Talk:Peja

message: A portion of text was added to the aforementioned section that claims that during the 15th and 16th century, the region of Peja and Suhogërla had a majority population of Orthodox Albanians according to the Ottoman defter. I have removed this text for a number of reasons. The text does not specifically mention the city of Peja itself. Secondly, the text is WP:EXTRAORDINARY in that it conflicts with other opinions of demographic history of the city and region. Ottoman narratives state that Peja had a Muslim majority population by the 16th century due to Islamization and colonization. According to the Serbian narrative, Serbians represented the majority population of the region of Peja in the 16th century. In reality, the Ottoman narrative ranks highest as the defter didn't recognize ones nationality, rather their religion. Hence, the one sourced text that pushes an Albanian nationalist narrative is extraordinary and its presence will only serve the purpose of creating an edit war, given that it conflicts with other narratives. I would be inclined to suggest putting the Ottoman narrative in to discuss the demographic history of the city of Peja itself. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add modern RS material as much as anybody, but don't remove or blank material from entire sections if you won't add RS material to replace it. The theory that Albanians made up a small insignificant minority in medieval Kosovo is long since outdated. Albanian anthroponomy has been found throughout medieval Kosovo, so the assertion that 16th century Metohija had a total of 30 villages with Albanians makes your source quite...bizarre.Alltan (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Empire 

message: Hi @Botushali, what do you mean by "not cited" properly? You can't even currently read the source, so how would you know its not citing content correctly?  --Azor (talk). 17:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the claim sourced to? Tell me the actual name of the source, the author's first and last name, the publication year, the ISBN, the page number etc etc that makes this claim. Your WP:HOUND behaviour is getting disruptive; you re-added something that has no real source. Botushali (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Botushali, please read WP:Link rot carefully. The entire point with link rot is that you can't identify it, unless deeper research is done. That alone is NOT enough to just remove a citation and its content. Bring back the content and its citation and let editors work on identifying it.  --Azor (talk). 18:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No - the issue here is that it was not even cited properly in the first place, so it is of no use. Usually, dead links are still useful because they will contain the name of the source and its author at the very least even though the link doesn't work, but that's not the case here. There is no information available regarding the citation, so we have no reason to believe that it hasn't been made up. You're saying I am removing a citation, but there is no actual citation to begin with. Botushali (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at past versions of this article. The link and content has stayed there a very long time. You do not remove content and dead links with or without the name of the source/author. If you do not wish to help identify the source, you leave it be and let others do it.  --Azor (talk). 18:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot leave unsourced information on the article - it is technically unsourced, as no source is cited. Botushali (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Much appreciated! Considering it’s from 1920, WP:AGEMATTERS is definitely applicable here. Botushali (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link rot