Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:51, 13 December 2011

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:

scottish-argentinians

Argentinian 41st president Juan Domingo Peron, is not of Scottish descent. Perón's grandparents emigrated to Argentina from the Italian island of Sardinia. I should know, because I was born in Argentina, from Scottish immigrants. I have a picture from the time when I was a toddler, in where I am sitting on Peron's mother lap. I wonder whether, it would be of any interest.

sea of japan

To Wikipidia

I appreciate you for your providing valuable and great information. I just want to let you know that the site has a serious potential problem with the incorrect information.

We, Korean, were quite surprised to find your informatinon Japan still describe Korea's 'East Sea' as 'Sea of Japan,' which is incorrect.

Using a proper name for the body of water between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago is not simply a question of changing the name of a geographical feature. It is rather a part of national effort by the Korean people to erase the legacy of Japanese Imperialism and to redress the unfairness that has resulted from it. It is an absolutely mistaken thing to hear one side of story and follow. If we let this kind of things alone, it brings about a serious problem to disturb order of International society. For your reference, the world's largest commercial mapmaker, National Geographic, worldatlas.com, and the travel guidebook, Lonely Planet Publication promised us that they would now use the name 'East Sea.' In addition, National Geographic and Lonely Planet are already using the name, 'East Sea' in their website after we pointed out the error.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/north_east_asia/north_korea/north_korea.htm http://www.nationalgeographic.com/maps/updates/seaofjapan.html http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/eastsea.htm

As a member of VANK, I urge you to use 'East Sea' to describe the body of water in question or both Korean and Japanese designation simultaneously (e.g. 'East Sea/Sea of Japan') in all your documents and atlases.

Once Korea and Japan agree on a common designation, which is in accord with the general rule of international cartography, we can then follow the agreed-on designation.

We would be grateful for your explanation. Yours very truly,

VANK, Cyber Civilian Diplomat in Korea, consisted of 10,000 Korean voluntary people.

http://www.prkorea.org http://www.prkorea.com

mailto: eastsea@prkorea.org

Thank you, and we would appreciate your favorable consideration.

※The Historical precedent for the 'East Sea' http://www.prkorea.com/english/eastsea.html ※How to name the sea area between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago http://www.prkorea.com/english/eastsea2.html

< VANK > We, the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK), are a civilian international exchange association in Korea. We work for the promotion of Korea’s image all over the world though the Internet.

We were established on January first, 1999, by volunteering people from the all over our country for the purpose of enhancing the image of Korea in cyber-space

Through email or postage, we aim to serve as cyber travel guides to overseas Koreans and foreigners so that they can better understand our Korean culture and language, and at the same time build international friendships.

VANK is a great chance those who are interested in Korean language, arts, cultural education, history, geography, social studies, sciences or just in making Korean friends!

http://www.prkorea.org

"Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches." - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.151.114.130 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/T._V._Raman

TV Raman was born and raised in Pune. He was NOT born in Lahore, Pakistan. I have corrected it at least once and it has reverted back to he was born in Lahore, Pakistan.

TV Raman is also not a Pakistani Computer Scientist as the category at the bottom mentions.

Please correct it and advise the person who keeps changing it.

Many Thanks

Mukkai S. Krishnamoorthy moorthy@cs.rpi.edu http://rcos.rpi.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mskmoorthy (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New editor POV-pushing on some India-related articles

Panchode1998 (talk · contribs) was reported by the bot to WP:UAA, supposedly on the grounds that his name is a slang word for penis. It's not one I've heard, but his edits are clear POV-pushing on behalf of India's Sikhs: here on Assassination of Indira Gandhi and here on 1984 anti-Sikh riots. I have reverted and warned him, but someone needs to keep an eye on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the user name is a term of abuse in India and Pakistan, although it doesnt mean 'penis'. I'll also keep an eye out for this. Regs Khani100 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Khani100

Khattar

Dear all, have a problem with the above article concerning a Punjabi tribe, spread out over India and Pakistan. If you look at the talk pages and history for quite some time, youll note there is a basic difference in p.o.views regarding the ethnic origins of the Khattars and Im sorry, but dont know how to come to any 'common ground' for reconciliation and we seem to be going in circles. Maybe, if some one could look at this article carefully please and give us neutral/third part guidance? What other options do we have please? Thanks, Khani100 (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Khani100

Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sheodred (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

The term Anglo-Irish is being used inappropiately in articles on Irish figures, many editors have the misconception that it can be used to describe an Irish figure's nationality, which is wrong. Some editors are not aware that it is inappropiate, some are aware but wish to ignore that fact as it suits their POV on the relevant articles, we have seen these problems on the articles about W.B Yeats ,U2, Bram Stoker, Charles Stewart Parnell, Theobald Wolfetone, Ernest Shackleton, Countess Markievicz and many other notable Irish figures.

It seems to many uninvolved and neutral editors that the relevant disruptive edits/comments and edit-warring by ulta-nationalist editors is in order to erase any mention of Irish in the lede Iand replace it with British or Anglo-Irish, it is perceived as an attempt to erase their Irish nationality and claim them as only British. I know this may sound petty but its a serious problem on wikipedia with Irish-related articles.

I am not disputing their Anglo-Irish heritage it does not belong in the lede, and to use it in the lede to obscure and erase Irish is wrong.

It is really exhausting and time-wasting for well-meaning editors to put up with this nonsense on the Irish articles on a daily basis. We are accused of being nationalists pushing our POV, when in essence we are correcting errors and rectifying articles that have been subjected to the POV of editors who than throw that argument at us.

Many involved and uninvolved editors share the same concern. Sheodred (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sheodred

From User:Sheodred's contributions:

Articles

• Boudica: — removed "British".
• Iceni: — removed "British".
• Muiredach Tirech: — changed "Northern Ireland" to "Ireland". (Note: pre-1922)
• Patrick Kavanagh: changed "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland". (Note: pre-1922)
• John Tyndall: — challenges use of "Anglo-Irish" and "British", changes to "Irish", uses unsanctioned MOS discussions as policy, war-edits/reverts, never provides a reliable source.
• Ernerst Shackleton: — replaces "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish", war-edits/reverts, accuses editors of violating MOS policy, ignores consensus, no provision of sources.
• Laurence Sterne: — replaces "Anglo-Irish" and references to "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Ireland" with "Irish" or "England". No sources provided. Claims MOS "dictates" that he is right in edit summary.
• Wolfe Tone: — added "Irish" to lead, despite removal of "British" or "Anglo" identities in other articles, under MOS pre-tenses.
• Henry Grattan: — added "Irish" to lead.
• George Berkley — swapped "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", used "see MOS" as edit summary, no provision of source.
• Lewis (surname) (disambiguation): replaced "British" with "Irish", no sourcing, used "born and raised in Ireland, moved to England to study" as edit summary, despite that birthplace was Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland, part of the UK. No sources provided to show otherwise.
• Shackleton: — swapped "British" to "Irish", no sources provided.
• Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany: — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided.
• George Salmon: — "Anglican" removed, edit summary claims "religion does not belong here" despite fact the biog is about a Reverend.
• Thomas Andrews: — "Irish" added to lead.
• John Thomas Romney Robinson: — "Irish" added to lead.
• George Johnstone Stoney: — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided.
• Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough: — added "Irish".
• Charles Villiers Stanford: — replaced "eminent English-domiciled (though Irish-born)" with "Irish", no sources provided.
• James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde: — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided - note: article states "born in London".
• Cecil Day-Lewis: — replaced "a British poet from Ireland" with "Irish" - note: article reads "Day-Lewis continued to regard himself as Anglo-Irish for the remainder of his life, though after the declaration of the Republic of Ireland in 1948 he chose British rather than Irish citizenship", although this claim is uncited, no source provided to support change to "Irish" either.
• Oliver Goldsmith: — changed references to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Goldsmith was born in 1780 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". "Great Britain" changed to "England". "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", no sources provided.
• Jonathan Swift: — changed reference to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Swift was born in 1667 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". Replaced "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish" including changing citation to this which only reads "Irish author" in the search results article link, the article itself, however, says "Anglo-Irish author". "Anglo-Irish" reference moved against father, along with citation.
• Peter O'Toole — war editing in conjunction with User:Mo ainm over sources and attacking other editors contribs as disruptive or vandalism.
• Jocelyn Bell Burnell: — removed "UK" from birth place.
• Packie Bonner: — added "Irish" to lead.
• Bananarama: — brief war editing, between "British" and "English" usage because of Irish members.
• Siobhan Fahey: — added "Irish".

Discussions

• Mary Shelley (page talk): — attacking use of "English".
• PatGallacher (user talk): — challenges "Britons" vs "British".
• Cuchullain (user talk): — challenges "Britons" vs "British".
• British people (page talk): — challenges "Britons" vs "British".
• Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (page talk): — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", does not provide sources to support argument, edited article.
• W. B. Yeats (page talk): — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", uses incomplete MOS discussion as support, but no sources.
• Oliver Goldsmith (page talk): — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", uses incomplete MOS discussion as support, but no sources.
• GoodDay (user talk): — issued "unconstructive" template for war edit that he himself was engaged in. GoodDay removed message without response.
• GoodDay (user talk): — series of personal and uncivil attacks regarding "British/Irish" nationality.
• Phil Coulter (page talk): — personal attacks on User:GoodDay, "you are just on wikipedia to disrupt and troll".
• Nadine Coyle (page talk): — uncivil remarks, also highlights personal national sentiments towards disputing "British" identity.
• Cillian Murphy (page talk): — British editors told to "fcuk off and get a life" (sic).
• Liam Neeson (talk page): — British editors told to "now please just fuck off".
• George Washington (talk page): — claims "English and British unionist editors" are "trying to push their own agendas for claiming other countries achievements".
• Long-term abuse (page talk): — series of personal attacks on User:GoodDay.

All listed edits are taken from this year only, mostly falling in the past 3 months: October – December 2011. I think there is major cause for concern here. I do not dispute whether the edits were "wrong" or "right", a few are legit, many are not; I simply raise the fact that the editor claims to be non-POV, yet in 1,012 contribs, has clearly focused on promoting Irish identity, removing British identity, and engaging with other editors to the point of being uncivil, accusational, and raising a number of AN/I threads that have been dismissed as inappropriate or rhetorical by admins and other editors. It is normally the case that Sheodred engages other editors, disputes their opinions, then uses AN/I in order to condemn their comments whilst masking his own.

As such, I motion that a Topic Ban be imposed on Sheodred regarding any field of "Irish identity", whether nationality, ethnicity or heritage be his focus of argument. Some of the edits above are disruptive, most are unsourced. Until he learns to utilise reliable sources, cite neutral sources, engage with British editors without the accusations of "unionism", POV-pushing, etc, and not abuse Wiki AN pages through which to vein his own agenda and incriminate other editors who have reverted and opposed his plethora of pro-Irish edits, he is not acting as a competent editor. Furthermore, it should be understood by Sheodred that the MOS is not a policy, does not dictate anything. It is used for styling articles, and determines how the layout of articles should be applied. It does not determine whether national identity should take priority over other forms of ethnic identity. Any such proposals to make policy regarding use of nationality in biographies, should be proposed to the entire community, per WP:CONLIMITED and not limited to WikiProject:Ireland without invitation to other editors. This has been the case so far, and British editors have been attacked for opposing the motion to disregard the use of "Anglo-Irish" terminology. Considering the lack of neutrality in this proposal it is clearly unacceptable by Wiki standards, and a lot of Sheodred's edits have been made contrary to practices detailed in guidelines and policies, to maintain neutral viewpoints. See: initial proposal.

Ma®©usBritish  14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this topic ban. I thank MarcusBritish for doing the necessary work. MarcusBritish's list is incomplete, though. Here are Sheodred's edits to biographies of four more Irish-born subjects, and no doubt yet more can be found.

On the one hand, consider his edit to C. S. Lewis (born 1898). Sheodred changed the infobox nationality from "British" to "Irish", citing Encyclopedia Britannica as a reference, but that reference says only that C. S. Lewis was "Irish-born". C. S. Lewis moved from Ireland to England at age 9 or 10 and lived in England for practically his whole life thereafter. According to Sheodred, Lewis's nationality is "Irish" and his citizenship is "British". The article's opening sentence before Sheodred's edit was "...was a British novelist...", which Sheodred changed to "...was a novelist...". (C. S. Lewis is generally taken to be "British" or "English", afaik). http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=C._S._Lewis&diff=prev&oldid=460804530

Now, on the other hand, consider his edit to George Gabriel Stokes (born 1819). Sheodred changed the infobox nationality from "British" to "Irish" without citing any reference. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that Stokes was "British". The Misplaced Pages article's opening sentence before Sheodred's edit was "...was a mathematician and physicist...", which Sheodred changed to "...was an Irish mathematician and physicist...". He's not citing any reference, yet presumably he's aware that he's not supported by Britannica. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sir_George_Stokes,_1st_Baronet&diff=463091520&oldid=459764702

For Edward Carson (born 1854), Sheordred's changed "...was a British barrister..." to "...was an Irish unionist barrister...". When that change was undone by another editor, Sheodred re-did it. Eventually the edit of Sheodred's was removed, and the article restored to how it has been longstandingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Edward_Carson,_Baron_Carson&diff=prev&oldid=456155005

For Duke of Wellington (born 1769), Sheodred tried three times to label Wellington "Irish" -- , , . He was privately advised by one editor -- -- to take it to the Wellington Discussion page to justify himself, but he didn't do so.

Not mentioned by MarcusBritish but I think worth mentioning is that Sheodred is already under this topic ban but the ban expires on 1 Jan 2012.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=463574050#User:Sheodred_reported_by_User:SarekOfVulcan_.28Result:_Restriction.29

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sheodred#Consider_agreeing_to_a_voluntary_restriction_about_articles_like_Ernest_Shackleton

Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I have informed SarekOfVulcan and Ruhrfisch of this discussion, given their involvement in the topic ban mentioned. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  20:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow these British POV pushers continue to surprise me with their belligerence, they have even notified the two admins who wrongly blocked me before who had to unblock me shortly after, he also failed to notify me about this on my talk page......go figure.Sheodred (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean1111111 is distorting the truth, I have made not violated the restriction (not topic ban) that User:EdJohnston asked me to voluntarily impose (not SarekofVulcan or Ruhrfisch) (, these are lies,this is blatant harassment by an editor(s) who have an axe to grind for me. Sheodred (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

LMAO! You started this ECCN, you are supposed to watch it yourself. No one notifies the person who starts an AN thread. Jesus wept... you really are desperate to incriminate people on false grounds. If you knew how Wiki worked, instead of indulging in your own system, maybe you'd make a better impression. I don't think it's an unwillingness to understand though, just an unwillingness to admit when you're wrong. Even that link to the Topic Ban, you end by having a poke at every admin for abusing, POV-pushing, on behalf of Union-nationalists. It's very clear here who is the POV-pusher, the nationalist and who disregards policies and guidelines, and even breaks the spirit of a Topic Ban – instead of pushing Irish nationality, you changed to challenging British nationality. As far as I can identify, it's just a sly attempt to circumvent toe topic ban and maintain a disruptive stance against British editors. By not accepting that, your rights to edit need revoking. This is not harassment, this is procedure – just like the 2 AN/Is and WQA you opened in an attempt to "discipline" editors opposing your edits. Personally I think you're a hair's width away from an indef block or ban, for persistent incompetence. Harassment is akin to threatening a person in real life, not responding to threads which you started. Ma®©usBritish  22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never come across anyone on wikipedia that is as uncivil and rude as you are, you have to be one of the biggest jerks on this. I made those reports so that your incivility would not go unnoticed and in the hopes that an admin will help you stop this behaviour, I never tried to topic ban you despite everything. Sheodred (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Yes, I'm a jerk. But it takes one to know one. I don't need Topic Banning, I rarely touch biogs and my historical edits are neutral, as any good historian should be in order to understand history, rather than blind themselves with nationalist views. Ma®©usBritish  22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Support He claims that some POV-pushers are looking for his head, but looking at his edits I have to conclude that he is the POV-pusher. Canvassing turned out wrong. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC) But one day The Irish will conquer England and suppress them the same way thay did to Ireland.

You clearly have no knowledge of the discussions on those pages, and with the editors involved if that is your conclusion. Sheodred (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:ANI and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN is where you go if you are looking for a topic ban for me not here. Sheodred (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to attract the wikidrama queens. Remember, Britain has a higher population than Ireland.. therefore there are likely to be more British editors than Irish ones, and not all neutral. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. This is an AN board, all proposals are relevant. It is the Admin attention, not the urgency of the incident, that applies here. Read the top boxes. Ma®©usBritish  23:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

is selective WP:CANVASSING. I suggest you remove the posts, forthwith. Ma®©usBritish  22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No I won't ,that applies to articles not people who are subjected to malicious personal vendettas. Sheodred (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Suit yourself. The consequences of ignoring my advice are on your own head. Ma®©usBritish  22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not familiar with this particular board, so I'm not sure how quick admin response will be. But, Marcus, I'd suggest it's probably a good shop window if you want to continue to demonstrate what a problematic editor you are by derailing yet another thread on the topic of what nationality Irish people really are. Go for your life. --FormerIP (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't make sense. Irish people are Irish. I've never disputed that, nor can you prove otherwise. Such slurs don't bother me, as you're unlikely to turn the tables with unsupported rhetoric. I've always maintained that "Anglo-Irish" is a heritage, and never implied it to be a nationality. Nor have I ever replaced a biog nationality from "Irish" to "British". If you want another list of my contribs to support that I've been neutral, it's easily done. Go figure. Prove I derailed anything, if you can. I'll prove I simply over-turned a proposal via policy and consensus, snowed it, and left it for dead. Ma®©usBritish  23:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages reconciliation