Discrimination Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Albania Start‑class High‑importance

	Anti-Albanian sentiment is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The article in its current form is a stub, but apart from that it lacks fundamental sections. The way it's written it blames non-Albanian ethnics for an unexplained reason, creating gaps on the social situation it deals. Moreover, no word about UCK and that kind of organizations, which were fundamental for the creation of such stereotypes. I also see that the link Albanian mafia is mysteriously removed 3 times in order to create a clear good-villain pro-Albanian situation in the article itself. Since it is one-sided in its current approach the npov tag is necessary.Alexikoua (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to look at this from a more non-biased perspective. This article deals with a social stereotype objectively, it does not blame anyone or anything; it just simply states what the perceptions of minority parts of societies. Your comment leads us to think that you actually support this kind of view. If your link "Albanian Mafia" is somehow pertinent to this page, it shouldn't be removed. However, your source should clearly state that Albanian Mafia is directly linked with the concept of Albano-phobia. Otherwise, it will be considered as original research. Obviously, you know that the source cited should be reliable according to Wikipedia standards. Nightphilips (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I agree. That's what I try to prove: we have a social stereotype, but victimizing specific ethnic group, without mention a reason that leads to this, makes the article pov. Removing just a link in see also section that deals with a reason for the creation of that social stereotype isn't really a constructive approach.Alexikoua (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. Saying the reason for an Albanian stereotype is because they are related to mafia and criminal just shows how this stereotype is strong. Albanophobia as explained by Ivo Banac is created by the end of 1800's mainly by Serbian nationalist claiming territories that Albanian young nationalist were planing to form after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In order to have a right on those territories Serbian nationalists had to create a stereotype of a primitive Albanian Read Banac/page 302-310. —Anna Comnena (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed link Albanian mafia in see also section, because you trying to promote that Albanians alone are guilty for prejudges against them. Also, you linked Albanophobia with Albanian mafia without any reference. Please, see other articles on ethnic discrimination.--Mladifilozof (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think this article is somehow poorly written and can be misunderstood. For ex. in the 'Italy' section it is written: "Analysts believe that the phobia to Albanian immigrants is mainly based on the stereotype of the Albanian "invasion" of the Italian or European territory" and in the 'Political Albanophobia in the West' section is written: "Some sections of the far-right scene, but sometimes also of the moderate Right, on the other hand, support Serbia's position in Kosovo issue due to Serbs being European Christians, whereas Kosovo Albanians are Ottoman Muslims" The statements in Italics can confuse people and make them think Albanians are not a European population... I would also propose the deletion of the 'Political Albanophobia in the West' section because it lacks any citation needed and can be presumed as written with personal views and intentions. I also think there should exist a section with noted cases of Albanophobia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it is also discriminatory to judge that whole group of people based on the actions of those few "terrorist" organisations?It would still be unpalatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixious6 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to split Greece Albanophobia and Italian Albanophobia

Since Factuarius wants a long discussion on it [2], we're going to open the greek calendas ([3])...

Macedonia

The encyclopedia didn't refer to Albanians as Шиптари, it stated that Shqiptar may have originally meant "highlander". The part about it being derogatory is nonsensical. Albanians would not be offended by their own endonym. --WavesSaid (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the source that was included it clearly states that Albanians were referred to as Shiptars or in Macedonian Шиптари and "highlanders" as well. Also if you read this link [4](in Serbian) there is a sentence that directs this issue "Dakle, one koji uporno zovu Albance Šiptarima, Albanci će smatrati da ih namerno vređaju." which in rough translation means "Thus, those who call Albanians 'Shiptars', the Albanians will perceive the person to be deliberately offensive". Albanians are offended by the endonym Shqiptar when used in a south Slavic language. — Epicurus B. ^{(Not my talk page)} 11:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct link to "Thus, those who call Albanians 'Shiptars', the Albanians will perceive the person to be deliberately offensive".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it now, wasn't aware of that, thank you Antidiskriminator :) — Epicurus B. ^{(Not my talk page)} 11:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I can confirm that Albanians indeed perceive their own endonym as being offensive when used in some of south Slavic languages. But in case of this encyclopedia I don't think there is a point to refer to using this term as albanophobia because (if I understood well) it only explains the origin of the endonym on Albanian language. If somebody wants to publish text on some of south Slavic languages and explain the origin of word Shqiptar he would have to write that word. That would not be Albanophobia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if it were purely to state a fact such as "Albanians deem the term Shqiptar as derogatory" or to try to explain it's origins it would not have been considered Albanophobic. But the source reads "Albanians were called 'Shiptars', and 'highlanders' among other things in the encyclopedia." thus eliminating the doubt that it had an educational, non-derogatory use and more so gravitating towards it's pejorative counterpart. Epicurus B. ^{(Not my talk page)} 12:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources present information about encyclopedia dispute. Macedonian academics say that the purpose of encyclopedia is scientific but Albanian party does not share their view. The only source for "calling names" claim is not clear if encyclopedia uses term Shqiptar for etymology purposes or to "call names". Is it possible to check in encyclopedia itself what term is used to refer to Albanians?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the encyclopedia. It states (my own translation):

THE ALBANIANS IN MACEDONIA — most numerous ethnic community in RM, part of the Albanian people who inhabit the western region of the Balkan Peninsula. Among other Balkan peoples they are also known as Arbanasi, Arnauti or Šiptari ("highlanders"). In terms of their religion, they are mainly Muslims. Migrations into Macedonia are mainly observed in the 16th century. They typically settled already Islamized. Their settling took on a greater intensity in the second half of the 18th century, when the Albanian feudal lords pursued independence from the central government and the expansion of their possessions in Macedonia.

--WavesSaid (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entry in the encyclopedia just now and WavesSaid's translation is correct. I went ahead and took the liberty to change the wording of the original paragraph, if you spot any problems feel free to further discuss or edit it. — Epicurus B. ^{(Not my talk page)} 09:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to hide the racism here?The term "Šiptari" is clearly meant to be derogatory.You can argue all you want that is was used by southern Serbs but nowadays it is meant to be derogatory.The official Serbian term for Albanians as an ethnic group is "Albanski" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixious6 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus not to do these as a bulk move. It may be worth pursuing some of them individually. Jenks24 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albanophobia → Anti-Albanian sentiment
Anglophobia → Anti-English sentiment
Anti-Americanism → Anti-American sentiment
Anti-Canadianism → Anti-Canadian sentiment
Francophobia → Anti-French sentiment
Hispanophobia → Anti-Spanish sentiment
Hungarophobia → Anti-Hungarian sentiment
Anti-Italianism → Anti-Italian sentiment
Lusophobia → Anti-Portuguese sentiment
Anti-Mongolianism → Anti-Mongolian sentiment
Sinophobia → Anti-Chinese sentiment
Anti-Turkism → Anti-Turkish sentiment

– Per WP:CONSISTENCY, to fit the 50 or so "anti-[national] sentiment" titles that can be seen here. It's difficult to check how common any these terms are due to their loose usage and relative scarcity in academic sources (as opposed to self-published ones), but right now they seem to have been assigned almost arbitrarily. In terms of tone and neutrality, it's clear that "Anti-X-ism" and "X-phobia" when referring to anti-national sentiment sound harsher than simply "Anti-X sentiment". When it comes to nations, using different terms for what is essentially the same concept is both illogical and biased. With such topics, we usually follow specific norms (e.g. Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Buddhism for religion) to avoid what can easily be seen as biased differentiating. Nearly all of these articles already use the format "Anti-X-sentiment" in their first line. Alternative and unique but not exceptionally well-known terms (such as "Antihaitianismo", "Lusophobia") can be added to the first line as in "Anti-X-sentiment, also referred to as Y, ...". PS: should Anti-Catalanism and Anti-Europeanism be added? I've excluded them because neither are a nation (yet). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Anglophobia" is a word you can find in various dictionaries,[5] so there is no reason not to use it. "Lusophobia" and "Hungarophobia" sound like bad jokes. Gulangyu (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a word, but so is "Russophobia". See this discussion, where there was also a clear consensus that "x-phobia" is generally uncomfortable wording. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For each article we should use the "Common name". Anti-Americanism and Sinophobia are commonly used terms, while there are no commonly used terms for anti-Canadian sentiment, hence those three articles might have different sounding names. Also, the different topics are not strictly equivalent. Sinophobla for example has sometimes has a racist element that anti-Americanism does not. (Incidentally Albanophobia could be confused with anti-English sentiment.) TFD (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your reasoning of WP:COMMONNAME here since it's about a concept, and "Anti-Americanism" is just one (more extreme) part of that concept. The page itself is about Anti-American sentiment just as the other pages are about Anti-X sentiment. "Anti-Americanism" simply sounds more flashy and dire than "Anti-American sentiment", which is why it's somewhat more often used (not even by much: 444,000 vs. 200,000). WP:COMMONNAME also states: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." There is a problem with a flashy title, because it exceptionalizes itself from other, comparable article titles. A page on "Anti-Americanism" may attract different information than a page on "Anti-American sentiment", but I doubt we should have both, or should we? Also supported in WP:POVNAMING. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If one filters on books in the search "anti-americanism" returns 5 times more hits than "anti-american sentiment," and the first hits for the latter mostly have "anti-americanism" in their titles. Can one name any books that have "anti-american sentiment" in the title? It is significant because we are choosing a title. In doing so, we should reflect what reliable sources do. TFD (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: The reason I do this in one move is because articles have been inconsistent. As said above, this discussion showed a clear consensus that "x-phobia" is generally uncomfortable wording, even if it's an accepted term. And the fact that Anti-Turkism is a thing while Anti-Armenian sentiment is another makes my skin crawl. Going through all of these pages and finding info on what term is more common than the other would be an enormous effort. I was previously considering a naming convention but thought it unnecessary if we could already decide so here.
WP:POVNAME states:
"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:

Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. Albanophobia as a term is used in scholarship to discuss discrimination and so on against Albanians in a very specific and extensive manner (google scholar: [6]; google books: [7]). There is anti-Albanian sentiment too, though its use in scholarship is somewhat more nuanced and less used (google books: [8]; google scholar: [9]). Regarding the term anti-Albanian sentiment, it is usually used in scholarship in reference to a particular time, the Milosevic era. Albanophobia when used encompasses that era, plus other regions (i.e Greece etc) and time periods (1990s-current). Also regarding these types of complex and difficult articles "tone and neutrality" or the article's content "sound[ing] harsher", there will always be editors who oppose or have issues. All one can do there is make sure that the content is based upon wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view towards changing "Albanophobia" in particular, but please realize that this concerns all anti-national sentiment articles. Albanophobia would be no exception because 14,200 hits on google (with most leading to blogs and accounts) is far too little to call it "common". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles are other articles. In reference to this one, blogs or normal google hits are complicated and not the best indicator. I specifically used google search (books and scholar) to ascertain what the scholarship uses as per Wikipedia policies on such matters (see: WP:GOOG). I am very well acquainted with the literature on this issue, due in part to me writing a 15, 000 word honours thesis at university some time back. Albanophobia overall is the term used when referring/examining/analyzing or discussing discrimination and so on in relation to Albanians. My position is still Oppose.Resnjari (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what about actual anti-Albanian sentiment that does not fall under Albanophobia? Would that have to be included in that same article or should tehre be a new one? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In literature on Albanophobia, the Milosevic era gets cited when it refers to that. Why a split or separate into a new article? This article deals with discrimination relating to Albanians in general. That ranges from racial slurs, socio-political discrimination all the way to massacres/wars etc. The Milosevic era encompassed all that. Current article with current name suits such content. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose moving Anglophobia, Anti-Americanism, Francophobia and Sinophobia in particular since these names are in common use (see User:The Four Deuces's comments above). Why the desire to water these down? "Anti-English sentiment" sounds like cracking mundane dental care jokes or something. — AjaxSmack 14:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "watering them down", but the fact that they are common says more about who uses them than how much they deserve to be so. WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:NPOV should not be ignored. I believe one can understand that "anti-X-ism" sounds far more serious than the almost cute "anti-X sentiment". Of course some would object to that. But what is the other solution, changing it all to "Anti-x-ism"? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rest of WP:CONSISTENCY. Recognizability, naturalness and precision are all equally important. Also note that "these should be seen as goals, not as rules...in some cases...[i]t may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others." I don't even understand a NPOV argument here. — AjaxSmack 02:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, especially Anglo / Luso / Franco / Sino / Hispano phobias, also Anti-Americanism. Despite "Lusophobia" allegedly sounding like a joke, it is a real term used by real politicians and the like. It's possible that some of the others MIGHT be reasonable moves (Anti-Turkism, Anti-Canadiaism) but they should be nominated separately, and with a specific WP:COMMONNAME argument if so, not a "for consistency" argument which isn't really an argument at all, since ethnicities aren't named consistently in English anyway. SnowFire (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are for ethnicity. I specifically picked only nationalities. If they are not nationalities, then apparently new articles should be created for those. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, a consistency argument only makes sense for articles like Foreign relations of Taiwan, Foreign relations of Vietnam, etc. There's actual preexisting terms for "hatred/dislike of nationality" so we should use them. If some of these are NOT the actual term used in the real world - e.g. Hungarophobia, Anti-Canadianism - then feel free to nominate them with the rationale that this is a made-up nonsense term, so we should fall back on a simple descriptive name which can have some consistent style. That's a winning argument if the term is arbitrary, but not if it's well attested to like, say, Sinophobia. SnowFire (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. It violates our policy on POV titles to refer to anti-German sentiment but Francophobia. WP:CONSISTENCY is probably still policy, right? Red Slash 05:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully oppose It's too bad this RFC was cast as a multiple rename, because I agree with some of them. Indeed, with one of them in particular, namely Hungarophobia from which this RFC seems to have taken either the idea or the form of the list from Talk:Hungarophobia's move suggestion section. Try it again as 12 separate RFCs and let's see how that shakes out. Addressing previous points: yes it should be case-by-case based on usage and references; there's no need for a foolish consistency here. And yes, Hungarophobia does sounds like a [very] bad joke. Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to Google Ngram, Anti-Americanism is the most common of these terms, followed by Anglophobia, Francophobia, Sinophobia, and Hispanophobia.[10] Lusophobia and Anti-Italianism just barely chart. Albanophobia, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Turkism, Hungarophobia, Anti-Mongolianism don't chart at all.[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulangyu (talk • contribs) 08:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you have it. But just try to move them based on such stats (instead of what people like better) and you'll notice the problem. The above-mentioned comment:

"Anti-English sentiment" sounds like cracking mundane dental care jokes or something

perfectly portrays this: it doesn't sound serious, and in fact almost silly. People prefer -phobia or anti--ism for their countries while accepting anti--sentiment for others. And then there are some who specifically want anti--sentiment for countries they don't like, as with the former Russophobia. I'm smelling systemic bias. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're smelling the fact that the names you picked sound awkward and strange. It's good you brought up this RM because, as pointed out by Gulangyu, some of these article titles really are bad and should be moved, but "Anti-X sentiment" isn't my first choice for what the "there is no preexisting term for this, Wikipedia should use a neutral descriptor" title should be. Unfortunately I can't think of a good alternative suggestion at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the term Albanophobia and Ngram results done by Gulangyu, Ngram does not always pick up on terms etc. If one was for example to spell Albanian topographic names using the schwa: ë, Ngram does not pick it up at all while those spelling are common usage. The policy on Wikipedia states that books and scholar are searches and results to be taken into account most. I have cited in my above comments search results and the use of the term Albanophobia in scholarship exists is current and used. As you go through page by page, you can even access the very scholarship yourself to ascertain this, and i encourage all to do so. As for the other pages on phobias they are to be taken on a case by case basis. It is too complex and problematic to lump all into one.Resnjari (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albanophobia. 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/20120501061944/http://alsat-m.tv/lajme/vendi/127294.html to http://alsat-m.tv/lajme/vendi/127294.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albanophobia. 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/20131213040201/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=10&dd=01&nav_id=62079 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=10&dd=01&nav_id=62079

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) 22:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

According to Olivera Milosavljević, from the mid-1980s along with Albanian name were used words such as "genocide", "oppression", "robbery" and "rape", while negative connotation was carried by mention of this national minority in political speeches. Modern intellectuals according to Milosavljević write about Albanians mainly within stereotype framework about theirs hatred towards Serbs which is "congenital" and with desire for their destruction, which is a product of their dominant characteristic such as "robbery" and "primitivism".^[1]

@Sadko: This is information from RS, while source and informations from this source exist in various articles without any problem and confirmed by administrator as RS. Autor is Serbian historian. What's the problem? Mikola22 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is her research. Helsinki Comette publishes original research and their research of the public non-stop. That's their jam. And why is Helsinki a reliable publisher? Based on what? They are not an academic institution or respected published, more like a company with a printer and ideological viewpoints of their own. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: If there are any problems with RS exist WP:RSN, you know we used that procedure in your case and until it was clarified that information was an integral part of the article. Therefore, the same case must be and now. We must respect RS because this source exists in other articles confirmed by other editors. I must return this information an you seek answer and clarification on WP:RSN. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to talk with other editors and to accept their "NO" on a project which was founded on the idea of collaboration of a number of individuals is not a good way of thinking, to say the least. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{{1}}}~~--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miki Filigranski: This information I did not write, it is information from more sources and historians which say that. We must respect sources and historians. If there is some problems exist some procedure. Everything explained above and in edit summary. For personal attack I must report you to the Wikipedia authority. Mikola22 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Olivera Milosavljević; (2002) U tradiciji nacionalizma ili stereotipi srpskih intelektualaca XX veka o "nama" i "drugima" p.218-219; Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji [1]

Additional Clarification

This is clarification of my last edit for editors and administrators. I added additional sources as conformation for this information. All citations from this information received additional evidence in the form of claims of Serbian historians and authors published in Catena Mundi(encyclopedia of Predrag Dragić(historian). New sources are: Jovičić Miodrag (SANU), Dušan T. Bataković (historian), Atanasije Jevtić (former dean of the Orthodox Theological Faculty of the University of Belgrade), Zoran Gluščević (prominent writer) and Olivera Milosavljević (historian, Belgrade university professor). This information now has 5 RS as conformation. Mikola22 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You combined those sources, which is textbook WP:SYNTH. It's not like all of theim are saying the exact same thing. Or am I wrong? Do we have quotes? As far as I remember there were some protests for using Batakovic because he is considered to be too "nationalistic" or something like that. Zoran Gluscevic is relevant in what way for this topic? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we are honest you are probably right for WP:SYNTH(in its present state), but the original source remains and if these 4 sources are removed then it is not WP:SYNTH. Then is source-based information of esteemed historian and teacher. Your original reason for deleting is WP:OR but I cannot clarify what might be the problem? I hope you don't play with this. Mikola22 (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politika source

@Maleschreiber: Would you be so kind to point out where is the alleged mention of Anti-Albanian sentiment in this source (which is already outdated by the way)? [12] "Obvious reasons" are not a valid argument on Wikipedia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A survey in Serbia showed that 40% of the Serbian population would not like Albanians to live in Serbia Serbia has an Albanian minority of about 60,000 people. It's a pretty basic anti-Albanian sentiment and the same would be true about the Serb community if a survey in Kosovo showed that 40% of the Albanian population doesn't want Serbs to live in Kosovo. It doesn't matter, if the article doesn't use the specific descriptive title which is used on wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter, we should not draw up our own conclusions from the sources or read into them. Reasons may very from person to person, who knows why. If there is no direct confirmation, this is WP:OR and the source should be deleted. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's called anti-Albanianism and I'm not interested in discussing with you why a portion of the population of Serbia holds these views. The poll will not be removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STONEWALLING and drawing up "obvious" conclusion which are not in the source remains a major problem. No problem, there are other ways to deal with that. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not drawing any conclusion - not wanting to live near X ethnicity is anti-X discrimination.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a logical mistake. There is zero context given, only raw data. We should not draw up our own conclusion, there is no context nor a direct link made. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Politika article has discrimination and prejudice as its topic, inclusion of data from it in this article is clearly justified. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

spin a third ryna catch me a rover

nah glah glah boom 2A02:8108:2600:3504:E1D0:D2F6:B90B:BDDE (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Olivera Milosavljević; (2002) U tradiciji nacionalizma ili stereotipi srpskih intelektualaca XX veka o "nama" i "drugima" p.218-219; Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji [1]

[1]