Talk:Kičinica

	North Macedonia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Strange revert[edit]

Alltan I'd like an explination as to why did you revert my changes?

1. I updated the infobox population data (from 2002 to 2021). What's the issue here?

2. I fixed the Islami citation - no where is Kičinica, nor any of the other content which the source should back up mentioned on page 153 or 174. Kičinica is however mentioned on page 146, and I fixed the citation. Macedonianization is no where to be mentioned in the source, neither on page 153, 174 or 146, hence it was removed. What's the dispute here?

3. D.M. Brancoff and his statistics are not mentioned on page 156, nor on any of the above stated pages, hence it was removed.

4. I shortened the paragraph about the 1927 newspaper report - the enitre quote is absolutly uneeded (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), and the summary of "Serbs who only speak Albanian" still conveys the point to the reader. I'll use this opprotunity to to suggest for the quotation mark to be removed i.e the full sentence to read - The village is mentioned in 1927 by the Serbian newspaper "Vreme", where the population is described as Serbs who only speak Albanian.

Again, please state as to why did you revert the edit. Regards. Kluche (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Believe it or not my issue is not with the updating of the infobox data.

2. Kicinica is mentioned both in 174 and in 153. The dispute here exists is you have misread the source.

3. They are.

4. See [[1]]

There you go. Alltan (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Then why did you remove that change?

2. Page 174 talks about education in Polog in general, Kičinica is not mentioned, Macedonianization is not mentioned, population figures are not mentioned. Page 153 talks about population figures of Ribnica, Mavrovo and Rostuša. The table above it is population figures for Rostuša. Again, no mention of Kičinica.

3. Page 156 talks about population figures of Trebište. The table above it is population figures for Tanuše. Again, no mention of Kičinica.

4. I think you should read it more closely - it states that: Such arguments are purely personal point-of-view. They make no use of policies, guidelines, or even logic. I have a policy which backs up my view (WP:NOTEVERYTHING).

So again, why did you revert the changes Alltan? Kluche (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was just part of the revert. I deeply regret it and have corrected myself.

2. Yes it is. Maybe you are reading it from a different PDF file. Try ctrl+f "Kiçinic"

3. See the above.

4. Your policy doesn't say anything about removing quotes or the like, you are just arbitrarily classifying something as "absolutly uneeded" (your words) and then are trying to use WP:NOTEVERYTHING to as a justification to remove it.

Again: there ya go. Alltan (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alltan I am reading it from the link of the source i.e PDF you have provided - only on page 146 there are (two) hits for "Kiçinic". No where else. I'm still assuming WP:GF, although I find it weird that the PDF pages you have provided does not have the content that you claim they have.

It's not "my" policy, it's a Wikipedia policy, which states that content on Wikipedia should be a summary of the knowledge on a topic. See WP:LONGQUOTES too, particularly point 3,4 and 5. Kluche (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see what the issue is. The part I have linked is the second volume of the study. That's why it was displaying Trebishte etc. My bad on that. [2] go here and download nr. 2. Alltan (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alltan, thank you for finally providing the right source. I've reviewed the disputed pages, and while Kičinica is mentioned, I have found reason to doubt it's reliability - on page 174, the author states that Kanchov recorded 120 Muslim Albanians in Kičinica, however Kanchov recorded 120 Christian Albanians. Hence why I'm inclined towards this revision of the page (with the addition of the statement of Manoilovski), as opposed to it's current form. Regards. Kluche (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo on his part, check page 154. Alltan (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]