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

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)

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 [1] 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 [2], 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 ([3], [4]), a request for comment ([5]), an Edit-Warring Noticeboard thread ([6]), 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 ([7]).

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[8]. 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[9]. 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[10]. 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[11]. All 'populations' are distinct from, or are indeed linked to, all others - depending on whatever arbitrary measure one wishes to use. For example, if we were to take the 'far right' as our arbitrary category, then crypto-fascist Euro-Americans pretending to be Somali nationalists are a 'distinct population' from neo-fascist North Italians eager to relive the glories of Il Duce. Nevertheless, both are linked by a common pseudo-scientific anti-rational heritage that remains obsessed with 19th-century myths about 'race', 'racial purity', 'racial difference' etc, etc. However, I'm glad that you, Middayexpress and all decent editors are uniting with the consensus to purge such ideologically-driven nonsense from the scientific pages of Wikipedia. Ackees (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Dear Scooby,

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

Occupation of the Baltic states

Main article: Soviet historiography

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

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

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

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

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

A valid Soviet/Russian POV? which you think may need some greater weight in the article? Again: there is the POV of the current Russian government spelled out in multiple sections of the article: Policy_position_of_the_Russian_Federation, Soviet_sources_prior_to_Perestroika, Russian_historiography_in_the_post-Soviet_era, Official_position_of_the_Russian_government vs. the POV of European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council [12], the governments of the Baltic countries,[13] [14]the United States,[15] and the European Union,[16]. So how much more weight the POV of the Russian government should have in the article exactly and why? If anything, the contradicting viewpoints should be spelled out more clearly in the lead section perhaps.--Termer (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also: WP:SOUR

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

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

Possible convassing concern

Moved from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Possible_convassing_concern

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

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

Ok, I can live with that. However, when would requests to individual users [17] [18] be a concern? The editors in question never edited the particular article in question (nor its parent) nor were involved in either the prior AFD or DRV. Both subsequently voted to keep the article (with one suggesting that it be rated as higher class article). I've informed Kasaalan of this discussion generally but if someone else could see if I'm missing something. I'm not sure of what criteria I should be using if I wanted to inform someone. I assumed it would be prior editors at least but that's not even a requirement, it would seem like a free-for-all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did not canvassed for a various of reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I clearly explained, I meant only ANI in various pages [19] to you, after you deleted my comments claiming threat involved, also you already involved admins in the matter for warning me. Also stressed my threats, which may only be ANI as worst case which I haven't even used once for anyone.

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

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

Also about the 3 revert rule, maybe I wrongly acted, yet when I made the edit in 2 pages, they being reverted by some editors who was "trying to remove the exact same info in Eitan Livni page for the speech is "a criticism of Tzipi, not him", yet in Tzipi Livni page they remove info for "this belongs in Eitan Livni, not here", do those conflicting claims to delete same info in 2 related articles sound logical or neutral to you. They also claimed and suggested I talk them in discussion page in their undo reasons, and I created according discussion titles based on their undo reasons, but guess what only 1 editor bothered to discuss with me, yet he has different standards on pro and con political speechs on Talk:Tzipi_Livni. You know everything is not about 3 revert rule, there are some categorical POV reverts by illogical claims, involving highly questionable deletions, by conflicting reasons with each other in those pages. You can easily read the discussions, conflicting reasons in Talk:Tzipi_Livni and Talk:Eitan Livni or in page histories [20][21]. They even claim a senior officer of armed gang is not responsible for his armed gang's other actions as undo reasons. Kasaalan (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LTTE

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

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

Cornwall

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

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

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