Talk:Gazimestan speech

According to Wikipedia

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

[edit] Using questionable or self-published sources Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB WP:SPS Some sources pose special difficulties:

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable.

Jared Israel about Gil- White

While claiming that he is continuing the work of TENC, he routinely violates scholarly ethics. He now not only misrepresents his data, but outright falsifies it. For example, in one text he took 9 words out of context from a thousand word 1938 article by Rabbi Stephen Wise, an article calling on Britain to provide sanctuary for the German Jews, and used this fragment as evidence that - in Gil-White's words - Rabbi Wise "got his wish" when the Holocaust took place. I traced Gil-White's falsified quotation to the actual article by Wise; I have posted my detective work here and Rabbi Wise's actual article here. I have checked other Gil-White documentation, and found that he frequently falsifies evidence, for example: misrepresenting the dates of quoted material; using ellipses in order to alter or reverse the thrust of quoted material; withholding vital information provided by his sources - and withholding important information about his sources - which information would contradict or undermine his arguments; and more. Wikipedia

We CAN NOT use Gil White as a source --I DREJTI 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Gil White has been published on TENC, and thus his work is not self-published. Jared Israel's comments are result of personal animosity between the two, not to mention that it is original research. Can you find any specific errors in the reference used here? Nikola 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gil White owns the website being used as reference. Gil White does not speak Serbian and has not the ability to say anything about a speech made in Serbian. Gil- White has also been fired by the university he worked for. All these facts taken to consideration make it impossible to believe him. Therefore we have to POV check this article. I ask you to read the rules once again especially about self published sources.--I DREJTI 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The work has been published on TENC, and subsequently removed because of personal issues. I will link TENC version now. Gil-White may not speak Serbian, but he has reviewed authoritative English translation of the speech - two independent translations, actually. Do you speak Serbian, so that you can know that his analysis of the speech is incorrect? Nikola 06:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gil-White is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference in political articles. See Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO. The article itself is ludicrously biased; I'll have a go at rewriting it over the weekend. -- ChrisO 21:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gil-White is as reliable source as one could get at this topic. The article is exceedingly neutral, containing nothing but a summary of the speech and an overview of reactions to it. If you plan to destroy it as you already did with some articles, I think I'll have a go at reverting it over the weekend. Nikola 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please state what notability Gil-White has on this topic. Has he held a chair at a major university teaching this? Published several best-selling books about this? What are his qualifications concerning this subject? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the "subject" is: whether first reports of the speech in media have different conclusions from later reports. Are you seriously suggesting that several books could be published about this? Nikola 14:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Try Milosevic, Serbia, etc. What background does Gil-White have which would qualify him as an expert on the situation as a whole, which render his opinions meaningful in this context? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he does study it, to the point that (he claims) he was thrown out of his university because of it. Does it even matter? Surely, one can analyse a single speech without knowing too much about its background. Do you find any specific errors in his analysis? Nikola 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion would be original research, and does not matter in this situation. Do you have a newspaper article which substantiates GW's version of why he was "thrown out" of his university? And yes, it matters. I am still waiting for any substantiation other than your assertion that he lost his job at a university for his views on this - which does not indicate any expertise but rather the reverse. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be, because it would just evaluate an already present analysis. No, I don't have a newspaper article and, certainly, if one looses his job because of his views, it does at least indicate that said views exist. I don't think that any substantiation is needed. Citing G-W is already higher standard than most Wikipedia articles have; I'd be OK with citing the analysed articles directly, Nikola 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

Let's try a novel aproach: what is not neutral in this article, and what is factually inaccurate in it? And why? Nikola 08:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no context (it doesn't explain why he gave the speech), very little background, very little about the reaction to the speech, it uses an ineligible source as a reference (namely Gil-White), and it has nothing about how historians and scholars view the speech (Gil-White doesn't count). Frankly, the way it's written makes it come across as an apologia for Milosevic. -- ChrisO 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Gil-White ineligible? By "historians and scholars" do you mean Western journalists who've never even read a transcript of the speech? --Methodius 10:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

He's ineligible because he's not a reliable source. His material is self-published, and he's working outside his professional field (he's not an historian, and his material on Yugoslavia, Iraq, 9/11 etc. is polemical, not academic; I've never come across any academic source citing him as an expert). See WP:SPS for our policy on the matter. The revised article I'm working on will not include any material from Gil-White. It will include a lot more sources, though - somewhat more than half of them (so far) are ex-YU sources from reputable academic writers and publishers. -- ChrisO 10:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Spare me of those! I don't actually see what you oppose. Two places where Gil-White is used could easily be replaced if we had access told newspaper archives. The others are for "Later reports are ripe with miss-quotations, and fail to adequately convey the speech or its meaning" and "A sentence from the speech that is oftenly cited out of context (for example, by the International Crisis Group)". Hardly anything to dispute there. If you really want to grind your axe, you could attribute the points to Gil-White and Gil-White only (as is only reasonable to include under WP:UNDUE), and list a few examples he uses (say two or three), and any normal reader would come to the above conclusion anyway.--Methodius 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I see that Francisco Gil-White was a lecturer at the Solomon Asch Centre for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, which would make this very much within his field. And that his work is polemical isn't a very strong argument - 99% of humanities research is polemical, biased or promoting a certain world view. --Methodius 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gil-White's reliability is something that's been discussed on several previous occasions on Wikipedia. Basically, his work falls into two categories: serious academic works published through peer-reviewed journals, and self-published polemical works published on his personal website. He's recognised as a reliable source for the first category of works (see e.g. Google Scholar results) and these works are cited by others, albeit not very much - he's recognised but not prominent. No academic source I've ever been able to find cites any of his polemical works, and as far as I know he's not recognised by any academic source as an expert on Yugoslavia, Israel, Iraq, Islam or any of the other subjects that he pontificates about on his personal website. You might want to ask yourself why all of his polemical works are self-published. -- ChrisO 13:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I could almost see your point. However, the cites are used for statements so uncontroversial as to be almost self-evident to any sentient being.--Methodius 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of our sourcing policies is that statements should be sourced to reliable sources, not just "what we know". I'm sure you've found that what's self-evident to one person isn't always self-evident to someone else. :-) Anyway, when it comes to potentially controversial subjects such as this one, I always take the view that it's best to cite everything - it helps to reduce disputes about the source of a particular statement. -- ChrisO 14:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, your points are all either irrelevant or wrong. In your first reply you say that:

• There's no context (it doesn't explain why he gave the speech) - but you don't explain why would the fact that there is no context mean that the article is not neutral or that is is factually inaccurate. He gave the speech because he was one of the speakers at the anniversary - that is all the context there is.
• very little background - again you don't explain why would the fact that there is very little background mean that the article is not neutral or that is is factually inaccurate. It appears to me that via writing about "context" and "background" you want to put in the article about the speech something that is completely unrelated to the speech itself.
• very little about the reaction to the speech - of two sections of the article, one is devoted completely to reactions to the speech. How is that "very little"??
• it uses an ineligible source as a reference (namely Gil-White) - Gil-White is an eligible source. I'll elaborate below.
• and it has nothing about how historians and scholars view the speech (Gil-White doesn't count) - yes he does. To my knowledge, he is the only scholar who has analysed reactions to the speech.
• Frankly, the way it's written makes it come across as an apologia for Milosevic - that is simply not true.

In your attack on Gil-White you say that:

• He's ineligible because he's not a reliable source - which is a tautology. Of course, unreliable sources are not eligible. But why is Gil-White not a reliable source? Because...
• His material is self-published - but self-published material by experts in the field is eligible.
• and he's working outside his professional field (he's not an historian - flat out wrong. Are you saying that historians are the only academics qualified for analysing media reaction to speeches? As Metodije says above, this analysis is actually right in the middle of his field (lecturer at the Solomon Asch Centre for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict).
• and his material on Yugoslavia, Iraq, 9/11 etc. is polemical, not academic - says who? You? Even if so, is academic material the only one acceptable for Wikipedia? Analysis of a single speech and media reactions to it does not merit a full scholarly work. In fact, by searching Google Scholar I can hardly find works written on any speech, including extremely well-known speeches such as Gettysburg address.
• I've never come across any academic source citing him as an expert - and I've never come across any academic source citing Stephen Hawking as an expert, mostly because I don't follow academic sources in the field of physics.
• He's recognised as a reliable source for the first category of works and these works are cited by others, albeit not very much - he's recognised but not prominent - excuse me? His most cited paper is cited more than a hundred times. Compare that to Noam Chomsky and his most cited paper, cited around 4,000 times. Being cited 1/40 as much as Chomsky is prominent.
• No academic source I've ever been able to find cites any of his polemical works - why is that important? Do academic sources usually cite polemical works?
• as far as I know he's not recognised by any academic source as an expert on Yugoslavia, Israel, Iraq, Islam or any of the other subjects that he pontificates about on his personal website - well? Why would that remove his ability to analyse a single speech, be it from Yugoslavia, Iraq or Zimbabwe?
• You might want to ask yourself why all of his polemical works are self-published - because they are polemical?

Finally, you say that:

• The revised article I'm working on will not include any material from Gil-White - my revert of your article, however, will. I don't want to see my hard work destroyed because of your personal whims. Please, work together with other editors, or better don't work at all. If you see something wrong with this article, please, fix it, don't simply erase the entire article. Nikola 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you continue this way by that time you will be blocked. All your edits are POV and disruptive. When it comes to your work I have to remind you that you don`t own Wikipedia and everyone can edit as much as they want Wikipedia articles. Stop acting as a owner of Wikipedia. And remember all the sources must be accesible and reliable. SANU is not reliable. --Noah30 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling, please. Nikola 06:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I asked for the original articles Gil-White cited and, frankly, the Guardian article is even better for Sloba than Gil-White described it. Read this:

The climax of the two years of Serbian national awakening he has led - the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo Polje - brought an unexpectedly conciliatory the Serbian President made not one aggressive reference to 'Albanian counter-revolutionaries' in Kosovo province. Instead, he talked of mutual tolerance, 'building a rich and democratic society' and ending the discord which had, he said, led to Serbia's defeat here by the Turks six centuries ago.

Clearly, Gil-White doesn't cite out of context, and his conclusion appears to be correct: initial Western reports of the speech highlighted its tolerance. Later, the article .. unrelated to the speech:

But the euphoria of the eight million Serbs has both unsettled the western republics of Slovenia and Croatia (whose representatives here yesterday looked nervous and uncomfortable), and perhaps permanently destroyed any possibility of a settlement in Kosovo. The suppression of the mutiny of the two million Kosovo Albanians four months ago has caused 24 deaths so far. 'Emergency measures' remain in force and yesterday, too, soldiers and camouflaged armoured vehicles lurked in the bushes.

So, something could be said along these lines. But I believe that the Wikipedia article should still say that initially the speech was viewed positively and that only later it came to be viewed negatively; and it should of course clear all misconceptions about the speech. Nikola 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Could the people disputing the article dispute it, or I will remove the tag within a week.--Methodius 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on a new version, but it won't be finished for a few days yet. If you want to remove the tag in the meantime, please go ahead - disputing the current version will be academic soon in any case. -- ChrisO 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why I think I will. When you finish your version, I think it would be sensible if you didn't just replace the current version with it. Please put it here for discussion (and almost certainly a lot of modification).--Methodius 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot longer than the current version (and indeed this talk page) so, being bold, replacement is necessary. I'm not completely obliterating the current version though; I do intend to preserve some of the points made, albeit not expressed exactly the same way. -- ChrisO 08:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonono, there is bold, and there is promoting your view. Let's make consensus on new version, work together on it. Please do not make tensions by writing just whatever in article (which I think you might, I saw what you write on this page). If it is long, make subpage of discussion page. Like Talk:Gazimestan speech/new. You click on that link and post it there, and we discuss here?--Methodius 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that'll work, to be honest. The problems with the current article are so fundamental and so systematic that trying to fix it would require a complete rewrite anyway. So we might as well just go straight to the rewrite and work from that. It's not a matter of "promoting my view", it's about improving the quality of a significant article. -- ChrisO 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So, where do we not agree? You propose complete new version on subpage, we go back and forward, make consensus, then replace current version. What I say is, do not replace current version all yourself, when I do not agree for that, and I think some other users too.--Methodius 10:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

New version

As promised, I've finished the (initial) new version - comments below, please! -- ChrisO 22:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you did a great job. The article is well written and well sourced. // laughing man 16:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As promised, reverted. This time, you are going to merge your version of the article into the existing one, not the other way around. Nikola 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikola, that's not the way things are done around here and your tone is highly inappropriate - you don't own the article. Remember the motto on every edit page - "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I've already explained the problems with the previous version of the article and noted why they're of such a nature that a complete rewrite is the only viable way forward. The new version of the article contains much more information; it's much more comprehensively sourced and uses better sources; and it provides the context, background and reactions which are largely or entirely absent from the previous version. You haven't even bothered to say what you dislike about the new version of the article. The way to deal with this is to discuss the new version, explain what you think is problematic and then collaborate on fixing that. You don't simply roll it back to an older version and wipe out a great deal of work in the process. -- ChrisO 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, what you are doing is not the way things are done here, and is highly inappropriate. You don't own the article either. Perhaps you should re-read that motto and see how it perfectly applies to you - if you didn't want your rewrite to be mercilessly reverted, you shouldn't have submitted it. Both me and Metoije disagreed with your view of the problems.

For the record, what you wrote is generally OK (save for that mythomania comparing Milosevic and Hitler and similar moments), and I wouldn't care much had it been original version of the article. It is the way you did it that is highly inapropriate. This is not the first time that you completely rewrite an article instead of just editing it; this time I will not be the one who will be merging the two versione. Nikola 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to merge! The whole point of the new article is that it replaced and expanded the old version. But for the record, what parts do you think need to be merged? -- ChrisO 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanded? Excuse me. I wrote a summary of the speech which in the new version doesn't exist at all. I also wrote about various misconceptions in regard to the speech which too aren't mentioned at all. Nikola 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It covers the same basic ground. Nonetheless, I'm willing to merge in elements of your summary (though some work will be required to fix POV elements of it). As for the section on misconceptions, it's original research with your own slant - basically exonerating Milosevic from criticism - and draws on patently unreliable sources like Gil-White. There's no way that's going to be in the new article. I got hold of the same newspaper articles that you did and I have to say that you rather misrepresented the Independent's report, which not only "noted that the crowd was surprisingly quiet" but contrasted Milosevic's sentiments with the ongoing repression of the Albanians. You omitted that part -- ChrisO 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My summary is basically the speech in short. It does not have any POV.

The section of misconceptions is not OR, it is based on Gil-White's analysis. Gil-White is not unreliable, we've been through this. To compare with some of the sources you used:

• Mihailo Crnobrnja, PhD in economics. Not a single Scholar work (not unusual if he writes in Serbian), though has some cites[1]. Politically active and can't be considered fully neutral.
• Milan Milošević. I can't find anything about him. If he is this guy, bachelor of systemology and logistics, whatever that is.
• Vamik D. Volkan, professor of psychiatry[2]. His scholarly works are less cited than Gil White's though his books compare[3]. I can't find anything about his coauthors.
• Olga Zirojević. Historian, but specialises in Turkology, not recent history.
• Thomas Cushman. Professor of sociology. No works on Scholar, his books have very few cites[4]. His comparison of Milosevic - and, by extension, anyone who ever flew in a helicopter - to Hitler is patent nonsense and has to go.

And so forth, I have no time to check all of them. Gil-White is more known than any of them and more within his field than most. His analysis should be in the article, especially given that you wrote that the speech was "enthusiastically received" which he denies. Additionally, I don't see why The Times' misconception about "No one will beat you!" wouldn't stay, it is relevant and undisputed.

Guardian's report does not use word "repression" at all. Perhaps you refer to the sentence "The suppression of the mutiny of the two million Kosovo Albanians four months ago has caused 24 deaths so far." Suppression of a mutiny is not repression.

I believe that at this point it would be good if you would merge two versions so that we could proceed. OK, you don't have to merge Gil-White, I'll do it, and I promise to be careful. Nikola 03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at your analysis of the speech and, frankly, I think it constitutes original research. You and I seem to have gone about this in quite different ways. You've evidently gone through the speech and picked out bits that you liked/thought were important. It seems to be entirely your own analysis and your own gloss. No source is quoted except the speech itself (sourced, I note, to Jared Israel's tendentious website). This is practically a dictionary definition of original research. By contrast, I looked up what academic sources identified as key parts of the speech and then cited that. That's source-based research. I honestly don't think I can merge in your original commentary, seeing as it's based only on your personal gloss.

The use of Francisco Gil-White's material has already been the subject of a mediation and the verdict is that he is not a reliable source (see Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO). He's an overtly partisan political activist and self-published essayist. I mean, for heaven's sake, the piece you want to quote was originally posted on a 9/11 conspiracy theory website. You had to dredge it up from archive.org because it got deleted after he fell out with his fellow conspiracy theorist Jared Israel. This is emphatically not the kind of source that we should be quoting. The issue has already been "litigated" and I remind you of what jpgordon (who is, remember, an arbitrator) said: "Any editor rightfully can and should remove the links in question, and any admin can and should block [user] if he continues to add links against policy." That applies to this article as well. The only reason I didn't remove the FGW links at the time is because I intended to rewrite the article to remove them. FGW is going to come out of this article and stay out, period - it's a straightforward WP:RS issue. The difference between his piece and all the sources I used is that they are all published, in print, by academic sources.

Finally, I would like to remind you that this article is (like all the others about Kosovo) on article probation. Please act accordingly. -- ChrisO 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What? I made no analysis of the speech. A summary is not an analysis. Yes, I did went through the speech, and picked bits which I considered the most important. Of course, if you believe that other bits are more important, you can change the summary. None of it is original research (unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories) - original research would be something to the effect of "Milosevic said A, therefore P, and he said B, therefore Q". What I wrote was "Milosevic said A, then B, then C, and finally D". The speech is sourced to the National Technical Information Service of the US Department of Commerce and only published on Jared Israel's website.

In the original version of the article, I have not included any analysis of the key parts of the speech, and addition of that (provided that it is sane - again, that bit about Hitler is really over the top) is of course OK with me.

Actually, the verdict is Close mediation as "no case - nothing to mediate" per above concerns. On the page you linked to, you and other editors presented your opinion that FGW is not a reliable source, while yet other editors presented their opinion that he is a reliable source. The entire case was about linkspamming and not about FGW's reliability as a source. Surely, it is possible to linkspam to a reliable source.

Just the fact that something is published somewhere where some other, completely unrelated things are published doesn't neccesarily diminish its importance. Sources you are using are also oftenly invoking conspiracy theories which claim that Milosevic started Yugoslav wars because he wanted to create a Greater Serbia or somesuch nonsense. It is very indicative that you are trying to diminish FGW's analysis by attacking his credentials without even for a moment pointing what is wrong in it. Surely, if he is as incompetent as you claim he is, it shouldn't be very hard to point out just what is wrong in that analysis. Another very interesting thing is that you wrote that the speech was enthusiastically received by the crowds while at the same time admitting on this very talk page that you have read Guardian's report which says the exact opposite. Why?

Finally, it is you who are disrupting this article, by rewriting it completely and not working with other users. Do you even have the right to put the probation tag on this talk page (from WP:APROB: (Wikipedia articles on article probation are articles labeled by the Arbitration Committee as requiring particular attention.) - you are not a member of the Arbitration Committee)?

Would you, please, at least merge in the article whatever it is that you think is salvageable? Nikola 20:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't even matter that it's Gil-White. emperorsclothes.com or however its spelled isn't a reliable source; hence the archive.org version of it is similarly unreliable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That is your own unsubstantiated opinion. Nikola 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you claiming emperorsclothes.org is a reliable source? That would be a fun one to try to demonstrate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, and by the way, I endorse the application of the probation tag; it's appropriate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I am claiming that some things published on TENC are reliable. Nikola 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps, perhaps not. The source is TENC, and it is an unreliable source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • That is your own unsubstantiated opinion. Nikola 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Not just my own, as you well know; you've had this discussion with multiple editors. Shall we call them over here for another round? -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I never had such a discussion, and you may well note that on this talk page there is another editor who supports use of the source. Nikola 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Ah, I see you're right; Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO was about another reason TENC is unusable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's analyse this, shall we? emperors-clothes.com is a personal website providing self-published essays written mostly by a non-notable far-left political activist and 9/11 conspiracy theorist with an overt anti-US, anti-NATO agenda. WP:RS is very clear in stating that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." WP:SOURCE is equally clear in stating that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". Jared Israel, who runs Emperor's Clothes, is patently not "a well-known, professional researcher" as required for the exemption to that policy. As far as I've aware, none of his writings have been published by newspapers or print publishers.

The website is also a repository of blatant copyright violations, links to which I removed from Wikipedia some time ago - I'm displeased to see that you reverted those removals and restored the copyvio links. I'm going to remove them again and I won't look kindly on any fresh reversions. -- ChrisO 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well God forbid if we link to an anti-NATO website! Only pro-NATO websites are eligible for Wikipedia, as has always been and shall be. You really have some nerve.

What you call 9/11 conspiracy theories is a part of the site[5] which asks questions which are, as far as I have noticed, quite common in USA politics, such as why the airplanes weren't intercepted, or why did Bush reacted as slowly as he did. I found that one of Jared's articles on this topic was recommended by none other than Richard Stallman[6].

I have also found that Jared writes for Arutz Sheva[7]. While Arutz Sheva only has an online presence, it isn't because of its unprominence, but because of its political inconvenience (at least according to its Wikipedia article). I believe that one who writes for a public radio is in similar position to one who writes for print.

What you call blatant copyright violations is common Internet practice of mirroring unaccessible webpages, done by a throng of websites, from Mirrordot to Google. You dislike the site, so when you had the chance you just removed all links to it indiscriminately - including a link to a public domain article which disputes Protocol of the Elders of Zion.

Finally, let's put all of this aside for a moment. WP:SOURCE also states that Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. I sidestepped the issue before because it wasn't important, but now I won't. Gil-White is an anthropologist. Anthropology is study of human behaviour, and holding speeches, and writing about speeches, is human behaviour. Furthermore, one of his noted theories is related to prestige in human societies - how some members of human societies gain dominant status - and holding speeches is exactly a method used to gain dominant tatus, while writing about speeches is a method that could be used to cause loss of dominant status. Therefore, it is right in the center of his field to analyse media reactions to a speech. Nikola 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, partisan, self-published, non-independently-edited websites of any description - pro-NATO, anti-NATO, whatever - are usually inherently unreliable sources. It's the same problem that we have concerning the use of blogs as sources. Jared Israel is a non-notable political activist pushing a fringe agenda through his own personal website with no independent editorial oversight. Even you must be able to see the difference in kind between this and a reputable academic publishing in print through an established publisher and editor. As for the copyright violation issue, I've already explained this to you once before at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO#Discussion 6. Please go and read it again. It's not a theoretical concern - cases have already been litigated in which links to violations of copyright are themselves considered to be forms of contributory violation. WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works is categorical on this subject. Finally, we've been through all of this before on Gil-White, and the bottom line is that the consensus view of the three admins who've commented on this matter - with 10 years' Wikipedia editing experience and over 55,000 edits between us - is that he's not a reliable source. I suggest that you accept that and move on. -- ChrisO 09:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Three admins with one POV agenda. Gil-White is a respectable academic, and his views should be in the article. Nikola 03:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that "three admins who know an unreliable source when they see it" is closer to the mark. We're also able to spot the difference between Gil-White's academic works, published by reputable publishers, and his self-published political essays. -- ChrisO 07:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I can also spot a differenct between people genuinely concerned for the quality of sources and people claiming to be concerned for sake of POV pushing. Nikola 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Gil-White's main co-worker (and employee?!) said, after 2 years working closely with him, "found that he frequently falsifies evidence, for example: misrepresenting the dates of quoted material; using ellipses in order to alter or reverse the thrust of quoted material; withholding vital information provided by his sources - and withholding important information about his sources - which information would contradict or undermine his arguments; and more". The word of his closest colleague may not prove him wrong - but if he's right then you'll provide the same information from some other, reliable, source. PalestineRemembered 07:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He was effectively dismissed by his university as well, as I recall. -- ChrisO 08:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I do note that was carefully phrased: respectable academic rather than "respected academic". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. :-) -- ChrisO 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a nice display of back-patting. Nikola 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page for a short while. Between the article probation and the edit warring, I'd rather do this than start blocking people. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

I'm glad we seem to have managed to resolve the lead satisfactorily, but there is still a problem regarding this statement which Nikola keeps adding:

This development led to Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins being opressed by Albanian authorities, causing their emigration from Kosovo<ref>{{cite book| author=Ruza Petrovic| coauthor=Marina Blagojevic| title=The Migration of Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo and Metohija| url=http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/istorija/kosovo_migrations/index.html}}</ref>

I replaced this with a more neutral statement and source for the following three reasons:

1) The question of whether Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins were oppressed by the Albanians is contentious - some say they were, some say they weren't. It's a violation of neutrality for us to state one side's POV as fact.

2) The attribution to "oppression" of Serbian emigration from Kosovo is also highly contentious. Most Western sources I've read give the reason as "above all ... the high unemployment and poor economic status of the southern province." Again, because this point is disputed it's a violation of neutrality to state one side's POV as fact.

3) The source is pretty awful - it's a highly partisan source, published by an agency of one side in a war, during that war, under an undemocratic government. It's like using a German academic source published in 1940 to source a statement that the Czechs were persecuting the inhabitants of the Sudetenland in the 1930s. We should stick with established independent post-war sources. -- ChrisO 00:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris, your replacement is not only not neutral, its extremely insultive. All your claims are completely void.

1) The fact that Kosovo Serbs and Montenegrins were oppressed by Kosovo Albanians is not contentious at all. I have never seen any document which claims that they were not oppressed. Yes, I did saw plenty of documents which don't claim that they were oppressed, but that is not the same thing at all.

2) Economic reasons were too very important, and they should be mentioned, but you should note that had they been the primary reason, both Serbs and Albanians would emigrate. The Migration does address the issue[8].

3) I don't understand how can you say that. How have you concluded that the source is partisan? Why do you think that SANU is an agency of one side in a war? What war was going on in 1985? Why do you compare Serbia with Nazi Germany? Why do you think that David Bruce MacDonald is an established independent post-war source?

And furthermore, your text is not supported by your source. You wrote that "[extensive rights of autonomy in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution] led to complaints from the Kosovo Serbs that they were being discriminated" but I'm having page 65 right in front of my eyes, and it simply does not say that. It does say that "1974 constitution was blamed for the loss of Serbian power and prestige" and that "Milosevic was sent to Kosovo to hear grievances of Kosovar Serbs, who claimed that they were being discriminated", but the two things simply do not add up.

Reading through the book, I concluded that it is actually very bad, and should not be used at all. Author makes outrageous claims, without any backing. To me, literally every sentence in the book looks fake. Furthermore, the author's credentials are uncertain - I can't find any mention of him except in relation with this book. Scholar finds 14 cites to it, laughable when compared even with such lowlifes as Gil-White ;) A few more books by him (as DB MacDonald) without any cites. Nikola 06:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

To add that the sentence "Milosevic was sent to Kosovo to hear grievances of Kosovar Serbs, who claimed that they were being discriminated" does not in any way say that there weren't other Serbs, Milosevic wasn't sent to hear, who weren't really discriminated. You simply can't refute two years of field research compiled in a book, peer-reviewed and published by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts with a single word, in a single sentence, written by a complete unknown. All the while you completely accept such sources as OSCE's ("an agency of one side in a war") Kosovo/Kosova without any second thought. Nikola 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Nikola, but your version of that paragraph grates on the nerves - it's non-encyclopedic. The other version may be bland and not appeal to injured feelings, but it's the only kind of writing that is acceptable here. PR^talk 07:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right. As I said above, we are not in the business of stating one side's complaints as fact. Our role is to note the disputed allegation, not to state an opinion on it. -- ChrisO 08:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, since Nikola doesn't appear to be willing to follow NPOV (or even correct his spelling - for shame, Nikola!) I'll take this to mediation; I might add a notice to WP:AE to note what's going on, since the addition of overtly POV content is exactly what the article probation on Kosovo-related articles is supposed to prevent. -- ChrisO 10:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Only now I see these comments, and they are complete nonsense. An extensive study performed by a reputed institution exists, and it comes to a conclusion. Reporting that conclusion in the article is perfectly encyclopedic. If another study of comparable weight would exist, NPOV would require to mention both, but there is nothing of the kind. What does exist are ramblings by a person whose expertise so far no one managed to point out. And, not only are these ramblings inserted in the article (which would give them undue weight, but still), but they are inserted so that they would completely replace the conclusion of the study. That most definitely is not encyclopedic. And Chris, you are in the business of stating one side's complaints as fact, and stating facts as complaints of one side. Threatening me with AE will lead you nowhere, since this content isn't POV at all. Nikola 10:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We're evidently getting nowhere here, so I'd suggest that we save further debate for mediation. I'll post a mediation request this afternoon and notify you of the relevant page. By the way, I'm not threatening you at all - an AE notification is simply intended to invite other editors to scrutinise the article. -- ChrisO 10:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, just don't misrepresent facts as you are doing here. Nikola 10:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If translation is genuine, this is a very inflammatory speech.

There is a translation of the Gazimestan speech here.

If it is genuine (Nikola, can you confirm?) then it appears to me to be highly inflammatory. Almost any reference to history and (especially) the use of "exclusive national labels" in this fashion is deliberate trouble-making.

......... Through the play of history and life, it seems as if Serbia has, precisely in this year, in 1989, regained its state and its dignity and thus has celebrated an event of the distant past which has a great historical and symbolic significance for its future.

Today, it is difficult to say what is the historical truth about the Battle of Kosovo and what is legend. Today this is no longer important. Oppressed by pain and filled with hope, the people used to remember and to forget, as, after all, all people in the world do, and it was ashamed of treachery and glorified heroism. Therefore it is difficult to say today whether the Battle of Kosovo was a defeat or a victory for the Serbian people, whether thanks to it we fell into slavery or we survived in this slavery. The answers to those questions will be constantly sought by science and the people. What has been certain through all the centuries until our time today is that disharmony struck Kosovo 600 years ago. If we lost the battle, then this was not only the result of social superiority and the armed advantage of the Ottoman Empire but also of the tragic disunity in the leadership of the Serbian state at that time. In that distant 1389, the Ottoman Empire was not only stronger than that of the Serbs but it was also more fortunate than the Serbian kingdom.

The lack of unity and betrayal in Kosovo will continue to follow the Serbian people like an evil fate through the whole of its history. Even in the last war, this lack of unity and betrayal led the Serbian people and Serbia into agony, the consequences of which in the historical and moral sense exceeded fascist aggression.

PalestineRemembered 09:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is actually me who put the translation on Wikisource and yes, I can affirm that it is correct translation of Serbian original. I don't see anything whatsoever inflamatory in it. You say that "Almost any reference to history and (especially) the use of "exclusive national labels" in this fashion is deliberate trouble-making". What fashion is that? What are "exclusive national labels"? What are you referring to by "trouble-making"? Nikola 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol well, you must be very careful of what you say when muslims are around ;) Palistinians are obviously fuming over being occupied so put yourself in their place as abused. While I don't feel like Palestinians have anything to do with Yugoslav history and should stay put in their own playground. The question arises why this guy is even browsing the Gazimestan speech at all. LOL! 19:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndxcl (talk • contribs)

I think I've spelled out my reading of the content of the speech, and it's clear that my reading pretty much matches what the sources say about it. Nationalist versions of history are a curse and violent nationalism even more so - Milosevic deliberately abused the first and encouraged the second. His sad end, unconvictable in a prison cell, shouldn't blind us to some of the bad things we know he carried out. PR^talk 07:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a chat room. Opine somewhere else. <<-armon->> 15:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Background to the speech

Looks like there's a good summary of the situation here. Maybe incorporating some of the information in this paragraph would be helpful:

Long significant to the Serb nation, Kosovo became the catalyst for the revival of Serbian nationalism. After a 1981 demonstration in favour of Kosovo gaining republic status the death toll of Albanian youths killed by Serb police varied widely from nine anywhere up to 1000. The Serbs balked at this demand believing they were the oppressed side in this situation. Thirty thousand Serbs and Montenegrins did flee Kosovo in the 1980s though many for economic reasons. The higher Albanian birth rate also contributed to the decline in the relative number of Serbs in Kosovo from 23 percent of the population in 1971 to 10 percent in 1989. Led by the Serbian Academy for Sciences and Arts from 1986 prominent Serbs claimed they had been the victim of consistent discrimination in Yugoslavia. Kosovo was thus raised to the position of most important problem in Serbia and frustration in the League of Communists of Serbia over the issue reached unprecedented levels.

<<-armon->> 15:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is basically already what the article says, isn't it?

I don't understand why have you reverted the article to the version which claims that Serbs only complained about being oppressed? Why do you think that it is not POV, and that the other version is? Nikola 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the neutrally wording you keep deleting says. The wording you prefer states the Serbian POV as a "scientifically proved fact", in your words. Of course, it's no such thing: you're attempting to state one side's POV as definitive fact, something which is explicitly forbidden by WP:NPOV: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth"." Armon knows this pretty well, which I'm guessing is why he undid your edit. -- ChrisO 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that is complete nonsense.

The fact that Kosovo Serbs were abused is not Serbian POV, but generally accepted fact, or generally accepted POV if you wish. All references provided so far support this, and no references oppose it. So far no one has shown that there is another study of the issue which reached different conclusion than this one, or that there is a criticism which shows flaws of this study, or anything similar. On the other hand, the wording you prefer states a POV, held by very small number of non-notable people, as a fact.

And, even if what you wrote would be true, NPOV would require to show both POVs, and not only one. "According to this study Serbs were abused, though opinion of D.B.MacDonalds was that they only complained of being abused". Nikola 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris is right, which is why I reverted. In a conflict involving competing nationalisms like this, we can't present one side's claims as the "truth". However, assuming there isn't a problem with the source I gave, we probably can add that a large number of Serbs and Montenegrins left the area in the 80's because they felt discriminated against, and/or because of the poor economy. We could also add that the area's demographic makeup was altered, which caused great concern the League of Communists of Serbia (this also explains why Milošević was able to use the issue).

This might address your concerns, and I doubt Chris would have a problem with that. The David Bruce MacDonald source probably discusses that anyway, but this is what I found online with a quick search. <<-armon->> 06:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Oh, one other thing, if the word "complained" is the issue, we can re-word it. We could use "claimed", "asserted", or some other phrasing which doesn't take sides. <<-armon->> 06:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No. What you are doing is exactly presenting one side's claim (that Kosovo Serbs weren't really abused but only complaining about it) as the "truth". Saying that large numbers if Serbs left because they felt discriminated against (implies: weren't really discriminated) is insult both to them and to common sense. People won't leave their homes without a very good reason. No, the wording is not the problem: they were abused, they have not merely claimed, complained, asserted or anything else.

And, there is a problem with the source you gave. An article on a non-notable website, written by a non-notable author, itself citing no sources. Nikola 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the sources for the article are here -but never mind, it's not a good enough source. Well, since we can't state the abuse as a fact, because it's disputed POV of one side, (the Albanians would argue that the "discrimination" was simply the case of Serbs no longer being "privileged"), maybe we can avoid it altogether and say something like: "The reassertion of Albanian nationalism and a worsening economy led to a large number of Serbs and Montenegrins leaving the area in the 80's." I don't think there's any dispute that Albanian nationalism was resurgent at that time, and even if the "abuse" was relatively minor, given the region's history, you could see how it wouldn't be welcomed. <<-armon->> 13:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, your last suggestion is a good compromise. I don't like it because it avoids the issue, but I could live with it. Nikola 08:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, what do other people think of this proposal? <<-armon->> 23:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

A dispute has arisen between User:Nikola Smolenski and three other editors concerning one paragraph of this article. Nikola wishes to replace this:

This development led to complaints from the Kosovo Serbs that they were being discriminated against by the province's predominately Albanian police force and local government.<ref>David Bruce MacDonald, ''Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia'', p. 65. Manchester University Press, 2002. ISBN 0719064678</ref>

with the following:

This development led to Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins being opressed by Albanian authorities, which, together with poor economy, caused their emigration from Kosovo.<ref>{{cite book| author=Ruza Petrovic| coauthor=Marina Blagojevic| title=The Migration of Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo and Metohija| url=http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/istorija/kosovo_migrations/index.html}}</ref>

Leaving aside the spelling/grammar issues, there are two major problems with the above. First, it is a statement of a partisan POV as hard fact. Most Western sources attribute Serbian migration from Kosovo to a complex combination of factors, including economic reasons and the improved representation of Albanians in state institutions and the economy following Kosovo's achievement of autonomy (e.g. "Due to continued economic migration, by 1991 Serbs and Montenegrins accounted for just 9 per cent of Kosovo's population" - Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, p. 226; "Serbian out-migration from Kosovo increased after 1966 as a by-product of the abnormally high representation of Serbs and Montenegrins in the power apparatus [and] economic pressures ... compounded by the Albanian population's growing involvement in both state and economy." - Viktor Meier, Yugoslavia: A History of its Demise, p. 32.) The Serbian contention is that the Kosovo Albanians were responsible for "genocide" [sic] against the Serbs and drove them out by force. Most Western sources dispute this (Meier, for instance, says that "There were rarely real instances of violence") and present it as an exaggeration of a complex situation. Nikola's version of the paragraph states the Serbian POV as undisputed fact, even though it is very much in dispute. -- ChrisO 11:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it very strange that Chris is digging these references out now when he started mediation, and not while discussion was underway.

Anyway, this is not true. The hard fact is supported by a peer-reviewed study, made by a reliable researcher, published by a reliable institution. It is not a partisan POV. The study, like these Western sources, does attribute Serbian migration from Kosovo to a complex combination of factors, and concludes that discrimination is the most important of these factors. You can not counter the entire study with a few cherry-picked sentences from non-notable authors whose books were not peer-reviewed and whose expertise on the subject is not established. Furthermore, these authors have not performed equivalent studies and don't show how have they reached the conclusions they have - what they write are not facts but their personal opinions. For example, the sentence "there were rarely real instances of violence" you quote is a classical example of no true Scotsman logical fallacy and is thus completely unusable. As the study shows, there was a number of instances of violence, though we can't know if they were real enough for Mr. Meier. Nikola 15:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Second, the source for Nikola's statement is very unsatisfactory. It comes from an exceptionally partisan source - the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, which played a leading role in promoting the Serbian nationalist POV and the meme that "Serbs are victims of genocide" (see Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts for a notorious example). It represents the view of an organ of the Serbian state in 1992, at the height of the Yugoslav wars, when all sides were competing to pump out what one historian has aptly described as "victim-centred propaganda". It cannot remotely be described as neutral. At best, we can use it to describe the Serbian nationalist POV, but we cannot present it as an unbiased source. -- ChrisO 11:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not true as well. The Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is not an exceptionally partisan source. It is a respected national academy of sciences. The Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts you linked to is an excellent example of this - as anyone can see in that article, it is a document which was actually never made, never published, SANU as a whole never had anything to do with it, but was used for propaganda attacks against SANU. This study dates from 1985-6, not from 1992. Nikola 15:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is clear on this subject: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth" ... The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in." -- ChrisO 11:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So far, no one has pointed out conflicting perspectives. As I said, this is an issue which is sometimes being shoved under the carpet. Even the sources you give don't explicitly say that Serbs were not discriminated against. Furthermore, your version does present a POV that Serbs were not discriminated against as a fact. Nikola 15:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The original version of the disputed paragraph states non-judgmentally that Serbs complained about being oppressed. It uses a neutral source to state an undisputed fact - that the Serbs complained - but it doesn't affirm or deny the justice of the Serbian complaint, and therefore is "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." Nikola's version uses a partisan source and states the Serbian POV as fact. It therefore is "sympathetic... to its subject" - a clear violation of NPOV. -- ChrisO 11:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That is so very wrong. Your version of the disputed paragraph is judgmental. Its obvious subtext is that Serbs were only complaining about being discriminated, but in fact were not. That is POV of one side, and that POV is not very well-supported. Nikola 15:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from other editors would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 11:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedia cannot be hi-jacked with POV sentences of the kind suggested. We're keen to encourage non-English people to contribute, we'll be tolerant and helpful with their use of English, and I'm personally confident that Nikola will be able to improve many articles here. However, he must get his head around the concept of encyclopedic writing, and this would be a good place to start. Sadly, if he refuses to understand and operate the principles of good writing, he will be labelled as disruptive and his participation will be rejected. PR<;sup>talk 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nikola, the problem is there are competing narratives and non-Serb sources tend to be less categorical on the subject. For example, see here: "In the latter part of the decade, when Milosevic was number two in the Serbian Communist Party, he harnessed resentment over Kosovan influence within the Yugoslav federation. At the same time, Serbs were complaining about persecution by the majority Albanians." This doesn't mean that there was no persecution of Serbs, but that it's also in the context of a terrible history. I've also suggested a couple of solutions in the section above. <<-armon->> 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nikola, I agree with the above editors. Although your citation may be from a RS, there are apparently RS that offer the opposite point of view. This seems contradictory, but in fact it is not unusual -a RS does not necessarily speak "the truth". The sentence ChrisO has provided is a good statement of the argument you want to make. You could try to support that argument with supporting facts from RS, but of course the other side of the issue will use supporting facts from RS also. The best WP can do is to lay out the relevant information from both sides of issues. As an editor you have to hope that an NPOV reader will read the evidence on both sides and draw his own conclusion once he knows all the relevant information. Jgui 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

But these sources aren't equally reliable. Their authors are less notable, they do not study this issue in depth but simply gloss over it, and they don't offer internal reasoning behind their conclusions. And, Chris' version does not lay out the relevant information from both sides. Nikola 07:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources other than the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts to collaborate this viewpoint? If not, this seems like an issue of undue weight, and that the position of this Academy is a minor view. Tarc 17:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other contemporary Serbian sources which say the same kind of thing. The oppression of Serbs was a standard trope in Serbian nationalist sources at this time. But of course, that highlights the other major problem with the source - it's very out of date. It was published in 1992, when the wars in Bosnia and Croatia were being fought and all sides were doing all they could to portray themselves as being persecuted by their neighbours. Serbia has moved on tremendously in the last 15 years and a source that represents a certain section of Serbian opinion in 1992 isn't automatically representative of Serbian academia now. It's like using a report published by a German academic institution in 1942 to represent current German academic opinion about the country's pre-war ethnic issues. What do modern Serbian historians say about the issue, Nikola? -- ChrisO 18:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris, please, stop comparing Serbia with Nazi Germany, and stop repeating that this is published in 1992, yes, it is, but it was made in 1985-1986.

From a highschool history textbook published in 2002 (ISBN 86-17-09287-4): The first signs of destabilization of Yugoslavia appeared on Kosovo. A surge of Albanian nationalism and separatism in the spring of 1981 marked awakening of hidden nationalisms fatal for the community. [...] Contrary to widespread propaganda, Albanian political elite already had sovereign rule over Kosovo. Pressures on Serbs, rapes, destruction of property, and even murders motivated by national hatred continued. This only strengthened emigration of Serbs which, in fact, lasted since 1945 and led percentage of Serbs in total population to decrease on 13.2%. Nikola 07:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, textbooks are not immune from nationalist POV. It a safe bet that there'd be a contrast in the Albanian textbooks. Do you have sources backing up your position which don't have a stake in the situation? <<-armon->> 00:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I introduced the textbook as an example of what a modern Serbian historian says, I agree that a textbook can be tainted by nationalist POV (for example, I wouldn't say that it is true that emigration lasted since 1945).

It is obvious that any source I bother to find will be proclaimed "Serbian", "nationalist", "partisan" or whatever. Francisco Gil-White would probably agree, for example, but he is of course proclaimed non-notable, despite being more notable than David Bruce MacDonald, Miranda Vickers and Viktor Meier put together. All the while, claims coming from NATO or OSCE (for example, that large numbers of Kosovo Albanians were removed from their jobs or that large numbers of Kosovo Albanians were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo by Serbian army) are accepted without any second thought, despite coming from political, not scientific institutions, which are much more partisan than SANU, and being backed with far less evidence. Nikola 08:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nikola, once again you've missed the key point. We cannot state one side's POV as fact. It's as simple as that. WP:NPOV requires us to provide a balanced perspective that "represent[s] fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." That is a non-negotiable principle - indeed, it's one of the m:Foundation issues which are considered "beyond debate". Rather than asserting that your POV is The Truth™, perhaps you could suggest an alternative wording that reflects the multiple POVs that exist on this issue? -- ChrisO 08:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris, you are stating one side's POV as fact all the time. POV that Kosovo Serbs were complained about being abused (but really weren't), and that POV is completely unsupported by any evidence, unlike POV that Kosovo Serbs were in fact abused, which is well supported by evidence. Nikola 08:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple POVs here. The Serbs (or some of them, anyway) say that they were being oppressed and forced out. The Albanians say they weren't. Independent historians say that there may have been some limited anti-Serb activity, but that Serb migration was due to a mixture of factors of which the economy was the most important. We aren't here to decide which view is right. Our role is confined to reporting the arguments. You seem to be acting on the assumption that the Serbian POV is right and everyone else's is wrong. You're entitled to that opinion, but we can't treat your POV as fact. This is such a fundamental principle of NPOV that, frankly, after two and a half years' editing I would have expected you to understand it by now. -- ChrisO 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not twist what I say. I said that it is a fact that Serb were abused, not because it is a Serbian POV, but because it is supported by a much stronger, more relevant and more authoritative source than the claim that they were not. You have not even shown that Albanians claim that this is wrong. And people you quoted aren't historians. And we don't know whether they are independent. Nikola 18:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Closure - the anti-consensus version was obviously not acceptable. "This development led to Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins being opressed by Albanian authorities, which, together with poor economy, caused their emigration from Kosovo" - cited to Ruza Petrovic/Marina Blagojevic
• The new version manages to say almost the exact same thing in an encyclopedic fashion. I hope everyone will be happy. "The reassertion of Albanian nationalism and a worsening economy led to a large number of Serbs and Montenegrins leaving the area in the 1980s. It also led to complaints from the Kosovo Serbs that they were being discriminated against by the province's predominately Albanian police force and local government." cited to David Bruce MacDonald.
• Propose - this RfC be closed. Someone please remove the tag at the top of this section. Nikola may wish to cite evidence for intimidation of and violence towards the minority community, but it will need to be impeccably referenced. And is probably unnecessary, readers will get the message from the hints here. Articles like Gazimestan speech, and the FYR generally, remind us of the consequences of violent nationalism. PR^talk 13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. But I'd add the study as a reference alongside DBMD. For one, he doesn't mention Albanian nationalism. Nikola 18:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We could use this: Rise of Tension in Kosovo Due to Migration. <<-armon->> 02:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, better than DBMD. Nikola 07:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait. I have only now noticed this second sentence. No. Reassertion of Albanian nationalism did not led to Kosovo Serbs complain about being discriminated. That is POV of one side, with very weak support. Nikola 07:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My proposal: The reassertion of Albanian nationalism, Albanian rule over the province and a worsening economy led to a large number of Serbs and Montenegrins leaving the area in the 1980s. Nikola 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Or: A study by SANU concludes that Serbs and Montenegrins have emigrated from the province primarily because they were discriminated against, which was helped by economic reasons. Western authors who write about this period do not mention this issue, or claim that economic reasons were primary. Nikola 18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this version is fine as it is. Your own cite supported the Serb complaints of discrimination, and you're editorializing about "Western authors". It's a false distinction. There are either reliable sources, or not-so-reliable sources. So far, the material I've looked at backs up both sentences. If you disagree, you need to provide additional reliable sources which shows that it is somehow in error. <<-armon->> 23:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, we're not in the business of rebutting reliable sources. All we're supposed to do is to report what they say. As WP:NPOV says: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." Unfortunately it still seems like Nikola wants to state a particular view as "the truth", which is how this whole dispute got started in the first place. A formulation that reflects both views neutrally is all we need to meet NPOV's requirements. -- ChrisO 00:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I was obviously unclear. I agree that we're not in the business of rebutting reliable sources. The only exception would be if the best current scholarship had "fixed" some sort of error of fact, and a new scholarly consensus had formed. I seriously doubt that has happened here, and Nikola will need some extraordinary evidence if he wants to state a particular view as "the truth". <<-armon->> 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your comments. If we're talking about the consensus of scholars both inside and outside Serbia, clearly there is no consensus. There does seem to be a broad consensus in non-Serbian sources that Serbian emigration from Kosovo was due to a complex combination of causes, of which the economy was the most significant. As for the consensus of Serbian sources, who knows? We only have a 15-year-old study and a citation from a school textbook - I rather doubt that Nikola has looked for Serbian sources which don't support his personal POV. At any rate, it's clear that the question isn't settled, and we're not in a position to state which version is "the truth". -- ChrisO 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again: the article, as it is now, states a POV as a fact. That is not acceptable. You have not shown that there is a "broad concensus" that economy was the most significant factor for Serbian emigration. I also highly doubt that you have looked for non-Serbian sources which don't support your POV. You appear to discredit the study because of its age, while in fact it was conducted during the period in question, and its age is a factor which makes it more reliable. Nikola 05:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, my own cite did not supported the Serb complaints of discrimination. My own cite supported the fact of discrimination of Serbs. So far, only not-so-reliable sources support the assertion that Serbs were not discriminated, while reliable sources support the assertion that they were. I do not see the need for additional sources. I could find some, but would you explain beforehand what would you considered to be a reliable source? Nikola 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So, in the meantime, I found this:

expert report by Audrey Helfant Budding given to the ICTY for the prosecution against Slobodan Milosevic[9]:

Yet it is one-sided to ignore economic factors in discussing Slavic emigration from Kosovo, it is also inaccurate to present them as the only reason for emigration. In 1985-86, the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences conducted a survey [that is the study we are talking about all the time] [...] This study must be treated with some caution [...] Nevertheless, a review of the SANU survey and a consideration of other more anecdotal evidence suggests that inter-ethnic tensions - and in some cases acts of intimidation or violence - played a role in many emigration decisions.²³¹

Audrey Helfant Budding has a PhD in history and is a lecturer at Harvard.

A feuilleton published in Serbian newspaper Glas Javnosti in 2007. Unfortunately, I can't find who is the author. An excerpt[10]:

Kosovo was on of the poorest regions in Yugoslavia, which could be one of the reasons for mass emigration of Serba and Montenegrins [...] However, main reason for their emigration was unbearable atmosphere of constant tension and fierce pressure that Albanians put on them. The situation became significantly worse in the beginning of the seventies when discrimination towards Serbs and Montenegrins was institutionalised [...]

What do you make of that? Nikola 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste more time on something that native English speakers have agreed they're happy with. Nor with TalkPage contributions that are not indented in a regular fashion, making it impossible for interested observers to follow what's been going on. PR^talk 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you mean that only consensus of native English speakers matters. You are wrong. Nikola 08:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed Closure - the anti-consensus version has been rejected by the RfC as well. PR^talk 11:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

?Nikola (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious translation of a sentence

OK, I see there is an authoritative source for the translation and I'm glad there is one, but I think it is nevertheless pretty obvious that the following sentence is mistranslated and something should be done about it.

Ali moram da kažem ovde, na ovom velikom, legendarnom polju Kosovu, da Srbi tu prednost što su veliki nisu nikada koristili ni za sebe.

This is rendered as "but I must say that here, in this big, legendary field of Kosovo, the Serbs have not used the advantage of being great for their own benefit either."

It actually says "but I must say here, in this big, legendary field of Kosovo, that the Serbs have never used the advantage of being great for their own benefit either".

In other words, "here, in the field of Kosovo" modifies the verb "say" and not the verb "used"; it expresses the place where he is making the statement, not the place where the Serbs haven't used their advantage.

Again, I think this is obvious to the point of being indisputable. I hope native speakers will confirm this.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

removed - WP is not a Forum!

Pronunciation of "Gazimestan"

I would appreciate if someone could add to the "Gazimestan" or "Gazimestan" article, a parenthesis stating how to pronounce it. Namely, where to put the accent. 192.38.5.154 (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

It is interesting that (mis)representation of the speech occupies more space in the article than would the speech itself. 79.101.131.251 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your non-constructive comment. If you're referring to the 'Responses to the speech' section, then it isn't a '(mis)representation' because it is full of quotes and referenced opinions (which the article makes it very clear of), our readers/ audiences are able to to tell what is a quotation/ opinion; let them make up their own minds if they agree with a quote or an opinion. This is an encyclopaedia, we state facts. If a historian/ politician/ journalist comments on a subject, which is related to the article's subject, we can say that 'Person X said Y' because it is a fact that Person X said Y. We're not necessarily saying that what Person X said is a fact, but it is a fact that Person X said Y; and if person X (assuming that person X is notable) said Y and it is relevant/ notable to the article subject, then it should be included. We shouldn't deprive our readers/ audience of knowledge/ information, if it is POV information then we should inform our readers of the POV which the article does anyway. IJA (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

All is fine, but one could also include a bit more of the speech itself. Similar with this one. At least that one has a valid link to the speech. 213.198.249.208 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gazimestan speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090407010431/http://www.rastko.org.rs/kosovo/istorija/kosovo_migrations/index.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/kosovo/istorija/kosovo_migrations/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/86-3-301.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Category

Please stop arguing over the edit-summary in justification of edit-warring and understand that "irredentism" definition is irrelevant. It is only article content that matters, especially if it is properly referenced. Please note that this is WP:ARBEE scope and removal of proper category on the basis of editors own personal opinion is disruptive and could end up on ANI. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

No it's not "properly referenced". From the source: "In his Gazimestan speech, Milošević narrated the 1389 loss broadly, as the beginning of centuries of Serbian victimizations, and the victimhood nationalism that this narration helped constitute not only reanimated an ancient irredentism, but also fuelled new grievances during the 1990s against Croats, Bosnians and even Milošević’s Serbian opponents, whom he portrayed as preventing national unity and perpetuating the long-standing historical subordination that led to traumatization. Apart from this being badly written by the author, the link between the speech itself and what commentators would later label "irredentism" elsewhere in Yugoslavia is insanely weak. If anything, a better category would be Anti-Serbian sentiment because at least that is what was being addressed in the speech. Bottom line, this speech was about Serbian victimhood, but at no time did it seek that Serbs break away from Yugoslavia or that its internal border be expanded. When you add categories. the article needs to be an example of the category. So Greater Serbia is fine for the irredentism category, but a SFRJ-era speech about a region within its nominal limits does not warrant the category. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Serbian sentiment for this article? That would be strange category, but I am not surprised with the suggestion after reding your opinion about the references. Category is appropriate - speech is the main point of reference for every scholar on breakup of Yugoslavia and its beginnings and inducement. Your analysis of the speech, with all due respect, does not matter. Even if these sources didn't mention in it by word, it is still irredentism, because in referenced analysis speech is seen by both scholars (including James Gow, which is used in the article elsewhere) as the announcement of Serbian nationalism going aggressive and territorial, and they explain that in more than one word. Is it badly written by author or not is a matter for RSN not for TP discussion, while the link between the speech content and later analysis by scholars is everything for writing article in English Wikipedia (WP:SECONDARY) (that the link is somehow "weak" is your impression and personal opinion, I find both Lerner and Bieber, including Gow eloquent and broad). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Oranges. Can I also add that the whole irredentism category for Serbian, Croatian and some other nations could do with reviewing. On quick glance before heading out for chores this morning I came across subjects which don't quite fit, but at the same time there are others that do. I stand by the position that irredentism is about border expansion and the ideologies associated with it. Based on the above intercept copied from the source, the connection between the Gazimestan speech and Serbian irredentism is WP:SYNTH: joining the dots of unwarranted assumption. I am happy to see an AfD for consensus just as long as the material stays off per WP:ONUS. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

What is synth, exactly? By whom? I noted above - even if the source didn't mention in it by word, it is still irredentism, because in analysis of the speech almost all scholarship describes it as an announcement of Serbian nationalism becoming aggressive and territorial, and they use literally volumes to explain that. (Note: Category itself was renamed from Greater Serbian nationalism, and as I said earlier it is a category not a label or statement.) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yours and Ip's removal of the referenced content from the section is absolutely groundless. If you don't agree or you don't like it that's OK, you have every right to think and feel whatever you want, and you can make your case here in TP, but outright removal is disruptive. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

OK there are numerous issues here. It is not just an IP but another editor. That's an analysis of the speech that forges a synthesis with later events, rather than being on-topic. Moving on. There is enough scholarly commentary out there that does not consider the hardline approach by Miloevic in Kosovo both at the time of the speech, nor later during the Kosovo war as "nationalist". The fact is that Serbian nationalism is a very real thing, yet the article of his Socialist Party of Serbia explores the parallels and the deviations in great detail. So while certin policies may be looked upon as harsh, it is questionable whether it is "Serbian nationalism". Hereinafter, nationalism is not necessarily irredentism. Then where Kosovo is concerned, it was within Serbia's limits in 1989 and constitutionally Serbia considers it its own province today. However, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and parts of Croatia make up the territories of irredentism for Serbs, and these are the regions that may be linked to irredentism where attempts have been made to incorporate them into an independent Serbia (ie. not within a Yugoslav federation of any time). So by Serbian irredentism you mean the big spoken about event which never happened (ie. Serbia taking over Montenegro, then Macedonia, then Bosnia, then parts of Croatia), then the Gazimestan speech is not an example of this, and its keynote speaker never advocated any part of it beyond the possible partition of Bosnia. That is why it is SYNTH. As for Kosovo and "Greater Serb" conspicacies, it is a non-starter. Kosovo is as far as every Serb concerned, already redeemed and unlawfully taken from them. Therefore, a speech inside of Serbia (where Kosovo was) about Serbian victimhood is not the same as a Serbian claim over Macedonia, therefore it is a false category. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Clear WP:CIR issue with Santasa99. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It is your or anybody else's right to question these two sources, Bieber and Lerner (including Gow), but not here and not by edit-warring. You can question them in RSN, nothing else gives you right to remove them on the ground of your personal opinion and POV - not even ONUS provides you with a basis to remove entire paragraph of content refed by sources used in this scope extensively. What you and Juicy doing is disruptive POV. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Bieber and Lerner do not say "The Gazimestan speech was an example of Serbian irredentism" or anything to that effect. That's what they need to have done if you want the category. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, tag-teaming in POV on issues related to nationalism is hardly collaboration in building encyclopedia. You are removing content, which is properly refed, and then claim synthesis (Juciy for lack of a better argument even call out Wp:CIR, with his 700+ edits). You have missed the venue for questioning sources, and then disruptively removed refed content, but I won't. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

CIR may be a bit over the top. I can assure that that we have no association outside of en.wiki so TAGTEAM may also be out of turn. But he only reverted you here the once. Another time was Melcous and another time was an IP which is certainly not mine, and I cannot speak for the other two. That said, I am not making bold reverts and running away like so many do elsewhere. I am happy to have this conversation with you and to explore alternatives. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You are reverting me in turns to avoid 3RR on three issues (one of which is content properly refed in two RS) on two different articles, and with the same POV, I have every right to say that you are tag-teaming to edit-war without breaking 3RR. Malcous argument is hollow, and made in edit-summary - she questioned two scholars whose work is extensively used on Balkan nationalism, and made bewildering claim that paragraph is self referenced - I mean, User:Melcous should explain herself about her removal and such an outlandish rational here, I would like to hear her voice, before I go to Noticeboard over this affair. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Slow down a bit. We are not taking turns at anything. This is more Juicy oranges' area of interest than mine as he is from the former Yugoslavia whereas I am ex-Soviet. My knowledge on the former Yugoslavia is not as good as his or many others and nor do I claim it to be. But my guess is that he is more concerned about the other article than this one. The fact he was watched over my contributions (as I may do his and some other people's) does not mean we are in federation with one another. We're actually two days into this dispute now. Perhaps Melcous could help the situation by providing more detail here on the talk, but I wouldn't personally go praising the works of thoese two authors. Sure their backgrounds make them reliable sources but from what I can tell, they (and so many other self-affirmed "experts" on Balkan affairs) are sublimely ignorant on a great number of matters. In my experiences, historians and political commentators usually compile their tripe to sell a narrative and not to distribute facts. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources, when questioned here without any kind of agreement in sight, or if someone believes they are fundamentally flawed, are then discussed in appropriate forum, which is RSN. But, we can't dismiss them simply on the ground of !vote. Editors who question sources needs evidence not a long explanation of their opinion and believe and larger number of like-minded editors, and since no evidence is provided in this forum by any of those who are against the paragraph which I included and refed with Bieber and Lerner its removal is then disruptive. Any further discussion on both authors should be (or should have been) conducted at RSN, and only if enough evidence is provided, regardless of how many editors providing them (even one good, strong evidence against would be enough), only then we can dismiss content refed by them. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Moving back inward). I think, Santasa, that we've reached the point where we all need more views. The removal of the details were not based on the sources being questioned as such, but on whether their inclusion is apposite to the article. Similarly, does the category belong to this article. Much of the latter is down to WP:CATEGORY guidelines, and I can tell you that if someone is a heterosexual but happens to be a gay rights activist, then you don't get to add LGBT persons as a category simply because of how closely he is linked to it. As it happens, I can link two categories to this page which are also inapposite, but are far closer to the content of the speech than Serbian irredentism, these being Albanian irredentism and Anti-Serbian sentiment. I'd personally place "Serbian irredentism" third in line here but per WP:CATEGORY, the speech was an example of none of thre three. It addressed the second item, has been used by opponents of Milosevic as a ruse to get the the latter item, and by others as an excuse for the former. Are you happy to go ahead with an AfD? It must be neutrally written and short, while the details of what you believe and I believe should be left for one another's iVote and comments. How do you feel about this solution? --Coldtrack (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My reasoning is different, and I have no association with any other editor here, but I agree the paragraph should not be reinserted unless a consensus is reached. By "self referenced" I meant Adam B. Lerner - there is no source where anyone else is saying he is an expert on this topic. A paragraph was introduced that quotes him as if he is an expert, but is sourced solely to his own work. Similarly, the wiki article on him (created by Santasa99) is sourced entirely to his own resume and websites, so there is absolutely no secondary independent sourcing which would demonstrate that his views should be included here. Melcous (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

And Coldtrack I think you might mean a WP:RFC rather than a WP:AFD? Melcous (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Kudos Melcous. I did indeed mean RFC and made a total blunder. Struck out the two references to wrong type of discussion. Thanks for your input and your correction. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead with both 3O and RfC, I have asked administrator familiar with the scope for help too. But you have removed categories on your own POV whim on two occasions and edit-warred over those removals in manner usually associated with 3RR sidestepping by way of Wikipedia:Tag team. Those are all POV removals, also without consensus, and you should revert yourself first if you are to show you are neutrally acting in good faith. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For the last time, this article is about a speech. The speech not not infer expanding borders. It is thereby not a POV. You have proven that you do not know the meaning of "irredentism", nor do you know the meaning of "nationalism", and moreover you don't know how to interpret sources. That goes for Proposed Croat federal unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina too. In these cases, the removal of "irredentism" would be as much as POV as it would have been if you added Category:Cross-Strait relations just because a so-called "reliable source" happened to mention Taiwan and Kosovo on the same paragraph, and someone came along and remove the cat. 3O won't help you as you are up against three as it is. That's a 3O and a 4O. This needs an RFC. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only that you are POV pushing, now you are discussing me and my abilities as well. What I know or don't know about irredentism is irrelevant, just like your POV on "so-called reliable sources" and these supposedly illuminating juxtaposing of Taiwan and Kosovo with Milosevic's ideological make-up, speech and Serbian irredentism. Bravo. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're showing ignorance. Admitting that the possibility that you know about irredentism is irrelevant (your words), and then claiming Milošević to have had an ideologucal make-up which included "irredentism". Really? Are you claiming he sought independence for Serbia and then sought to expand its borders? Are you claiming he sought to reinstate the monarchy to replace head of state? Forget irredentism, just take the tenets of basic Serbian nationalism. This is a subject I could quiz you on. WP:CIR is a severe issue with you. You do not know the events which led to the speech, the backstory at the time, the relevance of the event nor the aftermath. You have simply heard of the event, read one or two publications about it, and then connected the dots of completely unwarranted assumptions. You accuse Coldtrack of "POV pushing" when he has challenged you enough times now to produce the line in the speech where Milošević called for the expansion of Serbia's borders, the absence of which cannot even engender a discussion on "irredentism". I say it is you who edits on articles of the former Yugoslavia which the intention of selling an agenda by distorting well established facts. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. You should apologize and then for future discission you should tone down your rhetoric. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Message redacted to remove what may have been construed as personal attacks. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, You appear to have taken issue with how I frame my sentences. So let me clarify something. It is up to every one of us here how we refer to things. If I wish to qualify WP:RS with qualifiers such as so-called and using italics and "scare quotes", I am not committing a violation of any of the site's rules. It would be dishonest and totally disingenuous if I were to pretend not to have known that many of the items of the "blacklist" have been cultivated as sound by perfectly constructive editors, and that items from the "whitelist" have likewise been queried and challenged. If I were to support a new comment to the article with something non-RS then indeed that would be a breach of rules, and you would be within your rights to remove the source and add a citation tag or even remove the piece altogether. However, if we were to explore it deeper at the reliable source noticeboard, you'll find that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a slightly tougher task because the subject is open to debate. Hereinafter, I guarantee you that when it comes to news and politics (so not counting science, films etc), you couldn't thresh the whitelist from the blacklist and say, "all of List A has this in common while List B has that in common". It starts with a basic principle until the defenders of that principle hit a wall and find themselves losing A-list contenders and/or having to admit B-list contenters. So they look for secondary reasoning, then tertiary, and in the end, nothing sticks. You have state-owned media on both lists, and free media on both lists. You have non-profit organisations on both sides of the divide, some of which (such as the Clinton Foundation, not only pro-west but pro-Democrats) perched on the A-list. The you have to issue of circular reasoning. To give you an example, take the Syrian White Helmets. Good guys or bad guys? We have to say "good" because WP:RS says "good". But it doesn't end there. It seems that NON-RS is singled out for special treatment, being named and shamed as "disinformation" once again because RS says so. So even before you begin to analyse this, you see that RS does not have to prove itself because its extant status is being held up as sanctimonious. We merely operate on the basis that if RS claims something to be true, then it is. So how did source 1 get to be RS in the first place, and source 2 get to be non-RS? Every single response invokes a fallacy bar none. Be that begging the question, appeal to authority, faulty generalisations and others. One of the most glaring examples rather involves Syrian coverage and the White Helmets. The claim they are "bad guys" is "disinformation" because RS says so. RS incluces the BBC, and the BBC by its own admission reports from Syria citing the Helmets as one of their sources. Ergo, if the Helmets tell the BBC "we are good guys", then that is the all the proof you need that they are "good" according to RS principles. So even from the perspective of the reliable sources, it is an argument from repetition. I have debated at the Helmets page, and the RS page, and have been shut down every time not by having someone tell me something I didn't know, but by the conversation being forced to end. So I usually distance myself from matter too contentious and too reliant on the "whitelist" and overly opposed to the "blacklist". This one (Gazimestan) is very straightforward on that one matter we have discussed. I am not challenging the sources here so much I am saying, "this is not what they have claimed". Yet for all the community's attempts to create a whitelist and a blacklist, there is no consistency in purpose and they struggle to stay on target. This is why I may use qualifiers at times. But I am not violating the rules on the project. Read the reliable sources closely and from time to time they inadvertently say the quiet bit out loud, and this is where the community steps in - to gang up by the dozen and bully the questioning editor who is by himself and often bound by 1RR. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Melcous, this is most bizarre reply I have ever heard from someone with 100+ thousands edit under its belt and tendency to review new pages. You are literally re-interpreting old ones or inventing new policies and guidelines on the fly. First, what new article on Lerner has to do with him being referenced, who says that he must have an article on English Wikipedia at all to be used as a source? Second, how Lerner is not independent secondary source? And last but not least, since when we have to give another secondary source to prove that one already included is an expert on the field - and do you even know how and where process of questioning and proving one's expertise should be conducted? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it bizarre. I would admit it is perhaps a bit cynical, but if you hang around WP:COIN long enough you see that it is not at all uncommon for an editor to create an article about a person whose notability is not clearly demonstrated, and then insert references to that person in other articles to demonstrate their expertise. I'll leave it to the rest of the you to discuss the content here. My questions to throw into the mix would be, what value does naming Lerner here add to this particular article? Why is his view important to quote above the views of anyone else? And even if it was agreed to be included, surely it could be done in a far more integrated way than the proposed edit which interrupts the paragraph flow and was grammatically confusing. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I know from where your idea comes from, and I know that editors create articles to make sure their source choices are notable and can be used in refing. However, you are experienced enough to know that such misguided expectation is nevertheless irrelevant, simply because we don't need our sources' authors to meet usability (reliability) criterion by having an article of their own in English Wikipedia. I didn't and would never use such a banal argument, like it's a fact that so-and-so author has an article, because that's not evidence of his notability and/or usability for referencing. That's pointless and it does not matter, after all vast majority of authors used in this scope and indeed whole project has no article of their own and they are still notable and widely used. Even more so because we have authors with huge articles, some with GA status, whose works can't be used as a source because they are unreliable. Lerner article, which I created, may or may not withstand notability guideline pressure, but that's absolutely irrelevant for Lerner reliability as an expert in the field of victimhood nationalism and it will never be, by any stretch of the imagination, a precondition for his reliability as a source. Lerner is published and cited expert, and if you have problem with him take it to RSN, if anything his view and analysis is on equal to Gow and other authors refed. But your question is a classic strawman, without any specific objection - why does anyone else's view matter in this article, or, why is Serbian chauvinist poet Matija Beckovic reaction more important than Lerner's who is published and cited scholar? (I am not sure that my edit interrupts the "paragraph flow", because it is a paragraph entirely of its own, in a section where every paragraph is completely isolated with every para covering specific person reception/reaction. Any issue of grammatic and composition could have been corrected without edit-warring and POV pushing. Additionally, consensus is achieved by making a better argument, not voting on POV, and I am yet to hear reasonable argument.) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are writing about, nor am I interested in reading these essay-long elaborations on your point of view on everything from editing to RS to state of world media and politics, without much or any relation to problems at hand. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to which of three editors this comment was directed towards as the layout looks as if you're replying to yourself. --Coldtrack (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)