Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts

Discuss a geopolitical ethnic or religious conflict

What this noticeboard is for: Editors may express their concerns with regard to ethnic, national, and cultural editing conflicts here and bring them to the attention of others. Bringing difficult issues to this noticeboard may further this goal by encouraging wider input from the community. Situations requiring immediate administrative action should go to the incidents noticeboard. Situations requiring immediate enforcement of arbitration committee remedies should go to the enforcement noticeboard.

When starting a discussion: Please link to the relevant article(s). If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread. Consider also including some background information, not only relating to the specific dispute, but also the relevant ethnic or religious conflict. If you do this you are far more likely to get an effective response.

Reporting form

Enter the name of the article in the space below:

Mardin

The editor Kansa Bear gave two French references that I cannot verify [5] and [6], and alleges a genocide. I had removed the genocide accusation but it was reverted back. Please help resolve this matter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozer1 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 

Urmia

Dear Administrator

The Kurdish minority of Urmia City is violating the article by adding wrong information like 'Kurdland' and 'Kurdish Republic' which is highly unethical. Please protect this article from violation.

Sincerely Yours, A Citizen from Urmia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salarfazli1990 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dravidians: Caucasoids or Australoids?

I almost got too involved in a trans-article edit war between Bodhidharma7 (talk · contribs) and MThekkumthala (talk · contribs). The latter user has received the support of Tamilan101 (talk · contribs) and Nayak52 (talk · contribs) in different articles at different times. Bodhidharma7's edits are generally in line with the most RSs provided, but there are some issues with his behavior and overapplication; while the latter group (South Indian, if not Dravidian) has been attempting to remove any connection between Dravidians and any non-Indian race (in addition to similar issues with behavior and overapplication), either not citing sources or providing improper sources (such as a screenplay), attempting to portray Indians as a coherent people instead of a conglomeration of various genetic and cultural groups. This is news to me, as every source I've seen (which didn't have a political agenda) holds that the Indo-Aryans were part of the Indo-European family who migrated into India, and that the Dravidians were the previous inhabitants, which is why Dravidian languages do not have cognates in other IE languages any more than Semitic or Bantu.

The Dravidian peoples article is probably the easiest example of this complicated mess, but it goes all over the place. I'm going to try to pull out of it (too big a mess and not my type of mess, and classes starting again), but something needs to be done, and this problem isn't going to be solved by blocking Bodhidharma7 and MThekkumthala or expecting them to work things out.

MThekkumthala stated at WP:AN/EW that "To be proud to be a Dravidian means also being solidary with fellow Dravidians in their fight against darkness in persona of Bodhidarma and his Aryan fellowship." This pretty strongly indicates which side has an agenda here.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MThekkumthala's statement has a vision but also conforms to a defensive posture against slander sourced from another POV that is culturally more dominant in South Asia. A defensive posture is to be expected from those that try to help define the Dravidian identity, as this identity is subject to antagonistic bias from several angles, the first being traditional North Indian and Pakistani regional bias Both vary in historical roots (the Pakistani sources are both in traditional regional bias an well as a relatively new national bias) and in intensity. The second force is a British bias for those they identified with most closely (and subsequently, against those that they found furthest from themselves phenotypically). The Pakistani racial bias (promoted nationally) is not a flimsy theory, as it is well known that a feeling of racial superiority facilitated the horrific race-based genocide policies implemented in the war of 1971 towards East Pakistan (Bangladesh). I will insert a recent news mention of this very event though it has been documented in Wikipedia already: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16502175

Bodhidharma7's weak citings further the (very much false ) racist underpinnings of the same racist theories that are psuedoscience at best. Dravidian languages are entirely distinct from Australoid languages. It is well known that a large minority of the racially Australoid peoples living in scattered regions along the southern India speak Dravidian languages rather than Australoid languages. This does not mean that the larger Dravidian group should thereby be classified as "Austroloid". Bodhidharma7 citings are either taken out of context and do not support that the categorization he supports is the "general" one that academic articles support. One citing claims the categorization of Dravidians as "austroloid" is to be used as a convenience as it doesn't impact the aims of the study, and admits to this inaccuracy later. This does not reflect the general categorization of Dravidian people. A quick Google search ignoring the POV dominated wikipedia results easily reveals that Dravidians are more often categorized as Caucasian, though this is also not a consistent view. It does negate Bodhidharma7's claim that Dravidian's are "generally" classified as Austroloids, however.

I am not sure whether the editor is a POV warrior himself in this case or if Bodhidharma7's use of wiki process has prevailed in promoting an otherwise rather obvious and regressive POV. The sources cited do not directly support the racial categorizations implied. I have categorically dissected the sources such as the citing of the Negrito race as part of the Indian racial landscape is only applicable if one includes a tiny community living in an island territory that India inherited as part of the legacy of British India. Their is nothing but clarification of a source involved in the retort, whereas the POV claim attempts to paint a less accurate racial picture of the people of South India, most likely with the aim of demonizing the opposing group by making them seem more alien. (Genetic Studies have proven that both North Indians and Pakistanis themselves have strong Dravidian admixture, though this is typically denied/ignored outside of academic studies. Admittedly, those that are battling Bodhidharma7's POV campaign are not providing sources for the retorts as per process, though readily accessible sources that negate the delusional theories are abundant.

I also question the editor's confidence in labeling the opponents of the POV edits as "South Indians". I am not South Indian nor of South Indian origin. I also find the editor's reactions to be unfair considering several items. The more extensive and detailed studies on south asian ethnography, linked to directly from this very wiki page, do not support Bodhidharma7's POV and actually counter its claims logically. -It is well known that Dravidian peoples supplanted an existing (though sparse in numbers) an Austroloid community in several regions along the south eastern coastal area of India. This is mentioned in the very same page and cited. -The categorization of Dravidian peoples is not one that is settled. Those that support Bodhidharma7's POV are not prevalent, and not so concerned with the science, but alternatively attempt to categorize the Dravidian community as either racially black African or Australoid, neither of which are substantiated, fair or logical (Dravidian languages are not linked to Bantu or other African languages either). Instead this bias reveals a deeper racist undercurrent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayak52 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether the question "Are Dravidians Caucasoids or Australoids?" has any scientific usefulness or validity at all... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See also the edit history and talk page of Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia where they have been edit warring. They have now been (properly I think) blocked for a week, and if this behavior continues after they are unblocked a topic ban may be aoppropriate. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This conversation should be put on hold for the moment, since both Bodhidharma and MThekkumthala have been blocked for a week. I fear that if you try to come to solution now, it will only fall apart once they both come back. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The scientific usefulness of that question is probably limited. There is a POV that "Dravidians are Caucasoid" that is certainly not consistently supported either (race is not a scientific distinction). The assertion that "Dravidians are Austroloid" is less commonly held, however, and absolutely negated by genetic studies, even in the Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia page where racist POV warriors are aiming their guns at South Indian/ Dravidian heritage. No example of an mtDNA halogroup there however, links Dravidians with Austroloids. Linguistically, some Austrolid groups in India have adopted Dravidian tongues. Austrian Aborigines now mostly speak English, this does not make the English people now Australoid, racially. Its more accurate to describe Dravidian people (like Basques and others) as a group that does not fit traditional racial divisions (race is not a scientific construct to begin with). The Austroloid association however, is not accurate and instead promotes a racist POV. This does not help anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayak52 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thompson claims, that the sources support those edits. But there is none, which clearly says, that all Dravidians were Australoids. He ignores all modern sources, which clearly say, that Dravidians were Caucasoid or racially undefined. He ignores the Caucasian race article totally, which deals also with the race of the Dravidians, their classification in the past and present. There are similarly many reliable sources, which distinguish clearly between Dravidians and Australoids as seperate racial stocks.

There is a common misconception, that Caucasoid would mean "White people". This is due to the official American usage of the word "Caucasian" in racial classification. In science, Caucasoid means people with Caucasoid facial structures. It doesn't have anything to do with skin colour. Let me tell you also that white people have descended from Albinos. There are many types of Albinism. It can be very strong, like in people we usually call Albinos, but also light, where Albinism doesn't necessarilly mean, that the hair needs to be white or eyes red. As you see, there are many shades of Albinism and Caucasians belongs to those. There is no reason to think, that I desperately look for a link with "Caucasians" as some of you guys might think. This is an insult to our race, likewise a classification as Australoid is only insulting with no truth about it and no good source.. It is thus only practical to remove all references to Caucasians and Australoids and keep the more senseful ones like "dark Caucasoids", "Dravidian race", "unclear race" as these make some kind of sense atleast.--MThekkumthala (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Albinism has very little to do with race (individuals of almost any racial background can be albinos), and has relatively little to do with species for that matter (since Albinism is found across many species of animals). AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Albinism comes in different forms. And the white people developed due to several migration waves of Albinoid people up to the north, because they couldn't handle intense sun. There they intermingled with other subtypes of Albinoid people. Gene complexes responsible for the "white" appearance have been identified and studied. The white skin of Europeans and East Asians is due to Albinism of type OCA4, while properties like light eye color and blonde hair is Albinism of type OCA2. These properties can only be replicated when Albinoid people intermingle with themselves. You are referring to the "regular" Albinos, extreme variants of Albinism. Caucasian race = mix of various subtypes of Albinism. --MThekkumthala (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Since MThekkumthala has just made the same edit to the article that is under dispute--only xyr 4th edit after they prior 1 week edit-warring block expired--I've reblocked xyr for 1 month for continuing the edit war. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just looking through the contributions, this appears to be a reincarnation of Kalarimaster who has a penchant for coming to notice boards in addition to the "fringe Dravidian" worldview. And this definitely doesn't appear to be a coincidence -- the main IP (he also has a few others, but the main one's static) -- 84.112.212.62 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) was hardblocked until Oct 29 2011 and that's the date the MThekkumthala account was created and contributions started. Time to indef and extend the IP hard block I think. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, you're agreeing from experience that the alterations to the relevant articles are indeed fringe? I just want that completely clear so that other editors can see. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing to that, just suggesting that it's an extremely likely scenario based on all the socks I've encountered. I haven't read the additions in detail at all, I just checked the pattern. Also, I haven't any knowledge on races so I can't really comment on it -- I normally just send over such stuff to the Hon. Dougweller (who has already commented) or Dab, but this business of "all Dravidian brothers unite to fight the evil Aryan/Brahmin domination of Wikipedia" and adding obscure fringe sources is a standard theme of Kalarimaster, and I've been blocking his socks for a couple of years now. I just have no reason to believe that his behavior in this instance would be any different from what he's been doing for over three years across many many articles ranging from geographical to linguistic to biographical to film (he was already de-facto banned before I started editing here!). —SpacemanSpiff 15:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

South Indians who are speakers of the Dravidian linguistic group cannot be grouped as "Australoids". This is a very controversial claim; there are many sources that claim they are of Caucasoid stock or Australoid or even mixed. Claiming them as purely Australoid is wrong because South Indians don't even share the same physical characteristics as of the australoids. South Indians have predominantly straight to wavy/curly hair to a lesser extent. Most have straight and sharp nose bridges, small foreheads and jaws and as well as varying degrees of lip size. It is obvious that some tribals in India are of Australoid or Veddoid stock, however South Indians cannot be labelled as Australoids. Language cannot equate race. Just because South Indians do not speak "Indo-Aryan" languages and are darker in skin tone does not mean they are of different racial stock. Skin colour has nothing to do with race, it is only an adaptation to the sunlight.(Tamilan101 (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

And no non-fringe sources were provided for the non-Australoid claim. The alterations to the articles are not saying they are from Australia, but that Southern India has a higher concentration of DNA markers found in the Australoid group. Big difference. Turning it into a linguistic matter is a straw-man argument. And wow, you're bringing up cranial shapes? A technique that's kinda been ignored in the past 70 years for a reason? I know people of European descent with flat short noses, large lips, and curly hair; and people of African descent with long tall noses, thin lips, and comparatively straight hair. DNA markers are more reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bigot attitude in Religion in Africa toward other religions than Islam mainly African religions

Religion in Africa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I know I probably won't resolve the issue with the post, but I want to point out the racist and bigot attitude displayed by 2 editors and this administrator involved in the edit of that page. He blocked one reliably sourced edit by me to take place in an edit war but allow the other user involve in the edit war to implement his compromise solution before reaching consensus and the end of the dispute resolution and the Request for comment. When somebody like me want to pass a minority view (like related to religion) but a point of view that is not a minority in the sources or in academic text (for example I cited 3 encyclopedias), we need to rely on the Administrator to do their job impartially and without bias. I would like some good people to look up into it. What can you do when 2 editors refuse to acknowledge any reliable sources and are helped by an administrator in refusing the edit and proceed to edit the same subject on the wikipedia page before the RTC and any kind of dispute resolution and consensus? Technically, I would like the version to at least come back to the previous stable version until consensus is found and until the end of the dispute resolution procedure. All edits by Halaqah who was involved in the edit war should be rolled back until then. Maybe you should check out the approval and feedback process of your administrator too. Thank you. 76.71.203.229 (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see four editors with accounts and one IP reverting you (presuming I'm tracing your edits that weren't with this IP address correctly). I don't see the Administrator who is editing there taking any Administrative actions. I do see his post to another editor's talk page - User talk:Halaqah#Small revert on Religion in Africa where he's asking the editor not to "make any changes like that that change the balance/weight of the info about syncretism while the RfC is still ongoing." And see the bit at the top where it says "If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread."? You haven't done that. I don't see any need to discuss this further at the moment as there is little chance anyone here is going to roll the article back. And I strongly suggest you refrain from calling other editors bigots. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just about to leave for the night, but saw this and thought I'd mention that I'm the admin in question; I'll give a full accounting of my actions tomorrow. Until then, I request that no one roll back anything, as I believe that my explanation will show that that should not happen (even though I if you see my most recent comment on the talk page, I do sympathize with the IP and don't think xyr opinions are being heard as well as they should be). Qwyrxian (talk)

The history shows the personality of the ip editor and his reluctance to "compromise." or understand. Please consider this "... they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others." [1] Admins job is to differentiate- and call it. Let me just add something that is getting missed over and over again. The IPs references have been included in the article. I have created a NPOV section which reflects all his concerns. So I disagree strongly with Qwyrxian that ip's opinions are not being heard. Let me sum up what is turning into a pick issue b/c of one ip's POV: he wants to put his references in a specific place - that is it! WP:WEIGHT = You cannot over generalize a complex continent- My God isnt that obvious as Africa is so large??? common sense alone tells us a more precise approach is better. (as i have done in the extended section). So What is there to hear Admin? "it is true, I want to edit, I have references"- ip editor (did I miss something in his argument? 1 week of this repetition. What is there to sympathize with, save persistence? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As one of the editors that the IP demonizes above, I feel I should point out some inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in his post. For starters, the situation at hand is actually a pretty standard content dispute. It has nothing to do with "race" nor does it involve any such race-related wiki article. The content dispute strictly concerns Religion in Africa; specifically, instances of syncretic practices amongst the continent's various communities. Secondly, no editors have said or done anything untoward that could be conceived as "bigotry", so it's unfortunate that the IP should now engage in personal attacks. This can easily be confirmed by reading through the actual talk page discussion in question and its request for comment subsection (which, tellingly, the IP has not linked to). It's also a bit disingenuous of the IP to attack Halaqah for editing the article while the discussion was still going on given the fact that he himself attempted to unilaterally insert material as soon as the page's protection had been lifted (c.f. [2], [3]). In fact, the page had to be promptly re-protected since the IP was again revert-warring over the issue [4]. The main difference between the IP's edits and Halaqah's are that the latter actually reflect something that's beginning to approach a rough consensus whereas the former don't. Yet another editor has weighed in on the RfC in favor of a nuanced approach to the issue i.e. against the IP's position. An unsuccessful attempt at convincing others of one's argument is still no excuse for badmouthing them, though. A more mature approach is required. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Back for my explanation. First, a chronology of what happened, then a summary of the overall issues as I see them. Due to a shortness of time, I'm not providing diffs now, but am happy to do so later if anyone needs them.

1. I saw a request for semi-protection (made by Halaqah if memory serves), so I investigated the situation.
2. Looking at the article history at that time, along with the talk page discussion that existed, I saw 3 editors edit warring; two on one side, one on the other, and the other happened to be an IP. None of them had crossed 3RR. No one was breaking any policies other than edit warring (i.e., this was a content dispute, not someone reverting vandalism or BLP issues).
3. As such, I decided to fully protect the article. While technically the IP was warring against consensus, a 2-1 consensus is quite weak, the IP was discussing the issue, and had even provided sources. I saw no reason to privilege the registered editors over the IP. I explained this rationale on the article's talk page. It happened that the version I protected was the IP's preferred version, but only because it was the current version.
4. Halaqah became upset, falsely claiming that they had consensus, that I should fix the article to match that consensus. I declined, and insisted discussion continue.
5. 5 days later, I felt that discussion had stalled. No one else had arrived at the discussion, and neither side was persuading the other. As such, I started an RfC on behalf of the IP (who did not seem to know how to pursue dispute resolution), instructed everyone to stop edit warring, and unprotected the page.
6. Within 8 hours, the IP began edit warring again to add their preferred version. I reverted twice, then semi-protected the page. Had the user not been on a dynamic IP, I would have blocked just xem instead. I explained this on the talk page.
7. Subsequently, the Halaqah has made a lot of edits to the article; some of them are related indirectly to the previous edit war, but none directly effecting the same section. The IP has been complaining to me that I need to drop the protection or revert to the post-protection version; I have declined, because while I agree that no non-minor edits should take place in the specifically disputed part, the RfC is targetted to one section and thus should not prevent other article changes.
8. Also, Halaqah is trying to claim that the IP's edit warring and talk page behavior are proof that I should have semi-protected from the start, that xe is entirely right and the IP is entirely wrong.

Here's my bigger summary of the underlying. Halaqah and Middayexpress do have "consensus", but it's just the two of them, and consensus is not a simple majority. I believe that the problem is that see themselves as being the defender of this page, as well as a number of other pages related to religion and Africa. They have advanced a lot of arguments on the talk page against the IPs version. Some of them are sound, others, though, are based on their presumption of discrimination and original research. The IP has produced a large number of reliable sources that state nearly exactly what xe wants to add; Halaqah and Middayexpress are arguing against the change based on undue weight. Part of the problem, is that the IP doesn't seem to understand how WP:UNDUE works. The other part of the problem is that Halaqah and Middayexpress are very close to having ownership problems, and aren't really listening to the IP--the very fact that the IP can produce so many sources that make this exact claim is evidence that there is weight to the claim. The only solution I can see to this problem is for the RfC to bring in outside editors. Possibly another form of DR will also be necessary (mediation, DRN, etc.) if the RfC does not solve the problem. Finally, I welcome review of my conduct in this; in my defense, though, I believe that there's something to be said for the fact that both sides are unhappy with my actions. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to add one thing; the IP has been complaining that Halaqah changed the section in question (the one the RfC is on) while xe is prevented from reverting by the semi-protection. I didn't notice the change; the IP kindly spelled it out for me. I have removed the 2.5 sentences added by Halaqah to the specific section in question until the RfC is done. It is correct that the IP cannot edit the article because xe was edit warring. It is also correct that Halaqah cannot use this time to introduce further changes that the IP objects to while the RfC is in progress. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I can't speak for others, but Qwyrxian's charges above regarding my supposedly having ownership issues over this article are definitely inaccurate. I am a member of WikiProject Africa and this Religion in Africa major article falls under that scope. I also only made one edit to the page while the dispute in question was already in progress between Halaqah and the IP (viz. [5]). The rest of my edits were all discussion-based and were posted to the article's talk page. Nowhere in those comments did I tell the IP he couldn't add material on syncretism. Quite the opposite; I indicated to him that his various assertions to the effect that "Africans practice syncretism" were over-generalizations that needed further qualification. This can be confirmed by actually reading my (rather mundane) comments here. Also, please note that it is actually not just Halaqah and I that take exception to this oversimplication. The uninvolved admin Llywrch, who has just responded to the RfC, does as well and has posted a compelling message to that effect. Unless Qwyrxian is counting himself as supporting the IP's argument (in which case, that would make him an involved editor per WP:INVOLVED), then that's indeed approaching a rough consensus. Despite this, I agree that it's probably best to wait until the RfC has ended before making any major changes to the section. Middayexpress (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Middayexpress, you are correct that I was wrong to treat you and Halaqah equally; you both have problems, though they're not exactly the same. I definitely note that you have not been active in the actual editing itself save for the single revert, which I appreciate as at least it keeps the article from ping-ponging back and forth. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian revolution

I was doing an IP patrol and noticed that the 2011 Egyptian revolution article had a citation request removed, along with a section on a town called Tanta. The infobox was also changed, with information relating to the number of protesters added. IP lists as being from Kuwait. I have asked for some explanation, but without response. I'm not an expert on Egypt, and can't judge the nature of the edits. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor has comments on their talk page suggesting that they may be an experienced WP editor. I am more confused than ever why they haven't discussed the changes; perhaps it is a shared IP? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC) TreacherousWays (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)