Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts

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

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

Discuss a geopolitical ethnic or religious conflict

What this noticeboard is for: Shortcuts: WP:ECCN WP:CCN Editors may express their concerns with regard to ethnic, national, and cultural editing conflicts here and bring them to the attention of others. Bringing difficult issues to this noticeboard may further this goal by encouraging wider input from the community. Situations requiring immediate administrative action should go to the incidents noticeboard. Situations requiring immediate enforcement of arbitration committee remedies should go to the enforcement noticeboard.

When starting a discussion: Please link to the relevant article(s). If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread. Consider also including some background information, not only relating to the specific dispute, but also the relevant ethnic or religious conflict. If you do this you are far more likely to get an effective response.

Reporting form

Enter the name of the article in the space below:

How to help out How do I mark an incident as resolved? Use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. How do I archive an incident? Routine archival is automated, but any issue that has not been edited for seven days may be copied to the appropriate archive page. Archives Previous reports are archived after resolution or after a set time period has passed. If you are looking for a previous report, you may use the search function below to find it. Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Juzu Beads redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juzu_beads is WRONG. 2 Rabbi Pinto 3 Rabbi Pinto 4 scottish-argentinians 5 Disputed edit on Hungary–Slovakia relations 6 Mongol invasion of Europe

[edit] Juzu Beads redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juzu_beads is WRONG.

I am not someone with a biased point of view who lets money, property, or prestige divert me from the truth. I myself, have edited the information several times concerning the difference between Mala beads which are Hindu and considered East Indian and Juzu beads which are Japanese. I am a member of Soka Gakkai International, a Buddhist lay organization. I have asked all the old world Japanese women from my Cultural Center and they all think I must be kidding when I say Japa Mala. They believe that is something some internet salesman made up to sell Hindu beads to someone who doesn't know any better. The author keeps changing it back to the same misinterpretation/misinformation that the Mala bead sales people on Amazon.com keep posting. The idea that somehow our beads, the Juzu beads shown here [[1]] are the same thing as this [[2]] is incorrect. I tried to correct this. Someone who is trying to sell Mala beads on Amazon.com is also trying to confuse the issue by making up an uneducated description of Juzu beads and what they are selling instead is Mala beads. Evidently that way they can get some people to "think" they are buying Juzu beads instead of actually purchasing Juzu Beads and having them in stock, also there is a religious infringement situation that can cause them grief. Most religious websites are run by members and they won't sell large quantities to anyone but the individual books stores in the cultural centers. A set of Juzu Beads has five tassels, approximately 140 regular rounded beads in the central circle, two head (bugle shaped) beads, each tassle has more beads, and each of the head beads that are tubular with a flanged out end at each end are used to separate the circular center area from the tassels. All in all, there are about 160 beads and the people trying to sell Mala beads as Japanese are being deceptive and greedy. Greed, anger, and foolishness are the three poisons. Each set of Juzu beads is considered a Buddha, as are all objects in Buddhism. There are three tassels on one end that represent his head and arms, the two tassels on the other end represent his legs. Juzu beads are held a certain way during chanting. The center circle of beads is placed with the two tassel end on the middle finger of the left hand and the three tassel end over the middle finger of the right hand, crossing the circle in the middle like a figure eight. We don't count our prayers or how many times we say Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, (called daimoku, once repeated only takes about 4 seconds, sixty seconds a minute, about 15 times a minute, and most members chant for hours a day, 60 x 15 = 900), because that is up to the individual. One day one might wish to chant for hours, another for 15 minutes. Daimoku surrounds chanting the reading we recite called Gongyo (chapters 2 and 16 of the lotus sutra). So there isn't anything to count as this article says, "Japa Mala beads are called counting beads." Whoever made that up must be laughing at whoever keeps posting it on Wikipedia but to those of us who are members of Japanese Buddhist organizations (Nichiren Buddhists, especially), it is an insult to say that we would only say daimoku 108 times. That would only take about twenty five minutes and we often have members who do a one million diamoku campaign, instead of as Hindus do - when they say their mantra. Hindus actually do count their beads as they say their mantra 108 times, which is how many beads is on a full size set of mala beads. The small wrist mala is worn when one doesn't want to carry a large set of beads and is repeated four times. 4 x 27 = 108. If you want to see what actual Japanese Buddhist Prayer Beads look like, you should see the website of S.G.I. USA at http://bookstore.sgi-usa.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=PB OR at http://bookstore.sgi-usa.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=WB --Azmildman (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Steven Walker 04:57:56 PM 02-19-2011 --Azmildman (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbi Pinto

[edit] Rabbi Pinto

A major investigation on Rabbi Pinto finances has come out - Would appreciate assistance on edits. http://forward.com/articles/136250/ Babasalichai (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Disputed edit on Hungary–Slovakia relations

The questionable edit is this one. I am not denying that it is well-sourced content, but I contest the fact that the text is appropriate for his article. My motivation is below.

As it is specified in the lead, this article is treating "the foreign relations between the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic". Slovak Republic did not exist before 1993, so the article must not discuss earlier events. It is like writing about the beer Heineken Hungária in the article about Hungarian wine and asking: "What is wrong? Because it is a Hungarian drink brand".

We must create the article Hungary–Czechoslovakia relations‎ on the model of the couple Czechoslovakia–Poland relations and Poland–Slovakia relations. If we want to write about anti-Hungarian sentiments present in the first Czechoslovak republic, we should add that text to the article Anti-Hungarian sentiment or First Czechoslovak Republic. (Iaaasi (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

It's interesting that the contest comes from an editor who knows next to nothing about the history of Slovakia nor Czechoslovakia yet claims that a chapter added to the article about Hungary-Slovakia relations is irrelevant. The chapter was about the history of Hungarians living in Czechoslovakia, because back then Slovakia simply did not exist, yet the Slovaks were a (somewhat) dominant nation in Czechoslovakia. He not only removed the chapter on sight, but later he got into an edit war with Koalicio on this as well. In the process he claimed to remove vandalism, while in fact it was him who was vandalizing (=removing added content). He also marked these edits as "minor" even though minor they were definitely not.
He also keeps bringing up this ridiculous argument with Heineken and Hungarian wine even though it absolutely doesn't fit here well. A better example would be saying that "life of Hungarians in Greater Romania" has nothing to do with "Hungary-Romania relations", which is just as illogical and absurd. It all derives from the flawed assumption that (in case of Slovaks and Hungarians) the conflict began only in 1993, when Slovakia was established, which it certainly did not. And no matter how often I repeat that the historical aspects are essential in understanding the root of the conflict, Iaaasi doesn't seem to care.
Also the article was originally named Hungarian-Slovak relations (indicated by the title above the pictures of the two nations' flags as well) and was meant to discuss it as such. Later however someone began some wikilawyering and had the article renamed on the grounds of "naming conventions", making the article lose its original purpose in the process. It's basically this rename that makes grounds of all of Iaaasi's arguments against the caption. CoolKoon (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please refer just to the subject of the discussion? (Iaaasi (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Very important point Removing information with a reason is not vandalism. If you accuse people of WP:Vandalism when they do not actually commit vandalism, that will get you nowhere.

In regards to the information there, the article does have a history section, so I don't see why this sort of information cannot be included there. Relations between predecessors is part of the history of current bilateral relations. Perhaps if placed on a subarticle only a summary is needed on the current page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Iaaasi has removed an entire section on the claims that it's unnecessary. Since Iaaasi might not be around anymore, could you suggest an appropriate name for a subarticle? Once the history section becomes too large, moving some of the content won't be a bad idea at all. CoolKoon (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Up to the editors I suppose. The obvious choice would be History of Hungary-Slovakia relations, but that doesn't seem very useful with current information. From my take of the information that was added, I think it could be integrated into Hungarians in Slovakia, and replaced with a summary on the main relations page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm kind of surprised this is so controversial. This article is about relations with the current Slovak Republic, and the history before it existed is correctly limited to a brief summary that gives a pretty adequate sense of the history (which it does; indeed it may be even better to make it a bit more general). The other information should go in an article about the relationship between Hungary and previous states. These articles could (and should) be easily created, and the information will be much more applicable there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that your opinion derives from exactly the same lack of information I've added the new section for to combat against. You seem to fail to make see the connections between the issues that led up to the nature of Slovakia and Hungary's relations up to this day. Ironically your posts themselves can be understood as arguments for keeping the new section in the article as well. CoolKoon (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm well aware of the connection and the importance of this connection. And there should be a good summary of this in this article. But as for the more individual details and events, these should be covered in an article about the past relationships with previous states.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my answer at the appropriate section of the article as I prefer not to repeat it here again. CoolKoon (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol invasion of Europe

This is a pretty important historical topic, of course, but the article is garbage. It is seemingly written to glorify Hungary and attack in particular East Slavs (ie, Russians.) Referring to major principalities like Kiev and Ryazan as "miscellaneous tribes of less organized proto-Russian people," right in the lede section, is unbelievably awful. cf the article Mongol invasion of Rus', much better. 99.255.117.65 (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)