Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard/Archive 3

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

) 06:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Resolved

A draft page was created and a number of editors commented favourably on this; this has now become the main page. The financial scandal has been integrated into the page in a responsible manner.--Whiteguru (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A major investigation on

This dispute is concerning the cultural rights and ethnic status of

There is currently a content dispute at the Irreligion article regarding the removal of referenced information from the article. A discussion has been started in this section of the talk page. Any comments there would be appreciated. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. We are having a discussion about how to represent this film maker per

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Taking_stock that I hope will be of interest to administrators and editors who watch this page. All are welcome to comment. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about a female poets who were executed by the order

• Deleting sourced materials belongs to a wellknown professor and historian: 1 and 1
• Disruptive taging: He keeps adding ^{[This quote needs a citation]} tag where quotes are provided in footnotes and in article body: 1, & 2, & 3.
• Serious violation of NPOV: Pushing religious POV of Hadith Mullahs views and represent it as the fact and universal accepted views where modern historians and academics views are missing: 1 & 2 & 3 & 4, or see this edit summary,

• Try to undue historians and academics views by different ways such as renaming the section name to undermine the importance of the views or pushing modern scholars views to very bottom of the article to undue these views, e.g. out of several similar edits: 1 --Penom (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add Twinkle: potential abuse. He used

The discussion on the dispute and my response can be found here

WP:ANI#Edits by Al-Andalusi in 'Asma' bint Marwan. Al-Andalusi (talk

) 17:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

On the C. S. Lewis article here Lewis is described as "Irish born, British" in the opening paragraph, which I initially edited to simply Irish and then added British beside Nationality into the infobox. A user called Mabruska then reverted back to "Irish born, British" leaving the British nationality in the infobox. Then after some discussion about whether Lewis was Irish, he unilaterally decided to include Irish ethnicity in the infobox, to appease my request for Lewis to be described as Irish in the opening paragraph. Another user, who was in favour of having Lewis described as British in the opening paragraph, suggested a compromise of removing all mention of British or Irish from it, which I supported. I believed this would be the best solution because both Lewis' nationality and ethnicity would be listed in the infobox, which would let people decide for themselves which was more important. However Mabruska refused to compromise and continued to state that

His ethnicity is hardly notable cause he calls himself "Irish" several times or was inspired by Irish mythology (amongst other things), he is also hardly notable for it either seeing as many people think he's English. If it was so notable then there'd be no confusion. Ethnicity is notable for people like Michael Collins as it was a very important thing that contribuated to what he is famous for - that is notability. Even source wise, one of the main cornerstones of Wikipedia, state British more often than anything else.

I am a very compromising editor as my history will show in many regards, however you've provided no reason as to why we should remove C. S. Lewis' nationality and more than just me objected to it being removed, so why should i compromise when your aim is to remove British from the lede even if it meant removing Irish too?

If you accept he is British in nationality but Irish in ethnicity, then how on earth can removing the terms allow readers to be able to decide what he was for themselves when nationality and ethnicity are not the exact same thing? Unless of course your trying to argue that is of Irish nationality which is impossible as he was born in the United Kingdom which only has one nationality according its nationality law - British.

Mabuska ^(talk) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware I had to inform anyone but as usual you know what my motives are don't you Mabruska? I have provided ample reason why he should be described as Irish in the lead but you never countered any of my arguments. As I have said, the vast majority of cultural figures from the UK are described by their ethnicity, and rightly so in my opinion, whilst C. S. Lewis has more reason than many others to be described by his ethnicity but is not. Since Lewis is the exception to this rule it seems reasonable to assume that the reason for this is political and not a NPOV. I am merely trying to get some consistency in this area, which is demonstrated by the fact that I changed Antony Gormley's description to British for the lead in his article. I am not trying to get British removed from the lead I simply think removing all mention of nationality or ethnicity would be a good compromise. As I said before, Lewis was both Irish and British - I happen to believe his Irishness was more important to him and you happen to believe his Britishness was more important, so why not let people decide for themselves by putting both side by side in the infobox and not prejudice it with any mention of either in the lead? I think most people know the difference between nationality and ethnicity and if they don't they can surely educate themselves.

Regarding Michael Collins, even though he was a political figure, I will concede that his Irishness was much more relevant to his notability than C. S. Lewis' but Lewis' Irishness was still quite relevant to his notability and even more so to him as a man since this is what he considered himself. AMacR (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes so identified with being Irish that he died a British citizen and never made a political issue out of it.

Anyways yes you do have to inform editors etc, as it says clearly at the top of this page: If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the proper procedure would have been to inform you but I simply didn't read all of that notice and therefore didn't know, that's all.

"Yes so identified with being Irish that he died a British citizen and never made a political issue out of it." Obviously he didn't identify with the Irish state but that didn't make him any less of an Irishman. And Lewis wasn't political in any way so why would he make a political issue of it?

- I'm just wondering how long it generally takes for admin to respond here, looks like it could be a while AMacR (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an administrator. Right then, over to the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ethno vandalism on the Zaza article. A User Tagabek is permanently removing sources about the ethnicity and adding them with some which aren´t about the ethnicity but linguistic issue. Even while I asked him on the talk page for sources. He didn´t gave me any answer but permanently changed the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaza_people#Neutrality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Need your assistance on War Rape in Sri Lanka.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Need your assistance on Sri Lanka.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC) OK now? Kavas (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to have a strong point of view from one side in the Northern Ireland conflict, it is now linked from other articles such as the Norway 2011 Attacks. Attemps to edit the article cannot solve the issues in it, edits are reverted.--Hemshaw (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The page on

The Indian community in Malaysia are not without its problems, but there is an undeniable emphasis on the negative rather than positive or even neutral information regarding this entire ethnic sub-group in this Wikipedia entry. There exists tension between the ethnic groups in Malaysia and I believe that the frankly racist tone of the entry is the unfortunate product of an individual opinion. I worry that this page may be used to disseminate prejudice and ill-will amongst its readers rather than function as a reference tool that is neutral in tone. I would thus appreciate any third party assistance in making this entry more neutral and reliable.

NB: edits by atoms 4 peace in the edit history are actually by myself - I forgot my password. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfc7362n (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I read

Pylambert continues his attacks against me. His previous efforts to silence me ended in ignominious failure. Note that he NEVER tried to start a discussion with me; instead, he has referred to me as a "Stalinist" and a "typical Greek chauvinist vandal" (racist undertones here). Furthermore, a few days ago, he said that he was leaving Wikipedia forever, but there he is again... This demonstrates his reliability as a Wikipedian. I urge him to behave in a more collaborative and constructive manner, and to avoid personal attacks. AngBent (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

• You are (1) canvassing, (2) not doing
  Assume good faith. I strongly recommend you to collaborate with other editors. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps}
  07:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And I hadn't yet seen this: "I have been trying to improve the Macedonian Struggle article providing many references, yet I am constantly censored by Kostja and Bulgarian POV-Pushers. If you want, keep an eye on this article, and tell other Greek users of this onslaught.". --Pylambert (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also Special:Contributions/46.176.109.54. --Pylambert (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I recommend to Pylambert to stop his crusade of cyber-bullying and be more collaborative. I believe he can be helpful to Wikipedia, provided he assumes good faith and starts to believe in the value of an honest discussion. And of course not every unregistered user can be a sock puppet of mine, especially since there are many people who try to push their POV in sensitive articles.AngBent (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

I am a student and a member of VANK living in South Korea. VANK is a non-governmental organization and also a voluntary organization. VANK consists of elementary, middle and high school students who provide correct information about Korea to international textbook publishing companies and publishers.

Korea has 5,000 years history, well-matched cultural heritage and has accomplished high-speed economic growth, but these facts have not been introduced well yet in textbooks and publications all over the world. Especially, Korea’s developed image was introduced to the world through mass communications, hosting the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games, 2002 FIFA Korea/Japan World Cup very successfully but Korean information introduced in international textbooks is still insufficient or incorrect.

First of all most Korean information in international textbooks has been delivered to the world through Japan or China not directly from Korea. Good examples are describing the ‘East Sea’ as the ‘Sea of Japan’, world 13th economic board of trade Korea as a farming country that is underdeveloped, 5,000 years of Korean history as 2,000 years history and describing Korea as the tributary country of Japan and China.

These inaccuracies regarding Korea in international textbooks were reflected from the contents in Japanese textbooks without any verification, which were delivered to the world by Japanese scholars after Japanese occupational rule of Korea from 1910 to 1945. ※The Historical precedent for the 'East Sea' http://www.prkorea.com/english/eastsea.html

We know that you endeavor in many ways to understand other cultures and countries meeting the 21st century (globalization, information-oriented are going on in 21st century). Especially, I think that society and geography textbooks published by your company contribute greatly to many students understanding of other countries cultures. If you plan to review inaccurate contents about Korea or if you plan to add new contents about Korea in your textbook, please contact to VANK.

We have detailed educational and comprehensive data regarding Korean history and culture, as well as digital pictures, which are all collected by VANK members (70,000 elementary, middle and high school voluntary student members).

And we can provide you with this information willingly by post or internet without any cost. VANK’s desires are that students all over the world can experience correct Korean history and culture by our voluntary effort, taking this opportunity and then sharing dreams and meaningful friendship with the rest of the world.

Sincerely yours.

• Contact to VANK

email: [email protected]://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." - [Matthew] -

• Reference

1) Their claim that the East Sea has some historical precedent worked, as some major book and map publishers, educational web sites and other reference materials now include the East Sea name along with the Sea of Japan. - worldatlas.com - http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/eastsea.htm

2) We provide Korean pictures to the Photoatlas.com, you can see the pictures at this site : http://photoatlas.com/pics/pictures_of_korea.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.153.155.236 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello there,

Wikipedia's naming rules aren't simply based on what's right and wrong. We have guidelines guiding these, the most relevant one being

WP:COMMONNAME. If any students at VANK feel like they wish to contribute information and pictures to wikipedia, they may do so, either be creating an account or even editing anonymously, although there are certain limitations to that. Wikipedia welcomes new editors with something to contribute. Chipmunkdavis (talk

) 06:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as I know, the name of the Sea of Japan is irrelevant from the Korea under Japanese rule from 1910 to 1945. For example, we can see "Japanisches Meer" in this map (1906) and "海本日" in this map (1602). Takabeg (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

They mentioned that she campaigned against evolution her whole life without sufficient evidence citing what how she reacted to evolution being taught in high school. I have watched a video documentary on youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwsmleLchzE , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GrrAfrAG_M&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SeNkZZtpJo&feature=related ) of her being a faith healer but not citing that she stopped when it was unpopular. I am a Pentecostal leaning Christian wanting who Aimee was and her flaws in relationships to be fairly shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.35.120 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ramdasia is a ethinic group which belongs to julaha(weaver) community in north India [2].

In this article in Wikipedia,Krishna is referred to as a Muslim God;[lease not that this isnt fact.Krishna who is often referred by the Hindus in India as Lord Krishna or Shree Krishna, is a Hindu God or Hindu Deity and very poular one at that.Kindly have this corrected.Muslims in India as elsewhere,worship the One Deity Allah. Thank you. dt Aug 30 2011

S Dune [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.59.0 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what it says. It says that Muslims singing in Urdu make reference to God (i.e. the one God of Islam, Allah), while Hindus singing in Hindi refer to Krishna. It could be better worded though. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Insert non-forma #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]tted text here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.96 (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

When I encountered this article , first I thought that is a test page . But an admin declined the request for Speedy deletion . I think in Wikipedia , Ultra nationalism and condemning other groups of peoples is prohibited . Armenians , Assyrians and Kurds should not be mentioned in such a way . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears it has been deleted and removed to :User:Orartu/Azerbaijani Genocide in Iran .But anyway I think the user User:Orartu needs to became softer with other ethnics . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The article can not be edited!

Why article contains incorrect data, as well as unethical image?

link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.38.168 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sure it can be edited, what do you mean? Which image is unethical? Herostratus (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's protected (I don't read Chechen but when I hit edit, I get a grey background indicating it's protected), but none of this is relevant because this isn't the Chechen Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia has no authority there, so, sorry, 83, but we cannot help you. --Golbez (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Some contents under the article Vanniyar are completely false and they are being added with a clear intent of degrading the image of this religious community. Sections Cholinars and Current status under this article are completely false and they are clearly added with an intent to tarnish this community. These malicious contents have been reverted several times, but they are being added again and again. This user now has protected this article from editing also, this user is definitely not from this community and now has locked it from editing after adding completely false information. These activities not only creates frustation but also trigger regional fights between communities. Vanniyar community is one of the oldest community in india and its history dates back to almost 2000 years.This community has a strong traditional value and it played an important role in creating the tamil culture. Whatever content that have been reverted by this user are very valid ones and we have proof for the same. These kind of activities spreads false information among youngsters who try to explore about this community. We request the administrator to remove the protection from this page which is being held by a malicious user and restore the content added by us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugan 83 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the latest

Can someone have a look and see whether the contributions of User:ΣΠΑΡΤΙΑΤΗΣ are promoting an agenda. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, level of English much too poor to contribute to en.wiki, total misunderstanding of a point (predating Egypt, not close to Egypt, story from New York Times), and addition of incomprehensible material. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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 [email protected] http://rcos.rpi.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mskmoorthy (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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

The lead in the Islam article (3rd paragraph) starts as: "Estimates vary from over 75-90% of all Muslims being Sunni, and approximately 10-20% are Shia." I believe that this needs to be re-worded because it is confusing and unenclopedic. That's not all, the main problem is that one of the sources used (CIA Factbook) mentions Shias are 20% and Sunnis are over 75% but it doesn't explain what happens to the other 5% or so. Is the CIA reliable in this case or should we ignore it, especially when no other source agree with this. All the sources say Sunnis are 85-90% of the total Muslims in the world. See the following examples of leading experts on Islam, including major sources.

1. Pew Research Center - "Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims" [10]
2. Encyclopædia Britannica - Sunni Islam = "... nine-tenths of all the adherents of Islām. "[11]
3. Encyclopædia Britannica - Shi'a Islam = "Shīʿites have come to account for roughly one-tenth of the Muslim population worldwide." [12]
4. Library of Congress Country Studies - "Sunni constitute 85 percent of the world's Muslims; Shia about 15 percent." [13]
5. Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs - "Shi’a Islam is the second largest branch of the tradition, with up to 200 million followers who comprise around 15% of all Muslims worldwide..." [14]
6. Vali Nasr - "Shias are about 10-to-15 percent of the entire Muslim world" [15]
7. PBS - "Globally, the Shia account for an estimated 10 or 15 percent of the Muslim population..." [16]
8. BBC News - "The great majority of Muslims are Sunnis - estimates suggest the figure is somewhere between 85% and 90%." [17]
9. USA Today - "Among the world's estimated 1.4 billion Muslims, about 85% are Sunni and about 15% are Shiite." [18]
10. U.S. News & World Report (Information provided by the International Population Center, Department of Geography, San Diego State University) - "Shiites account for just 10 to 15 percent..." [19]

In regards to these listed sources, it's not only quantity but also quality as well upto date information. There are many more which agree with the 10 listed sources but I searched and no one else claims Sunnis at 75% or anywhere in the 70s so this should be changed because it is false and misleading. The CIA is generally used as a reference for individual countries and it is not free of errors as I have pointed out to the big errors it made on Afghanistan's information.[20] When it comes to figuring out the percentage of the world's total Sunni and Shias I think we should ignore the errorfull CIA and instead rely on the above listed 10 sources, especially when the CIA's percentage doesn't even add up to 100.--Kiftaan (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The figures would only have to add up to %100 if there were

original research. The only issue at this point is due and undue weight, which I've attempted to address by changing the sentence to say "The majority of Muslims are Sunni, being at least %75, with most figures typically between %85-90. The second largest sect, Shia, makes up %10-20." Ian.thomson (talk

) 18:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"being at least %75" is your ridiculous POV, look at the 10 listed sources they all disagree with you.--Kiftaan (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Is %85-90 less than %75? No, %85-90 is covered by "at least %75." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. The differences in the different percentages amount to about 200 million people. The available data is not so bad that Wikipedia must give an estimate admitting such a wide range of error. The CIA number is an outlier and it's not backed up by a scrutinizable data-collection study, a scrutinizable dataset. It's just an assertion by the CIA. Scrutinizable studies (such as the one by PEW) are higher quality references than bald assertions in isolated secondary sources who do not cite their own sources (such as the CIA). Another point is that the growth rate of Sunnis is much higher than the growth rate of Shi'ites. The female fertility rate in Iran is about as low as in Western Europe, while the fertility rates or general population growth rates in the non-African Sunni countries are in general the highest in the world outside Africa (though growth rates are trending back down). This means that you need to use recent data, and be able to give a date for your data. The CIA gives no date for its claim that "Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population." The PEW study says "The Pew Forum's estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world's Muslim population." The Wikipedia article right now is saying Sunnis are "at least %75" (citing the CIA alone, which says "more than 75%") and also says most data sources give a figure of "typically between %85-90". Why not just give the figure of most data sources? Maybe the outlying data sources deserve a footnote. Maybe they can be mentioned in the subsection of the article headed ==Demographics==. But not in the leading paragraph. I fully agree with Kiftaan. Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is now showing that Ian.thomson is deliberately misinterpreting the CIA's figure and POV-pushing. I find this inappropriate for an editor to be doing and is annoying because the CIA states Shias are 20% and Sunnis are over 75%, clearly meaning 80% Sunnis and 20% Shias, so why do we have to incorrectly put Sunnis as at "least 75%"? This is something usually a Shia would do to make his/her sect more than what it really is.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There's an old saying I believe in, "never ascribe to bad faith what can be explained by incompetence". I also believe it'd be unproductive to accuse Ian.thomson of deliberate bad faith even if it were the truth. What's productive is to show that he doesn't have the evidence on his side, which I think you've done in your first post. Ian.thomson is giving undue weight to an inscrutable outlier, very probably in good faith. Since you have the evidence on your side, I expect you can win the case on the Discussion Page of the Islam article, but you'll needed patience to wait for more people to show up there and take a look at what you're saying there. Right now, the article's Discussion Page is not infested with agenda-driven Shias (or Sunnis). The odds of eventually finding more support there are stacked in your favour by the fact that Sunnis outnumber Shias by six to one (or thereabouts). Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right, I just have to focus on sources instead of editors.--Kiftaan (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kiftaan. Firstly, you keep repeating the same thing over and over but your argument does not have any substance. Ian Thomsons edit is perfectly reasonable, and has a reliable source. Secondly, since December 5th almost half your edits have been either directly changing Sunni-Shia percentages, or arguing on talk pages about Sunni-Shia percentages, which means you're in danger of violating

talk

19:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole problem began when you did this edit, lowering the percentage of Sunnis to 75%. When I see things like this I am forced to report it. Do you not see all my other edits in which I add useful images to articles, correct information on other things? This discussion is not about my edits but about you and Ian.thompson lowering the percentage of the Sunnis. I didn't violate 3rr and you still reported me here.--Kiftaan (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nnne of your arguments follow wikipedia guidelines.

talk

19:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. Stop lowering the percentage of Sunnis and I won't be arguing anymore.--Kiftaan (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Might i ask what makes you think there are only two sects in Islam, despite articles such as

talk

20:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There are only 2 sects in Islam and everyone know this, but if you believe that there are more then provide a reliable source claiming this. The Wikipedia article

Islamic sects contains some incorrect information. For example, Sufism is not a separate sect of Islam. Some Sufis are Sunnis and others are Shias. Sunni Islam is mainstream Islam, after the death of Islam's Prophet a new sect began (Shia Islam). Ahmadiyya, Nation of Islam, and all others are called movements or branches of Sunni and Shia sects. You and I may call these movements sects but when it comes to academia we will be incorrect.--Kiftaan (talk

) 22:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Like it or not, sources will often be using a methodology where "sunni" plus "shia" does not necessarily add up to 100%; so adjusting the numbers on the basis of that assumption is not justified. Please stop. Stick to what sources actually say, rather than extrapolating. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you think the CIA means by "Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population... Shia Islam represents 10-20% of Muslims worldwide..."? Just give your translation please.--Kiftaan (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• It means just that; we could put something in an article which says "According to the CIA, over 75% of muslims are sunni and 10-20% are Shia".
• It does not mean that we must adjust or distort these numbers to add up to 100%, and it does not mean that we must adjust or distort numbers from other sources. Above all else, be faithful to what the sources say; if your personal calculation does not agree with sources, then your personal calculation has no place in an article. Sources are king. bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  That's in normal circumstances but when you have 100s of sources saying that the Sunni Muslims are 80-90% and Shias 10-20% (and not a single one for Sunnis in the 70s%), then we as the editors should explain this to the readers. Our hobby here as editors is not to get readers confused but to help them understand these things. I can't believe that you can't explain what CIA is saying by "Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population... Shia Islam represents 10-20% of Muslims worldwide...". It means that I shouldn't discuss further with you.--Kiftaan (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Kiftaan -- How do

Ibadis fit into your classification?? -- AnonMoos (talk

) 18:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To the academic community, Ibadis are counted among the Sunnis.. it's a tiny branch of Sunni Islam that have different views on some minor issues. These differences don't mean anything. I wouldn't worry about that because their number appears to be very tiny.--Kiftaan (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you define "Sunni" as everything non-Shi`ite, then by that definition they of course would qualify -- but it seems that many informed Ibadis and Sunnis would disagree (rejecting some of the rashidun is hardly a trivial difference, and Ibadis are certainly not a recent "branching off "from anything in the same way that the Ahmadis or Nation of Islam can be considered to be). Furthermore, Ibadis are the majority of the population in one country, so they can hardly be dismissed as too insignificantly few to bother with. AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

First, the Ibadis don't even make 0.1% of the 1.57 billion Muslims. Secondly, who says that they reject some of the Rashidun? When it comes to religion (belief), sources such as [21] used in the Ibadi article I don't rely on.--Kiftaan (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe number of sects is a different question than the accuracy of % of Sunni population. For instance, I do not agree that Islam (or to be more precise, Muslims) are divided into two sects, quite clearly there are many

An IP is altering the text of Sinai Peninsula to (IMO) slant it to a pro-Egyptian perspective.

Examples:

• "On 6 October 1973, Egypt commenced Operation Badr to retake Sinai" changed to "On 6 October 1973, Egypt commenced Operation Badr to liberate Sinai".
• "(Egypt) renewed the prohibition of Israeli shipping using the canal" changed to "(Egypt) renewed the prohibition of Israeli shipping using Egyptian Territorial Waters".

Here's an example diff. We're into two steps of reverting, and I'm 3RR isn't far away. I'm not going to be involved any further (no time) so I'm raising it here. Appreciate it if someone can take a look. Manning (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Over at

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozer1 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 

Dear Administrator

The Kurdish minority of Urmia City is violating the article by adding wrong information like 'Kurdland' and 'Kurdish Republic' which is highly unethical. Please protect this article from violation.

Sincerely Yours, A Citizen from Urmia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salarfazli1990 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I almost got too involved in a trans-article edit war between Bodhidharma7 (talk · contribs) and MThekkumthala (talk · contribs). The latter user has received the support of Tamilan101 (talk · contribs) and Nayak52 (talk · contribs) in different articles at different times. Bodhidharma7's edits are generally in line with the most RSs provided, but there are some issues with his behavior and overapplication; while the latter group (South Indian, if not Dravidian) has been attempting to remove any connection between Dravidians and any non-Indian race (in addition to similar issues with behavior and overapplication), either not citing sources or providing improper sources (such as a screenplay), attempting to portray Indians as a coherent people instead of a conglomeration of various genetic and cultural groups. This is news to me, as every source I've seen (which didn't have a political agenda) holds that the Indo-Aryans were part of the Indo-European family who migrated into India, and that the Dravidians were the previous inhabitants, which is why Dravidian languages do not have cognates in other IE languages any more than Semitic or Bantu.

The Dravidian peoples article is probably the easiest example of this complicated mess, but it goes all over the place. I'm going to try to pull out of it (too big a mess and not my type of mess, and classes starting again), but something needs to be done, and this problem isn't going to be solved by blocking Bodhidharma7 and MThekkumthala or expecting them to work things out.

MThekkumthala stated at WP:AN/EW that "To be proud to be a Dravidian means also being solidary with fellow Dravidians in their fight against darkness in persona of Bodhidarma and his Aryan fellowship." This pretty strongly indicates which side has an agenda here.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MThekkumthala's statement has a vision but also conforms to a defensive posture against slander sourced from another POV that is culturally more dominant in South Asia. A defensive posture is to be expected from those that try to help define the Dravidian identity, as this identity is subject to antagonistic bias from several angles, the first being traditional North Indian and Pakistani regional bias Both vary in historical roots (the Pakistani sources are both in traditional regional bias an well as a relatively new national bias) and in intensity. The second force is a British bias for those they identified with most closely (and subsequently, against those that they found furthest from themselves phenotypically). The Pakistani racial bias (promoted nationally) is not a flimsy theory, as it is well known that a feeling of racial superiority facilitated the horrific race-based genocide policies implemented in the war of 1971 towards East Pakistan (Bangladesh). I will insert a recent news mention of this very event though it has been documented in Wikipedia already: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16502175

Bodhidharma7's weak citings further the (very much false ) racist underpinnings of the same racist theories that are psuedoscience at best. Dravidian languages are entirely distinct from Australoid languages. It is well known that a large minority of the racially Australoid peoples living in scattered regions along the southern India speak Dravidian languages rather than Australoid languages. This does not mean that the larger Dravidian group should thereby be classified as "Austroloid". Bodhidharma7 citings are either taken out of context and do not support that the categorization he supports is the "general" one that academic articles support. One citing claims the categorization of Dravidians as "austroloid" is to be used as a convenience as it doesn't impact the aims of the study, and admits to this inaccuracy later. This does not reflect the general categorization of Dravidian people. A quick Google search ignoring the POV dominated wikipedia results easily reveals that Dravidians are more often categorized as Caucasian, though this is also not a consistent view. It does negate Bodhidharma7's claim that Dravidian's are "generally" classified as Austroloids, however.

I am not sure whether the editor is a POV warrior himself in this case or if Bodhidharma7's use of wiki process has prevailed in promoting an otherwise rather obvious and regressive POV. The sources cited do not directly support the racial categorizations implied. I have categorically dissected the sources such as the citing of the Negrito race as part of the Indian racial landscape is only applicable if one includes a tiny community living in an island territory that India inherited as part of the legacy of British India. Their is nothing but clarification of a source involved in the retort, whereas the POV claim attempts to paint a less accurate racial picture of the people of South India, most likely with the aim of demonizing the opposing group by making them seem more alien. (Genetic Studies have proven that both North Indians and Pakistanis themselves have strong Dravidian admixture, though this is typically denied/ignored outside of academic studies. Admittedly, those that are battling Bodhidharma7's POV campaign are not providing sources for the retorts as per process, though readily accessible sources that negate the delusional theories are abundant.

I also question the editor's confidence in labeling the opponents of the POV edits as "South Indians". I am not South Indian nor of South Indian origin. I also find the editor's reactions to be unfair considering several items. The more extensive and detailed studies on south asian ethnography, linked to directly from this very wiki page, do not support Bodhidharma7's POV and actually counter its claims logically. -It is well known that Dravidian peoples supplanted an existing (though sparse in numbers) an Austroloid community in several regions along the south eastern coastal area of India. This is mentioned in the very same page and cited. -The categorization of Dravidian peoples is not one that is settled. Those that support Bodhidharma7's POV are not prevalent, and not so concerned with the science, but alternatively attempt to categorize the Dravidian community as either racially black African or Australoid, neither of which are substantiated, fair or logical (Dravidian languages are not linked to Bantu or other African languages either). Instead this bias reveals a deeper racist undercurrent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayak52 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether the question "Are Dravidians Caucasoids or Australoids?" has any scientific usefulness or validity at all... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See also the edit history and talk page of

talk

) 06:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This conversation should be put on hold for the moment, since both Bodhidharma and MThekkumthala have been blocked for a week. I fear that if you try to come to solution now, it will only fall apart once they both come back. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The scientific usefulness of that question is probably limited. There is a POV that "Dravidians are Caucasoid" that is certainly not consistently supported either (race is not a scientific distinction). The assertion that "Dravidians are Austroloid" is less commonly held, however, and absolutely negated by genetic studies, even in the Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia page where racist POV warriors are aiming their guns at South Indian/ Dravidian heritage. No example of an mtDNA halogroup there however, links Dravidians with Austroloids. Linguistically, some Austrolid groups in India have adopted Dravidian tongues. Austrian Aborigines now mostly speak English, this does not make the English people now Australoid, racially. Its more accurate to describe Dravidian people (like Basques and others) as a group that does not fit traditional racial divisions (race is not a scientific construct to begin with). The Austroloid association however, is not accurate and instead promotes a racist POV. This does not help anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayak52 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thompson claims, that the sources support those edits. But there is none, which clearly says, that all Dravidians were Australoids. He ignores all modern sources, which clearly say, that Dravidians were Caucasoid or racially undefined. He ignores the Caucasian race article totally, which deals also with the race of the Dravidians, their classification in the past and present. There are similarly many reliable sources, which distinguish clearly between Dravidians and Australoids as seperate racial stocks.

There is a common misconception, that Caucasoid would mean "White people". This is due to the official American usage of the word "Caucasian" in racial classification. In science, Caucasoid means people with Caucasoid facial structures. It doesn't have anything to do with skin colour. Let me tell you also that white people have descended from Albinos. There are many types of Albinism. It can be very strong, like in people we usually call Albinos, but also light, where Albinism doesn't necessarilly mean, that the hair needs to be white or eyes red. As you see, there are many shades of Albinism and Caucasians belongs to those. There is no reason to think, that I desperately look for a link with "Caucasians" as some of you guys might think. This is an insult to our race, likewise a classification as Australoid is only insulting with no truth about it and no good source.. It is thus only practical to remove all references to Caucasians and Australoids and keep the more senseful ones like "dark Caucasoids", "Dravidian race", "unclear race" as these make some kind of sense atleast.--MThekkumthala (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Albinism has very little to do with race (individuals of almost any racial background can be albinos), and has relatively little to do with species for that matter (since Albinism is found across many species of animals). AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Albinism comes in different forms. And the white people developed due to several migration waves of Albinoid people up to the north, because they couldn't handle intense sun. There they intermingled with other subtypes of Albinoid people. Gene complexes responsible for the "white" appearance have been identified and studied. The white skin of Europeans and East Asians is due to Albinism of type OCA4, while properties like light eye color and blonde hair is Albinism of type OCA2. These properties can only be replicated when Albinoid people intermingle with themselves. You are referring to the "regular" Albinos, extreme variants of Albinism. Caucasian race = mix of various subtypes of Albinism. --MThekkumthala (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Since MThekkumthala has just made the same edit to the article that is under dispute--only xyr 4th edit after they prior 1 week edit-warring block expired--I've reblocked xyr for 1 month for continuing the edit war. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just looking through the contributions, this appears to be a reincarnation of Kalarimaster who has a penchant for coming to notice boards in addition to the "fringe Dravidian" worldview. And this definitely doesn't appear to be a coincidence -- the main IP (he also has a few others, but the main one's static) -- 84.112.212.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was hardblocked until Oct 29 2011 and that's the date the MThekkumthala account was created and contributions started. Time to indef and extend the IP hard block I think. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, you're agreeing from experience that the alterations to the relevant articles are indeed fringe? I just want that completely clear so that other editors can see. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing to that, just suggesting that it's an extremely likely scenario based on all the socks I've encountered. I haven't read the additions in detail at all, I just checked the pattern. Also, I haven't any knowledge on races so I can't really comment on it -- I normally just send over such stuff to the Hon. Dougweller (who has already commented) or Dab, but this business of "all Dravidian brothers unite to fight the evil Aryan/Brahmin domination of Wikipedia" and adding obscure fringe sources is a standard theme of Kalarimaster, and I've been blocking his socks for a couple of years now. I just have no reason to believe that his behavior in this instance would be any different from what he's been doing for over three years across many many articles ranging from geographical to linguistic to biographical to film (he was already de-facto banned before I started editing here!). —SpacemanSpiff 15:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

South Indians who are speakers of the Dravidian linguistic group cannot be grouped as "Australoids". This is a very controversial claim; there are many sources that claim they are of Caucasoid stock or Australoid or even mixed. Claiming them as purely Australoid is wrong because South Indians don't even share the same physical characteristics as of the australoids. South Indians have predominantly straight to wavy/curly hair to a lesser extent. Most have straight and sharp nose bridges, small foreheads and jaws and as well as varying degrees of lip size. It is obvious that some tribals in India are of Australoid or Veddoid stock, however South Indians cannot be labelled as Australoids. Language cannot equate race. Just because South Indians do not speak "Indo-Aryan" languages and are darker in skin tone does not mean they are of different racial stock. Skin colour has nothing to do with race, it is only an adaptation to the sunlight.(Tamilan101 (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

And no non-

fringe sources were provided for the non-Australoid claim. The alterations to the articles are not saying they are from Australia, but that Southern India has a higher concentration of DNA markers found in the Australoid group. Big difference. Turning it into a linguistic matter is a straw-man argument. And wow, you're bringing up cranial shapes? A technique that's kinda been ignored in the past 70 years for a reason? I know people of European descent with flat short noses, large lips, and curly hair; and people of African descent with long tall noses, thin lips, and comparatively straight hair. DNA markers are more reliable. Ian.thomson (talk

) 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Religion in Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I know I probably won't resolve the issue with the post, but I want to point out the racist and bigot attitude displayed by 2 editors and this administrator involved in the edit of that page. He blocked one reliably sourced edit by me to take place in an edit war but allow the other user involve in the edit war to implement his compromise solution before reaching consensus and the end of the dispute resolution and the Request for comment. When somebody like me want to pass a minority view (like related to religion) but a point of view that is not a minority in the sources or in academic text (for example I cited 3 encyclopedias), we need to rely on the Administrator to do their job impartially and without bias. I would like some good people to look up into it. What can you do when 2 editors refuse to acknowledge any reliable sources and are helped by an administrator in refusing the edit and proceed to edit the same subject on the wikipedia page before the RTC and any kind of dispute resolution and consensus? Technically, I would like the version to at least come back to the previous stable version until consensus is found and until the end of the dispute resolution procedure. All edits by Halaqah who was involved in the edit war should be rolled back until then. Maybe you should check out the approval and feedback process of your administrator too. Thank you. 76.71.203.229 (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see four editors with accounts and one IP reverting you (presuming I'm tracing your edits that weren't with this IP address correctly). I don't see the Administrator who is editing there taking any Administrative actions. I do see his post to another editor's talk page -

talk

) 11:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just about to leave for the night, but saw this and thought I'd mention that I'm the admin in question; I'll give a full accounting of my actions tomorrow. Until then, I request that no one roll back anything, as I believe that my explanation will show that that should not happen (even though I if you see my most recent comment on the talk page, I do sympathize with the IP and don't think xyr opinions are being heard as well as they should be). Qwyrxian (talk)

The history shows the personality of the ip editor and his reluctance to "compromise." or understand. Please consider this "... they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others." [22] Admins job is to differentiate- and call it. Let me just add something that is getting missed over and over again. The IPs references have been included in the article. I have created a NPOV section which reflects all his concerns. So I disagree strongly with Qwyrxian that ip's opinions are not being heard. Let me sum up what is turning into a pick issue b/c of one ip's POV: he wants to put his references in a specific place - that is it!

WP:WEIGHT = You cannot over generalize a complex continent- My God isnt that obvious as Africa is so large??? common sense alone tells us a more precise approach is better. (as i have done in the extended section). So What is there to hear Admin? "it is true, I want to edit, I have references"- ip editor (did I miss something in his argument? 1 week of this repetition. What is there to sympathize with, save persistence? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk

) 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As one of the editors that the IP demonizes above, I feel I should point out some inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in his post. For starters, the situation at hand is actually a pretty standard content dispute. It has nothing to do with "race" nor does it involve any such race-related wiki article. The content dispute strictly concerns

personal attacks. This can easily be confirmed by reading through the actual talk page discussion in question and its request for comment subsection (which, tellingly, the IP has not linked to). It's also a bit disingenuous of the IP to attack Halaqah for editing the article while the discussion was still going on given the fact that he himself attempted to unilaterally insert material as soon as the page's protection had been lifted (c.f. [23], [24]). In fact, the page had to be promptly re-protected since the IP was again revert-warring over the issue [25]. The main difference between the IP's edits and Halaqah's are that the latter actually reflect something that's beginning to approach a rough consensus whereas the former don't. Yet another editor has weighed in on the RfC in favor of a nuanced approach to the issue i.e. against the IP's position. An unsuccessful attempt at convincing others of one's argument is still no excuse for badmouthing them, though. A more mature approach is required. Middayexpress (talk

) 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to add one thing; the IP has been complaining that Halaqah changed the section in question (the one the RfC is on) while xe is prevented from reverting by the semi-protection. I didn't notice the change; the IP kindly spelled it out for me. I have removed the 2.5 sentences added by Halaqah to the specific section in question until the RfC is done. It is correct that the IP cannot edit the article because xe was edit warring. It is also correct that Halaqah cannot use this time to introduce further changes that the IP objects to while the RfC is in progress. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but Qwyrxian's charges above regarding my supposedly having ownership issues over this article are definitely inaccurate. I am a member of WikiProject Africa and this Religion in Africa major article falls under that scope. I also only made one edit to the page while the dispute in question was already in progress between Halaqah and the IP (viz. [26]). The rest of my edits were all discussion-based and were posted to the article's talk page. Nowhere in those comments did I tell the IP he couldn't add material on syncretism. Quite the opposite; I indicated to him that his various assertions to the effect that "Africans practice syncretism" were over-generalizations that needed further qualification. This can be confirmed by actually reading my (rather mundane) comments

Middayexpress, you are correct that I was wrong to treat you and Halaqah equally; you both have problems, though they're not exactly the same. I definitely note that you have not been active in the actual editing itself save for the single revert, which I appreciate as at least it keeps the article from ping-ponging back and forth. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I was doing an IP patrol and noticed that the 2011 Egyptian revolution article had a citation request removed, along with a section on a town called Tanta. The infobox was also changed, with information relating to the number of protesters added. IP lists as being from Kuwait. I have asked for some explanation, but without response. I'm not an expert on Egypt, and can't judge the nature of the edits. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor has comments on their talk page suggesting that they may be an experienced WP editor. I am more confused than ever why they haven't discussed the changes; perhaps it is a shared IP? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC) TreacherousWays (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayjg#Einstein_is_jew contains part of the discussion The discussion is a bout jewish ethnicity religion. My point, is that Richard Feynman was atheist and denied it jewish ethinicty publicly, so he cannot be included into that page "as is" because he was not a jew. People particularily active on articles of wikipedia about judaism soon disagree with me. My first point was brutal, a removal of the physicists on the fact that most of them were/are agnostic or atheist. They pointed me to the the fact that a jew can be atheist, and I agreed. They are now blocking the slightest modification I do on that article. My point is that either we rename that page "List of Nobel laureates of jewish Ancestry" and precise who is religious, who is ethnically jew, or we keep the same title and remove every one in the list who denies its jewish ethnicity, according to freedom of religion. This problem is not addressed by wikipedia rules of contributions.KevinPerros (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jew or of Jewish heritage are the same...I may be mistaken. Generally, Jew is considered an Ethnoreligious group...so it doesn't matter whether a person of Jewish ancestry was an atheist or not since they are still generally considered to be Jewish.--MONGO 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The person edit warring there is KevinPerros; see

WP:AN3. Mathsci (talk

) 20:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jew is a religious indication -- Honorsteem (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I've never seen anything that suggests that you can call someone Jewish if they disavow the religion. (Under that theory, if a Jewish person converts to Islam, would you call them an Islamic Jew? This doesn't seem logical.) Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It may not sound logical, but the fact is that in the United States, "Jewish-American" functions as an ethnic group identity on the same level as "Italian-American", "Mexican-American" etc. Probably the majority of ancestors of American Jews came from current-day Germany, Poland, and Ukraine, but most Jews would NOT consider themselves to be German-American, Polish-American, or Ukrainian-American (nor would they generally be considered such by self-identified German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans, except in a few special cases). This is the reason why we have Category:Jewish atheists -- because there are people who consider themselves proud ethnic Jews, and would never dream for a moment of denying their ethnic Jewish historical origins, while at the same time they do not have any particular relugious beliefs, and certainly do not follow traditional Jewish ceremonial practices. Similarly, Jewish was defined as an official ethnic identity or "nationality" on Soviet identification cards, even though the Soviet government encouraged all Jews to become atheists. If an ethnic Jew became an atheist in the Soviet Union, the nationality line on his identification card was not changed... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As a proud Jew who has at one time or another practiced Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Wicca and many others. I know that whether or not I admit to it I will ALWAYS be a Jew because I'm of Mizrahi ancestory. While Judaism is a religion the word Jew is synonmous with Israelite, Hebrew etc. Therefore one can be Jewish whether or not they practice the religion. See article

Jew.-Rainbowofpeace (talk

) 07:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a policy about this kind of thing, but I would think that a person's self-identification would prevail when it comes to personal matters such as these? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is more a matter of techinicality than personal identification. A person who is clearly Asian American can identify as African American but unless they actually are this is incorrect. An American can identify as a Chinese citizen but unless they have citizenship they are not. Race, ethnicity, and nationality are all interconnected. If we left them up to pure self-identification you would see a lot of non-Asian "Asians", a lot of people who claim to be of a nationality they arn't and other things.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What about those people who self-identify as proud ethnic Jews without religious beliefs? AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If a person's self-identification is obviously wrong, then we can cross that bridge when we get to it. However, in the vast majority of cases it looks like we're facing a dilemma over whether to categorise somebody as A or B (depending on context, "Jewish" might carry either a religious or an ethnic meaning, or a bit of both), and if that person has explicitly claimed to be A then they have resolved our dilemma for us. bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem here goes beyond the question of wether secular Jews are or not Jewish. The problem is that some editors refuse that we simply precise in the article what we mean by Jewish. So we have a list of Jewish Nobel laureates with persons that are neither religious nor secular Jews (like Heyse, Bergson, Moissan, Wallach, Ostrom, etc.) but are, according to the article, Jews, without any explanation. The article uses sources for its claim such as : Israel Science and Technology Directory (Neutral? Academic?) and Shalev, Baruch A. (2002). 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (completely unknown book, impossible to verify the claim), etc. Eleventh1 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the requisite criteria to warrant the appellation of "Jewish" is substantiation through reliable sources; personal convictions are immaterial to the attestation of valid sources.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)