Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard

Welcome to the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding ethnic, national, and cultural editing conflicts. Consider 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. Situations requiring immediate administrative action should go to the incidents noticeboard. Situations requiring immediate enforcement of the arbitration committee remedies should go to the enforcement noticeboard. Volunteers: To mark an issue resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of its section. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:CCN-notice}} to do so.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search this noticeboard & archives

User:Yousaf465 on an Anti-India Propoganda

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

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

Also, the edit you (Tinucherian) complained about ([2]) is a) over two weeks old and b) has not removed the Pakistan part, but moved it to a different location in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Personal Union

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

During edit warring in article Croatia in personal union with Hungary user Bizso is not disputing existence of personal union only validity of document with which union is created [3], but in articles he has started to delete title King of Croatia from rulers of this personal union ? For example I will use article about Ferdinand I Habsburg [4] . I really do not have time for looking on internet for old money or old documents about all articles which he has started to change like I have done for Ferdinand I [5]. On money of Ferdinand I is writen: "Ferdinand, by the grace of God king of Bohemia, Hungary, Dalmatia & Croatia, prince of Spain, archduke of Austria, duke of Burgundy & Silesia, margrave of Moravia".

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

Maybe, maybe there is good faith mistake of user Bizso because for him Lands of St. Stephen=Kingdom of Hungary [6] which are in reality different things. Link for article Lands of St. Stephen before massive rewriting of user Bizso [7].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Hungarian regional admin board:

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

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

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

SSNP Slander, POV and vandalism

Hello, can someone take a look at the malicious and politically motivated editing that has been added to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party article recently. Over the past few days the page has been attacked and remade framing the party as a fascist Nazi spin off. The sources being used are all polemicists with a hostile agenda against the party. It seems probable that the editing is being done by a Jewish pro-Zionist editor and his sockpuppets. I suggest reversing the past weeks edits to around this edit [8] and fully protecting the page from any further changes for a while. What do you think? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Rjecina

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Croatia was part of Kingdom of Hungary from 1102/1091-1918. It is disputed whether Croatia joined to Hungary by a personal union in 1102, or was conquered by Hungary in 1091.It is not disputed that Croatia was given limited internal autonomy over some of her affairs; sometimes more, sometimes less. The Lands of St Stephen was the official name for Kingdom of Hungary. This is stated in virtually all reliable, verifiable sources and historical maps including Britannica 2009 and Encarta. Rjecina cannot accept this fact owing to his patriotic/nationalistic emotions, thus he alters history at least on Wikipedia. What user Rjecina presents is that Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia were two separate independent kingdoms and the only common between them was the ruler. This is in fact not true. Croatia was ruled by Hungarian kings and a ban was appointed to the administrative district that was Croatia. When he asserts these facts, he furthermore doesn't provide any references, or when he does so, the references he cites in fact support the contrary what he states or refer to entirely different historic periods (Kingdom of Croatia before the Hungarian rule). Hence, in fact he attempts to manipulate the reader hoping that she/he doesn't check the references. See.[9] and [10].

See some example sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 and Encyclopedia Encarta 2009 that state the academic level viewpoint that Croatia was in fact ruled by Hungary, Britannica 1911 especially stating the Croatia was a province of Hungary. Rjecina cannot accept this, thus he censors Wikipedia and engages into edit wars. See Talk:Croatia_in_personal_union_with_Hungary titled Croatia-Slavonia in the Kingdom of Hungary. but it appears he has removed other users relevant and valuable comments again for I don't know how many times now.[11] [12] and again [13]. He deleted my comments too, removing circa 30 sources including Britannica and Encarta among other English academic sources [14] He is stating the Britannica and Encarta peddle Fringe theories Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_in_the_Middle_Ages The problem is that Rjecina cannot discuss nor edit these articles in an objective manner, beause he doesn't acknowledge all competing viewpoints. Although this is fair enough, because everyone is entitled to have an opinion regarding a matter. But Wikipedia should be objective on the other hand, and should not include personal reflections and assertions of the users who edit it, without any references.

He introduces false facts[15], in addition he removes Britannica refernces [16] and doesn't respond on the talk page Talk:Croatia#Questions and also fails to explain himself here when he removed references againTalk:Croatia#User:Rjecina. He cannot accept the validity of Britannica, nor the 1911 edition nor the 2009 edition, just because it says something else that he would like to hear. Hence, as he can't edit britannica or encarta, he changes articles on Wikipedia. see Talk:Triune_Kingdom_of_Croatia,_Slavonia,_and_Dalmatia As a result he removes Britannica 2009 refernces 1st time[17], 2nd time [18], 3rd time[19]. 4th time [20] Now, he removes references from Encyclopedia Encarta.[21]. He calls Academic references "Spam"[22] He deliberately maintains ambiguity and makes disruptive edits here[23], [24], here [25], here again [26], again [27], he sometimes deletes it altogether [28] in addition to the citation needed tags[29]. When I add the other competing academic viewpoint (that he personally supports) to an article to balance it out and include all significant viewpoints, he changes that too![30] Even the one that he supports, which suggests that he is simply stalking me now.

He maintains ambiguity although article is tagged for in need of Copy-Editing[31] However, he also engages in nationalistic conflicts with other users hereTalk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Removal_of_images and censors images that hurt his nationalistic feelings regarding history of Croatia and Serbia.[32]He not only deletes talk pages, but also censors articles by removing additional realibly sourced information because he can't take it. He removed sourced information from Encyclopedia of the Holocaust by Shelach[33]

He blanks talk pages that do not suit his personal view. He removed sourced references from talk page.[34] [35]Removed even more sourced references from talk page but left other viewpoint there. He deletes the competing academic level viewpoint and on top that removes references and replaces unreferenced tag and maintains a POV frok[36]. He removes citation needed tags and introduces inaccuracy to suit his views, removes other additional information thus maintains biased sentences[37]

On top of all this, he is constantly accusing me of being a socket puppet of other users that dare to question Rjecina's neutral point of view and of those who also oppose Rjecina's nationalistic POV pushing. He calls me Vandal[38], and my edits disruptive[39] without any basis.

He now has started reverting other users' edits too, because he believes that they are me.[40][41][42][43][44] [45]

Some quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not surprisingly he has deleted talk page comments again, [46] many times now...-

He is unstoppable :) [47] [48] [49] should I keep on listing edit diffs?---Bizso (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Browsing Rjecina's edit history I have come across some pretty interesting edits. He increases the population of Croats in the world around 3 times in some countries without updating the reference and includes that "unless you have a reliable source, don't even think about changing these numbers". I checked the sources and, naturally, they support the old numbers that were there before his edits. Sometimes he provides different sources like at Italy where he increased population by 2 times to 41,360, but actually, his new source supports the old numbers too. At Sweden he incremented the number of Croats by more than 10 times to 64,900, wheres the source he cites says 6,063. Then he undoes any edits that try to correct his false numbers.[50] line 47-95, his original [51], and another reverted user who wanted to correct his "numbers"[52]. This is just another instance how he attempts to manipulate the reader, hoping that they don't question his edits and check the sources, and just shows that he has indeed a conflict of interest with his Croatian roots and cannot subdue his nationalistic attitude. He intentionally degrades the quality and reliability of Wikipedia. --Bizso (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[53] [54] [55] sigh, this is vandalism now, again removed Britannica refs--Bizso (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• The very bad thing is that this user Rjecina always gets away without any punishment by finding an administrator shielding him/her. I've got his/her 'explanation' for reverting other people's contributions here [56] which says: If not your edits are without discussion vandalism or POV pushing. I've called him/her to explain his/her reasons for apparent vandalism - which was rejected by this 'explanation' - in a very poor English and against the very letter of Wikipedia. May I ask LessHeard (as an administrator)- why he/she is not shielding Wikipedia? As to the so is the campaign by a few (despite the very many account names) - I could count at least 10 of them and, saying 'despite the very many account names', is in the Rjecina's line to call everyone who opposes him/hes a sock-puppet, SPA account,etc. --138.88.15.10 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Revolutionarybpp

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

77.253.65.101

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

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

In my opinion there are three solutions:

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

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

Sfiha

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Stale

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

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

Stale

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-Semitic comments

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

Judaization of Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is another problem related to the name of the article that I find problematic. Pro-Palestinian activists have been saying for decades that they are not anti-Jewish or antisemitic, but anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. Virtually all such groups (no matter how radical in other respects) have been very careful to distinguish between these. Yet the name, and section headings frame [57] the article in terms of exactly Judaism. This article says, by its very name, that the problem is the Jews Judaization of Jerusalem. The name frames the problem of the demographics changes in Jerusalem in terms of a Jewish problem. This goes directly against all those decades of claims to the contrary. An amazing development. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

As for my frequent mention of frame [58], the reason is that this is an important concept for understanding the nature of this problem, and not everyone is familiar with George Lakoff's important contributions to understanding this problem. In the article, and its subheadings, the word "Judaization" is used to frame the discussion of changes in Jerusalem demographics in a negative way. That is why the name needs to be changed to a more neutral title. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Černová tragedy

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

Gilad Atzmon

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

History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Origins to 1967

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

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

Macedonia terminology on articles relating to Greece

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

Sathya Sai Baba and a history of conflict

This article has been plagued with issues in its history. Just recently it was subject to two BLP Noticeboard threads ([59], [60]), a request for comment ([61]), an Edit-Warring Noticeboard thread ([62]), to name a few. It was even brought to arbitration which eventually passed resolutions, although they have had little effect as evidenced by this stale Arbitration Enforcement thread ([63]).

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

Macedonia

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

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

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

Al Qamishli

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

RfC - Pejorative terminology

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

Piracy in Somalia Edit War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping.

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

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

Here is my edit:

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

Here is his edit:

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

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

Horn of Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm going to ignore the WP:HOUNDING by you Ackees. Suspicion of you having a 'agenda' is not without 'warrant' I remember your name from when i visited the E1b1b article's talkpage(only a month ago) when you were edit-warring with several wiki-editors about the image of a Somali politician and how he in your eyes didn't look Somali[64]. Other than stating that the Somali Politician resembled a Greek/Mexican you failed to make your point why he didn't look Somali and resorted to blame it all on the 'White racist Boogeymen'. If anyone is feeling their 'interests are 'threatened' by reliable sources it would be you since you have a clear pre-conceived image of what Somalis are supposed to look like and therefore probably also the Horn of Africa! Your history again on a deleted section of the E1b1b clearly demonstrates that you have an agenda that you are pursuing[65]. There another editor made it clear that 'race' was not an obselete term but was still very much a subject of debate, Middayexpress also made the same point here[66]. The majority Ethnic groups of the Horn of Africa constitute a clear distinct population from the rest of Africa. Wether it's the majority Cushitic/Ethiopic languages that are only found there, the unique Cultural heritage, the classical Horn of African phenotype evolved over thousands of years, or the genetical markers predominant in Horn Africans and which originated in the Horn of Africa. Highlighting this is not 'racism' as Midday has given you plenty of scholars that follow this line of thinking. Your edits on sports page with regards to countries such as Somalia and Djibouti were horrible hence why both me and Middayexpress began balancing it out by adding Somali athletes --Scoobycentric (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Scooby,

First you falsely accuse me of WP:HOUNDING - and then immediately admit that after hounding me a month ago on the Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA), you faithfully obeyed Middayexpress's command to come and hound me some more on the Horn of Africa page[67]. All 'populations' are distinct from, or are indeed linked to, all others - depending on whatever arbitrary measure one wishes to use. For example, if we were to take the 'far right' as our arbitrary category, then crypto-fascist Euro-Americans pretending to be Somali nationalists are a 'distinct population' from neo-fascist North Italians eager to relive the glories of Il Duce. Nevertheless, both are linked by a common pseudo-scientific anti-rational heritage that remains obsessed with 19th-century myths about 'race', 'racial purity', 'racial difference' etc, etc. However, I'm glad that you, Middayexpress and all decent editors are uniting with the consensus to purge such ideologically-driven nonsense from the scientific pages of Wikipedia. Ackees (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Dear Scooby,

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

Occupation of the Baltic states

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

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

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

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

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

A valid Soviet/Russian POV? which you think may need some greater weight in the article? Again: there is the POV of the current Russian government spelled out in multiple sections of the article: Policy_position_of_the_Russian_Federation, Soviet_sources_prior_to_Perestroika, Russian_historiography_in_the_post-Soviet_era, Official_position_of_the_Russian_government vs. the POV of European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council [68], the governments of the Baltic countries,[69] [70]the United States,[71] and the European Union,[72]. So how much more weight the POV of the Russian government should have in the article exactly and why? If anything, the contradicting viewpoints should be spelled out more clearly in the lead section perhaps.--Termer (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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