Talk:Skanderbeg/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Harry Hodgkinson

Unresolved

Texts written by Harry Hodgkinson is used as source in the article many times. Since "During his career he supported the Albanian cause and took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions" ("Obituary: Harry Hodgkinson" London, United Kingdom: The Independent I propose to exclude him from the list of sources since he was:

non-neutral "and took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions" and being British intelligence officer
he is not credible source for this article since he was no educated scholar because (as it can be seen in above presented link) he left school when he was 16

Therefore I propose to delete all text that can only be supported by Harry Hodgkinson as only source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable. How about the texts written by Albanians in Albania during Moussolini and Hoxha period? If they have to be in the article, I propose a section of "Folklore Sources" or "Possibly Partial Sources" or something like that. Also a separate one, "Primary Sources". Many of them are already digital and accessible online.--Euzen (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You both should read WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP, instead of making deductions about someone based on his obituary.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First, it is not "our deduction" but quote published in above mentioned source that is verifiable and Independent, Second, it is impossible to make deduction about living people and violate WP:BLP based on their obituary, Third, if you ZjarriRrethues have information that Harry Hodgkinson was not British inteligence officer, that he did not ran away from school when he was 16 and that he was not very much involved with matters about Albania being even Chairman of Anglo-Albanian Association, please provide link to the source of those informations (but please do not forget to present a link to consensus that I already asked you four times in one of above mentioned section when I started discussion about solving of the POV problem of the article). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In brief, Harry's dead, and can't be libelled. It would probably be best to get the opinion of a historian on Wikipedia on the reliability of Harry's book. Ning-ning (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Professor James Pettifer, British academic, who has specialised in Balkan affairs, educated in Oxford, professor in the Institute of Balkan Studies, a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs...... etc.... wrote here that Harry Hodgkinson “left school at the age of 16” and that “throughout his life he took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions” being "intelligence officer". If some historian on Wikipedia can find another information that state something different than professor James Pettifer then he should provide a link to sources of those informations. Otherwise, informations based only on Harry Hodkinson's work are violating WP:NPOV because they are based on source that is not credible, relevant and neutral.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is an link to a publisher (The Centre for Albanian Studies - " The goals of the CAS are to publish books, pamphlets and to also organise conferences and seminars relating to Albania, Kosova and Albanian speaking world.") of Harry Hodgkinson book. I am not sure if it is fully independent and neutral publisher.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is additional problem with Harry Hodgkinson works. It is not his works only. Somebody forgot (despite mass POV of the article I will AGF) to identify coauthors of books written by Harry Hodgkinson: Bejtullah D. Destani, Westrow Cooper, David Abulafia. Bejtullah D. Destani (founder and owner of The Centre for Albanian Studies) is in this letter written by Noel Malcolm described as man who "pay for the basic costs (editorial work, layout, and printing) of each book. Far from gaining financially himself, he is constantly spending his own money on these projects;". According to this wikipedia rule ,“ self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”

I am afraid that this work of Harry Hodkinson coedited with Bejtullah D. Destani and self-published by The Centre for Albanian Studies (owned and partially financed by Bejtullah) is not anymore something that any historian on Wikipedia can declare as relevant, credible and neutral source, because WP:SPS and especially WP:NPOV policy can not be avoided since it clearly say that that it “is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.” Therefore I am afraid that this is another very big reason for POV tag and for deleting all text that can only be supported by Harry Hodgkinson as only source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is link to site with biography of Westrow Cooper, another coeditor of Harry Hodgkison's Skanderbeg. He is " freelance writer and designer. He studied English Literature and (later) Modern Social and Cultural Studies at the Universities of Warwick and London.... Amongst other literary adventures he has read The Heights of Macchu Picchu at… Macchu Picchu". This is additional argument for Harry Hodgkinson book issued by Bejtullah not to be used in the article, because authors of the book are not credible, relevant and non-neutral.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

His design work includes many books for the Centre for Albanian Studies (including, most recently, the first complete English translation of the epic poem The Highland Lute by Gergj Fishta). Last year he and his family visited Albania for the first time.

Amongst other literary adventures he has read The Heights of Macchu Picchu at… Macchu Picchu, climbing up from the Urubamba valley through the early mists of dawn to an unforgettable sunrise over the ruins.

From air to air, like an empty net I went between the streets and atmosphere arriving and departing...

Why wasting time and energy arguing about an author who hasn't said anything new about Sk.? Let it be. The point is to add in the article the alternative views. Among the others, I propose a place in the article for the "views" on Skanderbeg by his contemporary historians, Doukas and Frantzis. They just didn't write a word about Skanderbeg! Obviously not all of his contemporaries were impressed.--Euzen (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with you that it is waste of time and energy arguing about Harry Hodgkison being obvious non-relevant, non-credible and non-neutral self-published source. Even if he really hasn't said anything new about Skanderbeg, his book still can not be used as source in this article because it would be violation of SPS and NPOV which “is non-negotiable”.

If there is relevant source of information about Skanderbeg not being mentioned in works of certain contemporary historians (Doukas and Frantzis), please provide link to such source. Otherwise, regardless your observation is very interesting, it could be estimated as OR by some users without providing source of information for such statement.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

For all your concerns there is WP:RSN. You can't disqualify authors according to your opinions. Go there and present the case. Aigest (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I did.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What was the result?--Exodic2 (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus aboout it, but here can be seen that result was 5:4 that Harry Hodgkinson is not RS. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

BIASed glorifying perspective in the article of Skanderbeg? Comparation with Isa-Beg Isaković.

Seeing this citation:

"The history of Serbia between 1402 and 1451, like that of Albania, display bewildering succession of Turkish advances and retreats, but instead of fiercely hostile Skanderbeg we have two skillful diplomats in the despots Stephen Lazarević (1389—1427) and George Branković (1427—56) who knew when to bow before the storm in order to preserve a remnant of their wealth and dignity."
— Pitcher, Donald (1972), An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire, Netherlands: E.J.Brill, p. 70 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |editorn-last=, |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)

remainded me that there is BIASed glorifying perspective of the article that is not supported with contemporary perspectives on the Skanderbeg. There are books and recently organised scholars conference that deals with nationalistic reinterpretations and myths of Skanderbeg. like this one organized "on 12 and March 13, 2009 a conference entitled: "Scanderbeg Vivo" - an interdisciplinary between myth, history and news on the figure of George Castriota Scanderbeg.".

Obviously, there are some contemporary scholars which deal with albanology that do not see only positive things in Skanderbeg's activites for the people living in territory region that covers todays Albania and its surrounding and rational reason for his modern glorifying. Only mythological. Those non glorifying perspectives are not represented in the article, although they are presented in contemporary scholars works.

In order to avoid accusation for being biased, I will not compare Skanderbeg with Stefan Lazarević or George Branković who were Orthodox Christians, but with another Serb who was conscripted to Islam - Isa-beg Isaković. If you take a look on another man in the region who lived in the same time (Isa-beg Isaković who as governor of the province of Bosnia, Isa-Beg assured its future prosperity. He:

founded Sarajevo in 1461 in the former Bosnian province of Vrhbosna.
between then and 1463 he built the core of the city's Old Town district,
built mosque in Sarajevo
built a closed marketplace in Sarajevo
built a public bath in Sarajevo
built a hostel in Sarajevo
built a Governor's castle (Saray), which gave the city its present name Sarajevo
built Khanqah in Sarajevo
founded vakuf (endowment) in Sarajevo and all over Ottoman Empire
built musafirhan (with kitchen for free food for poor people) in Sarajevo
built many mills in todays Bosnia that he later included in his endowment together with land around them
built big caravansaray in Sarajevo
established a number of other cities and towns in the region, perhaps most notably Novi Pazar, now in Serbia
built public bath in Novi Pazar
built a mosque in Novi Pazar
built a mosque in Skopje near Old bazaar
built çiftehamam in Skopje Old bazaar
built Kapan han in Skopje Old bazaar
.....

because he was not like “fiercely hostile Skanderbeg” there was long period of peace and prosperity in the region ruled by Isa-beg Isaković.

Skanderbeg built nothing (except one fortress near Durres).

On the other hand, Skanderbeg and his family were fighting within Ottoman Empire army for many years, when that army was only entering the Europe and when some resistance to Ottoman Empire could make sense. After Ottoman Empire conquered practically all Balkan, he decided to became vassal of Venice or Naple afterwards and to lead League of Lezhe formed with Venetian participation in almost three decade pointless wars that were not desired by all of the people of the region and with benefits laying only for Venetian Empire, Naple and Skanderbeg himself.

After “fiercely hostile” Skanderbeg died there was period of several centuries of piece and prosperity for the whole region and people that lived in territory that covers todays Albania.

If anybody has sources that can support with rational reason (not mythological) glorifying perspective of the article and that Skanderbeg brought something else besides wars, destruction and misery to the people of the whole region, please help me understand reasons for massive POV and BIASed glorifying perspective of the article. Otherwise, please help solving BIAS problem of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you comparing these two personalities?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Antid has a different conception for the heroes, maybe bounding on knees is more glorious than fighting for freedom to Antid. According to him William Wallace should had left English troops to bring prosperity to Scotland(!), instead of mobilizing people, fighting and loosing many lives (including his own) and properties, but never bound to the English force, or John Hunyadi should have changed name to Mohammad and should have raised mosques and public baths in Hungary, instead of fighting and loosing many lives (including his own) and properties and never bound to the Ottoman force and so on we can cite a long list a long list of heroes.. It takes nothing to take the easy way of submitting to an overwhelming force, but it takes extra guts to go against it and fight for freedom. That is the reason that they are regarded as heroes and there are still commemorative conferences on them and their work still inspires people. ....but you wouldn't get it Antid, would you? Aigest (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"scientifically, his heroism might be less credible than that of the good Robin Hood of the British tale" - Jazexhi, Olsi (2002), "Another approach towards certain 'exported' myths on Albanian historiography between Occident and Islâm", Africana (PDF), Pisa, Italy: Edistudio di Brunetto Casini, pp. 93–101 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |editorn-last=, |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Kastoria and Skanderbeg's state - another violation of NPOV

Resolved

This map (added by Vinnie 007) is wrong because it shows that Kastoria (Kostur) is under Skanderbeg's control, although Kastoria fell under Ottoman control in 1385 and remained under Ottoman control untill 1912. That means that Kastoria fell under continuous Ottoman control 20 year before he was born and remained under Ottoman control 444 years after he died. Also, existing text, “Skanderbeg's state”, should be corrected because of violation of NPOV since numerous sources stated that Skanderbeg was not sole sovereign of one centralized state - League of Lezhe (League means union), because many Albanian leaders of provinces in the region confronted him very often. Finally, map is not clearly showing territories that were not under control League of Lezhe and some readers could be misled to believe that Durres, Shengin, Shkodra, Tuzi.... were under control of League of Lezhe.

I propose to remove the map from the article because it is obviously wrong. Map may be returned to the article but only after it is:

corrected (Kastoria)
referenced with relevant source
with different text under map
with clear borders of territories which were under control of League of Lezhe, and which not

Until map is removed or corrected with improved text, section should be marked with POV tag.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How LOL here! A map that was created by Vinnie007 himself! --Euzen (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He's using a 2002 rs as a source and Euzen please don't make comments other people.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm Antidiskriminator's claim: Kastoria wasn't under Albanian control during the 15th century. In case this was just a few days (or hours) occupation suppose this can be verified in some way.Alexikoua (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you confirm that with a source?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are the one that should confirm that claim. Happy searching.Alexikoua (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Vinnie copied the map details directly from the 2002 source so you have to confirm the opposite.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are couple of sources “confirming the opposite” describing Kastoria being conquered by Ottoman empire in 1385 and remained under it's control till 1912: Byzantinoslavica, Volume 3, Slovanský ústav v Praze. Byzantologická komise, Slovanský ústav ČSAV., Ústav dějin evropských socialistických zemí (Československá akademie věd), Československá akademie věd. Kabinet pro studia řecká, římská a latinská, Ústav dějin východní Evropy (Cěskoslovenská akademie věd), Greece, Stuart Rossiter Hellenica web site, Macedonia, Volume 1, Athanasios D. Paliouras, Greece By Dana Facaros, Linda Theodorou, Guide to places of the world, Reader's Digest Association (Great Britain), Griechenlandkunde, Ernst Kirsten, Wilhelm Kraiker The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Part 1. There are tons of sources that confirm that map is wrong because Kastoria was under control of Ottoman Empire in period 1385 — 1912. Do you ZjarriRrethues need more sources which confirm that Kastoria could not be under Skanderbeg's control like it is presented in the map, because it was under control of Ottoman Empire in period 1385 — 1912? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"All that the rebels had was a rather small strip of territory, devoid of major settlements, around Kruja, in the Mat Valley and Dibra, and in northern central Albania, the hinterland of Durrës and along the Shkumbin River. This region, opening southwards, consisted of areas under the control of the Araniti, Balšić, Thopia and Castriota families. It was almost continuously under attack from the Ottomans ..."
Oliver Jens Schmitt (2008) Scanderbeg: an Uprising and its Leader. transl. by R. Elsie.
--Euzen (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thopia and Arianiti became part of the League when Kastrioti was married to his daughter. I need reliable sources Antidiskriminator not travel guides, the reader's digest and snippets which (at least in the part we can verify) don't confirm your claims.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem ZjarriRrethues. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pitcher, Donald (1972), An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire, Netherlands: E.J.Brill, p. 45, retrieved December 3, 2010., (1385). Later in the same year Timurtash raided Epirus as far south as Artha, though no conquests were made in Albania or Greece except for the permanent occupation of Kastoria (Kroya, Berat and Dulcigno were captured by Hayruddin-Pasha, but relinquished soon afterwards). {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |editorn-last=, |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I've read Schmitt but I find some of his claims very fringe. When I'll have more time I'll explain what I mean. In the meantime, if you see League of Lezhë you would notice that Dukagjini family allied with other Albanian lords under Scanderbeg. Curiously enough the text of Schmitt does not cover the area of Dukagjin family (one of his many mistakes IMO). Notice also that Ottomans captured Berat only in 1450 but that area is not mentioned also. Keep in mind that the map presents the maximum expansion, because its size varied with time. Aigest (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

[[1]] Suppose this makes it clear that Kastoria wasn't occupied by Albanian tribes at 15th century (Mouzakis controlled the city until 1385).15:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting information about using figure of Scanderbeg in romantic historical trends and the awakening of national consciousness of Croats

Unresolved

In the text of the article there are some texts about how Scanderbeg inspired: "national consciousness of Albanians", “Skanderbeg's struggle against the Ottomans became highly significant to the Albanian people. It strengthened their solidarity, made them more conscious of their identity, and was a source of inspiration in their struggle for national unity, freedom, and independence”

but nobody mentioned using Scanderbeg to inspire national consciousness of other people. For example Croats.

I found a text written by Musa Ahmeti about one manuscript of Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski ~~who, according to some sources, was one of founders albanology~~, in which he says:

“May affirm, that the figure of Skanderbeg, played a positive role in the romantic historical trends, the awakening of national consciousness and awareness of the Croatian people.”

link on croatian language link to the article on wikipedia on Albanian

If there are more sources about using Scanderbeg to inspire national consciousness of other nations in XIX century please bring it here, and after we have more of them, they should be included in the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Giancarlo Vallone, Monica Genesin and Joachim Matzinger

Word has come to me that Giancarlo Vallone, Monica Genesin and Joachim Matzinger wrote a book "The Living Skanderbeg.The Albanian Hero between Myth and History". A link on [2], or [3], or [4]

If somebody who is interested in this article can get this book and use it as source for the text in the article it can be very useful, especially if it really focus on something that is not mentioned in the article, yet. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Schmitt (2008): The end of Skanderbeg mythology

Unresolved

In 2008 Oliver Schmitt, a professor of history at the University of Wien, published his book Skanderbeg: ein Aufstand und sein Anführer (Scanderbeg: an Uprising and its Leader), which shocked the Albanian public opinion. The book rocked the stereotypal and romantic picture of Skanderbeg and described him in his real human dimensions. As Alban Tartari, a journalist and academic, put it “There are more reasons, more quality in this book than any other text full of myths.” http://training.journalismnetwork.eu/profile/AlbanTartari [5]

You can read here the epilogue of the book, translated from German by Robert Elsie. http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts21/AH2008_2.html [6]

I synopsize here some of the conclusions of Schmitt’s book:
- Skanderbeg never united the Albanians and did not enjoy a wide support. A good part of the Epirotes, mainly the towns people, opposed him even in the battlefield.
- Skanderbeg’s main supporters were the mountain people who were eager to loot and pillage the lowlanders.
- The best ottoman forces fighting against him were Albanians converted to Turks.
- Even some of the highlanders resisted Sk/beg (e.g. Leka Dukagjin).
- He only controlled a small strip of territory.
- His movement was not fostered by language or any feeling of belonging to an ethnic group. The main division between the fighting parties was the religion. The Catholic Curch was the main supporter of the uprising.
- His alliances with local leaders and even with his relatives were futile.
- His innermost circle included Chancellors, Dalmatian merchants, and members of the Catholic clergy in central and northern Albania - abbots, monks, bishops and archbishops. These were ethnically mixed : Albanian clergymen, Ragusan patricians and Slavic Dalmatian intermediaries.
- The Castrioti family seems to have blood ties with the Serbian dynasty of Brankovici since Ivan (sic) Castrioti. These ties continued with Skanderbeg's descendands.

No question that the present WP article is a massive POV, based on partial sources. Information from Schmitt’s book, as well of others concerning his slavic connections, should find a place in the article, in accordance with WP requirements that all significant views must be represented. Editors struggling to preserve the nationalistic POV should be warned and reported to administrators.--Exodic (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you have Schmitt can you start contributing to the article using him as a source? AFAIK it exists only in German and Albanian. And also there have been hundreds of scholars to mention Skanderbeg before Schmitt, it's not that he has the exclusive right to be NPOV, he will certainly be included, but you may not say that every source is POV about Skanderbeg, and only Schmitt got it right. --Sulmuesi (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lekë Dukagjini against Skanderbeg? Please don't make fringe deductions. Btw how did you know about pov since this is your 2nd edit?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In the article about Lekë Dukagjini is written: “Dukagjini fought under the command of Skanderbeg against the Ottomans during the last two years of the legendary war of Skanderbeg. During times of peace they also fought against one another,” Regardless this matter, this is talk page of the Skanderbeg article. Comments abour edits are welcomed, but not harassing with ad hominem comments about users and their knowledge. There are numerous editors having complaints about content of the article and many of them claiming that there is violation of NPOV and POV pushing in the article (practically all non-Albanian users, all six of them during last 45 days (Tadija, Exodic, Euzen, Vladko, Alexikua, Antidiskriminator). Harassment with ad hominem comments seems only argument of POV pushers, and I believe it should be not remain unsanctioned anymore if we want to improve the quality of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dukagjini and Skanderbeg had diplomatic clashes and severe ones as the Dukagjini were with Venice when this one was supporting the Turks, however there was never a war between them. More on the brand new article of Gaius Mehmed's first Albanian campaign. --Sulmuesi (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually think we may safely introduce some of Schmitt's conclusional points in the "Legacy" although none of us seems to have read the book. What difference does it make anyways, he is a notable scholar. The problem is, though, where to find the page numbers to reference from. That translation doesn't provide them. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

No question that the present WP article is a massive POV, based on partial sources. .....Editors struggling to preserve the nationalistic POV should be warned and reported to administrators. Exodic (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

More than week ago Exodic summarized and sourced in 9 main points significant violations of WP:NPOV rule, some already issued many times by numerous editors on talk page and remained unresolved. In the meantime, NPOV of the article was not improved, but only additionally challenged with BIAS and other violations of NPOV. Until this article starts “representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” it should remain marked with {{POV}} tag.

Also, I would like to stress one more sentence from WP:NPOV:

“This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”

I propose to “editors struggling to preserve the nationalistic POV” to stop violating WP:NPOV which is defined as “fundamental principle of Wikipedia” and instead help improving the quality of this article. I will repeat: Until this article starts “representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” [7] it should remain marked with {{POV}} tag.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You are passing the limit here. We've all said to you about WP:RS and WP:OR, but you still don't get it. If you continue this disruptive behavior you will be reported for a topic ban. Aigest (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother about tags. Alexikoua drops by to reenter it just to lure me into edit-warring which is pretty lame. I don't think this article has any POV, it is instead very well balanced. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As a result removed tag. If someone has any issues with the POV of this article please put the tag back, but I don't think there is any POV issue with the article. There is some need for better referencing and putting into notes religion, date of birth and other stuff, but there is no POV. Let me know if you disagree. --Sulmuesi (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, you should first discuss it here, on the talk page, before you deleted the POV tag. Please revert your deletion until this article starts “representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” [8] by including all nine points in which Exodic summarized here most of the POV that was discussed and referenced by users on talk pages of the article. “This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”

Your comment: “I disagree with having this crap here anyways, but usually I end up in ANI when I remove things dear to our neighbors” here left me speechless. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bah, stating that the legacy of Skanderbeg was inspiring the nazis would be NPOV? Give me a break. Put the tag back, for that matter, when the article will be ready to go to GA, it'll be a solid and decent wikipedian to take that paragraph out. --Sulmuesi (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you Sulmues made mistake with deleting the tag, you should put the POV tag back.

If you want to deal with POV tag, you should help by “representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” [9] by including all nine points in which Exodic summarized here most of the POV that was discussed and referenced by users on talk pages of the article. “This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Exodic doesn't even give a sign that he has read the full book and you expect me to follow his 9 points? Who do you think he is, Mao Zedong? Reading the conclusions of a book (basically the last pages), doesn't make you a reader of that book. You have to see how Schmitt makes those conclusions. And where did he got the 9 points from anyways? Can you (or him) fully cite me what Schmitt himself says, before I read Exodic "points"? It'd be nice if Exodic himself ticked and tied his conclusions to Schmitt's words rather than me having to do it. --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

“Exodic summarized here most of the POV that was discussed and referenced by users on talk pages of the article.” Even if Exodic did not write this comment, there are many other users that discussed all above mentioned issues on talk pages, and brought numerous credible and reliable sources written by scholars. Informations based on those sources are ignored by minority of the users who are harassing other users (Wikipedia:Personal_attacks Comment on content, not on the contributor) and your comment with comparing user with Mao Zedung is only continuing of harassment of other users that is your way of “struggling to preserve the nationalistic POV” of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, you are wrong when you stated that I “have to see how Schmitt makes those conclusions”. Wikipedia and users on wikipedia do not have right to judge what is true and what is not true, but to present “all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” and that is “non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors”.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I bet this information will get erased by the Albanians, so I'm posting it here.
According to original sources Vojsava was the daughter of a Serbian Lord, who is though to be Grgur Brankovic. Source: Schmitt O. J. in Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan, ed. Pustet Friedrich KG Regensburg, Germany, 2009, p. 29, 32. --Exodic (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this information that you entered into text will be erased by me, although I do not feel like Albanian at all today. In case of disputes, there are certain procedures to be followed, and start of edit war is not one of them. There is section on this talk page that should be used for resolving non-resolved disputes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only Harry Hodgkinson, but Fan Stilian Noli also (both of them are excessively used as source for the text of the article) was one of numerous scholars who wrote about disputed ethnicity of Skanderbeg. For example Fan Stilian Noli wrote in his work George Castrioti Scanderbeg (1405–1468) following text He characterizes Scanderbeg as "per natura Serviano" quoting other scholar and writing about many scholars that challenged Skanderbeg's Albanian ethnicity.

I think it is wrong to hide this information from readers and to present only those informations that support certain POV, because that is violation of NPOV policy of wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Source of information that describes Skanderbeg's relation with Ragusa (which gave him ships and Skanderbeg deposited sums of money in their treasury)

Relations with Ragusa

AN EPISODE OF THE TURKISH CONQUEST By Luigi Villari mentions Skanderbeg excessively and describes (besides many other things) that:

“Ragusa again furnished him with money and arms, recommended his cause to the Pope, and gave him ships for service along the coast and between Albania and Italy. It is probable that all his sea journeys as well as those of his ambassadors were performed on Ragusan ships. He also deposited sums of money in the treasury of the Republic.”

This work is written by Luigi Villari who is here described as “An Italian historian, traveler and diplomat. Author of number of books including Russia under the Great Shadow; Italian Foreign Policy under Mussolini; The Liberation of Italy, 1943-1947; etc.”

There are some other things also mentioned in his book that can give broader perspective on Skanderbeg with providing informations like who “furnished him with money and arms, recommended his cause to the Pope, and gave him ships for service along the coast and between Albania and Italy”. Ragusa is described only in negative perspective in the text of the article (refusing to release money that Pope "collected in Dalmatia that was meant to be divided with Hungary, Bosnia and Albania(?)" and "The Ragusans even(?) entered into negotiations with Mehmed"). If Skanderbeg had money that he deposited it in the treasury of the Republic of Ragusa, then this only negative perspective of Ragusa should be changed, if we do not want to additionally violate NPOV of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ragusa

In the article Republic of Ragusa is written:

In 1458, the Republic signed a treaty with the Ottoman Empire which made it a tributary of the sultan. Moreover, it was obliged to send an ambassador to Istanbul by November 1 of each year in order to deliver the tribute.(Theoharis Stavrides (2001). The Sultan of Vezirs, Brill Academic Publishers, ISBN 9-00412-106-4).

If this information is right, that means that Republic of Ragusa has not "even entered negotiations with Mehmed" but Republic of Ragusa very soon signed a treaty with Ottoman Empire that put it under Ottoman suzerainty. I think that information about Republic of Ragusa being under Ottoman suzerainty is very important in description of context of political and military surrounding of Skanderbeg in last ten years of his life and should not be avoided in the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg's honorary citizenship of Republic of Ragusa effaced?

On web site of ACLIS - Albanian Canadian League Information Service - A logistic office of Albanian Canadian League was published:

In 1439 the Senate of Ragusa took a decision to bestow honorary citizenship on the sons of Gjon Kastrioti, in spite of the fact that they had embraced the Moslem religion. This decision was made possible by the fact that the Ambassadors of Gjon Kastrioti had assured the Republic of Ragusa that these sons of Kastrioti had remained Christians in their hearts and that they were anxiously awaiting the opportunity to leave Adrianople and join their own people and religion. After the names for honorary citizenship were published a heated argument took place and the question arose: could the Ambassadors' recommendation hold true or include the fourth son of Gjon Kastrioti? While it was apparent that the three sons had embraced the Moslem faith out of necessity, what could be said of the fourth son? How could George be considered a good Christian, a young man held in great esteem and in a high military rank by Sultan Murat, and entrusted with implementing the Sultan's plans?

In view of the above consideration the name of George Kastrioti was effaced from the registers of honorary citizenship by the Republic of Ragusa. The Senate of Ragusa labeled George as a defender of Islam, the very man who was later in history to prove the most militant enemy of Islam.

If there is more reliable information about this event, it should have its place in the article, if Skanderbeg was really considered not only defender of Christianity but defender of Islam too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are going too far with your fantasy Antid. Stik to RS sources and don't make OR, will ya? Aigest (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Expert help needed? There were at least three Skanderbegs in the same historical period and in the same region

Here is source with information that there were (at least) two more Skanderbegs in the same historical period and in the same region:

Skenderbeg Mihajlović, who was Ottoman ruler of Bosnia in two periods (1466—1469 and 1477—1483).
Skenderbeg Osmović, Ottoman ruler of Herzegovina appointed in 1614.

Maybe we need some expert help here with this matter because they probably were also named against Alexander the Great and if so, maybe this information can be used in the text of the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Skender just means Alexander, not Alexander the Great.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Another source for Literature section?

Maybe work described below can be added to literature section?

"Antonio Zoncada: Scanderbeg: storia albanese del secolo XV. Milano: Giacomo Agnelli. 1874. ix, 498p. Zoncada (1813-1887), described 'poligrafo infaticabile', was Professor of ltalian literature at the University of Pavia" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg punished Branković for preventing him to reinforce Hunyadi by ravaging his lands.

Done "Skanderbeg did not participate in the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448 because he was delayed by Đurađ Branković, who was then allied with Sultan Murad II. He and his army were still en route to reinforce the mainly Hungarian army of John Hunyadi, when the Hungarian forces lost the battle."

In one of the works (Setton, Kenneth M. (1976), The papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571: The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, American Philosophical Society, ISBN 9780871691279) that is listed in sources section of the article is written (p. 100):

Scanderbeg intended to go “peronalmente” with an army to assist Hunyadi, but was prevented from doing so by Branković, whose lands he ravaged as punishment for the Serbian desertion of the Christian cause.

I believe that it is wrong to hide that information from the readers and present only information that Skanderbeg and his army were still “en route” because it would be another violation of NPOV policy. Therefore I propose to add following sentence:

“Skanderbeg and his army ravaged Branković's land to punish Serbs for desertion of Christian cause.” --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Venetian merchants

Done "During the First Siege of Krujë, the Venetian merchants furnished the besieging Ottoman army."

In one of the works (Setton, Kenneth M. (1976), The papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571: The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, American Philosophical Society, ISBN 9780871691279) that is listed in sources section of the article is written (p. 101):

While the Venetians of Scutari sold food to the Turks, those of Durazzo aided the Albanians

I think that this information should not be hidden from readers because existing POV pushing self-victimisation is against NPOV and can mislead readers to believe that all Venetian merchants furnished the besieging Ottoman army and not Skanderbegs besieged forces. Therefore I propose to change above mentioned sentence to:

“During the First Siege of Krujë, the Venetian merchants from Shkodër sold food to the Ottoman army and those of Durazzo supplied Skanderbeg's army.”--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg's loss of the Berat?

Done In the text of the article is written:

"Most of the forces belonged to Gjergj Arianiti, whose role as the greatest supporter of Skanderbeg diminished after the loss of the city."

In the same article is clearly written that Skanderbeg did not capture Berat but on the contrary his siege "end up in a defeat for the League of Lezhë forces". Since above mentioned statement is absurd because it is impossible to lose something you do not control and could mislead readers to believe that Skanderbeg managed to caputre Berat, I propose to change above mentioned sentence to:

"Most of the forces belonged to Gjergj Arianiti, whose role as the greatest supporter of Skanderbeg diminished after siege of Berat ended up in defeat."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Absurd titles of sections

Unresolved

Titles of sections in the article are not corresponding with text within sections and are absurd.

Early life - This title is absurd since it describes period of life even when Skanderbeg was 38 years old as early life.
Albanian resistance - This subtitle is already disputed because it is result of not only "nationalistic POV of the article" but absurd naming as Albanian resistance events that have nothing to do with resistance of Albanians, like when Skanderbeg:
1. sent his army to Italy to fight for Kingdom of Naples, suppressing the rebellion caused by certain Christian barons in the rural areas of his Kingdom of Naples.
2. went to Kosovo to fight together with Hunyadi,
3. ravaged Branković land to punish Serbs,
4. and his armies were fighting other Albanians within army of Ottoman empire
5. and his armies were fighting other Albanians like Dukagjini and skirmishes with other principalities in Albania (toponym)
6. and his armies were fighting Venetian armies defending Durres, Shkodra....,
7. was not "resisting" to Ottoman empire, but signed treaties with it,
8. and his armies were preparing to lead Crusade to "resist" in Constantinople and Jerusalem....
9. ....
Rise - describes period 1443-1451. Readers could be mislead that it took 8 years to Skanderbeg to rise this disputed resistance. Also, this subtitle is describing events that have nothing to do with rising the resistance of Albanians, but describing other activities like when Skanderbeg:
1. deserted Ottoman army
2. forged a letter from Murad II and becaming lord of Kruja
3. was supported by Republic of Venice that allowed meeting known as League of Lezhe with Skanderbeg being appointed as leader
4. fought against units of Ottoman army in period 1444-1447
5. started war with Venice in period 1447-1448
6. sent his army to Italy to fight for Kingdom of Naples, suppressing the rebellion caused by certain Christian barons in the rural areas of his Kingdom of Naples.
7. went to Kosovo to fight together with Hunyadi,
8. ravaged Branković land to punish Serbs,
Consolidation - describes period 1451-1461. Reader can be mislead by this absurd title to believe that there was certain Albanian resistance that took Skanderbeg 8 years to rise, but was not consolidated and in period 1451-1461 went trough process of consolidation trough following events that have nothing to do with any process of consolidation because Skanderbeg:
1. by signing Treaty of Gaeta and put his principality under suzerainty of Kingdom of Naples was planning crusade to capture Constantinople and Jerusalem
2. had Kruje under influence of Catalon knights led by Ramon d'Ortafa
3. had skirmishes with Dukagjin family
4. unsuccessfully attacked Berat
5. had Moisi Arianit Golemi, Gjergj Stress Balsha or Hamza Kastrioti defected to the Turks
6. had to beg for money in Italy because of his military undertakings involved considerable expense not covered by Naple or Ragusa
7. ended his hopes “for a new crusade in which Skanderbeg was assigned a leading role” after death of king Alfonso
8. went with his army to Puglia, Italy and fighting against other Christians for Kingdom of Naples,
9. used Neapolitan troops in the Siege of Berat where they were almost entirely annihilated and were never replaced
10. made a three-year armistice with the Ottomans (if there was no "Albanian resistance" to Ottomans for three years, how could he consolidate resistance that did not exist?)
Last years - describes period 1461-1468 and is last subtitle of Albanian resistance section. This title is also absurdly connected with Albanian resistance since Ottoman Empire signed ten year armistice with Skanderbeg in Skopje. In the text of the article is clearly written: "Skanderbeg did not want peace" and how Skanderbeg "on 27 November 1463, declared war on the Ottomans". Last years of Albanian resistance is absurd title of section that does not correspond with text that describes Skanderbeg attacking and not resisting Ottoman Empire which signed ten year armistice.

Taking above written in consideration I propose to change structure of the article and titles of the sections to logically correspond to text of the sections.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to name sections of article after suzerainty on territory controled by Skanderbeg because that perspective is logically corresponding to the text of the article within each subtitle:

Lede
Kastrioti family (existing Early life first paragraph + Name)
Suzerainty of Ottoman Empire (existing period of 1409—1443)
League of Lezhe (existing period 1444—1451)
Suzerainty of Kingdom of Naples (1451—1468)

and other subtitles which correspond to the text of the article can remain the same. If there is a need to make additional subtitle it can be easy to do it within existing structure that provide clear picture about situation with Skanderbeg and territory he controled.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman suzerainty in period 1449—1450

In book “The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century” written by John Van Antwerp Fine (already listed in the list of sources in the article) is written:

In 1449 and 1450 the Ottomans launched major attacks to Albania. In both years Murath II led his forces in person. They achieved few temporary successes in 1449, including the conquest of Svetigrad after a siege. Moreover, in the course of 1449 campaign Skanderbeg was briefly forced to submit to Ottoman suzerainty and agree to pay six thousand ducats a year as tribute. However, it seems that he never paid it, and in a year he had again ceased to recognize this suzerainty.

There are other numerous relevant sources that are placing siege of Svetigrad in year 1448. Regardless that fact, it is not disputed that Skanderbeg submited to Ottoman suzerainty for one year.

Submitting to Ottoman suzerainty for one year period (period that is somehow missing in the existing text of the article, except Italian episode of General Demetrios Reres) is very important fact that should have its place in the text of the article.

Comments are welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Svetigrad in 1448 or 1449?

Unresolved

"On May 14, 1448, an Ottoman army led by Sultan Murad II and his son Mehmed laid siege to the castle of Svetigrad.....In late summer 1448, due to a lack of potable water, the Albanian garrison eventually surrendered the castle ..."

There are plenty of reliable sources claiming that siege was in 1449. In this source "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century" year of siege of Svetigrad is 1449 (p. 558). The same is with wikipedia on Macedonian language and this book that can also be found here. There is also book written by Andrija Kačić Miošić here and here that says that siege was in 1449. Also, here is information that siege was in 1449.

I know that there are a lot of reliable sources with information that siege was in 1448, but maybe it can be put in the note that there are some stating it was in 1449?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Now something that maybe can solve this dillema? Since Second Battle of Kosovo happened in October 1448, when Skanderbeg was out of Ottoman suzerainty that lasted for one year, then Siege of Svetigrad had to be in May 1449 not in May 1448.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Something is very wrong with chronology of the events of this article and other articles connected with Skanderbeg

Unresolved

There are many articles connected with Skanderbeg article that are written by same group of editors using basically same sources. Sometimes there are controversial informations in various sources and many of those controversies are now present in the articles about Skanderbeg making some parts of those articles absurd and controversial to parts of the same or other connected articles. It is normal to make mistakes but we should try to correct them. My personal opinion is that mistakes are result of wrong sources used, especially Harry Hodgkinson work (british secret agents of 2nd WW (H.Hodgkinson), who did not check any archive - Prof. Oliver Schmitt). There was discussion about Harry Hodgkinson reliability without consensus reached, but with majority of users that took part in discussion being against using his work in article about Skanderbeg.

Please find below controversial chronology and try to help correct mistakes, if they are really present in chronology of the events:

There are many events of Albanian-Venetian War of 1447–1448 that are going on between late 1447 and late 1448. Please find below quotes from article about Skanderbeg and this related article
1. In late 1447 after leaving a protective force of three to four thousand men under Vrana Konti to guard the frontier in the event of an Ottoman incursion, Skanderbeg turned towards Dagnum with a force of 14,000 men. Initially offering the garrison at Dagnum the opportunity to surrender, he promptly besieged the fortress upon rejection.<ref name="Fine1994p557"/><ref name="Franco85">Franco p. 85.</ref> (Albanian - Venetian war article)
2. In order to pressure the Venetians, Skanderbeg also turned towards Durazzo, then another possession of the Venetian Albania, and cut the city off from their local resources and trade. This move forced Venice to redirect to Durazzo two galleys, which initially were bound for Crete, in order to watch over the events there.<ref name="Hodgkinson1999p85"/> (Albanian - Venetian war article)
3. On 27 June 1448 Venice sent Andrea Venier, then provveditore at the Scutari's Rozafa Castle,<ref name="O'Connell2009p124">{{harvnb|O'Connell|2009|p=124}}</ref> to attempt to persuade the Ottomans to invade Albania.<ref name="Fine1994p557"/>
4. During the conflict, Venice invited the Ottomans to attack Skanderbeg simultaneously from the east, facing the Albanians with a two-front conflict. Skanderbeg, who had besieged a few castles that were possessed by Venice in Albania, was forced to fight an Ottoman Army commanded by Mustafa Pasha. In 1448, he won a battle against Mustafa Pasha in Dibër. (Skanderbeg article)
5. Venice also sent Venier to meet with Skanderbeg in order to convince him to break off hostilities,<ref name="Hodgkinson1999p86">{{harvnb|Hodgkinson|1999|p=86}}</ref> and also attempted to push the Dukagjini clan away from their alliance with Skanderbeg. Despite measures taken by the Venetians, Skanderbeg marched towards Scutari unabated. He also dared the Venetians to send out a force to defeat him.^[1] (Albanian - Venetian war article)
6. On July 23 1448 Skanderbeg crossed the Drin River with 10,000 men, meeting a Venetian force of 15,000 men under the command of Daniele Iurichi, governor of Scutari. (Albanian - Venetian war article)
There is Battle of Oranik (1448) that happened on August 14, 1448 which is described:
1. In 1448, he won a battle against Mustafa Pasha in Dibër. Some days later, on July 23, 1448, he also won another battle in Shkodër against a Venetian army led by Andrea Venier. (Skanderbeg article)
2. Mustafa, after gathering his army, invaded Albania through upper Dibra. (date of the battle written in info box is August 14, 1448) (Battle of Oranik (1448) article)
Siege of Svetigrad (1448) was event that happened in period May 14 — July 31, 1448 described in the articles:
1. In info box of Siege of Svetigrad (1448) is written that Skanderbeg was there with "12.000 men stationed in the surrounding countryside". Text of the article is full with informations about Skanderbeg being there before siege started in May and till the end in July 31 1448 (Siege of Svegigrad)
2. Skanderbeg continued to shadow the Ottoman army as it headed back home in the hopes of dealing some serious damage, but his forces were not strong enough to risk provoking them. (Siege of Svetigrad)

Chronology of many events in all articles connected with Skanderbeg is obviously complete mess. Skanderbeg is described in more different places in the same time. In period end 1447 - July 23 1448 he was besieging Dagnum, Durres and Shkodra and having battle on Drin on July 23, 1448, and in the same time being in the surrounding countryside of Svetigrad before and during it's siege by Ottoman empire and sultan himself in period May 14 — July 31, 1448 (the same period when Venice was trying to persuade Ottoman empire to attack Skanderbeg's territory which was already attacked by sultan himself in Svetigrad), moved from village to village, disguised as a common soldier, and invoked the fighting spirit of the population, continually harassed the Ottoman army, leding a night attack on the Ottoman camp, burning surrounding fields,...., and fighting Battle of Oranik (1448) that was described in the Skanderbeg article to happen before July 23, but in many other places and articles it was described to happen on August 14, 1448 in region of Debar, same region that Siege of Svetigrad happened and ended two weeks before, with Skanderbeg described being shadow of Ottoman armies going home and in same time having the same Ottoman army and same sultan not going home but going to Second Battle of Kosovo that Skanderbeg was delayed to take part in it by Branković, and in August 1448 Mustafa-pash gathered army and invaded Albania in Debar region that was already under control of Ottoman empire after capturing Svetigrad.

I propose to join energy and efforts of all users interested in improving articles connected with Skanderbeg and to try to solve problem of chronology of the articles. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg declared himself heir of Balšići, a medieval Serbian dynasty that ruled the Principality of Zeta

Resolved

In this source (already listed in Sources section of the article) "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century" (p. 559) is written:

Skanderbeg declared himself the heir of Balšići and declared his intention to recover his inheritance

"Heredity is the passing of traits to offspring (from its parent or ancestors)."

This is very important information that has to be presented in the article.

Since Balšići are "a medieval Serbian dynasty that ruled the Principality of Zeta" by, declaring himself as "heir of Balšići and declared his intention to recover his inheritance", Skanderbeg proclaimed and declared his Serbian origin.

Comments are welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all you would be surprised how many sources call Balsha family an Albanian one, secondly, don't take the text literally and third Will you ever stop OR-ing?. Although you make me smile it is becoming boring. Take a step back and reflect on your statements. Aigest (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, according to WP:OR:

The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.

I provided sources listed in the article in section sources for all my above statements. That means that your statement: "Will you ever stop OR-ing?" is personal attack

Second, there is no need for personal attacks. If there is dispute about this issue, there are ways how to deal with it. Violating WP:NPA is not one of them. Therefore, please do not violate WP:NPA and “do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia”.

"Comment on content, not on the contributor. As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible."

Third, let us isolate matter of dispute. It is obviously not fact published in reliable source that Skanderbeg declared himself as heir of Balšići. If you do mind that Balšići are described as "a medieval Serbian dynasty that ruled the Principality of Zeta" I agree that we can add following words "with many sources calling Balsha family an Albanian one." but please provide those sources or somebody can claim that it is OR.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoting your own statements:

............................. Since Balšići are "a medieval Serbian dynasty that ruled the Principality of Zeta" by, declaring himself as "heir of Balšići and declared his intention to recover his inheritance", Skanderbeg proclaimed and declared his Serbian origin. Comments are welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC) ............................. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sourcesAntidiskriminator 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC) ...............................

Don't you see the contradiction of your statements?! After all the times that I've mentioned to you to read WP:OR, still you don't get it. That is your conclusion Antid, not Fines, thus a perfect OR. Secondly don't go to much taking text literally. The meaning of that sentence(as much as extrapolated as it is) is clear: Scanderbeg wanted the same territories which were before under Balsha. Are you interested in comments? Ok.... Another comment on the sentence. Scanderbeg wasn't the one with the same ambitions; Venice, Dukagjini, Thopia, Arianiti, Muzzaka had the same ambitions. Another comment; Legitimization is one of the key components of power. Balsha themselves pretended they came from a Norman family (called Baux), just to have this kind of legitimation. That is related with another comment "Scanderbeg flag was taht of Byzantine Emperors, but that doesn't mean he descended from them (which would be a conclusion following your logic) but his research for legitimate power. But these are only my personal comments and deductions from the text, not conclusions of RS scholars, thus not acceptable in wiki. Do you understand the difference? Aigest (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. Word you is used eight times in above comment.

I agree that there is no need for "taking text literally", and in absence of reliable sources we should stick to NPOV and leave to readers what this declaration of Skanderbeg means and if Balšić family is Albanian or Serbian.

What I proposed to write in the text is that Skanderbeg declared himself heir of Balšići. That information is supported with reliable source and should have its place in the article. There is ocean of sources mentioning disputed Skanderbeg's Albanian origin and there is no need to use this one for argument it that dispute, because there are many other more relevant. Wikipedia Skanderbeg article is probably the only longer text about Skanderbeg that does not mention that dispute.

Regardless the fact that your personal comments are not acceptable in wiki articles, they are welcomed on discussion pages. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Ulcinj, Durres, Lezhe and Shkodra and plundering?

Unresolved

In this source (already listed in Sources section of the article) "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century" (p. 559) is written that during war with Venice in period 1477-1478 Skanderbeg attacked Ulcinj, besides Durres, Lezhe and Shkodra, and even though he did not manage to capture those cities, "his men carried out considerable plundering".

Ulcinj is important town and fact that it was attacked by Skanderbeg too is important and should have its place in the article.

It would be against NPOV to hide information about considerable plundering carried out by Skanderbeg's men. This information corresponds with informations provided in work of Oliver Jensen Schmitt and is obviously information of contemporary reliable work of competent scholar.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg did nothing when summoned by his relatives to join Albanian revolt against Ottoman Empire in period 1432—1436

Resolved

In this source (already listed in Sources section of the article) "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century" (p. 535) is written:

"In 1432 Andrew Thopia revolted against his Ottoman overlords and defeated small Ottoman detachment in mountains in northern Albania. His success inspired other Albanian chiefs, in particular George Arianite (Araniti) ... The revolt spread rapidly throughout Albania from region of Valona up to Skadar. The rebels defeated three major Ottoman offensives between 1433 and 1436, including large force led in 1434 by Ihak beg, Ottoman governor of Skopje... At this time, though summoned home by his relatives back in Albania, Skanderbeg did nothing, he remained in the east, loyal to sultan, serving actively in Asia Minor."

Information that Skanderbeg did nothing and remained loyal to sultan when summoned home during Albanian revolt in period 1432—1436 is very important and should not be hidden from the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fall of Serbia in 1455

is not mentioned in the article. Since it is important fact that describes situation on northern frontiers of Albania (toponym) and is described by many reliable sources like this source (already listed in Sources section of the article) "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century" (p. 568) is written that many cities in Serbia fall under Ottoman Empire control, like Novo Brdo in 1455, very important and rich city in Serbia, or Peć, seat of Serbian patriarch.

I propose to add one sentence with information about fall of significant part of Serbia under Ottoman control.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Who was Skanderbeg?

Unresolved

Text of the lede is poorly written with lot of absurd informations that do not correspond with text of the article.

Skanderbeg "was a 15th century Albanian lord who defended his land against the Ottoman Empire for more than two decades", "model of Christian resistance against the Ottoman Muslims", "presented a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion"

Is this definition corresponding with the text of the article?

Defending against Ottoman Empire for 10 years and defending against Ottoman Empire for 5 years more

In period 1405—1443, for the first 38 years of his life, or first 20 years of his adult life, Skanderbeg was not Albanian lord but Ottoman soldier who ruled zeamet or timar in Albania for couple of years, before he was appointed to rule some land in Bulgaria.
In ten years periods 1450—1455 (except two skirmishes in 1452 and 1453) and 1457—1462 he was not defending his land against Ottomans because Ottomans did not attack him in this ten years long period
Ottomans signed ten years peace treaty with Skanderbeg in 1463 for period 1463—1473 and it was Skanderbeg who broke this treaty by invading Ottoman Macedonia and causing major attacks that would crush his principality in next years with tragic events for people that lived in Albania (toponym).

Skanderbeg lived 63 years (48 years of adult life) and was fighting Ottoman Empire only in periods 1443—1450, 1455—1457 and 1462—1468, that is totally 15 years (24% of his life or 33% of adult life) not more than two decades, like written in the lede.

Out of this 15 years, 5 years was period of 1462—1468 war caused by Skanderbeg's decision to break ten years piece treaty from 1463.

Skanderbeg was fighting for Ottoman empire or being in piece with Ottoman Empire most of his life .

Model of Christian resistance fighting against Christians 2/3 of his life?

66,67% of his adult life Skanderbeg fought against Christians (within army of Ottoman Empire, against Venice Empire, against rebellions in Kingdom of Naples, against rebels in Sicily, against Angevins, against Dukagjini....), even refusing to accept summoning of his family during rebellion in Albania (toponym) during 1432-1436 period.

Taking above mentioned in consideration it is absurd to write in the lede of this article that Skanderbeg was "model of Christian resistance against the Ottoman Muslims" because most of his life he fought against Christians.

Obstacle to Ottoman expansion during biggest (European) expansion of Ottoman Empire in it's 624 year history?

Taking in consideration that Ottoman Empire that lasted 624 years had it's period of Expansion and apogee (1453–1566) because of it's expansion in Europe during years that Skanderbeg was presented as "major obstacle to Ottoman expansion" makes this sentence absurd.

I propose to respect wikipedia policies and to delete absurd content and to significantly change text of the lede of the article which should be without absurd statements in order to correspond with text of the article. In the meantime article should be marked with appropriate tag. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is work written by Nelo Drizari reliable source?

This link shows that Nelo Drizari was teacher of Albanian language. If that is Nelo Drizari who wrote work that is used in this article, then I propose to use other source for only one information based on his work that is used in the article, in order to avoid using of source written by person who is not historian.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, your English is too poor. Your contributions are hardly readable. Negotiating NPOV on historical articles is a linguistically very difficult thing to do. There are many things in the English Wikipedia that a person with your level of English skills can usefully do, and you are very welcome to contribute in such fields, but you should really consider that negotiating NPOV on history articles may not be among the things you are best qualified for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. I am going to improve my lovel of English skills.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is work written by Clement Clarke Moore reliable source?

If link is not wrong, Clement Clarke Moore was controversial professor of Biblical learning at the General Theological Seminary, and poet whose poem has been questioned by Professor Donald Foster, an expert on textual content analysis, who used external and internal evidence to argue that Moore could not have been the author.

If controversial professor of Biblical learning at the General Theological Seminary is the Clement Clarke Moore who wrote work that is used in this article, and many other articles about Skanderbeg, then I propose to use other sources for informations based on his work in articles about Skanderbeg, since this is obviously nonreliable source. If there are no other sources, I propose to delete text that could only be based on Clark's work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is work written by Edwin E. Jacques reliable source?

Unresolved

Here can be found informations that he is not historian (but American writer and Christian minister who attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, graduated from Gordon College and Divinity School, and was awarded a Master of Arts Degree from Boston University and also received an Honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree from Denver Theological Seminary) and not reliable source because his work is controversial and connected with Albanian nationalist circles.

I propose to use other sources for informations based on his work in articles about Skanderbeg, since this is obviously not reliable source. If there are no other sources, I propose to delete text that could only be based on Edwin's work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Jacques has come up a couple of times. He's not a reliable source, certainly not about pre-modern history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There are other articles about Skanderbeg also with informations based on his work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is work written by Gennaro Francione reliable source?

Unresolved

Gennaro Francione is Italian writer, actor and director, theater , essayist , painter, Judge at the Criminal Section of the Criminal Court ...... and many other things, but not historian. I propose to use other sources for informations based on his work in articles about Skanderbeg, since this is obviously not reliable source. If there are no other sources, I propose to delete text that could only be based on Gennaro's work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Map description - extensio?

Resolved

"Maximum extensio of the League of Lezhë"

I tried to find what does it mean, but there is no extensio in online dictionaries. What does it mean?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg and Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire?

"Zilfi, Madeline (2010), Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire: The Design of Difference, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521515832"

This source is listed in source section. There are no informations in this book about Albania or Skanderbeg. Also, this book can not provide any information about women in period when Skanderbeg lived, because it focuses on Late Ottoman Empire (period of time that is in focus of research of Zilfi Madeline [10]). I propose to delete this work from source section because it could mislead readers to waste time reading this work that has nothing to do with Skanderbeg.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg was born in Obilić?

"Skanderbeg himself is thought to have been born in Sinë, a settlement not very far from Kastriot municipality."

Obilić (Albanians from Kosovo are calling this town Kastriot ("The Albanian name for the town, Kastriot, refers to Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg") is town on Kosovo, which was then Serbian Despotate. Today Kastriot municipality includes the town of Obilić and 19 villages, with a total population of approximately 30,000. That municipality is more than 100km away from Sinë. If I am right, I propose to correct this mistake and delete part of sentence which refers to Obilić.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Chronology of Siege of Svetigrad

Unresolved

In December 1447 Skanderbeg had 18.000 armed men under his command and there was no war with Venice or Ottoman Empire (last battle with Ottoman Empire was Battle of Otonetë more than one year ago).

"In December 1447, after leaving a protective force of three to four thousand men under Vrana Konti to guard the frontier in the event of an Ottoman incursion, Skanderbeg turned towards Dagnum with a force of 14,000 men."
He laid siege on Dagnum in December 1447.
Venetians invited Ottoman Empire to attack Skanderbeg
Skanderbeg sent detachment of his troops to rural areas of the Kingdom of Naples to help Alfonso V, with many of them settling there.
Ottoman Empire accepted invitation and sieged Skanderbeg's town Svetigrad in period May 14 - July 31.
Skanderbeg decided not to defend Svetigrad with all his forces and used most of his 14.000 men to hold Dagnum under siege
Venice offered to Skanderbeg piece treaty and 1.000 ducats to give up Dagnum at the end of June 1448. He refused that offer and continued his war with both Venetian and Ottoman Empires.
Skanderbeg left 4.000 men to continue siege of Dagnum and left with 10.000 men to fight in Battle of the Drin on July 23
After Battle of the Drin on July 23, he continued to lay siege not only on Dagnum, but on Lezhe and Durres too. No success.
Ottoman Empire captured Svetigrad on July 31. Skanderbeg did not try to recapture it.
On October 4th he signed peace treaty with Venice for 1.400 ducats.
Skanderbeg did not try to recapture Svetigrad in October 1448, but tried to participate in Second Battle of Kosovo (with no success, because Branković stopped him).
Only after one year, in 1449, he tried to recapture Svetigrad, but since in the meantime it's walls have been repaired he could not recapture it without heavy artillery.

Based on above mentioned informations presented in articles about Skanderbeg I propose to double check chronology of Siege of Svetigrad and if it really happened in 1448 or 1449 like many sources claim. It would make much more sense if this siege happened in 1449, because having Svetigrad under siege in 1448 makes all below decisions absurd:

refuse offer for piece and money from Venetians and to continue war with both Venetian and Ottoman empires
to send detachment of troops to Italy
to continue siege of Dagnum and to start new sieges of Durres and Lezhe with Svetigrad under siege
to accept money and piece from Venetians after Ottoman army already captured Svetigrad and left
to try to recapture Svetigrad one year after it is lost and it's walls already repaired.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Here one of the main contributors to the article agreed about wrong chronology of the Svetigrad siege and wrote: " the dates given Svetigrad-siege-article are wrong, I think, and I am in the process of checking them. ". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Skanderbeg was born in 1405[J] to the noble Kastrioti family in the Dibër region." "Skanderbeg's father was Gjon Kastrioti, lord of Middle Albania, which included Mat, Mirditë, and Dibër." "In 1440 Skanderbeg was appointed as sanjakbey of Sanjak of Debar." " In 1448, he won a battle against Mustafa Pasha in Dibër."

Based on above mentioned sentences, it is not possible to understand if Skanderbeg controlled town Debar after 1443 or not. If he did, it is not clear when he lost control over it. If he did not, how could he won battle against Mustafa Pasha in Diber? I am writing it here because it may be related with problems with chronology of the events connected with Svetigrad which is near Debar. If nobody mentioned how Skanderbeg conquered Svetigrad near Debar, maybe it is safe to conclude that both Debar and Svetigrad were part of sanjak under Skanderbeg's control before he deserted Ottomans in 1443?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Streets in Belgrade

There is a street (Skanderbeg's street, Serbian: Skenderbegova ulica) in central part of Belgrade (Dorćol) named after Skanderbeg.

Also, one of central streets in Belgrade (Serbian: Makedonska ulica was named after Skanderbeg (Serbian: Kastriotova ulica) in period 1872—1896.

Maybe it could be good idea to add this facts in the article, because readers would be able to see that myth about Skanderbeg was popular in Serbia too?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer about Skanderbeg in Das albanesische Element in Griechenland

Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer wrote about Skanderbeg in his work Das albanesische Element in Griechenland and should be listed within Sources section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Turks that are Albanians, Serbs, Bulgars, Vlachs ....

Unresolved

"The military commanders, leaders and simple soldiers, i.e. the whole army fighting against Scanderbeg, consisted of local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs. There were also Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman forces who owned timar lands."Robert Elsie (absolutely non-antialbanian) web site with Oliver Schmitt book

In the text of the article there is mistake which is repeated many times through the text of the article. Ottoman armies that were fighting against forces led by Skanderbeg are referred to as Turks despite the fact that they consisted of not only Turks but Albanians, Serbs, Bulgars, Vlachs ..... and even led by Albanians (like Ballaban, Hamza...). Sometimes it is not mistake if it is describing some war that has common name Turkish war, but most of 42 versions of word Turk in the article is wrong and should be replaced with word Ottoman.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Serbian mother?

Unresolved

Why has every reference to his Serbian mother been deleted? --BHStoria (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't take this article seriously. It is here just to support the albanian national myth. You will be better informed if you read this: http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts21/AH2008_2.html
--79.107.36.150 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this violation of NPOV rule is only one of many issues connected with this article, that were elaborated by many users on this talk page. I tried to summarize all violations of wikipeedia rules and non-resolved issues here.

One user (Exodic) wrote very good comment in this section of talk page. I think that comment can give you a clue to the answer to your question. Exodic expertly reviewed the article and concluded that this article is "a massive POV" because of “group of editors struggling to preserve the nationalistic POV” that “should be warned and reported to administrators”. Unfortunately list of non-resolved issues is not shorter, but only grew bigger in the meantime.

I myself started preparing a list of sources that contain information about Skanderbeg's disputed ethnicity. After more than 50 sources I found myself in absurd situation. Almost every single longer text about Skanderbeg contains informations about disputes of his ethnicity, except this article. In some absurd way, that makes this issue less important, comparing to other non-resolved issues. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Iljaz Hoxha

Iljaz Hoxha is described in this article as a leading Albanian Janissary, scientist, and personal teacher to Ottoman Empire's sultan Bayezid II who was a ruler in the sandjak of Korçë and dedicated his life to the service of the Emperor against Skanderbeg. Maybe it would be a good idea to include this information in the article about Skanderbeg?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional source, Nathalie Clayer

Below is a work that extensively mention Skanderbeg. I propose to include it in list of sources and that some interested user who knows the French language investigate this source and see if article can be edited by using this source.

Clayer, Nathalie (2007), Aux origines du nationalisme albanais: la naissance d'une nation, Karthala, ISBN 978-2-84586-816-8

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Done

Scrolling lists

According to WP:ASL:

“Scrolling lists, or lists of citations appearing within a scroll box, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers. See this July 2007 discussion for more detail.” --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Done

Is it really necessary?

Resolved

Maria Theresa doesn't include anything about the 22nd SS Volunteer Cavalry Division Maria Theresia. All Prince Eugene of Savoy does is mention the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen. All Charlemagne does is mention the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French). Why not leave the SS Skanderbeg details for the main article?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We already had many discussions about using Skanderbeg as inspiration for various things more than 500 years after his death (as it can be seen in previous discusions (like this)). There is WP:NPOV policy that request representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Numerous editors complained about POV of this article, some even describing it as "massive POV". When I saw that someone wrote comment on the talk page of this article I was happy because I hoped that somebody finally is ready to deal with the POV and BIAS issue of the article explained by numerous users and summarized here. I still hope that I was right.

I believe that removing only the part of the article with one (minority) POV and BIAS and leaving the rest of the article with another (majority) POV and BIAS (with more than undue weight in the article) is not only against NPOV policy, but does not help dealing with POV/BIAS issue of the article. If we want to fairly represent all significant views in this article we should remove much more text with majority POV/BIAS before we remove minority POV/BIAS. I propose not to lose the whole picture out of the focus and to work together to place an additional effort to improve the quality of this article to the FA level. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the NPOV policy, I think adding such phrases as their main activities were to terrorize the Serb population of Kosovo, and assisting German forces in rounding up 281 Jews to be sent to their deaths in Bergen-Belsen are a violation of NPOV. This is especially true considering that this is a Balkans topic. I would at least be willing to accept a rewording to reach WP:CON. The given source does not present the issue in such a way and I doubt Elsie would take such a tone considering that he is an Albanophile. How about: While never becoming as significant a force as their Communist Partisan enemies, its numbers were enough to terrorize the Serb population and arrest 281 Jews to be sent to Bergen-Belsen. Not including the Partizani would paint an unfair picture of the Albanian involvement in WWII which only helps the anti-Albanian side. It also ruins the original integrity of the source.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and proposal for rewording. I will consider it as your acceptance to join our efforts to resolve POV/BIAS issues in order to improve the quality of the article. Therefore I will make initial step. You can consider that two of us reached consensus that we should leave only first sentence: Fully understanding the importance to the Albanians of the hero, Nazi Germany formed in February 1944, the 21st SS Division Skanderbeg, with 6,491 Kosovo Albanians. I look forward to our cooperation in bringing this article to FA level.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. I'll go ahead and change it then.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added to the article on the Skanderbeg division details of a book in French on the division (unfortunately I can't afford it! 25 GB pounds for a paperback…) Ning-ning (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Ah, the dreaded infobox discussions again :-) The monarch infobox doesn't have much guidelines, but there are other infoboxes with similar fields and guidelines that tell us how to use those fields. First, the official template for the monarch infobox: Template:Infobox monarch

One editor is right that the "name" field must be in English because this is the English WP. However, up to 8 variations of the name in native languages can be specified and it's totally acceptable to list Albanian, Latin, Greek, Serbian etc. in this case. This doesn't mean we can just start translating and adding native names... they must be in a source. The difficulty is that the infobox doesn't support citations, so we must use another system for this and I see two possibilities: the source is in the prose of the Name section, or list the source in this section of the talk page.

Also, in general it is recommended to add fields to this infobox as info becomes available. I see several fields that need attention, like "children", "Religious beliefs" etc. I think a footnote explaining his "Moslim period" would be good and if I'm not mistaken, the template does support footnotes. --DeVerm (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

There are some editors, who once in a while make the same edits on Skanderbeg and restart the same discussions. Btw the parameter |native language deals with the native language of Skanderbeg not languages of the area.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues is right. These topics have been discussed over and over again.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi ZjarriRrethues. Yes, dealing with the same issues over and over again isn't much fun. In case there ever was consensus over such an edit, it helps to put it into a Template:FAQ section of the talk page (so that it doesn't get archived away) and point the editor to that instead of restarting the same discussion. If there wasn't consensus before, let it happen again while sticking to something like WP:BRD so that it can be put in the FAQ section afterwards.

About the native language parameter: do you have a pointer to the information that supports your view of the use of it? The reason I have doubts is that there are 8 native language parameters and I don't think any single person can have 8 native languages?! Also, the infobox exists for the benefit of readers of WP, which tends to support my view that these fields are used for variations of his name that are well known or even the only name used by a significant group of readers. --DeVerm (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

I agree with DeVerm. Additionally, I propose not to increase number of citations within the article and to list the sources for all native names within separate section of the talk page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken "native" is the language spoken by one's parents. The only original author who could shed some light on that is Barleti, but he doesn't even say that G.Sk. was speaking albanian (if we suppose that his father was speaking albanian). He says that G.S's mother was serbian (triballian) and that later G.S. learned "turkish, greek, serbian, latin". This information is open to interpretation. "Learn" could mean that he "studied", as all those languages had a writing system which has to be taught by a teacher. It does not include albanian in the languages he learned. This can either mean that he knew how to speak (not necessarily by his father) or there was nothing to learn as albanian was not written or he didn't speak albanian at all. If we rely on Schmitt, his father was a byzantine-serb from the Chernojevic family and therefore he couldn't be native albanian speaker from father. Of course he could learn albanian from his environment, but there is no source supporting that his "native language" was albanian and that somebody called him "Gjerg". We'd better leave out of the box these speculations and at best stick them in other parts of the article.
Btw, I see that some user added the name of Chernojevic which was hastily erased with a foul comment. The name of Chernojevic is well supported by modern literature and if used in Serbia could be included. There is no reason why the albanian version has a priority, unless there is some kind of copyright. --Euzen (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Euzen since Barleti doesn't say that Triballian means Serb, so please stick to the sources. Btw Albanian people speak Albanian, so you don't need a source to prove that.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost every single longer text about Skanderbeg, except this article, contains informations about disputes of his ethnicity list of sources. Therefore I fully agree with ZjarriRrethues. Let us really stick to the sources and avoid constant edit wars by adding his name on Greek and Serbian language.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the English WP so the main name in the template is the name as listed in English literature. This leaves the eight native language fields for showing his name as spelled by himself and the peoples among which he lived. It is simple as that. Find the citation for the spelling of his name for any of these languages, mention it here and include it in the infobox template. Don't just argue about it here without giving explicit pointers to the source involved.

The first paragraph is another thing; here, the English name plus only the most used native names should be listed because it is a summary, not a complete list. Skanderbeg was active in both Albanian and Ottoman armies/culture so I think that defines two extra languages for the lead. If Skanderbeg used Latin to write his own name, that should also be included here. Any additional spellings in other languages, along with citations and explanation belong in the next section: "Name".

I agree that the revert did have a not-so-civil comment. The editor who did the edit has a small list of contributions and nothing indicating edit warring so I don't think he deserved that... but even if he did, comments should still be civil. --DeVerm (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

OK. I wrote his name (Ђурађ Кастриот Скендербег) on Serbian Cyrillic alphabet because it is the way his name was "spelled by himself and the peoples among which he lived". Here is the link to the source with "citation for the spelling of his name" in the document which is the earliest record of his name "ćiriličkim" (English: cyrilic). That name is written on the language he and members of his family ("peoples among which he lived") used in the documents mentioned in the article as First Act of Hilandar and Second Act of Hilandar.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Antid. don't add names just because they are found in various documents. Skanderbeg was also mentioned in Spanish and German documents of the era, but we shouldn't add them too. All languages are found in the name section and so please don't irrelevant ones on the infobox. DeVerm Gaius is the most experienced Skanderbeg-related editor and he was written many GAs about his battles.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, why did you revert this edit: [11] from Antid? In your edit summary you write to "stick to the sources" but here you seem to agree that his source is solid, but you compare it with Spanish and German? Did Skanderbeg write his name in Spanish or German? Did he actually write his name in Serbian Cyrillic? If so, pls, elaborate on the reason you reverted his edit. FYI: adding data into more fields of the infoboxes is a general guideline on WP. It allows automatic cross-indexing etc.

About Gaius: sorry, I don't know him other than seeing his name here. But even if I did, there is no possible excuse for being rude to editors on WP, regardless of how many edits or GA articles one wrote. It is just not tolerated which is why it is a WP policy, see wp:civil for details. Also, assuming good faith of other editors is a guideline: wp:agf --DeVerm (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Link brought by Antid continues the obviously wrong link of Branilo Castriot 1368 which it has been discussed before that these is dead wrong. I would like the contributors of this talk page and article itself to have a look in talk page history before editing or making comments. Sincerely it is becoming boring having to repeat the same arguments over and over again. Aigest (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. I would like to ad that the document is not written by Scanderbeg it does not belong to his correspondence but it is written from the monks of the Hilandar monastery. It is the case when the father of Scanderbeg, John Castrioti gives two villages in his dominion to this monastery. They use the (unusual) Russian form Ivan for the name of John Castriot. In other historical documents the name of John Castriot is Juanum Castrioti (1407), Johannes Castriot (1413, 1417, 1433), Yanus (1424) or Juano Castrioth (1439), Juani (1445), Johannes Dibras (Volaterranus). In Ottoman sources Juvan (read Jovan, but not Ivan) and his dominion Juvan-ili (Juvan or Jovan land) while we have also Muzaka geneallogy which calls him Giovanni Castriota. In Albanian the original biblical form Johannes gives either Jovan or Gjon. In North Albania the Gjon form is dominant and it appears even in south.They are documented also in Ottoman registers. Aigest (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Link that I brought has nothing to do with Branilo Castriot and discussion you provided link for. It is source for for "citation for the spelling of his name" "ćiriličkim" (English: cyrilic) as DeVerm proposed to do. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

DeVerm Antid. brought a link from the Hilandar monastery, where Skanderbeg's name has been documented as it has been documented in other versions in Slavic languages(Ragusan documents) and other languages. All these versions and languages aren't his native language. The |native language parameter isn't used about all the languages, in which someone's name may have been documented.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we had already repeated many arguments, but not at the link provided by Aigest, but here you can find list of seven special rules and principles valid only for Serbian language. This newest (number 8) rule to spell Skanderbeg's name only like in "document is written by Scanderbeg" is also the criteria valid only for Serbian language. But OK, this criteria is met:

Dr. Gordana Jovanović, professor on Belgrade University and member of Institute for Serbian language on Serbian academy of science and art wrote here that:

"Two short letters sent by Đurađ Kastriot to the citizens of Dubrovnik (year 1450 and 1459) bear witness of existence of a scribe for Serbian language correspondence in Đurađ's court Office. In that time, in Albanian milieu, Serbian was a sort of official language in communicating with neighboring Slavic region."

Also in this page, on Serbian language is written that Skanderbeg signed himself as Đurađ Kastriot so called Skenderbeg in Serbian language in the documents published in "F. Miklosich, Monumenta serbica, Wiennae 1858, str. 442, 482.".

Although Skanderbeg's name written in Albanian language does not meet most of the criteria established for Serbian language, I do not mind his name written in Albanian language too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Euzen since Barleti doesn't say that Triballian means Serb, so please stick to the sources. Btw Albanian people speak Albanian, so you don't need a source to prove that.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC) "
ZR please realize that this discussion is between people who have at least an average education. In the case that your comments are targeting passers-by: For Triballians meaning Serbs see WP article Names of the Serbs and Serbia with plenty of references. On the other hand Barleti did not say that Triballian means Albanian. The only reason that Voysava remains "Tribalda" is that no administrator cares of these articles.

Who are the "Albanian people" who have to speak Albanian? Did the Greeks, the Serbs, the Latins, the Gypsies who lived in medieval Albania have albanian as "native language"? We do need a source to prove that. --Euzen (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Because his biographers say he was an Albanian, not a Greek, Serb, Latin, Gypsy or Vlach living in Albania, simple as that. Aigest (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost every single work about Skanderbeg, except this article, contains informations about disputes of his ethnicity list of sources. I believe that any attempt to write Skanderbeg's name on Albanian language (twice), Turkish or Latin while avoiding writing his name on Serbian and Greek language (or any other that can be supported with referenced sources and citations) would be violation of WP:NPOV. I propose not to violate WP:NPOV anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Antid. his name isn't also included in Croatian, Spanish, German, Dutch, Hebrew and even Chinese because not all names are relevant and please don't start the same disputes that have been refuted by admins.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page FAQ

Being an un-involved editor here unfortunately also means that I know very little about the subject. But seeing the discussion here, this might actually be okay... let's try to get some points clear before we go back to the yes/no discussions that have hunted this article for so long; Pls. comment within the points below and cite a reference:

Skanderbeg was born in what is Albania today? It would be correct to call him Albanian if so.

It would not be correct to call him Albanian because it could mislead readers to believe that he was ethnic Albanian, and disputes about his nationality are published in almost every work about him. Additionally, Albania did not exist in middle ages. It was founded almost 500 years after Skanderbeg lived. Extensive using of term Albania and Albanian could mislead the readers to believe that Albania existed 500 years before it was established. Neutral scholar says It is therefore recommended to introduce the term "region of Albania" instead of Albania, so no associations can come up with a political entity or a particular culture, but to point out that "Albania" in the Middle Ages is a geographic concept. Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2001), Das venezianische Albanien (1392-1479), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH München, p. 47, ISBN 3-486-56569--9, Albanien war im Mittelalter kein staat. (Albania was not a state in the Middle Ages.)...Eine eigenständige albanische Kultur gab es nicht. Es empfiehlt sich deshalb, Anstelle von Albanien den Terminus "albanischer Raum" einzuführen, der keine Assoziationen mit einem politischen Gebilde oder einer besonderen Kultur aufkommen lässt, sondern darauf hinweist, das "Albanien" im Mittelalter ein geographicer Begriff ist. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |editorn-last=, |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As usual you are just OR-ing Antid. I can not understand your logic and arguments "Additionally, Albania did not exist in middle ages. It was founded almost 500 years after Skanderbeg lived. Extensive using of term Albania and Albanian could mislead the readers to believe that Albania existed 500 years before it was established." let me see.....

Apparently you don't know what you are talking about Aigest (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Albanians... were nomadic tribes in the interior of the country who seem only rarely to have ventured down onto the marshy and mosquito-infected coastline...they entered the annals of recorded history ... from the eleventh century....As a herding comunity in an isolated mountainous region, the Albanians did not succeed in creating an independent state of their own until the early twentieth century. Indeed a strong sense of ethnic identity, as we conceive nowadays, probably only crystallized in the nineteenth century."Elsie, Robert (2005), Albanian literature: a short history, London: I.B. Tauris in association with the Centre for Albanian Studies, p. 4, ISBN 1845110315, retrieved February 2, 2011 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |editorn-last=, |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

→ Even though my question wasn't answered directly, I guess the answer is Yes, Skanderbeg was born in what is Albania today. It is common practice on WP to call him Albanian in article prose and move the details (controversies/disputes) to a footnote or section explaining more. The number of sources mentioned indicates a section is more likely than a footnote. If people really like to dig this out to the roots, a separate article might be the solution, which can be linked to a section here as "Main article: ...". Let me give an example: in the Dutch East Indies article the native peoples are regularly called Indonesians, even though Indonesia didn't exist for the next 350 years or so and there were dozens, if not hundreds tribes, Kingdoms, Sultanates etc. The article would become unreadable if you enter a list of possibilities every time his "nationality" is mentioned.
Also, pls. note that ethnicity is something different, i.e. there are multiple ethnic groups living in about every nation of the World (example: an Australian who belongs to a Dutch ethnic group is still an Australian). --DeVerm (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

I do not agree with your examples but I do agree with your deduction. Your examples are wrong because the concept of nationality is not the same everywhere. (In some areas of the world, one's nationality is determined by their ethnicity, rather than citizenship.) If we apply your example to other people we will have absurd situaton (Constantine the Great is born at what is Serbia today? It would be correct to call him Serbian if so. Homer is born at what is Turkey today? It would be correct to call him Turk if so.)

I provided a source that clearly state that it would be wrong to state that Skanderbeg had Albanian ethnicity or citizenship.

The same source clearly indicate that Albanian can be used only as Demonym. That is the word I believe you missed. If so, I fully agree that it can be used, but only with proper explanation in footnote or controversies section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Demonym... yes, sort of. But Skanderbeg was more than just a resident of the area because he was also born there. A resident can be born elsewhere. The only reason that one can't state that he was an Albanian citizen is that there was no Albania at the time. But I think we're steadily steering towards a consensus: a footnote explaining why he is called Albanian in most of the article and a section about the controversy of his ethnicity and that of his parents. If that section becomes too big it can become a separate article linked to the section. I am convinced a separate article will pass the notability test. --DeVerm (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

During the lifetime of Skanderbeg, the native population of what is now Albania spoke Albanian? Reading the Albanian language article, I conclude they did speak Albanian? (p.s. it is irrelevant what language unrelated immigrants in Albania spoke)

Here is (already mentioned above) that contain information that people in Albania spoke Greek, Latin, Serbian or Italian: "Official documents and correspondence in the late Middle Ages and the early Renaissance were written in languages with en established litterary tradition: Greek, Latin, Serbian or Italian, depending in most cases who ruled the territory in question." which proves that those languages were spoken, or they could not be written.Elsie, Robert (2005), Albanian literature: a short history, London: I.B. Tauris in association with the Centre for Albanian Studies, p. 4, ISBN 1845110315, retrieved February 2, 2011 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |editorn-last=, |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Antid. the question about the native language of the population and not the lingua franca used in documents of each era. After Catholic domination and the change of the from Byzantine Greek to Latin, the population didn't become Latin from Byzantine.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No it is not the question. The question was what language spoke native population. It is impossible for native population to write something in Greek, Latin, Serbian or Italian if they did not speak those languages.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My question wasn't about which languages they could speak. My question is about which language was used when Skanderbeg walked out the door and met somebody in the village. Example: the people in Holland can all speak and write English, German, French etc. but their primary language is still Dutch... it is the language they use when they meet each other in the streets. So, my question should have been what their primary language was? Anybody has the answer? --DeVerm (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

OK. In that case I will quote Mazower, Mark (2001) [2000]. "Before the nation.". The Balkans, From the End of Byzantium to the Present Day. Great Britain: Phoenix Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-8421-2544-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help) Mark Mazower has written extensively on Balkan history. His book The Balkans: A Short History, that was later reprinted as The Balkans, From the End of Byzantium to the Present Day, won the Wolfson History Prize (prize that "promotes and encourages standards of excellence in the writing of history for the general public"). Here is what he says about language that inhabitants of Albania spoke after "Slavic tribes ...over roghly 200 years, they settled permanently in large numbers... accros the peninsula as far south as Peloponnese... The area's existing inhabitants:

In Albania they found refuge in he mountains, preserving their distinct language amid what became a largerly Slavic-speaking zone of settlement. The Greeks ... were penned into isolated areas - islands or into walled towns and depopulated cities ....
— Mark Mazower

Based on this source I think that we can conclude that people that lived in Albania spoke Albanian, Slavic (Serbian) and Greek. I think that Slavic language in this case could also mean Bulgarian but since the writer is describing Bulgarians as "Turkic Bulgars" on the same page I believe that he did not have in mind Bulgarian language.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Antid. Mazower's text is about the Slavic migrations in the Balkans not the middle ages in Albania. The authors doesn't mention the Bulgarians as Bulgars, because at the time of their settlement in the Balkans they were Bulgars not Bulgarians, which emerged as a distinct people later.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any source (preferably other than an Albanian or Serbian or Greek source), that tells us what language Skanderbeg spoke at home with his parents?

Is it correct that Skanderbeg learned to speak (write?) Ottoman/Turk in either form? I would suppose he did but are there sources available?

Are there any surviving documents written by Skanderbeg or his parents?

Skanderbeg's father was Albanian? Neutral sources?

List of more than 50 sources describing disputed ethnicity of Skanderbeg, with citations about his or his parents non-Albanian or mixed nationality--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that none of the sources above claiming Serb descendant for Scanderbeg is a biographer of Scanderbeg, just short sentences of authors not surely RS on this topic on 600 years of publication you can find even the most strangest things. That's why WP:RS is and that's why biographers are more RS on those matters. Some wrong translation from Hopf as explained by Scanderbeg biographers keep coming to this article over and over again. For Scanderbeg ethnicity see sources of the article.Aigest (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

→ Let's see if I got it right: his father was either Albanian, Greek or Serbian? Anything about his place of birth? --DeVerm (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Skanderbeg's mother was Serbian? Neutral sources? Or Macedonian or anything else? Neutral sources?

List of more than 50 sources describing disputed ethnicity of Skanderbeg, with citations about his or his parents non-Albanian or mixed nationality--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that none of the sources above claiming Serb descendant for Scanderbeg is a biographer of Scanderbeg, just short sentences of authors not surely RS on this topic on 600 years of publication you can find even the most strangest things. That's why WP:RS is and that's why biographers are more RS on those matters. Some wrong translation from Hopf as explained by Scanderbeg biographers keep coming to this article over and over again. For Scanderbeg ethnicity see sources of the article.Aigest (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

→ Let's see if I got it right: his mother was either Albanian, Bulgarian or Serbian? Anything about her place of birth? --DeVerm (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC). Before adding comments, pls. don't state your opinion, only what established scholars have documented about it. Add a source to every comment made; it's okay to comment to a comment: use an extra indent in that case and state a source for those comments too. It is okay (I even expect) if there are conflicting sources... this is quite normal for this time period; just let it happen, don't try to make a source go away if you don't like it but also do not hesitate to comment on the source if you think it is not reliable... just make sure to show (again) a source for your POV about that. I propose to use the outcome of this discussion for a FAQ on this talk-page so that it doesn't have to repeat anymore --DeVerm (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

DeVerm there has been a RfC about the ethnicity so please add that to the FAQ, in order to avoid for the nth time the same discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody have a pointer to the RfC? --DeVerm (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

this is the RFC, where user:Future Perfect at Sunrise stated that none of the sources that depict Skanderbeg as non-Albanian sound reliable. This page has been trolled by a lot of editors, who want to make Skanderbeg something else, other than Albanian, but they have brought only fringe stuff so far. User:Antidiskriminator seems to be one of them, as he has been warned from an admin apparently for his refusal to accept consensus at Skanderbeg. The warning was logged into the ARBCOM log. I reviewed today Skanderbeg's Italian expedition, that Antidiskriminator had taken upon himself as a reviewer, although he had been warned in the past that he can't accept consensus at Skanderbeg, so he can't be held neutral. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

tnx for the link. I must say that I find that RfC rather thin and I also see a source that I think can be defended as RS. The thing is, Consensus can change so an old RfC will loose its value over time. Also, I'm not touching the ethnicity subject... there's enough to be done already :) --DeVerm (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

Who is that user who can "state" what is reliable and what is not? A "statement" can be made only by a person with a name and an authority. The only complete critical modern biography of Sk. is that of Oliver Schmitt who claims that Sk. was probably Serbian.

"Relations had always been close to the Serb princely dynasty of the Brankovići. Blood ties seem to have existed since the time of Scanderbeg’s father. The younger generation of the Castriotas certainly had ties: Scanderbeg’s son Ivan married Irene Branković whose mother was a Byzantine princess of imperial lineage. The two families, i.e. the famous old Brankovići and the young and dynamic Castriotas gave support to one another. The Castriotas gave shelter to the Brankovići when they were on the run and reinforced their mutual ties by marriage".

(http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts21/AH2008_2.html).
(This is really a "statement" by a professor of history). But even if you don't accept Schmitt and you take the original biography of Barleti, the base of every other biography, he nowhere says that Sk. was Albanian in the national sense. He is "Epirote" and "Prince of the Epirotes", and he occasionally uses "Albanian" with the explanation, "in other words Epirote". Neither his father John is mentioned as "Albanian", not even "Epirote". According to Barleti he was from Aemathia, i.e. Macedonia with no other details.
--Euzen (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Euzen Barleti doesn't say that Aemathia is in what you consider as Macedonia and he doesn't use your definition of Epirus.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just added the FAQ to the top of this page and included 4 Q&A that I could pull out of this section. Please put any additional points that are being discussed over and over again in this FAQ and work towards consensus on this talk page. You can add Q's for which there isn't consensus yet (points that need to be worked out) in the FAQ too, calling for discussion towards consensus in the Answer. Do not forget to state your published source(s) for any possible (part of) the answer and discuss if that source is WP:RS in this talk page. Make a separate talk-page section for each item of the FAQ so that it can be found here on in the archives reasonably easy
If everybody brings up the discipline for this, it should mean the end of the edit wars for this article or at least move it to this talk page instead of the article itself. If there is no consensus yet for an item and you think the stated answer is wrong, do not remove it but use the strike-through tag instead and state your case, with good sources and arguments, in the relevant section of the talk page. Any FAQ answer, or part of the answer, must come straight out of a reputable source, ie. no WP:OR etc. --DeVerm (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

DeVerm I made some edits to the FAQ, because there is no dispute about Skanderbeg's father and there aren't sources that claim that his mother was Bulgarian, while the language issue is that of a lingua franca not about groups of emigrants. Sources make no reference to groups of Serbian emigrants in medieval Albania and Skanderbeg never wrote any document in Serbian.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose to stick to the sources. Serbs were not emigrants ("leaving one's country or region to settle in another") in Albania because during many centuries "they settled permanently in large numbers" as cited in above source. No Serb could not live longer than average human life, not to mention centuries. Serbs settled permanently in Albania and their children were born in Albania, and their children also had children born in Albania etc. Also, look at Albania under the Serbian Empire which says that Albania was part of Serbian Empire in period that “covers the history of Albania between the late 12th century, until the half of the 14th”. One can not be treated like emigrant in the country that he was born. Serbian language was not "lingua franca" of "groups of emigrants" but language that Serbs that lived in Albania spoke and write. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That was added by DeVerm ~~and which above source refers to Serbs settling in large numbers?~~ Antid. Mazower's text is about the Slavic migrations in the Balkans not the middle ages in Albania. Btw FutureP has told you that because your limited knowledge of the English language you make many mistakes and you should edit articles that don't require advanced knowledge of the English language. Although you shouldn't quote wikipedia articles, you can't even understand basic English phrases like Along with the Serbian ruled Albania, there was also an Albanian state, the Principality of Arbër, and later the Kingdom of Albania. These three entities, covers the history of Albania between the late 12th century, until the half of the 14th century. The Serbian empire lasted from 1346 to 1371, so it wasn't a lingua franca.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

At least he, like most of us, understands what "emmigrant" means. Anyway this is irrelevant. If John Castrioti was Serb and he alone wanted to settle in Albania, there was no borders control to ask his passport, was there? Btw, the "kingtoms" of Albania were established by the Normans and other Crusaders and were not national states. Please stop littering WP with bogus Albanian states and governments. Albanians did not even know how to write their names by that time, did they?--Euzen (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would kindly propose to follow the guidelines and to use this article's talk page to discuss content of the article and edits and comments written on this talk page. I found entire discussion about content of this article (and about comments and sources brought by other users and me personally) on DeVerm's talk page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose not to violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and to "comment on content, not on the contributor." Therefore I will ignore comments about my "limited knowledge of the English language" which is enough to know that "immigration is the introduction of new people into a habitat or population. It is a biological concept differentiated from emigration and migration."

I did not quote that source to prove that Skanderbeg's father was Serb, but to answer the question about languages spoken in Albania ("My question is about which language was used when Skanderbeg walked out the door and met somebody in the village") and to support claim that Serbs were not a "groups of emmigants" but native population that settled permanently in Albania and established "a largerly Slavic-speaking zone of settlement". Serbs were permanently settled in Albania from 6th century till today. Even today, centuries after Serbian Empire collapsed there are Serbs and many other non-Albanians living in Albania. To claim that all Serbian population suddenly disappeared after Battle of Savra in 1385. and suddenly appeared after Skanderbeg died in 1468 is disruptive editing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Antid. the source is about the Slavic migrations in the Balkans not Albania of the middle ages and read WP:OR.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Read again the title of the book. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Descendants

The descendants section is in need of pictures and some sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

sandwiched text

WP:MOSIMAGE says: Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.. After last change there are portions of text sandwiched between two images. I propose to follow the rules and avoid that.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

fixed --DeVerm (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Discussions about (reliable) sources

As I just started the FAQ on this page and worked through some messages, I realized it's time to say something about sources because I think a lot of discussion about them is going to happen. Editors will come forward with statements backed by a source and others will disagree with it and reply that the source is no good etc. Even for editors who already know this, I think it doesn't hurt to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources again. It explains it all really. If there is no way to gain consensus about a source, do not forget that WP has a noticeboard for exactly that purpose: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Just by reading some of the cases on that noticeboard, you will get a good feeling how "your source" will be looked upon. As soon as there is consensus that a source is reliable (either here or by using the noticeboard), the rest becomes much easier. --DeVerm (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

FAQ: What language did they speak in Albania during Skanderbeg's lifetime?

Unresolved

Okay, this still isn't clear to me and this FAQ item needs to be 100% clear and complete so here is the question I put out again: were there significant ethnic groups in Albania that, as their primary language, spoke Serbian, Greek or any other language during Skanderbeg's lifetime? Second question: what were the written languages used in Albania during Skanderbeg's lifetime? This can't be too hard to get right? --DeVerm (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Pal Engjëlli and the baptism formula, the first existing text written in Albanian, demonstrate that although the Albanian was not a liturgical language like Latin or Greek, the clergy in Albania could read and write in Albanian but not only, the population which was meant to use that formula was an Albanian speaking population. Aigest (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that an answer to my question? If so, please elaborate because I can't follow you. --DeVerm (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Ethnic groups are really a different topic and a matter of another dispute (certainly in the north there were Serbophone/Slavophone groups, and Grecophone in the south, while some of the Cities had had an ethnically Latin/Roman/Vlach population, speaking Latin), but the official languages of Scanderbey's Albania were Serbian, Latin and Greek; that's a historical fact. --AVNOJist (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry AVNO, but what is a historical fact for you, isn't for me. Where is stated that there were official languages during Skanderbeg's life? That would be the first part of your statement that I would like to see confirmed in sources. --DeVerm (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

(unindent ignoring trolls)Pal Engjëlli (1416–1470) was an Albanian Catholic clergyman, Archbishop of Durrës and Cardinal of Albania who in 1462 wrote the first known sentence retrieved so far in Albanian. Pal Engjëlli is reported to have been a friend, co-worker and close counselor of Skanderbeg. As his envoy, he frequently traveled abroad, seeking for aid in the war against the Ottoman Empire. The sentence of the baptismal formula in (Albanian: Formula e pagëzimit) ): Un'te paghesont' pr'emenit t'Atit e t'Birit e t'Spirit Senit. (English: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and modern Albanian: Unë të pagëzoj në emër të Atit, të Birit, e të Shpirtit të Shenjtë). The formula was found in a pastoral letter written in Latin by Engjëlli after his visit to the Church of Holy Trinity in Mat. The letter is dated November 8, 1462. The formula was meant to be used by Albanian priests to render the ritual understandable for people ignorant of Latin. It was meant also to be used by Albanian people in the countryside, unable to take their children to be baptized to a church. The formula was approved by a synod in Mat, Albania, in 1462. The document containing the baptismal formula is held in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence, Italy. It was discovered in 1915 by the Romanian scholar Nicolae Iorga. Aigest (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Albanian is already listed as the language spoken. The use of Latin by Catholic churches is a world-wide phenomenon; it doesn't say anything about languages in use in the country. But this source can prove that Albanian was also a written language at that time. --DeVerm (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

That source proves also that the Catholic priests could read and write in Albanian (they have continued to do that later, see Gjon Buzuku, Pjetër Budi, Pjetër Bogdani and Albanian language article; all above and later were catholic priests and are considered pioneers of Albanian literature) and also the population they were preaching was an Albanian speaking population, otherwise that baptism formula to be used was of no sense for Italian, Greek, Serbian, Vlach speaking population. Do you have another explanation for that fact? They were called Albanians, could read, write and spoke Albanian, chances are they are Albanians don't you think? Again I am aware of your efforts, but there are users here interested only on trolling. I am pretty sure some months later this question will be reopened again and we are only loosing time. If we keep arguing about obvious things just imagine if we deal with a controversial issue. Aigest (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

sigh Aigest... you want to see that Albanian is the language... but it is already listed as the language and now you attack me because of that? You really lost your way or I really do not understand what you want. If somebody knows what he means, please help :-) --DeVerm (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

There are sources provided in above section for information that Albanian, Serbian and Greek language were spoken in Albania, and only Albanian language is listed in FAQ. Why aren't Greek and Serbian language listed too? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unified Albania?

"although a unified Albania didn't exist in his lifetime" is written in the FAQ.

I propose to avoid term "unified Albania" because it is usually associated with Greater Albania. One of many links. [12]. We should write state instead of unified. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The term is related to the existence of many Albanian principalities not greater Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that in middle age Albania everybody who had more than 500 goats was a Prince--Euzen (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC) :)

Thanks for enlightening us with your brilliant response.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section "Notes on the terms Epirus and Albania"

A user requested my contribution to a possible paragraph with explanations on the terms “Albania” and “Albanian”. I agree that such a small paragraph is needed if the article is to be encyclopaedic, as these terms have various meanings in the cited sources.
Rationale
The average reader will notice that the original biography of Sk. is titled “Historia de vita … Epirotarum principis” and that most subsequent translations talk about “Albanian” and the word “Epirus” is almost non-existing in the article. Are these two terms synonyms? If the reader visits the articles “Albania” and “Epirus” he will find that they are not synonyms today. Combining this question with the existence of 6 pages of discussions, he will suspect that WP hides a “deadly secret”. With some more googling in various unreliable forums and blogs the reader will find that Sk. can be either Albanian, Epirote, Serb, Bulgarian or Greek or a little bit of everything, and this uncertainty can shadow the whole article, which is not fair. Therefore, it is essential to clarify these terms and to explain what happened.

Information and references to consider

Epirus was a wide geographical area reaching as south as Akarnania in today’s Greece (refs available).
The term “Albania” for parts of Epirus was possibly (re)introduced by the Normans who conquered that area in 12th centuryChekrezi C. Albania Past and Present, MacMillan, 1919, p. 21. For earlier references (Ptolemy etc) the reader may be directed to other articles.

Primary sources on Skanderbeg, and indeed Barleti, use the term “Albania” and “Albanian” interchangably with “Epirus” and “Epirote” in their geographical sense (citations from Barleti available). Blancus-Bardi, born in Albania (1606-1643) and speaking Albanian, lists several of Skadnerbeg’s contemporary sources (mainly historians and official epistles) in which he is called either “Albanian” or “Epirote” or even “Macedonian” (Blancus, pp. 57 -64. In p. 64: “… in suis operibus eundem Scanderbegum passim Castriotam, Albanesium, Albanum, Epirotam, & Epirensem appellat.”, which means "(authors) in their works call him Castrioti, Albanian, Epirote").

The synonymy between Albania and Epirus (and Albanian and Epirote) is stressed in the primary sources on Castrioti family (e.g. Barleti) and also in secondary works (e.g. Gibbon: Gibbon Edward, The history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire, vol. 8, p. 111, Philadelphia, 1805 “John Castriot … was the hereditary prince of a small district of Epirus or Albania, …” ).

Some early translators of Barleti’s biography from Latin to western european languages arbitrarily replaced the term “Epirus” by the term “Albania” and “Albanian”. For example De Lavardin translated the “Epirotarum principis” to “roy d'Albanie” in 1576. Subsequent works based on those first translations repeat and multiply the term “Albanian” till 19th century when this acquired its national meaning. However, some authors preserved the term “Epirus” referring to the origins of Castrioti family (e.g. Vialla de Sommières, 1828, Travels in Montenegro, London, 1828, p. 107. http://books.google.gr/books?id=KYVCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=laverdin+skanderbeg&source=bl&ots=itx2kjj-Em&sig=MWqQhF8wdcLFNtf0wa6HWe0Tn2I&hl=el&ei=Em_mTNAZiIDkBq7v8fgC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false).
Also, Clement Moore in his 1850 work on Sk. says that "the two names (Epirus and Albania) are used indifferently" (page 7, footnote). The same author shows that even in mid 19th century the "King of Albania" was not expected to be ethnic Albanian, since the title of his book is "George Castriot ... King of Albania" while he believes that he was "a son of a Grecian prince named John Castriot, who reigned in Epire, ... now called Albania ..."Moore Clement C. (1850) George Castriot surnamed Scanderbeg, King of Albania, D. Appleton & Co., New York, p. 7..

Modern critical authors also explain that “Albanian” has a geographical meaning in the various sources (Schmitt).

Proposed paragraph

The older name of the geographical area where Sk. was born and gave most of his battles was Epirus (references). At his time many population groups or individuals did not have a national identity in the contemporary sense, or this identity was secondary to the religion and language (references). Therefore, in many original sources Sk. is called Epirote or Albanian interchangeably and indifferently till the 19th century. Most authors use these terms in their geographical sense and do not confer their personal opinion on Sk’s nationality. Some do believe that Sk. was Albanian as other support other nationalities (e.g. Clement Moore believes he was Greek). Works from 19th c. onwards, especially after the formation of the Albanian state, may use these terms with national implications, supporting either that Sk. was ethnic Albanian or that he was not, or that his ethnicity is unknown to the authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The first 3 lines of your proposed paragraph are in line with your statement about confusion between Albanian and Epirus. After that (sentence 4-6) you fall back to the tiring same ethnicity again. Therefor, I oppose the paragraph --DeVerm (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Maybe we do not need more than 3 lines about this Albanian-Epirus issue. In that case, the first 3 lines could serve as the "small paragraph" "about confusion between Albanian and Epirus" within separate section that we mentioned before?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the paragraph too and Euzen please read OR and RS, because the only sourced part of that paragraph is that the term Epirus was also used to designate the entire area of Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not add the references in the proposed paragraph to make it short, but most of them are given in the previous section ("Information etc") and more are at hand. Some of us are very predictably opposing this paragraph because they are OK with the semasiological shift "geographic Albania > ethnic Albania". (We've spent already pages of discussion about the cyclic logic "Sk. was Albanian, therefore was speaking Albanian, and because he was speaking Albanian he was ethnic Albanian").
If you agree that there is a historical/semantic gap between "Epirus" and "Albania" in the article and that WP owes to the reader some explanation, you may propose here a possible addition. Don't worry about references, there are plenty. --Euzen (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Potable water in dictionary

Done

Is it really necessary to have link to definition of potable water in wictionary?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted this unnecessary link.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversies section

Antid. you 13k of data, most of which were unnecessary parameters of sources that you didn't use. The small amount of actual text was either unrelated to Skanderbeg or the usual pov that has been refuted countless times. I'll try to salvage some of the sources, but per WP:BOLD you shouldn't try adding the same pov for the nth time. Btw you don't know French, so please don't try using French-language sources you tried to translate with online software.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I couldn't even understand what Antid. wrote. I think you (this is addressed to Antid.) should take Fut. Perf's advice and stick to editing in less controversial sections. [13]--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On the road to GA and FA

Unresolved

Initial step for improving the quality of this article is made. Let us not stop now. Lets deal with non-resolved issues to bring this article to GA and then FA level.

I propose to read GA nomination reviews review num 1 and GA review num 2, to read again talk pages and to try to deal with non-resolved issues one by one. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Skanderbeg and Albanian Nationalism" section

In last review of this article GAN User:DeVerm wrote:

"It is not very difficult to do this right: just make a section called "Skanderbeg and Albanian Nationalism" and record all "controversial" or Albanian-POV parts in that section."

He is not the first editor suggesting this. I fully agree with him. What do other intersted editors think about the proposed name of the section?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the name sux :) I just couldn't come up with anything better. Phrasing like Skanderbeg as heroic symbol of the Albanian state will probably be much better. This is _the_ place to come up with the most glorious description possible. --DeVerm (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

I don't agree. Your first proposal was much better because he was symbol of the Albanian nation before establishing of the Albanian nation-state in XX century, which was result of Albanian national awakening with Skanderbeg as its significant part. Also, the most glorious description is probably not appropriate for such important person.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

True; example changed to: Skanderbeg as heroic symbol of the Albanian people or even Skanderbeg as heroic symbol of Albanian nationalism. For "glorious description" I mean the section title itself; the prose under this section should be encyclopaedic quality again. I think the section should start by explaining -why- this was done and by -who-. It should also touch the religion aspect. After that, the Albanian nationalist POV of events (where different from actual history) can be listed. As most or all of it is based on actual events, I think it should be helpful and interesting for readers if the differences between the POVs is pointed at and explained. There are good sources for this information available.

The important points to keep in mind:

it is a fact that Skanderbeg was indeed used as a tool by Albanian nationalists. The main part of this article should not be from that view, even if the sources for it can be described as reliable (nationalist authors publish too). An effort must be made to describe who he really was and what he really did, moving the myths to the appropriate section.
his glorified heroism is an important part of (not just) Albanian history so it does qualify for a prominent place in this article or even a separate article when the section grows too big. In other words: don't swing to the opposite POV, keep it balanced
don't try to claim Skanderbeg for any modern nation. This article is about his person, not modern politics.
Don't overlook the other points of my review. Start moving battle descriptions to their separate articles or merge it into them when they already exist (work on those articles too in order to make this article better). Think about making a "Timeline" article as a complete list of events around his life, while only including the most important events in this article etc. I would advise to start making a summary of the current article and rebuild it from there.
the only information that may (must) be repeated is that from the lead. --DeVerm (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

I could divide everything you wrote in your last comment in four parts:

First part (the first sentence or maybe first two sentences) are comments about the section we here discuss as the first step in improving the quality of the article. Name for section about controversies. Maybe this section should have name "Controversies" like usually does? Any other name could suggest or imply something to the readers, or limit its content. Every single historical person, especially in Balkan, is connected with lot of controversies. This section should deal with all controversies, not only those connected with nationalism.
Second part is description of misusing Skanderbeg as a tool by Albanian nationalists. That is something you consider as a fact. Even if it is a fact, I do not think that this article should deal with it and to explain -why- this was done and by -who-. I find it against WP:NPOV to suggest what is the fact to the readers. According to the WP:NPOV article should fairly present all POVs with reliable sources and to leave to the readers to decide about the facts. If there are sources about it, details should be explained in another article about it. Like you said yourself: "This article is about his person, not modern politics."
Third part contains proposals how to deal with other points of your review (moving battle descriptions to their separate articles, timeline article, summary of current article...). I think this is all very good idea.
Fourth part is your advice for rebuilding of the article on the basis of such summary and timeline. This article exists from year 2004 and it was edited by about one thousand editors (check here [14] if you don't believe me). One can not expect that this article with 1.000 editors and 100 watchers can go trough substantial changes at once. Even if there is consensus about it. Let us be pragmatic. Improving the quality of this article and raising to GA and FA level is like eating an elephant. Let us do it slice by slice, trough following WP policies and by reaching the consensus on every step.

What do you think to name this section: "Controversies like it is already a practice with sections about controversies? It would be NPOV and allow all controversies to be placed there.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're on the right path but you need to find some boldness inside you and just create the section :) I mean, you don't need to convince me or anybody else on the name you want to give it... just be bold and do the edit! About replacing parts: you don't need to find consensus before doing it. In your shoes I would start with a compress edit of sections, starting with the lead. Anything you remove will be available in history still so don't worry too much. Bold edits like that are a great first step to consensus because it will trigger other editors to speak up. Hope to find an editor who don't want the detail you removed to be lost... he/she might be willing to move the data to a sub-article or time-line which can then be include in a "Main article" or "See also" template. The rest is not addressed to you Antidis but for all editors in general:

on facts: I wasn't clear enough; I meant that it is a fact that reliable sources describe Skanderbeg as nationalist "tool". WP:NPOV then states that it should be included in the article but the prose should deal with the different views as "opinions" rather than "facts". In WP jargon a "fact" is something like "1 + 1 equals 2" which doesn't need a citation and that isn't what I meant because the citations are crucial here. However, the reason for the existence of controversies does belong in that section because it is described in those sources and relevant. Let me give an example: let's say one source describes that Skanderbeg threw himself into a battle and personally whacked down 300 enemies with his sword, while another source states that he actually wasn't present during that battle. This is a controversy that can be described but why does it exist? If that information is available in reliable sources, it belongs there (could be folklore, (nationalist) propaganda, myth, verifiable fact etc.) The editors of the article don't need to find/discuss which version is true (which is about 90% of all discussion but is all original research at best)... they only need to include what reputable authors have written as explanation. Another example is the mother of Skanderbeg. It doesn't matter where she really came from; when there are multiple good sources with different information, just find an elegant way to list them both, directly in the prose when compact enough or in a footnote. This kind of data does not belong in a controversy section because it is about Skanderbegs' mother, not about himself. Make sure there are in-line citations for every different version. There's another type of uneasiness in the history of this article, like for example his religion. First is that I think there's consensus that for a period he was converted to Islam. That's just fine, list it in the infobox. The other part is that he was Christian while defending his land against the Ottomans and both he and others used religion a lot to describe/explain his actions ("defender of Christianity" etc), which was something that the Nationalists had to deal with because they were afraid that the Albanians might object to it. The part about Skanderbeg as defender of Christianity belongs in the article but also the "hush-hush" part which belongs in the section that describes how the nationalists used Skanderbeg to promote national awareness. These are important aspects that need some clear, focused and neutral prose in the article. Don't shy away from the religious aspects around Skanderbeg, give it the weight it had when he lived. About working from a summary: the article doesn't have to be replaced by a summary in an edit. As editor, I use such summaries for myself to guide me while writing prose, so that I keep focused. If somebody writes a summary, it could be posted in a sandbox and discussed here for example. It's a great way to find what should be included in this article, what should go to sub-articles etc. Aim for the article to be a maximum of 10 printed pages (excl. references etc). I counted 17 pages when I did the review... just let that sink in: 10:17 ... it means that it needs to be halved when you want to allow some later expansion ! Last but not least, the edit wars and heated discussions between the editors; just try (again) to make good intentioned edits that conform to WP policy and guidelines. If the process is disrupted by editors that refuse to accept policy and guidelines, I'm sure that an administrator can be found who is willing to guide a bit in the matter, like explaining policy here, without immediately resorting to escalated procedures. I say this because from what I read in this talk page, I think that all editors have good intentions but just not all policies are clear. --DeVerm (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC).

I agree with everything you wrote. You obviously have the proper NPOV attitude and the necessary experience. If you are also willing to invest your time, energy and emotions to help us improve the quality of this article I think that we might have this article renominated for a GA soon.

Now I will think about the best way to take your advice.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are overambitious. This article will neve be a GA unless WP wants it to be. Why should we care more than WP administrators do? (see today's history of editions).--Euzen (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I am not overambitious because I agree with DeVerm who said:

"If the process is disrupted by editors that refuse to accept policy and guidelines, I'm sure that an administrator can be found who is willing to guide a bit in the matter, like explaining policy here, without immediately resorting to escalated procedures. I say this because from what I read in this talk page, I think that all editors have good intentions but just not all policies are clear."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think every WP admin would love to see this (or any other notable article) reach at least GA status. They are all editors too. For now, we don't even need an admin to improve this article; just check the new section below (infobox) that I made after reading your post about the reverts. What I did is searching for WP guidelines for the matter and explaining them. This provides the guidance for the infobox. Next would be to do edits on the box, pointing to the exact/explicit source that supports the edit (not just stating "conform sources" but something like "conform this source here: ..."). Only when that motivation is ignored and the edits reverted anyway, we get into the "disruptive behaviour" area. When we explain that by pointing to the relevant WP policies and guidelines and that gets ignored too, we have reached the point where the voice and/or tools of an admin are needed. It is very helpful to work conform some established guidelines towards that point (hopefully never ending up in the escalated admin interventions) so that it is easy for an admin to understand what has happened. I can recommend WP:BRD for that. --DeVerm (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

DeVerm, I followed your advices to "find some boldness inside you and just create the section" and to write about:

"all "controversial" or Albanian-POV parts in that section"
"the "hush-hush" part which belongs in the section that describes how the nationalists used Skanderbeg to promote national awareness."
"Yes, Skanderbeg was born in what is Albania today. It is common practice on WP to call him Albanian in article prose and move the details (controversies/disputes) to a footnote or section explaining more."
“it is a fact that reliable sources describe Skanderbeg as nationalist "tool"” and "I think the section should start by explaining -why- this was done and by -who"
a section about the controversy of his ethnicity and that of his parents

I found some boldness and created the controversies section. Here is a diff. In this section I:

added information that nationalists used Skanderbeg as a "tool" to promote national awareness and how his defending of Christianity was used by them
Why and who and when nationalists used Skanderbeg as a "tool"
only one sentence about Skanderbeg's disputed Albanian ethnicity (using only those sources which are already extensively used in the article)
explained common practice of calling Skanderbeg Albanian or Epirote

There is probably a lot of other ""controversial" or Albanian-POV parts" that should be written in this section. I tried to reduce its size and to focus only to the issues explained in your comments for the beginning, and later to expand those that need to be expanded. Do you have any comment?

I don't see much activities in this article. I hope that we/you did not give up improving the quality of this article. What do you think we could do now? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Template with list of battles between Skanderbeg's forces and the Ottoman Empire

There is a template in the article that contains a list of the battles between Skanderbeg's forces and the Ottoman Empire. Although the list is not complete because there are several battles that are not described in separate articles and many articles do not contain the estimation of Ottoman casualties (describing them as heavy, very heavy or many casualties), the total number of killed Ottoman soldiers is almost 150.000 (lowest estimations). On the other hand, the total number of Skanderbeg's soldiers killed by Ottomans is below 10.000. Does it really correspond with reality?

I don't know if there are some official figures about population of Albania and Macedonia in 15th century, but here we can find that in 18th century, after the number of population significantly increased compared to 15th century, the total male population of vilayet of Thessaloniki was 240.000, of vilayet of Monastir was 208.000. I am afraid that above mentioned figures about Ottoman casualties could mislead readers to believe that Skanderbeg's forces killed entire male population of Ottoman West Balkan territory. Maybe we should remove the template with list of Skanderbeg's battles with Ottoman forces until those articles are improved to follow WP:NPOV policy?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

FAQ: Was Skanderbeg a Roman Catholic?

Unresolved

I added this Q&A as I understand it now. Please expand and/or correct and discuss it here. --DeVerm (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

"Scanderbeg, who was originally an Orthodox Christian....Scanderbeg’s western orientation is thus something of great significance.... The political change of course brought about a change of religious affiliation, too. The Orthodox Christian became a Catholic Christian, something quite unusual at the time. " Robert Elsie web site with Oliver Schmitt book.

The answer is yes. Skanderbeg was originally an Orthodox Christian who became a Catholic Christian. That means that he was "originally an Orthodox Christian" who was converted to Islam, returned to Orthodox Christianity after he abjured Islam and then, due to his western political orientation, he "became a Catholic Christian".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Schmitt's book, which you are quoting, Antidiskriminator, is heavily relying on Radonic, a Serbian historian of the 1940s, which is quoted dozens of times by Schmitt. Per admission of the same Schmitt, Radonic was far from a disinterested and distant historian, rather he was a very well known representative of the Serbian nationalism. Schmitt's book is so controversial, that we must be very calm before making any citations out of it at all. In fact time will tell whether Schmitt is RS, for now it is probably too early. In the Skanderbeg cosmos of biographers Schmitt follows mostly Radonic and Pall and completely disregards other historians. There is no evidence that Skanderbeg was a practicing Orthodox, Catholic, or Muslim either. There are many speculations by historians, but they are far from being proved. This FAQs on mother, religion, and so on are just ways to diverge the attention from other sources, because all of them point to Schmitt's reliance on Radonic, and because of that Schmitt will risk to be trashed to fringe very soon. In fact there have been two publications against him already, one of Frasheri and one of Bicoku. The speculation on someone's religion is a complex issue and cannot be granted within a short FAQ. This is not a Jeopardy answer, where if asked "what's the religion of Skanderbeg", I can say "what's Orthodox->Muslim->Catholic?". The complexity is solved by reading the authors fully and by giving a contribution in the article space, and not by trolling in the talk page for months and getting warnings by the admin just because one reads an extract of the book and that's it. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

“In fact time will tell whether Schmitt is RS” After this comment I can only propose to you to please think again before you accuse someone else for trolling, without being able to point to diff? You recently promoted Skanderbeg's Italian expedition to GA despite serious content dispute and despite Schmitt was quoted 24 times in that article. This proves that you do believe Schmitt is reliable source. Whatever is the name of what you are doing, please stop.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg's Italian expedition concerns a battle documented by several serious authors and with virtually no problems in sourcing it. I took that review because you were trolling there as well and I reminded the community that you are unfit to make a review because you are too close to the subject. You were warned from an admin with the accusation of not being able to accept consensus on Skanderbeg. You were also told by a long time admin, FPS, to desist from negotiating POV in this article [15], again, because you are unfit to do so, and these things make you lack the integrity for the review. I also pointed you to the wikipolicy in the GA nomination review page and you agreed to stop that review. So there are no problems with using Schmitt for the battles. Indeed I find the same information on the battles in Bicoku, Frasheri, Schmitt, Hodgkinson and all the crowd of biographers of which every Albanian library is plenty. Schmitt is regurgitating what everyone has said before him already in terms of that battle, and I have Schmitt at home, so I have verified him as a source for every single page. Gaius has done a very honest work and the article deserves GA status. I have no problems as a reviewer to admit that what Schmitt is saying is concurring to what other authors are saying for that battle. But what Schmitt says in terms of religion and ethnicity is either 1) referenced to Radonic or 2) not referenced at all. And that's where I have problems with Schmitt as a reliable source. He goes on and on to explain how the Albanians of Diber were united to the Serbs (or Bulgarians, because he sometimes calls the Triballians "Bulgarians" and sometimes "Serbians", so that's another problem), because they were all Christian Orthodoxes, and that's what united them. Schmitt doesn't bother to explain who told to him that that was exactly what was going on in 15th century Diber. He doesn't reference that.

Another thing that makes him unreliable in certain areas is that he denies Albanian popular folklore on Skanderbeg, when there are many books to document that: there are songs, there are sayings, there are folk tales, there are places with legends on Skanderbeg and his deeds, and so on, so forth. Frasheri in his book has at least 30 pages to document popular folklore on Skanderbeg, of which Schmitt has no clue. Not only he denies popular folklore without giving any reference, but, on top of that, he keeps saying that the 19th century Albanians were Muslims who didn't know and didn't want to know about this hero of theirs, who was being pushed to them by the Albanian National Awakening activists, again without referencing. And that's what bothers me: Does Schmitt not know about that folklore, or does he fake that he doesn't know? And it is hard for me to assume his good faith, because he claims to have consulted every single book in existance on Skanderbeg, but he "forgets" the very vast library of Albanian folklore on Skanderbeg, the many tales on him and Skanderbeg's important contributions to the Kanun, a typical Albanian legal institution. All the above are several important points to help give evidence of Skanderbeg's being an Albanian, which are not used by Schmitt. I hope I gave some clues why I think that Schmitt is an unreliable source, to say the least, in regards of Skanderbeg's ethnicity and religion. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK Brunswick. Let's see now your criticism on articles based exclusively on Frasheri and ... Anamali.--Euzen (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fatos Lubonja talks here (archived) about "...Skenderbeg's shifting allegiances (like his father's conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism)..."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This source, pages 54 and 55 also contain information about claims that he was born in Orthodox Christian family, and baptised as Orthodox Christian. It says that he later changed his religion, first to Islam, then to Catholicism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg lost Sopot fotress?

In this section of the article about Gjergj Arianiti is described a loss of the Sopot fortress in year 1462.

The union between the Kastrioti and Arianiti did not have much effect due to the exposed territories of Arianiti. Through many localities, he brought together his last resistance force (1460–1462). In an open front, Mehmet II ordered movements into Albania to engaged a group of Arianiti's warriors. He then surrounded Gjergj Arianiti by moving through the valley of Furka all the way through Shushicë. Fierce engagements began, but Sopoti was not captured and the Ottoman encirclement failed. The people compared Gjergj Arianiti to Skanderbeg. To celebrate this victory, the army was taken to Galigat after the Ottomans had fully left Albania. However, when the Ottomans heard of this, they traveled back to Albania at night. The fortress of Sopot, left with a garrison chosen by Arianiti, still could not be taken. Only through bribery and treachery was it possible for the castle be taken. The Ottoman commander, took advantage of Arianiti's absence by launching a large attack with his main army. The Ottomans soon entered the castle, and in revenge for the defeats they had suffered, the entire population was massacred.

If this information about Skanderbeg's loss of Sopot fortress can be supported with sources, I propose to include it in the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

albanian lord

it would be proper if you remove the mention of Albanian i the whole article addressing to Skanderbeg. He was the lord of Epirus and Macedonia and belonging to the orthodox Christian tribe of Mijaks from the Debar county. Albania did not exist in the 15th ct nor Albanian national consciousness nor Albanian alphabet. he was writing in old church slavonic. from the modern state Albanian nationality in those days there were Tosks and Ghegs(that are still the main national fabric besides slavs). he was none of them and if we want to stay true he was more of Aromanian descent but in those days nationality didn't matter, he was simply a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.226 (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

He was Albanian by historical assimilation, He was indeed born Christian, but his family origin are sourced as being of Greek paternal descent and Serb maternal descent. --92.32.46.96 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FAQ: From where was Skanderbeg's mother?

I edited to make clear that both Albanian and Macedonian (which was the Roman Empire when she was born?) origins are in the sources. But where does that leave Serbia? I have seen a dozen sources that list her as being a Serbian princess... Again, make this 100% clear or this discussion will come up again and again in the future! --DeVerm (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Original sources are represented in the article. They are from contemporaries Marin Barleti and Gjon Muzaka. From the sources claiming Serbian ethnicity I don't see where do they base this claim? Since they were not contemporaries of Scanderbeg, they should state a source for their claim. Just declaring that x was of x ethnicity is not a RS, I can find you sources that Alexander the Great was an Albanian 1 or 2 etc, but I can not use them according to wiki rules, just because they can not be considered RS on the topic. That is the same with those sources, only nationalistic claims with no RS at all. Aigest (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that it doesn't matter how you think about a source; WP:RS describes what a reliable source is and only that definition is what counts. RS does not state that the author must be a contemporary (which might even indicate a primary source). It also does not state that the author must provide a source for every claim (what does Barleti cite as his source?). What RS clearly states is that "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered"; which means that sources like Barleti and Muzaka only become RS when they describe "all majority and significant minority views". If they don't, they fail RS until other sources are added to complete the picture. When I read through the archived talk pages I found that many editors here completely misunderstand the WP policy and think that "the best source" must be chosen and used for the article. Finally, I don't know why you talk about Alexander the Great; this article is about Skanderbeg.

Let's say somebody brings forward this source and states that both the Author and the Publisher are reliable and thus this source complies with RS... and it clearly states that his father is Albanian and his mother is Serbian. Is your argument against using it is then that is isn't a biography? That is not a requirement of RS at all. It also isn't a Serbian (nationalistic) source or publisher so the source is neutral. Even if the person bringing this forward can't get consensus to include it in the FAQ (and thus article) here, if he brings it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which declares the source RS then you will have to accept it and it will become the 3rd possibility in the FAQ and article. I am not convinced that all sources that describe his mother as Serbian are not RS and think many if not all uninvolved editors will agree with me and thus this article will never gain GA status when this isn't addressed. I don't say that "she might have been Serbian" must be included; it should not be included when the sources are not RS which isn't clear to me. --DeVerm (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

I'll repeat FutureP's past statements by saying that sources used should be relevant and reliable academic ones, and not general tourist guide books that may be reliable if you're looking for a hotel in Kosovo or some general information about it, but don't belong in a references list about such a subject. For example the author made a mistake even when writing the name of Ulqin(Albanian)/Ulcinj(Montenegrin)[16], which is reasonable since he isn't a scholar dealing with the League of Prizren, but the author of a general tourist guide. He also labeled Skanderbeg the governor as the governor of Skuria, Misia, and Jonima, whose capital is supposedly Kruja. There are no areas in Albania called Misia, Skuria, Jonima, however, Skurra, Mesi and Jonima were noble families, whose territory wasn't located in Krujë or had the town as its capital, but [17] their area was that of Dagnum.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Barleti is the precise source on Scanderbey's Serbian mother, AFAIK. --AVNOJist (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, I agree with your conclusion that the source I mentioned is not RS, although not with most of your arguments. Also, why do you feel the need to talk about "looking for hotels" etc. ? The tone you use is provoking (don't worry, not for me :-). I just wonder how the Encyclopaedia Brittanica will do, which cites Georges T. Petrovitch... but I'm not bringing that up because I am convinced nobody really knows where she was born anyway (my WP:OR bet would be Macedonia). --DeVerm (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC).

Btw some users shouldn't add terms that they invented on the article i.e Euzen's claim about the many authors, who use the phrase Vojsava the Triballian corresponds only to 1 google search result(Euzen's edit).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I need to add a FAQ item about the names of Skanderbeg and his parents. --DeVerm (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC).

Done; we can now point to the FAQ when reverting disruptive edits in the article. If somebody wants to see a name changed, it should be discussed here with resources etc. --DeVerm (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC).

LOL. Play "discussion for ever" by changing usernames every 4 months! :) --Euzen (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Are Marin Barleti and Gjon Muzaka neutral sources, "preferably other than an Albanian or Serbian or Greek "?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There are some sources (like this) claiming that she was born in the fortress in the village Gradec, near Gostivar.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: Marin Barleti's quote about Vojsava: "nobilissimus Tribalorum" = " Serbian nobility, Noble Serbian ", in this quote the Tribalorum signifies an ethnonym (-orum), or 'demonym' in relation to the Serb people (undisputed), by earlier and contemporary sources. Her name Vojsava comes from the Slavic female name 'Vojislava' (undisputed), the "surname" attributed (Tripalda) is a corruption of historical sources, as it in fact says "Vojsava of the Serbs". The fact that she is of Serb ethnic character has been greatly refuted by post-WorldWar2 Albanian historians, as several other facts regarding the non-Albanian history of Albania or regions inhabited by Albanians. If there are any sourced that should be deemed unreliable, there are a majority of them in several Albanian-related articles. The Muzaka chronicle btw, is as fictional as can be, it without a doubt exaggerates the kinship of Albanian families, and attribute various origins of several people. --92.32.46.96 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg was sanjakbey of Sanjak of Debar?

Resolved

"In 1440, he was promoted to sancakbey of Debar [Alb. Dibra]."

This can be very important information if true. The source is this work of Antonina Zhelyazkova. The position of sanjakbey is much more important than all of his previous positions which are elaborated in the article. Comments are welcome.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

^ Hodgkinson 1999, p. 87

[Hodgkinson1999p87-1] Hodgkinson 1999, p. 87

[1]