Talk:Serb Muslims

23 editor's revert

What is there to discuss? It is evident that Zoupan should be very content that I settled with merely clearing out the blatant rubbish which fails to meet almost every one of Wikipedia's pillar guidelines, instead of making a disciplinary errand out of it right away (which I am contemplating). The article purports to be about "Serb Muslims" but would do better with the title "Serb nationalist theories on the origin of Bosnian Muslims". The so-called historic "evidence" presented in one of the sources by a, lo and behold, Serb economist is laughable and at best anecdotal. Other sources are either highly irrelevant (as for instance contemporary examples of non-significant Bosnian Muslim individuals who identify as Serbs, which in light of the other baseless POV is implied to represent further "evidence" of the Serb origin of Bosniaks), or just plain wrong and misinformed (such as the claim that Bosnian Muslims en masse declared Serb and Croat ethnicity prior to 1971). All it takes is a look on the 1948 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I've also provided an RS to corroborate that. I'm well aware that we have had our clashes over the years 23 editor, but I still know you as a sensible editor receptive to reason and discussion. The issue of POV and WP:SYNTH, based on strikingly flawed sources and logic, with this article is dazzling to say the least. We might just have to introduce acclaimed scholars in the way of Fine and Malcolm to deal with this delicate history instead of delegating it to economists, political scientists, and obscure Balkan "historians" on the fringes of what might be considered a "sholarship". Amusingly enough, Zoupan had the nerve to remove a reference to University of Washington historian and lecturer Denis Basic (Ph.D.) in another article as "unreliable", but then goes on to entrust economists with historiography. I might just go ahead and request an enforcement of the discretionary sanctions imposed on topics related to the Balkans. In no way does my edit fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT given the blatant breach of WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

First off, let's keep our history out of this. I have made very clear that I wish to keep our Wiki interactions minimal. As far as the article is concerned, I would endorse redirecting this page to Serbs#Religion and spreading the well-sourced parts out among Religion in Serbia and Islam in Serbia.

As far as Serb Muslims themselves go, there are and have historically been many, and you yourself would seem to agree . With regard to WP:RS, Balkan-related articles frequently use "economists and political scientists" as references (Tomasevich was an economist, for example, and Ramet is a political scientist). Heck, we've even deemed a skin doctor a reliable source. The fact that the individual you are referring to is an economist does not hurt his reliability per se. I think it is regrettable that Zoupan chose to remove Denis Basic from the references on the other article, citing unreliability. Having said that, it is highly irresponsible to deem certain authors "fringe" simply because they don't match your point of view, as you've done with Cirkovic.

No need for this to become a s*itstorm , as you so aptly put it. I'm hoping cooler heads will prevail. Don't forget that one of the five pillars is consensus-building. Be WP:BOLD, not asinine. 23 editor (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)