Talk:Skanderbeg/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Two vilages" vs "Middle Albania, which included Mat, Mirditë, and Dibër?" and other comments

Resolved issues

Resolved

"In November 1443, Skanderbeg saw his opportunity to rebel against Sultan Murad II during the Battle of Niš, while fighting the Crusade of Varna against the Hungarians of John Hunyadi."

In the article about Battle of Niš it is clearly stated that Hunyadi's crusaders included Đurađ Branković and 8.000 Serbs. Therefore I propose to replace Hungarians with crusaders.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Done

Crusade of Varna included the "string of events in 1443–44 between the Kingdom of Hungary, the Serbian Despotate, and the Ottoman Empire. It culminated in a devastating Hungarian loss at the Battle of Varna on November 10, 1444."

Skanderbeg left Ottoman Empire's army after defeat in the Battle of Niš and did not participated in the Crusade of Varna which lasted till November 1444. Therefore I propose to delete "the Crusade of Varna" from the above sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)  Done

“In 1437–1438, he became suba of the Krujë zeamet. Up until 1432, the suba of the city had been Zaganos Bey.”

Clarification needed. What does suba position or title mean?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Done

I found one work that maybe clarify this issue. It is On the origin of the Ottoman emperors, Pages 133-261 By Theodōros Spandouginos which says, "When a sanjak bey ... or holder of timar...gets more than 15.000 aspres from his holdings he becomes subaşi (Subassi), or holder of subaşilik within a Sanjak" Taking in consideration that article about Kruje contain the following sentence:"In the early 15th century the city was conquered again by the Ottoman Empire and then recaptured in 1443 by Skanderbeg, who in 1438 had been appointed subasi (governor) of Krujë" I think that in this case it is obvious that suba is short for subaşi, a type of governor.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Done

The text of the 1718 opera was written by Antonio Salvi. Vivaldi only composed it. I think that it is very important who wrote the text of the opera. Considering the context of the article topic it is probably more important than who composed the music. Therefore I propose to add Antonio Salvi as author of the opera.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)  Done

There is one relatively old text "Journal of Serbian Learned Society" (Serbian: Гласник Србског Ученог Друштва) published in 1865 which contain whole chapter of ten pages about Skanderbeg. It was issued in 1865 by Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (at that time the name was Serbian Learned Society Serbian: Srpsko učeno društvo)). It is available in full view here and contains ten pages about Skanderbeg. I propose to include it in the text of the article, literature section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Done

• This seems like something much better than it looked at the beginning. It is in fact the work of Konstantin Mihailović written at the end of 15th century and therefore one of the oldest, maybe even the oldest text about Skanderbeg, excluding the primary documents from Dubrovnik archives. Anyway, it is very valuable source which should have its place in sources section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)  Done

Non-resolved issues

Unresolved

"Skanderbeg is thought to have been born with the name Gjergj Kastrioti in 1405 in Sinë, one of the two villages owned by his grandfather. Skanderbeg's father was Gjon Kastrioti, lord of Middle Albania, which included Mat, Mirditë, and Dibër."

I am sorry if I did not understand this properly but based on the above two sentences I am afraid that readers (including me) could be confused. The first sentence says that his father owned only two villages. The second sentence claim that he was "lord of Middle Albania, which included Mat, Mirditë, and Dibër" which has to be much more than two villages. Did I understand this right?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Skanderbeg is thought to have been born..."

"George seems to have gone to Sultan Murad II's court in 1423, when he was 18."

"It is assumed that Skanderbeg..."

"During the 1430s, Skanderbeg controlled a relatively large timar composed of nine villages, which historians believe may have been part of the vilayet of Dhimiter Jonima"

“During the 1438–1443 period, he is thought to have been fighting alongside the Ottomans in their European campaigns, mostly against the revolts led by Janos Hunyadi.”

I propose rewording the above mentioned sentences to meet the following request of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch): “Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed.”--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In 1430, Gjon Kastrioti was defeated in a battle by the Ottoman governor of Skopje, Isa bey Evrenos and as a result, his territorial possessions were extremely reduced. Later that year, Skanderbeg started fighting for Murad II in his expeditions, and he gained the title of sipahi.

I think that above mentioned sentences need clarification. This is article about Skanderbeg. If Skanderbeg started fighting for Murad II later that year, what was Skanderbeg (and his brothers) doing when his father fought against Isa bey Evrenos earlier that year?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

“In November 1443, Skanderbeg saw his opportunity to rebel against Sultan Murad II during the Battle of Niš, while fighting against the crusaders of John Hunyadi. Skanderbeg quit the field along with 300 other Albanians serving in the Ottoman army.”

Clarification needed. Readers could be mislead to believe that Skanderbeg participated in rebelion against Ottoman Empire during the battle of Niš after he quit the field. According to the sources he returned to the Albania after he was together with Ottoman forces defeated in the battle of Niš. Therefore I propose rewording of the above two sentences.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed. Skanderbeg "during the 1430s, ... controlled a relatively large timar composed of nine villages" in period which coincides with "organized rebellion against Ottoman Empire in period 1432—1436" in Albania. How did he protect that large timar from the rebels?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed. "After his brother Reposh's death on 25 July 1431 and the later deaths of Kostandin and Skanderbeg's father (who died in 1437), Skanderbeg and his surviving brother Stanisha continued to govern the zeamet that had earlier been governed by their father." When did Skanderbeg and his surviving brother Stanisha continue to govern the zeamet, after Reposh died in 1431 or after their father died in 1437?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"During the 1438–1443 period, he is thought to have been fighting alongside the Ottomans in their European campaigns, mostly against the revolts led by Janos Hunyadi". Besides above mentioned issue of "words to watch" this sentence has few other issues. Word alongside can mean that: "one thing exists or develops alongside another". I think that in this case it is wrong to use term alongside because Skanderbeg was Ottoman himself then. I propose to replace term alongside with more appropriate (maybe " within Ottoman armies"?). Also, Janos Hunyadi did not lead revolts, but crusade, as it is already stated in one of the following sentences. Therefore I propose to delete "revolts led by".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"During the 1430s, Skanderbeg controlled a relatively large timar composed of nine villages, which historians believe may have been part of the vilayet of Dhimiter Jonima"

• I propose to write explanation about who is Jonima, or delete his name if he was not so important for the article about Skanderbeg. The article about vilayet says that vilayets were introduced in 1864. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"With this support, Skanderbeg built fortresses..." - I propose to add information about fortresses built by Skanderbeg to the text of this article. So far I found Rodoni Castle. It would help if somebody can help by providing the list of fortresses built by Skanderbeg.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the web site that explains that Skanderbeg was one of the main characters of "The Siege", famous work of Ismail Kadare who was several times candidate for Nobel prize. If that is true, I propose to include this information in the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"The distinguishing characteristic of Skanderbeg was the maintenance of such an effective resistance for a long period of time (25 years) against one of the 15th century's strongest powers" - this is sentence written in the article.

Skanderbeg fought for Ottoman Empire till Ottomans lost the Battle of Niš on November 28, 1443. He died on January 17, 1468. Even if he started fighting against the Ottoman Empire right then in Niš (which he did not) it is 24 years, 1 month and 20 days. Much closer to 24 years than 25 years, even if we forget numerous peace treaties that shortened his "effective resistance" to less than 15 years. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the web site that explains that Skanderbeg was one of the main characters of Zygmunt Miłkowski's work Rycerz chrześcijański written in 1889. I propose to include this information in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox template for monarchs is maybe mistakenly used in this article. Monarch is the person who heads a monarchy. Skanderbeg was not monarch. Readers could be mislead with this infobox template that he was monarch, that he was member of Royal house (which consists of at least one, but usually more monarchs who are related to one another — not true in this case), that there was the reign (the period of a person's or dynasty's occupation of the office of monarch). There was no monarchy that Skanderbeg was monarch of. Nobody from his family was monarch and there there was no period of time when he was occupying the office of monarch (reign). I propose to consider replacing this template with more appropriate, if I am right that it is mistakenly used in this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is one important source that is not mentioned in the article. It is "The seditious and blasphemous Oration of Cardinal Pole both against God & Cou'try" written in 1560 by Reginald Pole, and described here, page 57. If I am right that it is one of the oldest text about Skanderbeg then it should be included in the text of the article. The users who object to my proposal are invited to leave comment below.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is one very important information that should be added to the Literature section. It is a tragedy written by Jovan Sterija Popović in 1828, Serbian playwright of Serbian and Aromanian origin, one of the most famous dramatists to emerge from the Balkans in the 19th century.The name of this tragedy is "Skanderbeg. Serbian George Castriot, 1406—1463. The greatest strategist in the world." (Serbian: Скендербег. Србин Ђорђе Кастриотић, 1406—1463. Највећи стратег света). This work was adapted for theatres and played in many theatres like in Novi Sad 1954, Nikšić 1906..[1].--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There are informations that Austria-Hungary built in 1914 steamboat and gave it name "Skanderbeg". Here and here are links to informations about it. First describes the steamboat (18,68 metara, nosivosti 20 tona tereta, izgrađen u Trstu 1914. ‘Skenderbega’ je 1924. kupila Jadransko-Skadarska plovidba vlasnika Stefana Kurana iz Skadra, a pokretala ga je parna mašina sa velikim točkom na krmi. Od 1941. koristila ga je italijanska vojska, a potopili su ga borci bataljona Carev Laz 12. februara 1942. nedaleko od pristaništa Karuč, gdje se i danas nalazi na samo nekoliko metara dubine” - navodi Janković) and second is a link that contains information about tv report on Montenegrin TV about this ship wreck in village Karuč in Montenegro. It was small steamboat and probably does not deserve special place in this article, but if someone create article with list of things named by Skanderbeg this information maybe could be useful.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a guideline which request "a consistent method of displaying lists of works, such as lists of texts...". According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works):

"Items should be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first."

Also: "In the case of a complex series of works, items can sometimes be split into groups,..."

I propose to follow the above mentioned guideline and to change method of displaying list of works and texts about Skanderbeg within "Sources" section from alphabet to chronological order of production, earliest first. Maybe we could even split it into groups? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Referencing style

Resolved

Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing deals with Parenthetical referencing which is used in the References section of this article. If I am not wrong, this form of referencing is intended to be "..enclosed within parentheses (round brackets) and embedded in the text, either within or after a sentence...". The Parenthetical referencing is requested to be used together with "Full citation in the reference section of the article" like it is explained here:

"The full citation (Smith, John. Name of Book. Cambridge University Press, 2010) is then added in alphabetical order, according to the authors' surnames, at the end of the article in a "References" section. The inline and full citation may be linked using a template (see linking inline and full citations); as with other citation templates, these should not be added to articles without consensus."

I like the existing form of referencing and I think that embodying Parenthetical referencing into the text of the article would make it look ugly. But, if the existing form of referencing is violating the content guidelines then we should change it. I don't remember there was consensus about the citation templates which should be used in this article? Does the existing form of referencing violate the content guidelines? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked another user who is experienced with referencing styles opinion and she explained that I was wrong here. The referencing style used in this article is WP:CITESHORT, not Parenthetical referencing like I thought it is. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Did Skanderbeg try to help the crusaders in the Second Battle of Kosovo?

“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.”

Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time By Franz Babinger page 40, says:

“It was formerly belived that George Branković, responding to Murad's hopes in him, had blocked the mountain passes against George Castriota, who supposedly tried to come to the crusaders help with his Albanian troops. But recent research has shown this to be untrue.”

If nobody objects, I will delete the above mentioned sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg's hostility towards Venice, influenced at least by Naples.

Below presented work provide explanation about the context of Skanderbegs behaviour and explains maybe the most important reason why Skanderbeg started war with Venetian Albania in 1447 and 1448

• Donald Nicol (1993), The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521439916, Skanderbeg of Albania, who was ready to join Hunyadi of Hungary on his crusade, was seduced by Alfonso into making war on Venice.

I propose to all interested users to read the part on the page 365 which begin with "But a new factor..." Skanderbeg was obviously under significant influence of Alfonso even before he officially became his vassal.

Schmitt also wrote "The alliance of nobles used up most of its energy in feuds with Venice and the towns of northern Albania, wars that it waged in conjunction with the Serb despot and the leader of Montenegro on behalf of the Kingdom of Naples." when he talk about Albanian–Venetian War (1447–1448)

I believe this brings a whole new perspective to this article which does not inform readers about role of Naples in Skanderbegs hostilities with Venice, which significantly contributed his downfall. Especially because the sources about Alphonso's influence on Skanderbeg's attacks on Venice are supported with Schmitt's words:

Seen from another perspective, one could say that Scanderbeg was drawn into a power struggle between Venice and Naples over rule in the Adriatic. For centuries, the Albanian coast had been the theatre of such struggles for hegemony. Castriota was unable to extract himself from the demands of regional geopolitics. He had originally turned to Naples for support and in 1451 had sworn an oath of allegiance. This provided him with protection and support from King Alfonso V, but it made his forces party to the war against the Republic of San Marco. Like his feudal liege, he fought on two fronts, against the Ottomans and against the Signoria. His realm was no more than a link in a broadly spanned chain of Neapolitan vassals in the Balkans against which Venice had spun a net of regional princes in its pay. As such, the Balkans were the theatre of inner-Italian warfare to which Scanderbeg would eventually fall victim and perish. Castriota’s star declined definitively in 1467 when the Venetians expelled the Neapolitans from central Albania. His hostility towards Venice, influenced at least by Naples, was the reason for his downfall.

— “Skanderbeg: der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan” by Oliver Jens Schmitt

I propose to inform readers of this article:

1. that Skanderbeg's hostility towards Venice was at least influenced by Naples.
2. That this hostility was at least one of the significant reasons for his downfall.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

my opinion about this discussion page, i hope it will not be deleted

Hi to everybody, I am glad to know there is an encyclopedia where users can help each other and contribute for a wide knowledge available to everyone at any time, but I did also notice when the topic goes to ancient history the issues are always pretty much the same, the same ones between countries, now please, be neutral, and look at reality as it is, what I see is angry users behaving normal to have more reputation and having typing fights to change how a word and a source is presented.. I personally found this funny.. Trust me guys, the normal people who REALLY wanna understand history will not come and consider wikipedia articles, but rather they will use books referring to original sources, and for the Skanderbeg article (I do admit i am of albanian origin) why bother so much about him, he fought for the albanian people (a documented incontestable fact i guess), all the rest is just conversation, thats why i found funny some user requests about the article, the original sources are always there, you can reinterpret them as you like, but in the next 50 years someone will look at them again and so on. I would never try to make Serbian or Greek symbols albanian if they are not (even if i know some albanians, greeks and serbians do). I know my personal opinion does not count much in this context, but i would be glad to leave this message here in the discussion page and i wish people could calm down and if you really wanna be neutral, start from facing the problems you have in your life instead of taking actions because of "hate", and instead of thinking of something smart to answer try to think about the last part of this message, because when you will face your problems you'll feel good and you will have less time to hate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.162.95 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"... I would never try to make Serbian or Greek symbols albanian if they are not ...".
Even if they pay you well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.46.56 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new section structure of the article

Unresolved

Taking in consideration arguments brought in this section and above mentioned information about Skanderbeg's hostility towards Venice, influenced at least by Naples I propose to change section structure of the article.

The proposed structure:

1. Name
2. Family
3. Biography
   1. Ottoman Empire (1405—1443)
   2. Venetian Republic (1444—1447)
   3. Kingdom of Naple (1447—1468)
4. Aftermath
5. Descendants
6. Legacy
7. In literature and art
8. Controversies
9. See also
10. Notes
11. References
12. Sources
13. External links

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@Antid: you have already tried to add an extra section that was refuted and the current structure is precise.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Will you please be so kind to provide link to discussion and list of users that "refuted and extra section"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:19, 16

Antid. last time you tried to add that you were again adding the RSN refuted sources i.e please stick to them. Btw I think about half a year ago someone made some suggestions to you[2] May 2011 (UTC)

Will you please be so kind to point to the "RSN refuted sources" used in the extra section I added and link to the RSN which "refuted" those sources?

Extra section that I added

Controversies Skanderbeg and his men were in some sources referred to as Epirotes and in some other as Albanians, depending on the name of the geographical region used — (Epirus or Albania). Ethnically, Skanderbeg's Albanian ethnicity is disputed by claims that he was of Serbian, Greek or mixed ethnicity. The men that fought for Skanderbeg were of different ethnic groups, not only because German, French or Italian soldiers were sometimes engaged to fight for him, but because both Albanians and Slavs lived in the part of Albania under Skanderbeg's control and fought for him. In most cases they were not opposed by the foreign invaders, but by local forces loyal to the new empire and consisted of the local Albanians, Slavs and Vlachs willing to fight against the members of their own ethnic groups. Although Skanderbeg has already been used in the construction of the Albanian national code, especially in communities of Arbėresh, it was only after last years of the 19th century and the publishing of the work of Naim Frasheri "Istori'e Skenderbeut" in 1898, when his figure assumed a new dimension. Albanian nationalists needed an episode from medieval history for centre of Albanian nationalistic mythology and they chose Skanderbeg, in the absence of medieval kingdom or empire. The figure of Skanderbeg was subjected to the Albanisation and he was displayed as a national hero. The other books and periodicals published later also began to more and more consider Skanderbeg as the national hero. The nationalist writers subjected Skanderbeg to the laboratory which transformed the history into myth. Transformation of Skanderbeg into national symbol served both national cohesion and as an argument for Albania's cultural affinity to Europe because the national narrative of Skanderbeg symbolized the sacrifice of the Albanians in "defending Europe from Asiatic hordes". References

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin D'Israeli isn't RS per the too many RSNs you have taken part in ie please don't WP:IDHT(every time you ask for a link about discussions you were a participant). The rest are an essay that is unrelated to Skanderbeg and can't even be titled controversial i.e what is controversial about Italian volunteers?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You first spoke about "an extra section that was refuted". When I asked you "to provide link to discussion and list of users that "refuted and extra section"" you ignored my question changing the subject and started to talk about me "again adding the RSN refuted sources". When I asked you "to point to the "RSN refuted sources" used in the extra section I added (again?) and link to the RSN which "refuted" those sources" you again ignored my question and changed the subject by introducing Benjamin D'Israeli (who did not write any of the works I used in above mentioned section) and accusing me for WP:IDHT.

There was no consensus to "refute" extra section about controversies.

When I proposed a change in names of the sections I provided a link to explanation with list of 26 arguments why 5 section titles do not correspond with the text they contain.

You did not bring any argument against it. Your claim that current structure is precise is I just like it argument, which "should be given no weight whatsoever." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You tried to add that section, you got reverted and it was explained why that's just an unrelated essay to which comments you didn't reply and in the meantime d'Israeli passed throught RSN i.e please don't WP:IDHT. Btw what makes Italian volunteers fighting against the Ottoman Empire controversial?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The text of this article makes it controversial. The text of this article was described as "massive POV". It is already explained in the GA review and in comments within this section. Numerous editors tried to solve problem with "massive POV" of this article. I proposed to do it trough Controversies section which would "cover most of above mentioned POV and BIAS issues". Uninvolved editor who reviewed this article's GA nomination said: "just make a section called "Skanderbeg and Albanian Nationalism" and record all "controversial" or Albanian-POV parts in that section.". Another editor who reviewed this article's nomination for GA wrote: " whole groups of people (such as soldiers) are collectively called "Albanians", although the historical research leads to a different conclusion."

I want(ed) to help this article's promotion to GA level by solving POV issues with controversies section, like advised by uninvolved editor. Italian soldiers (among others) engaged to fight for Skanderbeg are used in attempt to reduce the POV of the article in which a "whole groups of people (such as soldiers) are collectively called "Albanians"... gives the unaware reader the impression that in Castrioti's time the whole area was inhabited by a single nation that is the ancestor of what is today ethnic Albanians."

"you got reverted" means that you reverted. Although it was supported by works of authors whose works are used to support informations in the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, why are you again introducing Benjamin D'Israeli in our discussion although I explained that he did not write any of the works I used in above mentioned section?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please check the list of your sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I did. Benjamin D'Israeli did not write any of the works I used in above mentioned section.

This is another "accusation about personal behavior that lack evidence". You first spoke about "an extra section that was refuted". When I asked you "to provide link to discussion and list of users that "refuted and extra section"" you ignored my question changing the subject and started to talk about me "again adding the RSN refuted sources". When I asked you "to point to the "RSN refuted sources" used in the extra section I added (again?) and link to the RSN which "refuted" those sources" you again ignored my question and changed the subject by introducing Benjamin D'Israeli (who did not write any of the works I used in above mentioned section) and accusing me for WP:IDHT.

According to WP:NPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" constitute personal attacks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)There are no NPAs, you were reverted and it was explained why you were reverted and you never replied i.e WP:BRD. Italian volunteers in the Ottoman-Albanian wars are neither a subject of controversy nor are they related to this subject. Btw while writing a POV essay you included Debar of modern Macedonia in modern Albania in the part about the different ethnicities of Albania(the source refers to the ethnic composition of Debar). Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are "accusation about personal behavior that lack evidence". Here they are:

1. You accused me that by proposing a change of the section structure of the article I try "to add an extra section that was refuted". When I asked you "to provide link to discussion and list of users that "refuted an extra section"" you first ignored my question and later explained that adding an extra section about controversies was refuted just because you once deleted such section when I added it to the article. Let me remind you that uninvolved editor "who reviewed this article's GA nomination said: "just make a section called "Skanderbeg and Albanian Nationalism" and record all "controversial" or Albanian-POV parts in that section." Meaning: you failed to provide evidence for your accusation because extra section was not refuted. On the contrary.
2. you accused me then for "again adding the RSN refuted sources". When I asked you "to point to the "RSN refuted sources" used in the extra section I once added and link to the RSN which "refuted" those sources" you again ignored my question and failed to provide evidence for your accusations.
3. you accused me then for using work of Benjamin D'Israeli who "isn't RS per the too many RSNs you have taken part in". I explained you that Benjamin D'Israeli did not write any of the works I used in above mentioned section, but you ignored my explanations and continued to accuse me for using his works justifying your claims with explanation how "in the meantime d'Israeli passed throught RSN".
4. you accused me for WP:IDHT because I asked for a "link to the RSN that proved Benjamin D'Israeli isn't RS". The only reason that I asked you for such link is to give you the chance to provide evidence for your accusation. Unfortunately, you ignored my question and failed to provide evidence for this accusation of yours.

Instead to provide evidence for your accusations you decided to introduce new elements in our discussion (Italian soldiers and different ethnicities of Albania (local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs) fighting each other) although they are unrelated with both my questions to provide evidence for your accusations and my proposal which is the topic of the section.

I still believe that according to WP:NPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" constitute personal attacks indeed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Antid, as for the ethnicity of the army we have been on this issue before and you were present in that debate, but you keep on insisting.

I will summarize this. Barleti mentions non-Albanian volunteers in the first siege of Kruje (1450), and that is reflected on Setton (and in Babinger also). In particular Barleti praises the courage of the german volunteers in that case. The second time other non-Albanian forces (actually Napolitan contingent) are mentioned is in the failed siege of Berat (1455). On this issue first

1. Please note than none is mentioning Vlachs.
2. Please note that they are mentioned in two occasions.
3. Please note that we are dealing with volunteers (according to Barleti, but IMO they can be also mercenaries as germans were offering their services to everyone at that period) which were not the bulk of the army in any of these cases.
4. Please note that they are not mentioned in the rest of 24 battles of Scanderbeg.
5. Being a monotony, but please note that they are not mentioned in the Italian expedition.

These are the reasons why, when Setton or Fines (and other not controversial historians) are dealing with Scanderbeg army they use the term Albanians. And that is reflected in the article. Aigest (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Babinger is great but a little bit outdated. Just FYI, during the first siege of Krujë, Scanderbeg didn't garrisoned himself in the castle with 8000 men as Babinger claims, instead in the garrison of Krujë was composed of 1500 men under Vrana Konti and Scanderbeg with the rest of the army was outside the castle harassing Ottoman forces besieging the castle. As you can clearly see, Babinger is wrong on that issue. That is why more recent (but not controversial) scholarship is to be preferred. Aigest (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@Aigest: Thanks for participating in discussion. The topic of this section are not details of the text within the "controversy" section that I once added, but my proposal to improve the structure of the article. What do you think about it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Albanian ethnic awareness of Skanderbeg

The Commentaries of Pius II, Volume 35 Volume 22 of Smith college studies in history The Commentaries of Pius II, Leona Christine Gabel Author Pope Pius II Editor Leona Christine Gabel Publisher Dept. of history of Smith college, 1937

Before Italian expedition Prince of taranto wrote a letter to Skanderbeg

The Prince of Taranto, having heard repeated complaints from his subjects who fled at the sight of the Albanians, is said to have written a letter to this effect: "Giovanni Antonio, Prince of Taranto, to Georg of Albania, greeting. You whom Fortune has made illustrious in war .... but you will find a different kind of men. Terrible though your aspect is said to be, no one will flee before your face. Our soldier will attacke you first and no man of Italian blood will fear the dregs of Albania. We know your race. We reckon the Albanians as sheep. We are ashamed to call so mean a nation a foe....

Scanderbeg answer..

....Then you too despise our race and reckon the Albanians as sheep. You talk in your usual scornful tone and appear to be ignorant of the origin of our race. Our ancestors were the Epirotes, of whom came that Pyrrhus whose attack the Romans, could hardly resist, who took by force of arms Tarentum and many Italian towns. You cannot set against the valiant Epirotes the Tarantines, a sodden race born to catch fish. If you say that Albania is part of Macedonia, you concede to us far nobler ancestors, who penetrated with Alexander into India, laying low with incredible success all the nations between who opposed them. From them are sprung these men who you call sheep. If we are sheep and Nature has not changed, why do you who are men flee before sheep? During these last days there has often been a chance to see whether the Albanians or the Apulians are cattle. Nor as yet have I found any man who could endure my countenance. I have come to know well" how thoroughly protected are your soldiers' backs; never yet have I been able to catch sight of a breastplate nor do I know the face of any except those whom I have put in chains. Neither do I seek your house since I am satisfied with my own, but I am doing my best to prevent you, who have often ejected neighboring princes from their possessions, from driving out a king also and from carrying out your unrighteous purpose of invading his kingdom. And if perchance in this effort I fall and find a tomb, as your prophesy, yet God, the King of all, will reward my soul, if not for accomplishing at least for planning and attempting a glorious deed. Farewell.

To me it seems clear the ethnic awareness, while he is self-identified as Albanian "Then you too despise our race and reckon the Albanians as sheep. You talk in your usual scornful tone and appear to be ignorant of the origin of our race.". Aigest (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It was Cynic.... --Vinie007 10:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Noli and Giammaria Biemmi

Unresolved

Works of Fan S. Noli are used as referenced source for almost 40 statements.

I propose to double check all statements based solely on Noli because he made serious mistake in his works about Skanderbeg and used documents forged by Giammaria Biemmi as source for his works.

It is confirmed by Kenneth M. Setton who stated that Noli had not discovered that Biemmi invented the "Anonymous of Antivari".(Setton, Kenneth M. (1978), The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), Volume II: The Fifteenth Century, DIANE Publishing, p. 102, ISBN 0-87169-127-2, Unfortunately Athanase Gegaj, L'Albanie et I'invasion turque au XV siecle, Louvain and Paris, 1937, pp. 77-80, had not discovered that the "Anonymous of Antivari" was an invention of Biemmi, nor had Noli even by 1947.)

I think that such serious mistake makes Fan S. Noli additionally non-reliable source (besides the fact that he is not contemporary historian and that his neutrality could be disputed because of his political engagement) for articles about Skanderbeg. Therefore I propose to investigate all informations which are referenced with his work and to remove informations which can not be supported by some other reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How is that related to Noli's reliability? As his biography is considered by scholars one of the best works about Skanderbeg please don't OR.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I explained how. Noli "made serious mistake in his works about Skanderbeg and used documents forged by Giammaria Biemmi as source for his works". It is not OR because I presented a source. That is The Papacy and the Levant, work of Kenneth M. Setton who received the Haskins Medal of the Medieval Academy of America and the John Frederick Lewis Prize of the Philosophical Society for this work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Catholic or Orthodox

FAQ does not support that Skanderbeg was only Catholic.

There are sources which support information that he was Orthodox before he was converted into Muslim like this source:

• Oliver Jens Schmitt: Skanderbeg: ein Aufstand und sein Anführer - 2008 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. "

There was discussion on the talk page about this issue. It did not end with consensus.

Taking above in consideration please don't attribute Catholic Christian religion only to Skanderbeg before reaching consensus about it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

When he returned to Albania he converted from Islam to Catholicism, not from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ardenica Monastery

Resolved

There is important information about the church Skanderbeg married his wife. It was an Eastern Orthodox Ardenica Monastery.

Sources:

• Elsie, Robert (2000). A dictionary of Albanian religion, mythology, and folk culture. New York University Press. p. 14. ISBN 0814722148.
• Gjika, Ilirjan. "Manastiri i Ardenices" (in Albanian). Retrieved 28 July 2010.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First part of his life is a question here

I don't know was Skanderbeg Catholic or Orthodox in the begining of his life, but I do know that Skanderbeg was hailed as Athleta Christi by the Pope and was declared captain general of the Holy See, and that he was baptited into Roman Catholic church. Here are some sources:

• Edwin E. Jacques (1995). The Albanians: an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present. McFarland. p. 188. ISBN 0899509320, 9780899509327. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Schmitt Oliver Jens (Hg.). Religion und Kultur im albanischsprachigen Südosteuropa. Peter Lang. p. 250. ISBN 3631602952, 9783631602959. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Quennell, Peter (1962). History today, Opseg 12. s.n. p. 428.
• Derek R. Hall (1996). Reconstructing the Balkans: a geography of the new Southeast Europe. Wiley. p. 127. ISBN 0471957585, 9780471957584. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• I. M. Lewis (1968). History and social anthropology. Tavistock. p. 275.
• Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers (2002). Albanian identities: myth and history. Indiana University Press. p. 92. ISBN 0253341892, 9780253341891. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Durham, Edith (1987). High Albania. Beacon Press. p. 44. ISBN 0807070351, 9780807070352. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Anyway, I am pretty sure that it was like this: 1.) Christian, 2.) Islam, 3.) Roman Catholic. Was he Catholic or Orthodox in the first point under Christian, is hard to tell, as sources contradict here. But, the important thing is that in his last years (most important ones), he was a Roman Catholic.--Kebeta (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Before 1443 nobody called him Athleta Christi. No source denies that he was Catholic in one part of his life (after 1443 and maybe even later) like no source denies that he was once Orthodox Christian (before he was converted to Islam, and maybe even later).

He was maybe converted to Roman Catholicism in 1443, but taking in consideration that he got married on 21 April 1451 in an Eastern Orthodox Ardenica Monastery it was maybe like this: 1.) Orthodox Christian, 2.) Islam, 3.) Orthodox Christian 4.) Roman Catholic. But it is only our OR. Sources say that he was Orthodox Christian in one period of his life before he converted to Roman Catholic religion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just one more clarification. If it is true that Athleta Christi refers to a class of Early Christian soldier martyrs, of whom the most familiar example is Saint Sebastian (see Military saints) then such title does not necessary mean that one who wears it is Catholic. Orthodox Stephen III of Moldavia was also awarded the title "Athleta Christi" (Champion of Christ) by Pope Sixtus IV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

After 1443 we know that he was a Catholic i.e please stick to the sourcesKastriote then proceeded to Krujë's cathedral where he renounced Islam and made a profession of Catholicism, not to mention that he was buried in a Catholic church.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, will you please be so kind to look at the source you presented. On the same page it says that "three times, in 1450, 1464 and in 1467 his capital Lezhe was besieged, but it never fell". Also, on the same page it says that all three Skanderbeg's brothers "died in captivity" after Gjon sent them to Sultan as hostages "in 1423", that League of Lezhe was established on "1 March 1444". Will you please be so kind to give us your opinion about those statements, i.e. 1)was Lezhe Skanderbeg's capital or it was Kruje? 2) Are years of the sieges of the Kruje correct? 3) Is it true that all three Skandrebeg's brothers died in Ottoman captivity? 4) Is it true that all four of them were sent by Gjon to Ottoman captivity in 1423? 5) What is the correct date of establishing League of Lezhe? And finally, 6) Why did you present this as reliable source? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, how we can determine his religion prior Islam, since sources contradict here? Any thoughts? --Kebeta (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg was born c.1405 and at that time his father was a Catholic and an ally of Venice but in 1410 his alliance with Venice ended and he allied himself with Lazarevic and converted to Orthodoxy. That alliance ended in 1413 and Gjon Kastrioti reconverted to Catholicism and even became a Venetian citizen. Eventually he died as a Roman Catholic, so except for a very brief period for most of his pre-Ottoman life Skanderbeg was a Catholic.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification.--Kebeta (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is not only about "pre-Ottoman life" of Skanderbeg. We should present all his "religious beliefs" in the infobox. The name of the section is Religious beliefs, a plural.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Antidiskriminator here that we have to present all his "religious beliefs". ZjarriRrethues, can you pin-point exact periods of Skanderbeg "religious beliefs". If I understood you correctly, it was like this:

• 1405 (born to a Catholic father) - 1410 (his father allayed with Lazarevic) = Roman Catholic
• 1410 (converted to Orthodoxy) - 1413 (alliance with Lazarevic ended) = Orthodox
• 1413 (converted to Catholicism) - ??? (???) = Roman Catholic
• ??? (converted to Islam) - ??? (???) = Islam
• ??? (converted to Catholicism) - 1468 (died) = Roman Catholic

ZjarriRrethues, did I wrote this correctly, and can you fill quotation marks?--Kebeta (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking in consideration that:

• for infobox purposes we don't need exact periods, but simple list of all his "religious beliefs"
• alliance with Lazarević is questionable (not mentioned in article about Gjon) because it is recorded that Gjon was under suzerainty of Ottoman Empire in 1409 when he sent "his eldest son, Stanisha, to be the Sultan's hostage". Even if there was such alliance and even if Gjon wasn't already Orthodox, that does necessary mean that Lazarević forced him to convert to Orthodoxy in order to be accepted as his ally. There were numerous alliances of feudal lords of different religions.
• Gjon and his sons, including Skanderbeg, donated taxes of two villages to Hilandar in 1426. Hilandar is a Serbian Orthodox monastery on Mount Athos
• Skanderbeg's brother Reposh died and is buried in 1431 in Serbian Orthodox monastery Hilandar, and maybe even his father Gjon/Ivan in May 1437
• Skanderbeg got married in Orthodox Ardenica Monastery in 1451
• Contemporary historians like Schmitt support information that he was Orthodox before he was converted into Muslim (Oliver Jens Schmitt: Skanderbeg: ein Aufstand und sein Anführer - 2008 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. ")

I think that it is very hard to make exact periods of Skanderbeg "religious beliefs". Therefore I propose to list all three of his religious beliefs in the infobox without attempt to list exact periods within the infobox (or the text of the article at least until there is scientific consensus reached about it).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Please read WP:OR i.e don't attribute religious motivations to various actions. Skanderbeg was a Muslim when part of the Ottoman army i.e he didn't convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, so I think that it's time for a complete RSN about Schmitt because these are mistakes that even school textbooks don't make.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, you forgot that you agreed that he was Orthodox when you wrote: "except for a very brief period for most of his pre-Ottoman life Skanderbeg was a Catholic." Also, you misinterpreted Schmitt. Schmitt wrote that Skanderbeg was "originally an Orthodox Christian" who "became Catholic Christian". He never denied that Skanderbeg was Muslim.

I fully agree with you that it is a time for "a complete RSN" which should include:

• Marin Barleti who is even included in the text of the lede despite the fact that he made up (FORGED) spurious correspondence between Vladislav II of Wallachia and Skanderbeg wrongly assigning it to the year 1443 instead to the year of 1444 and invented correspondence between Skanderbeg and Sultan Mehmed II
• Fan S. Noli who based his work on sources forged by Giammaria Biemmi
• Athanase Gegaj who also based his work on sources forged by Giammaria Biemmi
• Gennaro Francione (a writer also worked as an actor and director, theater, essayist and painter who is from the artistic point of view influenced by Hacker Art, art, Gothic Revival and the so-called cyber-culture)
• Work of Harry Hodgkinson coedited by Bejtullah D. Destani and Westrow Cooper. 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". Coeditor of this selfpubliched book, Mr. Bejtullah D. Dostani is founder and owner of The Centre for Albanian Studies which goals are to "publish books, pamphlets and to also organise conferences and seminars relating to Albania, Kosova and Albanian speaking world". 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;". Meaning that it is not only selfpublished but also selfinanced work (wp:Vanity). Here is link to site with biography of Westrow Cooper, another coeditor of Harry Hodgkison's Skanderbeg. He is " freelance writer and designer."

Disputing reliability of contemporary historians like Oliver Schmitt, Kenneth Setton or Boban Petrovski and in the same time supporting or ignoring (non)reliability of "intelligence officer" Harry Hodgkinson, freelance writer and designer Westrow Cooper, Gennaro Francione (a writer also worked as an actor and director, theater, essayist and painter who is from the artistic point of view influenced by Hacker Art, art, Gothic Revival and the so-called cyber-culture), Marin Barleti who forged Skanderbeg's correspondence to fit his interpretations of events and Fan S. Noli and Athanase Gegaj who based their works on forgery of Giammaria Biemmi can be seen as tendentious editing.

References

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For most of his pre-Ottoman life (i.e before converting to Islam) he was Catholic. When he reconverted to Catholicism he was a Muslim, not an Orthodox. He didn't convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism in 1443 i.e Schmitt made a mistake in his timline. Although since then Schmitt has changed his opinion about many issues including the whole half-Slav thing.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You simply ignored given explanation and arguments and again misinterpreted the source repeating the same arguments without convincing people, which can be seen as tendentious editing. It looks like you are unwilling to provide sources for your claims, ignoring arguments of other users, disputing reliability of very credible contemporary historians and accusing other users for OR without any evidence provided even if their arguments are supported with most reputable and credible sources and authors. Someone can see it as a case of wikilawyering and perhaps simply trolling and keeping others from writing articles.

Let me remind you what WP:Consensus say about tendentious editing: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, can you fill quotation marks above, or write your opinion when (in what period) he was Muslim, Roman Catholic or Orthodox? I am not going to change the article, I am just curious. Or this fact can't be verified? --Kebeta (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No I can't fill quotation marks above because, till now, I found sources which support that he was Orthodox, Muslim and Catholic, without exact periods. My personal opinion is that he was not very religious at all, but used religion to increase his wealth, power and territory, like all other medieval feudal lords. If I find sources for information about periods when he was Muslim, Roman Catholic or Orthodox I will bring it here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

COA

Newly placed COA of Kastrioti family has serious issue with providing reliable sources. User who made this COA (User:MissMJ) stated that presented sources for such image are "randomly scanned illustration and speculation"

Therefore I will return the previous image.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The vector version is sourced and you don't have sources supporting the opposite i.e please read WP:OR.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

New image is not "vector version" of the previous image (which was sourced with the same reference misused for the new image). That is another misinterpretation of yours because it is completely new image of different COA. Author of the new image, stated that there are no reliable sources, as I explained in above comment. Ignoring arguments of other users is another example of your tendentious editing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

All my work is based on finding sources and using them precisely so I suggest you stick to the sources[3] without the OR and POV.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is another misinterpretation of yours. You misinterpreted tertiary source which do not support your claim. It clearly says that Faik Konica was responsible for the flag which has been used 500 years after Skanderbeg was born, and almost 600 years after Kastrioti family became noble family in Albania. It does not support the substantial change of the image.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you support using reliable sources. Here is text about how Faik Konica designed new amblem with help of French sculptor. Conclusion: the emblem Konica designed is used as basis for new flag and COA of modern Albania. It is not Kastrioti COA.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is emblem used by Faik Konica on the cover of Albania in 1900. That is described in above presented source as "the arms of the future kingdom of Albania." This escutcheon, showing the double-headed eagle of the 15th century Albanian patriot Gjergj Kastrioti, or Skanderbeu, had been rediscovered by Faiku." Anybody can see that new "vector version" has nothing to do with the Kastrioti emblem presented on the covers of his periodical and that previous image much more resembles it. "Vector version" is modified Kastrioti emblem, with changed colors, form, wings, crown, eagle.... used in modern Albania.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Islamic pluralism? Please stick to the sources i.e don't attribute your OR to sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Here is Association culturelle Konitza: "Faik bég Konitza publiait l’Albania avec beaucoup de soins. Sur la couverture il y avait, comme marque, les armes du prochain royaume d’Albanie dessinées par un sculpteur français de talent, dont j’ai oublié le nom et qui mourut voici quelques années, dans les environs de New York, d’une chute en ballon."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You are slightly misunderstanding (and as a result, misrepresenting) my statements. I have clarified what I meant. -MissMJ (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobility

• Medieval and Renaissance Studies (1978). Viator. University of California Press. p. 388. ISBN 0-520-03608-5.

It is not so important, but it is interesting to know - Skanderbeg was granted nobility by Ragusans. If a main editor here can find a good place for this, that would be cool. --Kebeta (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Skanderbeg visited Ragusa (Dubrovnik) to convince its rectors to help fund his campaign to Italy. Altogether, he visited Dubrovnik in 1439, 1450 and in 1462. --Kebeta (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I support your proposal to inform readers of this article that he was granted Nobility by Ragusans if it is possible to support this claim with some additional sources taking in consideration that here we can find some informations about him being granted citizenship, not nobility status. Taking in consideration that next year, 1440 he was apointed as sanjabey of Sanjak of Debar, maybe there is some logic for Ragusa to efface such citizenship because he was a high military rank by Sultan Murat, and entrusted with implementing the Sultan's plans. OK, source for that information is not reliable but I still believe that it would be good to double check this information, if possible.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Babinger wrote that the council of the city of Ragusa decided to send three noble men to meet Skanderbeg and to inform him about their request not to enter the territory of the city of Ragusa (page 258).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg in WP Serbia

His mother may easily be Serbian, per sources, he was closely included in Second Battle of Kosovo aftermath, he was donating to Serbia monastery Hilandar, he is mentioned in Serbian literature numerous times. He IS very much related to this wikiproject. Why do you remove {{WP Serbia}} tag? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

He's not related to the wikiproject(btw I added an interview of Schmitt who has changed his views) and he's not an important part of Serbian literature. It's like saying that Prince Marko should be added in all Balkans wikiprojects because at some point various works mention him.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Works are just one part, he was highly related to Serbs and Serbia during his own life, apart from literature and myth's. What about the rest of connections? Just see the article. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If he ruled a part of Serbia or if he was significant part of Serbian history and culture then it'd be fine, but he's not important to Serbs as Obilic is not important to Albanian history and culture just because Catholic Albanians of Kosovo used to sing a couple of folk songs about him.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For that couple of folk songs we have WP Albania on Talk:Miloš Obilić. That is neutral way of dealing with wikipedia. Skanderbeg participated in Battle of Niš with Serbian army, First Act of Hilandar, Second Act of Hilandar, Skanderbeg proclaimed himself the heir of the Balšići, Serbian clan, there are 10000 connections! Also, its not up to you to remove wp tag out of non article space. He will not be less Albanian hero with WP Serbia tag on talk page, for god sake... That tag is anyway just technical help. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I would recommend posing this question to the Wiki Project page discussion : Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia since the debate is really about whether or not this article is part of that project or not.— Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 13:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Another work of Karl Hopf

Unresolved

I found another work of Karl Hopf which is frequently mentioning Skanderbeg. It is published in 1869 on German language and is completely available online, within Denkschriften: Volume 16 - Page 117 published by Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Maybe it would be a good idea to add it to the sources section?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Outdated books that aren't even used as sources would only increase reader/technical issues of a too large article(about 1/10 of a mb)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right that there is a problem with too large article. Maybe we can resolve that problem by removing recently published works from this list written by authors who are not scholars, like Harry Hodgkinson (British intelligence officer who took up strong anti-Serb positions) or Francione Gennaro and to add work of Karl Hopf who was scholar and expert in medieval history who frequently visited Italian and Greek medieval archives finding sources for his works.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Antid. don't IDHT as you know that Hodgkinson is a main source and 19th century works are outdated.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that work of British intelligence officer who held anti-Serb positions can be main source for this article (not scholarly and not neutral).

What do you think about replacing Francione Gennaro with Karl Hopf?

But I will repeat: you are right that Sources section is to big and that is a problem that we should try to resolve. Maybe we should follow the recommendations of this guideline and include only high-quality and scholarly sources in this section? Rest of sources can be placed in separate article which would deal with sources about Skanderbeg?

Additional way to resolve problem with the size of the Sources section is to remove forged works and works based on them to separate subsection or article. We should not hide from the readers of the article forgery of Giammaria Biemmi and Marin Barleti and Noli and Gegaj relying on the forged works in their works about Skanderbeg.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Biemmi issue is disputed and 19th century works are hardly high-quality sources. Btw from now on I'll be working mostly on mainspace content so I'll be replying only once per day to your comments. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Biemmi's forgeries are emphasized by Kenneth Setton and Franz Babinger. Will you please be so kind to present list of scholars who supported authenticity of Biemmi's work?

I made several proposals and only one was connected with Biemmi. Maybe the best way is to deal with Sources section size issue within separate section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Reducing the size of the article

The article is too big. According to recommendation this guideline this article should be splitted. This issue was already noticed by many other users and therefore I propose to respect their opinion and reduce the size of the article. I think that there are sections (i.e. In literature and art) which could clearly be significantly reduced and expanded within completely another article. Any proposal how to do it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the size of the article was one of the reasons that I failed the GA nomination. I propose you move a section to a separate article and then put a very short summary back into this main article. In literature and art is a good candidate (sub article would be Skanderbeg in literature and art). Check out how it was done for this section: Dutch_East_Indies#Architecture to this sub-article: Colonial_architecture_of_Indonesia --DeVerm (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for your advice. I will follow your advice and create separate article Skanderbeg in literature and art. After its completion I will put very short summary back into this main article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Work about Skanderbeg written by Paul Pisani in 1891

Resolved

La Légende de Skanderbeg is work of Paul Pisani, written in 1891 and solely dedicated to Skanderbeg, written by scholar, and therefore it deserves to be included in the section about Skanderbeg in literature and art. It is obvious that section "In literature and art" is very big and should be expanded within separate article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue is resolved by creating separate article for literature and art section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg built a village

There is something that Skanderbeg built, besides fortress near Dures. That is the village which name was Chorlu, mentioned in Babinger's work (p. 253). Maybe that information could be added to the article because it is probably one of two things Skanderbeg built in his life?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Size of the Sources section

Problem: There is opinion that article is too long. Also, there are opinions that Source section is too big (expressed in the GA review and in the section above this one).

Proposals how to solve the problem: I propose to follow the recommendations of the GA reviewer and Wikipedia:Further reading and resolve the size issue of the sources section. That means that:

1. we should use only sources which are high-quality and scholarly sources.
2. other sources can be placed in separate article which would deal with sources about Skanderbeg?
3. One of the ways to resolve problem with the size of the Sources section is to remove forged works and works based on them to separate subsection or article. We should not hide from the readers of the article forgery of Giammaria Biemmi and Marin Barleti and Noli and Gegaj relying on the forged works of Biemmi in their works about Skanderbeg.

Comments are welcome.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not try to remove sources --Vinie007 19:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Further reading section

Resolved

Maybe we can solve the problem of sources section being too big by dividing it into two sections: the existing one and new one "Further reading" section.

I asked one user who is experienced with sources and referencing styles for help with this issue. Her opinion was:

Separation of the full book citations into two groups sounds sensible. Those not referred to from short notes can be separated off into a "Further reading" section (it would go between "Sources" and "External links", per MOS:APPENDIX): I count 42 of these. Those referred to from short notes should definitely stay where they are

42 ?! I propose to have separate sections for: 1) sources which are referred to (they would stay where they are now) and 2) those not referred to (they would be moved into new "Further reading" section). Is anybody against it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

After I moved them I counted 37. Anyway we have clearly separated works which are used as referenced sources from works which can be used for further reading.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The federation of the League of Lezhë?

Resolved

In the lede of this article is written that Skanderbeg was:

leader of the federation of the League of Lezhë

I propose to replace the word federation because League of Lezhe was not federation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sucession box and Ballaban Pasha, Prince of Kastrioti?

There is succession box at the end of the article. I have few questions about it:

1. Regnal titles? - Skanderbeg had many important titles which were not regnal titles, like head of League of Lezhe or Sanjakbey of the Sanjak of Debar or subashi of Kruje. I propose to inform the readers all titles Skanderbeg had. Like in the Napoleon article.
2. Governor (Turkish: subaşi) of the Krujë zeamet. In period 1438—1440 he was governor of Krujë zeamet. He was preceded on that position by Zaganos bey. I propose to add this title in the succession box, because that is very important title Skanderbeg had before becoming the sanjakbey.
3. Sanjakbey. Skanderbeg had very important title of Sanjakbey of Sanjak of Debar in period 1440—1443. I propose to add this title in the succession box, because that is very important title Skanderbeg had before becoming the prince.
4. Prince of Kastrioti title. - I noticed that succession box contains information that Skanderbeg had title "Prince of Kastrioti" in period 28 November 1443 — 2 March 1444. Is it possible that this title is incorrect because there is only 1 GoogleBooks search result for "Prince of Kastrioti"?
5. Ballaban Pasha, Prince of Kastrioti? Are there any sources which support claim that Ballaban Pasha had title of Prince of Kastrioti like it is written in the sucession box at the end of the article? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The succession box is only used for regnal titles.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Will you please be so kind to point to the rule which supports your claim?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

succession box – A table that lists notable titles, awards and other honours held by the subject of the page (usually an individual), all of which have the common characteristic that they pass from one holder to another. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Antid. when the subject is a monarch, only regnal titles are added. It's a common practice on all articles. Minor titles like sanjakbey etc. are never added for noblemen.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Look at Napoleon (GA). There is succession box with all Napoleon's titles: of Provisional Consul of France and First Consul of France besides regnal titles. Now I noticed that Napoleon has one more type of titles, Titles in pretence. I propose to add this type of titles to this article and to inform readers by this succession box that Skanderbeg proclaimed himself the heir of the Balšići when he pretended on their throne.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominus Albaniae

Added "Dominus Albaniae" (Lord of Albania). This is the title he used while signing his letters. His father Gjon Kastrioti was addressed as "Dominus partium Albaniae" (Lord of part of Albania) link Aigest (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not an article about the titles of Skanderbeg's father, but Skanderbeg's. Please provide sources for your claim about Skanderbeg's title.

Your claim contradicts itself. If Gjon really had different title then Skanderbeg then he could not precede Skanderbeg's title which is different. Also, please take in consideration that almost all medieval lords used exaggerated titles when they were signing their letters. We are talking about part of the Succession box which deals with regnal titles (the title held by a monarch while in office). Please provide sources which explain that Skanderbeg was monarch with title Dominus Albaniae together with informations about monarchy which name was Albaniae (Albania).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your point.

• You claim "If Gjon really had different title then Skanderbeg then he could not precede Skanderbeg's title which is different". Who said that Gjon preceded Gjergj in this title?! Take a look at the infobox. It is stated that the title was created and the first person to use it was Scanderbeg and after him the title desist. Stop deforming my statements!!
• You claim "Please provide sources which explain that Skanderbeg was monarch with title Dominus Albaniae together with informations about monarchy which name was Albaniae (Albania)." The infobox is not about monarch titles but for titles (eg Baron, Count, Duke, Lord, Earl, pope, bishop, Minister, President etc), if you don't get it it's not my fault. Also I am surprised that you ask for a source on that title, since without making much search on that issue, there is Setton himself which you were citing here in this talk page several times which says so: Pope Gregor on one of his letters dated September 10, 1457. "...dilectus filius nobilis vir Georgius Castrioti dictus Scandarbech Albanie Dominus, qui prope.." Setton 1976 p. 194. Apparently either you are not familiar with work of Setton on Scanderbeg (and in this case you should not edit based on your limited understanding of his work), either you are familiar with Setton, but had an amnesia on that (this should be a surprise since you contribute here very frequently and this topic is very distinct) or you are trolling (and this would not be your first time) Aigest (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• My statement was: "If Gjon really had different title then Skanderbeg then he could not precede Skanderbeg's title which is different". You misinterpreted my statement. It explained that Gjon could not precede Skanderbeg in Skanderbeg's title "Prince of Kastrioti" (the title you presented within the sucession box) because Gjon's title was "Dominus partium Albaniae" (according to you). Unless you don't provide a sources which claim that during Skanderbeg's life there was some monarchy which name was Albania it would not be possible to leave the information about title 'Albanie dominus' in the succession box. I am sure that you noticed this problem because the only non-linked title in this succession box is 'Dominus Albanie'.
• "The infobox is not about monarch titles but for titles". I think you are wrong here. There are different templates for different kind of succession boxes. This article uses {{s-reg}} template which is not for all titles but only for Regnal titles, like it is written on the top of the succession box of this article.
• Another issue: The head of military alliance like League of Lezhë is not regnal title. There is another template for titles for military commanders (Template:S-mil). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the head of military alliance like League of Lezhë is not regnal title I will provide that information within appropriate succession box like it is written below:

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman timariots claimed to be Princes of Kastrioti

After my question connected with providing the sources for information about Balaban Pasha being Prince of Kastrioti, User:Aigest changed it to another Ottoman timariot, Gjon Kastrioti. I propose to provide some sources for that claim, taking in consideration that text of the article says that Gjon Kastrioti was Ottoman timariot who Ottoman zeamet untill he died 6,5 years before Skanderbeg is claimed to succeed Gjon by gaining the title of Prince of Kastrioti.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Prince of Kastrioti title is different from Ottoman titles. AFAIK Gjon Kastrioti accepted the suzerainty of Sultan Murad II, but he was not a timariot. Instead Gjon Kastrioti was a vassal, just like Đurađ Branković. As you see the title Despot of Serbia was held by Đurađ Branković even though he was a vassal of the Ottomans and the title "Despot of Serbia" was inherited by his son Lazar Branković in 1456, being Lazar himself a vassal of the Sultan. It's pretty much the same thing here. Ballaban has nothing to do with Kastrioti titles Aigest (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. Read the text of the article:

• During the 1430s, Skanderbeg controlled a relatively large timar composed of nine villages,... [4]. Click on timar.
• Murad II (r. 1421–1451) had given him the title of vali. Click on the Wāli.
• After his brother Reposh's death on 25 July 1431[16] and the later deaths of Kostandin and Skanderbeg's father (who died in 1437), Skanderbeg and his surviving brother Stanisha continued to govern the zeamet that had earlier been governed by their father.[5]. Click on zeamet.
• In 1437–1438,[14] he became a governor (Turkish: subaşi) of the Krujë zeamet. [6]. Click on Subaşi. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

His father Gjon Kastrioti never possessed Kruja. The zeamet of Kruja was under Zaganoz bey from since its conception in 1431, it passed to Skanderbeg in 1437 and returned to Zaganoz in 1438. After 1431 Gjon Kastrioti domains were reduced in a territory stretching from Shufada port (south of Lezhe) to the area between Mat and Diber (castles Stelush, Çidhën, Gur i bardhë were his remaining castles). Gjon Kastrioti never possessed a zeamet. And the page 343 on Anamali states that after their fathers death in 1437, Gjergj Kastrioti and his brother Stanisha inherited what remained of Kastrioti principality and maintained the relations that their father had with Raguza and Venice and in 1438 and 1439 they managed to have the same privileges that their father had with those states. (Anamali p.343) This is also documented by the letter I've mentioned somewhere else where you can see that he is presented as legitimate heir of Gjon and inherited credits and debts that his father had and it is stated clearly that some merchant had some debts to him, resulting from the use that they had made to the customs of Gjon Kastrioti. Skanderbeg and Gjon Kastrioti widow (Jella-Vojsava) as legitimate heirs of Gjon Kastrioti rights requested that debt to get paid. Aigest (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that your interpretations could make everything even more confusing and in some cases maybe even absurd. I think that it is absurd to claim that in 1437 Skanderbeg became the Prince of some Principality of Kastrioti taking in consideration that sultan appointed Skanderbeg to be the Ottoman " governor (Turkish: subaşi) of the Krujë zeamet" in 1437 and sanjakbey of Sanjak of Debar in 1440.

Please be so kind to double check the sources for your claims. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've checked the sources on Anamali and they maintain what I said above. Scanderbeg and his brother succeeded Gjon on his domains, which were not a zeamet, but personal domains as a vassal of the sultan. I didn't claim that Gjergj become a prince in 1437 (maybe his brother did, maybe he did that's why he was removed as subash of Kruje, maybe nobody did at that time who knows). The documents state clear that he and his brother inherited what had remained as their fathers' territory. However as far as I see in the article box it is stated that he was prince from 1443 -1444. Before that his father held that title. I don't understand what are you contesting here? Aigest (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Aigest. Please understand that there is no need to rush with replies. When I wrote my proposal to you to double check your sources I gave you advice to you to check all sources you can approach about this matter. Please AGF. What is most important is to improve the quality of this article. When you rush with your replies you only contradict yourself even more. Your claims and statements you wrote contradicts each other and your editing. Here are statements and claims and edits which contradict to each other and your edits:

1. "after their fathers death in 1437, Gjergj Kastrioti and his brother Stanisha inherited what remained of Kastrioti principality"
2. "Scanderbeg and his brother succeeded Gjon on his domains, which were not a zeamet, but personal domains as a vassal of the sultan."
3. "I didn't claim that Gjergj become a prince in 1437 (maybe his brother did, maybe he did"
4. His father Gjon Kastrioti was addressed as "Dominus partium Albaniae" (completely different title than Prince of Kastrioti)
5. you added the name of Gjon Kastrioti into Succession box like he preceded Skanderbeg with the title of Prince of Kastrioti before 1443 although Gjon/Ivan died in 1437 and according to you was succeeded on his personal domains by Scanderbeg and/or his brother

Please take my advice. Check carefully on all sources and return with your position which will not contain contradictory statements and claims. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to show me which information I gave here is contradicting with whom?? P.S. As an example of my coherence read Principality of Kastrioti article which states that "It was created by Gjon Kastrioti and then ruled by the national hero of Albania, George Kastrioti Skanderbeg." It was me who my changed the infobox accordingly, thus being coherent with wiki articles. I would recommend you to check your sources and words twice before claiming others' "contradiction"! Aigest (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No problem:

• Number 1 and 2 contradicts number 3 and 5.
• Number 3 contradicts number 1, 2 and 5.
• Number 4 contradicts number 5.
• Number 5 contradicts numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mind to explain with your own words how and why do they contradict? Aigest (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course I will explain, although I believe it is quite obvious. In claims num 1 and 2 you say that Skanderbeg and Staniša ("Gjergj Kastrioti and his brother Stanisha" or "Scanderbeg and his brother") succeded Gjon on his domain in 1437 ("after their fathers death"). In claim num 3 you say: "I didn't claim that Gjergj become a prince in 1437 (maybe his brother did, maybe he did"). And in claim num 5 you claim that Gjon was succeeded by Skanderbeg in 1443. And to the top of all of that, you claim (num 4) that Gjon had another title, "Dominus partium Albaniae".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And where is the contradiction?! Yes they succeeded their father, it does not mean that Skanderbeg used Gjon title at that time in 1437. You say "in claim num 5 you claim that Gjon was succeeded by Skanderbeg in 1443" I didn't say so, instead I claimed that "after their fathers death in 1437, Gjergj Kastrioti and his brother Stanisha inherited what remained of Kastrioti principality and maintained the relations that their father had with Raguza and Venice and in 1438 and 1439 they managed to have the same privileges that their father had with those states." Don't try to put other words in my mouth!! Will you understand that infobox is about the titles. Different persons (even not be related to each other) can succeed each other in titles. If you are referring to my edit, just note that it is consistent with Principality of Kastrioti article. If you have anything against it jump there. You also claim that "to the top of all of that, you claim (num 4) that Gjon had another title, "Dominus partium Albaniae"" that was just an extra info, none did edits based on that, you should have understood it. Please note also that the link I provided for that extra info was referring to a 1406 AD document, when Gjon was first mentioned in the sources. How and with what do you find a "contradiction" with that is beyond me really. Aigest (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aigest, Will you please be so kind not to use !! signs when talking to me or other users.
• You can not use another wikipedia article (Principality of Kastrioti) to support informations you added in this article. If you look at talk page of that article, you will notice there are serious issues which are not resolved there. Therefore, please try to support your claims with reliable sources, not other wikipedia articles.
• I will do my best to understand your logic. I will try to summarize your opinion.

1. Gjon had two titles. One is "Dominus partium Albaniae" and other is "Prince of Kastrioti".
2. When Gjon died in 1437 he was succeeded by Skanderbeg, Staniša (and maybe Jella who you believe is mistakenly confused with Vojsava) who succeeded Gjon and inherited what remained from the Kastrioti principality in everything except Gjon's titles
3. Although both of them inherited the Principality of Kastrioti, in 1437 only one of them succeeded Gjon in his title of Prince. It was either Skanderbeg or Staniša.
4. Although there was Principality of Kastrioti on western Ottoman frontiers, governed by Skanderbeg (or maybe by his brother too) after 1437, the sultan of Ottoman Empire appointed Skanderbeg on very high positions within Ottoman Empire. First on position of subaşi of Kruje zeamet in period 1437-1438 and then on position of sanjakbey of the Sanjak of Debar in 1440.
5. Then on November 28, 1443, more than six years after his father died, Skanderbeg somehow succeeded his father in one of his titles, the "Prince of Kastrioti" although that title was already suceeded by him or Staniša in 1437.

Please confirm if above mentioned summary correctly interpret your claims?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Matthias Corvinus about Skanderbeg

I found interesting information about what Matthias Corvinus replied to pope when he criticized Korvin for his delay in starting war with Ottoman Empire in his letter written in July 1465.

If I would follow the example of Epirote (Skanderbeg)*, bragging about my victories all the time, adding to the chronicles every single village my forces burned in enemy territory, every single prisoner they captured and every peace of booty my men robbed, it would be obvious that my weapon was not still even when I was sitting in Budim.

Klaić, Vjekoslav (1904), "Ratovanje s Turcima (1464. — 1466) (War with Turks [1464. — 1466])", Povjest Hrvata, od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX.stoljeća. (in Croatian), Zagreb: Tisak i Nakl. Knjižare Lav. Hartmana, p. 61, OCLC 593973015, >Kad bi se ja povađao za Epiroćaninom (Skenderbegom)*, pisao je u svom odgovoru, >kad bi se ja svaki čas hvalio pobjedama, te dao upisati u Ijetopise svako selo, što su ga moje čete u neprijateljskoj zemlji spalile, svakoga čovjeka, kojega su zarobili, i svaki komad blaga, što su ga oteli, e onda bi se pokazalo, da moje oružje nije počivalo ni onda, kad sam ja u Budimu sjedio....« {{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) 13:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Many theories on the place of birth, and only one presented to the readers.

Unresolved

The text of the article says:

"Although there have been many theories on the place where Skanderbeg was born,[134] the main biographers now tend to agree on the place of birth as the village of Sinë, in modern Albania."

Maybe it would be according to the NPOV policy to present to the readers all significant theories about his birthplace, not only one like in existing text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above mentioned explanation, I propose to remove Sinë from the infobox and to replace it with "Debar region". Most of the theories support that he was born in region of Debar (Dibra region). It is wrong to state that it is in "modern day Albania" like it is written in the infobox of the article. Significant part of the territory of the Debar region belongs to Macedonia too. Regarding the infobox of this article, I propose to inform readers that Skanderbeg was born in the Dibra region which belongs to the modern day Albania and Macedonia. Is anybody against it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Antid, look at the note "Although there have been many theories on the place where Skanderbeg was born,[134] the main biographers now tend to agree on the place of birth as the village of Sinë, in modern Albania. One of the main Skanderbeg biographers, Frashëri, has, among other, interpreted Gjon Muzaka's book of genealogies, sources of Raffaele Maffei, ("il Volterrano" (1451–1522)), and the Turkish defter (census) of 1467 and has placed the birth of Skanderbeg in the small village." That is very clear, while you are trying to mess things up again?! Aigest (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"you are trying to mess things up again"... Aigest, please be so kind and explain this accusation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Duh, it is obvious. While the note explains that now biographers pinpoint Sinë village, you try to ignore it and go for more foggy style, first not mentioning the village, but going for the region and later pushing further by adding ambiguity stating that the region now lays in two states. That is adding useless ambiguity since if you say that it was born in Dibër region one might also speculate that maybe he was born in any place or village in Dibër region. Now how informative is that (even ignoring scholarship consensus)?! Imagine different versions, say:"X was born in Europe vs X was born in Germany vs X was born in Berlin". Which one do you think would be the most informative and academic version? Taking the text of article from consensus accuracy to OR ambiguity fulfills the parameters of messing things up. Aigest (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You failed to explain you accusation that I frequently try to mess up things ("you are trying to mess things up again").

We can conclude that there are three things connected with Skanderbeg's birth which are disputed:

1. ethnicity of Skanderbeg.
2. geographical region in which he is born (Albania or Macedonia) and
3. in what modern country his place of birth is today. It is either Republic of Macedonia or Republic of Albania.

The existing article hides above mentioned disputes and present Skanderbeg as undisputed Albanian, in ethnic, geographical and country sense. That is against NPOV policy and should be clarified. There is no consensus about his ethnicity and there is no consensus about the geographical region he was born in. Therefore it is very important to follow NPOV policy and present all significant views about Skanderbeg's birth especially if there is no scientific consensus about it (there are Macedonian scholars who are proud because Skanderbeg's monument is erected in Skopje and they refer to Skanderbeg as Macedonian).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Although there have been many theories on the place where Skanderbeg was born,[134] the main biographers now tend to agree on the place of birth as the village of Sinë, in modern Albania. is a very concise way to deal with the birthplace. Btw is there even a theory that claims that his birthplace was a settlement within modern Macedonia? --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That sentence contradicts itself. It first says there is no consensus, and after that it claims there is consensus. Let us try to resolve thiss issue. Will you please be so kind to present the list of main biographers together with quotations with their claims that Skanderbeg was born in Sine?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is references list on the bottom of the article so please read them. However, you're claiming that there are theories that place his birthplace in the modern Republic of Macedonia. Which are those settlements and which scholars maintaing those views? If you don't present these alternative sources that you mentioned I can't/won't contribute anything new to this section.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Robelli, Enver (25), Schweizer Historiker weckt den Ärger der Albaner (in German), Switzerland: Tagesanzeiger, Skanderbegs Familie stammte aus der Region Dibra, die sich heute an der Grenze zwischen Albanien und Mazedonien befindet. Das Gebiet war im Mittelalter sowohl von albanischen als auch von slawischen Stämmen christlich-orthodoxen Glaubens besiedelt. Skanderbegs Mutter Vojsava war eine Serbin aus der einflussreichen Familie Brankovic. Der Name des Stammes Kastrioti leitet sich laut Schmitt vermutlich vom griechischen Wort «kastron» (Festung) ab....Skanderbeg family came from the region of Dibra, which is now located on the border between Albania and Macedonia. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |editorn-last=, |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Read the authorization of this interview at the end of the page. The author of the quoted sentence is Oliver Jens Schmitt. Let me present the source with explanation who is Oliver Jens Schmitt: Momčilo Spremić, a member of Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, specialist for history of Balkans in late middle ages stated that Schmitt's work is the best biography of Skanderbeg till now ("најбоље написана историја Скендербега"). If I am not wrong, this main biographer of Skanderbeg does not support Sine thesis.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is the same who made the SANU Memorandum (1986) ..edited by Serb intellectuals, as well as public officials, referred to in Part I of this Annex, expressed the plight of Kosovo's Serbs. The document was considered by many to be the heralding of a new ethnic nationalism. The paper placed the imprimatur of Serbia's most prestigious intellectuals on the cause of militant Serbian nationalism and was instrumental in spreading anti-Albanian sentiment. Some consider the SANU Memorandum has purpose of reviving the Greater Serbian ideology and to put it into political practice. According to American historian James J. Sadkovich SANU managed to galvanize Croats more than any Croatian far right group Aigest (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I took your advice and red the references at the bottom of the article. There is no quotation which support Sine thesis. If nobody presents "list of main biographers together with quotations with their claims that Skanderbeg was born in Sine" within reasonable period of time the Sine thesis might be removed from this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask for the geographical definition of Diber, but a source that says that he was born in a settlement of modern Macedonia. You don't have to add a quotation as long as there's page number given.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am very surprised with your totally incorrect claim, especially taking in consideration that you are very well acquainted with WP:NOENG policy. The only source for Sine thesis which is referenced in the article is Kristo Frasheri work written on Albanian language. I am sure that I don't have to remind you that there is a policy (WP:NOENG) for using sources on English language. It was you who stressed the importance of that policy and even replaced a source because it was written on Serbian language. Please pay more attention because someone, not me, could find your editing and obviously incorrect statement as attempt to ignore or refuse to answer a good faith question from another editor which is kind of tendentious editing. Still, I will again AGF and remind you that policy you know so well says: '... if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.
• I will repeat my question hoping that you will not ignore it or refuse to answer it: Will you please be so kind to present the list of main biographers together with quotations with their claims that Skanderbeg was born in Sine? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no obligation to provide a quote, but if you're that concerned about it ask from Gaius to add the quote.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned because the opinion of "main biographers" is obviously contradictory information supported only by Frasheri. If nobody presents "list of main biographers together with quotations with their claims that Skanderbeg was born in Sine" within reasonable period of time the Sine thesis might be removed from this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Paladin Gundulić

• Paladin Gundulić, a diplomat and merchant from Republic of Ragusa, was engaged for maintaining the connection between king of Naples and Skanderbeg.

Sources:

1. Spremić, Momčilo (1971). Dubrovnik i Aragonci (1442-1495) (in Serbian). Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika Socijalističke Republike Srbije. p. 26, 105. Retrieved 22 August 2011. Гундулић је постао поверљива личност напуљског краља, коме је слао тајне извештаје из Дубровника o политичкој ситуацији на Балканском полуострву....Паладин Гундулић, поверљиво лице краља Ферантеа. Гундулић му је чинио разне услуге у Дубровнику, а, одлазио је и као његов амбасадор у Напуљ, па је тако био врлр заслужан за одржавање везе између Скендербега и напуљског... Gundulić became trusted person of king of Naples to whom he sent classified reports from Dubrovnik about political situation on the Balkans...Paladin Gundulić, a trusted person of the king Ferante. Gundulić did many favours to Ferante in Dubrovnik being his ambassador in Naples and therefore in charge for maintaining the connection between Skanderbeg and the king of Naples. {{cite book}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
2. Božić, Ivan (1952). Dubrovnik i Turska u xiv i xv veku. Naučna knjiga. p. 180. Одржавање присних веза олакшано је и тиме што се у Скендербеговој служби налазио Дубровчанин Паладин Гундулић који му је свршавао многе дипломатске мисије... The close relationship was easier because there was one Ragusian, Paladin Gundulić who completed many diplomatic missions for Skanderbeg {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help).

Maybe someone could find this information useful when adding information about diplomats and scribes who worked for Skanderbeg.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about sources used in article(s) about Skanderbeg

Unresolved

Please find below my conversation with User:Gaius Claudius Nero about sources used in article(s) about Skanderbeg. Since it is related to Skanderbeg I copied it here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I know that you are on wikibreak but I simply had to approach to you because I recently discovered about Biemmi and work of Noli which heavily relied on him and Barleti. Unfortunately, you too considered Biemmi as "one of the primary sources on Skanderbeg and his campaigns" and heavily relied many articles you wrote on questionable sources like:

• Marin Barleti who is even included in the text of the lede of Skanderbeg article despite the fact that he made up (FORGED) spurious correspondence between Vladislav II of Wallachia and Skanderbeg wrongly assigning it to the year 1443 instead to the year of 1444 (Setton, Kenneth (1976—1984), The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571, vol. four volumes, American Philosophical Society, p. 73, ISBN 978-0-87169-114-9, ...... The spurious correspondence of July and August 1443, between Ladislas and Scanderbeg (made up by Barletius, who should assigned it to the year 1444) ... {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)) and invented correspondence between Skanderbeg and Sultan Mehmed II (Setton, Kenneth (1976—1984), The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571, vol. four volumes, American Philosophical Society, p. 73, ISBN 978-0-87169-114-9, ...... He also invented a correspondence between Skanderbeg and Sultan Mehmed II to fit his interpretations of the events in 1461—1463 ... {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help))
• Fan S. Noli who based his work on sources forged by Giammaria Biemmi(Setton, Kenneth M. (1978), The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), Volume II: The Fifteenth Century, DIANE Publishing, p. 102, ISBN 0-87169-127-2, Unfortunately Athanase Gegaj, L'Albanie et I'invasion turque au XV siecle, Louvain and Paris, 1937, pp. 77-80, had not discovered that the "Anonymous of Antivari" was an invention of Biemmi, nor had Noli even by 1947.)
• Athanase Gegaj who also based his work on sources forged by Giammaria Biemmi(Setton, Kenneth M. (1978), The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), Volume II: The Fifteenth Century, DIANE Publishing, p. 102, ISBN 0-87169-127-2, Unfortunately Athanase Gegaj, L'Albanie et I'invasion turque au XV siecle, Louvain and Paris, 1937, pp. 77-80, had not discovered that the "Anonymous of Antivari" was an invention of Biemmi, nor had Noli even by 1947.)
• Gennaro Francione (a writer also worked as an actor and director, theater, essayist and painter who is from the artistic point of view influenced by Hacker Art, art, Gothic Revival and the so-called cyber-culture)
• Work of Harry Hodgkinson coedited by Bejtullah D. Destani and Westrow Cooper. 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". Coeditor of this selfpubliched book, Mr. Bejtullah D. Dostani is founder and owner of The Centre for Albanian Studies which goals are to "publish books, pamphlets and to also organise conferences and seminars relating to Albania, Kosova and Albanian speaking world". 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;". Meaning that it is not only selfpublished but also selfinanced work (wp:Vanity). Here is link to site with biography of Westrow Cooper, another coeditor of Harry Hodgkison's Skanderbeg. He is " freelance writer and designer."

I believe that reliability, neutrality and credibility of above mentioned authors and their works is seriously questioned. I am sure that you are aware that we have serious problem with numerous statements and articles which heavily rely solely on above mentioned authors and their works.

What do you think how we can solve this problem?

Taking in consideration that you are on wiki break for next two weeks, I will leave this matter for now, regarding articles about numerous Skanderbeg's campaigns within Template:Ottoman-Albanian_Wars that you are main contributor of.

Please think about this issue. I hope that I can expect your proposal how to resolve this issue till the end of June?

Best regards,

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Marin Barleti is still the primary source on Skanderbeg and is used by nearly all historians who study Skanderbeg. Primary sources oftentimes contain forgery and that is why we leave it to historians to interpret it and thus we avoid WP:OR. Furthermore, if we have to exclude any work which partly or fully relies on Barleti, then we also have to exclude nearly every work written on Skanderbeg, including Setton who, despite qualifying Barleti, still makes use of his works. To further substantiate my argument, Setton says: For the career of Scanderbeg, Barletius is a valuable source, but he should also be used with extreme caution.
• Fan Noli is the main work on Skanderbeg and Franz Babinger, despite disputing Biemmi's reliability, says: The standard modern biography in English of the Albanian national hero is Fan S. Noli ....
• Gegaj's work is a PhD thesis for the University of Paris, and according to WP:RS, Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community[.] The same goes for Noli who wrote his thesis for the Boston University. For Athanas Gegaj (and for Fan Noli) you use Biemmi's disputed status to say that they are unreliable. Rinaldina Russell who holds a PhD in Italian Literature conferred with distinction from Columbia University says A chronicle more reliable than Barletius's was authored by the so-called Anonymous of Antivari... We know of its contents thanks to G. M. Biemmi. Südost Forschungen, Volume 43, explains Noli's argument: But Noli thinks that Babinger is wrong because Luccari, the Ragusan annalist, knew of a "History of Scanderbeg" by the Archbishop of Durres who was from Antivari.
• I have explained before that Francione's work has been checked by Dr. Hasan Luçi and Prof. Dr. Ago Nezha for accuracy before being published. His work is only used for noncontroversial passages and he cites his work throughout. Either way, I use him sparingly.
• Hodgkinson's work has been vetted by David Abulafia. Furthermore, you are using Wikipedia policy to try and qualify a non-Wikipedia editor. Malcolm does not speak disapprovingly of Destani, but he approves his efforts. But if you wish to hold on to your argument, you must also apply it to Oliver Jens Schmitt, whose work was first published by Ardian Klosi (his family owns the K&B publishing company) and is a noted pro-Serb.[7]. Kristo Frashëri notes: Siç e pohon vetë autori, merita e botimit më parë shqip se në origjinalin gjermanisht u takon përpjekjeve të përkthyesit, Ardian Klosit.[8]--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your above written reply. I will think about your arguments and decide how to proceed, based on my conclusion about them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaius Claudius Nero, I think that you misunderstood my comment and I will try to clarify the main issues:

1. the problem of primary sources used in articles about Skanderbeg. Many primary sources (Biemmi, Barleti, Franco) are used (mostly by you Gaius Claudius Nero) as direct source of information in articles about Skanderbeg. Not trough interpretation of, historians, like you yourself wrote. Besides this article, informatons in many other articles about Skanderbeg are supported by primary sources, i.e. 77% of the references in this article about Skanderbeg are based on the primary source - Demetrio Franco born in 1443. (5 references of Franco, 2 references of Franco, 5 references of Franco, 2 statements directly supported with Biemmi, 3 references of Franco, 2 statements supported with what Barleti said, Barleti directly referenced ....
2. the problem of using the works of authors who are not historians. Hodgkinson and Francione are not historians and they can not be regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand which is request of this and this guideline.
3. the problem of using the works of authors who are not contemporary historians (Noli and Gegaj) who heavily relied on forged sources (Biemmi) believing in its genuineness.

I hope that, based on above mentioned clarification, it obvious that I did not propose "to exclude any work which partly or fully relies on Barleti" like you implied. Please respect your own words when it comes to any primary source and "leave it to historians to interpret it".

I believe that above mentioned issues are very serious and require significant attention of all interested users. Comments are welcome.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I sense that this issue will never be resolved if we were the only ones involved so I suggest submitting it to WP:RSN.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right that two of us should not be the only participants in this discussion. That is exactly the reason why I copied our conversation to this talk page. Let us learn what other users have to say before we take any further action.

I already explained, there are three groups of sources which I believe can be the problem. Maybe only in case of second group there is a need to submit them to RSN, if we don't reach consensus.

1. Primary sources. I think we resolved this issue because we agreed to follow wikipedia policies and guidelines and "leave it to historians to interpret it".
2. works of authors who are not historians Since Hodgkinson and Francione are not historians I think they can not be regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand which is request of this and this guideline. That is something that maybe will have to be submitted to RSN if we don't reach consensus about it.
3. works of authors who are not contemporary historians (Noli and Gegaj) who heavily relied on forged sources (Biemmi) believing in its genuineness. I did not propose to declare them as non-reliable. Taking in consideration that they used forged sources and mistakenly believed they are genuine, I think that we should not add any information to the articles about Skanderbeg if those informations can be supported only with works of Noli and Gegaj.

I will mark this section with {{Not resolved}} and wait for the opinion of other users. Taking in consideration that this is period of summer holidays, there is no reason to rush with any action until mid September.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides the above mentioned arguments I think that it could be good to have in mind what I discovered in some sources which explain that Albanian historiography is not always objective when it comes to Skanderbeg. Those sources explain that Albanian historiography placed a significant effort to adapt the facts about Skanderbeg to meet the requests of the contemporary ideology. Those sources say that official history prepared by intellectuals in Tirana and thought in schools in Albania don't present the real Skanderbeg, but myth of Skanderbeg, which is very different than real Skanderbeg.

Sources:

• Nitsiakos, Vassilis (2010), On the Border - Transborder Mobility, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries along the Albanian-Greek Frontier, Berlin: Lit Verlag, p. 213, ISBN 978-3-643-10793-0, OCLC 700517914, Even a quick look into the historiography of those times suffices to see the effort to adapt the story of Skenderbeg to contemporary ideological stipulations. {{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)
• Jens Schmitt, Oliver. "Skanderbeg Ein Winterkönig an der Zeitenwende" (in German). Retrieved 7 April 2011. Heute gibt es zwei Skanderbegs - den historischen und den zum Nationalhelden erhobenen Mythos, wie er in albanischen Schulen und von nationalistischen Intellektuellen in Tirana oder Prishtina dargestellt wird. Beide haben weniger miteinander zu tun als entfernte Verwandte. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How are you going to open up this topic when refusing to send the previous one to RSN? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is evidence that you are waging wikiwar on me by constantly hounding me (especially since I have been away from Wikipedia for so long). Either way, the first source does not even talk about modern historiography, only the historiography during the atheistic Communist era. Schmitt's reference doesn't mention which ones he considers nationalist; and even if he did, if we were to use your logic, we would say that Schmitt is unreliable since other scholars consider him to be unreliable.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Jens Schmitt

I started discussion about using the primary sources in the articles about Skanderbeg (like Biemmi and Barleti), about using the works of authors who are not historians (Hodgkinson and Francione) and about works of authors who are not contemporary historians (Noli and Gegaj) who heavily relied on forged sources (Biemmi) believing in its genuineness.

In your reply, Gaius Claudius Nero, you disputed reliability of contemporary historian Oliver Jens Schmitt. I don't understand your arguments without additional clarifications and translation. Therefore I need your help to better understand it before I can reply it.

• Will you please be so kind to clarify your claim and position about Schmitt and Ardian Klosi? Do you believe that Schmitt's work is not reliable because the translator of this work (Klosi) is related with the owner of the K&B, Tirana, Albania which published Klosi's translation of Schmitt's work on Albanian language?
• Will you please translate above mentioned sentence: Siç e pohon vetë autori, merita e botimit më parë shqip se në origjinalin gjermanisht u takon përpjekjeve të përkthyesit, Ardian Klosit.
• Will you please provide details about author and his work in which he claim that Scmitt is "noted pro-Serb", (the title of the work, name of the author of the work (detail about the field in which he is specialized) and quote)? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I never meant to dispute Schmitt's reliability. I was disputing your logic.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You ignored my questions. That is not the first time you do it. Let me remind you that someone, not me, could see it as tendentious editing. Please reply to my questions. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

[9]--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaius Claudius Nero, you presented a link to your comment written on my talk page, but there is no answer to my questions in that comment. Let me remind you what you wrote:

Oliver Jens Schmitt, whose work was first published by Ardian Klosi (his family owns the K&B publishing company) and is a noted pro-Serb.[10]. Kristo Frashëri notes: Siç e pohon vetë autori, merita e botimit më parë shqip se në origjinalin gjermanisht u takon përpjekjeve të përkthyesit, Ardian Klosit.[11]

I still don't understand that comment (this is wikipedia on English language and the text you quoted is on Albanian language) and in what way it is related to the topic of this section. I think that we should all cooperate to make this article better and providing the answer to my questions would clarify your comment and your interpretation of the sources. I will remind you that you presented serious accusation that Schmitt is noted pro-Serb. Please support it with sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion article is nominated for deletion. Since it is closely connected with Skanderbeg, maybe users interested in topic about Skanderbeg can say something about this nomination.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Myth of Skanderbeg article is nominated for deletion. Since it is closely connected with Skanderbeg, maybe users interested in topic about Skanderbeg can say something about this nomination.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

GA?

Most problems are solved? Is anybody going to nominate this article for GA? ZjarriRrethues,...Antidiskriminator...?? --Kebeta (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that almost none of the problems presented in GA reviews are resolved. Some are even worse. Any future reviewer will take a look at old reviews. GA1 review and GA2 review. I tried to summarize those issues here. Most of the very important issues raised there remained non-resolved and in case of BIAS those issues became even worse in the meantime (like when Sulmues changed the titles of the sections to present "Albanian resistance" instead of Skanderbeg's relations with different powers of that time). We only started to deal with non-resolved issues by dealing with one which is non-controversial (size of the article). Help is needed with reducing the size of the section which has its own article (Skanderbeg in literature and arts). English is not my native language and reduction of the section should be done by the user who knows English very well. Any volunteers?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As a section title it's fairly accurate as many scholars use that term for the Albanian-Ottoman Wars [12], . The article is much better than most other GA, so Antid. should stick to the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In most cases Skanderbeg was not opposed by the "foreign" invaders, but by local forces loyal to the new empire and consisted of the local Albanians, Slavs and Vlachs willing to fight against the members of their own ethnic groups.

Source: (Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2009), Skanderbeg. Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan (PDF), Verlag Friedrich Pustet, ISBN 978-3-7917-2229-0, 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. On the whole, it is evident that the rebels were not opposed by "foreign" invaders, but by local forces loyal to the new empire who were willing to fight members of their own ethnic groups longing for pre-Ottoman times)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That refers to the Ottoman army, not the Albanian one.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ZjarriRrethues that this article is much better than most (or some) other GA's...Antidiskriminator, can you made your "List of non resolved topics on Skanderbeg article" shorter, like 3 to 5 mayor points (which we can solve together)...just to get this article going from this dead end...?--Kebeta (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but please give me some time because it is not an easy task.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Three documents written by Skanderbeg

I found three documents written and signed by Skanderbeg and available online:

1. Link num 1 - ca. 1450
2. Link num 2 - April 2, 1459
3. Link num 3 - June 13, 1459

All three links show documents from Dubrovnik archives which are published in "Monumenta serbica spectantia historiam Serbiae, Bosnae, Ragusii -Franz Miklǒsich - 1858"

Maybe those documents can be helpful to users interested in Skanderbeg.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes

I will try to be bold here and make some changes that will maybe trigger an improvment from other users and move the article more toward GA status...I will not be offended if somebody decide to revert me...Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather propose them on the talkpage. Btw Emands's edit is a source misrepresentation of a 17th century Latin dictionary.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I have said, feel free to remove them after I am done, since talk page will get us nowhere..., especially not to GA...--Kebeta (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The only one I'll remove is the unnecessary Serbian transliteration, since Serbian Cyrillic was invented in the 19th century and it's not used by any non-Serbian sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about that, but Serbs use it like that now...and not going into why some of them embrace Skanderbeg as half Serbian, while doing so they use Cyrillic (today, not in the past)...--Kebeta (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kebeta, I suggest you to read all archived talk pages before giving your opinion. Regarding this issue please read this section. Serbian cyrilic existed much before Albanian alphabet was codified (1908), and it is not used as an argument to delete transliteration to Albanian language. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Antid. please stick to the sources. Btw of course the language used in his correspondence with Dubrovnik would be at least partially in Cyrillic, but no reliable scholar ever labeled the alphabet and language used with Dubrovnik, Croatia as Serbian. That being said the Albanian alphabet wasn't codified but standardized in 1908.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Sources presented within above linked section clearly stated that his name was written on Serbian language (using Cyrillic letters of Raška Orthography and Resava Orthography). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

editing war by Kebeta dictionarium Latino Epiroticum" by Fransiscus Blanchus is the most realiable and evaluated source.--Emands (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kebeta, why did you add that his religion was "mostly Catholic"? There are previous discussions which resulted with neutral Christian religion (without specifying Orthodox of Catholic). This article already has significant POV issues. Let us try to resolve them, not to add more.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)You're misrepresenting and mistranslating a 17th century dictionary. That being said you should also expect a 3RR violation report. Antid. linguistic issues aren't solved by simply placing national labels on scripts. Neutrality is expected when there are multiple views, but regarding Skanderbeg's religion at the time of his birth/death date there aren't any conflicting opinions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Just look at FAQ or this section for example.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg died as a Roman Catholic and was buried in Cathedral of Lezhë, so please stick to the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg was born as a Orthodox Christian and married as Orthodox Christian. This article is about Skanderbeg's religion when he was alive, not dead. It is wrong to state that he was "mostly Catholic".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

@(ZjarriRrethues & Antidiskriminator) I reverted all my edits done today...maybe next time...Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kebeta the edit-warrior will be blocked and the article will be put under semi-protection so you can continue editing later with sources, which you'll find because almost every source about Skanderbeg mentions that he was a Catholic.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned articles with an explanation do not presuppose edit war - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest --Emands (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Below is a link to the text written by contemporary historian who says that Skanderbeg (originally Orthodox Christian) was converted to Catholicism only after he returned from Islam to Christianity.

Kraft, Ekkehard (March 18, 2009), Wer war Skanderbeg?, Zurich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, ... erst nach seiner Rückkehr vom Islam zum Christentum näherte Skanderbeg sich dem Katholizismus an ...[... only after his return from Islam to Christianity approached Scanderbeg on Catholicism ...] {{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) 07:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Another biography

Biographies about Skanderbeg are not so numerous and I suppose that we should add all of them into Further Reading section. I found one more biography:

• Licho, Edward A (1968), Gjergj Kastrioti Skenderbeu, 1468-1968. (in Albanian), Boston, Mass: Pan-Albanian Federation of America VATRA, OCLC 183594 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |doi-inactive-date= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)

I did't find any information about the author but I guess he was a historian. In that case we could add this work into further reading section?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This author says: Conversion to Islam: The story that Scanderbeg and his father were converted to Islam seems to be another myth to be ruled out. There are four documents, dated 1420, 1426, 1438 and 1439, in which Scanderbeg is mentioned as a Christian and by his Christian name, George. True, there are literary references in which he is mentioned as Moslem, but there is not a single archival document to prove that ....

Does anybody knows if there are more sources which deny his conversion to Islam?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

“The White Devil of Wallachia”

There are numerous sources about another nickname of Skanderbeg: “The White Devil of Wallachia”. Does anybody have any argument against inclusion this information to the text of the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no academic source i.e no inclusion. Btw all the further reading except for the most notable or primary ones will be removed to reduce the size of the article(per latest review).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Any removal should be based on the consensus reached on this page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Antid. per the review we should reduce the size of the article, so please stick to it and read WP:BRD (i.e don't revert anything, but propose on talkpage all your edits). At the time of the review the article was less than 100k and you kept adding links until it became more than 110k. That being said why did you add Jovan Radovic, a Serbian nationalist and member of the Serbian Radical Party on the further reading list? I kept only the most notable of authors i.e Encyclopedia Britannica scholar Peter Prifti, Halil İnalcık, some primary sources(including Muzaka that was added by Antid.), Fan Noli, who's considered the standard reference on Skanderbeg and Donald Nicol.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. According to the WP:BRD I should revert your edits if I don't agree with them and it is you who should "propose on talkpage all your edits" after they have been reverted.

Radonić was member of Serbian Academy of Science and Arts. Here is what Kenneth Setton (who frequently cite this work of Jovan Radonić in his masterpiece The Papacy and the Levant) say about him: Jovan Radonic has collected the major documentary and literary sources concerning Scanderbeg in his very convenient work Djuradj Kastriot Skanderbeg. Franz Babinger also uses and cite Radonić's works in his studies. John Van Antwerp Fine also frequently cite Radonić in his work. Stavro Skendi also cite his works. David Abulafia also cite Radonić. Many other contemporary scholars like David Nikol, Albanophile Robert Elsie cites Radonić's works, and thousands of other authors including Oliver Jens Schmitt and his works. For work on Skanderbeg written by Oliver Jens Schmitt Momčilo Spremić, a member of Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, specialist for history of Balkans in late middle ages stated that it is the best biography of Skanderbeg till now ("најбоље написана историја Скендербега"). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You added them and I removed many of them because they increase the size of the article, while being unnecessary (i.e now please get the proper consensus). Schmitt is cited by very few scholars, while being fairly unknown. Of course even if Schmitt or Radonic were actually cited by thousands of scholars(Schmitt is cited by very few), his works on Skanderbeg would still be unknown i.e inappropriate for the further reading section.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

According to wp:consensus "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments ". I gave arguments based on provided sources against your removal of Radonić and Schmitt. According to WP:BRD "Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then please do get the consensus for your bold edits, before making them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It is you who made bold edits and removed large part of the article (most of the removed text was added by other users long time ago) without gaining the consensus first. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

None of your edits were part of a consensus i.e there's nothing else I can/will contribute to this discussion unless you get one.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your bold edits are not based on consensus. The only way to determine wp:consensus is "by the quality of the arguments ". I gave arguments based on apparently good provided sources (works of the greatest experts in the field) against your removal of Radonić and Schmitt. Unless nobody brings valid arguments against their inclusion in the text of the article I will add those two sources to the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(unintend)If you do add them without a consensus, I'll have to ask for admin intervention as you've already received warnings by admins about your edits on Skanderbeg.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless nobody brings valid arguments against their inclusion in the text of the article I will have consensus. It is you who don't have consensus for your bold edits.

Was Naim Frasheri an Albanian nationalist? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding four images of monuments of Skanderbeg

I am against recent adding of four images of monuments of Skanderbeg because:

• it is pointless
• makes article ugly
• makes article harder for reading
• does not have any encyclopedic context (though leaving one image of the monument in Tirana could have its context within legacy section)
• wikipedia is not mere repository of images
• there is a link to the files at commons already provided in the article according to the MOS
• there are images of seven monumens of Skanderbeg in the apropriate article - Skanderbeg in literature and art

Therefore I propose to remove all images (except one in Tirana), based on above mentioned arguments and wikipedia policies. Any comment?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree , per WP rules. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

George Skanderbeg

Users has quite right and is very well known, that George isn't only a Greek masculine given name, but a name/world of Greek language origin (talking about the obvious) !

• George (given name)
• Georgios
• Giorgos

see also categories Given names of Greek language origin Greek masculine given names  !!! --194.219.51.216 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to log in. Next time you say that you are not from Greece, log yourself in so that you won't give away your location.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Bsically what the one above me said [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.213.78 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How many children Skanderbeg and his wife had?

Unresolved

The text of the article says Their children included Gjon Kastrioti II.

If there were other children, then that information should be presented to the readers. If not, then above mentioned sentence should be changed to: They had one child, Gjon Kastrioti II.

Any comment?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any official document calling him "Gjon"? If not, let's stick to english, or we mention also the names found in original bibligraphy (Giovanni etc). Btw, his grandpa was not called "Gjon" but "Ivan" (Laonikos Chlalkokondyles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 10:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Albanian lord" or "lord of Albania" ?

Unresolved

If you are contemplating a Good Article status, you have to start from the very first lines. 1) What is the meaning "George ... or Gjergj..."? Does it mean that Sk. is found in the bibliography either as George or as Gjergj with no other choices? Or does it mean that he was calling himself "George" or "Gjergj"? Sources pleas. Note D contrasts the linked line because it says "lord of Albania". The various names in the main sources are displayed in the relevant section.

2) What is the meaning of "Albanian lord"? Albanian in ethnicity or what? In the article about his mother it is clear that her nationality is uncertain (if we take seriously the pro-Albanian sources) or Slave if we rely on the modern academic sources. Now, let's take the pro-Albanian scenario that his father was Albanian and his mother of unscertain nationality. On what rule the child takes the "Albanian" from the father and not the "uncertain" from the mother? I suppose that WP conforms to the UN resolution of the womens' rights and does not adopt the ottoman rules.
But the article has to reflect all the possible scenarios and not the pro-Albanian one. So, according to many sources neither his father nor his mother were Albanians. Therefore, the "Albanian lord" violates the WP rules and we must seek a better phrasing. --Euzen (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM and the archives of the page.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Euzen that term "Albanian lord" violates the WP rules and we should seek a better phrasing. There so many of such POV phrases that maybe the best way to deal with them is to make list and to deal with all of them at once. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Skanderbeg always signed himself as “Lord of Albania” and claimed no other titles but that in official documents.

This does not support the assertion that Skanderbeg was the lord of Albanian nation. Still, it would be equally wrong to assert that Skanderbeg was the "Lord of Albania". Here is why:

1. It is incorrect that Skanderbeg always signed himself as “Lord of Albania”. There are many documents signed by Skanderbeg which don't mention "Lord of Albania" title.
2. Even if we suppose that it is true that Skanderbeg always used that title when signing himself, that doesn't mean that he really was the Lord of Albania. Southern and central part of Albania were under the Ottoman control since 1417-1419 (Vlore, Gjirokaster...) while the biggest coastal cities (Shkoder and Durres) and their surrounding were under the Venetian control. Rest of the territory were mouintains scarcely populated by many different tribes whose chieftains were oftern opposed to each other and even frequently fighting against each other. Therefore it is obviously absurd to claim that Skanderbeg was a lord of Albania even if he always signed himself like one (which he didn't).
3. It is wrong to define Skanderbeg as the leader of ethnic Albanians. Skanderbeg's rebellion was not fostered by language or any feeling of belonging to an ethnic group. Also, besides local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs a significant part of his forces were Venetian or Napolitan forces together with mercenaries of different nationalities (Germans, Italians..).

Based on the above rationale I think that assertion about Skanderbeg being either Lord of Albania or Lord of Albanians should be avoided.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You're making OR deductions (rationale) i.e please stick to the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No I am not. I presented a neutral reliable source for my point. The WP:OR deductions and synthesis are indeed present in this article because the existing text does not directly support the material being presented (and as presented). The text "Albanian lord" is a result of WP:OR deduction based on the claim that Skanderbeg signed himself as “Lord of Albania”. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've stated before in this talk page to you personally Antid that Scanderbeg title was "Dominus Albaniae" which means "Lord of Albania" and you had not problems with that see here so I am surprised you bring the same issue again. Don't be surprised then if others accuse you of trolling.

The title lord is commonly used for that period. Scanderbeg is called lord by his contemporaries:

1. Mantuan ambassador report to Venice in 1466 "The Lord Scanderbeg arrived here...." source The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The Fifteenth Century By Kenneth M. Setton
2. Gjon Muzaka calls him "Lord Scanderbeg" see
3. In the commentaries of Pope Pius II he is called "Lord of Albania" see
4. For the title "Dominus Albaniae" or "Lord of Albania"(in English) see my previous comments and links in the previous discussion

The title Albanian lord (also Lord of Albania) is used in the general context by later historians for various figures in Albania and this does not constitute a POV, unless of course you want to accuse them of POV and for that you have other boards:

XIX century

1. Robert Gordon Latham claims that Sultan recognized Scanderbeg as "Lord of Albania and Epirus" see
2. Edward Shepherd Creasy also claims that Sultan recognized Scanderbeg as "Lord of Albania and Epirus" in 1461 see

XX century

1. Setton calls Gjon Kastrioti the father of Scanderbeg an "Albanian lord" see
2. Sedlar does the same by calling him "Albanian lord" see
3. Fines calls Leke Zaharia "Albanian lord of Danj" while Scanderbeg himself "Albanian leader" see
4. Colin Imber one of the best Ottoman historians calls him "Albanian lord Scanderbeg" The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1481 Author Colin Imber Publisher Isis Press, 1990 ISBN 9754280150, 9789754280159 page 126
5. Kristo Frasheri calls him "Lord of Albania" and gives the exact period when Scanderbeg began to use that title exactly in 1451 during the Treaty of Gaeta see
6. Paul Fregosi says Scanderbeg was recognized by sultan Muhammad II as "Lord of Albania and Epirus" in 1461 see
7. Philip Argenti uses the same title "Lord of Albania" see
8. Geōrgios Phrantzēs, Marios Philippides call him "Lord of Albania" see

So no WP:SYNTH, no WP:POV, no WP:OR, but instead links, references, cited texts from well respected historians during centuries which call Scanderbeg with the exact words "Lord of Albania" and "Albanian Lord" or "Albanian leader" etc. Hope this is the end of this repeated discussion. Aigest (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything you wrote and all sources you presented actually support my point because they are referring to Skanderbeg's title connected with Albania.

1) Lord of Albania ≠ Albanian Lord

The source says: Skanderbeg's title was "Dominus Albaniae" (Lord of Albania).

The text of the article says: "Albanian lord" with Albanian wikilinked to Albanians not Albania, which is obvious WP:OR deduction.

2) Skanderbeg's title ≠ The real power he had

The source says: Skanderbeg always signed himself as “Lord of Albania” (Latin: Dominus Albaniae), and claimed no other titles but that in official documents

The text of the article says: Skanderbeg... was a 15th-century Albanian lord

It is obvious that source does not directly support the material being presented (and as presented) i.e. it is WP:OR.

The pompous character of a title was sometimes in inverse ratio to the power it was used to denote. If we don't take care about it wikipedia would have many articles about medieval noblemen who were "lords of heaven and earth".

There is a scientific consensus that significant part of the territory of Albania and majority of its population were under the control of Ottoman Empire or Venetian Republic (Albania Veneta), i.e. not ruled by Skanderbeg. Therefore it is wrong to mislead readers that Skanderbeg actually ruled Albania or Albanians.

I think I gave a fairly clear explanation of this issue Euzen pointed to. It is grounded in wikipedia policies and scientific consensus. I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but consensus must prevail. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The title "Lord of Albania" may be found in old books and archival material and is understood as a common hyperbole of middle ages. We have rulers who claimed (in papers) that rule half of the world. We have Kings and Queens "of Jerusalem" who couldn't see the city even by a telescope. The question is: Can this article define Sk. as "Albanian lord" while there are many of sources making his ethnicity uncertain? I think that a separate paragraph is needed referring to the debate about his origins. --Euzen (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@Antid&Euzen both of are in WP:OR territory and (not) surprisingly) you seem to forget the inline citations from XIX and XXth century historians I brought above which say that his title was "Lord of Albania" and even that Scanderbeg was recognized by Sultan as "Lord of Albania". Also you seem to forget the links I brought with historians using other terms such as "Albanian Lord", "Albanian leader", "Albanian warrior" etc.

1. "Albanian Lord" Sedlar, Colin Imber
2. "Albanian leader" Fines, Setton
3. "Leader of the Albanians" Sedlar
4. "Albanians led by Scanderbeg (George Kastriot)" Treptow, Minahan, Cirkovic
5. "Revolt of Albanians under Scanderbeg (George Kastrioti)" Setton
6. "Albanian warrior" Donald M. Nicol
7. "Lord of Albania" Setton, Geōrgios Phrantzēs & Marios Philippides, Paul Fregosi,Philip Argenti

All these authors, americans, british, Italians, germans, bulgarians, serbs, greeks have no problem of calling Scanderbeg and Albanians that way. Since these expressions exist they will be used in text accordingly with inline references end of story.Aigest (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@Euzen. Thank you Euzen for very good observation and proposal. Separate paragraph about controversies and presenting clear information to the readers about Skanderbeg's disputed ethnicity are recommendations of the latest GAR also, so anyone who feel like doing it should do it.

@Aigest. Thank you Aigest. You again confirmed my point when you provided "the inline citations from XIX and XXth century historians .... which say that his title was "Lord of Albania"".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Never disputed his title, but he is also referred to as "Albanian lord", "Leader of Albanians", " Albanian warrior" etc. These are not titles, just nominatives they give to him so and if various ilustrious historians use these terms for him, I don't see the point of this "dispute". They can (and will) be used also in the article with the apropriate reference.Aigest (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "with the apropriate reference". That is not the case now. The ethnicity assertion ("Albanian lord" linked to Albanians) in the text of the article is based on the source which actually explains what title Skanderbeg used when signing himself ("Dominus Albaniae" (Lord of Albania)). The source does not directly support the material being presented (and as presented) i.e. it is WP:OR. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(unintend)Antid. please stick to the sources. You have been warned by admins regarding Skanderbeg discussions so it would be prudent to actually follow their suggestions and not insist on non-issues.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 05:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, let us really stick to the sources.@ZjarriRrethues, please comment on content, not on the contributor.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)