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

Trakai Voivodeship

Background:

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

Conflict:

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

Discussion:

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

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

User:DSuran and the issue of "Sikh"

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

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

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

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

Anti-Americanism

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

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

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

(Note: the above paragraph is entirely unsourced.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persian Gulf

Resolved

Background:

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

Conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sambalpuri/Kosali (India)

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

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

Byzantium

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

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

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

Definition of "diaspora"

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

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

Flemish vs. Dutch

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

Taxila

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

Lidia Bastianich

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

Arabistan, Iranian Arabs and Racism in the Middle East

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now to discuss two content issues. First:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavic/Macedonian toponyms in Greek Macedonia

Resolved

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

Problem:

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

Greek POV

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

Ethnic Macedonian POV

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

Linguist's Opinions

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

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

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

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

Conflict:

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

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

Discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 South Ossetia War

Background:

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

Conflict:

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

Discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Cityvalyu Edits on Aug. 17 --

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

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

Azad Kashmir & Pakistan occupied Kashmir

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

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

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

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

==Location==

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

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

UNITED NATIONS

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

posting STOP HIJACKING discussion here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proof1

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

proof2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KASHMIR CLOUD IS 117 ****

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

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

Article proposed for deletion

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentioning claims?

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

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

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

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

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

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

World War II persecution of Serbs

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

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

Şebinkarahisar, Turkey

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Putinisms_(2nd_nomination)

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

RfC request

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

Šar Mountains

Unresolved

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

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

Turkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishopric of Ermland/Warmia

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Ethnic conflicts in western Poland

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

"Welfare State" Article IS Overly American-Flavored

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

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

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

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

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

Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Proposition 8 (2008)‎

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

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

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

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

History of Silesia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Jewish ethnicity from leads

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

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

Romanians, Roma and 'Disclaimers' posing as DABs

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

The following are some recent examples :

Not to be confused with Aromanians.

Not to be confused with Romans.

Not to be confused with Roma people.

Not to be confused with Romulans.

Not to be confused with Romansh people.

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

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

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

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

Oji-Cree v. Severn Ojibwa

Problem

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

Resolution that is needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sveta Gera

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

Romanians living abroad at Romanians

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

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

Ancient population of Nagorno-Karabakh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Middle Eastern food fights

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

Middle Eastern food fights again (December 2008)

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

Anti-Arabism in Algeria

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

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

Irish politics in Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom

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

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

Pejoratives for the Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turkish genocide

Resolved

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

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

Assyrian/Syriac issue

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

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

Pula (disambiguation) reverts

Background:

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

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

Conflict:

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged anti-Polish POV

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

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

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

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

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

South Tyrol uproar

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

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

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

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

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

White Brazilians

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

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

Unsourced Hindu nationalist edits on Black Stone

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

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

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

The Marian Cozma article

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

Dunmanway Massacre

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

User:Yousaf465 on an Anti-India Propoganda

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

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

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

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

Personal Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Hungarian regional admin board:

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

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

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

User:Revolutionarybpp

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

User:Rjecina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

77.253.65.101

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

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

In my opinion there are three solutions:

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

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

SSNP Slander, POV and vandalism

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

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

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

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

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Stale

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

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

Stale

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

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

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

Sfiha

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

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

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

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

Černová tragedy

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

Gilad Atzmon

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

History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Origins to 1967

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

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

Macedonia terminology on articles relating to Greece

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

Anti-Semitic comments

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

Judaization of Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sathya Sai Baba and a history of conflict

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

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

Macedonia

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

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

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

Al Qamishli

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

RfC - Pejorative terminology

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

A big problem with an easy solution

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

Assyrian/Syriac issue

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