Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi

Pellumb Xhufi

Filed by Alexikoua on 01:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute
Articles about Greek-Albanian history and demographics, in particular the use of works by the specific author (so far) in:

• Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572
• Himara Revolt of 1596
• Epirus revolt of 1611
• Albanians in Greece
• Petros Lantzas
• Parga
• Margariti
• Delvinë

Users involved

• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Çerçok (talk · contribs)
• Alltan (talk · contribs)
• Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs)
• Khirurg (talk · contribs)
• ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk · contribs)
• SilentResident (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There have been a lot of problems in Greek-Albanian history topics regarding the use of Albanian politician and historian Pellumb Xhufi as reference. While ostensibly an academic, he has been repeatedly criticized for "aggressive nationalistic tone", "nationally one-sided scientific articles", "nationalist polemics", by various scholars. Controversial would be anything that is typically controversial (e.g. ethnicity, demographics), especially in relation to other available sources.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Petros_Lantzas#Alternative_views
• Talk:Anti-Ottoman_revolts_of_1565–1572)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

At a recently RSN case filled by user:Khirurg Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi the issue was proposed to be brought here in order to be assessed by uninvolved third-parties. The main question here is if an author that is widely involved in nationalist narrative both in his works but also in local news and TV shows can be used as wp:RS in wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

In this case serious issues arise regarding the use of works by Xhufi that are published by publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclear. Their use remains problematic - and certainly non- wp:RS- because of the following:

1. Negative reviews in collective academic works about the quality of Balkan-related historiography:

• [[1]] by O.J. Schmitt of the Austrian Academy of Science (by the way a non-Balkan himself) (p. 726):

quote

institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressive-nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi), which in both cases hardly shows any signs of self-reflection. Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion. ... In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric ...Xhufi also published rich material, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays

• [[2]], by historian Konstantinos Giakoumis:

quote
p. 144: "The dominance of ethnocentric, monoscopic and rather localistic interpretative apparatusis apparently not a trait of some Albanian historiographical works (cf. Xhufi 2009;

2. Negative critiques on Xhufi's methodology and interpretation of primary material

• by historian K. Giakoumis: ([[3]])

quote
p. 173: According to the Albanian historian Pellumb Xhufi, who misinterpreted Ottoman registers and a Greek chronicle, Dropull was colonized by Greeks not earlier than the beginning of the seventeenth century.

• by linguist D. Kyriazis [[4]] (translation here: [[5]]):

quote
Xhufi 2016 (Arbërit e Jonit) in order to prove that the Greek-speaking pockets in south Albania are due to relatively recent settlements of populations that came from parts of present-day Greece, linguistic data are systematically bypassed or selectively used,

• O.J. Schmitt: [[6]], translation here: [[7]],

quote
"Xhufi's , Dilemat e Arberit, 2006, offers partly nationalistic polemics against Greek historiography".

• Another detailed critique by D. Kyriazis [8] (in Albanian).

• Xhufi has also been criticized by Albanian scholars for falsifying primary sources [9].

3. Non-neutral narrative in newspapers and tv shows

• A particularly troubling editorial by Xhufi in a Kosovo newspaper [10]; claims about conspiracies, demographic purity, Greeks in Albania are paid agents of the Greek government, etc. It is certainly not the narrative of a neutral historical but the typical narrative for internal national consumption. Similar deceleration also here [[11]].

• Launched polemics against inclusion of the ethnicity question in the 2011 Albanian census claiming that it will "turn Albania into another Lebanon" [12], that doing so was selling out to Greek interests, and claimed on live tv that Greek foreign minister Nikos Dendias is a "secret Albanian", because his last name bears a similarity with an Albanian word [13].

• Xhufi publicly calling for the expulsion of local religious leader, Anastasios of the Orthodox Church, because he is not part of the national project: [[14]] (p. 725) & [[15]]

• At the presentation of his book "Arbërit e Joni" (here [[16]] (which has created hot debates in various discussions in wiki) the usual polemics are also dominant, declaring that:

quotes
“Greeks are manipulating history” & history should be “re-written again from scratch”, “everything down to Preveza is part of the Albanian habitat since the medieval age.”

• Xhufi's statements about communist-era concentration camps in Albania received also negative critiques:

quotes
[[17]] Pellumb Xhufi has angered scholars and the descendant of survivors of an infamous labour camp by claiming the conditions there were ‘not bad’.

His historical narrative differs only slightly from that of the authoritarian (pre-1991) regime of the P.R. of Albania: [[18]] (p. 65). Also modern Albanian officials do not hesitate to accuse him of taking the post of history professor during the People's Republic era: [[19]].

Xhufi is an active politician, former deputy minister in his country who frequently appears on local tv shows and displays nationalist rhetoric. Scholarship and news have heavily criticized his research. From my experience in wikipedia there were several less partisan cases of authors that were dismissed for not meeting wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Çerçok

Dr. Xhufi's works are RS. The only issue with the reliability of Dr. Xhufi is that some editors disagree with the verifiable truths that he has uncovered. I will try to be brief but I am constrained by the length of the initial post.

• 1. Important notes

First, I would like to note that this is the fourth time that the same editors (Khirurg and Alexikoua, see [20], [21], [22]) try to ban him and at some point these attempts should simply stop. Second, Alexikoua conveniently tagged only a few editors here, so I am tagging all the editors that were involved in discussions regarding content from Xhufi: @AlexBachmann:,@Coldtrack:,@Uniacademic:,@Demetrios1993:,@FierakuiVërtet:,@Lezhjani1444:,@Durraz0:,@Super Dromaeosaurus:,@Truthseeker2006:,@Βατο:,@Ahmet Q.:,@Maleschreiber:,@Drmies:. Third, I believe the reliability of journals/books/newspapers may be evaluated, not that of an author itself, therefore this whole thread should not be here.

• 2. Dr. Xhufi's reliability

Nonetheless, if an author's reliability can be discussed, here are some of Dr.Xhufi's academic credentials:

- He is an Medievalist, member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania.

- He has authored dozens of academic peer-reviewed publications (books and book chapters, articles, monographs): [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], etc.

- His work has been widely cited in top quality academic sources (a few of countless examples: [31], [32], [33], etc.)

- The works of Dr. Xhufi that have been cited on Wikipedia are all academic publications such as the ones listed above, all peer-reviewed and cited by other authors.

- I believe the discussion of reliability should be aimed at improving Wikipedia, but this threat fails to mention a single instance of how content from Dr.Xhufi's work has been harmful so far. Not a single one of my citations of Dr.Xhufi's work has until now been opposed by a conflicting citation from another author, or been found to be falsified or manipulated in any way.

• 3. Response to some accusations

It is unfortunate that Alexikoua's summary does not discuss any Wikipedia content that has been added from Xhufi. Such accusations, especially ones about TV appearances and his political views, remain irrelevant, but they still need to be answered.

- Disputes between historians are common, especially ones specializing on the Balkans. Schmidt and Xhufi have a long history of disagreement, but they both co-authored the same book: [34]. There is no reason to consider one reliable and the other not. Furthermore, I can easily find Albanian historians' critiques of their Greek colleagues similar to the ones Alexikoua provided from Giakoumis and Kyriazis in regards to Xhufi (neither of them more academically noteworthy than Xhufi himself).

- The accusation about the Tepelena camps is merely an out-of-context quote, already been amply clarified here:[35].

- The accusation that Dr.Xhufi's concluded Dendias' Albanian origin based on word similarity is untrue. It was Dr. Milo who noted it the year before [36], and earlier the Greek minority in Albania claimed he descends from this group: [37]. So Dr. Xhufi did not make it up.

- It is irrelevant to Dr. Xhufi's reliability, but Alexikoua insists on falsely claiming he is an active politician despite having been informed (here:[38]) he is not.

- The content I have added from Xhufi's works have always been from parts where he refers to primary material. Despite this, Khirurg, Alexikoua and 1-2 others have regularly objected such additions with accusations that have repeatedly been proven wrong. Two examples: Khirurg claimed [39] his citation of primary material is not reliable based on critiques from journalists (who he falsely claimed were historians), but it turned out that Xhufi's references to primary material had been also cited in the exact same way by British historian Noel Malcolm (see: [40]. SilentResident claimed Xhufi's book is not peer reviewed [41], however it was [42] and one of its chapters was even published in the University of Toulouse [43].

Summary of dispute by Alltan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Thing is that, we can't cherry-pick random quotes from someone who has even written an article in the same anthology as Xhufi (who btw hasn't been "rejected" anywhere). Xhufi is a medievalist, a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Arbërit e Jonit was published by Onufri, a leading academic publishing house which has received many excellence awards, even being positively reviewed in a historical journal by medievalist Ardian Muhaj[44]. It checks all the boxes for RS. We can't just cherry-pick one opinion to disregard someone's work. Xhufi's book Arbërit e Jonit has even received excellent reviews in general and it is even listed as a main source for a Cambridge University Press source as of 2022 [45]. It is nonsensical that a source which can pass Cambridge peer review can't pass WP:RS for some anonymous Wikipedia users.Alltan (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ktrimi991

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

• @Robert McClenon: I have never been in any content dispute on Xhufi. Other editors, who have been and have supported Xhufi's usage, for some reason have not been notified about this discussion by Alexikoua. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Khirurg

I agree with Alexikoua that this is a pressing issue that needs to be resolved. I also agree with him regarding the criticisms of Xhufi. I do not think he should be used to source anything controversial. Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The main reason Xhufi is not reliable is that he has been accused of falsifying and mistranslating primary documents by various scholars. This is a very serious charge and directly calls into question his reliability. He has also been criticized for nationalism by several scholars, among other things being described as "virulently anti-Greek". Also many publications in questionable publishers. Taken together, these point to someone who should only be used with great caution as a source. Khirurg (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ

It is patently clear that the insertion of Xhufi into a growing list of Balkan-related articles is part of a concerted POV push, and therefore a constant source of friction. The project would benefit greatly if editors simply restricted themselves to reliable sources, preferably those published in English, and refrained from inflaming tensions by citing activist authors like Xhufi, who is controversial for all the reasons outlined by Alexikoua above. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SilentResident

Pellumb Xhufi has to be addressed for his reliability because he is being cited in a growing number of articles, without wp:consensus. I would like to point out that the English Wikipedia already has a content guideline explaining when a source may be considered as wp:unreliable: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.. Since Xhufi is known for having a poor reputation for fact-checking, for historical revisionism (see wp:pseudoscience), and is also known for espousing extremist views. IMO, Wikipedia ought to bar citing him in the following cases: 1) when a topic area is sensitive and related to these ethnicities that were subject to Xhufi's extremist views, and, 2) when no third-party sources could wp:verify Xhufi's claims, 3) when there is no wp:consensus for using him. Currently, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been violated, and Xhufi is remaining on all of these aforementioned articles despite wp:consensus policy stating that: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.. I am hopeful the DRN can help resolve the dispute around Xhufi's reliability, because the RSN didn't help. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth Statement by Moderator on Pellumb Xhufi

I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion. This will be somewhat different from other matters that I have moderated, so the rules and procedures will be somewhat different. I have two questions for the editors, both for those who have responded to the notice and for any other editors. First, do the editors agree that there is an issue about the reliability of Pellumb Xhufi? Second, are there any other issues? Answer the questions in the space below. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to me as the representative of the community. Be civil and concise. If there is agreement, I will then create a subpage for this discussion and provide a set of rules for the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator

I am providing a subpage for this discussion. It is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi . All further discussion should be conducted there.

It is my understanding that the question is whether and when the writings of Pellumb Xhufi are considered a reliable source. Please read the policy on reliable sources again. Please also read the rules. Editors are responsible for compliance with the rule.

First Statements by Editors

• Yes, I am familiarized with WP:RS. And I have read WP:RSDR --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'm familiar with the the policies including RS, RSDR, POV.Alexikoua (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• I am familiar with the above policies. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• I am unsure why I was informed of this, as all I recall doing was saying an RFC was flawed. But yes I am familiar with our policies (hence why I said the RFC was flawed). Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

It appears that I left out part of what I intended to be my first statement. I requested that each editor make a one-paragraph statement as to what the source reliability issues are. Please make a one-paragraph statement as to what the source reliability issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

The source reliability issues are summarized as:

• Author resorted to source falsification, poor methodology and misinterpretation of primary material.
• Author conducted aggressive nationalist one-sided scientific essays. Note that while bias in sources is allowed in Wikipedia, extremism in sources makes them questionable.
• Author has openly supported conspiracy theories and promoted hatred against other nationalities and other religions.
• Author openly encourages the historical revisionism and fringe theories and wants the whole history to be rewritten from scratch.

Some of these issues seem interchangeable with each other and may not be grouped accurately here, but it is hard to ever sort the problems as consistently and reasonably, and this denotes how problematic is to rely on the specific author as a reliable source in the first place when multiple aspects of his scholarship are questioned. We can't be certain for sure if the filters of peer viewing has dealt with all the aforementioned core problems that characterize the scholar's work as whole and are interchangeable. The heavy criticism on Xhufi's reliability is too wide and concerns all aspects of his scholarship for Wikipedia to fall as low as to simply ignore the problem(s). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator on Xhufi

I think that at least two issues have been identified, one of which is a content issue, and one of which is a conduct issue. We are only discussing the content issue here. The content issue is the reliability as a source of Pellumb Xhufi. The conduct issue is allegations of tag-team editing to insert material that is sourced to Xhufi. The reliability of sources is an article content issue, because it involves what content may be included in articles in the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing to promote a point of view is a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that my objective is to compose a neutrally worded RFC asking the community about the reliability as a source of Pellumb Xhufi. Is Xhufi considered:

• a reliable academic source;
• a biased but reliable academic source who may be used, noting the bias.
• a fringe source who is considered fringe by most of the academic community;
• a deprecated source?

Before we can complete this source assessment, we need to have as many editors participating as possible.

At this time I will try to get all of the involved editors onto one talk page (this page) before asking questions that will require a response within 48 hours. All editors are asked to acknowledge, in the space for statements, that they are here, and are ready to take part in discussion. They may optionally make a one-paragraph statement of what they see as an issue or the issues. Because I am trying to get a large number of editors gathered in one place, overly long statements will be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator

Now I would like each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to their opinion as to the reliability of Pellumb Xhufi. Should Xhufi be considered:

• a reliable academic source;
• a biased but reliable academic source who may be used, noting the bias.
• a fringe source who is considered fringe by most of the academic community;
• a deprecated source?

If anyone has any questions, they may ask them in addition to answering the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors

• Xhufi's should be considered a reliable academic source, as his work is peer-reviewed, published in academic sources, is widely cited and overall meets Wikipedia guidelines' criteria for reliability. Interviews and political activity is irrelevant here as it is not being cited; his academic publications are reliable. I would like to ask the editors who question Xhufi's reliability to present at least one single case when citations of his academic work on Wikipedia have been found inaccurate or in any other way harmful for the reliability of this encyclopedia. Çerçok (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with the recommendation that any academic sources questioning the author's credibility are ignored, and that any editorial concerns about him are dismissed. Asking from us that we should pretend as if there is no whatsoever problem about Xhufi's reliability, or that no academic scholars ever questioned his work and fact-checking capabilities, or that their criticism on Xhufi is unsufficient, and/or that no editors have ever expressed any concerns about Xhufi's extremist views specific certain ethnic groups. All these go against the principle of Wikipedia's guidelines in my humble opinion. If the DRN seeks to resolve the dispute by respecting everybody's concerns and sensitivities in line with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:VERIFY policies, then, is it too much to ask that Xhufi is deprecated for the politically sensitive articles at least? At least for the topic areas related to the ethnic groups and nations against which Xhufi has expressed problematic positions or any historical topic areas for which there are concerns of a historical revisionism? Since those supporting Xhufi insist that he is reliable, then sure, they may cite him in the rest of the articles, provided that the new additions are welcomed without objections by other editors. In this case, the guidelines still are as relevant: the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Bias is not a valid reason for exclusion (though it maybe for a claim it needs to be attributed). We would need to see that he actually has no reputation for fact checking. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with SilentResident. While bias is one thing, and does not necessarily disqualify a source, the issue is that Xhufi's bias is extreme, entering into WP:FRINGE territory. He has also been accused of falsifying and mistranslating sources by other scholars - this is a serious charge and directly calls into question his reliability. There is also the question of his publishers, some of which are of unknown reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I would thus rate Xhufi as a fringe source at best. Khirurg (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Reading some comments by the editors who have tried to remove Xhufi as a source would make any reader think that Xhufi is a self-published source with no academic credentials. Robert McClenon asked for Xhufi's credentials. Currently, P. Xhufi, who is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania, is the delegate of Albania in the council of the International Union of Academies (The UAI is the global organization of national academies in the fields of the humanities and social sciences. Its aims are to initiate, recognize, foster and fund basic long-term international research projects. Created in 1919 in Paris with a general secretariat established in Brussels, the UAI comprises at the moment more than a hundred academies from 63 countries from all continents.). From his bio in IUA: Prof. Dr. Pëllumb Xhufi is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania and the Head of the Section of Social and Albanology Sciences. He is a historian, researcher, ex-diplomat and ex-politician. Prof. Xhufi graduated in Rome, at the university “La Sapience” in 1977. After his return in Albania, he has worked as a scientific researcher in the Institute of History in the Academy of Sciences of Albania. He has a solid professional career, focusing, but not limited, his research activity in the Albanian medieval history. He has systematically published his scientific work in more than 100 scientific articles and several monographs. Through such works, prof. Xhufi has illuminated historical periods in small or not known Albanian regions and has reconstructed the medieval history of the principalities of Southern Albania. P. Xhufi has been affirmed as the most competent Albanian scholar and has been accepted as such in the international field. Scientific seriousness, objectivity and the pursuit of modern methodologies of historical research are his main qualities as the historian of the Albanian Middle Ages. In addition, Prof. Dr. Xhufi speaks fluently Latin language and ancient Greek, Italian, French, German, English and Greek --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Moderator on Xhufi

This is moderated discussion, which means that the moderator should ask the questions and control the flow. Since the English Wikipedia does not have an article on Xhufi, I will ask that one of the proponents of using him as a source to provide a brief curriculum vitae. What are his degrees? Has he held any academic positions? Has he held any governmental positions?

Also, is there a reason why the English Wikipedia does not have an article on Xhufi, or is this simply a case that no one has done the hard work of writing an article? Should there be an article?

I will ask both his supporters and his detractors whether they consider his non-peer-reviewed writings to be reliable sources. I will also ask whether there are any cases where opposing reliable sources have stated that he has misstated facts, or reported information as fact that was incorrect. If he had been accused, rightly or wrongly, of mistranslating, please provide an example. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statements by Editors

A bio of Xhufi is available on sq.wiki [46]. Many of the statements therein are sourced. As far as methodological critiques of Xhufi that call his reliability into question, evidence for this has already been presented by Alexikoua [47], specifically point #2. That section contains at least 5 instance of scholars criticizing his methods and accusing him of mishandling primary sources. Khirurg (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Moderator on Xhufi

First, I will comment on how the biographies of living persons applies to Xhufi, who is not the subject of a biography but is a living person. He should only be described in negative terms, such as "extremist", if the characterization is attributed. We should identify who said it. However, the biographies of living persons policy does not prevent criticism of sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Second, I have prepared a machine-translation of his Albanian biography and have made it available in draft space as Draft:Pellumb Xhufi. I did not try to copy the references, and so it should not be submitted for review until someone sets up the references. It also should not be submitted for review until the machine translation is replaced by a human translation. I think that those who would like to cite Xhufi should assist in developing an article in English article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Third, has everyone who is participating stated an opinion about Xhufi's reliability as a source?

Fourth, is it a reasonable summary to say that Xhufi is considered by his detractors to be anti-Greek? Is that basically what the controversy is? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sixth Statements by Editors

• The controversy is about whether Xhufi can be reliable as to have his work used without attribution and certainly any work of him that has not been peer-viewed, specifically in topic areas for which he is known to be virulently anti-Greek. (And virulently anti-Greek, that is, extremist, in simple words. Extremism is a term which is primarily used in a political or religious sense to refer to an ideology that is considered to be far outside the mainstream attitudes of society) and fringe theories of historical revisionism which Wikipedia ought to avoid using. The WP:BALKANS topic area is characterized as politically sensitive since it has often seen new content being added while lacking some minimal fact-checking and reliability standards, as well as quality ones. However, unlike most other scholars cited in the topic area, who are biased and there is not a problem with that, here we are dealing with a unique case of a scholar who is not a biased, opinionated source of the mainstream society, but a "virulently anti-Greek" scholar expressing views not shared by other scholars and the society, and which the Wikipedia's community should exercise caution and restraint with for obvious reasons. From the moment we start making the mistake of confusing sources from outside the mainstream for being just "biased" then Wikipedia is done for. Whole topic areas such as the Balkans, the Middle East, Caucasus, and more, would see a significant reduction in quality and hike in disruption by POV warriors. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with SilentResident's comment which depicts Xhufi's work as a "fringe source". Xhufi is being cited in many recent publications among the sources and the book which is the source of the dispute is listed as a main source for a Cambridge University Press paper published in 2022 [48]. It really can't be argued that a source which can pass Cambridge Uni. Press peer review is "fring". @Robert Mclenon: There is an official bio of Xhufi on the site of the International Union of National Academies of Sciences, where he represents Albania. Maleschreiber posted it [49]. There is already an official academic source which allows assessment of his biography independently of wikipedia.Alltan (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: Being listed among the sources means nothing about fringe or not. In fact I can name several nationalist authors that are mentioned in Cambridge University Press works. Scholars know how to treat carefully nationalist material when they cite it.Alexikoua (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Being listed as a main source in a CUP publication means that the source is authoritative in relation to the specific subject and this is the opposite of "fringe".--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Off course not. Yet another example: in this top graded academic publication [[50]] Xhufi is also used as a reference but it's clearly stated that he adopts an "Albanian-nationalistic" perspective . Using him as a reference doesn't make him immune in this field.Alexikoua (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Seventh Statement by Moderator on Xhufi

There have been no recent comments by the editors, and no updates to my machine-translated draft of a BLP of Draft:Pellumb Xhufi. If there are no further comments, we can either close this dispute, if the controversy over the use of Xhufi as a source has gone away, or we can get ready to start an RFC at the reliable source noticeboard. However, I will first advise the editors who wish to use Xhufi as a source that they will have a stronger argument if there is a BLP of Pellumb Xhufi in the English Wikipedia. Each editor may make an additional statement or ask any questions in the next 48 hours, after which point I will decide what the next steps are. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Eighth Statement by Moderator on Xhufi

There has been some back-and-forth discussion about Xhufi as a source here, but no controversy anywhere else. Do the editors want to continue discussing Xhufi as a source, or to publish an RFC at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, or put the question of Xhufi as a source in the background? If no one is in a hurry to address the question of source reliability and Xhufi, then I will close the discussion at the main DRN, page and leave the subpage open (since it is not automatically archived), and we can revive it if there are any more contentious edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion

• @Slatersteven:: I agree with your statement that Bias is not a valid reason for exclusion and I am saying the same to others trying to remove biased sources in their disputes. However to my understanding, bias in sources is not to be confused with extremism which is what differentiates Xhufi from the vast majority of biased sources used in Wikipedia and the reason the dispute is ongoing. Just, I don't think that the aggressive nationalism the specific author is espousing, targeting other nations and the foreign ethnicities inhabiting the places his scholarship is focused upon, with the author openly seeking to re-write the history of the region in favor of his own nationality, can be downplayed into a mere matter of academic bias. Wikipedia itself is careful to separate Biased sources from Questionable sources due to extremism. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Can we see some of this criticism of him (from RS of course)? Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please, for the needs of keeping the discussion clean from repeating the statements by editors, the RS you asked can be accessed there: [51] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Of those only one does not appear to have a horse in the race. And I am unsure that one (or indeed most of the others) say more than he is biased, not that he is factually incorrect. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Is anyone able to present one single instance of content from Xhufi on Wikipedia that has been found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources? Any instance whatsoever of Xhufi content that has decreased the quality of a Wikipedia article? Çerçok (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of cases in which Xhufi presents his wp:FRINGE have been already addressed: The supposed claim that ethnic Greek communities are newcomers in southern Albanian has been heavily rejected by the rest of the scholarship. I can name a mountain of instances in which Xhufi's practices are non-scientific (due to falsification of primary material & partial selection of sources).Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but these generalizations don't help. The supposed claim that ethnic Greek communities are newcomers in southern Albanian has been heavily rejected by the rest of the scholarship. You are welcome to quote such a claim from any of his academic works, together with the supposed scholarly rejection. However I can quote parts of his book where he mentions Greek as a minority language in Himara centuries ago. If you are still talking about his interviews, that's irrelevant as no one is quoting them here. Çerçok (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Some pieces of Xhufi's information were added across various Wikipedia articles through edit warring, while remaining completely unverified by any third party RS, and were added to the article without achieving a talk page consensus. In my view, all these 3 issues are detrimental to the article quality, so, yes, it has been decreased. Had for example these articles now been assessed for meeting the quality criteria, they would fail immediately per WP:GAFAIL due to resorting to edit warring for inserting that content, and for the fact that whole paragraphs in it are clinging solely on that author who is criticized by third party sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Moderator asks the questions

I asked about content, not the manner in which it was added. I thought that was clear. I repeat, are you or anyone else able to present one single instance of content from Xhufi on Wikipedia that has been found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources? If yes, please cite the content here so everyone can assess its reliability and value for Wikipedia. If not, then I don't even know what this why this whole dispute started. Çerçok (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I asked about content, not the manner in which it was added. From your comment it is clear there isn't a single instance of content from Xhufi on Wikipedia that has been found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources. Çerçok (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I can follow here. I'm not sure how exactly my reply to you, just above: "Some pieces of Xhufi's information were [...] remaining completely unverified by any third party RS" is suggesting that "there isn't a single instance of content from Xhufi on Wikipedia that has been found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources." for you. This sounds like a gaslighting tactic which, -along with the questions you are asking which only the Moderator is supposed to ask- are unhelpful for the Back-And-Forth discussion. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to clarify it. Academic publications have to bring new insights, new primary material, new conclusions. No peer-reviewed work (excluding literature reviews) is expected to be 100% verifiable in other authors' works, otherwise it would be worthless. What is expected is for previously published evidence to be accurately presented, and then paired with new evidence. A recent example on Wikipedia:

- A phrase from Xhufi's primary source citation here: [52] reads "and a large number of Albanians". Xhufi was not the first to unveil this document so this was easily verified in Noel Malcolm's book as: "and a large number of Albanians". I can list many similar examples.

- Xhufi did publish, in my knowledge for the first time, another primary document referring to the same event which included the phrase "the Albanian army", also added to the same Wikipedia article. This phrase is found in other authors because it was Xhufi who published the material. This does not mean this phrase has been in any way found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources, in fact it is a valuable addition to and fully in line with previous evidence.

I can only state once again that content from Xhufi on Wikipedia has never been found inaccurate or contradicted by other RS sources. No article's reliability has ever been jeopardized due to content from him.

And please leave the moderation to the moderator. Thank you. Çerçok (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"I can only state once again that content from Xhufi on Wikipedia has never been found inaccurate or contradicted by other RS sources." I disagree with you, Çerçok, as do the other editors and scholars too.

The lack of any third-party sources verifying whole bits from his work is not an indicator of reliability, but the opposite, I am afraid.

Considering that Xhufi is an open supporter of historical revisionism, (which mind you, is a red line for the academic community, since this conflicts with the principles and goal of the academic scholarship, which is to deliver information based on facts using scientific methods, whilst free from political propaganda), and the absense of third-party sources verifying pieces in his work isn't exactly convincing, Çerçok. His nationalist political career, his open support to the historical revisionism of the region, and the criticism of other scholars on his work's reliability regarding that region's history, should warrant source deprecation for the relevant topic areas of Wikipedia. Any information by him that remains unverified by any third-party sources should be removed from Wikipedia all-together. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I literally just gave you an example of his citation of a primary source which was cited in the exact same way by another historian, yet you keep repeating his work is unverified by third-party sources. I already explained that no academic work is verifiable in third-party sources in its entirety, otherwise it has nothing new (and if academics followed your logic, no new evidence, theory or conclusion would ever be accepted). If you want to be more specific, you can present a statement from his academic work which has been debunked from other academics, but I doubt you will find any. Çerçok (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems discussion got derailed. Let me clarify myself: I haven't asked for your example of a scholar verifying certain bits of Xhufi's information because, Çerçok, that's rather moot... Providing an example scholar verifying a piece of information by Xhufi, doesn't make *the entire work of his* to be automatically verified and consider the author reliable. We can't expect that Xhufi's reputation will be cleared by finding just a scholar who may be in agreement with Xhufi in a specific phrase. Right?

As it is also moot to ask from me to provide you an example of a scholar having disagreements of academic nature with Xhufi, because such disagreements are quite common in the academic community and that's different to the issues raised here at the DRN; Xhufi's reliability issues are different from what you are requesting from me, and they are explained thoroughly in the Alexikoua's report, which is based on the criticism to him by other scholars, and which (thus far) you have failed to refute or rebuke by providing strong sources to counter them. I haven't seen any sources by third party scholars debunking the criticism on Xhufi. I can't stress that enough.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You are asking for things that don't exist and applying impossible standards.

1. A fully verifiable history book does not exist. We can only judge from the verifiable parts. I provided one example above, but I can provide a long list of identical citations, against zero cases of the opposite. That is evidence of reliability.

2. You won't find scholarly counter-criticism in academia. Research is aimed at content, not at other contemporary authors (ex: unanswered criticism of Sakellariou [53]). Academia's "counter-critiques" are positive reviews and citations, of which Xhufi has plenty.

I hoped to discuss here the reliability of specific content which has been added from Xhufi's academic work, and how it affects Wikipedia. So far there is none of that, only general judgements and interpretations. How someone can try to ban an author after 0 cases of untrue information from his academic work in any article, I do not understand. Çerçok (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Çerçok, you stated: "A fully verifiable history book does not exist. We can only judge from the verifiable parts. I provided one example above, but I can provide a long list of identical citations, against zero cases of the opposite. That is evidence of reliability.". A fully verifiable history book indeed does not exist, and I am glad you are realizing that coz your comments here were giving me the impression that by just providing selectively some examples, you were trying to prove a point about his whole work being reliable. However, the issue at the core of the ongoing dispute remains unaddressed in your comments: the works by Xhufi are published by publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclear. Since you are defending the questionable author, can you please provide: 1) information about the reputation of his publishers? Also, 2) can you provide any third-party scholars countering the criticism he has received, or at least ones that are asserting his reliability? The party of the dispute which is opposing Xhufi, have provided to the DRN sources challenging his reliability, but the party which supports Xhufi, hasn't provided sources backing his reliability. What conclusions do you expect me to draw from that? Don't get me wrong but I prefer to rely on scholarly sources about an author's reliability in the academic community, not on personal editorial opinions by Xhufi's supporters.

"I hoped to discuss here the reliability of specific content which has been added from Xhufi's academic work, and how it affects Wikipedia. So far there is none of that, only general judgements and interpretations. How someone can try to ban an author after 0 cases of untrue information from his academic work in any article, I do not understand." That you have added a few select pieces of his content in Wikipedia, which happen to be in agreement with third-party scholars, is irrelevant to the dispute here. After all, our dispute here is not about specific content for which there is third-party verification. The dispute is about Xhufi's own reliability which affects whether Xhufi may be used for instances in Wikipedia where content is verified exclusively by him but no third-party scholars. An issue that is evident in the article Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572 which has whole sentences and paragraphs clinging solely on Xhufi as a source, but no additional third-party verification was provided to verify the information despite this being a priority for editors, considering that Xhufi is questioned for their reliability. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the burden of proof lies with the editors who are attacking Xhufi's reliability for wikipedia. It is their responsibility to bring at least one example of his Xhufi's peer-reviewed work which has lowered an article's accuracy. On the other hand, as someone who believes Xhufi's peer-reviewed work meets reliability criteria, I am ready to evaluate any such cases, but none have been brought forward.

publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclear This is clear as day. Xhufi's book which has been cited on wiki articles was peer-reviewed by Dr. Ardian Muhaj and Dr. Irakli Kocollari, it has been cited in many other academic publications including by Cambridge University Press [54] and one of the chapters was published in a book by the University of Toulouse [55]. This was part of my summary by the way, you should probably read it.

Don't get me wrong but I prefer to rely on scholarly sources about an author's reliability in the academic community, not on personal editorial opinions by Xhufi's supporters. Evidently you do not, since you choose to completely ignore the academics who have peer-reviewed and cited his work. You should accept their assessment instead of prioritizing judgements of his character.

That you have added a few select pieces... It is not select pieces. I am happy you finally brought a more specific example, so let's see it in detail.

In Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565-1572, Xhufi has been cited for 5 sentences:

1: "Meksha Gjerbësi was chosen for this task because he was Albanian speaking."

Xhufi has directly quoted the primary source to support this: per haver la lingua Albanese. This was published in his peer-reviewed book[[56]] and in his chapter in this book: [57] published by D'Annunzio University of Chieti–Pescara.

2: "After the meetings the Venetian provveditore informed the Senate that "in a short time, such a large number of Albanians will gather, that getting a little garrison of people and of weapons from us, they will easily do any enterprise and we will get the whole country of Albania""

This is from Xhufi's chapter in this book: [58] published by D'Annunzio University of Chieti–Pescara. Malcolm[59] describes the same event: "Meanwhile the Himariots themselves had been quick to approach Venice, offering in April 1570 to seize the nearby Ottoman port of Vlorë and proposing to act as ‘escorts’ for an invasion of Albania by Venetian forces..."" I am cutting it here but the following paragraph also matches Xhufi's description.

3: "Emmanuel Mormoris and a small Venetian force, having raised the local Albanians in rebellion against the Ottomans, assaulted Ottoman fortresses in the Himara region.",

4: "Mormoris with a force composed of his soldiers and a large number of Albanians proceeded to siege of the coastal fortress of Nivice in March 1571."

5: The Albanian army and the Venetian mercenaries assaulted the castle at Kardhiq, but were driven back.

These threeare from Xhufi's peer-reviewed book[[60]]. He cites the primary material:per buona causa della solevatione delli Albanesi contro Turchi and tolte alcune poche militie pagate di quelle di Soppoto e grosso numero d'Albanesi. Malcolm[61] description again perfectly matches Xhufi's:

"But shortly after that, Emanuele Mormori, the commander of the recently conquered fortress of Sopot, took his soldiers and ‘a large number of Albanians’ to attack the small Ottoman ::fortress of Nivica, at the southern end of Himarë, which they managed to seize and sack. Encouraged by this success, which helped to cement the alliance with the local Himariots, Mormori then ::asked the authorities on Corfu to send him more men so that he could attack another Ottoman fort, at Kardhiq"

So again, it matches Xhufi's content. The only (minor) difference, is that Xhufi also cites "Albanian army" when describing the battle for Kardhiq. This phrase comes straight from a letter written by Zorzi Mormori, a commander in the battle, which Xhufi's book has published@ in full, in the original Italian (esercito di Albanesi). Further evidence of this can also be found here in the map:[62]

I am glad there was finally a chance to assess wikipedia content from Xhufi. I believe everyone can now see that it is peer-reviewed and widely cited, it is based on original primary sources, and whenever the same source is used by other authors, their descriptions match Xhufi's. It satisfies all criteria for reliability on wikipedia. Çerçok (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Çerçok, you argued repeatedly that "the burden of proof lies with the editors who are attacking Xhufi's reliability for wikipedia" however, there is no such guideline in Wikipedia suggesting a burden befalling the editors opposing the inclusion of disputed content in Wikipedia, only a burden for those who seek to include it in the first place. WP:ONUS states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Despite others explaining repeatedly what ONUS is about, Xhufi's supporters have ignored the guideline and resorted to edit warring to get that content into Wikipedia without any consensus. I believe any arguments about ONUS should be kept out of this DRN discussion. The DRN is only about content disputes. Any violations of ONUS and other behavioral issues may be discussed and addressed at a more appropriate board in due time, not here.

As for the rest of your answer, I am finding it to be substantial and comprehesive and convincing enough. For this reason, I can rest assured that the content added to Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572 is verified by third-party sources and I do not see any more problems.

However your answer only deals with the work from Xhufi published in the particular publishers. The issues of multiple scholars criticizing Xhufi's reliability, have remained unaddressed in your reply. It is rare in Wikipedia to cite an author that is openly promoting WP:NATIONALIST and WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims and my concerns is about this lack of precedence in the project: is about potential content that may reflect Xhufi's own xenophobic attitude against particular ethnic groups in the Balkans which would constitute violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV, coupled with his WP:FRINGE desire to re-write the history of the region. The concerns for me remain: even if one Xhufi supporter has been careful with Xhufi's work, what if another Xhufi supporter tries to cite work of his that doesn't meet the Project's quality standards? Content by Xhufi that isnt peer-viewed or has escaped peer-viewing progress, which may violate the project's rules, by promoting extraordinary claims that are not in agreement with third-party sources.

My concerns are heightened by the fact that while the Xhufi's opponents in Wikipedia have clearly expressed their concerns stemming from the problems about the author's reliability as reflected on WP:RS's criticism of him, the Xhufi's supporters seemed to either downplay all these concerns, or maintain an attitude of the "Xhufi is absolutely reliable" or even missing to acknowledge that the author's problematic views may in fact influence future pieces of their own work which in this case may become the butter on the bread of POV warriors in Wikipedia. You may argue that Xhufi is absolutely reliable and that there is no such a risk, but you can't vouch for an author, and your views on the author do not address my concerns adequately, in light of the WP:RS criticizing him.

If the Xhufi's supporters here agree to finally start respecting WP:ONUS, promise to refrain from using WP:EDITWAR to have Xhufi inserted without consensus, and agree to always respond positively in Talk page queries asking for third-party sources verifying Xhufi's work to be provided, and seek WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION methods instead of unreverting, then I can consider the dispute about Xhufi to be resolved for me and I will withdraw from the dispute resolution because from the moment the editors respect the content guidelines, I see no reason for content disputes requiring the Moderator's attention. Otherwise I will ask from the Moderator and the Community to decide through RfC for measures to be taken to ensure that future content disputes on Xhufi are kept on check and do not cause any further disruption and destabilization in the various Wikipedia's sensitive topic areas which happen to be the focus of Xhufi in his work. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned the burden of proof in relation to this DRN, not editing in general. This DRN was opened after two users questioned Xhufi's credibility for wikipedia, so I believe they should be the ones to present evidence against content from him, which so far has not been presented. Outside this DRN of course it is up to editors adding content to support their additions with verifiable evidence.

I agree with much of what you said here. I do not argue that Xhufi is reliable in the entirety of his works (no authors are to be fair). As I said I have only added content from his peer-reviewed publications. I will continue to apply such restrictions in the future, and I would support a policy of only using those publications on wikipedia. His interviews and political activity, as well as any other self-published materials should not be included.

On the matter of consensus, I agree that editors' opinions should be taken into consideration per guidelines and consensus should be sought. At the same time I cannot say that I will accept one or two editors blocking verifiable content despite being aware of all the evidence in favor of it. If you want we can discuss this more at length on our own talk pages because there are many articles currently affected by edit wars not aimed at improving them. Çerçok (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I have only added content from his peer-reviewed publications. Yes you did add Xhufi's content from his peer-viewed publications, but the way he was added in Wikipedia is not in line with the Content Dispute guidelines. I can't stress that enough. An author of nationalist background with known historical revisionist views, will require a better handling from Xhufi's supporters when they are trying to add him to Wikipedia's politically sensitive topic areas.

For content disputes, Wikipedia has made Content Dispute guidelines which all editors ought to follow. The content dispute guidelines state that: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. meaning that even if this content about Xhufi is peer-viewed, it doesn't warrant inclusion, nor does it mean edit-warring for adding him is justifiable either. Simply, his work being peer-viewed does not override Wikipedia's guidelines nor justifies any disruption that escalates the content dispute and worsens the prospects of finding a compromise. It is important, since you are involved in the content dispute, that you understand this so that the next time you are adding peer-viewed content from Xhufi, you do so with attribution, not through edit warring and no consensus, and without seeking any forms of dispute resolution. Once we agree here that content dispute guidelines will be respected the next time, I won't have to worry about Xhufi anymore.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

We are assessing here the reliability of Xhufi's content, not the way it is added. The content is reliable.

Regarding editing practices, there are other places to discuss in detail, but I think we all agree that guidelines should be respected, consensus should be sought and no one holds veto power. Çerçok (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. Here we are assessing Pellumb Xhufi's reliability, not the reliability of specific publication by him (although they do definitely help in keeping the content). You proved that you have been careful when citing his work, and I applaud you for that.

There are still the concerns about the author's reliability because not every editor out there may in the future be as careful with Xhufi's content as you were "thus far". Its possible that in the future editors may be encouraged from the use of Xhufi in Wikipedia and go a step further, by not limiting themselves to his peer-viewed work but start adding even his problematic views, conspiracy claims and fringe theories. You can't vouch for Xhufi's future work's quality, and you can't vouch for future editors not adding non-peer-viewed work from him.

That's why Wikipedia has to agree here to be a tad more careful about Xhufi than how it does about scholars in general, when it comes to future inclusions of Xhufi's work. In my 1.7 Summary of dispute by SilentResident I have specifically requested that: Wikipedia ought to bar citing him in the following cases: 1) when a topic area is sensitive and related to these ethnicities that were subject to Xhufi's extremist views (for example content about Greece and Greeks), 2) when no third-party sources could wp:verify Xhufi's claims, and 3) when there is no wp:consensus for using him.. These requests reflect on these concerns I am having and are absolutely in compliance with Wikipedia's content policies.

Again, Thank you for being careful with Xhufi's content, but I really hope you understand that nothing and none can warrant that any new work from him will be added as carefully in the future. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your conditions are exclusive of every single author of Balkan history. I thought we had already moved past this. Your conditions do not allow even the material you approved above. They do not allow content from Sakellariou, from which all these controversial articles have stemmed. With your conditions nothing can ever be written on Balkan history, demography and other topics as they are all sensitive to one group or the other. Çerçok (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope I don't think I mentioned any other Balkan authors here... Did I say anything like that? Absolutely not. Is only about the subject of the dispute here in the DRN, which is Pellumb Xhufi. To elaborate: each of the three (3) conditions are not to be applied individually but collectively because Wikipedia's guidelines cannot be applied selectively anyways. The collective application of the criteria means: conspiracy claims and fringe theories not verified by other scholars (condition #2), targeting the ethnic groups or countries he openly made these conspiracy theories or expressed a desire for revisionism about: Greeks and Greece (Condition #1), and there is no consensus for adding these conspiracy claims and fringe theories (Condition #3). Because these 3 conditions are meant to be used collectively, any peer-viewed content you added, is unaffected, and only non-peer-viewed extremist content is affected. It is reasonable, isn't it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You want to apply conditions only on content from Xhufi and no other authors to avoid selectivity? Çerçok (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Çerçok. I am not even using them. If you have been involved into content disagreements with other editors regarding questionable Balkan authors, you know what to do. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: @Alltan: you have argued that I stated Xhufi to be "fringe source". But I have never stated such a thing, and I expect you to either 1) strike that point in your statement, or 2) correct yourself. To clear confusion for you: I am talking not about Xhufi being a "Fringe scholar" but about Xhufi's publicly expressed historically revisionist views which no third party scholars agree with, such as Xhufi's views that large portions of Western Greece had no Greek presence for centuries. Arguing that Xhufi's membership in the International Union of National Academies of Sciences and other bodies, or their peer-viewed work, somehow makes their fringe views outside of that work more credible, is invalid argument, since membership in such Academies is not an endorsement of personal views and having a peer-viewed work published, doesn't make everything the scholar claims, to be also credible. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You did say fringe theories. Your second point is valid, that is why material from non-academic sources (ex: interviews) should be cited with caution, or not cited at all, not only for Xhufi, but all authors. Çerçok (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The author in question is a nationalist and actually does not hesitate to proudly present himself as such in various occasions. Very good point on this SR. What's also astonishing is that according to him: [[63]] Pyrrhus of Epirus and Alexander the Great are ... well-known figures in the history of Albania. This isn't part of an interview but from a summary as such revealing the wp:FRINGE nature of his work. This kind of 'academic' quality can be easily dismissed without second thought.Alexikoua (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Citing interviews again? I think such comments are better suited for the comment section of these youtube videos and newspapers you keep refering to. None of them are found on Wikipedia, where Xhufi's academic work is fully RS. Çerçok (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The url above [[64]] is not an interview but an abstract/summary for one of his works: Here Xhufi proudly presents both Pyrrhus of Epirus and Alexander the Great as well-known figures in the history of Albania. Yet another typical nationalist narrative of the specific author.Alexikoua (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Misciting someone's work to present him as part of a certain narrative can be considered a form of WP:BLP violation. Xhufi doesn't write what Alexikoua claims. Full quote: It is not without significance, too, that during the 16th-18th centuries, individuals or entire Albanian communities of different cultural and religious backgrounds, considered as an important reference of their identity, well-known figures in the history of Albania, starting from Pyrrhus of Epirus, Alexander the Great of Macedonia and especially Georg Kastriot Scanderbeg He's not saying that Alexander the Great was an important figure in the history of Albania, but that all Albanian authors in the 16th-18th centuries considered him an important reference of their identity. This is how Xhufi is described by his peers: Prof. Dr. Pëllumb Xhufi is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania and the Head of the Section of Social and Albanology Sciences. He is a historian, researcher, ex-diplomat and ex-politician. Prof. Xhufi graduated in Rome, at the university “La Sapience” in 1977. After his return in Albania, he has worked as a scientific researcher in the Institute of History in the Academy of Sciences of Albania. He has a solid professional career, focusing, but not limited, his research activity in the Albanian medieval history. He has systematically published his scientific work in more than 100 scientific articles and several monographs. Through such works, prof. Xhufi has illuminated historical periods in small or not known Albanian regions and has reconstructed the medieval history of the principalities of Southern Albania. P. Xhufi has been affirmed as the most competent Albanian scholar and has been accepted as such in the international field.[65].--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: it definitely appears you need to read the arguments above. Even his position as professor in Albania was questioned among Albania officials (see Bibo statements). He became a professor during a totalitarian regime and his narrative differs only slightly of that of the Peoples Republic. Recently he show up in tv shows and news propagating why Albanian history should be re-written in favor of Albania: typical comments for national consumption.

All those statements clearly indicate that Xhufi is far from NPOV territory and are fully sourced. Please don't insist we have wp:BLP issues here and hide the obvious discrepancy based on Xhufi's FRINGE. This kind of partisan narrative should be used with heavy precaution. Alexikoua (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)