Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard

Welcome to the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding ethnic, national, and cultural editing conflicts. Consider including some background information, not only relating to the specific dispute, but also the relevant ethnic or religious conflict. If you do this you are far more likely to get an effective response. Situations requiring immediate administrative action should go to the incidents noticeboard. Situations requiring immediate enforcement of the arbitration committee remedies should go to the enforcement noticeboard. Volunteers: To mark an issue resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of its section. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:CCN-notice}} to do so.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search this noticeboard & archives

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)

Slavic/Macedonian toponyms in Greek Macedonia

Unresolved

 – This issue will never be resolved, despite what the rest of the world believes

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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5] Depite this Slav speakers (regardless of ethnic identity) still made up a large proportion in Florina, Kastoria, Eddessa and the surrounding areas.[6] 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.[7], [8], [9]. (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.[10] 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.[11]

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)

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 [12], who immediately deleted the notice from his Talk page, Colin4C [13], and Henrik [14]. 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." [15]. 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 [16] ("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 [17]. --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: [18] ("Over 400,000 Romanians live in Ukraine.") [19] ("According to the 2002 census, the Romanian minority in Ukraine numbers 410,000 members.") [20] ("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)

"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[21], 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.[22] 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)

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: [23] 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[24]. 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 [25] 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 [26] as a mandatory subject. This despite the fact that 97%-98% of Iranians are not ethnically Arabic speakers. [27]

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: [28] 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: [29]. 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:[[30]] 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 [31]:

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": [32], 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: [33]). The following article by Guilio Racah, entitled "On the Decomposition of Tensors by Contraction": [34], 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 [35] 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 [36], 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:[37]. 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" [38]. 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 [39], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Šar Mountains

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)

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)

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 :[40] against this:[41]

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: [42] 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 [43]. 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)

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))

Removal of Jewish ethnicity from leads

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

See also

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
• Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
• Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board
• User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment