Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 03:27, 17 December 2012 (→I have a concern: There was an apparent consensus in March 2012 on the scope of the Indigenous peoples article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

NLP

Ed, some advise please. Just before you froze the article user User:Reconsolidation made a series of changes which have also been attempted by two of his previous identities. Those are listed below. The link between each of those listed is evidence based. Reconsolidation starts as an IP from the Sydney area where all the four listed below came from, makes the same statements that they have edited before but refuse to say with which IDs and then follow a pattern of asking everyone to be reasonable, raising abstract questions on the talk page not related to edits etc. etc. Whenever this particular editor appears we also get new editors, both named and IPs who are more extreme and allow Comaze (to go back to the original name) to claim a higher moral position. We have at least one clear case of meat puppetry, and also links between the editor and WP:COI promotion of New Code NLP, advertising sessions with John Grinder (Inspiritive site linked to Action Potential/Comaze)

Previous IDs

1. User:Comaze, subject to Arbcom injunction on NLP article
2. User:Action potential (user page linked to Scott Coleman of comaze.com who also runs a web site promoting New Code)
3. User:122.108.140.210
4. User:122.x.x.x

Now the pattern has been that the minute it looks like the community is going to investigate the subject ANI or wherever gets saturated with comments that make it look like a simple content dispute rather than a long term pattern of disruptive behaviour. As that becomes clear all attempts to edit the article stop, and nothing happens for six months or so, then the whole pattern starts again. There is a lot of other stuff which I have notes of here.

Aside from the fact that I think the article should be restored to its stable state given the long term protection (which makes a lot of sense by the way so thanks for that), my real difficulty is to know how or where to raise the issue. A person who changes their name but does not edit in parallel is not a sock puppet, there is real evidence of one meat puppet but its fairly old, recent is more circumstantial. But the behaviour is clearly disruptive, is planned and executed over long periods and has material off wiki (web sites advising people how to edit to get NLP's version across, accusations of sock puppetry always taken up by at least one of the new editors to muddy the waters etc.)

My own view is that it really needs an experienced admin to investigate and then raise it at ANI or similar. However while I have been around a fair time and wasted far too much of it on this article, I'm not sure if that is the correct procedure. Your advise as I say would be appreciated. ----Snowded 06:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is only semiprotected. If you think you see an organized campaign of editing to push a POV, that is something that could be filed at WP:SPI. It would be a fair amount of work, because you'd need to supply diffs. You would be relying on behavior to show the connection and probably couldn't expect any checkuser findings. If you can find something that looks convincing, you may be able to get action, either from admins at SPI, or through WP:Arbitration enforcement. The original Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming#Probation provides for article bans at the discretion of the enforcing administrator. I'm thinking that you could refile Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Enemesis with some new content and asking for specific sanctions. Now that semiprotection is in place, part of the problem will presumably go away. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My general experience is that SPI admins don't like meat puppetry but Arbitration enforcement makes sense. As you say it will be a fair amount of work, but it will be a nice little forensic task for Christmas. Thanks for the prompt response. ----Snowded 06:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed, a request for help on how to get this article encyclopedic again, like all other Wiki articles. The first paragraph of the lead begins with "largely discredited", which seems to be Weasel Words. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Weasel_words) "Largely" is an adverb giving opinion, like "hugely". The word "discredited" is also misleading. An example I saw here on Misplaced Pages guides used Bill Clinton being "discredited". One could be hyperbolic and suggest that Bill Clinton was "discredited". That's a vague term trying to blanket the entire person. Instead, if we spoke specifically about his statements to congress about not having sex with Lewinski, we could the cite impeachment directly related to those comments, because impeachment is a legal process of Congress (not a collection of articles on the internet). Citing many articles of people challenging NLP should be used in a "Controversy and criticism" section, not imply an argument in the first paragraph about the entire topic. The last paragraph should contain the challenge to the topic, as I see in most every Misplaced Pages article. The first paragraphs should do their best to describe what the topic is. Instead, the lead reads now more like a political bias, not an encyclopedia article.

Though there are a substantial count of articles added recently, cited to suggest criticism of NLP, many are not in the public domain and cannot be reviewed for the actual statements cited, to verify the article actually states what is characterized in the article. In just one article by Witkowski, which is public, the major premise of the author is false: a) each of us uses a primary representational system (pg 59 p1) b) those can be accessed by eye movments thus c) "All other hypotheses of the NLP system related to the arising of mental disorders, the type of therapy and communication, etc. stem from these basic assertions." That is like saying "all of hypnosis stem from how the patient's head nods." Though the article appears to come from a Polish Psychological journal, the author knows little about NLP and so psychologists, also knowing very little, must simply assume his major premise is accurate, and thus the whole study is accurate. This is the challenge of any article written. Worse yet, what would a peer review reveal, if there was one? And, this is just one of the examples of why citing many articles to prove a POV does not therefore make the POV correct, just because there are many articles. Most importantly for an encyclopedia, that list of articles does not color the lead sentence and suggest to the reader what they should think. A great example of the failure of "scientific papers" is the study suggesting depression was genetic. For many years doctors were telling patients of these findings, which could never be duplicated.

I'm asking you Ed because as one editor suggested on the Talk page, the NLP article has become a "hornet's nest", thus the semi-protection, I imagine. There is a clear POV that NLP is "pseudo-science" (wording that has been challenged) and it seems the article is meant to steer people away from the subject matter rather than describe what it is. The page immediately suggests to the reader that they should stop reading, with POV words like "largely discredited", "claimed", "says", "unsupported". If we saw similar words used on the Buddhism, hypnosis, chiropractic pages, it would clearly be POV attack. Please advise on how to civilly return the page to a Wiki encyclopedia article as it had been 2004-on, until this year.

I cannot find a single article on Misplaced Pages that immediately attempts to "discredit" a topic. I suggest the entire lead needs to be rewritten in the encyclopedic form of any other Wiki article. Also, more can be added that further describes the workings of the topic, so we can know what it is before we know what is being challenged. How can that be done? Eturk001 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider making these arguments at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Note that there are 21 talk archives and some of these issues have been discussed many times. If you are hoping to make a major change you should consider opening a WP:Request for comment. The article is now in the Category:Pseudoscience and this judgment appears to be based on citable mainstream opinion, together with Misplaced Pages policy on fringe topics. Whether published papers are openly available on the web is not a factor on whether they can be cited in our articles, per WP:V. Your own personal attempt to refute Witkowski's arguments would be considered WP:Original research. You would need to find a notable expert who has published his criticism of Witkowski. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed!

What's confusing is that "largely discredited" has been pointed out many times, but there is the one person arguing that several articles justify "largely discredited". It's just banter and opinion at this point, from what I see in talk. How do we get to a decision if there's one opinion that their language is perfect? Who makes the change? Do I just remove that section with my argument post? With no one in charge, it's just who is most forceful. Steps please. Thanks! Want to do this and build a better article. Again, I've not seen one article in Misplaced Pages where the first leap paragraph discounts the topic, then it is hardly described. Eturk001 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You have not yet posted anything at all on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming, so it's early in the day to declare you should go ahead and change the lead. Your comments about 'who is most forceful' suggest you are unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policy. Changes should be supported by consensus. This is especially important on a highly contentious article like this one. Admins will intervene if they believe that edit warring, POV-pushing, or misuse of sources is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Accidental save

Hi, Ed, yes I accidently saved the dispute before finishing my extensive work, but it is now properly formatted and saved.Ackees (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

What is the policy on linking to an article in another language? On the Rumi article an editor has linked his father to a Russian article about his father(I guess?). I do not know what the article in Russian is about or what it says. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the wikilink from Rumi's father's name to the Russian Misplaced Pages article should be undone. It might be OK to create a footnote in the Rumi article stating a few facts about the father, and include a link to Russian Misplaced Pages from there. Most likely the editor who added the link is in the best position to do that. He states he has en-3 competence in English, so you should be able to leave a message for him if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

See here how this user poisoned others users ears against me in uncivil manner instead of discussing calmly with me.---zeeyanketu 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please Zeeyanketu. You broke the 3 RR rule. You are a known distruptor. You engaged in personal attacks against me as evidenced by the Jab Tak Hai Jaan talk page. So stop being so uncivil and rude and learn respect for fellow editors. Ashermadan (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Also Pleasant1623 is mediating our "dispute". It is resolved now I think after other editors weighed in. Ashermadan (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WP tags

You are an administrator here? If I done anything wrong, please tell me what it is? I understand that there are all kinds of people in Misplaced Pages who rather attack personality of other user instead to challenge arguments on talk page. Please read my arguments on talk page and tell me which of my actions or comments was wrong. Oldhouse2012 (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You should follow whatever consensus is reached at Talk:History of Vojvodina#Move forward. It appears that others don't agree with you there as to which project tags belong on the article. If you continue to change tags without getting support from others, sanctions are possible. In particular, any more edits like those described at ANI are not in your best interest. If you want to keep working on articles in this area, avoid activities that could cause you to be topic banned. You have already been notified under WP:ARBEE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Imitation is the highest form of flattery

but....hi ed - could you do some wiki-magic and look into this new account, created today, which seems to be (so far) created to just edit a very controversial page. i have a suspicion it is a current editor using a sock account. i could be wrong, but the coincidence is too great. thanks. the new account is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Friends_of_soosim -- if you care, you can review the history behind it at Amiram Goldblum, his talk page, the editor rastiniak's talk page, etc. Soosim (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think you should rise this issue at AN/I this account should be blocked for trolling and CU.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

good idea. as experienced as i am in wiki world, i really try to avoid these wars and conflicts and methods to take corrective action. thanks. Soosim (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking into this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Elockid was kind enough to respond at User talk:Elockid#User talk:Friends of soosim. Meanwhile the account is blocked indef as a group account by FisherQueen. Clever! That saves me from figuring out whether it qualifies as a disruptive user name. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks! Soosim (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Request about Iğdır

Could you inform user:E4024 of the restrictions regarding the area of Armenian, Azerbaijani and Turkish articles. Judging from this edit, I found the reasoning to be duplicitous and questionable. Normally, I could care less about the modern era, but that does not justify the removal of a reference under clearly less than sincere reasons. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We are speaking about removal of a reference from the Iğdır article. The link in ref. 17 did not work for me. By searching the armenian.ch site I found (gsa rather than asa): http://www.armenian.ch/gsa/Docs/faae02.pdf:

• We find on Page 32 of this document:

• "On the border to Armenia in the vicinity of Iğdır, a 45 meter high, martial monument was dedicated to the alleged Turkish victims of an Armenian genocide on October 5, 1999, along with a similar museum. The monument consists of five crossed swords and, according to a spokesperson of the governor of Iğdır, it is also visible from the Armenian capital city Yerevan: "Whenever the Armenians look towards their holy Mount Ararat, they will see our monument" The official opening took place in the presence of the entire military elite of Turkey, including the chief of staff Hüseyin Kivrikoğlu as well as president Süleyman Demirel. In his address, Minister of State Ramazan Mirzaoğlu claimed that between 1915 and 1929 Armenians killed almost 80,000 people in Iğdır ."
• I agree that this seems relevant to the Iğdır article, assuming that it is going to discuss the monument at all.
• When E4024 removed this reference from the article, his edit summary was "→‎The Genocide Monument: I removed a source because at a quick reading saw no reference to this monument. It is not an RS either." I will leave a note for E4024 and see if he wants to comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't want to pile on but E4024's editing in other genocide-related articles is not stellar either. Instead of trying to find sources for the facts mentioned in an article he has a tendency to rewrite text to suit his tastes and he also has a propensity to tag articles even though finding sources is not difficult. Examples from Genocides in history: E4024 adds template by whom, I repair template by adding reference; Here I restore original text by using reference which E4024 had modified to suit his tastes. Then I give him a few polite messages about his edits , , which he reverts within a minute ,, and without comment. That kind of attitude is very disappointing. Here he removes a link from Greeks in Turkey with the misleading edit summary: Added video on Greeks of The City, removing link on one time event. Even though it was not a "one time event". In the link it is clearly stated that This was the third incident in four months in Istanbul including the murder of a Greek Orthodox church sexton. Of course let's not forget the regular insults to his co-editors which he regularly maligns using any linear combination of terms like "POV warriors", "nationalists", "biassed" etc. And the edit-warring as well. Just look at his block log. In addition we have his canvassing of admins insinuating that his opponents are socks or sockmasters. And refusing to apologise to the editors he accuses as sockmasters, see and . All in all a very disappointing picture. I almost forgot: He also has a tendency to insult his co-editors using the edit-summary field which is not easy to reply to and to edit-war on Genocides in history while adding the same passage about president Clinton which he did also today again (for the third time in violation of the spirit of ARBAA2 and despite having been reverted by three different editors) using the edit-summary field to again insult his co-editors: Who has better access to sources, academic or official, than the US President. This same source is used in the article for one side's argument but somehow not the other's. Please learn WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. But he does not engage in discussion at the talkpage of the article despite having been warned under ARBAA2 at his talkpage in the past. I told him about 1RR under ARBAA2 and guess what: He reverted me without comment. Funny enough in the past he asked you Ed if you have any other accounts: BTW EdJohnston, do you happen to have another user name? Regards. What can I say? Δρ.Κ.  13:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I gave E4024 a link to this discussion but he has chosen not to respond. He has been notified under WP:ARBAA2 and WP:ARBMAC, and these notices have been logged. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the update Ed. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  21:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Copyright question about a map

No I don't have any rights to the map. I just copied it from the source. It was a long time ago and I didn't really know much about the copyright laws. I guess it should be deleted.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 04:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Response

"Evildoer, please undo the new material which you added to the WP:AE report after it was closed. It will confuse the recordkeeping there. You can make these statements at Talk:List of indigenous peoples. Thank you,"

How do I do that? Also, how do I add a RfC to the indigenous peoples talk page?

Thank you,

Evildoer187 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you view the history of WIkipedia:Arbitration enforcement you should see your last edit at the top of the list. After the entry, you should see '(undo)' or some such. You could click on the undo. Or you can just ask me to do it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your undo. I notice that you've already opened an RFC at Talk:List of indigenous peoples#Include Jews as Indigenous to Western Asia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples - Israelites

I was wondering if you would be so good as to explain to me why you have placed full protection from editing on this article. Crock81 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This was decided at WP:Arbitration enforcement#Evildoer187 under the authority of an arbitration case known as ARBPIA. Please read that discussion and come back here if you have any questions. Feel free to give your opinion in the WP:Request for comment which is now open on the article talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I had posted a message in the relevant project talk page.

Frankly I prefer talk page discussion to RfCs or AEs by the looks of them, but this one has descended into a structure-less subjective mess Crock81 (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

PS - Please also explain why this article falls within the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} criteria Crock81 (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Admins do not make decisions on content, so it is unnecessary for you to copy your content arguments here. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians appear to be seeking an advantage in discussions at the UN by obtaining the status of indigenous peoples. Which group is most ancient in Palestine, and which is a later arrival, carries some weight for them. Debates on including these two groups in List of indigenous peoples fall under WP:ARBPIA, in my opinion. The debate has attracted several editors who often participate on other I-P articles. A WP:1RR rule is used to limit edit warring on the other I-P articles so it should apply to this one as well. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussions at the UN? Firstly, these wasn't cited. Secondly, its irrelevant as the UN chose not to (p.4) have a definition of indigenousness.

How is the policy of WP:RS dependent on what the UN says on any given subject? Is Misplaced Pages apolitical or not?

Even if the "working definition" is derived from the UN, it is at best incomplete, and at worst de-contextualised! The encyclopaedic entry ought to be written based on evidence, not considerations of controversy at the UN, or do I have this wrong?

However, admins are supposed to look at editing behaviour. Your imposition of protection, prevents editing because some users simply don't like to see the entry for "Jews" under any name despite reliable sources. Either a population is indigenous, or it is not. That simple. Misplaced Pages is not a political organisation like the UN. It ought to be able to arrive at an objective definition of indigenousness, and apply it without bias to all entires on that list. I note that almost no other list entry has a reference, reliable or otherwise. This includes the most recent additions after my edits none of which have reliable sources.

For example, by the current "working definition" used in the list, in the Maritime Southeast Asia Malays are indigenous to Singapore.(Levinson, Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Group, 1998, p.278), but are excluded from the list. This has escaped anyone's attention while "Jews" have received inordinate attention because of political considerations. However, where is the Wikipedian objectivity?

For Kurds there is no citing of the page number where the Kurds are pronounced indigenous, so the criteria on which it is based can be compared and contrasted to the definition the same editor insists on using in the article as the basis for inclusion. In allowing this, you are in effect taking sides. Is this appropriate admin participation?

Assyrian cited reference comes from a short letter by the Sen. John J. Nimrod, Secretary General of the Assyrian Universal Alliance, which is hardly objective. It simply says that "In light of these historical facts and the overwhelming proofs that the Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriac of Iraq and surrounding territories are beyond any doubts (!) the indigenous people of Iraq.", citing similar archaeological evidence that can be cited for Yisra'el, i.e. "...One only has to take a shovel and dig it into the ground". Is that the proposed "definition of indigenousness" to be used in the article? Note the use of three different names of the people, of which one is from the 'Bible' and the other is used for the name of the font in which the Torah is written! So Chaldean Assytians are indigenous, but the Israelite Yisra'el are not? So much for not allowing 'biblical references' which seems to apply to my editing but not to others.

While you are at it, you may want to become aware of the Kurd vs Assyrian conflict such as outlined here and here and its historical context in the Assyrians, Kurds, and Ottomans: Intercommunal Relations on the Periphery of the Ottoman Empire, by Hirmis Aboona (particularly pp.102-103). WP:ARBKAA anyone?

The cited reference to the Marsh Dwellers (Ma'dan) – Arabic-speaking group in the Tigris-Euphrates marshlands of southern Iraq/Iranian border was in fact copy/pasted by the editor from the PREVIOUS version of the article without so much as reading the item! The relevant citation is on p.420, not p.425 which deals with Bedouin (since removed).

In any case, have you read the this document? Probably not, or you would have seen on page 86 the criticism of the US policy on indigenousness which

By limiting the definition of “American Indian” to existing societies, the U.S. government has actually denied the fact that people in North America prior to 1492 are culturally related to contemporary groups, and has excluded pre-Columbian peoples from being indigenous.

In the case of Nishidani, the same argument is used, but shifted to the 7th century CE.

Nor are you aware of the larger Islam vs everyone-else issue that had led to the only (prior to my editing) national definition of indigenousness in the Indigenous peoples article to be from the Philippines; nothing to do with the WP:ARBPIA. This is because the very same document mis-cited for the Ma'dan, says on page 319

The other issue is how indigenous peoples in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao will fare in the negotiations taking place between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Mindanao Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), in which the MILF is insisting that the definition of indigenous territory should be in accordance with Islamic interpretation, even though the indigenous peoples assert that they were there before Islam arrived in that area.

Just substitute the Government of Israel for Republic of the Philippines, and the Palestinian Authority for the Mindanao Islamic Liberation Front, because the nature of the negotiations is identical.

And what is that Islamic definition of indigenousness? In Malaysia,

...bumiputera identity...emerged first as a set of informal social institutions that identified a bumi according to religion, custom, and to a lesser extent language. As Shamsul (2004) notes, the bumiputera identity was only formalized in public policy following the riots of May 1969, a watershed incident...What is critical is that there existed a powerful set of cultural identifiers that differentiated Malays from non-Malays long before the Malaysian government chose to formalize such distinctions. Significantly, bumi status was determined by one's faith as a Muslim and adherence to adat, a type of customary law overseeing a whole range of social and economic activities. As will be noted in Chapter 5, however, this definition of indigenousness, and difficulties translating it into constitutional terms, have continued to bedevil efforts at nation-building in Malaysia. (Shoup, Conflict and cooperation in multi-ethnic states: institutional incentives, myths, and counter-balancing, p.51)

Whether we use the label indigenous, bumiputera, or taukci to describe this higher level of political belonging, the message is essentially the same: I am a member of a privileged community that you, as an ethnic outsider, are unable to achieve.(Shoup, Conflict and cooperation in multi-ethnic states: institutional incentives, myths, and counter-balancing, p.18)

This isn't a triviality because in Shari'a law trading is governed by the Mudaraba, Qirad and Muqarada (a Commenda), and if the trader is not a Muslim, there are religious restrictions that can be imposed on business activity until he/she either finds a Muslim partner, or converts to Islam. (Ahmed A. Fattah El-Ashker, The Islamic Business Enterprise, pp.75-77), so the Islamic definition of indigenousness is vital to basic lifestyle of non-Muslims in Islamic states where they are termed dhimmi. While the Malaysian constitution guarantees freedom of religion though making Islam the state religion, all ethnic Malays are considered Muslim by law of the Constitution, and Muslims are obliged to follow the decisions of Syariah courts in matters concerning their religion. The Civil Courts. despite being the supreme courts of the land, do not hear matters related to Islamic practices...such as business contracting in trade! The matter of defining indigenousness in some states has the same force as that of economic disenfranchisement! The UN failure to define indigenousness in fact promotes global economic disenfranchisement of the non-Muslims in all Islamic states with similar priority given to Islam in society and law. Misplaced Pages adherence to this serves the same purpose.

In allowing unreferenced, mis-refrenced and badly referenced material, but disallowing referenced material, you are being biased against my edits where reliable sources were provided, but ignored. In effect you are promoting Indigenism by other means, i.e. promoting editorial conflicts (see list there, including Assyrian nationalism and the yet to be added Kurdish nationalism), and I think this warrants review by yourself of your action and participation in that article protection, and if not than by ArbCom for encouraging breach of WP:RS policy. Crock81 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't follow your objection. How can I break the WP:Reliable source policy by protecting the article? If you disagree with what is currently in the article, I assume you want to make this point on the article talk page and try to persuade the others that you are correct. If they accept your view, then an admin will change the article per the {{editprotect}} process. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Crock81, it's my impression that the following people are all you, based on behavior:

• Crock8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crock81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 220.238.42.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you intend to participate on contentious articles you should limit yourself to a single account to avoid getting into problems with WP:SOCK. It may interest you to know that List of indigenous peoples has been tagged with the ARBPIA banner since April 16, 2011. The article was placed under full protection on seven different occasions in 2011. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, NOW I get it....you 'protected' the page without actually looking at the case in point! Or perhaps you are just biased as the rest? Let me make it very simple. I added Israelites as indigenous, while providing references that they do in fact consider themselves Israelites, and references that they are indigenous; the cited author literally said so. I also changed Bedouin to Arabians since very little convincing is required that Arabians are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula, and the Bedouin article says they are nomadic Arabs. My edits were then summarily deleted with extreme prejudice! I attempted discussion, but meanwhile Evildoer187 was screwing around with my entry, performing cosmetic surgery, and getting into a revert war with some other editors who a) invented use of 'biblical references' as a pretext for my edit removal, and then b) invented an 'edit war' when Evildoer187 restored my edit Then they claimed the inclusion of "Jews" (I had not included "Jews"), is only possible if Palestinians are included!!! (Its like the parent argument "You can have ice cream but only if you give some to your sister!" Then, while I couldn't edit for various reason over the weekend, someone else replaced my entry with several entries that are either mis-referenced, unreferenced or unreliably referenced. Then you step in and 'protect' the article, so the article has had my text which is reliably referenced and unjustifiably removed, replaced with questionable and equally dispute-filled entries, and you helped to do it. In effect you are helping to reduce the quality of the article and doing so through your admin privileges. But, its worse than that, since you as an admin are apparently (I have done a bit of reading) supposed to propose MEDIATION before slapping a two monthly protection on article editing, in effect a two-month article block on me, but you didn't. In my eyes this makes you biased and complicit in the WP:ARBPIA by clearly taking sides and being disruptive to boot, never mind abuse of blocking privileges without any possibility of me stating my case! Less in fact than even a transgressing editor would get in terms of editing rights. Meanwhile I'm supposed to 'convince' the utterly partisan users in the talk pages that:

• a) although I have provided reliable sources that Israelites not just 'ancient history', and are indigenous to West Asia, AND
• b) that I have reliable sources provided as references that make statements factual, AND
• c) that no contrary evidence or reliable sources had been cited in the opposition to my edit

that I can actually E D I T!!!!! It seems this article requires me to jump more hurdles than in an Olympic steeplechase! And, this despite the idiotic definition that serves for the criteria of inclusion in the list. Had you noticed that the first part of the second sentence says "Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank"...BUT, the definition after the i.e. (second part) does not quote ANY of these organisations?! Instead it quotes Douglas E. Sanders, “Indigenous Peoples: Issues of Definition” (1999) 8:1 Int’l J Cult Prop!!!!!!!! Douglas Sanders was a Canadian law professor who worked for George Manuel, and he helped to draft the first legal proposal for indigenous self-determination in 1981. This paper was perhaps his last published work given he was born in 1938. Not only that, but though I don't have access to this paper, someone who does says that in the last paragraph, the one where the paper is usually summarised, Sanders makes the point "it is important to note that the principle of self-identification is an accepted practice and standard in the international sphere for determining the identity of indigenous peoples."(Tashi Phuntsok, Indigenous Peoples under International Law: An Asian Perspective, University of Western Ontario, 2012) This means that Sanders essentially agrees with the Cobo working definition and that of his successor Daes, that form the backbone of the 46 articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So, why is it that you suppose the mob which had attacked my editing are refusing to use the FAR MORE OFT CITED definitions by the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, as criteria for inclusion of peoples in the article, and prefer to use the obscure paper of a Canadian law professor in a Journal most Wikipedians can't access all that easily? (I will make the effort if I have to to find out what Sanders really said). I am now editing the Indigenous peoples article, and it didn't have these organisations' definitions. I have now added the Cobo working definition in full, the basic points derived from the second Special Reporteur Daes, and the pointing to the 46 Articles of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the all-important Article 33 that served as basis for many national definitions. In fact all three organisations agree more or less in their definitions, but ALL were excluded from the List introduction despite being cited as authoritative!!! So, I guess you need to make a choice. You can start behaving like someone who cares about every Misplaced Pages article content and objectively contributes to it, or at least let me return to editing, or you can keep your 'protection' and show just how subjective and biased you are in applying your administration privileges. Harsh words, but that is my perspective of your participation in this 'edit war'. Given I have an administrator to contend with in attempting to edit, and based on your reply, I may choose to invite you to an ArbCom 'discussion' to see if you can explain how it is that reliably referenced material was replaced with far lesser quality edits on your watch. It seems that one of the conditions of being granted administratorship is not to misuse the privileges to the detriment of Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians, and you are in breach as I see it. I hope you can prove me wrong Crock81 (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC) PS: The issue with accounts was technical, and as you can see I identified myself in talk as Crock8 where logged in as an IP, and have since subsumed that account for the Crock81, the user page having been deleted, so nothing sock there. And why was the Indigenous peoples article subjected to the ARBPIA banner? I hadn't edited ANY material remotely related to the issues there! Crock81 (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, I saw that and had read the nonsensical 'discussions' in the archive. I was rather hoping that each edit is considered on its own merit, and not prior article history, particularly since I did not participate in those editing discussions. Crock81 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PROTECT for the policy on article protection. If you disagree with my decision, you can appeal it, but if you do so you will need to give a reason which actually makes sense under the policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see a reason that makes sense under which you slapped protection on the article because no one followed the Misplaced Pages:Disputed_statement#Disputed_statement process! You don't see any sense in the above?

So before I embark on the request to lift the protection, I want to ask the following -

• "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." - but I didn't edit-war with anyone, and Nishidani refused to talk! Consensus was impossible because my actual edits were not being discussed, so there isn't technically a "content dispute"! So what now?
• "administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies" - but what policy did my editing violate? Yet you didn't protect my version, with proper reliable sources, but the later version with unreliable sources that do violate WP:RS. Why?
• "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war", but the 'edit war' was not justified since a) I didn't participate and b) the version prior to mine was reached without rhyme or reason or reliable sources? So what version will you revert to after unprotecting?
• WP:RS requires that "...all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Am I correct that this is not a requirement where lists are concerned?
• Discussion in the talk page should concern itself with the edit in question, and the contributing editor, and not any-and-all possible tangents or those making minor tweaks?
• WP:CON says "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." - what are proper concerns? For example Nishidani's first deletion of my edit was summarises as "20:14, 6 December 2012‎ Nishidani (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,091 bytes) (-3,784)‎ . . (There is no source listing Israelites as indigenous under the lead def. and the world org sources. As per talk) But of course the lead definition is contradictory to the World orgs that are not cited in the Indigenous peoples article. This, aside from ignoring that my cited sources said just that.

See the FAQ on the Indigenous peoples talk page which informs that

Q: Why does this article only include "minority" ethnic groups?

A: Because we apply the definition of "indigenous peoples" used by international legislation by UN, UNESCO, ILO and WTO, which applies to those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a part of. - we, the Wikipedians, because no such formulation is available from any of the four listed organisations. It rather assumes blanket indigenous helplessness in the face of colonial Europeans snapshot-in-time, which is rewriting history. The Tuareg were not subdued until 1917, but re-started seeking independence in Western Sahara in 1960! The Gurkha were never conquered by the British Empire. The Thai retained complete independence even under the partial occupation of the Japanese Empire during the Second World War. Therefore the definition used by we, the Wikipedians is at best misleading. The very fact of the post-colonial movements of independence and creation of new post-colonial states suggests that the indigenous people are not always the helpless and marginalised populations Misplaced Pages makes them out to be. Consider the Han who are now the majority in PRC, having overthrown the Manchu minority which had ruled Imperial China during European colonial period. Where are the Manchus on the list as a minority, and the Han as a past colonised indigenous majority?! Where are the Koreans that were the indigenous colonial minority of their peninsula under the Japanese Empire? The entire Indigenous subject area in Misplaced Pages is just rendered unencyclopaedic by such we statements.

• The next question is therefore - how can I reach consensus if the very basis of arguments on which the opposition to my edits is founded is a complete and utter invention, i.e. improper concerns raised?

Where and how do I appeal the protection (doesn't say on WP:PROTECT)?

I want to take this article back to restoring my edits, and if anyone wants 'consensus', they need to address THAT, based on the merits of the cited sources, and not their opinions.

Can you help me with this? Crock81 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take this to some other administrator, or file an appeal at WP:AE. Your continuation of a content dispute on my talk page makes no sense. My proposal in WP:AE#Evildoer187 of full protection of the article received no objections in the discussion there. Another administrator, User:John Carter, supported this idea. Admins can't please everybody. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I will do that since you don't get it. I wasn't continuing content dispute, but reminding you that you, as an administrator, are not supposed to 'please' anyone, but a) evaluate the dispute, b) propose mediation, and failing that c) take action to support Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. Instead you chose to take sides, and support those that do not follow Misplaced Pages policies and procedures.

In any case, at least procedurally you failed since though I was obviously involved, I was not notified of either the RfC or the AE, and had no opportunity to participate. Your protection was therefore based on 0 analysis of the issue at hand that cause the Nishidani vs Eveldoer187 revert war Crock81 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Forcing editing through threats

Hi, I would like to ask you to take a look on recent developments which I consider a serious violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. User Ubikwit posted some king of warning/threat on my channel page in order to influence my opinion regarding the subject in his favor, through threats. Similar warring he posted to user Eveldoer187 talk page. Also, in a way of WP:CANVASS he posted a message on user Yuvn86: asking for support to enforce pressure on other editors. The same pattern was used previously he is labeling editors as liars, despite being warred Please check this issues, because this is not the way of conduct that is acceptable by our guidelines.--Tritomex (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Ubikwit suggests he is going to file a WP:RFC/U on both you and Evildoer187. Let him proceed with that if he wants to. Such a request needs a second person to certify it. We can only speculate it if he can find anyone else to support his view. He's an example of a rather new editor who arrives on Misplaced Pages with strong views but may not have enough command of English to explain his position well to others. I hope that some of the people working on Talk:List of indigenous peoples will try asking for help from experienced editors. Both User:Moxy and User:Maunus are very-long-time editors who have been active on the page. I have not checked where they may stand on the current dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Damorbel ban

Thanks fo your tip about making a comment. I do not feel inclined to say anything. What I read of the entries in the Physics project page is largely comments about me and proposed actions to inhibit my discussions and editing. I would rather wait until there an actual developement before reacting. I do my best to stick to article contents when contributing and I don't want to change that position.

If you see any thing unsatisfacty in this I would appreciate a note from you. Regards. --Damorbel (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

Here is a dif you may assess per your principle "If a person is truly editing neutrally, you should not be able to tell from a review of their contributions what side they favor." All the best. --E4024 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also please see Turkish-Armenian War. Do we have a concept of "acceptable sources" within the RS? Those sources who do not agree with genocide claims are "not acceptable"? The single-purpose user around there does not deserve any warning? All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion you are referring to. I do not follow that article. When nations are accusing one another of misdeeds, outsider opinion is usually the best. When scholars from Country A declare that Country A is innocent, you can't always believe it. You can refer any source questions to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Stanford J. Shaw was not a Turk, was simply a man who had the courage to speak out... --E4024 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It would help if I knew what Stanford J. Shaw had to do with this discussion. Feel free to provide Diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This has gone on for too long

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Either_include_both_Jews_and_Palestinians.2C_or_neither

I would appreciate your input on this matter. I feel this is the only way to resolve this dispute once and for all. Including one group and not the other will just continue to make people upset. It is absolutely imperative that we remain neutral and not take sides here, especially when it relates to what is perhaps the longest, ugliest, and nastiest conflict in modern human history.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider opening a thread at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. That project has not been very active lately but in the past they have done good work. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I opened a thread there yesterday, but they don't seem particularly receptive to it. I am primarily concerned because we don't seem to be reaching any kind of agreement, and it's just been an endless bicker-fest between myself and several others. Obviously, this is a hotly contested and sensitive topic that has been the center of never-ending controversy for several years now (from what I hear, this has been ongoing since 2006). I have expressed my desire to end the arguing once and for all and work towards building consensus for something I know that the majority of us can agree upon, since a large portion of us had earlier agreed that we should leave both Jews and Palestinians/Arabs out. However, partisans on both sides are determined to keep the argument going in hopes that it will eventually net them a victory. I am especially worried about Ubikwit, whose posting habits towards myself and several others have taken on an increasingly aggressive tone. A good number of his posts also contain conspiracy theories that are highly reminiscent of classic antisemitism, and this has become a concern.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

AE case

Hi EdJohnston, Please could you take a look at this AE request filed against me . User:Grandmaster is trying to misrepresent my comments about his manipulations in a discussion as personal attacks. Thanks! Sprutt (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification on WP:ARBSL

I have filed a request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment for clarification on the scope of the topic ban placed upon Brews ohare in the Speed of light case. As you have recently participated in an arbitration enforcement request regarding this case and precipitating the clarification request, your comments would be welcome. Seraphimblade 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples

I've just noticed that one of the comments I'd attributed to Tritomex was a case of mistaken identity, so I sent an apology.

With regard to Evildoer187 however, I can see that he has even contacted you here, and every other editor contributing to the Talk on this article. Aside from his flooding the Talk page with information, he has failed to follow the editing rule of placing new text after old text, making it extremely difficult to follow the discussion, and he has refused to correct that practice, which is against the policy stated at the top of the page, even though I and Moxy have warned him about it.

P.S. Do not break up my edits here in a manner that obscures who write them and when.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Can we get you to go back and fix your most recent additions - because your inserting replies in the middle of peoples post - thus we as readers have no clue who said what. pls reply after a post not throughout the post.Moxy (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not the only person to have editing problems with Evildoer187, as the recent AE shows, as well as the discussions between Yuvn86 and Evildoer187 on both of their respective Talk pages, also in relation to related issues. It is not clear whether Yuvn86 would certify a request for comment on user against Evildoer187, but there would appear to be a possibility of such certification based on the forgoing. I'm not trying to cause trouble here, just rectify editing practices and behavior. I was under the impression that it was required to issue a warning on a user's Talk page before initiating an administrative action.

At any rate, I have posted an RfC based on two official UN sources that afford Palestinians recognition by an official indigenous peoples' organization, a criteria according to Moxy which would qualify inclusion of the Palestinians on the list.

As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Evildoer187, I don't have time to make a career out of editing this page, so after a period of due consideration for comments to be received under the RfC, I intend to edit the article page in a manner such as to include Palestinians on the list on the basis of the official UN sources, and open a dispute resolution case if some reverts the edit. Would there be anything in such editing that would not be in accord with "great correctness"?

Perhaps you could offer further advise as to how to proceed in the correct manner in such a case.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It turns out that I misidentified the quote from Tritomex that I had in mind in notifying him to cease and desist his attacks against me after being asked to comment on my edits by Evildoer187. One main problem with the following edit is that it is indicative that reliable sources that have been cited on the Talk page are not being taken into consideration by these editors in the course of the conversation. I will continue the explanation after quoting the edit by Tritomex.

Ubikwit Misplaced Pages can not be used as political battle ground and for taking sides in certain political conflicts in this way. If you belive that "Israelis colonize Palestine in the colonial enterprise involving Christina missionaries" you should avoid editing Misplaced Pages because this kind of unbalanced ideological POVs,personal political attitudes are not allowed in Misplaced Pages. To claim that "Zionists were colonists," and similar unbalanced POVs which are insults against an entire nations, is something that you can do in political organizations (if you live in democracy) bit not in unbalanced objective sites like Misplaced Pages is. Btw I would say the same if someone would deny the right of Palestinians to exist, or call them as a nation -colonizers.--Tritomex (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)</blackquote>

There are a number of sources cited on the Talk page that address the problem in similar terms (colonialism, Zionist colonization, Jewish settlers, etc.) one such title is found under the section“Revised Section for the Inclusion of Palestinians”:

<blackquote>Forman, Geremy; Kedar, Alexandre (2003), "Colonialism, Colonization and Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al-Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective", Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 4 (2): 491–539 DieWeisseRose (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 April 2011</blackquote>

Another reliable source published by an academic press, which is cited at least twice on the Talk page, contains numerous references to Zionist colonization.

Amal Jamal (17 March 2011). Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel. Taylor & Francis. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-136-82412-8. (See pp. 47-49, in particular.) One sentence states, "Palestinians in Israel had lived in Palestine thousands of years before the Zionist colonization of their homeland", and another, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".

The book by Jamal also contains numerous references to the Palestinians as "indigenous" from multiple scholars. Though I've yet to read the book, perusing it on the Internet would seem to indicate that it is an important study that supports the inclusion of the Palestinians on the list with respect to international law.

Search results for "indigenous" in Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel See the section starting on p. 47, "Indigeneity and the right of self-government", in particular.

With respect to Christianity, aside from Truman one could point to the 19th century movement Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land.

Accordingly, the comment by Tritomex would seem to indicate that he, like Evildoer, are choosing to selectively ignore sources that do not fit the goals of their agenda. I don't see any good faith in edits such as the above which appears to be based on the editors emotional proclivity with respect to his religion. The characterization of "Zionist colonization" is widely found in reliable sources that have already been cited on the page and are capable of being perused on the Internet. I have provided a number of other relevant references from my library, well-known history books on the topic that I first read years ago. And with respect to Christianity, there are many sources, such as Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land]].

I do have a question for you, if it is not misdirected insofar as it is being asked from your Talk page.

In light of the full-protection status of the page, what do I have to do in order to edit the article to include Palestinians on the list? What is necessary for consensus? In the case that I am not able to build consensus and carry out the edit, what recourse is there simply to filing a dispute to have the matter reviewed. According to the comment of yesterday by Moxy, the sources I've placed in the RfC would seem to afford Palestinians the requisite status of recognition by an official indigenous peoples' organization--the preeminent such organization. --Ubikwit (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I still suggest to everyone working on the indigenous question to consult experienced Misplaced Pages editors, and try to persuade them. I've mentioned above that User:Maunus and User:Moxy have been around a long time. I see that User:Dougweller has commented in one of the discussions; he is also an administrator. Check page histories to see who else who has been active recently. You seem to hold a strong POV yourself, as Tritomex has already observed. Articles usually achieve good content in the I-P space only after a lot of bargaining. In this process, strong POVs tend to get toned down. Have you persuaded anyone on the talk page to support your views yet?

Unlike Evildoer187, I don't have time to make a career out of editing this page, so after a period of due consideration for comments to be received under the RfC, I intend to edit the article page in a manner such as to include Palestinians on the list on the basis of the official UN sources, and open a dispute resolution case if some reverts the edit.

Are you stating your intention to violate the WP:Edit warring policy? If you hold an RfC, after a reasonable time you can request an uninvolved administrator to close it and state the result. That result will become the documented consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to gather some input, but maybe since it is the weekend the response to the RfC has been slow.

I did not mean to express an intention to violate the edit warring policy, just to inquire as to how to proceed, in the event of a lack of a clear consensus, with respect to the protection status of the page.

A number of people seem content with the current status quo, but I think it is clear from the official UN publications that there may be simply a lack of will to include the Palestinians on the list. If they are recognized by the preeminent official indigenous peoples organization, I should think that would not only merit, but require their inclusion on the list, so I was inquiring how to submit that point for administrative review.

I do have a strong POV, but I feel that I have provided adequate sources supporting it. It is based on history and the socio-political situation, which is what appears to be prioritized in most definitions and documentation from authoritative organizations. I did ask Tritomex to explain his rationale for prioritizing genetics, but he refused to provide an explanation.

At any rate, in light of the above-quoted edit from Moxy, there is a chance that a couple of editors will agree that the sources cited are tantamount to recognition by an official indigenous peoples organization, producing consensus, after which I would of course follow the normal procedure of closing the RfC, as per your suggestion, and using the "editprotected" template, etc.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Expect an RfC to take as long as thirty days. There is a bot which will remove RfC templates after that amount of time. In practice many RfCs reach a result sooner. The fact that nobody agrees with you yet might be a hint that you need to seek support from people of a more mainstream nature. Consider asking Moxy what it would take to persuade him. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ed, there has been some discussion on the RfC, some of which has been informative. There is some question as to the solidity of the correlated sources I provided, primarily with respect to synthesis, and Doug has mentioned that tacit, which was my description of the degree of recognition in the RfC, is not equivocal with "reliable".

That much was instructive, as the UN work on this topic has really only gotten underway in some respects. There have been other meetings since the one for which the 2009 report was generated, so maybe there will be other documentation forthcoming to shed some light on the current state of the discourse and status of the two respective groups.

Note, however, that Moxy, while seeming to be reasonable and making an effort to improving the page, occasionally even countering a misappropriation of his editing content by Evildoer187, has demonstrated a fawning appreciation of Tritomex because he has a "higher degree". It still seems to me that they are a group of editors preoccupied with a POV related to ethnicity that falls outside the purview for granting official recognition of a people as indigenous by the UN PFII, but I will simply wait and see what future official publications by the UNPFII show. --Ubikwit (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

---

Ubikwit, your complaints against me are rather hypocritical. Not only have you flooded the talk page with WP:synthesis, original research, POV, crackpot conspiracy theories, and threats (whereas I have not done any of this, to my knowledge), you are also guilty of posting new text after old text (right after you criticized me for it, might I add). Not only that, you are breaking WP guidelines in lobbying people who are known to have had disputes with me as a means to apply pressure against me. It is for this reason that I have deleted your request for help on his (Yuvn86) talk page.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to address everything else, as I'd just be repeating myself for the umpteenth time. All I will say is that I am no longer going to tolerate your accusations of lying and acting in bad faith (also violations of WP: guidelines).Evildoer187 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow up

Hi Ed. Just wanted to let you know as a follow up from our prior edit-warring, that Cantaloupe2 and I have gotten into another dispute on the PRSA article, which is currently pending GA review. I followed your advice and started a DRN string early in the dispute. Unlike previously, Cantaloupe's position is quite reasonable and I'm hopeful we can discuss it and compromise. Corporate 01:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Message received. But now that your account has been renamed shouldn't you be using CorporateM as a signature? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I would prefer to just go by Corporate in my signature, but if that's not kosher I'll change it. Corporate 15:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already a User:Corporate on the English Misplaced Pages (who was not usurped) and you don't want to be confused with him. You asked for a change of user name so you should probably follow through. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

IP Protection

Ed, I would usually go to the other normal message board but this lies within AA2. See here ]. The user is adding nationalist and non-authoriative sources from his own country which contradict Western scholarly sources. Suhrawardi is considered Persian/Kurdish (Iranian speaking) by mainstream sources but the user is trying to make him Turkish (i.e. Azerbaijani). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi for one month due to edit warring by IPs. All the sources that claim him to be Azeri were published in Baku. None are in English. This is just too much of a coincidence, especially for a person who is heavily covered by English-language sources. You might consider expanding your comment on Talk. If this article needs further intervention after the month expires it should probably be reviewed at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed.. I will add Encyclopaedia of Islam which states: "AL-SUHRAWARDI, &IIHAB AL-DIN YAHYA b. Habash b. Amfrak, Abu '1-Futuh, well known Persian innovative philosopher-scientist, and founder of an independent, non-Aristotelian philosophical school named "the Philosophy of Illumination" (Hikmat al-Ishrak". About falsification though this is reaching a stupid stage. This is happening with lots of such articles and that is why I highly recommend that non peer-reviewed books from the region should be excluded (specially those contradicting Western scholarly sources). See the embassy here: ] "The ancient states of Azerbaijan, which maintained political, economic and cultural ties with Sumer and Akkad and formed part of the wider civilization of Mesopotamia, were governed by dynasties of Turkic descent. The Turkophone peoples that have inhabited the area of Azerbaijan since ancient times were fire-worshippers and adherents of one of the world's oldest religions". Unfortunately these type of users should know not to use local sources when writing in Misplaced Pages as they are mostly tainted with bias. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples article

Ed, would you please take a look at the editing on the Indigenous peoples page by Crock81 and the corresponding discussion on the Talk page under his "Cleanup-up notice". He has created that as a means to push POV emphasizing indigeneity of "non-discriminated peoples", or something to that effect. Under the United Nations Subsection of the Definitions section of the page he has insisted on including a POV paragraph that is unsourced and seems to blatantly fall under WP:OR, and he has reverted my edits even of formatting. I have tried to reason with him to no avail, and I'm sending you and Dougweller this request in accordance with the dispute resolution guidelines, hoping to avoid having to file a request for mediation/arbitration. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ubikwit, you should link to whatever edit causes you concern. See Help:Diff for how to point out a specific edit. Since December 10, editors have made 68 changes at Indigenous peoples. I can't go through all of them trying to guess which one you are referring to. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, he is making this difficult, too.

Here is the link to what amounts to the conflicted portion

actual Diff

though the edit I carried out prior to that was partly motivated by the poor quality and apparently deliberate omissions of more recent UNPFII publications in his still further preceding edit.

base Diff

When I made that edit, I didn't notice that the trailing paragraph was WP:OR that might have a POV angle to it and was unsourced, so I went back and edited that and added bulleting to the list in the blockquote.

After discussing the issue on the Talk page, I then added the heading from the source containing the bulleted list, and he subsequently reverted that edit, which consisted solely of re-formatting of the list (bulleting) and adding the heading from the source.

last Diff

Since that he has made 13 additional edits, many very minor, but I haven't looked at them.

I think that the discussion on the Talk page may be helpful in providing a frame of reference for the gist of what is is aiming to accomplish.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It is not obvious to me that Indigenous peoples falls under WP:ARBPIA. Hence you should probably follow the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution. This is different from List of indigenous peoples which has been tagged under ARBPIA since 2011. Consider an RfC if you can clarify the issue at Indigenous peoples which concerns you. Also, consider reading the prior RfC at Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 3#RfC: Scope of this article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will do that when I get the chance before proceeding to edit.

I would appreciate it if you could give me an opinion on the paragraph he is claiming is a "transition" paragraph. First, it transitions to nothing, and is not directly connected to the preceding text of the section in a readily apparent manner, and secondly, it is not sourced, so it is impossible to evaluate whether it is a paraphrase or not. In light of his statements on the Talk page, however, it is clear that he just made it up based on his claims of common knowledge, etc., which is WP:OR, correct?--Ubikwit (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

This is surely something that can be worked out by editor consensus at Talk:Indigenous peoples. Consider opening up a new section on the talk page and presenting the text of that paragraph for discussion. In fact, it appears to have some grammatical problems ("including due to the need"). Possibly some people new to the dispute may see fit to comment on it. The paragraph is the following:

Because most of the United Nations organisations' concern with international law and finding solutions to social issues such as human rights and self-determination, their attempts at a definition were necessarily narrow, including due to the need to find consensus through compromise made by demands of the UN membership as a whole, and concerned with the state of the indigenous peoples within these contexts as they are found since the creation of the UN, and during the turbulent years of the Cold War.

– EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think several of the editors working on these pages are native speakers of English. The current state of the paragraph is after he has modified it a couple of times in an attempt to correct if after I told him it wasn't even grammatical.

However, that is almost besides the point. I don't have time to be policing these people, and I'm not their teacher. So the only alternative is to have them redressed by administrative action, because I don't even know if they can understand what I am telling them on the Talk pages.

I think it best to make him source have sources prepared in advance to support his edits, as that will also contribute to solving the language proficiency issues. The paragraph has too much random content running in multiple directions, and it is in fact representative of the mess that needs to be cleaned up on that page.

I'm going to edit it again and restore the formatting, and file a request for mediation.

Incidentally, Dailycare has found some viable official UN sources on the corresponding List page, one dating back to 1981, no less. Those sources may help that RfC generate quantifiable consensus yet!--Ubikwit (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Mediation has to be voluntary. Good luck with that. Perhaps you can ask someone who thinks they understands the paragraph to summarize what it is trying to say. Administrators will not fix this; you need to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't aware of that until I saw that two signature spaces were included. At any rate, I just filed the request: here

If that doesn't work, I'll try arbitration, and if that doesn't work, an RfC.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I have a concern

It appears that the UNISPAL document relating to Palestinian indigeneity is an official UN document, whereas the other one clearly pertains to Bedouin Arabs. However, I am still wary of including them in the list of indigenous peoples without also including Jews, as they too meet all of the same criteria in the definition at the top of the articles talk page, and face very real threats regarding preservation of their culture, identity, and way of life in their historic homeland (which is Palestine, as consensus would have it), even if the UN doesn't currently recognize it officially for reasons we cannot ascertain for ourselves. The ramifications of implementing these edits runs the risk of violating Misplaced Pages's "maintain a neutral POV" provisions by implying that Jews are purely a foreign, colonial presence with no real roots in the region, which is demonstrably false and flies directly in the face of neutrality and facts, and is something that we on Misplaced Pages are compelled to avoid. This is especially relevant when one considers that there has been, and still is, a Jewish minority in what is now recognized as the Palestinian state before the initial wave of Jewish returnees to Palestine, as the UN document in question has recognized. Moreover, from what I can gather based on what is written at the top of the articles talk page, we are only using the definition of indigenous peoples posited by the UN as a blueprint for deciding for ourselves who to include. In that sense, it would appear that some editors (namely Ubikwit) are trying to shift the goalpost from "meeting the criteria for the international definition of indigenous" to "being officially recognized by the UN as indigenous", which is problematic in its own right. From the intro to the article itself....

"Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of"."

As you can see, there is some criteria that they, along with Jews, do not meet (not being a national entity, for one). I feel that if the sole determining factor for deciding who to include on this list is "recognition as such by an official UN body" (which is obviously not what it says at the top of the articles talk page, nor did we use it as a basis when including any other group), that we should make that clear in the intro paragraph to the article, and adjust the rest of the article accordingly. At least this way, we can help to curtail further controversy and biased interpretations. Do I have a strong POV? Yes. However, I can assure you that I am acting in good faith and I'm only trying to find a reasonable solution and to make sure that any edit we do implement is clear, concise, balanced, and maintains a purely neutral point of view.

Thank you,

Evildoer187 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking to revisit a definition of the article scope that may have been agreed to in Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 3#RfC: Scope of this article. Several people there said 'Keep the narrow internationally recognized definition.' If you want this criterion revised, you need to get started on the talk page. At first glance it does not appear that either Jews or Palestinians would count as indigenous by the definition adopted in March. Certainly neither group were mentioned in the Indigenous peoples article then. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)