, for the same reason.

On the general philosophy - have we really reached the stage where we must be afraid to confront English readers with new knowledge because they might be "slightly irritated". Based on your approach, we should, of course, take out ALL Chinese characters from Vietnam-related articles (e.g. Bảo Đại, Nguyễn Dynasty, and numerous others) because they might - gasp! - "irritate" or even confuse the lower classes (politely referred to as "English-speaking readers"). WikiFlier (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

*plonk* Hans Adler 18:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have all US software and have not added any special Asian fonts. I have always been able to see most Asian characters, not that I can read them, and regularly see them when I visit Asian news sites even if I'm looking for articles in English. Now if they are correctly rendered is another thing which I would have no idea about. I can see the 'man with the square head waving by the lattice work and the guy carrying something on his back' in the set above (not meant to be sarcastic or demeaning in anyway but just to illustrate what the characters look like on my screen). On another note, I tend to disregard foreign characters I come across and assume they are important to someone who may be able to read it. Though I have opinions I don't think I have the Wiki knowledge to comment in depth about Asian readers; some may be seeking additional knowledge or some may just be curious about what the Anglos think or know about a certain Asian topic. I do suspect that there must be many, many Anglos who are fluent in reading Asian languages and use the English Wiki as a reference and they may appreciate seeing the correct characters for certain words and names presented in relevant script. Veriss (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)‎ to Albania during the Balkan Wars

Resolved

 – Moved to less POV title Occupation of Ottoman Albania -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article moved back, discussion ongoing Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal to rename Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)‎ to the more neutral-sounding (to me at least) Albania during the Balkan Wars. Unfortunately, there is a problem of editors voting along national lines, and it would be nice if editors from non-involved nationalities contributed to the discussion. Athenean (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I opposed this move on the grounds that, since Albania existed since November 28 1912 (see Albanian Declaration of Independence), it was occupied by neighboring countries during the following year (Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)). Other editors are claiming that Albania started to exist only when the recognition of its borders were made, i.e. 1913 following the Protocol of Florence, which occurred in December 17, 1913, after the occupation in question. I disagree with that. A country exists when de facto its people are independent. Albania declared independence in 28 November 1912 and on December 4 1912 there was an acting Albanian government. We have to say the truth that Albania existed and it was occupied by Greece, Serbia and Montenegro. The Protocol of Florence stopped the Occupation of Albania, it DID NOT start the existence of Albania. "Neutral sounding" in this case would be falsifying history and hiding the truth. The starter of the article user:Mladifilozof is a well respected political analyst and has given an already neutral name. In my opinion if we really want to be consistent, we ought to rename the article into Albania under Serbia, Greece, and Montenegro, similarly to Ottoman Albania, or Albania under Italy or Albania under Germany. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Athenean for posting this here. In fact it should have been here already two weeks ago. This noticeboard is underused. I do not know if it is because it was renamed and made an Administrators' noticeboard. It might scare away people, as most issues that should be posted here do not need administrator action. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My thought exactly. This is a very underrated noticeboard, that i have always found very useful in resolving seemingly intractable disputes. Athenean (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The main point is that although we had a (one-sided) declaration of Albania at November 1912, Albania's borders were established at December 1913. So, virtually before December 1913 we had no 'Occupied territories of Albania', or in other words there were no official borders and therefore no occupation.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A summary that may help

Anyone reading the full discussion may become bored before reaching the end. Many votes were taken but there were very few principles involved, I admit this myself despite contributing and openly declaring my support for the proposal. Without prejudice, or casting aspersions on the ethnic backgrounds of the voters. I would like to summarise the debate. To do this, I will refer to the Support party and the Oppose party.

• The Oppose party have derived the title "Occupation of Albania" on the grounds of Albania's declaration of independence in 1912. This clashed with the aspirations of Greece and Serbia who joined forces to divide the land between themselves. The Oppose party believe that this constitutes an occupation and that the entity in question bares the name Albania.
• The Support party point to de jure status according to wider recognition. Apart from both Serbia and Greece having defined their territories decades earlier, the Support party believes that the official recognition of Albania and the marking of its borders form the inception for the state and all that the absence of the Ottomans who had fled the onslaughts had left nominally Ottoman territory res nullius.
• The Oppose party stand by their position that a state is born when it is declared and they have cited the U.S as exemplary, and to that end hold that 1912 is the year of Albania's return to the world map. They also believe that this event outweighs international legislation as well as Serbia and Greece's own earlier declarations.

The Support party do not accept the relevance claimed by the Oppose group on Albania's unilateral declaration, and the Oppose party will not be told otherwise, and this renders the scenario a deadlock, regardless of the for/against votes.

The factors not yet mentioned that need to be considered are the following:

• 1. A state can be inaugurated in three ways, its independence can be pending and in harmony with its previous overlord (eg. Montengro in 2006) making international response fast, welcoming, and uncontroversial. It can be created following one or more international treaties, or thirdly, it can take the longwinded route such as Abkhazia and Kosovo; be refused by the (former) sovereign state and then wait and see how the world responds, but all will do so ad personam. Albania lies somewhere between the third example (own declaration in November 1912) and the second (admitted in a treaty later in 1913) making its accepted appearance on world maps a slightly difficult task. This is the case when unlike the fist example (eg. Montenegro, Slovakia), the move is condemned by some parties.
• 2. It is all or nothing. If it were Albania, then it was an occupation, if it were not Albania, then the event is marked as a scramble for lands in the West Balkan. Although I voted in support, I would be very careful in following up the whole legal argument because it would be a serious affront to the Albanian community; we will have taken it upon ourselves to deny an occupation as we also denied the state and that in turn would hamper their claim on 1912 being the birth year of the modern state. 2012 will see centennial celebrations across Albania and we here will be making divine judgements in telling them that the event is fallacious, and that is not our job. The task is very very difficult but I believe that I have summed up the arguments. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

While true, I would reject most of your argumentation as it is still only argumentation and constitutes POV. This issue can be approached from a more general point-of-view. I will quote my comment here as I believe my arguments are relevant to the general discussions on this noticeboard.

“

Occupation is one of the words to avoid on Wikipedia. One man's occupation is another man's liberation. It should only be used in the very limited context of military occupation, and never to describe the complex relations between neighboring states.

I am sure Albanian historiography has no problem in describing this period as a military occupation of independent Albania. National historiographies are however tools to be used in irredentist battles with neighboring states. Occupation theories are the worst form history tweaking – they serve as a form of hate speech directed at ethnic minorities from the “occupier”nations. I have no doubt that this particular occupation theory is used to justify the discrimination of “occupier” Serbs in “Kosova” at this very moment.

It is true, that from the point-of-view of Albanian legal fiction, independent Albania was occupied from the day of the declaration of independence. It is also true, that the neighboring countries militarily occupied large parts of Ottoman territory. Combining these two truths into the one “truth” implied by the title is a synthesis unsupported by the facts.

A POV title precludes the creation of NPOV content. If the issues described here were not central to today's ethnic conflicts, then a neutral title would not be so important. The article now seems to be saying, that Serbian rule in Kosovo was part of this occupation. This is only one of the multiple POV-issues with the article. They all seem to stem from the selection of an unsalvageably povish title.

”

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you read my entire passage. I was leaving a message on the noticeboard, it is just a summary reflecting the behaviour of all of the users that contributed to the discussion, and what their principles are, and how and why neither party will stand aside. It can go on forever and they will all still be using the same arguments and now it needs fresh insight from unaffiliated editors. That was all. Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Both factions are wrong because the geographic borders the founders of Albania claimed as Albanian weren't delineated neither when they declared independence in November 1912 nor after the treaty of London in 1913. After the capture of Skopje by the armies led by Isa Boletini the Ottoman government recognized in August 1912 the autonomous region of Albania that included the four vilayets inhabited by Albanians. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the bottom line that can be drawn from the discussion on the talk page is, that if the parties need to base their arguments on legality – however justified or unjustified – then the word "occupation" should not be used. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Altough the new title is better (there was no agreement for such move), we still have a number of problems here: what's the definition of Ottoman Albania? obviously it is geographically the same with modern Albania, and doesn not coincide with the 4 Ottoman Vilayets.Alexikoua (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Ottoman Albania was composed of the remaining parts of the 4 vilayets after 1881.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of Ottoman Albania title has neither legal nor historical backup. Albania was not Ottoman any longer when it was occupied by three armies: it was an independent country. Failure to understand that Albania became independent on November 28 1912 is making these discussions abort themselves. Again, I need to bring the example of the United States: It declared its independence in 1776, but was recognized in 1783. Guess what is the year of independence of the United States. And don't make a point that the independence of a country in a century is different from that of another century. The world has not changed that much: de facto counts, not de jure and we in Wikipedia report what happened de facto. We may say in the body of article that Albania had not been given recognition, but both the region and the political entity existed starting 1912, hence Albania existed, and it was not called "Ottoman Albania", but simply "Albania". Next question? --Sulmues ^(talk) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the new name myself but for other reasons. Just thought you should know, Serbia's constitution defined itself as independent and comprising its irredentist borders from 1869 while still autonomous within the Ottoman Empire. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, apart from the quality of the arguments, the support votes outweigh the oppose. As I see 'oppose' votes were only by Albanian users (some of them in the typical pov fashion have declared their dream for the 'reconquest of the lost Albanian lands' in their userpage), what's more interesting all non-Balkan users (3) vote support. So, at this moment, it seems clear which title is far more neutral.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexi, please refrain from making comments on the users and the quantity of their votes. As you yourself mentioned it is the compliance with Wikipedia rules and policies that counts more than the number of the votes. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the quality of the 'oppose' arguments, which are fueled by irredentism (lost Albanian lands etc.) something we should avoid in this project.Alexikoua (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua please refrain from attributing motives to other users.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

More opinions needed

Debate has stalled, neither 'side' able to convince the other of their opinion. Unrelated neutral editors would be most welcome here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nosing in on reading only this appeal, the summaries above, and the lead and navbox, I would support the move on these grounds: "occupation" is a word to avoid in titles; status titles are better than date titles; both titles admit of a self-declared Albania; and one opposer even accepts a longer title that looks not much different from the proposed target title. Based on another old dispute, the real issue is getting consensus on the lead, from which scope is determined and everything else flows. Again, based only on the above, I'd draft it (however wrong) as: "Albania declared independence on 28 November 1912 but did not have final borders until 17 December 1913, the territory being disputed or occupied during that period by the Balkan League member states (Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece) during the Balkan Wars." Insistence on recognition of a status as "occupation", as appears to motivate the "oppose" group, is not a judgment proper for titles, but for marshalling reliable sources from all POVs in the rest of the article. When the first sentence mentions the basic POV group in proper tension, the scope and consensus can follow. Hopeful, JJB 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(Oppose renaming). Having no significant experience studying the history of this region and only a quick reading of the Albania (history portions), History of Albania, History of Ottoman Albania, and Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)‎ articles together with the case presented above I can offer this observation.

The current name implies that the region existed as a separate nation, principality or political entity for some significant period prior to the "occupation" of it. The articles indicate that this in fact the case, complete with hereditary nobility and that there was a Kingdom and King of Albania.

The proposed name gives the incorrect impression that it is a period in the history of a region or area before it became a state which would not adhere to the ancient history as described in the articles. The problem is the 450ish Ottoman years where the Ottomans are not outright described as occupiers but as controlling a region that included Albania.

From this reading I favor retaining the current Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)‎. Further, I suggest if valid sources support it, that the fact that the Ottomans "occupied" the former Kingdom and Principalities of Albania, and conscripted the heirs into their military service, be brought out more then it currently is to avoid confusion over the name in the future. I can even see a valid argument existing for renaming the article covering the Ottoman years to "The Ottoman Occupation of Albania (1481 until 1912)". That is assuming that the Wiki articles are correct in describing a former Kingdom and Principalities of Albania. (Note, I really don't think that "occupation" is a word to avoid. If a country was occupied, it is what it is, call it occupied, not some fuzzy feel good term. There are dozens of articles starting with the word "occupation" on Wiki.) Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, I knew I was sticking my foot into a tarbaby, but the title "Albania during the Balkan Wars" does not give me an impression that Albania had not become a state; instead it makes no presupposition of former history. "Occupation of Albania" also appears to be somewhat free of that presupposition, but it might also give some that "incorrect impression" that Albania had not become a state yet, because some "occupied" territories were never states. Anyway, I'm unwatching this page now. JJB 04:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I decided before I would offer a comment, that I would not read the talk pages of the articles so that my opinion of the name of the article and the content of the related articles are directly related and stand alone. According to the articles, the sovereign state of Albania was in existence prior to Ottoman occupation but that was over 400 years earlier. Even though I read a lot of history, I am not a historian, probably not even a hobbyist historian and have no real formal training in history. By that I mean that professional historians probably have a consensus on how and when to use terms like "occupation". After I made my comments and then went to read the talk pages it seems that the only opinions that would settle this intractable dispute would be from a more professional source.

Has this issue been run by the Wiki History or Military History projects yet? Those editors may be able to give pretty clear guidelines on when and how a term like "occupation" is used that could be acceptable to the interested parties. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(After further reading and attempting to use only wiki sources so that all parties have access to the information.) The term "occupied" appears to be used correctly in the current article name as defined in the article Military occupation where occupations is described as a occuring "... when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army". There is a proposal to merge that article with Occupied territory where the concept has an international legal definition as "... territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army..." or several armies in this case. Both articles describe this situation as "usually temporary" and that appears to be the case from 1912 to 1913. Also of importance, both articles appear to be independently written and both only use the term "territory" and make no attempt at making the distinction of whether a "state" existed prior to the occupation which would appear to make irrelevant all discussion of when independence or statehood occurred (see also State (polity)). My previous suggestion that the Ottoman years might be described as an occupation may be incorrect since after it was invaded, it was then annexed into Ottoman Empire for 400 years. Again, I think properly trained historians could probably be much more effective arbitrators. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• It appears that a person who had previously participated and voted in the debate on the article's talk pages has already moved the article before this discussion was closed by anyone in any official capacity. I don't know what else was happening in parallel to this discussion but it does not seem to me that should be the correct protocol. Veriss (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a majority of more than 2:1 in the second voting procedure preferred the new title. That's a decisive factor, although not the only one. Something that's also worth to note is that 'all' non Balkan editors (4 in total, including both voting procedures) voted for the move. I have left a message to Vilik in order to make additional comment about this initiative.Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course there will be a majority of voters: In the Balkans Greece has 9 million inhabitants and Serbia Montenegro 8 million. The total is 17 million. The Albanians are 6 million. Greco-Serbian editors will outnumber the Albanians by almost three times, and they will make sure that the titles in Wikipedia for Albania topics please them first. Not a single Albanian agreed to the change of the title of the article, but some wikibullying achieved the objective. We've been through this too many times now. --Sulmuesi (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nationalistic tweaking in Holocaust and Holodomor related articles

An IP editor is making small but highly controversial changes to articles related to the Holocaust, the Holodomor and other Eastern European disputes. The edits consist of small nationalistic tweaking against the sources. Most edits seem to have been reverted, but the whole edit history needs a review.

• 96.255.189.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

He's back as 83.170.95.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Jayjg ^(talk) 07:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of being some other random IP user that has nothing to do with me or of making edits I never made. 83.170.95.157 (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I thought wikipedia was supposed to be neutral, but apparently not.

Revert war at Urdu

A religous/nationalistic dispute appears to have arisen, here, with multiple editors engaging in a revert-war using automated tools to revert one another. I encourage third parties to help out at Talk:Urdu. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Deportation of Circassians

Extraordinary genocide claims are presented in Talk:Deportation of Circassians with a request to rename the article to Circassian Genocide. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Albanian nationalism: WP:POV, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:FORK

Background:

The article Albanian nationalism that used to redirect to Albanian National Awakening is created in a different form by a now banned User:Megistias. Through WP:SYNTH and WP:OR the article shades light to issues already part of WP (WP:FORK) but with a more aggressive (WP:POV) language.

Problems:

WP:FORK: There already is an article about Albanian irredentism, Greater Albania. Also there is an article about Albanian nationalism, Albanian National Awakening.

WP:POV: In its current form the article gives the idea that Albanian nationalism is a set of irredentist rules and ideas created during Hoxhas regime. It uses language that is biased: These ideologies and Greater Albania have proponents and patrons who are not only nationalists but criminals[56] and terrorists[57][58][59][60][61] involved[62] in drug trafficking, human trafficking and other activities motivated by profit.[63]. It is only focused on one side of nationalism and repeats the same claims made over and over again. It also in breach of WP:ARBMAC2.

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR: "Ismail Kadare, an Albanian novelist [...] claims that Albanians are more Greek than the Greeks themselves,[30] and attempts to construct a Greek-Illyrian continuity.[30]" quoting a sentence from the article. While the original source tells a clearer picture "the Albanians are more Greek than the Greeks themselves because Albanians are closer to Homeric society and Homeric ideals".

- These ideas comprise a national myth that establishes precedence over neighboring peoples a WP:SYNTH that suggests Albanian myth establishes precedence over neighboring peoples.

- Also The term is also associated with similar concepts, such as Albanianism[1][2][3][4][5] and Pan-Albanianism,[6][7][page needed] and ideas what would lead to the formation of a Greater Albania. Pan-Albanianism and Greater Albania are the same thing. One of the sources here is this: "Pan-Albanianism: How Big a Threat to Balkan Stability (Central and Eastern European) by Miranda Vickers, 2004" which does not exist. Miranda Vickers never wrote such a book. However there is a source: Pan-Albanianism: How Big a Threat to Balkan Stability by International Crisis Group that states there is no Pan-Albanian threat. Other sources do mention Albanianism and Greater Albania but totally out of contexts (also we already have an article about that).

- There are also claim about Protochronism not backed by sources.

- This sentence Nationalist theories developed during communism have survived largely intact into the present day.[8], is repeated many times: Nationalist theories developed during communism have survived largely intact into the present day.[8], while the ideology developed during Hoxha's regime is still partly present...

Explanation:

I have tried RfC, and User:Askari Mark offered help. His suggestions were not taken into consideration. I have made some minor improvements in the lead. But do not seem to find consensus on more changes. Also, tags were removed, and a merger request was removed also.

Possible solutions:

1. To merge this article with Greater Albania.
2. To merge this article with Albanian National Awakening
3. To split parts of the article between Greater Albania and [[Albanian National Awakening]!

—Anna Comnena (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment:The article, which was written by the same user and had by more than 80% the same content on its home wiki was deleted because of the exessive pov content(only one user was against its deletion).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Greek article was completely diferrent from this one, that's really a weird argument. In general the article is npov, as stated by several non-Balkan editors, but it can be further upgraded. About the merging arguments, I feel an article about X nationalism, especially about a Balkan country, should stay in wiki.Alexikoua (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)The Greek article was 90% the same and if you continue to disagree I'll ask from the admins of the Greek wikipedia to userfy it. Btw you were the only person who disagreed with its deletion on the Greek wikipedia. Btw Dab is one editor not several editors and he agreed about his coi part.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you avoid this campaign of misinformation. I have not disagreed with the deletion ([[73]]).Alexikoua (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You disagreed at first then and afterwards changed your vote. If I ask for userfication of the article on the Greek wikipedia, it will be 90% the same apart from one small section.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well you change now your comments (from 'I disaggreed' to 'I cancelled my vote'). Suppose you owe an sencere apology, its not the first time you are too obviously lying about my contribution in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I made a sincere and minor mistake, since you were indeed the only one who disagreed even if you changed your vote afterwards, but please don't make npa comments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, look, Alex, I am FOR keeping this information. No information is bad. It could only be badly placed. So I am suggesting to redirect the name to Albanian National Awakening and transfer most of the text to Greater Albania where there is a subcategory suited for Albania nationalism during dictatorship and today. Also there is a lot of POV and violent language, which you can change yourself. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Abu Bakr's Biography

Currently there is a great problem on Abubakr's article. The following summery can be helpful.

The current problem is related to the biography paragraph(s) in the introduction of the article. We had a detailed discussion on the talk page of the article, including third opinion, till the user:Ewpfpod failed to prove some of his claims and left the discussion by this post. I gave several notice and warning to him, but he didn't pay any attention and reverted the article as he wrote it earlier.

The dispute was related to the fact that a large number of Muslims view Abubakr as a great man and for keeping the prestige of this man sometimes some historical facts were distorted. Here I give an examples: When Abubakr became ruler, he killed some 2 groups of people, a group were some persons who became apostates and claimed prophet-hood; second group were Muslims who disagreed with Abubakr's successorship and stopped alms-giving. Now these two distinct fact are distorted by mixing them and saying Abubakr killed apostates as they stopped alm payment.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Targeted killing

A number of nationalistic American editiors are insistent that this article should not reflect badly on their governments assassination campaign. In particular, one editor finds it very hard to understand that the policy is not universally popular. If any one would help, would be most obliged!93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

I have a disagreement on the talk page about the use of primary sources in the article. I believe that UN official documents, for example resolutions of the General Assembly, should be linked to for readers' convenience, but that the history sections of the article should be written up mainly from academic history texts. Other users say that this is not necessary and that the UN documents themselves tell the story (if I have correctly understood their position). I have started to improve the writing and referencing of the historical sections, have added sourced material, cleaned up the presentation of existing references. I took this question (of the use of primary sources) to RSN and my view was endorsed by uninvolved editors. I would be grateful for views via this board on the general principle of sources for this article. ArbCom Israel/Palestine sanctions apply; I'm trying to work within them and am posting here in the hope that dispute resolution at an early stage will head off problems so they do not become serious. Discussion is still civil. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't correctly summarized my position... AnonMoos (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do summarise it here. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

IP hopper Armenophobe

Someone (from Turkey according to geolocate) has been going between articles relating to the Urartu empire and removing references to Armenia. He's left me a message on my talk page accusing me of being an Armenophile, but beyond that refuses to talk about his edits. I've quit leaving warnings, because he switches to a different IP address every day. Banning probably won't accomplish anything with the IP hopping, I'm thinking page protection is going to be necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I had copied the list:

Special:Contributions/78.182.3.207 Special:Contributions/78.182.11.67 Special:Contributions/78.180.98.119 Special:Contributions/78.184.226.130 Special:Contributions/78.190.176.59 Special:Contributions/78.190.178.106 Ian.thomson (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And the little punk went and tried to cover his tracks:

Special:Contributions/78.180.112.18 Ian.thomson (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad

 No action No link provided. Netalarm^talk 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture of a donkey with the caption "photograph of Muhammad" Please remove it. Thank you -- 08:04, 14 November 2010 120.140.37.60

Where is it? -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto please assist in editing page of this individual. Single account user is editing out information which has been widely reported in media. Assist.

Please assist Rabbi Pinto a controversial religious figure has been lauded and condemned by many and his page is a complete marketing tool. The materials they pick even from sources is completely biased. Please assist. -- 15:24, 20 November 2010 65.112.21.194

Rabbi Pinto users are whitewashing info which has already been introduced from accepted sources. He's a controversial religious leader and as such his followers arent posting information accurately reflecting tone of said articles. -- 01:54, 29 November 2010 User:Babasalichai

I would suggest you read over Wikipedia:Fringe theories first and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Taking a brief look at the page and the edits in question, it appears to me that lines like "Bad blood existed between the businessman and Pinto" are unscientific and do not have any factual basis. It's reading more like a conspiracy /fringe theory right now. You can add information to the article, but please make sure it is written in a neutral tone and cites reliable third party sources. Netalarm^talk 02:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Every single article mentions the negative sources and items. All of their sources say items like "Pinto is not prominent in Israel", and mention bad blood between him and Hasidic religious man who was mysteriously killed. Please assist in adding balance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk • contribs)

Almost every single claim you've made on the talk page about what the sources say has been false. The "mysterious death" has been ruled a suicide by police, so there was and is no "link" other than malicious gossip, which we don't repeat even if the media does.

You falsely claim that the users preventing you from adding material which violates our biographies of living persons policy are single purpose accounts, but that's also blatanly false, as I've been on Wikipedia for 1.5 years and edit a variety of topics, Debresser has been on Wikipedia even longer. I feel it is only fair to warn you that repeated misrepresentation of both sources and other editors may be considered disruptive and may eventually lead to being blocked from editing. I don't think Wikipedia really needs your "help". Yworo (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

is the $30 Million building also gossip ? Is it also gossip that a source you claim is valid says Pinto isnt prominent in Israel ? Are those also "rumors" ? Frankly, you are only interested in placing propoganda, not facts at all. Yes you and Debresser may be real sources - clearly the others are not, surely you'd agree with that, No ? Also if the building isnt relevant, why are "Shuva Israel" Donations ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs)

You clearly have an axe to grind over the subject and should not edit the article. If you continue, you should be blocked. Yworo (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I created the page - Does that hold credence ? Rabbi Pinto Prominence: The page is biased and whitewashed. How can he be such a great worldwide leader if the sources cited say the following: The Forward article says http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/#ixzz17UWltlMZ Pinto, an Israeli-born rabbi of Moroccan descent, is little known in the United States. The Haaretz article says: “Pinto is not well known in Israel.” http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-rabbi-not-afraid-to-deviate-1.265442

Should these not be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs)

Having created the page gives you no more say in the matter than any other editor. Yworo (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 89.168.109.232 and UK spelling

It appears that IP user 89.168.109.232 has been changing the spelling of individual words on many pages from US to UK spelling, but a quick search on the letter Z appears to show that the pages are otherwise done US style (if anyone knows of a better way to quickly determine which language style is used on a page, please let me know) This appears to go against the Wikipedia policy of keeping the spelling the same as it was when the page was created. I would like someone else to review this issue before I jump in and revert his changes a bunch of pages. Thanks! Guy Macon 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I read through Pattern welding, saw no other specifically American or British spellings, and on that basis I reverted the IP's respelling of "coloration" as "colouration" in that article. I also left a pleasant note on the IP's talk page explaining the situation and citing WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. As for how to tell which language style is in use on a given page, I think this may simply require careful reading and personal experience. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to British spelling in Overhead lines, as the article was clearly otherwise in British English (eg centre, centimetres, tram). I've just looked at sleeping car, but that page does look rather mixed. Do you still have other pages to review?

Z, as in organize is not reliable, as not all Brits use organise (and note that many spell chequers (sic) give the option of Z or S for such words in British Spelling). HTH Tim PF (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I was attempting to roll back good faith changes to UK spelling made by IP users 89.168.109.232 and 85.210.61.130 after they hit a couple of pages I monitor (I focus on technical / engineering pages). Clearly searching for "-ize" is not a reliable method for identifying those pages where UK Spelling should be retained, so I just went back and searched on "-our" and "-tre." I think I have now correctly identified the two styles in all cases, but would welcome another set of eyes looking at the edits from those two IP addresses. There aren't very many edits to check. Clearly both IP users editing in good faith and want to improve Wikipedia Guy Macon 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've checked all the recent changes for those 2 IP addresses, and made a few further changes (for consistency) or where the anonymous user(s) was/were correct, etc., leaving just 2 possible problem articles:

1. Austenite, which still has a mixmatch of centred and centered from way back when, and I'm not sure if the article really should be in American English, so I'm not going to touch it.
2. Curie temperature, which has a minor change by 89.168.109.232 which was also lost, but it's not my subject area, so I'm just flagging it here.

Tim PF (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

In the first section of this article, someone has apparently inserted the paragraph: "Prabhupada is sometimes criticized by philosophers and theologians of orthodox Hindu systems, mainly due to the uncompromising, sarcastic and 'cruel remarks' against non-dualistic systems, particularly followers of Advaita. This may be taken in the perspective of the general underlying hostility of Prabhupada towards the fundamental truth of bhakti, devotion, and orthodox Vedanta system as expounded by Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya being in conflict with the heterodox views of Prabhupada. As such his Hare Krishna movement is now more or less seen as cult which has borrowed methods from Evangelical Christianity."

As we all know, the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia is to be informative, and not judgmental or combative. The editor makes vague assumptions about "general underlying hostility" and apparently wants to promote "fundamental truth...as expounded by" someone not a part of the article and make a judgement that is clearly biased. Clearly, some weenie got their stuff in there, and anyone who cares about objectivity would agree that this paragraph should be removed.

(NOTE: the above was added at 06:35 on 4 January 2011 by Santacruz108.)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. In particular, you failed to follow the following instruction:

"Open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic."

Instead you complained on an administrators noticeboard without first seeking consensus on the relevant talk page and were ignored.

Go back, read Wikipedia:Consensus, and follow the correct procedure. If you learn and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, everything will go a lot smoother. Guy Macon 09:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo

At least few administrators how are informed about WP:ARBMAC, and contemporary Kosovo status, are highly needed at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split. Uninvolved editor input is of extreme importance here. Just read the post and write your opinion, solution, or proposition. Thanks. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No specific concern addressed by OP, which is why nobody has responded. Recommend closure/archiving of thread. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

There has been a breakdown in communications on this article, resulting in removal of well-cited material, tendentious editing and unlikely claims about consensus. Outside assistance would be helpful. Dylan Flaherty 04:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You have not worded a specific concern that can be addressed, which is why nobody has responded. Recommend closure/archiving of thread. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Languages of Slovenia

I'm asking for more input in the dispute on whether to include 'Prekmurian' as a language in the article Languages of Slovenia and that someone adds {{content}} or a similar template to its top as I'm not willing to edit war with User:Doncsecz who removes it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have commented on the talk page. Also involved in the talk page discussion is Seb az86556 (talk · contribs), and involved in the editing is Dbachmann (talk · contribs). But the more the merrier, so let's keep this invitation here for a couple more days. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Georgia (country) location

The lede of Georgia (country) was changed from the previous compromise lede saying it was in Eurasia to saying it was in Europe by the IP, which I reverted by was re-reverted by another user (Both turned out to be socks). I started a discussion at Talk:Georgia (country)#Lede again, which failed to gain input between anyone except myself and both socks. The issue ended up with categories and templates that have anything to do with Asia being removed. The debate spread to other pages, mostly Western Asia.

I changed back to the previous lede earlier (and reverted in Western Asia), and was reverted by a new user (not a sockpuppet of the previous ones) on both pages. Fresh eyes would be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You really shouldn't have had to do this. The user that keeps reverting has demonstrated a conflict of interest with the subject, and seems to be here only to make a point. One can only assume good faith so far... Considering that the user's "first" contribution was to a sockpuppet investigation, it's most likely a single-purpose account of a banned user.

The lead of the article (especially that footnote) shows a clear disagreement between multiple reliable sources. Any editor can see that. This editor, however, happens to be a Georgian who has a love affair with Europe. Nightw 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead does not show a clear disagreement between multiple reliable sources. It reflects the fact that there are enough important sources to consider Georgia European, while mentioning whatever else needs to be mentioned. It is clear that by reverting this kind of wording you are equating UN/CIA/Britannica to 20+ listed sources from serious establishments which I do not think is fair. --Ludovica91 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a competition. This isn't the kind of case where we'd stack sources up against each other and whichever has the most wins. Those are three well-respected, reputable sources. Whether they "equate to" however many contrary claims we have is something the reader should be allowed to decide. Wikipedia is not the place to make a point. All we can do is show that X says that Georgia is in Europe, but Y says that it's in Asia. Nightw 04:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jaxdave

Resolved

 – Referred Stonemason to ANI. The editor in question does not appear to be a great asset, but that's not for this board. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Jaxdave is an apparent WP: SPA (or even, arguably, a WP: VOA) who seems to have a major axe to grind against black pastors. His edits generally come in "spurts" about a week to a month apart, the most recent one being January 9 (in which he removed a vandalism warning from his talk page: [74]). Prior to this, on January 2, he rather blatantly vandalized Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King III. See [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]. He doesn't seem to have made any constructive contributions to date, so WP: VOA would almost certainly apply. Apart from vandalizing articles, the only other edits he's made appear to be talk page soapboxing such as these: [81][82] (in which he describes in detail his opinion of the aforementioned pastors, including inexplicably blaming them for Jim Crow) [83] [84] [85]. Further back in time is this disturbing little screed on his talk page about "ragheads" and Israel (which was later removed by another editor): [86]. Because of all this, and the fact that he doesn't respect BLP, I think Wikipedia would be better off without him. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have notified him of this discussion. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since Jaxdave hasn't responded in all this time, and in case I didn't make myself clear earlier: I think Jaxdave should be blocked. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rednova55

Resolved

 – User has not edited since, and this wasn't really a geopolitical ethnic and religious conflict. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Rednova55 has made only one edit (to this very page!) on January 9th. [87] [88]. That edit was later removed by another editor because it was racist/antisemitic trolling. Because most truly new editors don't start out by editing the Administrator's Noticeboards, I have a hunch that Rednova55 is in all likelihood a sock of someone who had already been involved in that dispute (although I'm not sure who). A checkuser might be in order; even if we decide not to go that route, Rednova55 should probably be blocked under WP: BLP, WP: SPA, WP: VOA, etc. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User warned here: [89]. Although, since he's likely a sock, I'm not sure how much good that will do, as sockmasters don't always monitor their socks' talk pages. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Rednova hasn't responded in all this time; that's further evidence that he/she is probably a sock. Recommend block. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor has made only one edit. If you feel there's socking going on, then WP:SPI is the place to go. If the editor returns making similar edits, that's probably a good idea--but this edit here on this board was pretty inept. Arkady and Boris Strugatsky seems quiet and peaceful now. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:BobbyCtkr

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, just one now-blocked user complaining about another. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

this user has constantly harrased me with ethnic remarks. It saddens me.

First of all, remember to sign your statements with four tildes. Second of all, Channarichan, I looked at your own contribution history and let's just say it is less than stellar. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Maria Pavelić issue?

Resolved

 – Issue appears stale now that Maria Pavelić is merged into Ante Pavelić, which has probably resolved what was an issue of nomenclature. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was directed here, so I am asking admins to arbitrage about the article of Maria Pavelić. First sentence is what bothers me, for explanation see Maria Pavelić talk page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks.--89.164.140.130 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yanya Vilayet demographics

I added the demographics of Yanya Vilayet, but a Greek user has been removing and replacing them with those from a Greek work. I used as a source [90] the Defeat in detail: the Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913, while the user who removed and replaced it used Epirus 4000 years of Greek history. His other works belonging to the same niche have been highly criticized for being Greek nationalist sources [91]. While the first source presents the obvious multiethnicity of a vast area, the Greek work simply diminishes the presence all other groups and at the same almost triples the numbers of the Greeks. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To sum up user:Zjarri. created a demographics section by adding just one unofficial estimation based on a highly dubious primary, which included overinflated numbers of Albanians. I added the official Ottoman statistics instead (it's obviously more balanced in numbers, and the source is describing where excactly each group forms a majority), I've also added that this statistic was also regarded unreliable, although official. The source I used is considered 'rs' (academic, secondary, by a top graded publishing house, in fact Zjarri's url, proves nothing about pov). I have also suggested in talkpage to add all unofficial estimations (including Zjarri's) on a seperate paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything using the snippet view. However, Zjarri's source gives even more ethnic groups than are currently on the list. Is there a reason for this? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Chimpunkdavis Sakellariou is considered a standard Greek nationalist writer belonging to group of authors that write various books of the same niche[92] about various regions they consider inherently Greek. As such Sakellariou has diminished the presence of Aromanians from about 180,000 to 25,000, lowered by more than 100,000 the number of Albanians and completely removed the number of Bulgarians among others. Alexikoua shouldn't label sources as highly dubious if the academic community doesn't consider them highly dubious.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Off course Sakelariou isn't considered a nationalist (the url doesn't confirm Zjarri's claim, on the other hand the publishing house is well known and awarded by top graded academic institutions [[93]], like Athens Academy). I have also to add that a number of administrators have expressed their concern about Zjarri's extremistic background [[94]], also Zjarri. in the past found this specific work 'fine' looking [[95]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make npa comments(btw the verdict is on our block logs and restrictions). Complete with appropriate references to the standard Greek nationalist sources on Macedonia: Andriotis, Kofos, Sakellariou. Case closed, so don't add your sources again and attributing to me motives and opinions I've never expressed like that link about me supposedly agreeing with this sources is disruptive.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you just don't like sources written by Greek authors (for the usual reasons). As I see Sakellariou is completely confirmed by additional bibliography: The 1906/7 census gives similar numbers to the 1908 one: [[96]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I still for some reason can't see Alexikoua's first source (geoblocked?). Alexikoua's second source I can only see a snippet showing the top of the table. A source from outside the area (for the sake of it) would be useful. Is it possible to note both estimates on the page to illustrate a dispute? (And in future, saying a greek source is approved by the Athens Academy probably won't get you far in terms of proving impartiality.) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My initial proposal per talk page was to place 'all' estimates, there are at least 10 in total.Alexikoua (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

These aren't similar numbers as the Muslim-Greek dichotomy is a religious one and not an ethnic one. Such numbers would be acceptable but not in the ethnically exaggerated and revisionist context Sakellariou places them. Chipmunkdavis the Defeat in detail book is from outside the area, which is why it shows all these different ethnicities with dimishing some in favour of others. Alexikoua's second link shows a religious dichotomy(Muslim-Greek) not an ethnic one and he never made such a proposal or linked to any other estimates.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnically exagerated? I'm sorry but this is called oring. As I see this publishing house was awarded by the French Academy of Science too [[97]]. I'm sorry but I 'have' made a proposal in the talkpage to include all estimates.Alexikoua (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Defeat in Detail book bases its table off a turkish book from 1975, I was thinking more of an outside source based off the Ottoman primaries. Anyway, the best thing to do would be to place the high and low estimates in the table (all may be too much), and note that there is dispute. In regards to how reliable each source is, there are forums for that, where hopefully someone else can see Alexikoua's sources. I apologise for not being able to make a judgement on those. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

All the Christian Orthodox people are less than 290,000 and he labels 310,000 people as being Greek. Alexikoua awards about unrelated to him works make Sakellariou no less a standard nationalist sources as he is labeled. Chipmunkdavis the source is an Armenian not a Turkish book. High-low estimates is probably the best thing with outside sources like.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope we all agree to include all estimates. Something that's problematic here that User:Zjarri, in a recent discussion was eager to claim that the same publishing house was 'rs' in order to promote unsucessfully a pro-Albanian version [[98]] in another article (about the 'Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous' volumes).Alexikoua (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't attribute motives and comments to me. Those would be all estimates from outside sources not just any kind of estimates. Btw [99] , so until now no source agrees with the Greek estimations.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The snippet says 'south of the Devol river', geographically it's not about the same region (the specific region is south of the Shkumbin river). In fact all estimates contradict the one given by the Turkish primary (Catholic Albanians were almost non existent although it claims that they were 20k.).Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)It's the Vilayet of Yanya, so please stick to the sources and don't or about geography. If you want to add Sakellariou's estimates about the province, then these estimates will be added too. Btw all estimates should be added According to X source because someone reading the the 310,000 figures that don't exist in any other source should at least know whose work he's reading. Sakellariou claims that 55-60% were Greeks, while Turkish balkanologists claim that 55-60% were Albanians[100]. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Others go as far as saying that 2/3 were Muslims and of course mostly Albanians[101].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And another one that confirms my estimations: [[102]]. Zjarry: It's good news you finally agree on adding 'all' 'reliable' estimates or opinions, like [[103]]] Alexikoua (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's good news that you finally agree too, since now we can add other opinions, although you seem to be focused on the religious dichotomy(second link) and heavily populated could be even 40,000. Btw [104] suggests that apart from the capital itself, the rest of the area was inhabited predominantly by Albanians.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As I see we have a weird cherry picking paranoia here. I really don't see what's the point, please concentrate on the specific article (the link wasn't about the Vilayet).Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Genocide Denial at Turkey

In Turkey, User:DirenYardimli is adding highly POV, weasel-worded material designed to equivocate over the Armenian Genocide [105] and slow-reverting [106] [107] to keep it in, even he has been reverted by more than just me [108]. Personally, I find this to be an example of odious POV-pushing and genocide denial. This is nothing more than the standard denialist Turkish Government line ("Many people on all sides were killed, it was a crazy time, and those ungrateful Armenians rebelled against the poor old Ottoman Empire,..." and so on and so forth). Needless to say, the additions are completely unsourced or entirely off-topic (e.g. about the Vilayet of Yerevan and Azerbaijan). Any attempt at discussion on the talkpage is met with howls of rage and personal attacks [109], I mean the title of the thread started by Diren Yardimli says it all. Athenean (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky

Resolved

 – Problem not in the scope of this board, and anything awry should be cleared up in the AFD anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is a group that claims ancestry from the "mixed blood" Cherokee that signed the Treaty of New Echota with the US Government in 1835.

The group was recognized by Governor John Young Brown on December 26, 1893,[citation needed] and then by Governor Ernie Fletcher, via proclamation, on November 20, 2006.[citation needed] The city of Henderson, Kentucky also issued a proclamation recognizing the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky on February 24, 2009.[1]

The group's legitimacy is disputed. According to a newsletter of the Kentucky Court of Justice, the Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is recognized in the Commonwealth of Kentucky by the Executive Branch of their host government.[2][3] They are not federally recognized, unlike the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

I am being harrassed and this Native American tribe is being slandered. Please look into this ASAP. I wrote beautiful article and this is what is left of it.

Please check on it ASAP.

76.121.154.140 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

PS - Please hide the article from public view until this can be resolved.

• Note from involved editor: there is nothing to hide here. Interested parties are referred to Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. What IP above has posted (for reasons unclear to me) is a version of the article that resulted from the collaborative efforts of three or four editors. What IP briefly reinstated was an unverified and incoherent mess that could not separate fact from fiction and had no place in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Somebody wants "my way or the highway". I don't think that's the way it goes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• I'm involved, so I can barely mark this as resolved, but a quick look at the AfD will show you that there is no geopolitical, ethnic, or religious issue here. Move to close. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• I have been following this article from the onset, and an editing war ensued that was very disruptive. For example, stating that "The group's legitimacy is disputed" without so much as a citation to verify such a statement is disruptive in nature, and appears to be a personal opinion that should not have been included in the original article to begin with. The present form of the article now accurately reflects that the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is "recognized and acclaimed by the Executive branch of the Commonwealth of Kentucky", and proper citations are provided. The article now appears to be factual and presents a more neutral point of view, I consider the issue resolved. Biglegion (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Just from looking at what was written above it does not appear to be something you would read in an encyclopedia, and reads like someone with a bias was editorializing. One has to wonder, why it was condoned even for a moment.Redballjet (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Serbia in World War II

Hi. Can somebody please look this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedić_regime User:DIREKTOR from Croatia is trying to push his POV that there was no territory with name Serbia during World War II. I presented to him various sources that this territory was named Serbia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nedić_regime#Sources_for_mister_DIRECTOR However, he is continuing with revert warring and with removal of name "Serbia" from the title of this article. How can I deal with this user? PANONIAN 12:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Syrmia county

Here is another problem with User:DIREKTOR from Croatia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrmia_County#Problems In the infobox of this article and in the text, there is mention to which modern countries this historical territory belongs today. Since larger part of that territory is now in Serbia and smaller part in Croatia, I listed Serbia first and Croatia second under description "today part of". However, User:DIREKTOR is insisting that Croatia is listed first and when I asked him on which criteria he based that order of countries, he said that there is no criteria. In another words, he simply want to list his own country first without any criteria. So, what should be solution for this problem? PANONIAN 12:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto please assist in editing the page... He is a controversial figure as speaking of a red phone to Gd is not a Jewish concept nor is his brand of Kabbalah based on wealth. His employee using 1 account for only this purpose is whitewashing said material. Babasalichai (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed edit on Hungary–Slovakia relations

The questionable edit is this one. I am not denying that it is well-sourced content, but I contest the fact that the text is appropriate for his article. My motivation is below.

As it is specified in the lead, this article is treating "the foreign relations between the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic". Slovak Republic did not exist before 1993, so the article must not discuss earlier events. It is like writing about the beer Heineken Hungária in the article about Hungarian wine and asking: "What is wrong? Because it is a Hungarian drink brand".

We must create the article Hungary–Czechoslovakia relations‎ on the model of the couple Czechoslovakia–Poland relations and Poland–Slovakia relations. If we want to write about anti-Hungarian sentiments present in the first Czechoslovak republic, we should add that text to the article Anti-Hungarian sentiment or First Czechoslovak Republic. (Iaaasi (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

It's interesting that the contest comes from an editor who knows next to nothing about the history of Slovakia nor Czechoslovakia yet claims that a chapter added to the article about Hungary-Slovakia relations is irrelevant. The chapter was about the history of Hungarians living in Czechoslovakia, because back then Slovakia simply did not exist, yet the Slovaks were a (somewhat) dominant nation in Czechoslovakia. He not only removed the chapter on sight, but later he got into an edit war with Koalicio on this as well. In the process he claimed to remove vandalism, while in fact it was him who was vandalizing (=removing added content). He also marked these edits as "minor" even though minor they were definitely not.
He also keeps bringing up this ridiculous argument with Heineken and Hungarian wine even though it absolutely doesn't fit here well. A better example would be saying that "life of Hungarians in Greater Romania" has nothing to do with "Hungary-Romania relations", which is just as illogical and absurd. It all derives from the flawed assumption that (in case of Slovaks and Hungarians) the conflict began only in 1993, when Slovakia was established, which it certainly did not. And no matter how often I repeat that the historical aspects are essential in understanding the root of the conflict, Iaaasi doesn't seem to care.
Also the article was originally named Hungarian-Slovak relations (indicated by the title above the pictures of the two nations' flags as well) and was meant to discuss it as such. Later however someone began some wikilawyering and had the article renamed on the grounds of "naming conventions", making the article lose its original purpose in the process. It's basically this rename that makes grounds of all of Iaaasi's arguments against the caption. CoolKoon (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please refer just to the subject of the discussion? (Iaaasi (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Very important point Removing information with a reason is not vandalism. If you accuse people of WP:Vandalism when they do not actually commit vandalism, that will get you nowhere.

In regards to the information there, the article does have a history section, so I don't see why this sort of information cannot be included there. Relations between predecessors is part of the history of current bilateral relations. Perhaps if placed on a subarticle only a summary is needed on the current page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Iaaasi has removed an entire section on the claims that it's unnecessary. Since Iaaasi might not be around anymore, could you suggest an appropriate name for a subarticle? Once the history section becomes too large, moving some of the content won't be a bad idea at all. CoolKoon (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Up to the editors I suppose. The obvious choice would be History of Hungary-Slovakia relations, but that doesn't seem very useful with current information. From my take of the information that was added, I think it could be integrated into Hungarians in Slovakia, and replaced with a summary on the main relations page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm kind of surprised this is so controversial. This article is about relations with the current Slovak Republic, and the history before it existed is correctly limited to a brief summary that gives a pretty adequate sense of the history (which it does; indeed it may be even better to make it a bit more general). The other information should go in an article about the relationship between Hungary and previous states. These articles could (and should) be easily created, and the information will be much more applicable there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that your opinion derives from exactly the same lack of information I've added the new section for to combat against. You seem to fail to make see the connections between the issues that led up to the nature of Slovakia and Hungary's relations up to this day. Ironically your posts themselves can be understood as arguments for keeping the new section in the article as well. CoolKoon (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm well aware of the connection and the importance of this connection. And there should be a good summary of this in this article. But as for the more individual details and events, these should be covered in an article about the past relationships with previous states.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my answer at the appropriate section of the article as I prefer not to repeat it here again. CoolKoon (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Juzu Beads redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juzu_beads is WRONG.

I am not someone with a biased point of view who lets money, property, or prestige divert me from the truth. I myself, have edited the information several times concerning the difference between Mala beads which are Hindu and considered East Indian and Juzu beads which are Japanese. I am a member of Soka Gakkai International, a Buddhist lay organization. I have asked all the old world Japanese women from my Cultural Center and they all think I must be kidding when I say Japa Mala. They believe that is something some internet salesman made up to sell Hindu beads to someone who doesn't know any better. The author keeps changing it back to the same misinterpretation/misinformation that the Mala bead sales people on Amazon.com keep posting. The idea that somehow our beads, the Juzu beads shown here [[110]] are the same thing as this [[111]] is incorrect. I tried to correct this. Someone who is trying to sell Mala beads on Amazon.com is also trying to confuse the issue by making up an uneducated description of Juzu beads and what they are selling instead is Mala beads. Evidently that way they can get some people to "think" they are buying Juzu beads instead of actually purchasing Juzu Beads and having them in stock, also there is a religious infringement situation that can cause them grief. Most religious websites are run by members and they won't sell large quantities to anyone but the individual books stores in the cultural centers. A set of Juzu Beads has five tassels, approximately 140 regular rounded beads in the central circle, two head (bugle shaped) beads, each tassle has more beads, and each of the head beads that are tubular with a flanged out end at each end are used to separate the circular center area from the tassels. All in all, there are about 160 beads and the people trying to sell Mala beads as Japanese are being deceptive and greedy. Greed, anger, and foolishness are the three poisons. Each set of Juzu beads is considered a Buddha, as are all objects in Buddhism. There are three tassels on one end that represent his head and arms, the two tassels on the other end represent his legs. Juzu beads are held a certain way during chanting. The center circle of beads is placed with the two tassel end on the middle finger of the left hand and the three tassel end over the middle finger of the right hand, crossing the circle in the middle like a figure eight. We don't count our prayers or how many times we say Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, (called daimoku, once repeated only takes about 4 seconds, sixty seconds a minute, about 15 times a minute, and most members chant for hours a day, 60 x 15 = 900), because that is up to the individual. One day one might wish to chant for hours, another for 15 minutes. Daimoku surrounds chanting the reading we recite called Gongyo (chapters 2 and 16 of the lotus sutra). So there isn't anything to count as this article says, "Japa Mala beads are called counting beads." Whoever made that up must be laughing at whoever keeps posting it on Wikipedia but to those of us who are members of Japanese Buddhist organizations (Nichiren Buddhists, especially), it is an insult to say that we would only say daimoku 108 times. That would only take about twenty five minutes and we often have members who do a one million diamoku campaign, instead of as Hindus do - when they say their mantra. Hindus actually do count their beads as they say their mantra 108 times, which is how many beads is on a full size set of mala beads. The small wrist mala is worn when one doesn't want to carry a large set of beads and is repeated four times. 4 x 27 = 108. If you want to see what actual Japanese Buddhist Prayer Beads look like, you should see the website of S.G.I. USA at http://bookstore.sgi-usa.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=PB OR at http://bookstore.sgi-usa.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=WB --Azmildman (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Steven Walker 04:57:56 PM 02-19-2011 --Azmildman (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Examination on Google, Google Books search results for Juzu Beads makes it clear these are used by Buddhists (Japan is frequently mentioned - Zen and Nichiren in particular) and not Hindus. Japamala do not have tassels. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

White Mexicans

There is a problem between two users that don't talk: User talk:AlexCovarrubias & User:GiovBag.

• This is the version imposed by Alex[112]
• This is the version imposed by GiovBag [113].

Could you see the article please?. I want to know if "European Mexicans" (White Mexicans or whatever you want) is an ethnic group or not?. It is very confusing for visitors that the article change every day.--79.2.168.44 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I smell an IP sock of GiovBag... same removal of cited information and same justification. In addition, the name of the article is Mexicans of European descent Thelmadatter (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody use the same justification for the changes, I just asked for time to one user to report this situation. By the way, the article White Mexicans was renamed Mexicans of European descent by GiovBag on 10 January 2011[114]; remaned White Mexicans by Scret Killer few hours later [115], and finally renamed Mexicans of European descent by GiovBag again on 14 January 2011 [116]. But is always the same article.--95.236.13.5 (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Input needed to TfD

Input to this TfD would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_9#Template:Former_possessions_of_Norway.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad

The article includes some drawings that labels the prophet Muhammad, and that is not acceptable, even if the drawings came from books or any other link then they should not be posted on wikipedia or be posted at all..If Muslims don't know how the prophet looks, how do everyone else knows how he looks? Please do something about it and remove the drawings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhanad81 (talk • contribs)

Please see the relevant FAQ at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which explains why those images are in the Muhammad article. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Talmud

Resolved

 – I didn't find the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander case, I see it now. Thanks. Cf. Hay (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admins,

the article, "Criticism of the Talmud" was deleted per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_the_Talmud in the end of 2008. A Wikipedia veteran Noleander rebuilt the page in 2010 september, and the page evolved till 2011 may ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Talmud&oldid=426957998 ) , where another Wikipedia user Steven J. Anderson reverted the whole article to a redirection, saying "I am WP:BOLDly turning this back into a redirect, since this article is mainly Noleander's creation and none of his research can be trusted." . I don't know what to do. What I think is creating an article mainly by one person is not a bad thing IF it's neutral, but I can't decide it is neutral or not. Is that article really a research? It seem to have a lot of references (are they false, or hoaxes?). If the article was biased is should remain as it is now, a redirect. But if not, may one person decide just wipe out an article without review of more people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf. Hay (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the article or its redirect, under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander Noleander is " topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.". Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

• I'm looking for a proper neutral phrasing for the first sentence, as I have many reliable sources that explain the acts done by radical minority Muslim groups and individuals. Every edit I make here, completing sentences from existence sources (as who added the citations didn't mention the full point), gets reverted for different reasons: like here.
  
• I've tried to contact the editor to understand his objections, but I realized that this summary considers me unwelcome. When I sent him another message, asking for the reason of removing reliable sources, he started to remove my content and keep my sources after this summary reply.
  
• I don't have a problem with the editor, but I'd appreciate a suggestion for the first sentence (as why should we put a minority view in the LEAD, and keep the majority view out). Shall we use "radical extremist"? Because extremist are usually illiterates who consider TV & Internet forbiden because it has some bad things, playing cards forbidden because it wastes times...etc. We can't use the same term for terrorists, right? What about "Islamic terrorism is a term for acts of terrorism commited by radical extremist Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends."?
• I'll list my sources here, with quotes, when needed. Thanks in advanced... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

comments

Adamrce has recently made numerous changes to the very first sentence of the article, all of them with a single POV purpose: to "prove" that Islamic terrorists aren't "real Muslims". The POV changes he is trying to force into the intro are not acceptable, but I am completely out of patience. Doc Tropics 13:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

W're all immature editors here, as you said, so all of my insertions were from professional editors in their field. I haven't added a single word from my experience. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

AdamRce/AdvertAdam is a biased editor. here he posted a link which said "Islam is a religion of peace" and he always reverts alternate views added on controversial islam articles (the proof is there, or you can see that he has been blocked for such things). This user is clearly on wikipedia to white wash islam related articles. I dont think he is here to be neutral, but rather to push his ideas. 2 admin incidents AN/I have already been opened against him for white washing islam articles. One here and one here --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also here, the user claims he will help the islam wiki project by explaining the "peaceful truth" about islam. so clearly this user is a defender of the truth. He has been removing referenced content from wikipedia in many articles.e.g Zakat , Caravan Raids, Jihad, Apostasy in Islam e.t.c because they dont agree with his views (he is an expert at coming up with different reasons for removing content, when one reason is fixed)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the only one that was against your POVs, and opening accusations and 100 ANIs doesn't mean that I'm convicted. There's hundreds of editors that work comfortably with me. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Focusing on topic

This is not a place to point fingers, so I'd appreciate a professional's opinion about the sentence I pointed out. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of Adam attempting to whitewash the first sentence to reflect his personal POV (despite explanations and links to policy by many editors):

1. "There's no RS that they're Muslim" ...when the article is titled "Islamic Terrorism". Correction. The summary said: "There's no WP:RS that Muslims confirm they're Muslims, as these terrorists were abandoned by the Muslim nations.", which simply means that the majority refuse that they're just Muslims, so we need to clarify (like I suggested before, radical or minority per sources, but you refused both). I gave you two sources afterwards!
2. "no reliable sources say that they're Muslim" ...this is the beginning of Adam's I Didn't Hear That Syndrome which is an ongoing problem. This was after an editor called an insertion crap, thinking that it was me! The insertion was by IP:98.204.119.74, mixed with other vandals in the middle.
3. here ...he makes the same edit for the third time. That was a TW revert on a change that doesn't make sense by IP:74.89.231.101.
4. "It's not up to a person to call themselves ...Muslim ...here he rejects the concept of Self-identity, a core principal.I was explaining in the summary, because you refused to discuss when you said "there's nothing more to discuss" when I gave you sources. Btw, my summary was actually cropped by TW :p
5. here he again insists that individuals don't get to self-identify, but that some nebulous "Muslim Nation" determines who is a Muslim and who is not. Your previous summary was calling the majority Muslims outsiders, and their judgement can't be taken. It's like if you're saying a murderer should not be called a murderer if he doesn't identify himself as such?!
6. this edit is more of the same, but with spurious references. I explained to Adam that his POV is well covered in the body of the article, but that he can't use the first sentence to claim his POV as universal Truth. Adam continues to ignore me, the links I provide to policy, and the advice of other editors. You're giving the WP:LEAD policy, which says that we should mention the majority's POV. Again, it's NOT my pov, but the two sources that do not conflict with the others.
7. "Adding a more balanced change" ...was a misleading edit summary because he again twisted the lead to reflect his personal POV. Again, it's not MY pov, but the two sources'.

As I have tried to explain many times, all of Adam's concerns are covered very thoroughly in the body of the article, which is where they belong. The introduction is a summary and the first sentence simply cannot be used to push a single POV as if it were the only one. I really think this ANI filing merits a Boomerang; maybe Adam will listen to an admin though he continues to ignore other involved editors. Doc Tropics 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My explanations are in brown above, and again, I didn't event them nor are they my words. You've also reverted my edits in the body, which were all adding complete view of what the sources said (not even my sources).

I've said here a couple of times that I'm not here to point fingers, but was trying to ask experts in "religious conflicts" of their suggested phrasing. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats funny, because he did similar things in the Caravan Raids article. In that article he also added that the caravan raids "were carried out against tribes who harassed muslims", before he had to backtrack, because the source didnt mention that. Also in the Jihad article he kept changing his reason for removing referenced content from sources such as the university of kentucky.

here is a list of endless reasons. One recurring theme in all these incidents is that he claims their is a dispute, so citing wikipedia BRD policy, he suggested: no data can be added or tags removed until dispute is settled, he said Rv, as dispute is in-progress, according to WP:BRD. Please wait till the end.But he is to clever, the dispute will never be settled because he wont compromise, he also acknowledged there was an endless dispute/dicussion, here.Can anyone guess why there was an endless discussion???(check out the talk page). I think this is a case of BRD misuse--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please open the same page of the same source, as the two sections were related; however, I respected your removal and it stayed. I did not invent those words myself as the same pages says "the Muslims were allowed to fight "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews) who harrased or persecuted them." before the later explanation. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved briefly with this article but getting back to the point I do not think that the lead paragraph needs any rewriting and any further edits might be seen as an attempt to inject POV. Reichsfürst (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you consider the sourced studies a POV (Christian terrorism's lead hold more neutrality, btw); however, I will still add some of the edits that were reverted (for no reason) in the body from the already existed sources, as some phrasing of the sources were taking only one side of the story. The article is already tagged with POV, which I think is mostly caused by a generalization tone. Thanks for your input, as opinions is what I was aiming for in this discussion. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase 'by people who claim Islamic motivation for their actions' might be more appropriate then? Reichsfürst (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a more detailed phrase 'by people who claim Islamic motivation, invoke Islamic scriptures, or are endorsed by Islamic authorities for their actions' because I think the cause is a more complex. Davidelah (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a summary of the term itself, so any sourced details belongs in the body (those points are already summarized in the lead). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as it's more neutral than my suggested "radical" from the source. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people

Hello. I want to report the User Erdemaslancan

He removed all of my sources without a reason he didn´t even gave a statement about this. Isn´t this Vandalism? how can he remove scientific sources without reason.

Here are the points which made me suspicious about "Erdemaslancan"´s intentions.

1. He changes my part of the Text from "ethnic Kurdish" into ethnic Partian. first of all. The Group is called Parthian and not Partian.

2. He removed all of the sources (9 in number)I linked to the article, which most of them are scientific and replaces it by only one Source which is an encyclopedia. One of my Sources is Paul Ludwig whom is one of the main Sources of the whole article. So it is somehow wrong and double moral if we use some of his words as reference and some other not.

3. He uses this article from Iranica as a Source for his claim Zazas being of Parthian descend while in the whole article there is not one sentence mentioning anything like Zaza being a Parthian Group.

http://www.iranica.com/articles/dimli

ironically even his Source confirms my Point.

I Quote

"The Armenian term Kʿrder, literally “Kurds" paragraph three

4. Even if the Parthians were their ancestors. Still they would have nothing to do with the recent identity of Zaza because the Parthians are a ancient Group. It makes as much sense as saying "Tuscans are not Italian, they are of Roman origin"

5. That he changed the article to if like the Zaza are descend from Parthian by using a source which doesen´t confirms this, shows me that the only thing he might be after was vandalism. It is not in his interests to contribute something to Wikipedia otherwise he wouldn´t have simply removed scientific sources and added a source he most probably didn´t even red himself before and only changed one part of the whole article. And this was the kurdish part and nothing else which let me assume that there is a political issue behind it.

6. Even in his Source there is no mentioning of Zaza being not kurdish. Funnily there is one time mentioned that they were called Kurds even if they were distinguished from other Kurds (probably due the language/linguistic) but still they were considered and called Kurds.

7. The Article is about Zaza being a Iranian People. This isn´t wrong but at the same time this doesen´t meant that they aren´t Kurds. Because the Kurdish Group also belongs to the Iranian family. For more details see the Iranian languages article.

The whole thing at least for me seems like this. The User who edited the article just wanted to make Chaos (Vandalism) So the article gets closed.

This was the article before he removed the sources added by me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaza_people&oldid=435969731

and this is what he did. removed 9 sources without giving any statement or reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaza_people&oldid=436518399 So I want the User Erdemaslancan to clarify why he did delete all of the 9 Sources I linked to the article. Even while one of them was the famous linguist Paul Ludwig who is one of the main sources of the whole article.

I informed him that he was reported by me and should come here and make a statement. If he doesen´t come and explains why he removed 9 Sources, one of them being a main Source of the article, than he shows me that this was all "Vandalism"

Sorry for my bad english. I am not native speaker. Wikisupporting (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd already warned Erdemaslancan about failure to communicate, misuse of minor edit summaries, etc (another editor had warned him about a month ago). When I protected the page I hadn't noted that he only edits once a month. I've unprotected the page and because I can't be sure to notice when he next edits of he responds to me, I've blocked him indefinitely on the basis and hope that all he has to do is respond positively and he'll be unblocked, thus the block should be only a short term way of helping him become more collegial and can be lifted within minutes of him discovering it. I've noted that I don't need to be contacted by any Admin who wishes to unblock.

User:Mightymights and consistent lowballing Muslim population figures

Since his advent as an editor, User:Mightymights (User talk:Mightymights) has consistently and repeatedly altered demographic data on articles spanning the world, revising Muslim population figures downwards, sometimes dramatically. These revisions wave been either unsourced, sourced to references which include numbers not used in his revisions, or (the newer tactic) numbers from sample pools used in healthcare surveys and misrepresenting these as census surveys. The one thing these have in common is that Christian population figures are always revised upward, and Muslim population figures are always revised downward. There were a dozen or more articles I found when he first started in May, but he apparently has been at this steadily since then. He's re-reverted my latest fixes to bring the numbers back in line with CIA and other accepted estimates. Examples : [117]

[118]

[119]

[120]

I have no interest in getting in an edit war over this, and frankly don't want to spend hours and hours on Wikipedia fighting with people. Some other editors need to look into this. Otherwise most nations in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean will be stuck with entirely incorrect demographic figures, as User:Mightymights seems tireless in his reverts and revisions.

I also have no interest in debating further about this. Previous referrals to administrative boards have been met with disinterest. Please enforce your own rules in this matter. T L Miles (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War

Need your assistance on Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide denial at Turkey

User:Kavas is trying to change the wording of the mention of the Armenian Genocide in the article on Turkey from this [121] to this [122]. I consider this POV-pushing and weasel wording for a number of reasons. Basically, with this edit User:Kavas is trying to lend respectability to the denialist view by mentioning that it's not just the view of the Turkish government, but that this is talso a "minority view" within academia. Yet it is well known that virtually all academics that deny the Armenian Genocide are on the payroll of the Institute of Turkish Studies. Second, by mentioning the "20 countries", Kavas is essentially saying "it's only 20 that countries recognize it as genocide". We all know there are 200 countries or so, so why else mention the "20 countries"? I think these additions are also well beyond the scope of the article on Turkey. I think it is sufficient to mention that the Turkish government denies that it amounted to genocide and leave it at that, as User:Takabeg has done. Anything more than that is POV-pushing and beyond the scope of the article. Now, since trying to negotiate with some of these users is like trying to negotiate with a brick wall, any help would be appreciated. I should also add that this these efforts at genocide denial have been going on for months if not years, as evidenced by the talkpage history [123] [124] [125] and recent edit-warring [126] [127] [128] [129]. Any help in dealing with this situation would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no group that was led by User:Kavas. Please calm down and continue to talk in Talk:Turkey with showing reliable sources not with pushing my/your/his/her/our/their own POV. Takabeg (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am quite calm, though I appreciate the concern. Kavas is not only edit-warring but also falsifying the source, as explained here [130]. He just doesn't listen, so I came here to get some outside input. Athenean (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

There have been ongoing issues with the Anders Behring Breivik article, linking it to christian terrorism, the article seems to be the focus of edit wars. Protection of the article seems to be warranted to stop further disruption.--Hemshaw (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)

I believe a Silver Lock is needed to start with. If that does not work. This seems to be the same kind of conflict as is generated on Near East]. The map they use is biased and comes from a subpopulation. I see no evidence of a release of the copyrighted image from the publisher. The reversions delete any attempts to update the references section. It may not meet a specific format, but it must give the title and source of the article. All attempts at neutrality are met with hostile reverts from a few IPS sources in Qatar that have made enough bigoted remarks in other forums to conclude a bias against Judeo-Christian viewpoints. Here, an original source of J1 in Turkey is made, even though there is clear scientific reason to assume that with a BATWING analysis of the haplotypes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Oman.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Faisal Shahzad

Faisal Shahzad was born in Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan explained to the media that he is of Kashmiri descent[131] [132] [133] although born in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. I believe that the article should reflect on the same information but User:Mar4d keeps reverting my edits and asserting that Shahzad is ethnic Pashtun based on the fact that an uncle of Shahzad made a reference of an American conspiracy to "bomb more Pashtuns". I explained to Mar4d this: In order to make a Pakistani passport Faisal had to provide his original official birth certificate and his National Identity Card (NIC) from National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to the Directorate General Immigration and Passports of Ministry of Interior. The NIC number is given to someone in Pakistan when they are born and registered, which is purely based on the father's NIC number. Someone may tell people that he is Pashtun based on where he was born or able to speak Pashto language but we cannot use that in Wikipedia to establish Shahzad's ethnicity when we have the Government of Pakistan telling Time magazine that he was a Kashmiri.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You claim that he was born in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, yet in the article you keep inserting that he is born in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Thus, you are directly contradicting yourself now again and seem confused. There are many links that clearly and explicity discuss Shahzad's supposedly Pashtun ethnicity, such as this Huffinton Post article, this Tehran Times post, as well as at Atlantic Council; also see this Guardian link where Faisal Shahzad is himself confessing: "Pashto is my mother language. I am Pashtun ethnically." The article itself cites the following links to claim his Pashtun ethnicity: NY Times, Forbes. We have a Time article here which quite clearly mentions his family background in northwest Pakistan and hence him being a likely speaker of Pashto. He lives in Peshawar and has an ancestral village in Mohib Banda, which is in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and not Kashmir. We have the mayor of Mohib Banda saying "This is a tragedy for me and every Pakistani, every Pashtun" in reaction to Shahzad's arrest. As if that's not enough, Shahzad also has an uncle calling the whole incident a conspiracy "so that the [Americans] can bomb more Pashtuns." Why do you think he would say that? All these sources are not only disputing his Kashmiri ethnicity, but also making your argument very weak. It is an established fact that he is a Pashtun, not a Kashmiri, and this fact has been in the article itself ever since it was created. No one has challenged the fact and your argument against it seems to be based only on a vague (unclear) Pakistani government report. The Kashmiri claim should also stay but it should only be given the weight that WP:RS give it. Your removal of his Pashtun ethnicity is distortion of sourced info. Mar4d (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, where he was born is not the issue here and something like that is usually never a problem, and second of all, your last sentence is a lie because I did not remove the Pashtun claim, I removed it from the infobox and lead intro because all the 3 sources mentioned him Kashmiri. It was stupid to have both in the lead intro and infobox, do you see in Barak Obama's page something like that? I'm still investigating his exact birth location, but all the sources give different places. I'm focusing on his ethnicity right now because I'm Pashtun and I know my culture and people very well. I can tell you that just by looking at his face he does not look Pashtun to me, but then again that is just one point. He had a lavish wedding in which women and men both danced together, that is NOT a Pashtun culture or how Pashtuns do weddings. The men have a separate section and the women have their own private area where they can't even see each others. In his wedding photo he and his wife are NOT dresssed as Pashtuns, they are dresssed as Kashmiris. These are just some points. He may go tell people that he is Pashtun all he wants but the fact is that his record with the Government of Pakistan (including his Pakistani passport) state that he is Kashmiri. In fact, alot of non-Pashtun Pakistanis and Indians go around claiming to be Pashtuns and naming selves "Khans" but many of them really are not. I have already explained that nearly all non-Pashtuns living in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa speak Pashto because it is the regional language of this large province, so don't try to establish ethnicity based on language. May I remind you that Shahzad is also fluent in Urdu and English. The same source you had cited for "Pashtun" states at the end that he is Kashmiri[134]. As for these new links you just found, the only one that I found useful is the Guardian in which he tells the judge in USA that "Pashto is my mother language. I am Pashtun ethnically." The others are junk, repeating the previous NY Times news report and opinions. Shahzad's claim in court is unreliable and should be treated as a W:Primary Source, and still it doesn't make him an ethnic Pashtun just because he uttered those words to a judge while going through a very strong emotional moment. Suppose a criminal in court says he didn't do the crime, that such and such person did it, can we add something like that in an encyclopedia? No. His confession was not related to his ethnicity but was to the criminal charges. When asked by the judge "Didn't you swear allegiance to this country?" Shahzad replied, "I sweared, but I didn't mean it."[135] --Mirwais Hotak (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we don't mention his ethnicity in the introduction or in the infobox but explain in the Background section something like this... The Government of Pakistan stated that Shahzad is of Kashmiri descent, which is mentioned in his Pakistani passport that he secured in 2000, but on his trial date inside the court Shahzad stated that he is Pashtun ethnically. Everything else is junk, I mean what the hell is "Pashtun extraction" or "Pashtun heritage", never seen that before.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Title NPOV at August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids

A user reverted my posting of templates reflecting POV issues in the August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids because he cited too many templates. While he may have some what of a point, by removing the templates the user obscures the fact that there is an NPOV issue, however the templates cannot be added due to 1RR from my understanding. Normally, I would seek to work with the user, however the user appears to believe that the NPOV issue is being handled in a different discussion, one where he is opposed to solving any NPOV problems with the article, rather I am seeking to point our NPOV issues with the article, something not adaquetly addressed without the added templates.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Lotfi Zadeh

The background to this is that the article had a lot of ethnic and nationalistic wrangling about whether Zadeh is Iranian, Russian or Azerbaijani. I looked for and found sources to clarify this, including an interview with Zadeh in which he describes himself as an American, of Iranian descent, born in Russia. Now, comes User:Saygi1 who has attempted to make various edits calling Zadeh Azerbaijani-American (something that Zadeh does not identify as) and emphasizing Zadeh's relationship to Azerbaijan. To do this, he has rephrased some material I added so that it is no longer reflective of the source and is therefore no longer supported by the citation. In particular, his change to the lede alters the wording in a way that doesn't represent what Zadeh said. (And I've just noticed that it was actually a direct quote, which was mistakenly not quoted.) His other additions to the article are based on videos of Zadeh (which are YouTube, but should nonetheless be usable here) which do not actually support what is being said or which violate WP:WEIGHT by over-emphasing Azerbaijan as a factor.

There is no dispute that LZ was born in what was then the Azerbaijan SSR, but there is not a source that's been presented in which Zadeh identifies himself as an Azerbaijani. The two video which were cited to me don't have it (the interviewer says that Iranians and Azerbaijainis are proud of Zadeh, and he accepts the compliment, but he doesn't self-identify as an Azerbaijani or as an Azerbaijani-American). Ethnicity and nationality are complex things. As I pointed out on my talk page, I could, if I wished, identify myself as an Irish-American, but I do not do so, and a Wiki article about me (hah!) would be wrong to describe me that way. On the other hand, there would be nothing wrong with categorizing my artice in Category:Americans of Irish descent -- but that's not the same thing as being "Irish-American". Self-identification (and sourced self-identification in a BLP article) is one of the most important factors, and we are not a liberty to identify a living person in a way they do not publicly espouse.

The reason this is important is that the changes I made, using Zadeh's quoted words, basically stopped the wrangling on the article, and Saygi's changes would open the door again in a way that would be disruptive and unhelpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have notified User:Saygi1. Note also this on the article talk page, and this on Saygi's talk page. As I pointed out in the former, consensus cannot override the basic requirement that article text must accurately reflect the content of any source cited to support it. I also would point out that as a BLP article, the sourcing requirement is stricter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is quite unfair and making a problem out of nothing. Beyond My Ken has removed at least two new sources - video's of Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh speaking himself and being interviewed, in 2007 and 2009, at his university, UC Berkeley. The article Lotfi Zadeh is a biography of a living person (BLP), and those video's are invaluable and more credible than any third-person reporting in any print publication. All my sources are reliable and authoritative, and enrich the article about the professor. For some reason Beyond My Ken thinks he is the only one who can make edits, automatically reverts all my edit despite absolutely no reason for it. I do feel he has good intentions, but he does assume bad faith and thus becomes trigger-happy.

Meanwhile, there is no requirement about any "self-identification". Although he is quoted by Betty Blair from Los Angeles-based Azerbaijan International as considering himself both American, Azerbaijani, Iranian and Russian - and that quote has been in the article long before I or Ken took any interest in the article (I came to edit the article after being told about it in a conversation between Beyond My Ken and User:Takabeg). In any rate, Prof. Lotfi Zadeh was born in Azerbaijan - this is an indisputable fact. He also states in his video speech at UC Berkeley that I cited that he considers his years of life in Azerbaijan as being the most important to his life. So this is also indisputable. Finally, he is an American, a US Citizen and has lived in US for almost 70 years. Thus, he is Azerbaijani-American. Of course he can also be, at the same time, Russian-American and Iranian-American - the latter have included him on their page. Sorry Ken, but no "permission" is needed to describe any famous person as being some hyphenated American - please show me such a rule, and better yet, show me a pile of "waivers" or "authorization sheets" from all the different living persons (or dead persons) who have allowed to Wikipedia editors to call them as Irish-/Scottish-/Russian-/Iranian-/Azerbaijani-/etc.-American. You won't find such a thing. So PLEASE, let's be reasonable here and not create artificial problems out of nothing. Especially since despite rejecting my edits, you have in the end revised the intro and removed the improper information that was leading to misunderstanding and violating WP:WEIGHT by over-emphasizing Russia or Iran as a factor. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the basic ispute between us: you believe that being born in the Azerbaijan SSR (not in "Azerbaijan" per se) automatically makes LZ "Azerbaijani" and an "Azerbaijani-American". I contend that this is not the case, that ethnicity and nationality are complex, and that the clearest and safest path to take in a BLP (in which any contentious factual statement has to be sourced, or be subject to removal) is to go by what the subject says, and there is no evidence presented that LZ considers himself to be "Azerbaijani". The two videos don't say it: in one the subject is never even touched on (after opening pleasantries, it's entirely about fuzzy logic) and in the other LZ says how important his time in Azerbaijan was to him -- but he stops short of saying he therefore considers himself Azerbajaini, and he never goes into the relative value to him of his time in Azerbaijan versus his time in Teheran, where he moved when he was 10. It's perfectly natural that LZ, born in Azerbaijan, speaking to an Azerbaijani-oriented audience would emphasis his time is Azerbaijan in his speech, but the picture is not complete, we told have the totality of how he feels about the various phases of his life in different place, which is why using the video as a cite is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. We don't know what weight it deserves, and so, in a BLP article, we must take the most conservative course and keep it out of the article until we do know. (The fact that it's a YouTube video doesn't bother me: it's clearly LZ speaking.)

You contend that LZ has often identified as Azerbaijani in speeches and elsewhere; if so, it should be easy to find a source in which he either says "As an Azerbaijani-American..." or in which he talks about his early life and tell us what he identifies with. And, in fact, he has already done so, when he said that he is "an "American ... of Iranian descent, born in Russian." Find something that says the equivalent of "born in Russia as an Azerbaijanmi" and there will be no question. In the meantime, your attempt to continue adding information not supported by the sources will be removed on BLP grounds. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I agree with BMK. On a BLP article we have to be stricter about this sort of thing. --John (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, from the outset, you reveal that you do not fully understand that there is no difference between "Azerbaijan SSR" and "Republic of Azerbaijan". Both were/are republics within the same borders and populated by the same people, the only difference is/was that the former was a Soviet Socialist Republic (hence "SSR"), whilst the latter is a non-Socialist, non-Communist ordinary liberal democracy type of a Republic. To that you can try to defend your misunderstanding by saying "well, Azerbaijan SSR was part of USSR", to which I will tell you to read the Constitution of USSR (any edition), which stated that all 15 republics were independent but joined to form a federal union. At the same time, they continued to have their own foreign relations and representations - for example, Azerbaijan had missions in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Libya, whilst Ukrainian SSR and Belorussian SSR were even members of the UN - along with the entire USSR. All your other contentions are Original Research (OR) - I prefer to believe and rely upon Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh's own direct, unfiltered, unedited words. Also, I am NOT doing any "undue weight" with my sources - if anything, it is you and William who are in violation of WP:WEIGHT by engaging in meaningless reverts to suppress relevant, reliable and authoritative information about a living person. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my evaluation of the videos indicates that you are, for whatever reason, giving them more weight then they deserve.

The article as it stands is not biased towards any particular nationality or ethnicity, it's laudably even-handed. It presents the facts of LZ's life neutrally, supported by citations from reliable sources, and uses LZ's own words to put the question of his ethnicity or nationality into the perspective of how he sees it, not how others, of whatever bias, would like to portray it. Since I introduced that material into the article it has been relatively quiet, and the prolonged wranging over ethnicity and nationality has quelled. Your attempt to unbalance it in a specific direction will simply open the door for more countering by partisans of other viewpoints. That would be disruptive, and unhelpful to the article.

I counsel you to stop beating this particular dead horse, because the evidence you have provided so far is not sufficient to support the contentions you wish to make about LZ's ethnic or national background. You say that there's plenty of evidence out there to support it, so find it, and bring it in, and let it be evaluated by neutral editors such as myself, with no bias except one in favor of maintaining the neutral point of view. Your prolonging this discussion by continuing to ask the same questions over and over without bringing new evidence to the table is unhelpful, so unless you have something new of value to add, I suggest that this conversation no longer serves a purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ Beyond My Ken, you are incorrect in your assessment and I ask that you stop engaging in Original Research and revert wars. Your "evaluation", as you describe it, of Prof. Lotfi Asker Zade's own words, it totally misplaced and inconsequential. I suggest you be more neutral and stop assuming bad faith and engage in destructive behavior. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is too much! Beyond My Ken and one other of his editor-friends [136] have been engaging in a revert war, removing reliable and verifiable information and sources, including the living person's own direct speech and interview on video. Please see the difference between my version and the latest version by Beyond My Ken [137], where he deliberately removed the fact that Prof. Lotfi Asker Zade:

• 1) is a member of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS) - for which he, well in his 80's, traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan, to accept the membership/award/honor. At the same time Beyond My Ken does not object all other memberships, honors and awards - so again a double standard, a violation of WP:WEIGHT, suppression of reliable and verifiable sources;
• 2) speaks/understands Azerbaijani language (in addition to the Russian and Persian that Beyond My Ken does not seem to object being featured in the article - clear double standard and violation of undue weight, as well as simply wrong and unethical);
• 3) considers his years in his native Azerbaijan, where he was born and lived for 10 years, went to kindergarten and school, as having the deepest influence on his life and career.

This is a very unfortunate that user Beyond My Ken, despite repeated pleas and outreach, attempts to conciliate and compromise, rejected everything, assumed bad faith, engaged in Original Research WP:OR and chose the path of a mini-revert war! I request that administrators take action against this by expressing their opinion and asking Beyond My Ken to desist from such unconstructive behavior. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding point 3: What LZ actually says is (my transcription) "But I must say it was the, more then anything else, were the 10 years, the first 10 years of my life in Baku." Not only is this not a comprehensible sentence, perhaps because the beginning of the speech, where he might have given antecedent information, is cut off, but it is hardly grounds for bootstrapping LZ into considering himself to be Azerbaijani. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is "Wow!" In the preceding comment Beyond My Ken very clearly and vividly displays his poor judgement at the very least, and at worst, bias and bad faith, doing not just a very selective short quoting, but suppressing some key words (indeed, sentences!) from Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh's speech. Please compare his transcript to this transcript I've prepared starting from minute 1:41 of this video [138]: "But I must say that what influenced me more than perhaps anything else, were the 10 years, the first 10 years of my life in Baku. I was there at the time when there was very strong ideological influence everywhere. But one thing which had an impact on me was the fact that in school, what we were taught, was not material things, not trying to make money, not buy XYZ, but have some dedication to society, to culture, to science." As you can see, watch and hear, Prof. Zadeh's clearly states that his years in Azerbaijan were most important to him in his life as both a human being and a scientist. And it's a violation of WP:WEIGHT and a host of other rules to suppress that kind of valuable and important information from his biography. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have listened to the clip for the third (and fourth and fifth) time(s) now, and do not hear the word "influnced" in the sentence I quoted. Others may listen and correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell it is not there. It appears later on in a different context, about the schools being ideologically influenced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious?! Are you for real?! On 1:43/1:44 through approximately 1:46, Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh states the word "influenced". I stand 100% by my transcript and once again declare your transcript as manipulative and done in bad faith. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The behavioral complaints against me are ridiculous and groundless, and, except to say that my actions are squarely supported by WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV, I will not respond to them, and stand on the record as it exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my complaints about user Beyond My Ken are all well-grounded and 100% correct - you are in fact violating the very rules you keep on reciting, namely WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:OR and engaging in revert wars. I also stand by every single of my words. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just to note I've blocked Saygi1 for 48hrs for edit warring. In case anyone wonders where he went. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, please take another look:

1) I was reverted constantly by user Beyond My Ken (BMK) and only on one (1) occasion by user William M. Connolley, friend of BMK [139] with the reasoning "(youtube? back to BMK)". That's a violation of Wikipolicy to remove sourced, verifiable and reliable materials. Mr. Connolley edited that article only once before, in May, and is not an expert on the matters related to Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh or Azerbaijan.

2) The disagreement with BMK started when I reworded contentious material in the intro of the article, that violated the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). BMK added it back, was reverted, then he completely removed it, but still reverted my other additions just for the hell of it - plus went after all my other edits on all other pages and reverted me there, too. Then asked for a warning of me and threatened me with admin action.

3) Then why am I warned and blocked, especially when no one else is despite the very same BMK violating 3RR? Here are his 4 reverts just on September 2 alone:

• [140]
• [141]
• [142]
• [143]

I have been adding reliable and verifiable material, whilst BMK has been removing it and made misrepresentations in the process that I documented on the admin noticeboard. He also made multiple msirepresentations of the facts, which show that he doesn't know the subject very well - for example, claim about Azerbaijan SSR vs. Azerbaijan Republic (see his comment on this page made on 01:08, 2 September 2011 and my response to it that dealt with it), or his "transcript" of Lotfi Zadeh's speech and refusal to hear the word "influenced" (please see his comment made on 23:05, 2 September 2011 on this noticeboard page: [144] and my response to it). He also removed Lotfi Asker Zade's honors and awards that I've placed - only to later add them back.

In general, BMK has disputed everything only to reverse himself and quietly place it back after realizing that my additions are all sound, verifiable and reliable. I'm asking for mediation by administrators, to stop this outrage. --Saygi1 (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of form (though I doubt it will do any good), friend of BMK is wrong (not that implies any unfriendliness, of course). Saygi1 is looking for reasons other than the obvious one why he is being reverted. I'm not a Mr either William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

China

There is a rename (move) proposal at the China article. The rename has raised some Taiwan vs. Mainland China POV issues. Uninvolved editors who could provide an independent viewpoint may be helpful. --Noleander (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry it took someone so long to answer you. I think the best thing you could do is adress in the article the conflicts of whether or not Taiwan is a part of China in the article. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolve Taiwan vs. PRC disputes by resolving Taiwan vs. PRC disputes. Hmmm.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, since it's ultimately all internecine, the one that isn't sovereign is part of the one that is. Between them they make a whole, either way. Hmmm... guess that's the problem. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination categories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories I believe very deeply that the decisions made in this discussion were in themselves very racist, homophobic, antisemitic, sexist etc. I wish to reopen the issue. In my opinion this is similar to holocaust denial. Stating that you are not allowed to put any person, organization or media in these categories. I'm sorry but the KKK is clearly racist practically no one debates that. Adolf Hitler was antisemitic no one debates that. The Pink Swatika is incredibly homophobic no one debates that. I think this blanket policy is bigoted in the same fashion as holocaust denial is bigoted and I will have this issue addressed if not through this site then by starting a protest and boycott of wikipedia and the wikimedia organization. Wikipedia is a place of knowledge and should not tolerate such discriminative policies especially when they prevent education. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So if you don't get your way despite the previous decision you're going to organize a protest and boycott of wikipedia and the wikimedia organization? Where and when? You see, as you said, "most protests I've done before againist wikipedia have added tons of new editors who became permanent members of the wikipedia community": and if I'm in the area, I'd like to see how to effectively convince and recruit members in this fashion. We always need new editors, of course. Doc talk 23:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of these protests take place in Washington state. If you live in that area but the point is that I think that we need to reopen this discussion.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Washington is a huge state - but sometimes I visit friends in Seattle. Are these protests in a larger urban area, or is it more of a Burning Man-type thing in a more rural area? Doc talk 04:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of these are done at the Westlake mall in seattle by the fountain however if you wish to continue talking about this you should probably move it into my talk page.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool - please do not blank threads from the AN/I board again. It's really not cool to do that. Doc talk 04:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is not over. Will someone actually put some discussion in here other than personal discussion please.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't think this is the right place to file this. As I understand it this noticeboard (see heading above) is so that: "Editors may express their concerns with regard to ethnic, national, and cultural editing conflicts here and bring them to the attention of others.". As far as I can see there are no edit conflicts in these topic areas affected by the CfD discussion from earlier this year. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Butaul

Butaul is a potentially interesting article on a local Balkan leader whose name was found on a treasure trove in one of the few intelligible bits of writing on it. Not much to go on in terms of biography, but a potentially interesting subject. Article was begun by User:PANONIAN, who devoted it to the theories of a Serbian author who claims that Butaul was a Slav. Article nominated for deletion on notability grounds by User:Daizus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buta-ul), and whose later contributions to the fairly acrimonious discussion claim that the source for the original article was some kind of Serbian nationalist propaganda, at least as well as I can figure.

I don't agree with Daizus that the figure can't support an article; it seems fairly clear to me from the discussion that there's all sorts of discussion about who Butaul might have been and the nature and ethnic origins of his court and realm. I do agree with him that the original version may have been dodgy; it interpreted the mysterious inscription to refer to "the ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa". I can see where some of this is coming from; the "two Getian lands" apparently is the Serbian source's interpretation of the word dygetoigé in the inscription, analyzed as dy getoi gé, and claimed to be dog-Greek for "two Geats earth"; a translation that I'd personally rate below "Dig it? Oi! Gee!" in plausibility.

I've done a bit of editing on the underlying article myself, trying to reduce its speculative aspects and bring it in line with what some of the sources say. I did find one article about the inscription in French, which I can read; but most of the literature seems to be in Hungarian, German, or a Slavic language, which I don't know. The discussion so far has not been particularly productive, although PANONIAN has also been editing the article and the latest version seems better to me, but I also noticed that he fronted German and Rumanian names for the find at the expense of the Hungarian name by which it's apparently usually known.

I really don't understand and don't care about the ethnic dynamics here. I do think the situation could benefit from more eyes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion here, not about "ethnic dynamics", but about the source and the interpretations suggested by it. Daizus (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

From a logical standpoint "Dig it? Oi! Gee!" would have to rated as less plausible, since each of those English constructions can be convincingly shown to postdate the artifact, whereas those in the dy getoi ge hypothesis predate it, and there is no logical reason to rule this hypothesis "implausible", since it at least has a context. But we'd need a source we could quote to opine that it is "implausible" anyway, otherwise we can't declare it "implausible" (or plausible even) merely on our own merits as editors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you read Greek? Is the inscription written in Greek language? Nevertheless, from a real standpoint, there's no dy getoi ge to predate the inscription. Also there's no "Getic land" in Pannonia to predate the inscription. As for our edits here, we don't need a source against a theory when we have WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. If this is a scholarly and valid POV, it shouldn't be hard to find citations and confirmations. So far there are none. Daizus (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The "translation" seems to be influenced by József Hampel's Der Goldfund Von Nagy-Szent-Miklós Sogenannter 'Schatz Des Attila' (1885). He used Greek to "read" the inscription and identified the two men as Gepids! Daizus (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest universities in continuous operation

A group of editors here insist that "university" be defined in such a way that the oldest "universities" are European ones. In fact the meaning of "university" is controversial, and depending on definition, various institutions might be named as the oldest--the article IMHO ought to reflect this controversy. (Also, the qualification of "continuous operation" has been inconsistently applied, and is in any case not very revealing.) Since they are apparently acting in concert to prevent changes, I wish that the article could be brought to the attention of a wider body of users and modified accordingly, and that the most strident among the current editors (I am basing this on a perusal of the archived discussion) could be blocked. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.168.238 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

catholic church

says that the catholic church is a paedophile ring and molests children.the article has been reverted but vandal must be punished.his name is Siluria592.thank you for your time LGuardian* 13:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanternGuardian (talk • contribs)

That probably belongs at WP:ANI. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

False Information and Contents on Wikipedia (Rohingya) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya

Rohingyas are non-ethic group in Myanmar (Burma) which can be proved by thousands length of recorded history (from different sectors such as civilization line, languague, groming/clotohing etc) Even in British times records (100++years), there is no such an ethic group listed in Myanmar(Burma). creating false article, cheating backgruond and history in order to get legal acknowledgements..which is still unsuccessul attampts over some recent years.

This is such a shameless article (whcih is truly just a lie). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpt1gcc (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

sea of japan

To Wikipidia

I appreciate you for your providing valuable and great information. I just want to let you know that the site has a serious potential problem with the incorrect information.

We, Korean, were quite surprised to find your information Japan still describe Korea's 'East Sea' as 'Sea of Japan,' which is incorrect.

Using a proper name for the body of water between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago is not simply a question of changing the name of a geographical feature. It is rather a part of national effort by the Korean people to erase the legacy of Japanese Imperialism and to redress the unfairness that has resulted from it. It is an absolutely mistaken thing to hear one side of story and follow. If we let this kind of things alone, it brings about a serious problem to disturb order of International society. For your reference, the world's largest commercial mapmaker, National Geographic, worldatlas.com, and the travel guidebook, Lonely Planet Publication promised us that they would now use the name 'East Sea.' In addition, National Geographic and Lonely Planet are already using the name, 'East Sea' in their website after we pointed out the error.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/north_east_asia/north_korea/north_korea.htm http://www.nationalgeographic.com/maps/updates/seaofjapan.html http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/eastsea.htm

As a member of VANK, I urge you to use 'East Sea' to describe the body of water in question or both Korean and Japanese designation simultaneously (e.g. 'East Sea/Sea of Japan') in all your documents and atlases.

Once Korea and Japan agree on a common designation, which is in accord with the general rule of international cartography, we can then follow the agreed-on designation.

We would be grateful for your explanation. Yours very truly,

VANK, Cyber Civilian Diplomat in Korea, consisted of 10,000 Korean voluntary people.

http://www.prkorea.org http://www.prkorea.com

mailto: eastsea@prkorea.org

Thank you, and we would appreciate your favorable consideration.

※The Historical precedent for the 'East Sea' http://www.prkorea.com/english/eastsea.html ※How to name the sea area between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago http://www.prkorea.com/english/eastsea2.html

< VANK > We, the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK), are a civilian international exchange association in Korea. We work for the promotion of Korea’s image all over the world though the Internet.

We were established on January first, 1999, by volunteering people from the all over our country for the purpose of enhancing the image of Korea in cyber-space

Through email or postage, we aim to serve as cyber travel guides to overseas Koreans and foreigners so that they can better understand our Korean culture and language, and at the same time build international friendships.

VANK is a great chance those who are interested in Korean language, arts, cultural education, history, geography, social studies, sciences or just in making Korean friends!

http://www.prkorea.org

"Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches." - [Matthew] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.151.114.130 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New editor POV-pushing on some India-related articles

Resolved

 – User has been blocked indef for username vio

Panchode1998 (talk · contribs) was reported by the bot to WP:UAA, supposedly on the grounds that his name is a slang word for penis. It's not one I've heard, but his edits are clear POV-pushing on behalf of India's Sikhs: here on Assassination of Indira Gandhi and here on 1984 anti-Sikh riots. I have reverted and warned him, but someone needs to keep an eye on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the user name is a term of abuse in India and Pakistan, although it doesnt mean 'penis'. I'll also keep an eye out for this. Regs Khani100 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Khani100

Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sheodred (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

The term Anglo-Irish is being used inappropiately in articles on Irish figures, many editors have the misconception that it can be used to describe an Irish figure's nationality, which is wrong. Some editors are not aware that it is inappropiate, some are aware but wish to ignore that fact as it suits their POV on the relevant articles, we have seen these problems on the articles about W.B Yeats ,U2, Bram Stoker, Charles Stewart Parnell, Theobald Wolfetone, Ernest Shackleton, Countess Markievicz and many other notable Irish figures.

It seems to many uninvolved and neutral editors that the relevant disruptive edits/comments and edit-warring by ulta-nationalist editors is in order to erase any mention of Irish in the lede Iand replace it with British or Anglo-Irish, it is perceived as an attempt to erase their Irish nationality and claim them as only British. I know this may sound petty but its a serious problem on wikipedia with Irish-related articles.

I am not disputing their Anglo-Irish heritage it does not belong in the lede, and to use it in the lede to obscure and erase Irish is wrong.

It is really exhausting and time-wasting for well-meaning editors to put up with this nonsense on the Irish articles on a daily basis. We are accused of being nationalists pushing our POV, when in essence we are correcting errors and rectifying articles that have been subjected to the POV of editors who than throw that argument at us.

Many involved and uninvolved editors share the same concern. Sheodred (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sheodred

From User:Sheodred's contributions:

Articles

• Boudica: [145] — removed "British".
• Iceni: [146] — removed "British".
• Muiredach Tirech: [147] — changed "Northern Ireland" to "Ireland". (Note: pre-1922)
• Patrick Kavanagh: [148] changed "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland". (Note: pre-1922)
• John Tyndall: [149] — challenges use of "Anglo-Irish" and "British", changes to "Irish", uses unsanctioned MOS discussions as policy, war-edits/reverts, never provides a reliable source.
• Ernerst Shackleton: [150] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish", war-edits/reverts, accuses editors of violating MOS policy, ignores consensus, no provision of sources.
• Laurence Sterne: [151] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" and references to "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Ireland" with "Irish" or "England". No sources provided. Claims MOS "dictates" that he is right in edit summary.
• Wolfe Tone: [152] — added "Irish" to lead, despite removal of "British" or "Anglo" identities in other articles, under MOS pre-tenses.
• Henry Grattan: [153] — added "Irish" to lead.
• George Berkley [154] — swapped "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", used "see MOS" as edit summary, no provision of source.
• Lewis (surname) (disambiguation): [155] replaced "British" with "Irish", no sourcing, used "born and raised in Ireland, moved to England to study" as edit summary, despite that birthplace was Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland, part of the UK. No sources provided to show otherwise.
• Shackleton: [156] — swapped "British" to "Irish", no sources provided.
• Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany: [157] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided.
• George Salmon: [158] — "Anglican" removed, edit summary claims "religion does not belong here" despite fact the biog is about a Reverend.
• Thomas Andrews: [159] — "Irish" added to lead.
• John Thomas Romney Robinson: [160] — "Irish" added to lead.
• George Johnstone Stoney: [161] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided.
• Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough: [162] — added "Irish".
• Charles Villiers Stanford: [163] — replaced "eminent English-domiciled (though Irish-born)" with "Irish", no sources provided.
• James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde: [164] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided - note: article states "born in London".
• Cecil Day-Lewis: [165] — replaced "a British poet from Ireland" with "Irish" - note: article reads "Day-Lewis continued to regard himself as Anglo-Irish for the remainder of his life, though after the declaration of the Republic of Ireland in 1948 he chose British rather than Irish citizenship", although this claim is uncited, no source provided to support change to "Irish" either.
• Oliver Goldsmith: [166] — changed references to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Goldsmith was born in 1780 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". "Great Britain" changed to "England". "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", no sources provided.
• Jonathan Swift: [167] — changed reference to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Swift was born in 1667 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". Replaced "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish" including changing citation to this which only reads "Irish author" in the search results article link, the article itself, however, says "Anglo-Irish author". "Anglo-Irish" reference moved against father, along with citation.
• Peter O'Toole [168] — war editing in conjunction with User:Mo ainm over sources and attacking other editors contribs as disruptive or vandalism.
• Jocelyn Bell Burnell: [169] — removed "UK" from birth place.
• Packie Bonner: [170] — added "Irish" to lead.
• Bananarama: [171] — brief war editing, between "British" and "English" usage because of Irish members.
• Siobhan Fahey: [172] — added "Irish".

Discussions

• Mary Shelley (page talk): [173] — attacking use of "English".
• PatGallacher (user talk): [174] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".
• Cuchullain (user talk): [175] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".
• British people (page talk): [176] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".
• Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (page talk): [177] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", does not provide sources to support argument, edited article.
• W. B. Yeats (page talk): [178] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", uses incomplete MOS discussion as support, but no sources.
• Oliver Goldsmith (page talk): [179] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", uses incomplete MOS discussion as support, but no sources.
• GoodDay (user talk): [180] — issued "unconstructive" template for war edit that he himself was engaged in. GoodDay removed message without response.
• GoodDay (user talk): [181] — series of personal and uncivil attacks regarding "British/Irish" nationality.
• Phil Coulter (page talk): [182] — personal attacks on User:GoodDay, "you are just on wikipedia to disrupt and troll".
• Nadine Coyle (page talk): [183] — uncivil remarks, also highlights personal national sentiments towards disputing "British" identity.
• Cillian Murphy (page talk): [184] — British editors told to "fcuk off and get a life" (sic).
• Liam Neeson (talk page): [185] — British editors told to "now please just fuck off".
• George Washington (talk page): [186] — claims "English and British unionist editors" are "trying to push their own agendas for claiming other countries achievements".
• Long-term abuse (page talk): [187] — series of personal attacks on User:GoodDay.

Personal attacks (added 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

• WP:WQA: [188] — "dick" at me.
• WP:ECCN: [189] — "jerk" at me.
• WP:Ireland; [190] – "get a life" at Richard Harvey.
• WP:ECCN: [191] – "you more than likely have IAD and possibly are very frustrated ... get a life" at me.

Are you for real, I look like a saint compared to you, all an editor has to do to examine your conduct is to look at your contributions, all of what you just posted here has been taken out of context to suit your "proposed topic ban". For the record, even if an editor as been found guilty of personal attacks/incivility, a topic ban is not a resul, maybe a short block. Get your facts straight.Sheodred (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, which one – Saint Judas? Or the sneaky one who tries to gain consensus to rewrite MOS in five days, to virtually ban use of the term "Anglo-Irish". And then goes ape-shit against editors who over-turned that proposal and exposed the underlying agenda. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 12:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Recurrent AN misuse (added 20:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

• vs Yworo: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Questionable recent block — dismissed.
• vs Richard Harvey: [192] — dismissed.
• vs MarcusBritish: [193] — dismissed.
• vs Malleus Fatuorum: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Personal attack by User:Malleus Fatuorum after I requested him to revert a disruptive edit on Ernest Shackleton — dismissed.

All listed edits are taken from this year only, mostly falling in the past 3 months: October – December 2011. I think there is major cause for concern here. I do not dispute whether the edits were "wrong" or "right", a few are legit, many are not; I simply raise the fact that the editor claims to be non-POV, yet in 1,012 contribs, has clearly focused on promoting Irish identity, removing British identity, and engaging with other editors to the point of being uncivil, accusational, and raising a number of AN/I threads that have been dismissed as inappropriate or rhetorical by admins and other editors. It is normally the case that Sheodred engages other editors, disputes their opinions, then uses AN/I in order to condemn their comments whilst masking his own.

As such, I motion that a Topic Ban be imposed on Sheodred regarding any field of "Irish identity", whether nationality, ethnicity or heritage be his focus of argument. Some of the edits above are disruptive, most are unsourced. Until he learns to utilise reliable sources, cite neutral sources, engage with British editors without the accusations of "unionism", POV-pushing, etc, and not abuse Wiki AN pages through which to vein his own agenda and incriminate other editors who have reverted and opposed his plethora of pro-Irish edits, he is not acting as a competent editor. Furthermore, it should be understood by Sheodred that the MOS is not a policy, does not dictate anything. It is used for styling articles, and determines how the layout of articles should be applied. It does not determine whether national identity should take priority over other forms of ethnic identity. Any such proposals to make policy regarding use of nationality in biographies, should be proposed to the entire community, per WP:CONLIMITED and not limited to WikiProject:Ireland without invitation to other editors. This has been the case so far, and British editors have been attacked for opposing the motion to disregard the use of "Anglo-Irish" terminology. Considering the lack of neutrality in this proposal it is clearly unacceptable by Wiki standards, and a lot of Sheodred's edits have been made contrary to practices detailed in guidelines and policies, to maintain neutral viewpoints. See: initial proposal.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this topic ban. I thank MarcusBritish for doing the necessary work. MarcusBritish's list is incomplete, though. Here are Sheodred's edits to biographies of four more Irish-born subjects, and no doubt yet more can be found.

On the one hand, consider his edit to C. S. Lewis (born 1898). Sheodred changed the infobox nationality from "British" to "Irish", citing Encyclopedia Britannica as a reference, but that reference says only that C. S. Lewis was "Irish-born". C. S. Lewis moved from Ireland to England at age 9 or 10 and lived in England for practically his whole life thereafter. According to Sheodred, Lewis's nationality is "Irish" and his citizenship is "British". The article's opening sentence before Sheodred's edit was "...was a British novelist...", which Sheodred changed to "...was a novelist...". (C. S. Lewis is generally taken to be "British" or "English", afaik). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._S._Lewis&diff=prev&oldid=460804530

Now, on the other hand, consider his edit to George Gabriel Stokes (born 1819). Sheodred changed the infobox nationality from "British" to "Irish" without citing any reference. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that Stokes was "British". The Wikipedia article's opening sentence before Sheodred's edit was "...was a mathematician and physicist...", which Sheodred changed to "...was an Irish mathematician and physicist...". He's not citing any reference, yet presumably he's aware that he's not supported by Britannica. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_George_Stokes,_1st_Baronet&diff=463091520&oldid=459764702

For Edward Carson (born 1854), Sheordred's changed "...was a British barrister..." to "...was an Irish unionist barrister...". When that change was undone by another editor, Sheodred re-did it. Eventually the edit of Sheodred's was removed, and the article restored to how it has been longstandingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Carson,_Baron_Carson&diff=prev&oldid=456155005

For Duke of Wellington (born 1769), Sheodred tried three times to label Wellington "Irish" -- [here], [here], [here]. He was privately advised by one editor -- [here] -- to take it to the Wellington Discussion page to justify himself, but he didn't do so.

Not mentioned by MarcusBritish but I think worth mentioning is that Sheodred is already under this topic ban but the ban expires on 1 Jan 2012.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=463574050#User:Sheodred_reported_by_User:SarekOfVulcan_.28Result:_Restriction.29

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sheodred#Consider_agreeing_to_a_voluntary_restriction_about_articles_like_Ernest_Shackleton

Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I have informed SarekOfVulcan and Ruhrfisch of this discussion, given their involvement in the topic ban mentioned. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I raised this thread with the admins involved in the topic ban/restricted editing matter with Sheodred. All 3 have now been informed. But let's keep individual debates over who is what off this page, that belongs to their respective talk pages. Last thing we need is invitation to discuss individual cases of nationalities here, when the immediate admin matter is more about Sheodred's POV-pushing, agenda, and general lack of sourcing and collaborative effort, but much war editing. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow these British POV pushers continue to surprise me with their belligerence, they have even notified the two admins who wrongly blocked me before who had to unblock me shortly after, he also failed to notify me about this on my talk page......go figure.Sheodred (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean1111111 is distorting the truth, I have made not violated the restriction (not topic ban) that User:EdJohnston asked me to voluntarily impose (not SarekofVulcan or Ruhrfisch) (, these are lies,this is blatant harassment by an editor(s) who have an axe to grind for me. Sheodred (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

LMAO! You started this ECCN, you are supposed to watch it yourself. No one notifies the person who starts an AN thread. Jesus wept... you really are desperate to incriminate people on false grounds. If you knew how Wiki worked, instead of indulging in your own system, maybe you'd make a better impression. I don't think it's an unwillingness to understand though, just an unwillingness to admit when you're wrong. Even that link to the Topic Ban, you end by having a poke at every admin for abusing, POV-pushing, on behalf of Union-nationalists. It's very clear here who is the POV-pusher, the nationalist and who disregards policies and guidelines, and even breaks the spirit of a Topic Ban – instead of pushing Irish nationality, you changed to challenging British nationality. As far as I can identify, it's just a sly attempt to circumvent toe topic ban and maintain a disruptive stance against British editors. By not accepting that, your rights to edit need revoking. This is not harassment, this is procedure – just like the 2 AN/Is and WQA you opened in an attempt to "discipline" editors opposing your edits. Personally I think you're a hair's width away from an indef block or ban, for persistent incompetence. Harassment is akin to threatening a person in real life, not responding to threads which you started. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never come across anyone on wikipedia that is as uncivil and rude as you are, you have to be one of the biggest jerks on this. I made those reports so that your incivility would not go unnoticed and in the hopes that an admin will help you stop this behaviour, I never tried to topic ban you despite everything. Sheodred (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Yes, I'm a jerk. But it takes one to know one. I don't need Topic Banning, I rarely touch biogs and my historical edits are neutral, as any good historian should be in order to understand history, rather than blind themselves with nationalist views. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Support He claims that some POV-pushers are looking for his head, but looking at his edits I have to conclude that he is the POV-pusher. Canvassing turned out wrong. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC) But one day The Irish will conquer England and suppress them the same way thay did to Ireland.

You clearly have no knowledge of the discussions on those pages, and with the editors involved if that is your conclusion. Sheodred (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN is where you go if you are looking for a topic ban for me not here. Sheodred (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to attract the wikidrama queens. Remember, Britain has a higher population than Ireland.. therefore there are likely to be more British editors than Irish ones, and not all neutral. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. This is an AN board, all proposals are relevant. It is the Admin attention, not the urgency of the incident, that applies here. Read the top boxes. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Sheodred is not the only one who deserves a topic ban. Your argument Remember, Britain has a higher population than Ireland.. therefore there are likely to be more British editors than Irish ones, and not all neutral. makes clear that you are waging war against everything that is Irish. So I will support a topic ban for you too, MarcusBritish! Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you're attempting to write more into that than was intended. Intentionally, no doubt. The comments state facts. If someone British was complaining wrongly about Americans being "nationalist POV pushers" and took it to AN/I, do you not think the higher US population Will have a higher representation on AN/I? What 330m to 60m or just over 5:1 in terms of averages. My statement was neither nationalist nor is it "in topic" as this is a AN talk page, and I don't edit "British" topics in great quantity anyway. You're grasping at straws with that lame interpretation of my mathematics. How can I wage war against the Irish by stating, truthfully, that some British editors on AN/I might not kindly to Sheodred's attitude or the list of edits above, and support his ban based on prejudices ? Do think more carefully, and remember AGF before twisting people's words to suit yourself. You just accused me of being racist. That really was a shameful attempt. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

NB: 2011 Irish pop: 4.5mil, UK pop: 62.3m. Making the chances of even representation of countries on Wiki average to 14:1. Think Sheodred would stand a chance in a topic ban !vote? I think I did him a favour. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Its becoming increasingly obvious that admins are not going to go near this, especially the impartial ones, it is becoming quite apparent that you more than likely have IAD and possibly are very frustrated considering all the time you waste here, I suggest you do something more productive with your time and get a life, this thread is a train wreck, it reminds me of that certain editor here. I'm unwatching this specific thread now for the time being, quite clear its going nowhere, bye now.Sheodred (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You can suit yourself. If admins don't respond to this, and act on it, the list above will be passed to ArbCom and I'll request more than a topic ban. Either way, your POV-pushing will eventually reach someone who will review it appropriately and act on it decisively. By then I could probably find even more examples, if I wanted to, right back to account creation, perhaps...long-term agenda? ArbCom votes are a lot more seriously handled. None of the people you canvassed to come disrupt the issue would do so as they have done here. Don't think I've not thought this through. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

[194][195][196][197] is selective WP:CANVASSING. I suggest you remove the posts, forthwith. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No I won't ,that applies to articles not people who are subjected to malicious personal vendettas. Sheodred (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Suit yourself. The consequences of ignoring my advice are on your own head. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not familiar with this particular board, so I'm not sure how quick admin response will be. But, Marcus, I'd suggest it's probably a good shop window if you want to continue to demonstrate what a problematic editor you are by derailing yet another thread on the topic of what nationality Irish people really are. Go for your life. --FormerIP (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't make sense. Irish people are Irish. I've never disputed that, nor can you prove otherwise. Such slurs don't bother me, as you're unlikely to turn the tables with unsupported rhetoric. I've always maintained that "Anglo-Irish" is a heritage, and never implied it to be a nationality. Nor have I ever replaced a biog nationality from "Irish" to "British". If you want another list of my contribs to support that I've been neutral, it's easily done. Go figure. Prove I derailed anything, if you can. I'll prove I simply over-turned a proposal via policy and consensus, snowed it, and left it for dead. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus, you may not consciously realise that you do it. But there is absolutely no reason why you had to turn this thread into a torrent of diarrhoea, tending to make half the people want to ignore the thread and the other half forget what it was about. Given that this is the "Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts" board, admins here will be aware that the OP is likely to have edited various articles with a POV and that there are likely to be other editors who take an opposing POV. If you want to make a report about Sheodred, do that. If you want to contribute usefully to discussions (which, no word of a lie, I believe you are capable of, having taken some Pro Plus so I could actually get through one or two of your posts), get a Twitter account and practice using the amount of text that is necessary for what you want to convey. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that you're not an admin, and not interested in the discussion, you don't need to worry about it then, do you? Your comments, which are not even related to the situation, and are aimed at me personally, are more intrusive. Run along if you have nothing constructive to say, there's a good chap. Go play with your Twitter followers, if that suits your level of intellect better. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

About canvassing, Marcus: [198], [199], [200]. And this one is also quite revealing about your attitude: [201]. Is it not a bit hypocretic to complain about Sheodred as you do the same?? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What about canvassing? Do tell, I'm fascinated. Inviting admins, which those 3 were, who oversaw Sheodred's topic ban, they already know the situation, there's no need to be neutral. Try harder. Gerardw oversaw the WQA, and is always neutral as a middle-man in disputes. Again, try harder. You're making things up, and it's plainly obvious that you're attempting to divert the case away from Sheodred and his 43 edits, above. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Shoedred has (in the spirit of the law) canvassed before, and for this issue they did leave me a message however i wouldn't say it's canvassing for support as me and Shoedred have argued several times in the past and we are for nearly all intents and purposes exact polar opposites. Why i got a message in light of this i don't know, however as my post below shows - i am fair in my comments. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

More likely that I advised him of canvassing at 22:48 and he posted to you at 22:50 in order give the appearance of balance. Whether it was his intention to ask you before I rose the matter is open to anyone's guess. This matter is now on AN/I, and Sheodred was blocked earlier, by the way. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

The only way to get this solved is to be bold. There is POV-pushing from the side of Sheodred (talk · contribs) but also from MarcusBritish (talk · contribs). So I suggest a six month topic ban for Sheodred and for MarcusBritish. But before any vote can take place the range should be determined of the topic ban. I suggest "a topic ban to include all articles and talk pages of notable people whose nationality and ancestry is related to Ireland (island), North Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and Anglo-Irish, broadly construed." Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose – In order to propose your claim you must first produce diffs to show that I have POV-pushed in articles. Discussions are not encyclopedia material and you need to prove my POV. If you don't do that, we'll have to assume you can't, in which case the proposal is punitive and won't carry. Good luck! If you find enough examples, equal to Sheodred's wall of fame up there, I'll even support it myself, LMFAO! I have ample diffs to disprove this nonsense you're spouting though. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Aggresive behaviour, personal attacks and disruptive editing at talkpage can also be a reason... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So can COI, coming from you, an Irishman. You have to prove them all first; bearing in mind AN/I dismissed the claims of PA/civility against Sheodred as titt-for-tatt, and the WQA didn't prove anything either. As for disruptive, again, lack of AN/I action debunks that pacl of lies. In short, you've been scrapping the barrel for a long time now, and still appear to be empty handed. You're just messing up the page with your empty claims. Please go away. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Me, an Irishman? I would swear that I have a passport issued by The Netherlands... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish-domiciled then. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a good sense of humour, but I do not buy your tricks. The point that you immideately accuse me of a Conflict Of Interest says a lot about your POV. Don't you think that you, as Brit/Englishman, would not have a COI? Come on. Just cut this whole crap and do something more usefull then fighting over a nationality. (And it would be nice when Sheodred would do the same.) Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Brit/Englishman? What makes you say I'm an Englishman? I could be English, Scottish, Welsh, from Northern Ireland, or even a mix. "British" covers all four. Without that knowledge you can't even begin to accuse me of having any COI! And FYI, I work between replies. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you have to change you username, MarcusBritish sounds very British to me. Secondly, out of Wiki-experience I know that only the English care about claiming nationality. I have never seen anybody who claims to be Scottisch, Welsh, Irish or Manx making a fuss about it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a stereotype. And British is "British", it doesn't automatically imply being English. Britain is a state, England is a country. But you just proved that you, along with Sheodred, have personal beliefs about what the English claim for a nationality, and that we disregard others. That is OR. And given that you have attempted to raise a topic ban against me, without even substantiating that I have any POV from article diffs, you represent only your own judgements and bias. I guess I oppose your discriminative proposal. You see, POV means I "want" articles to say British/Anglo-Irish instead of Irish. That is not the case, as I have pushed for 3 items to be represented: nationality, heritage, career: which represents a pure NPOV in all areas. Only Sheodred has swapped one for the other, which is for pure Irish POV, and misuse of the country name in Kingdom times. So your POV claim is totally, irrefutably, and undeniably false. I'll be accepting your apology, in time. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The same as you stereotyping me as Irish (without any effort to check that) because I objected against your stance. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

False premis. I based by assumption off the two "lives in Ireland" and "WP:Irish music" userboxes on your page, I didn't read the text. You based your remark on "you claim to be British so you must be English, because only the English do that". Big difference. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the recent episode of Life's Too Short where he gets into an argument with the maitre d? If not, have a look on iPlayer, it's quite funny and quite similar to this. --FormerIP (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(off topic) I just watched all the series, to date, on iPlayer. I'm not normally a Ricky Gervais fan, but was pretty good! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• [202] — first proof of wanting a neutral resolution, directed at Seanwa111111. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

• [203] — proof of neutral editing, using Irish (nationality), British (career), Anglo-Irish (heritage) in lead of notable figure. Booyah! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}
• [204] — third example of no Irish distaste, including offering Barnstars to editors completing Irish ASSI articles, prepared by yours truly. *smug* Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

Oppose. "Night of the Big Wind" has totally misinterpreted MarcusBritish, as Marcus has said. "Night of the Big Wind" has offered no incriminating evidence against Marcus other than one totally misinterpreted sentence. Unlike Sheodred's edit history, Marcus's edit history is impeccable at the interface between British and Irish. Impeccable, and essentially non-existent. At least that's true of the last few thousand edits he's made -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MarcusBritish. His recent edit history is mostly the Napoleonic Wars. Plus he recently was the creator of the page List of ASSIs in Londonderry where ASSI = Area of Special Scientific Interest. That latter may tell you something but is does not tell you he's an unreasonable editor. Marcus believes in high quality references as the foundation for everything. It's a simple rule that keeps him with an WP:NPOV. Seanwal111111 (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to MarcusBritish accusations to the edits I made

One last comment before I go in response to these edits

• Boudica: [205] — removed "British", and added "Briton" instead because I thought it was the proper historic term for the ancient Celtic people before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, British did not really become a term for people born in Britain until the Act of Union 1707 which integrated Scotland into the Kingdom of England and became the Kingdom of Britain.
• Iceni: [206] — removed "British", same reason as above.
• Muiredach Tirech: [207] — changed "Northern Ireland" to "Ireland" because Northern Ireland did not exist until the partition of Ireland in the twentieth century, which was over a thousand years after.
• Patrick Kavanagh: [208] changed "Republic of Ireland" because Ireland is the official name of the state, ROI is only a description of the state and the name of the football team.
• John Tyndall: [209] — challenges use of "Anglo-Irish" and "British", changes to "Irish". An admin became involved in the article, and it was Sean1111111 not me who recently , disobeyed the admin's decision, and deleted any mention of Irish which can be interpreted as a POV edit.
• Ernerst Shackleton: [210] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish". Shackleton identified himself as Irish, his family and descendants assert that also, it is backed up by sources which were removed by an admin who was involved in the article, protected the page, blocked me and then had to unblock me as it was highly unbecoming of an admin.
• Laurence Sterne: [211] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" and references to "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Ireland" with "Irish" or "England". Anglo-Irish does not belong in the lede, that was my issue there. He was born and raise in Ireland, and now I have noticed an ANON Ip has decided that he is English despite everything (this is the problem myself and the editors on Wikiproject Ireland have with POV editors, who are overrunning Irish articles and bios)
• Wolfe Tone: [212] — added "Irish" to lead, despite removal of "British" or "Anglo" identities in other articles. Wolfe Tone was an Irish revolutionary who opposed British rule, and can be considered the father of Irish republicanism, why is it wrong to call him Irish?
• Henry Grattan: [213] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was a politician who opposed the Act of Union.
• George Berkley [214] — swapped "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", because he is Irish, yes..he is of the Anglo-Irish class.
• Lewis (surname) (disambiguation): [215] replaced "British" with "Irish", no sourcing, used "born and raised in Ireland, moved to England to study" as edit summary, despite that birthplace was Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland, part of the UK. No sources provided to show otherwise. CS Lewis was born in Ireland before partition, he also self-identified as Irish, which was provided in the sources.
• Shackleton: [216] — swapped "British" to "Irish", no sources provided. He was British in the context that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time, he was still Irish.
• Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany: [217] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish". Anglo-Irish is a social class.
• George Salmon: [218] — "Anglican" removed, religion does not really have a place in the lede, only in certain exceptions. Salmon was a theologian according to the article, a theologian does not equate to being a Reverend.
• Thomas Andrews: [219] — "Irish" added to lead because he is.
• John Thomas Romney Robinson: [220] — "Irish" added to lead. Same
• George Johnstone Stoney: [221] — See my other comments above
• Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough: [222] — added "Irish".
• Charles Villiers Stanford: [223] — replaced "eminent English-domiciled (though Irish-born)" with "Irish", no sources provided.
• James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde: [224] — Same
• Cecil Day-Lewis: [225] — replaced "a British poet from Ireland". If he is from Ireland why cannot he be listed as Irish, if he self-identified?
• Oliver Goldsmith: [226] — changed references to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland". IMOS guidelines
• Jonathan Swift: [227] — changed reference to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Swift was born in 1667 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". Replaced "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish" including changing citation to this which only reads "Irish author" in the search results article link, the article itself, however, says "Anglo-Irish author". "Anglo-Irish" reference moved against father, along with citation. Jonathan Swift is widely regarded as Irish in mainstream literature, not Anglo-Irish, because it is not a nationality....
• Peter O'Toole [228] — Peter O'Toole states that he is Irish,and he was born in Connemarra......
• Jocelyn Bell Burnell: [229] — removed "UK" from birth place because she was born in Northern Ireland which everyone knows is in the UK, so that was unneccesssary.
• Packie Bonner: [230] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was born in County Donegal!
• Bananarama: [231] — brief war editing, between "British" and "English" usage because of Irish members. I did not remove any mention of those, I merely added Irish in, but it was correctly removed because the Irish member was no longer in the group.
• Siobhan Fahey: [232] — added "Irish". Because she is?

All this was really pointless in my opinion Marcus, one can interpret an editor who has a problem with these edits as one who has a POV problem. Sheodred (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussions

• Mary Shelley (page talk): [233] — attacking use of "English". Was not attacking it, I was SUPPORTING IT.
• PatGallacher (user talk): [234] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people.
• Cuchullain (user talk): [235] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people.
• British people (page talk): [236] — challenges "Britons" vs "British". Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people.
• Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (page talk): [237] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage.
• W. B. Yeats (page talk): [238] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish". He is internationally recognised as Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage.
• Oliver Goldsmith (page talk): [239] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage.
• GoodDay (user talk): [240] — issued "unconstructive" template for war edit that he himself was engaged in. GoodDay removed message without response. I apologised to him, and he forgave me, whats the issue here?
• GoodDay (user talk): [241] — series of personal and uncivil attacks regarding "British/Irish" nationality. I don't understand this.
• Phil Coulter (page talk): [242] — personal attacks on User:GoodDay, "you are just on wikipedia to disrupt and troll". GoodDay is now being mentored at the moment because of a successful RFC, so my point at the time was valid.
• Nadine Coyle (page talk): [243] — uncivil remarks, also highlights personal national sentiments towards disputing "British" identity. Did not dispute it, I was disputing the omission of Irish as an identity for people of Northern Ireland who self-identified as Irish, see Good Friday Agreement
• Long-term abuse (page talk): [244] — series of personal attacks on User:GoodDay. What long-term 'abuse'?

Sources, references. citations? Explain war-editing and personal attacks. Explain false MOS "dictates". Lack of WP:NPOV. Regardless if who was born where, when and what they say they are, WP:FIVEPILLARS requires neutral, referenced and verifiable proof. Everything you put is easy to consider original research. Explaining your edits does not account for your behaviour or lack of referencing over and over again, despite other editors asking for it. Despite your claims that "Anglo-Irish" belongs after but not in the lead, you have always changed Anglo-Irish to Irish, but always fail to reenter it into the main body. Further lack of neutrality. Double-standards. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 11:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"you have always changed Anglo-Irish to Irish, but always fail to reenter it into the main body. Further lack of neutrality. Double-standards." Nope, [245] here we go with more lies and distorting the truth to suit your agenda, I am done here now, I have defended myself, I await an admin's decision and comment now on the matter here. "Toodles". Sheodred (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what... you removed "Anglo-Irish" and a reference with a edit summary of "removed irrelevant info", and you call that a defence? Removing cited material based on personal views is worse than changing it. Bravo! *slow sarcastic applause* Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 12:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Slán go fóill amadán. Sheodred (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Translates to: See you later fool. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 12:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am an editor who has crossed wires with Shoedred before however some of those edits have to be seen in the proper context for example in regards to Boudica and the Iceni - Briton makes more sense. On the Muiredach Tireach article, the change was correct as Northern Ireland didn't exist until a thousand years later, and he wasn't importance to it. Siobhan Fahey is Irish unless she took British citizenship. The Patrick Kavanagh edit was also performed correctly per the Ireland Manual fo Style where we only use Republic of Ireland when the island is also mentioned to help avoid confusion. However using Ireland without a wikilink is deceptive in my opinion as it doesn't provide the user the pipe-link to the state.

On the Anglo-Irish issue i have nothing to say as i am only passing-by involved in it. Henry Grattan also may have opposed the Act of Union, however he was still loyal to the British crown so he could be argued as being both - stating nothing would have been simpler.

Whilst i personally believe that there is an agenda with quite a few of Shoedred's edits, not all of those edits listed above can be considered reliable proof of it when taken into proper consideration. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comment

I was asked to comment here by MarcusBritish. I am involved as I have been in a content dispute with Sheodred and blocked him/her when I should not have (as an involved admin). I apologized for the block. That said I note that Sheodred voluntarily agreed on December 1, 2011 to "cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month", so any edits before Dec. 1 are clearly not violations of this promise. Note that talk page comments are allowed. While the letter of the law may be followed, it does seem that switching from making many edits on one nationality to making many edits on other nationalities may be violating the spirit of the law. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, matter is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review: Sheodred. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking for help

On the Wikipedia page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Information it takes a while exhausting debate on the writing and writing at all of minority languages in articles about settlements in Croatia. Please if you have time, look at the page and try to help us in forming some kind of agreement. We will highly appreciate your effort.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus-related content

Please see Talk:Jesus Seminar#POV concerns. As a fairly regular editor of Christianity-related content, I have noticed that much of the editing done related to the topic of Christianity is done directly on matters relating to individual churches, beliefs, etc., and comparatively little done on the recent criticism of groups and individuals like this one. I tend to think that perhaps much of the editing on these articles has been done from editors who may espouse a New Age or atheist/agnostic perspective, and that those individuals might be perhaps understandably more likely to include content with which they agree than balancing material. Some of you might remember the "religion and violence" controversy here about a year ago as well, which bore similar characteristics. I would very much welcome content relating to the recent theories and conjectures on the historicity of Jesus getting perhaps a bit broader attention, hopefully from editors from neither the Christian or atheist/agnostic perspective. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

scottish-argentinians

Argentinian 41st president Juan Domingo Peron, is not of Scottish descent. Perón's grandparents emigrated to Argentina from the Italian island of Sardinia. I should know, because I was born in Argentina, from Scottish immigrants. I have a picture from the time when I was a toddler, in where I am sitting on Peron's mother lap. I wonder whether, it would be of any interest.

Canadian Sikhism

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

There is one editor in particular who has been of issue with regards to posting acceptable sources with regards to population figures and population figures in general. While that issue has been discussed and partially resolved I suspect other edits made by that editor may perhaps be pushing advocacy in other parts of the article. I myself do not have enough personal knowledge on the article subject but perhaps a review of the article can be made to see if any issues are present? Duhon (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Van cat controversy

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

The article Van cat is frequently the target of anti-Turk, anti-Kurd and/or anti-Armenian racist editing that borders on vandalism. The most common bits are removal of Kurds/Kuristan and/or mention of Armenians by pro-Turkish editors, especially from the infobox and lead, and anti-Turkish political rants, especially in the "#Naming controversy" section, merged in from an excessively POV-pushing content fork. I don't think any blocks are warranted at this time, but this article and the related one at Turkish Van (which also sees such disruptive edits) could use more watchers. I've warned (with a general post on the article talk page, not individual editor-chastising) that any further ethinic-attack edits will result in a filing at WP:AN/I for blocking, so hopefully it just won't happen any more. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji

• Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a bit of a war going on at Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji and some of the surrounding articles such as Ravidassia Religion, which appears to be a newly-formed religion based on the teachings of a 14th century Indian guru, of which Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji is the holy book. It's way out of my league, I only came across it in passing whilst assessing articles, but the respective talk pages detail some of the accusations which include edit-warring, facts not being supported by the supplied references and POV pushing. Would some kind soul care to have a look? FlagSteward (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I just wandered into the same series of articles in "WikiProject Ravidassia", and agree that there's some significant POV-pushing and historical revisionism involved. Very long story short, the Ravidasi were apparently generally aligned with Sikhism (low-caste "untouchable" Indians forming their own subset of Sikhism due to being unwelcome among "higher caste" Sikhs). The Ravidassi and Sikhs had a major falling-out in 2009 when Sikh radicals murdered Ravidasi clergyman Ramanand Dass in Vienna, so they severed ties and literally wrote a new holy book to replace the Sikh one they were using. Fascinating story, but the trouble is some major contributors at the page have been working to remove any mention of Sikhism from the article, and instead portray Ravidassia as a cohesive independent religion back to 14th Century India. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

• Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This whole article is inaccurate and not NPOV but editors are refusing to allow any contribution by other editors..i have tried discussing it but it was to no avail. Baboon43 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Azawad and its regions and cercles.

Azawad has recently declared independence from Mali but remains unrecognised. However there seems top be an effort to edit articles on the relevant regions of Mali to describe them primarily as located in Azawad and then mention their global recognition as part of Mali as an afterthought. I have changed Tombouctou Region[246] but it's late here and there are a whole bunch of other places that need fixing.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I edited the lead in the Tombouctou Region article back to your 6 April 2012 edit.[247] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

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

The English page of Nelly Furtado keeps on having someone who deletes the fact that she is Portuguese Canadian, first based on the argument that her being Portuguese was a matter of ethnicity (but not being Canadian, apparently), and second based on the fact that there is no "direct proof" that she has Portuguese citizenship. I might add where is the "direct proof" that she has Canadian citizenship, either?

The whole point being brought up constantly in the editing of this article is based on an "Amerocentric" perspective of what is citizenship. To constantly erase the fact that she is both Portuguese and Canadian from her article, is a xenophobic attitude in nature, as it considers one nationality law to have more value than a different nationality law. That is simply wrong, both when it comes to its accordance with the truth, and also regarding the principle of no supremacy of any human being or nation over another. Dual citizenship at birth is a very common thing, exactly because not every country awards citizenship in the same way. I truly don´t understand the need to deny this, other than in a context of extreme nationalism.

In the Americas (for most countries), citizenship is automatically granted based on the "ius soli" concept. This means a person is Canadian, American, Brazilian, whatever, mainly if they are born in the country.

But in most european countries, citizenship is based on "ius sanguinis". Citizenship is automatically granted according to the parents´ nationality.

To say that she is Canadian "because she was born, lives and works in Canada", makes absolutely no proof of any kind regarding her nationality, if you don´t know Canadian law. Since we do know, we know she is Canadian, of course. In exactly the same way, if you know Portuguese law, and know that Portugal automatically grants citizenship to anyone whose parents are Portuguese and were born in Portugal, then you know there is nothing to argue about in this matter. She is Portuguese, just like she is Canadian.

One nationality should not require the need for some kind of "ultimate proof" over the other. She possessed dual citizenship right at birth, Canadian and Portuguese, since both countries grant automatic citizenship in different ways.

On the matter of Portuguese nationality, please see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_nationality_law

Furthermore, just making a fast random search on the internet, I found an interview of Nelly Furtado to a Brazilian TV (in Portuguese), where she herself admitted she was both Canadian and Portuguese. Further ahead, she even added that "her heart and sould where Portuguese": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3n_ZA4r6Do

On an interview at BBC, she was telling the hosts about how singing in Portuguese was so natural to her, and that she learned Portuguese even before knowing English.

But this things are not the main point, at all (even if it would be very weird for her to say she was Portuguese without being Portuguese, quite obviously).

Resuming, the issue is exclusively legal, and my question is why is one nationality law accepted as enough proof, and another country´s nationality law is not? One truly doesn´t need to know anything else other than that both her parents were born in Portugal and were Portuguese to know for a fact she is Portuguese by birth. It´s the law. Just like no further proof of her Canadian citizenship is required for that statement to be made on the article. It is simple, both countries´ laws automatically grant citizenship to someone in her situation, right at birth. It is partial, and not a neutral position, to say the least, to consider that a specific definition of a person´s nationality based on the perspective of a certain country, is accepted as such with no problems or objections of any kind so to be introduced on wikipedia, while a different one, from a different country, needs some kind of "direct proof".

Wikipedia should not be the place for this kind of behavior.

Thank you, and I hope this situation can be adequately solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.73.25 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article is very clear that she has Portuguese ancestry, is born to Portuguese parents, and has released Portuguese albums. The lead sentence, as directed by MOS:BIO, describes her as "Canadian". There's no effort to suppress or hide anything, just an effort to keep the article in line with consensus, policy, and guidelines.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

joseph neubauer

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

Joseph Neubauer's nationality is shown as "Jewish-American." There is no such nationality. He is American. And he is Jewish. That does not make him Jewish American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeankay (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please make sure there is actually a dispute before reporting it. The fact that you posted here before editing Joseph Neubauer indicates that this dispute does not exist. Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeankay -- It's obviously not his formal legal citizenship, but in fact in the United States "Jewish American" is perceived to be an ethnic/national identity comparable to "Irish-American", "Mexican-American" or whatever. (Probably the majority of American Jews have ancestors who came from areas now in Germany, Poland, or Ukraine, but they rarely call themselves "German-Americans", "Polish-Americans", or "Ukrainian-Americans", and they would not generally be considered such by self-identified German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans, except in a few special cases.) That's why we have the phenomenon of Jewish atheism. AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No 1 cause of edit wars: Nationalist school systems -> Solution: create Wikipedia page warning about it

Isn't it weird that most of these edit wars concern nationalism? The reason these edit wars exist is because most people were educated in a school system that has heavy bias towards its own nationalism. You would think that what they teach you at school is all true and impartial. But that's not the case!

For example, the first time I came to Wikipedia, it was a real shock to me. I made significant contribution to Hungarian history based on what I learned at school. Only later did I see that most of my edits were reverted or changed because someone from Slovakia had a different opinion and he was taught something totally different at school than I was.

For instance, when Romania occupied Hungary for a brief time, in Hungary they call it the Romanian oppression, but in Romania they teach it as the Romanian liberation. Croatia is taught in Hungary as a province, but in Croatia it is taught as an independent country. In Hungary, Hungary is taught as the most significant part of the Hapsburg Empire yet in Austria, it's taught as a province. What's more, in Hungary I didn't even hear about the term Magyarization before because they simply don't teach that at school. In Slovakia, this is taught as a major element of curriculum.

What they teach us is that our country is great, our nation is great and that there are a few people who are our national heroes, and whenever "we" suffered it was unjust. For God's sake, even the Anthem of Hungary that every Hungarian has to know by heart is about the fact how great the nation is and that it suffered so much unjustly throughout the years. Nothing is ever mentioned about bad things that Hungary might have done to other nations. What's more, if a great man who invented great things hundreds years ago was born in Hungary, I'm supposed to feel proud of him, but if he was born a few kilometers on the other side of the border, I don't even know his name because it's not in the curriculum.

Why do I refer to another Hungarians as "us" but to a Slovak as "them". For the most part, most Hungarians do not ever leave the country so they live their life in the belief that they are great and other nations are bad. However, on the rare occasion when someone comes and declares that our national hero is from a different nationality, people get angry, because it strikes them at the heart of their national identity since all their life they have been taught to look up to these national heros, because it is them who make the nation great.

This is a LIE. It's a big fat lie. It seems the whole education system of most countries in the world is a just pretext to promote nationalism and control the population. There is a heavy dose of nationalist bias that presents the so called "facts of history" through a tinted glass.

Question is how can we tell people about this so that they won't start their mindless nationalist edit wars? It is extremely rare that they will recognize it by themselves, because they take what they have been taught throughout their lives as the one and only truth. And when these people meet someone else from different indoctrination background as them, that's when the edit wars start.

It took me about 1 year to realize that the Slovak editors aren't hostile and malicious, but only recite what they were taught at school and I'm reciting what I was taught at school, and that our different education systems shaped our identities and beliefs differently so that it is always us that the good guys are and the other ones are always the bad guys.

Therefore, I propose to create a Wikipedia page that warns new users about the indoctrination aspects and nationalist biases of their own education systems that define their identities and beliefs. We should tell them that just because someone is subject to a different nationlist propaganda, he is not malicious in any way, and therefore they shouldn't take the expression of his different beliefs as ad hominem attacks.

It would have helped me incredibly to learn this before I started editing on Wikipedia and not engage in non-sense nationalistic edit wars, which I did for almost a year before I realized what I was doing! All I was thinking about that I must teach these people the truth that I knew. So that's why in my opinion a Wikipedia page would be a great idea to teach new users about this, and as a result there would be a significant drop in edit wars! --Bizso (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Nationalist historiography... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS, a guide for identifying and using reliable sources in the area of history, suggests never using school works for writing historical articles. School textbooks usually fail to deal with the complexity of causes, the variety of historiographies, and fail to address the questions that make subjects significant in the historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, the countries which have the worst problem with rewriting history tend to be the ones which require school textbooks to reinforce the TRUTH of their NATIONAL GLORY (and/or their historic SUFFERING under the YOKE of an OPPRESSOR). Ditto for national broadcasters. Where history is disputed or controversial, that's when we need to go to the best - and independent - sources. bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What I like best about wikipedia 2.0 is that it gives all viewpoints the potential to be heard. Sure every nation / culture has its own viewpoint. And eventually we will be able to learn more about their origins and civilization can progress with increased encyclopedic knowledge. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I admire your optimism. I don't share it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bardock

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

You have this actor as married to his daughter is this correct or a miss print — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.82.32 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Revised.[248] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen

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

There are two editors who were in the majority on the AfD for this article that was closed as keep. In light of the previous AfD and the issues on the talk page as well as thing grout up during the AfD. I added maintenance tags about sourcing, POV and dispute on the article and started a discussion about them. I planned to leave them up for a month, to see what kind of consensus we got from a wider group, and these editors just seem to want to shut it down, and remove the tags immediately. Kind of a your wrong, we've told you you are wrong and this is a waste, attitude. Obviously it's a controversial issue, and the haste to remove the tags only seems to lead me to believe one of them may be POV. though I'm trying to assume good faith here. can anyone offer advice, a fourth opinion, etc. -- Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I restructured the article.[249] I don't think the article needs tags. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Irvin D. Yalom

• Irvin D. Yalom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5-6: To Whom it May Concern, the Irvin D. Yalom text begins, "Born into a Jewish family...." But - if he were born into a Christian family, would the text begin, "Born into a Christian family..."? If not...discrimination's afoot. Please change that first sentence. Thank you! -- The Friedman family

I revised the text in the Irvin D. Yalom article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Balanchine method

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

An editor changed Balanchine method to say George Balanchine is Georgian (vs. Russian) and made clear that he will not permit it to be changed back. Attempts to to reason with him on the talk page have failed; he is adamant that his view is correct. It's possible that he is correct, but I believe there is compelling evidence to the contrary. It would be very helpful for an unbiased third party to have a look and, if warranted, to boldly take appropriate action, as all of my efforts to do so have been reverted without meaningful comment. My apologies if this is the wrong place to post this. Lambtron (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

His biography says, "Balanchine was born Giorgi Balanchivadze in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to a Georgian father and a Russian mother." My take is what is relevance between his birth and the Balanchine method? The location of where Balanchine devised the method or where it was first used would seem more relevant to the Balanchine method article than where Balanchine was born or his ethnic lineage. I revised the article.[250] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

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

It would be I believe in everybody's interests if we had a greater number of uninvolved editors viewing the main Messianic Judaism article, including its talk page. I and some others have some serious questions about POV pushing regarding the article, and I believe the involvement of a greater number of editors, including some new to the discussion, would be extremely valuable in perhaps resolving the existing difficulties. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Arabs in Turkey

• Arabs in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please look into the edit history of this page? I have a problem with two editors who insist on using number estimations mostly from media stories. The numbers they are providing are obviously unrealistic by all means. I have tried to provide a balanced representation of all view points, but these two users are rejecting one source calling it "fake". These two editors would keep reverting back. Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Svan people

See:

1. Talk:Svan people#source (+Talk:Svan people#Ethnic groups)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#user:GeorgianJorjadze reported by User:PlatonPskov (Result: ) and
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PlatonPskov reported by User:Kober (Result: ).
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Svan people

User GeorgianJorjadze (and Kober) they refuse to constructive discussion, GeorgianJorjadze waging a war of edits without explanation (other than as a game with rules: that there is no consensus. However, I have arguments. They - no.) --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Abu Musa

There is a dispute over Abu Musa; specifically, whether or not to mention the results of an opinion poll held by YouGov. Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcomed... bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To make my position clear; I think the poll should be mentioned (at the bottom of the article). Another editor suggests it should be removed, for a variety of reasons such as "Undue Weght", "One poll by not very reliable source not verified by third parties", "advocating commercial poor quality materials", "source does not meet WP:Primary criteria", "just a poll by a tele-marketing company" &c.

Devoting an entire section on a Wikipedia article to a random online poll conducted by " online panel" of a random polestar/market research firm, is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. The person who first dumped this so-called poll on that page and many others (Redroar75 [251]), appears to be an employee of, and affiliated with the YouGov, working as a PR person, and all he does in Wikipedia is link-dumping as free advertisement and publicity for YouGov marketing firm. Just a quick examination of his contributions, show that every single one of his edits is linking to this not-so-notable company as a reference, creating and devoting an entire section to this company on various pages, in order to advertise and promote them. Most of the edits are even promotional/business-like in tone too, just take a look at these examples. [252][253] So this is borderline spamming, besides the obvious weight issues. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nichiren Buddhism

• Nichiren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nichiren Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nichiren Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sōka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wonder if anyone knowledgeable (best if not involved/attached to the schools in question) in Japanese Buddhism could look over the articles mentioned above. Before a full fledged edit war breaks out a third opinion could be useful. Thanks.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above. I think we need as many eyes as possible on these articles. Soka Gakkai in particular is a highly controversial group, and I believe that the personal opinions of certain editors regarding the group may well be causing them to engage in behavior which could be seen as problematic. The greater the number of experienced and knowledgable editors are available on these pages, the more likely it will be that any problematic behavior of some editors can be addressed diplomatically. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Piapot

Piapot is the article I was reading that led me to look further into it. Throughout Wikipedia there are hundreds of pages and articles that refer to Aboriginal American peoples as "Indians". I believe this is an outdated and offensive term, and that replacing most instances with alternative words, such as "aboriginal" would be appropriate. Is there any way that we can speed up this process, rather than trawling through one article at a time and changing them?

NB - in some cases the word is used appropriately as part of a title or has historical relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.230.20 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that polcies and guidelines as they are currently structured would necessarily permit such a mass alteration of language, particularly on the rather slim basis given, that one editor finds it offensive. And, while there might be a way to speed up such conversion, that conversion would probably also include the instances when you declare it appropriate, so, in effect, it really wouldn't necessarily be an net improvement in the content, and in several cases it might actually be counterproductive.

Probably the best way to get this issue addressed would be to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. It is possible that they could develop clear guidelines as to when and under what circumstances specific descriptive terms are used. In fact, they may already have done so for all I know. Also, editors involved there would probably be in the best position to note when the term "Indian" is used in an appropiate way and when it isn't. But, in short, no, I don't think there is any better, more effective way to expedite such changes as you request than by contacting that WikiProject. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dražen Petrović

Is there anyone who could help take a look at the Dražen Petrović page? For months and months, there have been unexplained changes to his parents' ethnic backgrounds (eg [254]). Unfortunately, I can't really examine the sources used in that section. The best I can do is use Google translate. Usually, I try to revert to the status quo, but I'm really in over my head here, so if there's anyone who speaks Serbian, Croatian, or Montenegrin, your help would be appreciated. Zagalejo^^^ 19:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman religious and political views

There are a number of users with personal religious agendas that keep using garbage sources, i.e. tabloids and religious websites, as actual references, to fit their carefully worded propaganda/idealogy. Additionally, the most rampant and excessive within wiki pages are against any subject matter that is non-Catholic. This is an issue on the page for "Nicole Kidman"; second sentence in religion section, alleges her personal opinion on topic of children's religion; however she is recorded as stating she will not discuss Scientology at all:

1. Violates Wikipedia Reliable Source requirement; invalid link to tabloid, weak source - nypost is equivalent to the enquirer.

• WP:IRS Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

2. Poorly sourced speculation/opinion WP:NOR via nypost archived gossip

• WP:NOR The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source

3. I call bullshit on: "catholic.org" and "nypost" - as Wikipedia Verifiable Sources;

• WP:V "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimafiacapo (talk • contribs) 08:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of the following wiki legalese bloviator copy/paste display? Is this a lecture or threat, because you are barking up the wrong tree on the wrong planet completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimafiacapo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

10.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

2) All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses.

3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

5.1) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Elizium23 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

71.53.191.241 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and Wikimafiacapo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) --  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Elizium23 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The source I'm seeing being used, the New York Post, does meet our reliable sourcing guidelines. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard has said of it "a paper as large and well-known as the New York Post should be considered a reliable source," and "It is a published source which is reliable using the WP definition thereof." Some of the less favorable descriptions of it was "We can't say that we may never use this type of media, but we can say that if we have better sources available it makes sense to use those." I couldn't find anything saying we couldn't use it. It is a reliable source, and it will stay unless another source countering it is found.

Also, I'm in agreeance with Elizium23, and can only believe this is a sock of the IP I IDed as belonging to the Church of $cientology. The behavior, such as worrying over this source, is totally identical. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative names in begin section

I post here because I want elucidation about naming conventions. There are conflicts on 2 talk pages about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bratislava#Hungarian_and_German_name and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cluj-Napoca#other_names

According to rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines we have:

• Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
• In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)".
• Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.

Some users do not want to accept this recommendation and want to impose alternative names in the first phrase, even if is not reason to make an exception. I say that we must not ignore the recommendation, it must be a coherence on wikipedia, we must respect these indications. With no respecting wikipedia rules, wikipedia would be chaotic and messy, because each article would be write in a different way. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Before reacting to ANY of Omen1229's comments, please check out his edit log. You'll see that his edits consist almost entirely of removal of Hungarian place/geographical names from any conceivable article and replacing them with their Slovak counterparts (if any). He's already been topic-banned for this too, yet he keeps pushing his POVish agenda unabated without any willingness to discuss matters or agreeing to ANY kind of compromise. All of this points to an obvious anti-Hungarian agenda he has, which he partly admits on his userpage too by claiming that he's a nationalist. Another fine example of his agenda is the fact that he's already initiated a discussion on the Cluj-Napoca article's talk page in the same manner User:PANONIAN did on the Bratislava article's talk page, which once again points to his bias against Hungarians, since he's never made ANY edits to the article and so far hasn't shown ANY interest in Romania or Romanian topics at all.

Regarding the interpretation of the naming convention itself, I regret to say that Omen1229's arguments are not about the inclusion of alternative names at all: his only point seems to be the removal of anything BUT the Slovak name of the city to make it look like those names never existed in the first place. When this plan (heavily and vocally backed by PANONIAN) has failed on the Bratislava article, he's changed his rhetoric and now he "only" wants to deal away with the Hungarian and German name of the city from the lead, and tries to do his best to twist and misinterpret Wikipedia's rules to suit his agenda (i.e. to remove the Hungarian and German name at all costs). What's worse is that he didn't bother with presenting ANY logical arguments to support his agenda, instead some additional "brand new" users have started to appear to support his edit war: User:Nelliette, User:Balatoth, User:River party, User:Jakubos etc. Almost all of these users are "brand new" and/or haven't made a single edit on the article before. What also worries me is the fact that Omen1229 has not only changed the lead, but he tried to completely wipe out my WHOLE edit i.e. even the part that deals with etymology too. This leads me to think that he doesn't want this conflict to be solved at all, or rather that he'd only be content with the version of the article where the city's Hungarian and German name wouldn't be mentioned at all.

Omen1229's argumentation is also flawed for some different reasons: the city used to have a Hungarian & German majority up to the 1930s, even after many Hungarians have been chased away from the city (and subsequently been replaced by Czechs) and until 1918 the term Bratislava didn't exist at all (at least not in ANY official documents/colloquial usage anyway), so insisting on removing the Hungarian and German name is almost akin to attempting to falsify/erase the city's history. The worse problem with the whole attitude represented by Omen1229, PANONIAN and many sockothers is the fact that the city itself was Hungary's capital for centuries, Hungary's monarchs were coronated there and it was the de facto administrative center of the country. And this kind of intolerance is even more disconcerting in the light of the fact that Slovak place names have been inserted into the articles about Hungarian cities where NO Slovaks have lived EVER (Békéscsaba, Szeged, Miskolc, Győr, Visegrád etc.), yet nobody wanted to remove them and nobody was eager to twist the Wikipedia rules in whatever way that'd allow him to remove them. In short, this strong anti-Hungarian sentiment is not only unprecedented, but non-reciprocated as well. Therefore for the sake of honoring Wikipedia's basic principles and mentality (e.g. the inclusionist attitude), I suggest against encouraging ANY kind of trigger-happy article vandalism (i.e. approval of or encouraging of content removal). -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At first, this User:CoolKoon has created the "article"(in fact POV essay) with name Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia (now called Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia, but the article is mainly about conflicts between ethnic groups and you will not find something positive there...). And now the important thing, this User:CoolKoon used in the article the chauvinistic propagandistic postcard with text "Czech culture - The barbaric toppling of the statue of Maria Theresa in Bratislava". This postcard was published by Magyar Nemzeti Szövetség in Hungary and is very strange to use it in the article about Czechoslovakia. The Magyar Nemzeti Szövetség was chauvinistic, irredentist, revisionist, Hungarism (Hungarian fascist ideologue) and foreign propagandistic organization. This organization was also active during WW2 in Hungary. No surprise for me, that he upload this postcard and he has it in User page.

All of this points to an obvious anti-Hungarian agenda he has > this only another personal attack [255] and please stop with your synthesis, because I know your POV.[256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267][268][269][270][271][272][273][274][275][276]. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As for "chauvinism, irredentism , and Hungarian facism", do you still hold your assertion ,Omen1229, in which you called one another Hungarian user a fascist, nazi, and a revisionist who supports the Arrow Cross Party-> [277]? Just curious. On the other hand, Omen1229 is clearly not here to create an encyclopedia. See: [278]. Then click on Frequently edited pages (click here) there.

Omen1229's top contributions to the project according to en.wikichecker.com
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User talk:Omen1229[WP] (38) Talk:Žigmund Pálffy[WP] (23) Talk:Slovaks[WP] (22) Talk:Bratislava[WP] (20) Magyarization[WP] (16) Ján Kollár[WP] (15) Talk:Magyarization[WP] (14) Slovaks[WP] (13) Talk:Ján Kollár[WP] (12) Pribina[WP] (12) User:Omen1229[WP] (11) Talk:Pribina[WP] (11) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (8) Slovakia[WP] (7) Upper Hungary[WP] (7) Žigmund Pálffy[WP] (7) Elie Wiesel[WP] (7) Bratislava[WP] (7) Talk:List of cities and towns in Slovakia[WP] (6) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[WP] (6)

Literally, adding Slovak names to Hungarian cities or biographies, removal of Hungarian names from cities or biographies, Magyarization i.e. how nefarious Hungarians attempted to assimilate the Slovaks, Žigmund Pálffy i.e. who is of Slovak origin who isn't, Elie Wiesel i.e. adding information on Hungarian holocaust, Pribina i.e POV pushing about some kind of proto-Slovak theory. --Nmate (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Omen it's clear you want to make CoolKoon look twisted, but that postcard (and the destruction of that fine statue) represents the irrational rage (or/and hate) against Hungarians since 1918 ((("just for the record"))), you and your companion Nelliette call us chauvinist in your recent posts, repeating it, and hoping they will believe you if you repeat enough times, but if someone looks up your edit, will face the truth about you. Interesting to start an argument accusing the opponent being the bad, without any mature reasoning. Also have to mention, your "new" interest in the WWII, is it just only about Csatary or because he is just an other blood drinking bad Hungarian? --Csendesmark (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nmate's contributions to the project according to en.wikichecker.com
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stephen Bocskay[WP] (103) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi[WP] (43) User talk:Nmate[WP] (22) Ruská[WP] (20) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection[WP] (16) Ada Ciganlija[WP] (15) Ilona Szilágyi[WP] (14) Kara Ahmed Pasha[WP] (14) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[WP] (13) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (11) Talk:Bratislava[WP] (10) User talk:Nado158[WP] (8) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts[WP] (7) Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests[WP] (7) Eastern Hungarian Kingdom[WP] (7) Pogórze Bukowskie[WP] (7) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bizovne[WP] (7) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[WP] (6) Elie Wiesel[WP] (5) (only Undid revisions by Omen1229) Bratislava[WP] (5)

--Omen1229 (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all it is not true, my edit count is 4,319 while yours is 478. And in addition, en.wikichecker.com shows only frequently edited pages. It is true that those pages have recently been edited by me but my edit count is 4,319. Furthermore, despite that Omen has so far made 478 contributions in the project, he is around on Wikipedia since 26 January, 2011. Therefore, en.wikichecker clearly shows that you are an edit warrior with no constructive contributions considering that your frequently and recently edited articles make a very significant percentage all of your contributions to the project because of your low edit count i.e. "478". So what are you looking for on Wikipedia? --Nmate (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me Omen1229, do you even SOMETIMES listen to what you're saying? Or do you really REALLY think that toppling statues of respected, renowned, and (most importantly) positively viewed historic persons is a good thing? Propagandist as the postcard was, I couldn't find any other place to source the photo from, hence I had to use that one. But if you'd check my "POV essay" (the Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia article), you'd see that it underwent a complete overhaul. I've aalso created a cropped and semi-restored version of the photo from the postcard, and used it to replace the original postcard in all the articles where the postcard has been featured. Or do you actually question the truthfulness of the picture? If so, where's the statue then? You see (unlike you) I've been born and raised in Bratislava and never EVER have I seen that statue anywhere (another statue, the one about Petőfi is still there, and that's where we commemorate the 1848/49 events every year on March 15th). So how about (at least) trying to assume that my additions are NOT in bad faith, but part of my desire to present some FACTS in order to make the Wikipedia articles more informative?

Interestingly enough the majority of my other edits you've pointed out are either talk page entries, factual edits meant for clarification, or compliments paid to other editors (I sincerely hope that one day you'll even learn some Hungarian in order to be able to comprehend comments in Hungarian without Google Translator :P). Do you REALLY think that they're proof of some POV? I mean do you SERIOUSLY think that the 1st, 12th, 15th, 16th or 20th diff from your list is heavy POV material? Or did you just collect them to make me look more of the anti-Slovak boogeyman you think I really am? Do you have ANY palpable evidence/arguments against me other than the fact that you don't like me or the FACTS I try to present/include in the articles?

BTW it's such a shame that you seem to be reluctant to present (rational) arguments the moment somebody starts pointing out your tendentiousness when making your edits. Nonetheless I did some more research on the WP rules about this and look what I found: For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one.(...) Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out(...)([279]) Since Pressburg and Pozsony (or in case of your newly discovered city, Clausenburg and Kolozsvár) make only TWO alternate names, how about just applying the rule quoted above and calling it a day? -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But if you'd check my "POV essay" (the Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia article), you'd see that it underwent a complete overhaul. > Why now talking about "the Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia article"? You created "the Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia" and much later it was renamed by Minorities observer[280] and the page is still active.

The chauvinistic propagandist postcard > In the article now called "Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia" it was deleted, but you did not do it[281]. In the "Slovakization" article the form has been changed, but the content remains the same. You only deleted POV chauvinistic phrase ("Czech Culture") which is insulting to the Czech people, but the effect is the same as the original. The main problem is that you recorded the propagandistic postcard published by Magyar Nemzeti Szövetség and how I can see you agree with their policies and views.

I mean do you SERIOUSLY think that the 1st... from your list is heavy POV material? > Yes, I think. You also reupload this map, derivative work of this map (Transferred from en.wikipedia; Transfer was stated to be made by User:Themightyquill. (Original text : self-made)). CoolKoon's map usage: Jobbik, Greater Hungary (political concept) or Hungarism (Hungarian fascist ideologue), Slovakization, Hungarians in Slovakia, Hungary between the World Wars, Hungary during World War II. Another CoolKoon's map usage: Treaty of Trianon, Hungary. The similar maps from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism: [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], 8, [291], [292], [293], [294].

For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one.(...) Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out(...) > I do not know where you took 10% for Pozsony in the available English literature, anyway you forgot to write the important thing from WP rules: If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. So again manipulation, because "my newly discovered city" Cluj-Napoca and Bratislava have more than 3 names: Bratislava, Pressburg, Pressporek, Prešpurk, Prešporok, Pisonium, Posonium, Pozsony, Presbourg, Presburgo, Istropolis, Wilson city or 'Wilsonstadt, etc... --Omen1229 (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You listed up to thirteen names, but actually three of them as they were official names of the city. Why the German? Major city in the Habsburg Empire. Why is the Hungarian relevant? Former capital of the Royal Hungary (for 311 years) & also major Hungarian city. The city wasn't really influenced by any other power. --Csendesmark (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You listed up to thirteen names, but actually three of them as they were official names of the city. > Do you have some sources for this sentence? And what do you think about Posonium? Nevertheless the "official names" in the Habsburg Empire or in the Royal Hungary are totally irrelevant in English WP. Do you think the names Prešporok, Presburgo and others have zero importance? If there are more names than this (I do not see anywhere "only the official names used in the past"), or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So you reject reality and substitute your own?--Csendesmark (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you respond to me? What is the reality? Bratislava was never "major Hungarian city", but major city in the multiethnic Habsburg Empire or multiethnic "Kingdom of Hungary" - never homogeneous Hungarian political structure. The official language in the "Kingdom of Hungary" (then part of the Austrian Empire) was Latin until 19th century.[295][296] So again, do you know what is the name Posonium? Nevertheless, the "official names used in the past" are totally irrelevant in English WP. This is reality. --Omen1229 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why you sorted the Italian, Greek, Polish, etc names to blur the really relevant one's. And now you're deny it's importance of the Hungarian culture/history/etc. Posonium, yeah, it's coming from the Hungarian name, and Hungarians not really spoke Latin in reality. (I am not want write an essay about Latin language in Hungary, but if you promise to remain in silence after it, I'll writing it down with pleasure.) But still the most important to encore the importance of the political/cultural influence of the Hungarians and Germans in the city. You should read the article more closely. I am also curious, if the other names are really important as the German and Hungarian names, why only this two has a forward to the actual article? So I say: time to wake up :) --Csendesmark (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why you sorted the Italian, Greek, Polish, etc names to blur the really relevant one's. > Polish name (Bratysława) is missing by the way. For you are only "the really relevant" names Pozsony and Pressburg. The other names are unimportant, also WP rules and WP recommendations are irrelevant for you. Right?

Posonium, yeah, it's coming from the Hungarian name, and Hungarians not really spoke Latin in reality. (I am not want write an essay about Latin language in Hungary, but if you promise to remain in silence after it, I'll writing it down with pleasure.) > Please, do not write another essay. In the Hungarian language the name Pozsony was used, which can be traced back to the name of the Slavonic Prince Bozan or Božan (Posan, Bosan), similarly at the Latin name Posonium.[297][298][299][300]

But still the most important to encore the importance of the political/cultural influence of the Hungarians and Germans in the city. > The history of the city has been strongly influenced by people of different nations and religions, namely by Austrians, Czechs, Germans, Jews, Hungarians, Slovaks and other nations in the multiethnic country. Definitely not only Hungarians and Germans. So again: If there are more names than this (Do you see anywhere "the most important to encore the importance of the political/cultural influence"), or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. Nevertheless, this discussion is about the Naming conventions, the "importance of the political/cultural influence" are totally irrelevant in English WP:Naming conventions, because we have history, etymology, demographics sections in the articles...

I am also curious, if the other names are really important as the German and Hungarian names, why only this two has a forward to the actual article? So I say: time to wake up :) > The article is now protected and you was the last editor before the locking.[301][302] Now do you know why "only really important German and Hungarian names" are in the lead of the actual article? --Omen1229 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Look up what is "forward" means. Csendesmark (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how this discussion continues to change and evolve, and that it can turn back into something that makes sense to me. For example, I do not understand much of what Omen1229 said of the movement for a better Hungary (jobbik) and why it is relevant to the discussion on the matter. Therefore, I might as well suggest closing this discussion on this very board...Nmate (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand very much of what you said in all your comments in this discussion. I ignored your penultimate absurd comment in this discussion[303] and I know your liking for closing/deletion[304][305], but what is your point relevant to the discussion now? --Omen1229 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I would ask you "which part of my messages you did not understand" and that in which way "I know your liking for closing/deletion" (it is not written in correct English grammar btw) pertains to the original subject on mentioning alternative names in the lead if it was of my interest, but I do not care about that. However, it seems that CoolKoon already withdrew himself from this discussion for a while for having troulbe understanding what you are trying to say. Never mind. I will let you discuss with whoever you want, and I hope that at least you understand the underlying reasons and conclusions behind your sentences. I am withdrawing myself from this discussion. Good luck.--Nmate (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

As I said on the article talk page, "Pressburg" should definitely be included, since it was the name the city was known by in English for centuries (and still is in some historical contexts). AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on God

There is a request for comment regarding the scope of the article God at Talk:God#Scope of this article. Any and all input is welcome. This is a rather contentious subject, and I think any and all input would be welcome to help resolve the matter. And, just for informational purposes, this is a regular RfC, not an RfC/U. Quite a few of us are still working on the rather lengthy list of behavioral questions relating to that alleged individual. ;) John Carter (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the mention of RfC/U, and burst out laughing! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

On the page for Christian terrorism, TFD deleted the entire section for Assam today, stating, "Remove - need sources that this was". I reverted the change, and noted on the talk page that the issue was already settled a year ago (and said user was a part of that conversation), and even added another source (though the entire section on India is almost "over"-cited, due to many Christians objecting about its existence). Collect then jumped in, deleting everything again, even my new cites, and is not even PRETENDING to be neutral about it, or follow WP guidelines. He now states that "so far it is only one editor who thinks this has consensus - while all the others do not think it has consensus for inclusion - seems clear here" and keeps deleting everything. There are currently FOUR editors in the discussion, and TWO are in favor of deletion, and TWO are in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, this just happened TODAY, and therefore the idea that a "consensus" has been reached is ludicrous. The section has been in existence for over a year without anyone having a problem with it. This is getting silly, and some cooler heads need to intervene before it gets any uglier. NOTE: TFD has essentially taken the position that "Christian terrorism" does not exist, and Collect is extremely pro-Christian in his POV. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is indeed becoming a bit of a pain the Assam (sorry, I couldn't resist!). There apparently is a sudden outburst of longing to delete a previously stable section of the page, arising it seems from some recent news headlines. It would be helpful to have a few administrative eyes on the page, and maybe it should be full-protected if the edit warring continues. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The personal attacks on me are less than warranted. Mr. Morrigan appears to feel that his sole opinion outweighs Wikipedia policy - and since TFD and I have never before been accused of colluding <g>, I think it remotely possible that Mr. Morrigan's personal opinions on the topic are a problem and not a solution. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Note that calling me "extremely pro-Christian" is sufficiently inapt if one actually reads my edits that it is mere name-calling here. Collect (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm no fan of personal attacks, but it isn't just his opinion that the sourcing of the section is adequate. As for the rest of my opinion, there's too much personalization of the discussion, in both "directions". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just my personal "opinion," and the 15 citations you keep deleting... /sarcasm And you keep acting as if I'm the only one, when there are more people than I opposing your POV-pushing (just as there were more over a year ago when all this originally came up). In fact, most of the citations that are there now were added as a result of you guys WP:KNOWing that "Christian terroism doesn't exist!" (Usually based on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and nothing more...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK folks, since this page is nominally a noticeboard for administrators, maybe it's time to stop debating here, and let the administrators take a look at whether anything requiring their intervention is required. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

See Aubrey's The new dimension of international terrorism, Chapter Five "Typologies of Terrorism" (pp. 43-44): "Six basic types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left-wing, right-wing, and anarchist....The term nationalist terrorism generally connotes the political process of achieving a recognized separate state for a national group....Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely inspired purposes...."[306] This typology is fairly standard and the group mentioned under Assam is categorized under nationalist terrorism because it is attempting to gain self-government.[307][308] While nationalist terrorists may hold left-wing, right-wing, religious or anarchist views, and individual groups may contain members holding a variety or even combination of these views, they are treated distinctly in the literature.

Although Bryonmorrigan appears to believe that religion, rather than nationalist disputes, is the cause of this groups's actions, sources do not agree. Certainly they are both terrorists and Christians, but that is not the definition of the topic. We do not for example include under Islamic terrorism all the Arab nationalist groups, e.g., Abu Nidal, from the 1970s, whose members were mostly Muslims.

Bryonmorrigan has argued that one can be both a nationalist and a Christian terrorist at the same time. Yet none of the sources I have seen place the same group in more than one category.

Going forward I suggest that we only describe groups where there is academic consensus that they are Christian terrorists. We should also mention the minority view that Christianity is the main motivation for most terrorism carried out by nominal Christians, such as Brievik, Timothy Mc Veigh, the Atlanta bomber, the KKK, the Lebanese Phalange, the IRA, etc. But if we jump into descriptions of the actions of these groups then we are creating a POV article that falsely represents there is a consensus view that they were Christian terrorists.

BTW I do not disbelieve that there are Christian terrorists, just that I am unable to find any sources that identify any.

TFD (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, back in April 2011, there are academic sources that disagree with your opinion, such as in the academic journal, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. In the paper, "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," (30:963–983, 2007; DOI: 10.1080/10576100701611288) by Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot, it begins with this paragraph:

"Although armed groups and political violence referring to Islam have attracted increasing attention since the start of the global war against terror, one particular religion can hardly be described as the main source of inspiration of what is commonly referred to as “terrorist acts of violence.” Faith-based violence occurs in different parts of the world and its perpetrators adhere to all major world faiths including Christianity. As such, this article treats three cases of non-state armed actors that explain their actions as being motivated by Christian beliefs and aimed at the creation of a new local society that is guided by religion: the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Ambonese Christian militias." (p. 963)

Here is another line from the article: "If one takes a closer look at the NLFT’s choice of targets, it becomes all the more obvious that the movement is religiously inspired." (p. 967) The only way to conclude that this group does NOT fit into the definition of "Christian Terrorism," is if one has an agenda to deny the existence of "Christian Terrorism." Even by the standards you presented above, "Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely inspired purposes," this citation shows that these groups satisfy the relevant criteria. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish, administrators are only able to deal with behavioral, not content issues. Furthermore, administrators are supposed to take into account the will of the community before taking action. TFD (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder why you just posted a lengthy discussion of content here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Nagaland see [309]. The Christian conversions started in the 1840s and are not "terrorism" nor "forced" per the Encyclopedia of India. [310] The Hindustan Times beloes the claims about Christians being terrorists in Tripura pretty thouroughly -- The Mizos came under the influence of the British missionaries in the 19th century, and now most of the Mizos are Christians. One of the beneficial results of missionary activities was the spread of education," renowned Mizo academician K. Liantlinga said. etc. No match for "Christian terrorism" though terrorism is mentioned inthe article - with zero connection to religion. The sources in the WP article do not back the claims made for them, which I suggest is a real problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So the BBC was lying when it stated the following (from a citation in the article)?:

"The NLFT is accused of forcing Tripura's indigenous tribes to become Christians and give up Hindu forms of worship in areas under their control. Last year, they issued a ban on the Hindu festivals of Durga Puja and Saraswati Puja. The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. The Baptist Church in Tripura was set up by missionaries from New Zealand 60 years ago. It won only a few thousand converts until 1980 when in the aftermath, of the state's worst ethnic riot, the number of conversions grew."

It's wonderful to know that you WP:KNOW better than the BBC, but you are not a WP:RS, chief. Dear Moderators...wherever you are: See what I mean? They aren't reading the citations...but they WP:KNOW that they are "wrong." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The article refers to the NLFT as "separatist rebels".[311] Note another BBC article, which also calls them separatists, says that "it wanted all tribespeople in Tripura to become Christians because the practice of Hinduism has led to them being marginalised by people of Bengali origin living in the state."[312] So it is enforcing religious norms for nationalist reasons. Incidentally as SATP says, the leadership of the NLFT is divided on this approach. And the target is Hindus not non-Christians. TFD (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So anyways...I take it no actual, living "administrators" actually look at this "administrator's noticeboard" then? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that, too. I'm going to ask about it on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:NOT

There is currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? regarding a proposed addition to that policy page. As topics of this nature tend to spawn some of the most heated and contested discussions we have, any and all informed, neutral opinions are more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Abraham

The discussion regarding the above article seems to be getting very much out of control, particularly on the article talk page. I added the {{calmtalk}} and {{notaforum}} to the talk page yesterday, but it doesn't seem to have helped. I would very much appreciate it if some experienced editors who have some familiarity with the subject would try to defuse the situation. Thanks. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Takeshima (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is the target of what appears to be rather a lot of edit warring related to the dispute between Japan and South Korea over one of the article subjects. The article in question, Liancourt Rocks, discusses an island group claimed by both countries and appears to have similar problems. Most recently, User:Iamjapanking removed the disambiguation links in favor of copy-and-paste claims about the islands and undid my revert to the last functional version. A quick look at the history reveals more disruptive behavior by other users dating back over four years. This appears to require both a solution to the regular disruption of the page and a POV review for the actual functional content of the page, neither of which I can provide. Noophilic (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page; it should just lead people somewhere. Not a very complicated issue. The solution in probably more eyes. CMD (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia

Basically three things are happening at the homophobia article that really need fixing. 1) A small group of editors are going against consensus trying to state that homophobia should not be called homophobia because of the fact that it is not a clinical phobia. 2) Some of these same editors are also arguing that you can not use an all-inclusive defintion of homophobia including prejudice, discrimination, opposition and aversion to/of homosexuality. 3) They are also trying to change the name because they consider homophobia a political slur although almost all names for different forms of discriminations are used as political slurs.

This conversation has been going on for quite a while and I would really appreciate if someone would step in and just say enough is enough and end the conversation until someone can find sources. I feel it is very detrimental to the articles growth that we continue over the same topic over and over again when we could improve so much more. Thank you.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this supposedly a "geopolitical", "ethnic" or "religious" conflict? NO. Also, when you do find the right board, you might want to make your canvassing a little more even handed, instead of simply declaring your POV and appealing for help from like-minded editors. Thank you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you could please tell me the proper noticeboard I will gladly move it there. As for my supposed POV I think it is more a matter of consensus rather than what I think. If it was up to me every form of sexual orientation discrimination would be called sexualism because I feel it has more of a negative conotation because of its souding like other forms of discrimination -isms. What I'm trying to do is to be able to get this article out of arguments that have been argued for years until someone can bring sources. I suggest that once appropriate sources can be found we can resurface this. So next time please assume good faith.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this is covered at WP:LGBT/N, and it appears they favor succinct, neutral notices of disputes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Scanning the page, they also seem to prefer to not yet have dealt with disputes reported to them in May 2010. Formerip (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If what you are looking for is merely consensus regarding the term homophobia, then you must accept my personal opinion as part of the consensus. I agree that the way the term is used today does not classify it as a clinical phobia. The basis that one dislikes or discriminates against homosexuals does not necessarily mean that individual has a fear of them (as in the literal definition of homophobia). I believe that listing someone as scared of tomatoes because he/she does not like the way they taste is a good example of what I'm talking about here. You are not scared of something if you simply do not like it. However, terms in the English language frequently adapt new meanings as time goes on. Some words commonly associated with homosexuality (such as "gay" and "faggot") were once completely unrelated to homosexuals. What a term means in any language relies solely on the context in which people use the term. Consensus is indeed the way this issue needs to be solved, however I do not feel that Wikipedia is the place to determine such things, and we will allow literature such as dictionaries to define terms. To my best of knowledge, homophobia does not yet appear in said literature as a term describing opposition to homosexual culture. -Rob^talk 22:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

United States Military Date Proposal

A discussion on the encyclopedic need for the use of military dates on United States military related articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to strike out the requirement that American military articles use military dates. Please join in.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Steeler Nation Criticism

Please feel free to read & comment here. Thank you. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Megali Idea

Several IP users (all of which geolocate to Greece, and some of which may be socks) and one named editor have kept removing sourced content from the Megali Idea article relating to Golden Dawn's desire to revive the Idea. One of these editors accused me of holding "Turkish nationalist opinions" when I reverted his removal. I am anything but a Turkish nationalist (I'm actually an American). We might need some more pairs of eyes watching that article because it's turning into a slow-motion edit war. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. The neo-nazi label is rather inflammatory, though - I think we should either get better sourcing for such a strong claim, or just drop it. bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian territories

Could somebody take a look at Talk:Palestinian_territories#Infobox please. I started out as a dispute over the infobox, especially over if it should have a flag and coat of arms (My understanding is that think the argument opposing the flag/Coa was that they are Palestinian National Authority/State of Palestine symbols, not Palestinian symbols), but it seams to have turned into is Palestine a contrary, I think. It's getting hard to follow. Like I said, Could somebody take a look at this please? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with a film-maker

Hi all,
There's a controversy over an obscure Serbian film-maker called Boris Malagurski (and some of his films). There seem to be two underlying problems - one of self-promotion (User:Bormalagurski was blocked, but has continued to sock) and one of Balkan history - his films take a perspective on recent events in Kosovo & Serbia which is rather different to the perspective of mainstream sources, and some people would like to promote that perspective very much. This combination has created a rather difficult editing environment, including a little edit-warring, over two points in particular - the descriptions of his films' content, and whether or not he has genuinely won prestigious awards from hitherto-unknown film festivals (some of which can be traced to some nameless person or recently-taken-down website based in Malagurski's home town). Would anybody uninvolved like to drop in and have a look?

• Boris Malagurski
• Kosovo: Can You Imagine?
• Talk:The Weight of Chains

Any attempt to get the articles to reflect the balance of reliable sources say is reverted as "vandalism" by Urbanvillager. Meanwhile, WhiteWriter has offered [313] and [314] as evidence that Malagurski won awards, even though neither of those pages names either Malagurski or his films. And then Whitewriter opened a retaliatory SPI on me, simply because there was another editor reverting some of the POV-pushing. This is very frustrating. Would anybody else like to have a look? bobrayner (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but ANI is a more appropriate board.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is likely to bring much drama, and perhaps ARBMAC thunderbolts would fall from the sky; I was hoping we could settle the problems in a more civilised way, with the help of folk who are used to Balkanesque disputes. :-) bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Regarding WP:NC-TW

I have opened a Request for Comment regarding WP:NC-TW, which was part of the policy regarding naming conventions related to Taiwan, and Republic of China, but since been removed and marked inactive. There is no current policy placed in place of WP:NC-TW, so the request for comment seeks a replacement for it. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Persian Gulf / Arabian Gulf edits

Occasionally, someone (usually an IP editor) will edit an article solely to change Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf or vice-versa. I've read some of the controversy in various places here, but it's kind of scattered so it's unclear whether there was a clear consensus. Is there a policy as to what to do about these, if anything? There does not appear to be a Uw-* template on the subject; should there be?

(This is a repeat of a (repeat of a) posting at WP:ANI, in the hopes of gaining a wider or more interested audience) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an article at Persian Gulf naming dispute. "Persian Gulf" is the traditionally-accepted term in English, and the term almost always used by English native speakers before the 1980s, but I don't know of any official Wikipedia policy on the matter. AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that we follow what our sources uses; in the case of place names, we look, in particular, to the names used in the world's top atlases and encyclopedias. In this case, as far as I know, the term used in high quality English sources, as well as the terms accepted by major national and international bodies (outside of the region itself) is "Persian Gulf". We must, therefore, use that name, except in the case of a direct quote that uses the term "Arabian Gulf". As for a warning, you could write one by hand, but a warning for NPOV should suffice (since it's essentially POV pushing to attempt to change from the international English name to a local name). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)