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

From Global Warming Art

General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations • Spam • Proposed mergers User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring & 3RR • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Cooperation Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars • Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board • Greek and Turkish cooperation board • Hungarian-Slovakian experiment WikiProjects Sri Lanka Reconciliation • Israel—Palestine Collaboration • Lithuania conflict resolution

Shortcuts: WP:ECCN WP:CCN

This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where incidents of the principle of neutrality being violated due to chauvinist and nationalist sentiment can be reported. It is common for edit wars, revert-warring, and general disruption to be caused on Wikipedia by real-world ethnic, national, and cultural conflicts, as the partisans in these disputes take their quarrels into cyberspace.

When posting here, please link to the relevant article(s). If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread. Consider also including some background information, not only relating to the specific dispute, but also the relevant ethnic conflict. Everyone knows about the Israel-Palestine conflict, but the Nagorno-Karabakh War is rather more obscure. 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 arbitration committee remedies should go to the enforcement noticeboard.

Archives
1

Contents 1 Pictures of Prophet Mohammad PBUH 2 Roald Dahl and anti-Semitism 3 Jerusalem RfC 4 The Question of Palestine 5 Listing the death and injury count of the IRA in the article lead. 6 Communist genocide 7 Creativity Alliance 8 Lida Vorig 9 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chodaczkow Wielki massacre 10 Albanian nationalism vs Pan-Albanianism

Pictures of Prophet Mohammad PBUH

Dear admin

Kindly remove all sort of pictures relating to Prophet Muhammad PBUH as we muslims do not consider it as an appropriate deed. There has been numerous petitions around internet but nothing has been done. Please review your policy as it is hurting moral and religious values of millions of muslims around the world

Regards

Roald Dahl and anti-Semitism

Please see section in question here ► RATEL ◄ 15:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on Roald Dahl has long had a section on his anti-Semitic remarks. It was there before I reached the article; however, I contributed to the section, by looking through the biography of him by literary scholar Jeremy Treglown, which I happened to own, and by finding an interview from shortly before his death where he seemed to admit to having become anti-Semitic.

Every now and then, a user would try to delete or alter the section. Their argument was that his statements were anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish. I disagreed, pointing out that his most notorious remarks were specifically directed at Jews, though they were framed in the context of his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I've seen many famous people accused of racism or anti-Semitism, and I've rarely seen a more clear-cut case than Dahl. To deny it is ludicrous, effectively denying the ordinary definition of words. It should be noted that the biographer Treglown, while suggesting that Dahl's grievances with Israel (during the Lebanon War in 1982) were justified, still unhesitatingly called Dahl an anti-Semite.

A while back, a user named Ratel came to the page. We argued for a while, but finally reached an agreement on how the section should look. Both of us compromised a little, and I don't think either of us were satisfied with the final product, but we were willing to accept it. Part of the disagreement was over the section's title. It was originally called simply "Antisemitism." Others wanted it to be called "Allegations of Antisemitism," but those of us who think Dahl's remarks were clearly anti-Semitic find the idea of it being a mere "allegation" insulting. For a while, I had the section titled "Antisemitic remarks," to make it clear that the article wasn't casting a judgment on Dahl himself, but simply reporting on what he said. Ratel and I eventually agreed on calling it "Literary Review controversy," because most of what was included in the section sprang from that one incident, though Treglown's biography mentioned other incidents.

Ratel put into the section information about Dahl's views on the Lebanon War, and I agreed to include a quote from a friend of Dahl's who defended him from the antisemitism charge (sort of). It stayed in that form for a while, but recently we've begun arguing again over it, and I feel we're at an impasse. The record of our arguments can be found on the Talk Page to the article on Dahl, and I'm going to invite Ratel to this page, to provide his/her side to the story. marbeh raglaim (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less correct, but it needs to be said that:

1. This is denigrating material in a BLP, sourced to a single book (without online access).
2. The single source, Treglown, is someone making a buck from the publication of a hatchet-job biography that was slammed by Dahl's widow for being full of lies.
3. The short article on Dahl does not justify this big paragraph on his supposed hatred of Jews, so undue weight issues arise.
4. Notability doubts — Dahl did nothing in his life to materially affect the life of any Jew in a negative way. He belonged to no antisemitic organisations, wrote no antisemitic screeds, etc. IF (and it is still an "if") he voiced these opinions, who cares? It would only ever be a footnote in his life. Millions of people dislike the Israeli state and its actions, and confuse Jews with Israelis. This is a bagatelle. ► RATEL ◄ 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A few points. I'm not addressing everything, because I don't want to get too bogged down, but I'd just like to know how you answer a few things. (1) What's a BLP? Biography of Living Persons? Dahl is deceased. (2) The section cites three different sources (including an interview with Dahl), not just the Treglown biography. (3) Could you show me where Dahl's widow slammed the Treglown book as a hatchet-job? You never mentioned this before, and I've never heard of it. We previously went to an editor to determine if Treglown's book was a reliable source, and the editor said it was. Also, the Literary Review incident can potentially be corroborated by going to a journal database, as many universities provide. marbeh raglaim (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course RD is dead, but his immediate family are not, so when we label him an antisemite (in effect, as the article does), on very flimsy evidence, and make it a big part of his one page biography, then we are in a grey area inasmuch as it affects living people and the continued reception of his works. Felicity Dahl considered Treglown to have betrayed the confidences given him [1] and the book was published without the family's consent [2]. Although the section cites different sources, the stuff that has any teeth is from Treglown, and it's third hand tattle-taling at that. What's more AFAIK Dahl was never given a chance to answer these reports, made by people who possibly had an axe to grind with him. Looking at your sources, besides Treglown, one is behind a paywall and cannot be verified, another (the Appleyard interview) does not exist when I search for it other than on the wikipedia page, so may be inadmissible. And none of these quotes really prove that he was an antisemite in the strict sense of the word. Yes, he had major issues with Israeli aggression and murder of civilians, but so do billions of people (I use the word billions advisedly). He said he was an antisemite inasmuch as he disliked British Jews who championed the actions of Zionism and Israeli aggression. So what? He's a writer, for heaven's sake, not a politician. And he's famous for his books written for children, in which these issues are never raised. You have used the article to soapbox your own small interest in him, which is not of general interest. So weight and notability issues are overwhelming here. ► RATEL ◄ 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the BLP policy - it affects only living people, not dead people who have living relatives. Its scope is intentionally limited and efforts to expand it have been rejected routinely by the community.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, but my current opposition to the extensive coverage of these trivia in this biography does not rest on the BLP policy in any way. ► RATEL ◄ 04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The links you provide only show that Felicity Dahl did not authorize the biography; they do not say she accused it of being full of lies. The book has been positively reviewed in many credible media outlets (New York Times: "Mr. Treglown has produced a scrupulously fair-minded and revealing, if hardly affectionately intimate, account"; The Independent: "Jeremy Treglown treats his complex subject with admirable objectivity"). In any case, Treglown's book provides several sources for the incidents discussed, and these can be corroborated. Here are the secondary sources he mentions:

The New Statesman, Aug. 26, 1983

Sebastian Faulks, The Daily Telegraph, Sep. 18, 1983

files of the Literary Review

He also mentioned interviews with Sir Isaiah Berlin, Robert Gottlieb, Brough Girling, and David Wolton.

Your statement that Dahl's views never made their way into his fiction isn't true; his book Sometime Never reportedly featured a negatively stereotyped Jewish character, and "Madame Rosette" describes its title character as a "filthy old Syrian Jewess." The Literary Review fiasco was not an isolated incident; he not only made the "trait in the Jewish character" remark later, he also accused Jews of being cowards, and falsely claimed hardly any of them served in the British Forces during WWII. Treglown's book claimed he had a history of telling anti-Semitic jokes and engaging in stereotypes. None of this is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, because only the Literary Review incident received wide publicity, but to say he had no pattern of anti-Semitic behavior is simply false.

Your contention that Dahl's explicitly and undeniably anti-Jewish remarks constitute only "very flimsy evidence" of anti-Semitism is absurd. All you're doing is making excuses for them, then hiding under the "notability" criterion as an excuse for removing this material from the article and depriving readers of the opportunity to judge the evidence for themselves. Numerous Wikipedia articles of public figures discuss accusations of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, and most of the time these are based on far more ambiguous remarks than what Dahl said. I have bent over backwards to help make the description of these controversies as fair and objective as possible, but they do deserve to be mentioned, because the perception of Dahl as anti-Semitic did affect the public view of him before and after his death. marbeh raglaim (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Before we go further, could you please supply a working link to a free online resource that documents the anti-Semitism in his books in a credible way? Thank you. If you can prove that, then you have a case. If you cannot, then there is scant reason to include this peripheral and contentious trivia in the article. Even the page on Ezra Pound, a famously anti-Semitic poet/writer, who actually committed his views to paper and broadcast them on radio, contains less on anti-Semitism than does the Dahl page. ► RATEL ◄ 06:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: this review makes it clear why taking Treglown as the main source for the huge 3 para section on antisemitism is unwise. The biography was a nasty hatchet job. And you have selected a small part of it to shoehorn your personal preoccupations into the tiny biography we have there. ► RATEL ◄ 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I have read this review two times and I still cannot see why this biography could be characterized as a "nasty hatchet job". And btw, the requirement of a working link to a free online resource is outright ridiculous. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that sources have to be freely available online; in fact, sources that are readily available in libraries or scholarly databases are preferable to mostly inherently freely availabe webpages. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From the point of view of verifiability, online accessible data is by far the best. In any event, if Dahl's antisemitic writings were notable, there would be online resources, not only obscure offline ones. In any event, for the purposes of this debate, even offline sources are welcome. Where are they? ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is obscure about a biography written by a scholar and published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and reviewed in leading newspaper? I wouldn't call this obscure, but rather a very good source according to Wikipedia's. Surely if the book was a "nasty hatchet job" there would be plenty of refutals and damning reviews. Maybe you could help us find them, offline or online, there must be some.

But anyway, a quick search in Google Books and Google Scholar shows dozens of other topical hits for the keywords "Roald Dahl" and antisemitism. For example: Bernie Raskas, "Seasons of the Mind" page 154 / Richard Abel, "Speaking Respect, Respecting Speech" page 31 / Christopher Winch, "Should Children's Books Be Censored?", International Journal of Research & Method in Education, page 41-51 and so on. That clearly shows notability, in particular given that this controversy dates back to the 1980 when there was no internet and no online coverage of this controversy. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. I'm not talking about Treglown, and I'm not asking for vague search engine hits on "Roald Dahl and antisemitism". I am asking for sources for allegations of Dahl's writing having clear antisemitic aspects. A previous editor commented about a phrase "filthy Syrian Jewess" (seemingly an WP:OR observation by the editor) which is not enough evidence of antisemitism in his writing to make it notable enough for more than a brief passing mention, if at all. ► RATEL ◄ 08:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is really hard to continue assuming good faith here. I even gave you the page numbers of a few books alleging that Roial Dahl's writing was anti-semitic. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're Marbehraglaim? Then why not login and answer as yourself? As to your reply, I see no page numbers and book titles here (I must be blind, or you perhaps made the argument on another page), but in any case you have proven my point, and that is that by giving no online sources for your argument, you prove its obscurity and lack of notability. ► If this famous writer's books were antisemitic, there would be many online resources to prove that and scholarly expositions to that effect◄. But you cannot find one!! Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, and all you can find are book refs? You need to study the concept of npov and undue weight more carefully. Also, the extensive research and collating of material you've done smacks of WP:OR and heaps of WP:SYN. So it's case closed for me, thanks for the debate. I'll live with the shortened version now on the Dahl page. ► RATEL ◄ 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your shrill comment confirms my point about the lack of good faith. If you would just look three paragraphs above you, there are page numbers and book titles. Quoting you: "All you can find are book refs?". Yes, indeed, I beleive the book references are far superios to almost all online reference. And if you think that finding the same information again and again in different sources (i.e. that he has been accused of being anti-semitic) is NOT WP:OR or WP:SYN. That is a very funny interpretation of what original research actually is. Pantherskin (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop morphing from username → IP → new username to give the impression of numbers. You may not realise it, but admins can do a checkuser on you and spot sockpuppetry. I checked the book refs that you gave (on another page), and they are rubbish, plain and simple. You have no argument worth considering that I can discern. I ask any sysop reading to close this silly debate please. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 03:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, so you are requesting comments from other uninvolved editors, and then, not liking the outcome you smear them as sockpuppets. Pantherskin (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC

There has been an RfC started at Talk:Jerusalem#RFC: Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. A few uninvolved admins watching over and stopping any inanity would be appreciated. nableezy - 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Question of Palestine

As anyone can tell by checking my contribs, I edit a lot of Palestine-related articles, and have for over two years now. Lately, its been confirmed for me that Palestine is treated differently than every other disputed political entity here at Wikipedia. Though there have been incremental improvements over the last couple of months, with the restoration of the article State of Palestine and the creation of Outline of Palestine, serious issues remain.

Currently, there is an issue at the State of Palestine regarding the infobox there, which was added by an IP. Its being reverted out by an editor on the basis that there is no country of Palestine. Having been alerted to the presence of pages on other disputed political entites (like Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland which were cited as examples in an RfC on Jerusalem), I've noticed all of them get better treatment of their sovereignty claims than Palestine. While Palestine is recognized by more than 100 countries, and Northern Cyprus only by one (Turkey), somehow its allowed to include things on its page that Palestine's page can only dream of.

The problem, as I see it, is that editors who oppose the existence of Palestine, are basically given free rein to impose their POV all over Wikipedia. Imagine if a bunch of Georgian nationalists kept arriving at the Abkhazia page to delete the infobox claiming it was not a country, or that it should be redirected elsewhere or deleted. Imagine if Palestinian nationalists blanked the infobox of Israel saying its a state with limited recognition. People would treat them as trolls, not good faith editors. And yet in the case of Palestine, this behaviour by those opposed to its existence is tolerated, and even sometimes encouraged. We are told we have to bow to consensus, instead of having people called out for imposing their POVs when no such imposition is warranted or fair.

I just had to get this out of my system really. I really do hope that people who read this board will begin to take notice of what is going on in the case of Palestine. Tiamut^talk 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring one importnat distinction between the State of Palestine and the other disputed political entities (like Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland): All the latter control the territory that they claim - they are the de-facto sovereign power in those areas. The State of Palestine is unique in that it is an entity which although has been recognized by numerous other countries, it controls no territory, and even its own officials acknowledge that the "state" is something that does not yet exist. As such, it reasonable that the other entities will be treated differently and be allowed to include things on their pages that the somewhat unusual 'state without any territory' concept that is the State of Palestine is not allowed- and good faith editors can make those changes without being called trolls or POV-pushers. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the Gaza Strip and the cities and major towns of the West Bank and the immediate surrounding areas i.e. Area A territory? Those are areas controlled by Palestinians. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They are controlled by the PNA, not the 'State of Palestine'. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering how English speaking governments and media totally support Israel's 60 plus years of colonization and tend to squash other information, wikipedia is relatively open to getting out the facts. It's frustrating, for sure. I didn't come to wikipedia to end up spending most of my time on the issue, but those who love truth and good WP:RS gotta do it sometimes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the opening statement is so presumptuous, it's approaching insulting. Frankly, Tiamut, I have long gotten extremely tired of your attitude which suggests that you have facts, and everyone merely just has opinions. Tiamut, you have a box on your userpage entitled Israeli Apartheid: A Chronology. And, yet, here you are pretending that you're the defender of neutrality while there's this trollish, racist, politically-motivated faction out to get you and Palestinians. Please; just cut it out. There's nothing to see here. -- tariqabjotu 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Listing the death and injury count of the IRA in the article lead.

Note: This issue affects Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 and Provisional Irish Republican Army.

Hi there, I'm following the advice of User:Durova and WP:DR in an effort to help get the Provisional Irish Republican Army out of protection, so that editing can continue. At issue is a sentence recently added to the lead IRA campaign 1969–1997&diff=306487413&oldid=306486375 here. The sentence is:

It is estimated that between 1969 and 1997, the IRA was responsible for the death or injury of over 20,000 people: over 14,000 of these being civilians.

This resulted in this discussion and something of an edit war, which was put to a stop when User:Nja247 protected the page. As things stand now, it seems that User:O_Fenian is unwilling to engage in discussion about how to reword the sentence for as long as m:The Wrong Version is protected, and there is no consensus to revert to the version of the article without the contentious sentence during the dispute.

Which leaves us at an impasse.

I'd like some assistance to come to the article to help the editors reach consensus, get the new sentence (whatever it might be) in place so that the article can be unlocked. Lot 49a^talk 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually my advice was to seek formal mediation (either WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB). Durova²⁹⁸ 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh! So then the idea here would be to try to convince user:O_Fenian to be willing to go into mediation as well as, I guess User:Mooretwin? Lot 49a^talk 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If the diff you provide supports your assertion, can you explain why I have posted to the talk page on a number of occasions since then? Retract your false statement please. Also you claim there is no consensus for removal, can you show me where there was consensus for the sentence to be added in the first place? The sentence is unsupported by the source in every possible way, this has been pointed out and accepted by the other editors (including the "administrator" who involved himself in the dispute then abusively indefinitely protected the page) in the dispute, yet the reader suffers. There is a right version and a wrong version, the right version does not contain policy violating material that misleads the reader. O Fenian (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess my question for you is whether you are willing to hammer out a new version of the sentence (or try to reach consensus to have it removed utterly) while the wrong version of the article is still live. I understand your concern that there is NO consensus for the current sentence, and I agree with you that consensus does not exist. This is why there is a dispute in progress. The problem with a dispute is that when it's active, there is by definition no version which has consensus. It's under dispute! Given the edit war that occurred, a line was drawn. It's necessarily an arbitrary line and none of us should be satisfied that it's currently in place.

The way out of this situation is for consensus to be achieved on a new introduction, that everyone involved can live with. My personal opinion is that the lead should be shorter, not longer, but we'll see how it all pans out. Lot 49a^talk 17:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have repeated maybe three times now, there is a proposal to replace the current sentence with this:

• • McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that by 1986 the IRA had injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.^{[1] [2]}

Mooretwin (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Were was the consensus to insert misleading information into the article? There was none! Since when do we need a discussion to remove misleading information which had no consensus in the first place? Why do Admin's insist on leaving misleading information in an article, and insist that it can not be removed until it is agreed what we will replace it with? The information which was removed did not contain policy violating material that misleads the reader, but pig headedness is preventing it being put back in. Lot49a has attempted to mislead readers here with an personal attack on O Fenian and should be asked to support their claim or withdraw it! Lot49a accepts there was no consensus for the information to be inserted, accepts that an edit war occurred to insert the misleading information. Now they are saying that information that is misleading, which replaced information which did not contain policy violating material that misleads the reader should be left in and reward edit warring! What is the story with that? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you're really frustrated by the situation. The fact is that there isn't consensus for the version without the sentence either. There's a dispute happening, so there is no consensus by definition. Due to WP:BOLD we can frequently expect that additions will be made without immediate consensus. Most of the time this is fine. Sometimes, disputes like the one we are resolving now will crop up. The way forward is for everyone involved to come to agreement about a suitable sentence ASAP. Lot 49a^talk 03:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is very simple, how will the removal of information that is incorrect prevent the matter from being discussed? This is not about the wrong version being protected, it's about misleading information being removed pending didcussion. So stop stonewalling! I'm not really frustrated by the situation, I just don't agree with rewarding edit warring. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right that if the article had been locked on a version without the sentence in question that we could still discuss the changes. By the same token, having the sentence in place should not prevent a discussion about the page. If anything, it should accelerate it so you can get the bad version out! With or without the offending sentence in question, we could be discussing this dispute. The point at which an admin steps in and protects a page is by necessity arbitrary.

You are unhappy with the sentence and the state of things. So is everyone else involved. Let's work together to get a version that we all like and then get that in place and get this article unprotected so work can continue. I've suggested an entirely new wording of the introduction to the article. I'd love to hear your comments on it. Lot 49a^talk 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence should be replaced with the reasonable proposal mentioned above by Mooretwin, its important information which belongs in the introduction, as long as it can be well sourced. I can quite understand why certain editors would not want such information so clearly presented. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lot49a the fact that you are being deliberately obtuse will not deflect me in the slightest. So I'll ask again, what is to prevent the removal of information that is incorrect and misleading while the matter is being discussed? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my position is unclear to you. My feeling is that I'd be fine with the sentence being removed or left in during the protection phase because the important thing is what comes after. Given that the situation is that the page is protected, my intention is to concentrate on coming up with an acceptable to everyone fix. Two admins have already rejected requests to revert to the version without the sentence, so in my opinion the best way out of this mess is for all of us to work on an acceptable version as quickly as we can and get that live.

As you can see on the talk page, I've asked the administrators to mark the article with a {{POV}} template to highlight the issues that you see in the lead. The article now clearly highlights that there is a content dispute ongoing, so readers will know that there is a problem. I hope that this helps address your concerns. Lot 49a^talk 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the origional version be put back in, I'm simply saying that the incorrect and misleading sentence be taken out. Unlike you, I'm not fine with this misleading information being left in during the discussion. Removing the sentence is not coming down on the side of any version, as both will have then been removed. Your suggestion that by leaving misleading information in will have us all work on an acceptable version as quickly as we can is bizarre. If the sentence was removed, remember, one sentence, a sentence that is incorrect and misleading is removed, there is no need for a {{POV}}, the article can still remain locked, and we can still work on alternative wording! So once again, what purpose can leaving this sentence in possibly have on the discussion? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to be clear here: I have no objection to the sentence that you would like to see removed being removed. However, I am not an administrator, I do not have the power to edit a protected article. The request to have the sentence removed has been denied twice by administrators, so my belief is that we should work with the tools we have available to us - namely trying to reach consensus on the talk page - so that we can unprotect the article as soon as possible. I hope that this clarifies things and I hope that you will be willing to comment on the alternative introduction that I have proposed which I think addresses everyone's concerns. Lot 49a^talk 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually three times, and that's because there wasn't consensus to do so. Reagrdless, in the time this back and forth moaning has been happening, I believe a final wording, along with where it should be located in the article could have been agreed. Instead people wish to Wikilawyer about policy and abuse by admins rather than actually sort it. This is why mediation has been recommended, but unfortunately that suggestion hasn't gotten very far either. I'd do it, but it's not my dispute. All of this is totally up to you lot to resolve, and moaning about a sentence over and over again rather than fixing it will not solve or remove it without consensus to do so. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the nonsense! There was no consensus for the edit warring POV IP’s edit, period! You locked the article, and have dug your heels in, claiming that the lock is arbitrary. Arbitrary can also mean uninformed, illogical, and capricious which sums up your attitude and rational quite well. Removing the information which is incorrect and misleading would in no way prevent discussion, and no matter how you try to Wikilawyer your way out of this fact the more pig headed you stance becomes. We have policies on this project such as WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV and on them we have consensus! Most of us also agree that we should never reward edit warring IP’s by having articles locked! But like I said, that is something most of us agree on, but not all obviously. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea that sums up all disputes, ie there was no consensus for the edits in the first place and the wrong version has been protected. You've been told this many times, yet instead of sorting it you continue with the circular moaning here and on the article's talk page. As told to you numerous times already by multiple parties, if you want something removed get consensus to do so. Consistently repeating yourself isn't the way to do it. Or, instead of writing your obligatory repetition of the situation as you see it, take the time to draft a proposal to seek consensus on the article's talk page or for mediation; that way something actually gets done. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out your aversion to the use of common sense and after having the issue clearly pointed out to you and then rewarding of this disruption is not considered moaning by rational and reasonable editors. Your pig headedness in my opinion which allows readers to be misled deliberately is just as much an issue with me as the edit summary and edit itself. You’re in a position to replicate this type idiocy, and while we all have to accept that we will have edit warring IP’s, we should not have to accept Admin’s who encourage them! Edit warring to remove correctly sourced information, should never be rewarded! --Domer48_'fenian' 07:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

I would like to seek help in resolving all the nastiness going on here. There is alot of POV warring by editors with a history in the subject. I don't want to point out specifics as that would be just a list of personal attacks, however we can clearly see bias here among the editors. Help????? Triplestop x3 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above observation and call on any unvolved administrator to take proper action. Otto (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Creativity Alliance

Could some additional eyes be turned on Creativity Alliance? It is a White Supremacist organization with an editor who thinks that Wikipedia is the place to present the organization's mission statement, holidays and other information that is not supported by third party sources. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 07:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lida Vorig

Hell, I have complain about user named User:Lida Vorig. She puts small contributions but I found she is adding a lot of unrelevant info to Azerbaijani articles by disinforming the people due she is armenian and got negative views about Azerbaijan.

1st case could be in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huseyn_Arablinski&action=history and writing comment that Seems to fit his personality 2nd case, writing that Shusha is not part of Azerbaijan, despite whole UN and world counts as this city is part of Azerbaijan. It is questioning country's soverigny. See for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latif_Karimov&action=history 3rd case, removing the word "Azerbaijani" from categories about Azerbaijani people by disinforming the nation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masud_ibn_Davud&diff=prev&oldid=310307129 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_ibn_Sa%27ad&diff=prev&oldid=310306985 4th case, adding again not notable info, saying Eynulla Fatullayev is kidnapped, actually this stuff never happened to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Kidnapped_Azerbaijani_people&diff=prev&oldid=310315717

This user is previously warned by user:CaliforniaAliBaba for adding speedy deletions to Azerbaijani!!

I think there is enough evidence to ban her from editing Azerbaijani articles.--NovaSkola (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chodaczkow Wielki massacre

The article is about a massacre of Poles by Ukrainians during WWII. The article creator appears to be Polish. Most but not all of the editors !voting to delete appear to be Ukrainian. And things seem to be getting heated. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism vs Pan-Albanianism

Albanian nationalism is an article full of highly biased claims like "These ideologies and Greater Albania have proponents that are not only nationalists but criminals[9] and terrorists[10] involved[11] in drug trafficking, Human trafficking and other activities motivated by profit [12].". It is completely fallacious to identify an entire nation as criminals and terrorist. Even if there are references citing such claims (there are not) it is not encyclopedic to make such claims.
It is also misleading to cite Us Gov. listing KLA as a terrorist organisation. What their website actually says about KLA is this: "They established a parallel government funded mainly by the Albanian diaspora. When this movement failed to yield results, an armed resistance emerged in 1997 in the form of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The KLA's main goal was to secure the independence of Kosovo." (state.gov). There is also a different, more neutral POV in Greek nationalism, Serbian nationalism and other Balkan states nationalisms that should be also present in Albanian nationalism. AnnaFabiano (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anna is lying and misleading and harrasing the article,pretending not to be able to understand the references,points made in the talk page including myself.Megistias (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Greek nationalism, Serbian nationalism are similar to National Renaissance of Albania , Albanian nationalism in the form it takes today is what is stated in the article.Megistias (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

From the KLA article itself Kosovo Liberation Army.Terrorists.The KLA was regarded by the US as a terrorist group until 1998 when it was de-listed,[3][4] and then the UK and the US lobbied France to do the same.[5]Megistias (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are references for all claims made in the article but of course Anna is interested only in harassing and disrupting.I ve had enough.Megistias (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ David McKittrick, Seamus Kelters, Brian Feeney and Chris Thornton (1999) ‘’Lost Lives: The stories of the men, women and children who died as a result of the Northern Ireland troubles’’. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Company Ltd. ISBN 1 84018 227 X
2. ^ Brendan O'Brien, The Long War - The IRA and Sinn Féin

W	The content appearing above is a local copy of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was written by various Wikipedians (contributor history) and is distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (license text). The version shown above has Revision ID: 312635713 and was last updated September 8, 2009, 6:59 pm.
	Current version on Wikipedia: view / edit	Read Wikipedia's disclaimers.