text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

Evidence presented by User:Zen-master
The neutrality dispute over race and intelligence and related articles is complex and multi-layered. I allege a handful of "pro" editors repeatedly: use psychologically subtle and tricky non neutral language, use an extremely biased method of presentation, and have obfuscated and/or mischaracterized valid criticicsms. Other issues include their mislabeling my complaint that the article does not use neutrality language as "novel POV pushing".

Evidence "pro" race and intelligence editors use an extremely biased presentation method

 * As of July 24 2005, the first sentence of the race and intelligence article is not neutral on multiple levels, "Race and intelligence is an area of intelligence research and social science studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence". There is no scientific consensus for the conclusion that there are "group" differences in "intelligence". There is no scientific consensus on how to determine "group" or "race" based categories. There is no scientific consensus that IQ test results and related data objectively measure "intelligence". The word "consequences" is premature as nothing has been scientifically concluded. The word "origins" is premature or needs a caveat because the existence of "group" based differences in "intelligence" has not been determined with sufficient scientific consensus.   (and see also scientific racism)

 * On June 30 2005 I was reverted cleaning up what apparently was very suspicious emphasis.

 * Words that have some connotation of "race", such as "culture", are excessively used to bias all possible environmental causes and also to presumptively induce readers into thinking about the issue only in terms of "race" (framed exclusively in terms of "race" so the issue is exclusively thought about only in terms of "race").  Note the unnecessarily suggestive section and sub article titles which should instead be labeled, using simple generic language, as "environmental causes":   Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation) We should decouple description of an issue with examinations of the cause that explains that issue (a one sided presentation and framing of the issue in this case seems to have lead to a one sided, unscientific, errant determination of "race" as the cause).

 * On June 16 2005, soon after I pointed out on the talk page that "nutrition and intelligence" is an equivalent way of looking at and presenting the issue User:Gracefool created a redirect from nutrition and intelligence to race and intelligence. This seems to fit a pattern amongst the "pro" editors on the talk page, their non neutral goal seems to be to force other possible causes for the alleged "IQ disparity", such as nutrition, to be mentioned only within the framework of describing the issue exclusively in terms of "race", never using their own terms. In other words, other causes are mentioned as a possibility, but the issue is only ever allowed to be described in terms of "race" and "intelligence" and is never allowed to be described using words from other possible causes such as "wealth" and "nutrition". [more evidence forthcoming]

 * "Pro" editors of race and intelligence are also the primary editors of articles that seemingly criticize "race and intelligence" research. I assert this is evidence that the "pro" editors are sugar coating and mischaracterizing criticisms of "race and intelligence". As of July 24 2005 all but one of the edits to race and intelligence controversy were made by User:Rikurzhen. The controversy article does not  mention criticisms against charges of generally unscientific research, nor the lack of consensus for most conclusions, nor how the "race and intelligence" research field exclusively frames the issue at a language usage level.

 * As of July 24, 2005 IQ test bias is acknowledged as a possibility, yet the title and other parts of the article, notably the introduction, continue to conclude, without basis, that "intelligence" can be objectively measured and there are objectively "group" differences in "intelligence". Also note the same excessive use of the word "culture". If there are valid allegations of test bias why is the article titled "race and intelligence" and why does the article conclude so many things without consensus?

Evidence "pro" race and intelligence editors obfuscate or mischaracterize

 * On June 27, 2005 I asked for an explanation for exactly how promoting neutral language and/or fair and scientific presentation is "original research" or "POV pushing", I am still waiting for a response. I believe this is evidence of "errantly citing wikipedia policies to stifle or mischaracterize criticisms". and later on July 1st

 * On June 23, 2005, through a long series of edits described as "archiving", most of my entire core criticism discussions up until that point were deleted from the talk page without any archiving, or readability and organization was damaged. Here is the deleting or incomplete and unorganized archiving of numerous core criticism discussions (presumably under the banner of "starting the discussion over without personal attacks"), note the time stamps of discussions that had been active less than three hours before.  Here is my subsequent restoration of the completely deleted talk page comments

 * Mid to late June 2005 apparent "name calling" or "personal attacks". I ask that the arbitration committe and/or the wikipedia community help clarify (and have an official process for determining) exactly what constitutes a "personal attack" because the ability for some editors to outright delete lengthy sections because of some apparent "personal attacks" (see section immediately above) is a very dangerous precedent as far as preserving critical talk page discussions is concerned. Given the complex details of the lengthy race and intelligence neutrality dispute discussion, and especially because of what I saw/see as repetition used to perpetuate language confusion, I don't believe my use of the terms "nazi" (later rephrased to "nazi-esque") or "racist" to describe some "pro" editors talk page statments, repetition of language confusion (apparent propaganda), and one sided method of presentation was unwarrented.

 * On June 29 2005 (and subsequently edited on July 5 2005) User:Arbor created 2 archives with misleading titles: "Archive 8 (mediation by Uncle Ed)" and "Archive 9 (inherent language bias)".     I consider User:Ed Poor also not neutral on this issue and is a party to this RFA and to my knowledge was never officially made the mediator of this dispute. Also, I am not arguing that the language used in the article and on the talk page has some sort of "intrinsic" bias (not "inherent language bias"), I am arguing that the language is either needlessly ambiguous and unnecessarily confusing, or, was intentionally designed by biased people to be confusing to advance a decidedly non neutral political agenda. In either case it should be cleaned up. All previous talk page archives (one through seven) in this article were not given any "extra" title

Evidence presented by Rikurzhen
selections of Zen Master's talk page posts copied from Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 9 (inherent language bias); most comments are aimed at me:

 * Did all or most of the "conservative" POV pushers on wikipedia attend the same subtle uses of language skunkworks propaganda factory/university? zen master T 01:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Your repetition and emphasis of the same language misuse exposes your motivation. zen master T 01:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * ... I am not directly accusing you, I merely point out that racism is the most plausible explanation/motivation for your actions ... You are quite literally trying to trick people into assuming race is the cause of the alleged discrepancy by repetitively and exclusively framing the effect in terms of race. The fact that many psychology text books and literature also misuse language and/or needlessly commingle cause and effect is not evidence for anything (although that is profoundly suspicious additionally). zen master T 02:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * My point is you and others repeatedly frame the issue (the alleged discrepancy) exclusively in racial terms apprently because you want to intentionally confuse cause and effect. That is racist. ... zen master T 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I consider it subtly yet profoundly racist to frame the effects of the alleged discrepancy repeatedly and exclusively in racial terms with the apparent goal being to confuse effect with cause. ... I am the only one that finds this repeated use of subtle yet profound language propaganda on wikipedia and elsewhere to be very suspicious? It is a master key that potentially unlocks everything. zen master T 19:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The goal seems to be to use endless repetition and emphasis on race in describing the discrepancy's effects for the purpose of wearing people down into assuming effect is cause. That is the most racist thing I've ever heard of. ... zen master T 20:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * He is a model of propaganda and misdirection as far as this article is concerned at least. ... You are obviously trying to perpetuate psychologically damaging language by needlessly commingling cause and effect. zen master T 01:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The way you think/present this issue is racist. ... zen master T 23:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You will know them by their words. zen master T 07:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Psychological word games is not science. You will know them by their excessive lack of, or misdirecting, context wikilinking. zen master T 09:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This article should not be about "beliefs", instead the scientific method should be utilized which requires using neutral language which does not needlessly commingle cause and effect. You say, "it's clearly something associated with race" but that is NOT a scientific conclusion. Only a Nazi would repeatedly frame the issue the way you do. Was my "accusation" accurate at least? What other plausible explanation is there for the psychologically misdirecting way you frame this issue? zen master T 01:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * What other plausible explanation is there for using psychologically tricking language to misframe this issue? zen master T 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you please explain how framing the issue objectively or requiring neutral language no matter what is original research? Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is bound by the scientific method in its quest of neutrality. We should indeed report the "major POVs" as you call them but that does not mean we should simply regurgitate psychologically tricking language, doing so would be unscientific at the very least. Most people accused of being a nazi would deny it... zen master T 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of my comments:

flipping out:
 * All of us! Everyone with a PhD is secretly conspiring to use propaganda to obfuscate this issue. From textbook writers to IQ researchers to the staunchest critics of IQ researchers. And my motivation? PURE EVIL!!! I work on Wikipedia for the love of EVIL and obfuscation; that's why I meticulously add citations when I write and spend lots of time consulting sources -- so no one can verify my work -- propaganda!! obfuscate!!! EVIL!!!! ... enough of this ... someone else will have to answer your questions --Rikurzhen 22:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

statments to ZM about WP NOR and NPOV policy:
 * you seem unwilling to accept our explanation for why, fundamentally, research has happened as it has. but you have no choice but to recognize the proximal matter that your personal opinions don't constitute a source for changing this article... --Rikurzhen 07:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * your comments are completely unsupported by the facts/opinions found in published sources acceptable for use in wikipedia. you're wholly ignoring both our explanations and the material already found in the article. nothing productive is going on here. --Rikurzhen 08:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't mean any of our beliefs, I mean the beliefs of researchers about which is this article is written. We don't get to decide what's true, only to report what major POVs exist and whether they are consensus or not. How many ways can I say it: WP:NOR!!! --Rikurzhen 01:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

June

 * 16 June
 * In a long exchange with Rikurzhen, Zen-master makes a post described as "response to apparent racist propagandists": '[...]Repeatedly presenting this issue in the manner you do using psychological word game trickery propaganda is obviously racist, just admit the truth.' zen master T 06:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * 30 June
 * Discussing several viewpoints and how to include them, ZM attacks me. 'Even a random racist would want to present this issue scientifically to achieve objective conclusions rather than use psychologically tricky language games, which is orders of magnitude more evil, I hope you enjoy your jail cell soon enough.' zen master T 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)
 * My response: 'ZM, I'm afraid your conduct has just crossed the line. We're done.[...]' 30 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)
 * After this incident, User:Ed Poor intervened and requested that we (and User:Patrick0Moran) unconditionally apologize to each other, which Patrick and I did while Zen-master did not.

July

 * 1 July
 * Discussing introductory material, ZM again attacks. 'You say face facts yet you perpetuate and repeat presumption inducing language, why? The fact is you and others choose to present this issue only in terms of "race" or "genetics" out of some political motivation when there are many other ways of presenting it. [...] You must have some need for racism and "IQ based classism" to exist in the world.[...]It is as if you and others want the world to be controlled by an artificial racist "IQ" based economic caste system, but Truth and justice will come soon.'  zen master T 1 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)
 * My response: 'ZM, please rephrase or edit to remove the personal attacks and hypotheses about motivation. It's not right for you to phrase things in this way. For my part, I have apologized to you without reservation for losing sight of the WP:NPA policy. I will be happy to respond to a rancor-free version.' DAD 1 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

 * 15 July
 * In discussion on R&I's candidacy for Featured Article status, ZM again attacks. 'I theorize that most/all of the pro editors of race and intelligence must be ultra racist or insanely politically motived themselves...' zen master T 19:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ongoing
 * Zen-master repeatedly pushed his POV that "race and intelligence" is "presumption inducing language"; when pushed for sources, he has provided links to rather vitriolic websites that, when examined, do not actually substantiate his POV. Despite his POV-pushing, a straw poll he initiated  indicates that no other editor shares his POV.

Evidence presented by Moran
Two fundamental problems, (1) persistent set to perceive malevolent intentions & conspiracy, & (2) inability to cognize fundamental scientific requirements, manifest early. The component of klesa (affective contamination) is too heavy to be remediated. I don’t know where to go from here: Z’s first demonstration of a psychological set. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15148960&oldid=15148411 "You argue that the title merely points out IQ discrepancy allegations but you also seem to conclude or hint, as does this article, that race is the cause rather than environmental factors can have effects? That is racist. Needlessly commingling cause and effect is a technique generally only used by subtle POV pushers…. [T]his racism is especially obvious and profoundly insidious." Z implies that he can divine the motivations behind the writing of passages that he finds controversial: "[T]his article haphazardly DESCRIBES the alleged discrepancy ONLY in racial terms FOR THE PURPOSE of implying cause." He asks another rhetorical question implying a conspiracy of apologists: "Did all or most of the ‘conservative’ POV pushers on wikipedia attend the same subtle uses of language skunkworks propaganda factory/university?" It has been difficult to make any progress in a situation wherein no crucial issues are ever directly addressed but always return as accusatory questions and rhetorical devices.

Sometimes Zen-master retreats from accusations – only to return to the attack immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15152584&oldid=15152404 "Responding to Rikurzhen above, I am not directly accusing you, …. You are quite literally trying to trick people into assuming race is the cause of the alleged discrepancy by repetitively and exclusively framing the effect in terms of race"

I tried to be conciliatory, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15208659&oldid=15207765 and got called "racist." "My point is you and others repeatedly frame the issue (the alleged discrepancy) exclusively in racial terms apprently because you want to intentionally confuse cause and effect. That is racist."

Rikurzhen elucidated the difficulties of rational inquiry. Zen-master responded by asserting subtle manipulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15245162&oldid=15244993

Rikurzhen showed the need to focus on evidence, and avoid ungrounded accusations of conspiracy. Zen-master responded: “You have already given yourself away in the manner in which you respond.…. That is the most racist thing I've ever heard of.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15248674&oldid=15248480

Rikurzhen said contrary points of view are presented, but Zen-master made a personal attack: "Rikurzhen, you keep playing psychological language games. …. you repeatedly, to the point of propagandizing, describe the discrepancy's effects only in racial terms for the apparent purpose of wearing people down into errantly assuming that effect equals cause. How many people have attended this psychological misuse of language propaganda skunkworks factory/university? it must be quite few? What is your motivation for doing what you do? It seems infinitely evil to me." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15256432&oldid=15256207

Nectarflowed objected to personal attacks. Zen-master responded: "He is a model of propaganda and misdirection as far as this article is concerned at least. …. You are obviously trying to perpetuate psychologically damaging language by needlessly commingling cause and effect." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15266701&oldid=15264616

Rikurzhen pointed out Zen-master’s logical flaw. A personal attack followed: "You are a master at psychological language games I now see judging from these two paragraphs (nice use of ellipses), also your buddies sure know how to fill in space below. …. You yet again tried to confuse cause and effect (factor = effect), the obviousness of your repetition gives you away. Repeatedly presenting this issue in the manner you do using psychological word game trickery propaganda is obviously racist, just admit the truth."

I rebutted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15276524&oldid=15274753

Zen-master then said: “The way you think/present this issue is racist.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15321534&oldid=15315260

Nectarflowed raised the crucial problem in thinking. Zen-master attacked him too: "The only plausible answer I can come up with to that question is that you are a racist propagandist (please correct me if I am wrong)." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15357018&oldid=15356694

Zen-master claimed once more that Rikurzhen is “racist.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15359222&oldid=15358510

I objected: ad hominem. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15591840&oldid=15580214

Zen-master put the following edit summary up: “this article is the anti-thesis of the scientific method, especially if you analyze the psychology of language used” Zen-master said, telescoped, “Only a Nazi would say what you said.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15601046&oldid=15600915

I objected: “That's enough ad hominem attack.”

Zen-master attacked us both. I asked him if it was his actual intention to call me a Nazi. "The sooner you explain how language neutrality is original research the sooner you diminish the plausibility of my theory that you are a nazi. If someone was just a random interested researcher of this subject (even if they dubiously concluded race is a cause) I don't believe they would defend and deflect away from the current misuse of language to the degree you have. zen master T  02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

"So now I am being accused of being a Nazi too? Let's be clear about what you are saying. P0M 02:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

"You two do seem to be working together to misdirect third parties away from doing any sort of mental analysis on the neutrality of language used in the article. So yes, I am accusing you both of being neo-nazis based on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the misuse of language. I will withdraw my accusations after you explain how striving for language neutrality is original research and/or after you explain how needlessly commingling cause and effect is scientific?”"

The fundamental problem of thought, which five or six of us have all tried in ways both short and prolix to explain to Zen-master, is that it is impossible to discover whether there is a connection between two factors without seeing through objective studies whether or not there is a strong correlation between them, and that correlation does not prove causation. Every time one of us tries to explain, even to bring this matter up for question, it is evaded by a liturgy of rhetorical questions and accusations to the effect that a conspiracy exists to bury the true way to discover the truth. P0M 01:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National anarchism (2nd nomination)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

National anarchism
Neologism, oxymoron, non-notable. Its only advocates are a few trolls who seem to spend most of their time trying to tick off the various anarchists on wikipedia. It was already nominated for deletion with a consensus to delete, but I don't know what happened there. Do not be fooled by the apparent fullness of the article - the "movement" is confined to a few individuals and websites and the existence of this page adds nothing but ammunition for the trolls. --Tothebarricades 19:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: It appears that the previous vote to delete this article (Votes_for_deletion/National_anarchism) was never properly closed. It appears to have simply fallen through the cracks and been forgotten. Perhaps this page should be merged with that one, and it be re-promulgated? - Nat Krause 10:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did some more checking and made some sense of the situation. There was apparently an earlier version of this article created in 2004 which was deleted. Then, on April 29 of this year, a new version of the page was created. If that recreated page was more-or-less identical to the deleted one, then it should have been speedy-deleted at that time. In any event, it has now been edited to the point where it is very unlikely to be the same, so it should be treated as a different article and reconsidered for deletion. The deletion pages should not be merged. - Nat Krause 10:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't see how anyone could consider "national anarchists" anarchists, and it makes about as much sense to file this under anarchism as it does to file national socialism under socialism. I tried to place this article under the fascism template, but one of the national anarchists deleted the template.... I say, don't delete it, file it under fascism. Humanitarian
 * Note: this was the 10th edit by this user name. - Nat Krause 10:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fascism isn't just a term to beat people over the head with, and not every group of racist jerks is fascist. The definition of fascism involves totalitarianism and a hand-in-glove relationship between the state and capital; the people who call themselves national anarchists don't seem to advocate either of those things. You're incorrect when you say that "one of the national anarchists deleted the template." I deleted it, and I'm not a national anarchist.--Bcrowell 03:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep This deletion attempt is a POV attempt to keep certain anarchist philosophies out of the Anarchism article. The so-called "traditional" anarchists have been trying to censor out anything that's not in keeping with their communist version of anarchism. They're now resorting to try to certify this movement as non-notable (when in fact it is notable), as a desperate attempt to keep national anarchism of the Anarchism article. Also, they have been claiming that since it's for racial seperatism it's not anarchism, which is faulty reasoning. Regardless, nowhere do I see national anarchists advocate "exterminating" the Jews, as Proudhon does, and nowhere do I see them calling Jews an "collective organic parasite" as Bakunin does, yet those individuals are presented as anarchists in the Anarchism article. This picking and choosing of who is or who isn't an "official" anarchist, and censoring or ostracizing them, is not only inconsistent with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, it's downright Archist. RJII 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. RJ has been running around creating anarchism articles for any two words he can slap together, regardless of the presence or lack of evidence to found the movement. There is no evidence at all that this phenomena exists anywhere outside of the internet, and there are only 3 identifiable individuals associated with it, all of whom reject the claims of the others and call their own version the only one. This is just a series of webpages designed to make the white supremacists look like they have ideological links to movements which they clearly do not. It is also interesting to note that though Proudhon was in fact an anti-semite, RJ have been completely unable to dig up a single primary source indicating him as such, yet another indication of his tendency to create articles and fill them out based on heresay rather than actual facts. Kev 09:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This individual's prime focus on Wikipedia is RJII --to follow him around Wikipedia, harrass and nitpick, for personal reasons (scary huh?). Please disregard his irrelevant comments about RJII and focus on the issue at hand. RJII 16:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Kev has been on wikipedia longer than RJII. You were the one who choose to edit war on the articles that Kev was already editing; get over yourself. millerc 19:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep although "national anarchism" seems like an oxymoron, and doesn't read like anarchism, from a google search it does appear to exist as a real, albeit small, movement. Salsb 15:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep So called Left anarchists need to look to their roots. "Bakunin started as a pan-slavist, and remained an anti-semite after he became an anarchist (calling the Jews an "organic collective parasite"). Kropotkin took a reactionary stance supporting the Czarist state in the First World War. Proudhon was a gallic nationalist and anti-semite, and indeed the Cercle Proudhon was a right wing group prominent in the development of french fascism." There are many other links between Nationalism/fascism and anarchism, not the least of which is Gabriele D'Annunzio, anarcho-fascist ideologue, and of course modern third positionism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact that most classical anarchists were unsavory charcters, something I assure you we all realize, does not alter the fact that "national anarchism" is a non-notable neologism. --Tothebarricades 19:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * National anarchism is notable. RJII 19:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

DELETE This article is misplaced, I would sugget moving it but if the authors want it listed in wikipedia they should be wise enough to place it in the proper location. That is no where in the vicinity of anarchism. (unsigned comment by IP: 67.164.35.179)

Delete Non-notable (and frankly bizarre) racist ideology. Gets about 1 800 nonunique hits on google (compared to 660 000 hits for "anarchism", 43 000 for "anarcho-capitalism", and 2 million for "marxism"). An An 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1800 hits sure sounds notable to me. But your wording leads one to believe that your motivations for wanting it deleted is that it's "racist." But, I could be wrong. Hopefully, it's not, because even racist ideologies should be described on Wikipedia. This is a storehouse of knowledge. RJII 04:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1800 non-unique hits. But your wording leads me to believe you're trolling for a skirmish. Not here, dear. An An 07:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's bizarre and racist, but I'm not convinced it's non-notable. A quick survey of Google hits shows the following for some of the varieties of anarchism listed in the anarchism template:
 * Christian anarchism, 5700
 * green anarchism, 5100
 * anarcho-primitivism, 4100
 * national anarchism, 1900
 * IMO, all four of these are probably too inconsequential to be listed in the anarchism template, but I don't see any evidence that national anarchism is a complete fraud compared to the others. (And Christian anarchism strikes me as being every bit as much of a bizarre combo as national anarchism -- yeesh, Emma Goldman must be rolling over in her grave :-)--Bcrowell 04:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Christian Anarchism is a bit more sensible than some of the others. I've seen lots of xtian socialists around and they seem to really take the humanist aspects of Christ and ignore lots of the authoritarian aspects of God. An An 01:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Fifelfoo 04:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

RJII has persuaded me. Delete, recreate as blank, and protect the page to prevent any content from being added. ➥the Epopt 04:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's a real phenomenon and probably encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. Keep the article patrolled to make sure it's NPOV and not a promo piece, that's all. Kaibabsquirrel 04:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

keep. Agree with Kaibabsquirrel. It's not an oxymoron unless you buy into the anarchist ideology that racism and nationalism will automatically dry up and blow away once state coercion is gone; national identity is not the same as the nation-state. It's unfortunate, however, that RJII has been trying to inflate these articles' appearance of significance by adding spammish links from unrelated articles like Ku Klux Klan, and has used redundant external links from the articles to do the same thing. Another issue is that people have been adding links to National anarchism in templates such as Fascism, which is clearly inappropriate, both because the national anarchists don't seem to consider themselves fascists, and because they're not important enough to be included in the template. The "what links here" for national anarchism includes tons of articles which, AFAICT, no longer actually link to it, but may have in the recent past because of templates. (E.g., I just deleted national anarchism from the fascism template, but Nazism still shows up in national anachism's "what links here" page.)--Bcrowell 15:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Salsb. If this were a paper encyclopaedia, I wouldn't see the point of keeping it, but we are under no such constraints here. I'm not arguing that it merits a prominent mention, perhaps not any mention at all, in articles like anarchism, I just don't see any reason to delete it. - Nat Krause 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

delete - low hits on google, if wikipedia keeps article it will give it future notability that it ain't got yet. Its basically a one man enterprise with a couple of self-promotional websites. It should get mentioned within Neofascism OR Troy Southgate articles -max rspct 15:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This flies in the face of the facts. It's obviously not one guy. National anarchism is active in more than one country as well. RJII 14:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

KEEP. It can always edited to include reference to objections, cross-references to contradictory articles, and/or URLs to anti-"National-Anarchist" sites, but it should not be censored or deleted because some people disagree with the POV and don't like the label. Censorship is as foreign to my understanding and practice of anarchism as skin-color politics, by the way. Thedavid 20:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep - >1000 Google hits seems notable enough. And if it wasn't for the racist nature of the subject (which shouldn't even enter the discussion) and the objectionable use of the term anarchist (again shouldn't enter into it) this article wouldn't be up for VfD. 66.94.94.154 19:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (Opps, that's me Saswann 19:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC))

KEEP! The argument for deletion is blantly POV and sectarian in nature and smacks of censorship. (Which this move entirely hypocritical coming from so-called anarchists, but I've seen worse similar hypocrisy coming out of that movement before.) It is simply an attempt by Toothebarricades to delete an article based entirely on the fact that he does not like national anarchists calling themselves anarchists. Whether or not "national anarchists" is a valid as an exponent of anarchism (and I happen to agree that it isn't good anarchism) is entirely irrelevant to whether there should be an article on this topic here on Wikipedia. The argument that the argument is too non-notable to warrant a Wikipedia article is entirely false - the long list of links on this page, the large number of websites (both pro- and anti-NA) resulting from a Google search for "national anarchist" or "national anarchism", the obvious influence it has in the neofolk music milieu, plus the very active National Anarchist Yahoo Group are all evidence that this is a topic of interest and criticism for many people and therefore well-deserving of a Wikipedia page to introduce interested people to the topic. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on Trotskyist tendencies that are far more obscure. --Peter G Werner 18:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

DELETE. Technically, any guy with enough money to build a website could start his own "ideology" on the internet, and if his website gets enough visitors, other sites might start discussing the pros and cons of his ideas. That is not enough to represent notability. National anarchism is utterly, and I mean utterly, insignificant. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment any guy can start his own "ideology," web or not, and if enough people talk about it, it becomes notable. see Emperor Norton Saswann 00:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP! The article is being developed. I think we should not dismiss what Southgate is doing, eg: his recent organisation of a meeting between Aleksandr Dugin a delegate from the cultural wing of the BNP, and someone from teh Englis Orthodox Church. I think maybe it should be developed in parallel to arevision of the NatuionalBolshevik page - particulalrly in relation to the deletion of the reference to Karl Popper. (It is perhaps also relevant to link this with the complete take over of Japanese univeristy departments in Scientific method by popperians following the occupation of Japan after the Second World War. Harry Potter

Keep. The term has enough circulation to warrant an article. People seeking to understand its meaning should be able to find neutral information on Wikipedia. —Morning star 21:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep the article, but delete much of its present content The article Peter Lamborn Wilson identifies Gabrielle D'Annunzio as a "proto-nationalist anarchist", linking here. Whether or not Hakim Bey's interpretations of D'Annunizio are accurate, D'Annunzio as presented by Bey is indeed a kind of "proto-nationalist anarchist", adopting an intermediate position between anarchism and Italian proto-fascism. However, in Bey's account (and I must say I believe in real life as well), his views are not primarily racist. What I mean is this. The real D'Annunzio, and/or the Wilsonian D'Annunzio, may or may not have been racists, but racism was not the focus of their philosophy. They were nationalists, yes, but they did not view nationalism in such a biological sense as more explicitly racist philosophies (Nazism, white supremacy) do. And indeed, this article from its very beginning identifies "nationalist anarchism" with 'white nationalism', i.e. white supremacy. I have never ever heard of anarchist white supremacists. But some of the work of Hakim Bey, explores (without adopting) some ideas of "nationalist anarchism", without being racist (although Bey at other places certaintly seems to endorse "racialism", i.e. blacks are superior; white people are all inferior; but any white person we like isn't really a "white" person, they're actually a celt or persian, which makes them a "black" person, and hence superior... go figure...) In any case, I think the article should be maintained, but its contents modified to remove (or at least de-emphasise) the white supremacy, but discuss Wilson's interpretations of D'Annunzio. -- SamuelKatinsky

 * There seems to be enough momentum to keep the article and I would agree it needs to be developed. The remarks about Peter Lambourn Wilson aka Hakim Bey are interesting. I think it might also be worth bringing in Rudolf Rocker into the discussion, particularly in relation to his Nationalism and Culture, but perhaps this should be discussed on a talk page! Harrypotter 17:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Myelokathexis

Myelokathexis is a congenital disorder of the white blood cells that causes severe, chronic leukopenia (a reduction of circulating white blood cells) and neutropenia (a reduction of neutrophil granulocytes). The disorder is believed to be inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Myelokathexis refers to retention (kathexis) of neutrophils in the bone marrow (myelo). The disorder shows prominent neutrophil morphologic abnormalities.

Myelokathexis is amongst the diseases treated with bone marrow transplantation and cord blood stem cells. WHIM syndrome is a very rare variant of severe congenital neutropenia that presents with warts, hypogammaglobunemia, infections, and myelokathexis. A gain-of-function mutation resulting in a truncated form of CXCR4 is believed to be its cause. The truncated form of the receptor has a 2-fold increase in G-protein coupled intracellular signalling, and this mutation of the receptor can be identified by DNA sequencing.

title: Myelokathexis


text:
Judith Ivey

Judith Lee Ivey (born September 4, 1951) is an American actress and theatre director. She twice won the Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play: for Steaming (1981) and Hurlyburly (1984). She also received Best Actress In A Play nomination for Park Your Car in Harvard Yard (1992) and another Best Featured Actress in a Play nomination for The Heiress.

Ivey made her big screen debut playing the female lead role in the 1984 romantic comedy film, The Lonely Guy. She later appeared in the comedy films The Woman in Red (1984), Compromising Positions (1985), Brighton Beach Memoirs (1986), Sister, Sister (1987), and the drama films The Devil's Advocate (1997) and Women Talking (2022), for which she received critical acclaim. On television, Ivey played the leading role in the NBC sitcom Down Home (1990-91), and played Bonnie Jean "BJ" Poteet during the final season of CBS sitcom Designing Women (1992-93). For her role in the television film What the Deaf Man Heard (1997), she was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited Series or Movie.

Early life and education
Judith Lee Ivey was born on September 4, 1951, in El Paso, Texas, the daughter of Nathan Aldean Ivey, a college instructor and dean, and Dorothy Lee (née Lewis), a teacher.

From 1965 to 1968, she attended Union High School through tenth grade in Dowagiac, Michigan. She graduated from Marion High School in Marion, Illinois, in 1970, and then attended John A. Logan College, Southern Illinois University (Carbondale), and Illinois State University (Normal, Illinois).

Career
Ivey won two Tony Awards as Best Featured Actress in a Play for Steaming in 1983 and Hurlyburly in 1985. She was nominated for Park Your Car in Harvard Yard in 1992 and a revival of The Heiress in 2013. Other Broadway theatre credits include Piaf, Bedroom Farce, Blithe Spirit, Voices in the Dark, and Follies.

She portrayed Amanda in The Glass Menagerie at the Long Wharf Theatre and reprised the role in March 2010 at the Roundabout Theatre in New York, as well as the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. She received the Lucille Lortel Award for Best Actress for that portrayal. Ivey portrayed Ann Landers in the solo play The Lady with All the Answers at the Cherry Lane Theatre (off-Broadway) in October 2009. She was nominated for Best Solo Performance for the Lucille Lortel Award and Drama Desk Award. In 2016, she returned to the Cherry Lane Theatre in Israel Horovitz's play Out Of The Mouths Of Babes with Estelle Parsons, directed by Barnet Kellman.

Ivey has appeared in numerous films, including Brighton Beach Memoirs, Miles from Home, Compromising Positions, Harry & Son, The Woman in Red, Sister, Sister, In Country, Hello Again, The Lonely Guy, There Goes the Neighborhood, The Devil's Advocate, What Alice Found, and Flags of Our Fathers.

Despite a long history of theater and film performances, Ivey often is associated with the role of B.J. Poteet in the final season of Designing Women. She appeared on Will & Grace as the mother of Dr. Leo Markus and appeared on Grey's Anatomy, Person of Interest, White Collar, Nurse Jackie, Big Love, and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.

Ivey had lead role of Kate McCrorey in the two season series Down Home (1990–1991), set in a Texas coastal town. This was followed by lead roles in single season series The 5 Mrs. Buchanans (1994-1995, "Alexandria Buchanan"), and Dave Chappelle's Buddies (1996, "Maureen DeMoss"). Ivey was also in the 1985 TV remake of The Long Hot Summer, in the role of Noel Varner (Joanne Woodward's role in the 1958 film version). The miniseries also starred Jason Robards and Don Johnson. Ivey was nominated for an Emmy for her performance in What the Deaf Man Heard, a Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation. She also provided the voice of Eleanor Sherman in the animated series The Critic. Ivey appeared in the television miniseries Rose Red (with a screenplay by Stephen King) as Cathy, one of the psychics investigating a haunted house.

Personal life
Ivey was married to actor Ricardo Gutierrez. They divorced before her move to New York. She is now married to Tim Braine, and they have two children.

title: Judith Ivey


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies please place proposed items you have confidence in on the Requests for arbitration/Zen-master/Proposed decision page.

Template
1)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of this dispute regarding is Race and intelligence and its talk page, Talk:Race and intelligence.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Zen-Master's position
2) opposes the positions taken in the article which he says "frames" the issues in terms which lack scientific consensus, his position is summarized in  which opposes selection of race and intelligence as a featured article. See also this conversation with  User_talk:Zen-master

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Accusations of racism
3) makes a number of posts which imply racism on the part of opposing editors   . He also attacks books and scholars which deal with the subject matter such as The Bell Curve . See this cited criticism, "Anti-racist students, workers, and professors must step up the fight against academic racism so there will be no sanctuary anywhere for the Nazi theorists of today." "The Bell Curve is no more scientific than Hitler's Mein Kampf" "we will allow no "free speech" or "academic freedom" for professional racists and neo-nazis, no matter how many letters of the alphabet trail after their names." "ONLY COMMUNISM CAN DEFEAT RACISM AND FASCISM" "Murray and Herrnstein, advocates of the Violence Initiative, and other academic racists offer us fascism as a solution to the profound crisis in contemporary capitalism."

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Edits by Zen-master
4) Edits by to Race and intelligence generally attempt to broaden the theoretical basis for explanation of differential intelligence between groups. This edit  is a reversion of changes Zen-master had made.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Arguments presented by Zen-master
5) mixes reasonable objections to the tenor of the article such as this  with hysterical rants such as this  with the result that the valid objections he is raising to NPOV are not taken seriously by the other editors.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Evidence presented by User:Zen-master
The neutrality dispute over race and intelligence and related articles is complex and multi-layered. I allege a handful of "pro" editors repeatedly: use psychologically subtle and tricky non neutral language, use an extremely biased method of presentation, and have obfuscated and/or mischaracterized valid criticicsms. Other issues include their mislabeling my complaint that the article does not use neutrality language as "novel POV pushing".

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Evidence "pro" race and intelligence editors use an extremely biased presentation method
As of July 24 2005, the first sentence of the race and intelligence article is not neutral on multiple levels, "Race and intelligence is an area of intelligence research and social science studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence". There is no scientific consensus for the conclusion that there are "group" differences in "intelligence". There is no scientific consensus on how to determine "group" or "race" based categories. There is no scientific consensus that IQ test results and related data objectively measure "intelligence". The word "consequences" is premature as nothing has been scientifically concluded. The word "origins" is premature or needs a caveat because the existence of "group" based differences in "intelligence" has not been determined with sufficient scientific consensus. (and see also scientific racism)

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * "There is no scientific consensus for the conclusion that there are "group" differences in "intelligence"." This is an interesting statement when there is clearly a statistical divergence when different intelligence tests are administered to different groups. Is it being maintained that the intelligence tests don't really test intelligence, that there is no such thing as intelligence, or that the groups used are arbitrary and without meaning? Fred Bauder 18:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:
 * Responding to Fred, basically all of the above. There are data correlations, but there is no conesnsus that 1) just one way of looking at the data is the right way 2) that "intelligence" can be objectively measured 3) no agreement on method of "group" categorization (in fact genome scientists have come out against "race and intelligence" research) and 4) no support for the one sided language and framing of the subject. zen master T 20:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ZM's contentions are belied by the existence of concensus statements and scholarly review papers on this subject. --Rikurzhen 01:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by others:

Editing by Zen-master reverted
On June 30 2005 I was reverted cleaning up what apparently was very suspicious emphasis.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Biased language
Words that have some connotation of "race", such as "culture", are excessively used to bias all possible environmental causes and also to presumptively induce readers into thinking about the issue only in terms of "race" (framed exclusively in terms of "race" so the issue is exclusively thought about only in terms of "race"). Note the unnecessarily suggestive section and sub article titles which should instead be labeled, using simple generic language, as "environmental causes":  Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation) We should decouple description of an issue with examinations of the cause that explains that issue (a one sided presentation and framing of the issue in this case seems to have lead to a one sided, unscientific, errant determination of "race" as the cause).

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Nutrition and intelligence
On June 16 2005, soon after I pointed out on the talk page that "nutrition and intelligence" is an equivalent way of looking at and presenting the issue User:Gracefool created a redirect from nutrition and intelligence to race and intelligence. This seems to fit a pattern amongst the "pro" editors on the talk page, their non neutral goal seems to be to force other possible causes for the alleged "IQ disparity", such as nutrition, to be mentioned only within the framework of describing the issue exclusively in terms of "race", never using their own terms. In other words, other causes are mentioned as a possibility, but the issue is only ever allowed to be described in terms of "race" and "intelligence" and is never allowed to be described using words from other possible causes such as "wealth" and "nutrition". [more evidence forthcoming]

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True enough, seems to be no excuse. One can imagine other articles intelligence and social class intelligence and education intelligence and wealth. Fred Bauder 19:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * It strikes me that Zen-master could create some of these articles and populate them with available information, . Fred Bauder 15:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Race and intelligence controversy
"Pro" editors of race and intelligence are also the primary editors of articles that seemingly criticize "race and intelligence" research. I assert this is evidence that the "pro" editors are sugar coating and mischaracterizing criticisms of "race and intelligence". As of July 24 2005 all but one of the edits to race and intelligence controversy were made by User:Rikurzhen. The controversy article does not mention criticisms against charges of generally unscientific research, nor the lack of consensus for most conclusions, nor how the "race and intelligence" research field exclusively frames the issue at a language usage level.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Test bias
As of July 24, 2005 IQ test bias is acknowledged as a possibility, yet the title and other parts of the article, notably the introduction, continue to conclude, without basis, that "intelligence" can be objectively measured and there are objectively "group" differences in "intelligence". Also note the same excessive use of the word "culture". If there are valid allegations of test bias why is the article titled "race and intelligence" and why does the article conclude so many things without consensus?

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Evidence "pro" race and intelligence editors obfuscate or mischaracterize
On June 27, 2005 I asked for an explanation for exactly how promoting neutral language and/or fair and scientific presentation is "original research" or "POV pushing", I am still waiting for a response. I believe this is evidence of "errantly citing wikipedia policies to stifle or mischaracterize criticisms". and later on July 1st

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

On June 23, 2005, through a long series of edits described as "archiving", most of my entire core criticism discussions up until that point were deleted from the talk page without any archiving, or readability and organization was damaged. Here is the deleting or incomplete and unorganized archiving of numerous core criticism discussions (presumably under the banner of "starting the discussion over without personal attacks"), note the time stamps of discussions that had been active less than three hours before. Here is my subsequent restoration of the completely deleted talk page comments

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

Mid to late June 2005 apparent "name calling" or "personal attacks". I ask that the arbitration committe and/or the wikipedia community help clarify (and have an official process for determining) exactly what constitutes a "personal attack" because the ability for some editors to outright delete lengthy sections because of some apparent "personal attacks" (see section immediately above) is a very dangerous precedent as far as preserving critical talk page discussions is concerned. Given the complex details of the lengthy race and intelligence neutrality dispute discussion, and especially because of what I saw/see as repetition used to perpetuate language confusion, I don't believe my use of the terms "nazi" (later rephrased to "nazi-esque") or "racist" to describe some "pro" editors talk page statments, repetition of language confusion (apparent propaganda), and one sided method of presentation was unwarrented.

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

On June 29 2005 (and subsequently edited on July 5 2005) User:Arbor created 2 archives with misleading titles: "Archive 8 (mediation by Uncle Ed)" and "Archive 9 (inherent language bias)". I consider User:Ed Poor also not neutral on this issue and is a party to this RFA and to my knowledge was never officially made the mediator of this dispute. Also, I am not arguing that the language used in the article and on the talk page has some sort of "intrinsic" bias (not "inherent language bias"), I am arguing that the language is either needlessly ambiguous and unnecessarily confusing, or, was intentionally designed by biased people to be confusing to advance a decidedly non neutral political agenda. In either case it should be cleaned up. All previous talk page archives (one through seven) in this article were not given any "extra" title

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:

 * Comment by parties:

 * Comment by others:


text:
Wim Jonk

Wilhelmus Maria "Wim" Jonk (born 12 October 1966) is a Dutch professional football manager and former player, who is the current technical manager of Eredivisie club Volendam.

In his career as a midfielder, he won a variety of national honours with Ajax and PSV. Abroad, he won the UEFA Cup with Inter Milan in 1994, and played in the Premier League with Sheffield Wednesday.

A Dutch international with 49 caps between 1992 and 1999, he represented the team at UEFA Euro 1992 and the FIFA World Cups of 1994 and 1998, helping them come fourth at the latter.

Club career
Born in Volendam, Jonk started his career in amateur club RKAV Volendam, before signing for Volendam in 1986. A prolific scorer from midfield, he helped his club achieve promotion to the Eredivisie in 1987. Ajax signed him in 1988.

At Ajax, he merged into the squad easily, scoring six goals in his debut season. He helped Ajax to the 1992 UEFA Cup Final, in which he scored to help them overcome Torino.

He signed for Inter Milan in 1993 on a three-year deal. He was joined by compatriot Dennis Bergkamp, who also joined from Ajax. He cost £3.3 million, and Bergkamp £7.1 million. He managed 54 appearances in two seasons and scored eight goals. He scored in a UEFA Cup Final again, this time as Inter won the 1994 final.

When Bergkamp left Inter for Arsenal at the end of the 1994–95 season, Jonk felt that his opportunities were limited as he neared the age of 30, and he went back to the Netherlands to sign with PSV.

For the 1998–99 season, Jonk went to join Sheffield Wednesday for a fee of £2.5 million, where he was a regular starter for the relegation-threatened side. He joined the team having been inspired by tales of the Premier League from his compatriots Jaap Stam and Arthur Numan. He was frequently injured, which caused the Wednesday fans to voice dissent about a clause in his contract which stipulated that he would automatically receive £7,500 per game, which he would miss through injury. He barely played in the 2000–01 season, the last of his contract, due to a groin injury, but he said in May 2001 that he wanted to return to playing.

International career
Jonk made his debut for the Dutch national team as substitute, coming on in the 75th minute for Richard Witschge. The end result was a 3–2 win in a friendly match against Austria on 27 May 1992. Jonk was also selected in his debut year as an international for UEFA Euro 1992. In his only game, in the first group match against Scotland, Jonk came on for Jan Wouters in the 54th minute; they won the match 1-0.

At the 1994 FIFA World Cup in the United States, Jonk was part of Dick Advocaat's Dutch team. He scored the equaliser in a 2–1 group win over Saudi Arabia, and another long-range goal in a win against the Republic of Ireland in the last 16.

While at PSV, Jonk was selected by Guus Hiddink for the 1998 FIFA World Cup in France, after being overlooked for UEFA Euro 1996. He played five out of seven games as the team came fourth.

With the appointment of Frank Rijkaard as the new manager after the 1998 World Cup, Jonk played only once more for the Netherlands in a friendly against Denmark on 18 August 1999. He finished his international career on 49 caps and 11 goals.

Head of Academy
After his career as a player, Jonk featured as a football pundit on NOS Studio Sport, before returning to his childhood club Volendam as the board member for technical affairs. In this role, Jonk also worked as an individual trainer and assistant to the first and second team of Volendam.

Between 2008 until November 2015, Jonk worked for Ajax. After ongoing disagreement between Jonk and Cruyff with the board of directors, about the interpretation and lack of implementation of the Plan Cruyff at the first team and in the overall club policy, Jonk left the club in December 2015, together with Cruyff and a large group of key academy personnel.

Cruyff Football
Jonk and Jordi Cruyff co-manage and lead the Amsterdam-based international football institute Cruyff Football, based on the Plan Cruyff and the legacy of Johan Cruyff.

Volendam
On 13 April 2019, Jonk was announced as the new manager of Eerste Divisie club Volendam. Three years later, he led the team to the top flight for the first time in 13 years. On 16 June 2023, Jonk was moved to the position of "technical manager of professional football" at the club, with his former assistant coach Matthias Kohler replacing him as head coach.

Personal life
Jonk and his wife Gina have two children as of 2001. When he played for Sheffield Wednesday, they lived in Dore, South Yorkshire. Jonk is a Catholic; while many of his Dutch teammates were raised in the church, he was the only one of his contemporaries to make the sign of the cross while playing.

Honours
Ajax
 * Eredivisie: 1989–90
 * KNVB Cup: 1992–93
 * UEFA Cup: 1991–92

Inter Milan
 * UEFA Cup: 1993–94

PSV
 * Eredivisie: 1996–97
 * KNVB Cup: 1995–96
 * Johan Cruijff Shield: 1996, 1997, 1998

title: Wim Jonk


text:
Soga no Iruka

Soga no Iruka (蘇我 入鹿) (died July 10, 645) was the son of Soga no Emishi, a statesman in the Asuka Period of Japan.

He was assassinated at court in a coup d'état involving Nakatomi no Kamatari and Prince Naka-no-Ōe (see: Isshi Incident), who accused him of trying to murder Prince Yamashiro, a charge which Soga no Iruka denied. Soga no Emishi also committed suicide soon after his son's death, and the main branch of the Soga clan became extinct. Prince Naka-no-Oe later ascended the throne as Emperor Tenji, and Nakatomi no Kamatari was promoted and given the name Fujiwara no Kamatari.

Legacy
In 2005, the remains of a building which may have been Soga no Iruka's residence were discovered in Nara. This discovery appeared to be consistent with the description found in Nihon Shoki.

Popular culture

 * Portrayed by Jung Jin-gak in the 2012–2013 KBS1 TV series Dream of the Emperor.

title: Soga no Iruka


text:
Trandolapril/verapamil

Trandolapril/verapamil (Tarka) is an oral antihypertensive medication that combines a slow release formulation of verapamil hydrochloride, a calcium channel blocker, and an immediate release formulation of trandolapril, an ACE inhibitor. The patent, held by Abbott Laboratories, expired on February 24, 2015.

This combination medication contains angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and calcium channel blocker and is prescribed for high blood pressure.

title: Trandolapril/verapamil