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:
Users involved
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?
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.
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:
quote
|
---|
|
quote
|
---|
|
2. Negative critiques on Xhufi's methodology and interpretation of primary material
quote
|
---|
|
quote
|
---|
|
quote
|
---|
|
3. Non-neutral narrative in newspapers and tv shows
quotes
|
---|
|
quotes
|
---|
|
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)
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.
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.
Nonetheless, if an author's reliability can be discussed, here are some of Dr.Xhufi's academic credentials:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
The source reliability issues are summarized as:
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)
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:
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)
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:
If anyone has any questions, they may ask them in addition to answering the question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bias is not a valid reason for exclusionand 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)
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)
Moderator asks the questions
|
---|
|
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)
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.
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." I disagree with you, Çerçok, as do the other editors and scholars too.
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)
publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclearThis 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.
"Meksha Gjerbësi was chosen for this task because he was Albanian speaking."
"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""
"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.
"Emmanuel Mormoris and a small Venetian force, having raised the local Albanians in rebellion against the Ottomans, assaulted Ottoman fortresses in the Himara region.",
"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."
The Albanian army and the Venetian mercenaries assaulted the castle at Kardhiq, but were driven back.
"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"
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 ScanderbegHe'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)
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:
Users involved
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?
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.
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:
quote
|
---|
|
quote
|
---|
|
2. Negative critiques on Xhufi's methodology and interpretation of primary material
quote
|
---|
|
quote
|
---|
|
quote
|
---|
|
3. Non-neutral narrative in newspapers and tv shows
quotes
|
---|
|
quotes
|
---|
|
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)
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.
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.
Nonetheless, if an author's reliability can be discussed, here are some of Dr.Xhufi's academic credentials:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
The source reliability issues are summarized as:
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)
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:
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)
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:
If anyone has any questions, they may ask them in addition to answering the question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bias is not a valid reason for exclusionand 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)
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)
Moderator asks the questions
|
---|
|
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)
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.
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." I disagree with you, Çerçok, as do the other editors and scholars too.
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)
publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclearThis 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.
"Meksha Gjerbësi was chosen for this task because he was Albanian speaking."
"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""
"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.
"Emmanuel Mormoris and a small Venetian force, having raised the local Albanians in rebellion against the Ottomans, assaulted Ottoman fortresses in the Himara region.",
"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."
The Albanian army and the Venetian mercenaries assaulted the castle at Kardhiq, but were driven back.
"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"
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 ScanderbegHe'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)