Talk:Zhabel

Non-RS Sources
@ElderZamzam I have removed two of the sources you have added for the following reasons: It would be greatly appreciated if you could stop adding the work of nationalists that serve only as propaganda or as unreliable claims not backed by real archaeological/linguistic/genetic research etc. Thanks in advance. Botushali (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Kalezic is a priest, not a researcher or a historian or respected academic in general. Furthermore, it's supposedly an encyclopaedia, so it falls under WP:TERTIARY.
 * The line that is attributed to Milos Milojevic cannot stay; read this passage on pg, 60 and the end of pg. 59, Milojevic is clearly not RS as he never produced real, accurate information - his work is racially-motivated and based on unreliable, incorrect propaganda.
 * Also on Milojevic, "The first writer to claim that all northern Albanians (Ghegs) were Albanised Serbs was Milos Milojevic. In 1872, he presented his argument in the Serb Royal Academy but was rebutted by Stojan Nojakovic. Spiridon Gopcevic, the "father of serbian political geography", followed the same logic and declared all Albanians to be Serbs. His work greatly influenced the Serb geographer Jovan Cvijic.", pg. 200, ... His work is clearly nationalistic propaganda and cannot pass as RS in the slightest - anything from this group of writers during this period shouldn't be allowed on Wiki as it is full of inaccuracies and lies to try and support their political motivations. This completely discredits Milos.
 * Milos also claimed through his travel "records" that Serbs formed the majority in Kosovo during the late 19th century, and that is simply not the case, and the previous quotes indicate his real intentions.


 * Hello @Botushali, I find this double standard very peculiar. On the page Gjakova, you cited the work of Selami Pulaha who interpreted the Ottoman defters in a nationalist POV manner. Such interpretations by both Serbian and Albanian researchers is frowned upon by Andscombe (2006), yet you went ahead with posting his work? I have not found any rulings made against the work of Milojevic on the Wikipedia reliable sources noticeboard (please correct me if I am wrong). If you have enough evidence, you can raise this at the noticeboard, similar to what is being raised against the work of Pellumb Xhufi. These aforementioned sources can be added, questioning the work of Milojevic in the article, however you have chosen to remove it. Wikipedia is not a one-sided affair, you can't add the work of one nationalist but reject others without a ruling backing up your claim, that is WP:NPOV. ElderZamzam (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We have been over the Selami Pulaha topic multiple times. No admin ruling or anything of the sorts has found him to be unreliable or non-RS, and the fact that you are still trying to bring this up is quite unproductive. Pulaha was a reliable, well-respected academic of the 20th century, and it would be nice of you to not dismiss him as a "nationalist" and to discredit his impressive body of academic works. You have no sources that describe him as non-RS or him saying something absolutely ridiculous and incorrect (such as all northern Albanians being "Albanised Serbs"). However, Milos on the other hand is quite clearly a well-documented nationalist. If you truly care about the quality of Wikipedia articles and ensuring that only reliable, respectable sources of information are used on the site, you would not employ the work of a propaganda-fuelled nationalist of the 19th century who made preposterous, outlandish and absolutely incorrect nationalist claims, such as the ones I have cited above. He also claimed all Slavs in North Macedonia are Serbs, which is equally as preposterous, considering the longstanding presence of Bulgarians in the area which predates that of the Serbs.


 * The time-consuming process of an RSN request for Milojevic is not even necessary - I have provided sources above that completely show the inaccuracy, incorrectness and political motivations of his sources. Imagine if Wikipedia users were forced to fill out an RSN every time certain users added non-RS sources. The aforementioned sources do not need to be added to an article about Zhabel, because they discuss the total lack of credibility for Milojevic in general. If you want to keep justifying the addition of an obviously non-RS author, then I suggest you take it to an admin and we can have a discussion there regarding Milojevic. See how that works out for you, because I guarantee it will not go in your favour - if you raise this issue to an admin, Milojevic will very quickly be ruled as non-RS, so I encourage to go ahead and enquire about whether or not we should be using such sources. Botushali (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)