Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:57, 4 August 2012

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. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:CCN WP:ECCN 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:

Canadian Sikhism

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

There is one editor in particular who has been of issue with regards to posting acceptable sources with regards to population figures and population figures in general. While that issue has been discussed and partially resolved I suspect other edits made by that editor may perhaps be pushing advocacy in other parts of the article. I myself do not have enough personal knowledge on the article subject but perhaps a review of the article can be made to see if any issues are present? Duhon (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Van cat controversy

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

The article Van cat is frequently the target of anti-Turk, anti-Kurd and/or anti-Armenian racist editing that borders on vandalism. The most common bits are removal of Kurds/Kuristan and/or mention of Armenians by pro-Turkish editors, especially from the infobox and lead, and anti-Turkish political rants, especially in the "#Naming controversy" section, merged in from an excessively POV-pushing content fork. I don't think any blocks are warranted at this time, but this article and the related one at Turkish Van (which also sees such disruptive edits) could use more watchers. I've warned (with a general post on the article talk page, not individual editor-chastising) that any further ethinic-attack edits will result in a filing at WP:AN/I for blocking, so hopefully it just won't happen any more. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji

• Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a bit of a war going on at Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji and some of the surrounding articles such as Ravidassia Religion, which appears to be a newly-formed religion based on the teachings of a 14th century Indian guru, of which Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji is the holy book. It's way out of my league, I only came across it in passing whilst assessing articles, but the respective talk pages detail some of the accusations which include edit-warring, facts not being supported by the supplied references and POV pushing. Would some kind soul care to have a look? FlagSteward (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I just wandered into the same series of articles in "WikiProject Ravidassia", and agree that there's some significant POV-pushing and historical revisionism involved. Very long story short, the Ravidasi were apparently generally aligned with Sikhism (low-caste "untouchable" Indians forming their own subset of Sikhism due to being unwelcome among "higher caste" Sikhs). The Ravidassi and Sikhs had a major falling-out in 2009 when Sikh radicals murdered Ravidasi clergyman Ramanand Dass in Vienna, so they severed ties and literally wrote a new holy book to replace the Sikh one they were using. Fascinating story, but the trouble is some major contributors at the page have been working to remove any mention of Sikhism from the article, and instead portray Ravidassia as a cohesive independent religion back to 14th Century India. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

• Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This whole article is inaccurate and not NPOV but editors are refusing to allow any contribution by other editors..i have tried discussing it but it was to no avail. Baboon43 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Azawad and its regions and cercles.

Azawad has recently declared independence from Mali but remains unrecognised. However there seems top be an effort to edit articles on the relevant regions of Mali to describe them primarily as located in Azawad and then mention their global recognition as part of Mali as an afterthought. I have changed Tombouctou Region but it's late here and there are a whole bunch of other places that need fixing.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I edited the lead in the Tombouctou Region article back to your 6 April 2012 edit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

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

The English page of Nelly Furtado keeps on having someone who deletes the fact that she is Portuguese Canadian, first based on the argument that her being Portuguese was a matter of ethnicity (but not being Canadian, apparently), and second based on the fact that there is no "direct proof" that she has Portuguese citizenship. I might add where is the "direct proof" that she has Canadian citizenship, either?

The whole point being brought up constantly in the editing of this article is based on an "Amerocentric" perspective of what is citizenship. To constantly erase the fact that she is both Portuguese and Canadian from her article, is a xenophobic attitude in nature, as it considers one nationality law to have more value than a different nationality law. That is simply wrong, both when it comes to its accordance with the truth, and also regarding the principle of no supremacy of any human being or nation over another. Dual citizenship at birth is a very common thing, exactly because not every country awards citizenship in the same way. I truly don´t understand the need to deny this, other than in a context of extreme nationalism.

In the Americas (for most countries), citizenship is automatically granted based on the "ius soli" concept. This means a person is Canadian, American, Brazilian, whatever, mainly if they are born in the country.

But in most european countries, citizenship is based on "ius sanguinis". Citizenship is automatically granted according to the parents´ nationality.

To say that she is Canadian "because she was born, lives and works in Canada", makes absolutely no proof of any kind regarding her nationality, if you don´t know Canadian law. Since we do know, we know she is Canadian, of course. In exactly the same way, if you know Portuguese law, and know that Portugal automatically grants citizenship to anyone whose parents are Portuguese and were born in Portugal, then you know there is nothing to argue about in this matter. She is Portuguese, just like she is Canadian.

One nationality should not require the need for some kind of "ultimate proof" over the other. She possessed dual citizenship right at birth, Canadian and Portuguese, since both countries grant automatic citizenship in different ways.

On the matter of Portuguese nationality, please see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/Portuguese_nationality_law

Furthermore, just making a fast random search on the internet, I found an interview of Nelly Furtado to a Brazilian TV (in Portuguese), where she herself admitted she was both Canadian and Portuguese. Further ahead, she even added that "her heart and sould where Portuguese": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3n_ZA4r6Do

On an interview at BBC, she was telling the hosts about how singing in Portuguese was so natural to her, and that she learned Portuguese even before knowing English.

But this things are not the main point, at all (even if it would be very weird for her to say she was Portuguese without being Portuguese, quite obviously).

Resuming, the issue is exclusively legal, and my question is why is one nationality law accepted as enough proof, and another country´s nationality law is not? One truly doesn´t need to know anything else other than that both her parents were born in Portugal and were Portuguese to know for a fact she is Portuguese by birth. It´s the law. Just like no further proof of her Canadian citizenship is required for that statement to be made on the article. It is simple, both countries´ laws automatically grant citizenship to someone in her situation, right at birth. It is partial, and not a neutral position, to say the least, to consider that a specific definition of a person´s nationality based on the perspective of a certain country, is accepted as such with no problems or objections of any kind so to be introduced on wikipedia, while a different one, from a different country, needs some kind of "direct proof".

Misplaced Pages should not be the place for this kind of behavior.

Thank you, and I hope this situation can be adequately solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.73.25 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article is very clear that she has Portuguese ancestry, is born to Portuguese parents, and has released Portuguese albums. The lead sentence, as directed by MOS:BIO, describes her as "Canadian". There's no effort to suppress or hide anything, just an effort to keep the article in line with consensus, policy, and guidelines.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

joseph neubauer

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

Joseph Neubauer's nationality is shown as "Jewish-American." There is no such nationality. He is American. And he is Jewish. That does not make him Jewish American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeankay (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please make sure there is actually a dispute before reporting it. The fact that you posted here before editing Joseph Neubauer indicates that this dispute does not exist. Danger 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeankay -- It's obviously not his formal legal citizenship, but in fact in the United States "Jewish American" is perceived to be an ethnic/national identity comparable to "Irish-American", "Mexican-American" or whatever. (Probably the majority of American Jews have ancestors who came from areas now in Germany, Poland, or Ukraine, but they rarely call themselves "German-Americans", "Polish-Americans", or "Ukrainian-Americans", and they would not generally be considered such by self-identified German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans, except in a few special cases.) That's why we have the phenomenon of Jewish atheism. AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No 1 cause of edit wars: Nationalist school systems -> Solution: create Misplaced Pages page warning about it_Solution:_create_Wikipedi-2012-04-15T05:07:00.000Z">

Isn't it weird that most of these edit wars concern nationalism? The reason these edit wars exist is because most people were educated in a school system that has heavy bias towards its own nationalism. You would think that what they teach you at school is all true and impartial. But that's not the case!

For example, the first time I came to Misplaced Pages, it was a real shock to me. I made significant contribution to Hungarian history based on what I learned at school. Only later did I see that most of my edits were reverted or changed because someone from Slovakia had a different opinion and he was taught something totally different at school than I was.

For instance, when Romania occupied Hungary for a brief time, in Hungary they call it the Romanian oppression, but in Romania they teach it as the Romanian liberation. Croatia is taught in Hungary as a province, but in Croatia it is taught as an independent country. In Hungary, Hungary is taught as the most significant part of the Hapsburg Empire yet in Austria, it's taught as a province. What's more, in Hungary I didn't even hear about the term Magyarization before because they simply don't teach that at school. In Slovakia, this is taught as a major element of curriculum.

What they teach us is that our country is great, our nation is great and that there are a few people who are our national heroes, and whenever "we" suffered it was unjust. For God's sake, even the Anthem of Hungary that every Hungarian has to know by heart is about the fact how great the nation is and that it suffered so much unjustly throughout the years. Nothing is ever mentioned about bad things that Hungary might have done to other nations. What's more, if a great man who invented great things hundreds years ago was born in Hungary, I'm supposed to feel proud of him, but if he was born a few kilometers on the other side of the border, I don't even know his name because it's not in the curriculum.

Why do I refer to another Hungarians as "us" but to a Slovak as "them". For the most part, most Hungarians do not ever leave the country so they live their life in the belief that they are great and other nations are bad. However, on the rare occasion when someone comes and declares that our national hero is from a different nationality, people get angry, because it strikes them at the heart of their national identity since all their life they have been taught to look up to these national heros, because it is them who make the nation great.

This is a LIE. It's a big fat lie. It seems the whole education system of most countries in the world is a just pretext to promote nationalism and control the population. There is a heavy dose of nationalist bias that presents the so called "facts of history" through a tinted glass.

Question is how can we tell people about this so that they won't start their mindless nationalist edit wars? It is extremely rare that they will recognize it by themselves, because they take what they have been taught throughout their lives as the one and only truth. And when these people meet someone else from different indoctrination background as them, that's when the edit wars start.

It took me about 1 year to realize that the Slovak editors aren't hostile and malicious, but only refute what they were taught at school and I'm refuting what I was taught at school, and that our different education systems shaped our identities and beliefs differently so that it is always us that the good guys are and the other ones are always the bad guys.

Therefore, I propose to create a Misplaced Pages page that warns new users about the indoctrination aspects and nationalist biases of their own education systems that define their identities and beliefs. We should tell them that just because someone is subject to a different nationlist propaganda, he is not malicious in any way, and therefore they shouldn't take the expression of his different beliefs as ad hominem attacks.

It would have helped me incredibly to learn this before I started editing on Misplaced Pages and not engage in non-sense nationalistic edit wars, which I did for almost a year before I realized what I was doing! All I was thinking about that I must teach these people the truth that I knew. So that's why in my opinion a Misplaced Pages page would be a great idea to teach new users about this, and as a result there would be a significant drop in edit wars! --Bizso (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)_Solution:_create_Wikipedi"> _Solution:_create_Wikipedi">

Misplaced Pages article Nationalist historiography... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS, a guide for identifying and using reliable sources in the area of history, suggests never using school works for writing historical articles. School textbooks usually fail to deal with the complexity of causes, the variety of historiographies, and fail to address the questions that make subjects significant in the historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, the countries which have the worst problem with rewriting history tend to be the ones which require school textbooks to reinforce the TRUTH of their NATIONAL GLORY (and/or their historic SUFFERING under the YOKE of an OPPRESSOR). Ditto for national broadcasters. Where history is disputed or controversial, that's when we need to go to the best - and independent - sources. bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What I like best about wikipedia 2.0 is that it gives all viewpoints the potential to be heard. Sure every nation / culture has its own viewpoint. And eventually we will be able to learn more about their origins and civilization can progress with increased encyclopedic knowledge. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bardock

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

You have this actor as married to his daughter is this correct or a miss print — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.82.32 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Revised. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen

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

There are two editors who were in the majority on the AfD for this article that was closed as keep. In light of the previous AfD and the issues on the talk page as well as thing grout up during the AfD. I added maintenance tags about sourcing, POV and dispute on the article and started a discussion about them. I planned to leave them up for a month, to see what kind of consensus we got from a wider group, and these editors just seem to want to shut it down, and remove the tags immediately. Kind of a your wrong, we've told you you are wrong and this is a waste, attitude. Obviously it's a controversial issue, and the haste to remove the tags only seems to lead me to believe one of them may be POV. though I'm trying to assume good faith here. can anyone offer advice, a fourth opinion, etc. -- Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I restructured the article. I don't think the article needs tags. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Irvin D. Yalom

• Irvin D. Yalom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5-6: To Whom it May Concern, the Irvin D. Yalom text begins, "Born into a Jewish family...." But - if he were born into a Christian family, would the text begin, "Born into a Christian family..."? If not...discrimination's afoot. Please change that first sentence. Thank you! -- The Friedman family

I revised the text in the Irvin D. Yalom article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Balanchine method

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

An editor changed Balanchine method to say George Balanchine is Georgian (vs. Russian) and made clear that he will not permit it to be changed back. Attempts to to reason with him on the talk page have failed; he is adamant that his view is correct. It's possible that he is correct, but I believe there is compelling evidence to the contrary. It would be very helpful for an unbiased third party to have a look and, if warranted, to boldly take appropriate action, as all of my efforts to do so have been reverted without meaningful comment. My apologies if this is the wrong place to post this. Lambtron (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

His biography says, "Balanchine was born Giorgi Balanchivadze in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to a Georgian father and a Russian mother." My take is what is relevance between his birth and the Balanchine method? The location of where Balanchine devised the method or where it was first used would seem more relevant to the Balanchine method article than where Balanchine was born or his ethnic lineage. I revised the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

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

It would be I believe in everybody's interests if we had a greater number of uninvolved editors viewing the main Messianic Judaism article, including its talk page. I and some others have some serious questions about POV pushing regarding the article, and I believe the involvement of a greater number of editors, including some new to the discussion, would be extremely valuable in perhaps resolving the existing difficulties. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Arabs in Turkey

• Arabs in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please look into the edit history of this page? I have a problem with two editors who insist on using number estimations mostly from media stories. The numbers they are providing are obviously unrealistic by all means. I have tried to provide a balanced representation of all view points, but these two users are rejecting one source calling it "fake". These two editors would keep reverting back. Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Svan people

See:

1. Talk:Svan people#source (+Talk:Svan people#Ethnic groups)
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#user:GeorgianJorjadze reported by User:PlatonPskov (Result: ) and
3. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PlatonPskov reported by User:Kober (Result: ).
4. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Svan people

User GeorgianJorjadze (and Kober) they refuse to constructive discussion, GeorgianJorjadze waging a war of edits without explanation (other than as a game with rules: that there is no consensus. However, I have arguments. They - no.) --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Abu Musa

There is a dispute over Abu Musa; specifically, whether or not to mention the results of an opinion poll held by YouGov. Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcomed... bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To make my position clear; I think the poll should be mentioned (at the bottom of the article). Another editor suggests it should be removed, for a variety of reasons such as "Undue Weght", "One poll by not very reliable source not verified by third parties", "advocating commercial poor quality materials", "source does not meet WP:Primary criteria", "just a poll by a tele-marketing company" &c.

Devoting an entire section on a Misplaced Pages article to a random online poll conducted by " online panel" of a random polestar/market research firm, is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. The person who first dumped this so-called poll on that page and many others (Redroar75 ), appears to be an employee of, and affiliated with the YouGov, working as a PR person, and all he does in Misplaced Pages is link-dumping as free advertisement and publicity for YouGov marketing firm. Just a quick examination of his contributions, show that every single one of his edits is linking to this not-so-notable company as a reference, creating and devoting an entire section to this company on various pages, in order to advertise and promote them. Most of the edits are even promotional/business-like in tone too, just take a look at these examples. So this is borderline spamming, besides the obvious weight issues. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nichiren Buddhism

• Nichiren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nichiren Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nichiren Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sōka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wonder if anyone knowledgeable (best if not involved/attached to the schools in question) in Japanese Buddhism could look over the articles mentioned above. Before a full fledged edit war breaks out a third opinion could be useful. Thanks.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above. I think we need as many eyes as possible on these articles. Soka Gakkai in particular is a highly controversial group, and I believe that the personal opinions of certain editors regarding the group may well be causing them to engage in behavior which could be seen as problematic. The greater the number of experienced and knowledgable editors are available on these pages, the more likely it will be that any problematic behavior of some editors can be addressed diplomatically. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Piapot

Piapot is the article I was reading that led me to look further into it. Throughout Misplaced Pages there are hundreds of pages and articles that refer to Aboriginal American peoples as "Indians". I believe this is an outdated and offensive term, and that replacing most instances with alternative words, such as "aboriginal" would be appropriate. Is there any way that we can speed up this process, rather than trawling through one article at a time and changing them?

NB - in some cases the word is used appropriately as part of a title or has historical relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.230.20 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that polcies and guidelines as they are currently structured would necessarily permit such a mass alteration of language, particularly on the rather slim basis given, that one editor finds it offensive. And, while there might be a way to speed up such conversion, that conversion would probably also include the instances when you declare it appropriate, so, in effect, it really wouldn't necessarily be an net improvement in the content, and in several cases it might actually be counterproductive.

Probably the best way to get this issue addressed would be to contact Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. It is possible that they could develop clear guidelines as to when and under what circumstances specific descriptive terms are used. In fact, they may already have done so for all I know. Also, editors involved there would probably be in the best position to note when the term "Indian" is used in an appropiate way and when it isn't. But, in short, no, I don't think there is any better, more effective way to expedite such changes as you request than by contacting that WikiProject. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dražen Petrović

Is there anyone who could help take a look at the Dražen Petrović page? For months and months, there have been unexplained changes to his parents' ethnic backgrounds (eg ). Unfortunately, I can't really examine the sources used in that section. The best I can do is use Google translate. Usually, I try to revert to the status quo, but I'm really in over my head here, so if there's anyone who speaks Serbian, Croatian, or Montenegrin, your help would be appreciated. Zagalejo^^^ 19:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman religious and political views

There are a number of users with personal religious agendas that keep using garbage sources, i.e. tabloids and religious websites, as actual references, to fit their carefully worded propaganda/idealogy. Additionally, the most rampant and excessive within wiki pages are against any subject matter that is non-Catholic. This is an issue on the page for "Nicole Kidman"; second sentence in religion section, alleges her personal opinion on topic of children's religion; however she is recorded as stating she will not discuss Scientology at all:

1. Violates Misplaced Pages Reliable Source requirement; invalid link to tabloid, weak source - nypost is equivalent to the enquirer.

• WP:IRS Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

2. Poorly sourced speculation/opinion WP:NOR via nypost archived gossip

• WP:NOR The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source

3. I call bullshit on: "catholic.org" and "nypost" - as Misplaced Pages Verifiable Sources;

• WP:V "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimafiacapo (talk • contribs) 08:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of the following wiki legalese bloviator copy/paste display? Is this a lecture or threat, because you are barking up the wrong tree on the wrong planet completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimafiacapo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

10.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

2) All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses.

3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Misplaced Pages process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

5.1) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Elizium23 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

71.53.191.241 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and Wikimafiacapo (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) --  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Elizium23 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The source I'm seeing being used, the New York Post, does meet our reliable sourcing guidelines. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard has said of it "a paper as large and well-known as the New York Post should be considered a reliable source," and "It is a published source which is reliable using the WP definition thereof." Some of the less favorable descriptions of it was "We can't say that we may never use this type of media, but we can say that if we have better sources available it makes sense to use those." I couldn't find anything saying we couldn't use it. It is a reliable source, and it will stay unless another source countering it is found.

Also, I'm in agreeance with Elizium23, and can only believe this is a sock of the IP I IDed as belonging to the Church of $cientology. The behavior, such as worrying over this source, is totally identical. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Alternative names in begin section

I post here because I want elucidation about naming conventions. There are conflicts on 2 talk pages about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bratislava#Hungarian_and_German_name and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Cluj-Napoca#other_names

According to rule http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines we have:

• Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
• In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)".
• Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.

Some users do not want to accept this recommendation and want to impose alternative names in the first phrase, even if is not reason to make an exception. I say that we must not ignore the recommendation, it must be a coherence on wikipedia, we must respect these indications. With no respecting wikipedia rules, wikipedia would be chaotic and messy, because each article would be write in a different way. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Before reacting to ANY of Omen1229's comments, please check out his edit log. You'll see that his edits consist almost entirely of removal of Hungarian place/geographical names from any conceivable article and replacing them with their Slovak counterparts (if any). He's already been topic-banned for this too, yet he keeps pushing his POVish agenda unabated without any willingness to discuss matters or agreeing to ANY kind of compromise. All of this points to an obvious anti-Hungarian agenda he has, which he partly admits on his userpage too by claiming that he's a nationalist. Another fine example of his agenda is the fact that he's already initiated a discussion on the Cluj-Napoca article's talk page in the same manner User:PANONIAN did on the Bratislava article's talk page, which once again points to his bias against Hungarians, since he's never made ANY edits to the article and so far hasn't shown ANY interest in Romania or Romanian topics at all.

Regarding the interpretation of the naming convention itself, I regret to say that Omen1229's arguments are not about the inclusion of alternative names at all: his only point seems to be the removal of anything BUT the Slovak name of the city to make it look like those names never existed in the first place. When this plan (heavily and vocally backed by PANONIAN) has failed on the Bratislava article, he's changed his rhetoric and now he "only" wants to deal away with the Hungarian and German name of the city from the lead, and tries to do his best to twist and misinterpret Misplaced Pages's rules to suit his agenda (i.e. to remove the Hungarian and German name at all costs). What's worse is that he didn't bother with presenting ANY logical arguments to support his agenda, instead some additional "brand new" users have started to appear to support his edit war: User:Nelliette, User:Balatoth, User:River party, User:Jakubos etc. Almost all of these users are "brand new" and/or haven't made a single edit on the article before. What also worries me is the fact that Omen1229 has not only changed the lead, but he tried to completely wipe out my WHOLE edit i.e. even the part that deals with etymology too. This leads me to think that he doesn't want this conflict to be solved at all, or rather that he'd only be content with the version of the article where the city's Hungarian and German name wouldn't be mentioned at all.

Omen1229's argumentation is also flawed for some different reasons: the city used to have a Hungarian & German majority up to the 1930s, even after many Hungarians have been chased away from the city (and subsequently been replaced by Czechs) and until 1918 the term Bratislava didn't exist at all (at least not in ANY official documents/colloquial usage anyway), so insisting on removing the Hungarian and German name is almost akin to attempting to falsify/erase the city's history. The worse problem with the whole attitude represented by Omen1229, PANONIAN and many sockothers is the fact that the city itself was Hungary's capital for centuries, Hungary's monarchs were coronated there and it was the de facto administrative center of the country. And this kind of intolerance is even more disconcerting in the light of the fact that Slovak place names have been inserted into the articles about Hungarian cities where NO Slovaks have lived EVER (Békéscsaba, Szeged, Miskolc, Győr, Visegrád etc.), yet nobody wanted to remove them and nobody was eager to twist the Misplaced Pages rules in whatever way that'd allow him to remove them. In short, this strong anti-Hungarian sentiment is not only unprecedented, but non-reciprocated as well. Therefore for the sake of honoring Misplaced Pages's basic principles and mentality (e.g. the inclusionist attitude), I suggest against encouraging ANY kind of trigger-happy article vandalism (i.e. approval of or encouraging of content removal). -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At first, this User:CoolKoon has created the "article"(in fact POV essay) with name Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia (now called Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia, but the article is mainly about conflicts between ethnic groups and you will not find something positive there...). And now the important thing, this User:CoolKoon used in the article the chauvinistic propagandistic postcard with text "Czech culture - The barbaric toppling of the statue of Maria Theresa in Bratislava". This postcard was published by Magyar Nemzeti Szövetség in Hungary and is very strange to use it in the article about Czechoslovakia. The Magyar Nemzeti Szövetség was chauvinistic, irredentist, revisionist, Hungarism (Hungarian fascist ideologue) and foreign propagandistic organization. This organization was also active during WW2 in Hungary. No surprise for me, that he upload this postcard and he has it in User page.

All of this points to an obvious anti-Hungarian agenda he has > this only another personal attack and please stop with your synthesis, because I know your POV.. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As for "chauvinism, irredentism , and Hungarian facism", do you still hold your assertion ,Omen1229, in which you called one another Hungarian user a fascist, nazi, and a revisionist who supports the Arrow Cross Party-> ? Just curious. On the other hand, Omen1229 is clearly not here to create an encyclopedia. See: . Then click on Frequently edited pages (click here) there.

Literally, adding Slovak names to Hungarian cities or biographies, removal of Hungarian names from cities or biographies, Magyarization i.e. how nefarious Hungarians attempted to assimilate the Slovaks, Žigmund Pálffy i.e. who is of Slovak origin who isn't, Elie Wiesel i.e. adding information on Hungarian holocaust, Pribina i.e POV pushing about some kind of proto-Slovak theory. --Nmate (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Omen it's clear you want to make CoolKoon look twisted, but that postcard (and the destruction of that fine statue) represents the irrational rage (or/and hate) against Hungarians since 1918 ((("just for the record"))), you and your companion Nelliette call us chauvinist in your recent posts, repeating it, and hoping they will believe you if you repeat enough times, but if someone looks up your edit, will face the truth about you. Interesting to start an argument accusing the opponent being the bad, without any mature reasoning. Also have to mention, your "new" interest in the WWII, is it just only about Csatary or because he is just an other blood drinking bad Hungarian? --Csendesmark (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

--Omen1229 (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all it is not true, my edit count is 4,319 while yours is 478. And in addition, en.wikichecker.com shows only frequently edited pages. It is true that those pages have recently been edited by me but my edit count is 4,319. Furthermore, despite that Omen has so far made 478 contributions in the project, he is around on Misplaced Pages since 26 January, 2011. Therefore, en.wikichecker clearly shows that you are an edit warrior with no constructive contributions considering that your frequently and recently edited articles make a very significant percentage all of your contributions to the project because of your low edit count i.e. "478". So what are you looking for on Misplaced Pages? --Nmate (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me Omen1229, do you even SOMETIMES listen to what you're saying? Or do you really REALLY think that toppling statues of respected, renowned, and (most importantly) positively viewed historic persons is a good thing? Propagandist as the postcard was, I couldn't find any other place to source the photo from, hence I had to use that one. But if you'd check my "POV essay" (the Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia article), you'd see that it underwent a complete overhaul. I've aalso created a cropped and semi-restored version of the photo from the postcard, and used it to replace the original postcard in all the articles where the postcard has been featured. Or do you actually question the truthfulness of the picture? If so, where's the statue then? You see (unlike you) I've been born and raised in Bratislava and never EVER have I seen that statue anywhere (another statue, the one about Petőfi is still there, and that's where we commemorate the 1848/49 events every year on March 15th). So how about (at least) trying to assume that my additions are NOT in bad faith, but part of my desire to present some FACTS in order to make the Misplaced Pages articles more informative?

Interestingly enough the majority of my other edits you've pointed out are either talk page entries, factual edits meant for clarification, or compliments paid to other editors (I sincerely hope that one day you'll even learn some Hungarian in order to be able to comprehend comments in Hungarian without Google Translator :P). Do you REALLY think that they're proof of some POV? I mean do you SERIOUSLY think that the 1st, 12th, 15th, 16th or 20th diff from your list is heavy POV material? Or did you just collect them to make me look more of the anti-Slovak boogeyman you think I really am? Do you have ANY palpable evidence/arguments against me other than the fact that you don't like me or the FACTS I try to present/include in the articles?

BTW it's such a shame that you seem to be reluctant to present (rational) arguments the moment somebody starts pointing out your tendentiousness when making your edits. Nonetheless I did some more research on the WP rules about this and look what I found: For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one.(...) Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Misplaced Pages practice to bold them so they stand out(...)() Since Pressburg and Pozsony (or in case of your newly discovered city, Clausenburg and Kolozsvár) make only TWO alternate names, how about just applying the rule quoted above and calling it a day? -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But if you'd check my "POV essay" (the Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia article), you'd see that it underwent a complete overhaul. > Why now talking about "the Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia article"? You created "the Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia" and much later it was renamed by Minorities observer and the page is still active.

The chauvinistic propagandist postcard > In the article now called "Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia" it was deleted, but you did not do it. In the "Slovakization" article the form has been changed, but the content remains the same. You only deleted POV chauvinistic phrase ("Czech Culture") which is insulting to the Czech people, but the effect is the same as the original. The main problem is that you recorded the propagandistic postcard published by Magyar Nemzeti Szövetség and how I can see you agree with their policies and views.

I mean do you SERIOUSLY think that the 1st... from your list is heavy POV material? > Yes, I think. You also reupload this map, derivative work of this map (Transferred from en.wikipedia; Transfer was stated to be made by User:Themightyquill. (Original text : self-made)). CoolKoon's map usage: Jobbik, Greater Hungary (political concept) or Hungarism (Hungarian fascist ideologue), Slovakization, Hungarians in Slovakia, Hungary between the World Wars, Hungary during World War II. Another CoolKoon's map usage: Treaty of Trianon, Hungary. The similar maps from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism: , , , , , , , , , 8, , , , .

For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one.(...) Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Misplaced Pages practice to bold them so they stand out(...) > I do not know where you took 10% for Pozsony in the available English literature, anyway you forgot to write the important thing from WP rules: If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. So again manipulation, because "my newly discovered city" Cluj-Napoca and Bratislava have more than 3 names: Bratislava, Pressburg, Pressporek, Prešpurk, Prešporok, Pisonium, Posonium, Pozsony, Presbourg, Presburgo, Istropolis, Wilson city or 'Wilsonstadt, etc... --Omen1229 (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You listed up to thirteen names, but actually three of them as they were official names of the city. Why the German? Major city in the Habsburg Empire. Why is the Hungarian relevant? Former capital of the Royal Hungary (for 311 years) & also major Hungarian city. The city wasn't really influenced by any other power. --Csendesmark (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You listed up to thirteen names, but actually three of them as they were official names of the city. > Do you have some sources for this sentence? And what do you think about Posonium? Nevertheless the "official names" in the Habsburg Empire or in the Royal Hungary are totally irrelevant in English WP. Do you think the names Prešporok, Presburgo and others have zero importance? If there are more names than this (I do not see anywhere "only the official names used in the past"), or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So you reject reality and substitute your own?--Csendesmark (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you respond to me? What is the reality? Bratislava was never "major Hungarian city", but major city in the multiethnic Habsburg Empire or multiethnic "Kingdom of Hungary" - never homogeneous Hungarian political structure. The official language in the "Kingdom of Hungary" (then part of the Austrian Empire) was Latin until 19th century. So again, do you know what is the name Posonium? Nevertheless, the "official names used in the past" are totally irrelevant in English WP. This is reality. --Omen1229 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why you sorted the Italian, Greek, Polish, etc names to blur the really relevant one's. And now you're deny it's importance of the Hungarian culture/history/etc. Posonium, yeah, it's coming from the Hungarian name, and Hungarians not really spoke Latin in reality. (I am not want write an essay about Latin language in Hungary, but if you promise to remain in silence after it, I'll writing it down with pleasure.) But still the most important to encore the importance of the political/cultural influence of the Hungarians and Germans in the city. You should read the article more closely. I am also curious, if the other names are really important as the German and Hungarian names, why only this two has a forward to the actual article? So I say: time to wake up :) --Csendesmark (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why you sorted the Italian, Greek, Polish, etc names to blur the really relevant one's. > Polish name (Bratysława) is missing by the way. For you are only "the really relevant" names Pozsony and Pressburg. The other names are unimportant, also WP rules and WP recommendations are irrelevant for you. Right?

Posonium, yeah, it's coming from the Hungarian name, and Hungarians not really spoke Latin in reality. (I am not want write an essay about Latin language in Hungary, but if you promise to remain in silence after it, I'll writing it down with pleasure.) > Please, do not write another essay. In the Hungarian language the name Pozsony was used, which can be traced back to the name of the Slavonic Prince Bozan or Božan (Posan, Bosan), similarly at the Latin name Posonium.

But still the most important to encore the importance of the political/cultural influence of the Hungarians and Germans in the city. > The history of the city has been strongly influenced by people of different nations and religions, namely by Austrians, Czechs, Germans, Jews, Hungarians, Slovaks and other nations in the multiethnic country. Definitely not only Hungarians and Germans. So again: If there are more names than this (Do you see anywhere "the most important to encore the importance of the political/cultural influence"), or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. Nevertheless, this discussion is about the Naming conventions, the "importance of the political/cultural influence" are totally irrelevant in English WP:Naming conventions, because we have history, etymology, demographics sections in the articles...

I am also curious, if the other names are really important as the German and Hungarian names, why only this two has a forward to the actual article? So I say: time to wake up :) > The article is now protected and you was the last editor before the locking. Now do you know why "only really important German and Hungarian names" are in the lead of the actual article? --Omen1229 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Look up what is "forward" means. Csendesmark (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how this discussion continues to change and evolve, and that it can turn back into something that makes sense to me. For example, I do not understand much of what Omen1229 said of the movement for a better Hungary (jobbik) and why it is relevant to the discussion on the matter. Therefore, I might as well suggest closing this discussion on this very board...Nmate (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand very much of what you said in all your comments in this discussion. I ignored your penultimate absurd comment in this discussion and I know your liking for closing/deletion, but what is your point relevant to the discussion now? --Omen1229 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the article talk page, "Pressburg" should definitely be included, since it was the name the city was known by in English for centuries (and still is in some historical contexts). AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on God

There is a request for comment regarding the scope of the article God at Talk:God#Scope of this article. Any and all input is welcome. This is a rather contentious subject, and I think any and all input would be welcome to help resolve the matter. And, just for informational purposes, this is a regular RfC, not an RfC/U. Quite a few of us are still working on the rather lengthy list of behavioral questions relating to that alleged individual. ;) John Carter (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the mention of RfC/U, and burst out laughing! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

On the page for Christian terrorism, TFD deleted the entire section for Assam today, stating, "Remove - need sources that this was". I reverted the change, and noted on the talk page that the issue was already settled a year ago (and said user was a part of that conversation), and even added another source (though the entire section on India is almost "over"-cited, due to many Christians objecting about its existence). Collect then jumped in, deleting everything again, even my new cites, and is not even PRETENDING to be neutral about it, or follow WP guidelines. He now states that "so far it is only one editor who thinks this has consensus - while all the others do not think it has consensus for inclusion - seems clear here" and keeps deleting everything. There are currently FOUR editors in the discussion, and TWO are in favor of deletion, and TWO are in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, this just happened TODAY, and therefore the idea that a "consensus" has been reached is ludicrous. The section has been in existence for over a year without anyone having a problem with it. This is getting silly, and some cooler heads need to intervene before it gets any uglier. NOTE: TFD has essentially taken the position that "Christian terrorism" does not exist, and Collect is extremely pro-Christian in his POV. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is indeed becoming a bit of a pain the Assam (sorry, I couldn't resist!). There apparently is a sudden outburst of longing to delete a previously stable section of the page, arising it seems from some recent news headlines. It would be helpful to have a few administrative eyes on the page, and maybe it should be full-protected if the edit warring continues. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The personal attacks on me are less than warranted. Mr. Morrigan appears to feel that his sole opinion outweighs Misplaced Pages policy - and since TFD and I have never before been accused of colluding <g>, I think it remotely possible that Mr. Morrigan's personal opinions on the topic are a problem and not a solution. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Note that calling me "extremely pro-Christian" is sufficiently inapt if one actually reads my edits that it is mere name-calling here. Collect (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm no fan of personal attacks, but it isn't just his opinion that the sourcing of the section is adequate. As for the rest of my opinion, there's too much personalization of the discussion, in both "directions". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just my personal "opinion," and the 15 citations you keep deleting... /sarcasm And you keep acting as if I'm the only one, when there are more people than I opposing your POV-pushing (just as there were more over a year ago when all this originally came up). In fact, most of the citations that are there now were added as a result of you guys WP:KNOWing that "Christian terroism doesn't exist!" (Usually based on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and nothing more...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK folks, since this page is nominally a noticeboard for administrators, maybe it's time to stop debating here, and let the administrators take a look at whether anything requiring their intervention is required. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

See Aubrey's The new dimension of international terrorism, Chapter Five "Typologies of Terrorism" (pp. 43-44): "Six basic types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left-wing, right-wing, and anarchist....The term nationalist terrorism generally connotes the political process of achieving a recognized separate state for a national group....Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely inspired purposes...." This typology is fairly standard and the group mentioned under Assam is categorized under nationalist terrorism because it is attempting to gain self-government. While nationalist terrorists may hold left-wing, right-wing, religious or anarchist views, and individual groups may contain members holding a variety or even combination of these views, they are treated distinctly in the literature.

Although Bryonmorrigan appears to believe that religion, rather than nationalist disputes, is the cause of this groups's actions, sources do not agree. Certainly they are both terrorists and Christians, but that is not the definition of the topic. We do not for example include under Islamic terrorism all the Arab nationalist groups, e.g., Abu Nidal, from the 1970s, whose members were mostly Muslims.

Bryonmorrigan has argued that one can be both a nationalist and a Christian terrorist at the same time. Yet none of the sources I have seen place the same group in more than one category.

Going forward I suggest that we only describe groups where there is academic consensus that they are Christian terrorists. We should also mention the minority view that Christianity is the main motivation for most terrorism carried out by nominal Christians, such as Brievik, Timothy Mc Veigh, the Atlanta bomber, the KKK, the Lebanese Phalange, the IRA, etc. But if we jump into descriptions of the actions of these groups then we are creating a POV article that falsely represents there is a consensus view that they were Christian terrorists.

BTW I do not disbelieve that there are Christian terrorists, just that I am unable to find any sources that identify any.

TFD (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, back in April 2011, there are academic sources that disagree with your opinion, such as in the academic journal, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. In the paper, "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," (30:963–983, 2007; DOI: 10.1080/10576100701611288) by Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot, it begins with this paragraph:

"Although armed groups and political violence referring to Islam have attracted increasing attention since the start of the global war against terror, one particular religion can hardly be described as the main source of inspiration of what is commonly referred to as “terrorist acts of violence.” Faith-based violence occurs in different parts of the world and its perpetrators adhere to all major world faiths including Christianity. As such, this article treats three cases of non-state armed actors that explain their actions as being motivated by Christian beliefs and aimed at the creation of a new local society that is guided by religion: the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Ambonese Christian militias." (p. 963)

Here is another line from the article: "If one takes a closer look at the NLFT’s choice of targets, it becomes all the more obvious that the movement is religiously inspired." (p. 967) The only way to conclude that this group does NOT fit into the definition of "Christian Terrorism," is if one has an agenda to deny the existence of "Christian Terrorism." Even by the standards you presented above, "Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely inspired purposes," this citation shows that these groups satisfy the relevant criteria. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish, administrators are only able to deal with behavioral, not content issues. Furthermore, administrators are supposed to take into account the will of the community before taking action. TFD (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder why you just posted a lengthy discussion of content here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Nagaland see . The Christian conversions started in the 1840s and are not "terrorism" nor "forced" per the Encyclopedia of India. The Hindustan Times beloes the claims about Christians being terrorists in Tripura pretty thouroughly -- The Mizos came under the influence of the British missionaries in the 19th century, and now most of the Mizos are Christians. One of the beneficial results of missionary activities was the spread of education," renowned Mizo academician K. Liantlinga said. etc. No match for "Christian terrorism" though terrorism is mentioned inthe article - with zero connection to religion. The sources in the WP article do not back the claims made for them, which I suggest is a real problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So the BBC was lying when it stated the following (from a citation in the article)?:

"The NLFT is accused of forcing Tripura's indigenous tribes to become Christians and give up Hindu forms of worship in areas under their control. Last year, they issued a ban on the Hindu festivals of Durga Puja and Saraswati Puja. The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. The Baptist Church in Tripura was set up by missionaries from New Zealand 60 years ago. It won only a few thousand converts until 1980 when in the aftermath, of the state's worst ethnic riot, the number of conversions grew."

It's wonderful to know that you WP:KNOW better than the BBC, but you are not a WP:RS, chief. Dear Moderators...wherever you are: See what I mean? They aren't reading the citations...but they WP:KNOW that they are "wrong." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The article refers to the NLFT as "separatist rebels". Note another BBC article, which also calls them separatists, says that "it wanted all tribespeople in Tripura to become Christians because the practice of Hinduism has led to them being marginalised by people of Bengali origin living in the state." So it is enforcing religious norms for nationalist reasons. Incidentally as SATP says, the leadership of the NLFT is divided on this approach. And the target is Hindus not non-Christians. TFD (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So anyways...I take it no actual, living "administrators" actually look at this "administrator's noticeboard" then? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that, too. I'm going to ask about it on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages reconciliation