Talk:Skanderbeg/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Hero?

".. he is the national hero of the Albanians...."

Here you can find list of heroes in Albania and Skanderbeg is not among them. Maybe it would be better to use another term except hero especially considering the fact that he was and still is praised and glorified all over the world trough literature and other means? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Castrioti family tree

Unresolved

One of those famous "secondary sources" that are forbidden. Castrioti's Family tree from Karl Hopf's Chroniques Greco-Romanes, Berlin, 1873.

http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad211/bluesone2/History1/FamilleCastriota.jpg?t=1285840665

Prof. Karl Hopf was not one of the many historians but an expert in the medieval history of the Balkans. In his short life he published a huge volume of work on that field. This book is a product of his personal and on-the-spot research in Italian archives. Major Italian cities have good archives about medieval Greece, Albania etc because once they dominated over various parts of the ex-Byzantine Empire and, also, some of their nobility had family connections with famous byzantine families.
This family tree starts with Branilo, "d' origine Serb".
IMPORTANT: Hopf was actually against Fallmerayer's theory of pan-slavisation of the Balkans and proved the fallacy of that theory with plenty of evidences. Therefore, he is the last who can be charged with "pro-Serbian bias". --Euzen (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that it is time now to add fact that he was of Serbian origin. We have tons of sources, and this article cannot be good article without that important and well known fact.

This post, this post, and tons of posts that are still above have very, very much sources, so this must be in. Poor nationalist claims have no place here next to the sourced, truthful, historic encyclopedia article. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WW there was a RfC, where an admin told you like many others have done many times that none of them is reliable and relevant, so please don't repeat old arguments again and again.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, ZR, that's hardly what admin told. Please, each of us can read history. Don't recreate it. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar. This has been pointed out before. Karl Hopf misread the documents. The original document where he got the premise from said "Branilo i Kastrioti" which was an agreement between Branilo and the Kastrioti family. He missed the i and thought it was Branilo Kastrioti This has been pointed out by Fan Noli in his PhD dissertation on Skanderbeg. He had just as much -- if not more -- access to the original documents as Karl Hopf. As given in a footnote from Harry Hodgkinson's book, Scanderbeg: From Ottoman Captive to Albanian Hero: The claim that Skanderbeg was a Slav was first made by a German who misread a document of 1368 in Serbian. Among the signatories were a Branilo (a Slav Christian name) of Vlora and a Castrioti of Kanina. By overlooking the single letter i (meaning and), he produced Branilo Castrioti as Scanderbeg's Serbian great grandfather.-Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough said then Gaius.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaius, can you please provide us with this document that Branilo of Vlora and Kastrioti of Kanina wrote in Serbian in 1368. and your opinion about the reason why Hopf wrote that Voisava Tripalda was daughter of some Serb, lord of Polog? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia for general readers and not an academic journal. If we embark on criticising major authors, then let us include that the famous "Mat" that is supposed to be the origin of John C. is a missinterpretation of "Aemathia".

Barleti says :::"auctores gentis Castriote ex Aemathia nobili ortu fluxisse ..." (http://www.archive.org/stream/historiadeuitaet00barl#page/2/mode/2up down right).
If I get it right: "the founders of the Castriots family came from a noble generation of Emathia".

Aemathia is the old name of Macedonia and Epirus and Barleti knows history, latin and greek very well. When referring to albanian places uses the local albanian names (Croia, Dibres etc) and had no reason to rename the insignificant "Mat" to Aemathia.

From Pliny: "Macedonia postea cl populorum, ... Aemathia antea dicta" (Georgica, lib.I), online here page 121. (I would like to know how Noli understand Aemathia).
A possible Castrioti's origin from Macedonia brinks us closer to Greeks or Serbians and farther from Albanians (in geo-ethnological sense). But still does not give to J.C. any national identity. I think Fallmerayer took the chance of this missinterpretation to claim the Serbian origin of Castriote, because at J.Castrioti's time Mat was under Serbian control.
The name Skander that the turcs gave to the child may weakly imply that they knew (or thought) that he may have something to do with Macedonia. --Euzen (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Euzen, I admire both your knowledge and constructive and systematic discussion approach, regardless of what will be result of comments on this talk page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hopf cannot be taken too seriously since he was not blatantly wrong once, nor twice, but because he is also a child of the scientific era of wild conjectures. Nevertheless, Hopf does give clues in his book that Voisava is likely Albanian. On page 308, in the copy he provides in his book Chroniques greco-romanes of John Musachi's (a self-declared Albanian noble) Breve memoria de li discendenti de nostra casa musachi, Musachi says that Voisava was not a Tripalda, but in reality, a Musachi ([1]). The genealogic table was created by Hopf based on his observations alone, something we know can't be trusted. Musachi's work, however, is Musachi's and Musachi's alone. It was only transferred into Hopf's work. Harry Hodgkinson agrees that she is a Musachi and so does Fan Noli. This fits the local legend of Berat which says that Voisava's house can still be visited in Berat, a city ruled by the Musachi. Furthermore, why would John Kastrioti, a wily statesman, marry the daughter of some insignificant prince in Dibra, when he could marry the daughter of the powerful Musachi family? As for the 1386 document, I have no access to it since I live in the United States and I would have to travel all the way to Europe in order to give you a copy of the original document. Noli, however, had access to these documents for his PhD dissertation and he was the first to point this out.
• The region was called Emathia because the writers of the time transposed the ancient ideals into their literature. Skanderbeg was continuously compared to Themistocles and Murad continuously compared to Xerxes. Demetrio Franco, who wrote on Skanderbeg in 1480, says that the Albanians are direct descendants of Hercules, who travelled to the region from Caucasian Iberia. As the best scholars accept, it is known that the Albanian people are autochthonous to the region they live in today. And we all know Hercules never existed. Nevertheless, John Musachi says: Later, during the reign of Murad the Second, Scanderbeg arrived, the son of Lord John Castriota, who ruled over Matia (Mat) in Albania.[2].--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Claudius, the reason why I asked you if you can "provide us with this document that Branilo of Vlora and Kastrioti of Kanina wrote in Serbian in 1368" was not to ask you to travel to archive that contains this document, but to provide us with link where it can be seen, if possible. I had in mind two things:

• There was interpretation that Hopf did not know that "i" means and on serbian and that he mistaked and understood it as "I". I was wondering if this document is on cyrilic or latinic, because it would be impossible to make such mistake if it was in cyrilic, where "i" on cyrilic is "и" and could not be mistaken for I.
• I would like to see how Skanderbeg signed this document that was on serbian language and to try to realize if he wrote it because there are some sources indicating that his father personally wrote some documents, even on cyrilic. I have read somewhere that he even wrote letters in cyrilic to priests of Serbian Orthodox Church in Athos when he was making donations to them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  

We agree that Sk's origins are debatable, and this has to be reflected or at least mentioned in such a long article. Give some sources and leave the keen reader to make his investigation. An anonymous editor is not supposed to impose to the reader his own personal opinion. On the other hand, if Barleti (the almost exclusive genuine biographer), is not credible, this also has to be mentioned in the article. Alternative opinions on Sk's origins can be included in a separate section, exactly as in the article of John Hunyadi. This would only add credibility to the whole article.

As far as Musachis are concerned:
1. Don't bet on their "albanianness". In their family tree we find names that are classical Greek (e.d. Euthymia, Despina), Latin, Slavonic (e.g. Bogdan) and muslim (Hassan).
2. There is indeed one Voisava but she is wife of some Francesco Martino de Carles. But I will check better, in case I missed some other Voisava.
--Euzen (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that fact that Sk's origins are debatable has to be reflected or at least mentioned in such a long article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Now we are arguing principles and not history. Nevertheless, in order to put that Skanderbeg's origins are debatable, we must first find a valid scholar who accepts this. We can't put this in by ourselves since that would be WP:NOR. Furthermore, only Balkan editors would really care about Skanderbeg's origin and it seems like some completely omit details on his brilliance as a general and a leader of his people. This is the main reason why I have tried to expand topics relkated to his military career over the years, but I am often forced to defend his identity. And Marin Barleti is not the only biographer of Skanderbeg. The first was Demetrio Franco who wrote in 1480 and if you look at some of the articles which I have written, one can see that I have used his work extensively.
• Perhaps the best way to address why Hopf was misled would be by looking at who Skanderbeg's real grandfather was. Musachi says: You should know that the grandfather of Lord Scanderbeg was called Lord Paul Castriota. He ruled over no more than two villages, called Signa (Sina) and Gardi Ipostesi. To this Lord Paul was born Lord John Castriota who became Lord of Mat. I have not looked at the document myself, but scholars have and they have pointed out the mistake.
• And if you look again on page 308 of John Musachi's work which was copied by Karl Hopf (I provided the link before), you can see that he says that Skanderbeg's mother, Voisava, is a descendant of the Musachi family. By the way, the name Musachi is a Latinate corruption of Muzaka, a name still used by Albanians today (eg. Gjergji Muzaka). And Robert Elsie refers to him as an Albanian.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  

Of course, Gaius, valid authors are already given, and Hodgkinson is not one of them. Read the obituary that Independent wrote about him (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-harry-hodgkinson-1440805.html) and you will understand that he was not a historian but a general writer who "fell in love with Albania", "had political contacts with the Albanian government", "worked for Shell's business intelligence" and UK Petroleum Advisory Committee (trying hard here to avoid some second thoughts on "oil and geo-politics"). During the Kosovo war he openly supported the Albanian part. He was high-rank member of the Anglo-Albanian Association, "the most determined and ideological support for Berisha anywhere in the world" (James Pettifer,Miranda Vickers (2007) The Albanian question: reshaping the Balkans, p. 46.). No question he knew well Albania, but he does not qualify as a neutral and expert on medieval history. Certainly he does not stand a chance against Prof. Karl Hopf. If you want more valid sources, I will soon offer references to the albanologist Johan Georg von Hahn who also supports the Serbian origin of Castrioti. Give me only few days to find the exact page (how I hate reading german!).--Euzen (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It is true that Hodgkinson is not an historian, but his work has been vetted by David Abulafia, a renowned Cambridge professor known to the historical society as one of the best in the field of Mediterranean history. Maybe it is still not a definitive work of scholarship, but I provided more than one writer in my reply (Elsie and Noli) who both possessed doctorates in their respective fields. Also, just because he supports Albanian interests doesn't mean that his credibility should die. This is the main argument against Noel Malcolm, who is also a Cambridge alumni. I have yet to see a good historical argument against his premises.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Claudius, can you please let us know if you can "provide us with this document that Branilo of Vlora and Kastrioti of Kanina wrote in Serbian in 1368" with link where it can be seen, if possible? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify my recommendation again: I do not propose that we exclude some authors because we recon that are not neutral or credible. Readers interested in criticism may be directed to the discussion page (a good volume of work that could fetch a Master's Degree at least). I propose that we cite some of the prominent authors who represent different points of view, so that the whole article does not look like an Albanian school textbook.
--Euzen (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

He did not fought against nations, he fought against armies.

Resolved

"He even fought against the Greeks, Serbs and Hungarians. "

This sentence is completely wrong. This is medieval history we are talking about. Skanderbeg was not involved in fightings between nations or national states, but between armies of feudal states that were ruled by feudal families, or nobilities. At that time there were many examples that feudal families that ruled some territory or leading some armies were completely different nationality than people living at that territory or members of their army. Very big share of medieval armies were mercenaries, or nomad tribes (i.e. Kumans in medieval Balkan). Lot of people that lived on the territory that Skanderbeg controled were not only Albanians, but Vlachs, Serbs, Greeks.... and vice versa. Lot of soldiers under armies of ottoman, serbian, greek or hungarian feudal families were mixture of various nations and tribes. There were many Serbs fighting in Ottoman armies those days. Not to mention Greeks and Albanians. It is wrong to watch and write about Skanderbeg from point of view of ideologies that are defeated almost a century ago. Not only because it is wrong, but also because it can easily mislead readers of this article.

I propose to change above mentioned sentence to:

"He even fought against armies of Greek, Serbian and Hungarian nobility."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually took that completely off. Unless we have each sentence referenced, that phrase was not-referenced and redundant. As a matter of fact he fought against a lot of Albanians who were leading Ottoman Armies such as Hamza Kastrioti and Ballaban Badera, so removing it actually decreases confusion. That was a good observation Antidiscriminator! --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right. There really is a lot of confusion in the text of the article. Therefore I did not suggest to delete text, but to write about armies that he fought against more accurately. That is the only way to decrease confusion, not deleting the whole text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Englicized Skanderbeg?

Unresolved

"whereas he later he was also given the title of Bey he was awarded by the Turkish Sultan, hence the appellative Skander-Bey, or englicized Skanderbeg"

If Barleti used name Scanderbegi ("Historia de vita et gestis Scanderbegi Epirotarum principis") then turkish name Skander-Bey was first latinized to Scanderbegi then translated to english like Skanderbeg. Therefore I propose to change above mentioned sentence to be:

"whereas he later he was also given the title of Bey he was awarded by the Turkish Sultan, hence the appellative Skander-Bey, or latinized Scanderbegi that is translated on english as Skanderbeg." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is one more myth there: "the appellative (Skender) is assumed to have been a comparison between Skanderbeg's military skill to that of Alexander the Great." But the name Skender should have been given to him when was child and was forcibly turcisised. Skender is a quranic name and used in many muslim countries. The biographers do not give us any other muslim name for G.Castrioti.--Euzen (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for a secondary source for that. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Demytologization of Skanderbeg

I propose to create separate subtitle (i.e. (De)mythologization of Skanderbeg) for such (one of many) irrational assumptions that are obviously sometimes forgotten to be considered as mythology despite common sense?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need. All the myths and legends should go to the bottom part of the article. The main body of the article should have only info from reliable secondary sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Branilo i Kastriot" links for the misunderstanding

1. Hopf saw the names closely and claimed they were one person "Branilo Kastriot"

But others saw the adjective "i" in the text, which was actually "Branilo i Kastriot" Eng "Branilo and Kastriot" clearly two different persons:

1. Link of the original text in Noli bibliography The signatures in Slavic are as follows: "Prodan vojevoda i Mikleus, kefalia vavlonski Branilo i kefalia kaninski Kastriot.." In Latin: "Prodan vojvoda et Mikleus, castellanus Aulonae Branilo et castellanus Caninae Kastriot." more clear explained here
2. and also Ducellier with the same opinion "Rien ne prouve que ce Kastriot soit un ancêtre de Skanderbeg (JireCkk, Valona, p. 179 qui, par suite d 'une mauvaise ponctuation, considère Branilo comme prénom de Kastriot)." Aigest (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
   

Interesting but the links above do not show the original line in question. Can you copy here the whole sentence with the "Branilo i Kastriot"?
Then another question arises. If Branilo is irrelevant to the family, why one of Castrioti's nephews is also called Branilo? Or Hopf is mistaken again? See the son of Stanisha, also called Hamza: http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad211/bluesone2/History1/FamilleCastriota.jpg?t=1285840665
--Euzen (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Go to a library and check the book in page 107(above link) and the related note 14 in page 187. Providing links to google books (which may not have all the books) is a courtesy to u and not an obligation according to wiki rules. The issue of the use of Branilo name is pure WP:OR. Will you please learn wiki rules before editing. Aigest (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this Aigest. Any info about the other Branilo-Hamza?--Euzen (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to an unsourced genealogy(probably Hopf), there was a son of Stanisha called Branilo, converted to moslem with the name of Hamza Kastrioti. None of Skanderbeg's biographers confirms this, since Barletius up to Hodgkinson. According to the same genealogy the supposed Branilo is known also as Vrana Konti (which in reality belongs to Altisferi family and was the commander of garrison of Kruja up to his death in 1458) and this supposed Branilo was also Duke of Ferrandina, up to his death in 1463. In reality there was one of Skanderbeg's nephews called Hamza Kastrioti, son of one of his brothers. Many historians suppose that the mother of Hamza was a Turkish woman, but none knows for sure which was the father of Hamza Kastrioti. Some historians suppose Hamza Kastrioti was the son of Stanisha the elder brother, some suppose Hamza Kastrioti was the son of Konstandin which left it in Skanderbeg's hands upon his death, some (even Noli in one of his versions) suppose that Reposh married a Turkish woman and latter repent and went to a monastery to pay for his sins. Konstandin Kastrioti died in Turkey, Reposh Kastrioti died in Hilandar monastery, while Stanisha actively supported Skanderbeg and is mentioned in the sources up to 1445. But this leaves the question opened. Anyway one of the most accepted version is that Stanisha was the father of Hamza, but this is more like a conjecture, not a verifiable truth. Returning to the unsourced genealogy that is wrong since Hamza was not Vrana Konti and Hamza was never Duke of Ferrandine and moreover Hamza deserted Skanderbeg in 1457, captured and put to Naples prisons by Skanderbeg, later pardoned and none knows his end. He is never mentioned again in historical sources Aigest (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is UNDEBATABLE !

I think that by now the reader who has been through some of this discussion has understood that there is no author who can unquestionably give us the origin of Scanderbeg. So, let's see what the name itself can tell to us.

CASTRIOTI(s). This name is at home only in the Greek language if I am not mistaken (Albanian and Serbian fellows are invited to commend on their language). Suffix "-oti(s)" is as common in Greek as "von-" in German and means "coming from (toponym)".

Now, check it yourself: open the Google front page, copy some Greek surnames below, paste them on Google and count the results: Note: -otis is for men, -oti or -otou for women, but -oti is also the male causative.

Andriotis (from island of Andros), Chalkiotis (from Chalki or Halki, today in Turkey), Chaniotis (from Chanea, Crete), Voliotis (from Volos), Lamiotis (from Lamia), Samiotis (from Samos Island), Karyotis (from Karyes), Ampeliotis and Ampelakiotis (from Ampelia or Ampelakia, i.e. "wine yards"), Gianniotis (from Ioannina or Giannina), Chimariotis (Greek from Chimara in Albania), Naxiotis (from Naxos Island), Poriotis (Poros), Irakliotis (from Iraklion (Heracleum), Crete and elswhere), Vatikiotis (Vatika), Cypriotis (Cyprus), Calamiotis (from Calamas or Calamia), Imbriotis (from Imbros, today in Turkey), Cavaliotis or Kavaliotis (from Kavala, Macedonia), ...
I think these names are enough for today but, believe me, there are dozens more.
Notice also that original sources (e.g. Barleti) use the term "Epirotes" or "Epirote" or "Epirota" (from Epirus), i.e. -otis in various forms after the Greek toponym of Epirus. So, google also for Ipirotis or Ipeirotis to find some more Greek names.

And what about "Castriotis", (from Castri or Castro)? There are plenty in Greece today, but if you google for this name you will get hundreds of pages on Skanderbeg. However, go to this Telephon Directory of Greece: http://www.whitepages.gr/en/Default.aspx and paste KASTRIOTIS and KASTRIOTI on the surname search line. You will get totally over 40-50 hits, and this is only in latin letters. If you paste the Greek Καστριώτης - Καστριώτη - Καστριώτου you will find more.
Before any Albanian fellows reply that Castrioti comes from some Castrati in Albania, be ready to prove that: 1)Castrati is mentioned by 15th c. authors and 2) This suffix is found in other albanian (i.e. non-Greek) names, too.

If you are done with this, I will explain you why the name "Branilo" indicates Greek and not Serb.--Euzen (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The above is the typical original research. -ioti is a suffix in Albanian, are you saying that Albanian descends from Greek? --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And for those who are questioning the origins of -ioti, here is a good one: Xenophon (5th-4th c. BC), Anabasis Book 1, Ch. 7, 18, "Ambrakioti", i.e. from Ambrakia, at the borders of ancient Epirus. Greek and english text here: http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/xenophon/anb7d10.htm

--Euzen (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For lists of ancient Greek epithets and adjectives ending in -ιώτης (-iōtēs), -ιότης (-iotēs) and -ιότις (-iotis) see here, here and here. A Macedonian (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a useless and time-consuming debate. Read wp:or before editing here Aigest (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Aigest. I'm done wasting valuable time here.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please dont call discussion about comments that you personally dont like “wasting valuable time” but try to explain your attitude instead.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:ORAigest (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A good way out if you run out of fuel.--Euzen (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would gently invite serious contributors to this article to not feed the trolls. The GA nomination was retired by me, [3], socks are advised to not behave badly otherwise reports are ready. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Status

I am at a good point with referencing Harvard style the article, however there are still three problems left, so that the article may safely apply to either GA or FA:

1. many references still need a page number.
2. Encyclopedia's references ought to be all replaced by secondary sources refs (encyclopedias are tertiary sources and Wikipedia relies on secondary sources only). --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Once that point 1 and point 2 are achieved, old references should probably be substituted with newer ones. Not only Gibbon and Moore (18th century), but also Noli (1947) will look a little old one day.--Sulmues ^(talk) 21:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I smell some weasels here?--Euzen (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah, you just got a cold, :-). --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Jens Schmitt

and his book "Skanderbeg: ein Aufstand und sein Anführer" (English translation of last chapter) is not in the list of literature about Skanderbeg. Since he is historian and professor of history on Vienna University, maybe he should be listed in literature about Skanderbeg?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that he is worthy of inclusion, although some historians have had severe critics about his own interpretations, but he's definitively a notable source. --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

What about monuments in Macedonia?

"Many monuments have been raised in honor of the hero around Albania and in predominantly Albanian-populated Kosovo ...."

There are very important monuments of Skanderbeg in Macedonia also, two of them are present in the Gallery, one of them in the very center of the Skopje, capitol of Macedonia and at the beggining of Old Bazaar, Skopje. I think that above mentioned part of sentence should be changed to:

"Many monuments have been raised in honor of the hero around Albania and in predominantly Albanian-populated parts of Macedonia and Kosovo ...."

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Gjon Muzaka and/or Karl Hopf in the references and list of sources? Wrong name of the source.

"Skanderbeg is thought to have been born in Sinë, one of the two villages owned by his grandfather (according to Gjon Muzaka's book of genealogies)."

I think that place of birth is very important fact and should be properly referenced. Maybe it would be good idea to avoid citing the source in the text (especially using wrong name of the source like in this case), but together with other sources in the references where it belongs? Also, right name of the text Breve memoria de li discendenti de nostra casa Musachi written by Gjon Muzaka was published in the book Chroniques gréco-romanes inédites ou peu connues publiées avec notes et tables généalogiques written by Karl Hopf. I propose to write full name of the source in the reference that in raw version can be seen on this link at the end of the web page, in footnote?

Also, there is no mention of Gjon Muzaka or Karl Hopf in the sources (or I can not see it?). If those sources are used, they should be included in list of sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Hopf is not a source yet, along with something like 200+ other publications on Skanderbeg. Trying to work to bring it to GA first, and we have plenty of stuff already. Feel free to put Hopf. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Link to "Tennent 1845, p. 129" (for surname Castriotti) is wrong because it leeds to volume 2 instead here to volume 1. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)

It is well known fact and there are thousands of sources for 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) that belonged to axis during WWII and was named after Skanderbeg.

Avoiding to put this information about SS Skanderbeg Waffen Division in the text of the article is wrong and against NPOV rule. I think that it should be only one sentence which contain basic facts about division and its name and role.

It is probably best to use Robert Elsie since he can be undoubtly non-antialbanian secondary source for this text [4]:

"Adolf Hitler approved in February 1944 to set up SS Waffen division (21st SS Division Skanderbeg named after Skanderbeg) with 6.491 Kosovo Albanian volunteers that never became significant combat force and which main activities were to terrorize Serb population, to participate in Holocaust by sending 281 Jews to death in Bergen-Belsen and to assist German troops in their withdrawal trough and from Kosovo in November 1944."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually no. That'st why we have a disambiguation page for the one above and also for other stuff such as this and this --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not? You did not object informations about how Skanderbeg inspired opera writers, poem writers, pope, national movement of Albanians, sculptors, painters, Albanians in their struggle for national unity, freedom, and independence .... and avoiding to state that one SS Waffen division that terrorized Serbs and participated in Holocoust was named by him because there is disambiguation page would be serious violation of NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Operas on Skanderbeg, poems on Skanderbeg, art works on Skanderbeg are still about Skanderbeg and his figure and we have them in a certain paragraph in the bottom called Skanderbeg#Skanderbeg_in_arts_and_culture. If Skanderbeg's name is used to name something that has nothing to do with his figure, then how is it related to Skanderbeg directly? How is Skanderbeg responsible for what was done to the Jews or to the Serbian population? To make a comparison, horrible things have been done under the name of Christ during the crusades, that doesn't mean that when we have to mention the horrors of the crusaders in Jesus' article. I suggest you remove an unrelated paragraph such as the one that you added. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of text in this article that write about things named after Skanderbeg or events inspired by him:

“Skanderbeg's main legacy was the inspiration he gave to all of those who saw in him a symbol of the struggle of Christendom against the Ottoman Empire”; “Skanderbeg's struggle against the Ottomans became highly significant to the Albanian people, as it strengthened their solidarity, made them more conscious of their national identity, and served later as a great source of inspiration in their struggle for national unity, freedom, and independence.”; “A number of poets and composers have also drawn inspiration from his military career.”; "commanding figure in the national consciousness of Albania"; Skanderbeg's memory has been engraved in many museums and monuments in Albania, such as the Skanderbeg Museum next to the Krujë Castle.; “This flag and symbol are still in use today by Albania (see Albanian flag) and the double-headed eagle is used by various other states and authorities of the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Central Europe.”....

In the text of the article you did not mind text about inspiration he provided in centuries after his death for struggle of Christendom against Ottoman Empire, solidarity of only Albanian people which was strengthened by him, effect that he had on conscious of Albanian people about their national identity up to 500 years after he died, museums named after Skanderbeg, monuments dedicated to him, great source of inspiration of only Albanian people for their struggle for national unity, and even freedom and independence more than 500 years after he was born, his family symbols and flags used after 500 years ..... then you would be seriously violating NPOV rule by avoiding to write about SS Waffen division of Kosovo Albanian volunteers so inspired by Skanderbeg that their division was named after him.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Who gives a crap? There's an article on the division. Go put your anti-ALbanian POV there.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, if you think that Skanderbeg inspires people to be nazi, then please write it in the article. I don't want to bring you to ANI just for the things you say in the talk page. I want to ask for an indefinite ban for you in the Balkans and your dossier is almost full. --Sulmuesi (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. I fully agree with you that “Skanderbeg had NOTHING to do with”...... “because they came 5 centuries after him.”

(you are free to put in the blank space whatever you want). But as you can see in my comment about Skenderaj, there are certain rules on wikipedia that should be followed, and therefore you can not cherrypick what Skanderbeg is able to do 500 years after his death and what is not.

If you think that I should be banned, please ask for my ban or please do not harass me with ban threats anymore (and you are doing it for months already).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edit or user:Antidiskriminator.

Please don't change parts of article, whose sources you have not read. I partially reverted you here. [5]. Skanderbeg was mentioned for the first time in ALBANIA, that's what the source says. And at that time he was a Muslim, a sipahi, should that be of any help for the religious part of the article. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Harassment and POV pushing again. Why Albania? What does Albania (as toponym or as modern nation-state, or .... whatever) has to do with mention (probably she ment first written evidence) of Skanderbegs name? Does it mean that his name was mentioned all over the world, but in Albania only in 1426? His name is written on the document found in Dubrovnik Republic (Croatia) archives for presenting land in Macedonia to Serbian Orthodox church monastory, Hilandar in Mount Athos (Greece). I have to congratulate for finding the source that somehow mention only Albania in this context of this document.

Do you really have to write Albania wherever you can? Is there a single sentence without words Albania in the text? Albania as state was created more than 500 years after he was born, and Albanian nation in modern sense more than 400 years after he was born. If nobody insisted to write about:

1. Macedonia (because he donated land in Gostivar to Hilandar), (Villages R(ad)ostuše and Trebište in Macedonia, municipality Gostivar Dušan Sindik, historian and scholar
2. Bulgaria (because those lands were part of Bulgaria before)
3. Greece (Hilandar is in Greece)
4. Serbia (it was land that was present to Serbian Orthodox Monastery Hilandar) and presented lands were recently part of Serbian Empire
5. Dubrovnik Republik (where documents about Skanderbeg and his name were archived)
6. Croatia (that Dubrovnik today belongs to)

and only you insist to write Albania, is obvious not only POV pushing, but brutal harassment that is together with inappropriate name of this section on talk page aimed to remove any possibility for improving this article.

Word Albania is mentioned 174 times in the text of the article. One more time does not make any difference (and I will not complain or comment this anymore), but can only be additional argument for status of this article as "massive POV".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator it would be prudent not to make any further WP:NPA comments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Antid. please don't argue with me but with historian Skender Anamali. You may write a book and reject his reading of the document. He clearly says that Skanderbeg was located in Albania in 1426, at the time of the document. If Albania is mentioned 174 times and that bothers you, try to not read the article. And lastly, assume good faith especially when you see an experienced editor like me enter referenced text. I never have, and never will falsify a source in wikipedia. Besides

1. The villages that he donated are in present day Albania, who told you that they are in Gostivar?

Not a problem with me if you say that the villages are in Macedonia. --Sulmuesi (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I have no problem with adding that that Mount Athos is in Greece.
2. I have no problem with adding that the document was found in the archives of Ragusa.

But the true problem is: that document shows us where Skanderbeg was at that time and what was his status. The document tells us that he was in Albania and that he was a sipahi. Isn't this article about Skanderbeg? --Sulmuesi (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Has Kostur belonged to georaphical territory of Albania or Macedonia?

Resolved

"In other parts of Albania, the Ottomans were expelled by the other Albanian princes and most of Albanian territories were freed from Ottoman rule. What remained under Ottoman control were mainly the south-western territories of Albania and the cities of Vlorë, Kaninë, Gjirokastër and Kostur." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Kostur was part of the League of Alessio (Lezha).--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That does not make Kostur part of geographical territory of Albania and should not be mentioned in context "In other parts of Albania... what remained under Ottoman control..." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Kostur was held by the Albanian family of Arianiti. Back then it was in Albanian hands. Any source to prove the contrary? --Sulmuesi (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am referring not to ethnic nationality of hands, but geography. In the text is written "In other parts of Albania... what remained under Ottoman control..." and then Kostur. Geographically Kostur is in Macedonia, not Albania. Can you provide link to source that proves that Kostur is in geographical teritorry of Albania, or that Kostur has ever belonged to state of Albania? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Kostur at that time was part of the Albanian principalities. Geographical definitions of Albania have varied from time to time like Prizren, which in the time of Stefan Nemanja was considered part of Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is 1433 we are talking about. Kostur was not part of Albanian principalities because Kostur (Kastoria) was under Ottoman rule from 1385. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain me how do you read that the city of Kostur is Albanian in the sentence above? Can you read it, like 3-4 times? Because when I read it, I don't find that the city is called an Albanian city. It says "south western territories of Albania" AND cities of dadadada. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I red it 3-4 times. You are right. It is written ""south western territories of Albania" AND cities of dadadada". But then in the list of cities there are cities that are in south western territories of territory that today belongs to Albania. That means that AND is not separating first part of text with rest of text, but integrating it. Or you want to say that Vlorë and Kaninë and Gjirokastër are not part of "south western territories of Albania"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kastoria as part of Greater Albania - irredentist propaganda and violation of NPOV

Resolved

Great Albania

Whatever Sulmues or some other editors think about Vlorë and Kaninë and Gjirokastër, they are today part of Albania and Kostur has nothing to do with Albania. Kostur has never been part of Albania. Not geographically, because it belongs to Macedonia, not territorially, because it never belonged to any Albanian nation-state, nor even union of medieval feudal principalities (League of Lezhe). The only Albania that contain Kostur is nationalistic irredentist Greater Albania that basically covers territory of four Ottoman vilayets with existance of population that at the beggining of XX century declared themselves as Albanians. Therefore Kostur should be removed from the text or it will be serious violation of NPOV and using wikipedia for irredentist propaganda of Greater Albania. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you ever care about scholars opinion or are you interested just in trolling??? Aigest (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that you Aigest do not pretend that text does not mean that Kastoria belongs to Albania, like Sulmues does. I am sure that you know that I can present you many documents that writes that Tokio, Japan, belongs to Serbia. The fact that for couple of years Muzaka family had Kastoria under control does not make Kastoria part of Albania 68 or 728 years later. I am sure that you can present documents stating that Novi Pazar, Skopje, Niš, Vranje, Medveđa, Podgorica, Ioannina,.... belongs to Albania. But those cities were never in Albania, not geographically or state wise. Only Albania that contained Kastoria and all those cities is virtual, Greater Albania (euphemist name Natural Albania), irredentist political concept. Wikipedia is not place for political propaganda.

Document that you presented (made in year 1390, 523 years before nation-state of Albanians was created, or 54 years before union of medieval principalities (League of Lezhe) was created) does not prove that Kastoria is part of Albania geographically or state wise. Kastoria was controlled by Alexander the Great, then..... Byzantine empire, Bulgarian Empire, Despotate of Epirus, Serbian Empire, then Muzaka family, then Ottoman Empire for next 537 years, then Greece.... That does not mean that it can be considered as part of Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia or Turkey (both geographicaly or state wise). Not now, not in year 1443. If you have credible, reliable and neutral source that describes territory and frontiers of Albania, in geographical sense, please present it. I would really love to see it. Without them, Kastoria should be removed from the list of towns in Albania. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You are becoming disruptive. I still need to see a source from you. How about you read WP:FORUM. --Sulmuesi (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not me who should present source that Kastoria does not belong to Albania, but those users who want to keep in the text that Kastoria belongs to Albania. I will repeat: “If you have credible, reliable and neutral source that describes territory and frontiers of Albania, in geographical sense, please present it. I would really love to see it. Without them, Kastoria should be removed from the list of towns in Albania.”--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm losing it here. Read the sentence. Kostur is not presented as part of Albania. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You deleted your comment in which you reffered to Aigest comment and both you and he did not pretend that text does not present Kastoria as part of Albania, but on the contrary supporting that statement claiming that Kastoria is in Albania and even providing some sources for that. "Didn't Aigest present that source to you? What was wrong with it." Isn't deletion of comments against Wikipedia rules Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments? What does Kastoria have to do with Skanderbeg? Why do you insist on existence of Kastoria being part of Albania (regardless if there is Great Albania with Kastoria as its part, or not) in the text about Skanderbeg? Don't you agree it is obvious violation of NPOV that can only mislead riders to believe that Kastoria has something to do with Albania or Skanderbeg (like Aigest believes)? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) @Antidiskriminator, you are continuing being disruptive. The geographical definition of the states changes over time. Take for eg. Germany, what was considered Germany before WWI is not valid anymore those eastern parts belong to geography of Poland now. Mentioning those lands as Germany of that period has nothing to do with NPOV violation or claims of any type. The text shows you what was the definition of Albania from contemporaries. In fact in 1431 when Ottomans created Sandjâk-i Arvanid(Albanian Sandzak) they included a territory from Kruje to Chameria in it. That is not related with todays' definition of Albania. Do you get it? Aigest (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Read this Castoria town which 15th century documents comprise within the "Albania" notion. Your lack of knowledge in Albanian history is becoming a heavy burden for this wikiproject. We are already consuming much time for simple things. Either read more on the topic, or take contributions to articles in which you have a good background. Aigest (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever was written in historical documents, or 15th century document you provided, should not be misused to mislead readers of the article that speak English today and use toponyms that mean what they mean today. Readers can be easily mislead to believe that Kastoria is part of Albania because somebody 600 years ago wrote it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed that passage completely. I can't find any sources for it. --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A map with Kastoria being under control of Skanderbeg is added to the article, and that is again raising this issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A bad map is removed, so this issue is resolved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Tertiary sources

Resolved

The only source for the text about "Dragon of Albania" in the lede of the article is encyclopedia, which is tertiary source and according to WP:RS "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Tertiary sources are used in the text as only source for several more (non trivia part) informations in the article:

1. Catholic World Encyclopedia (twice)
2. blog once and according to WP:RS "...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."

I propose to follow WP:RS rules and change tertiary sources with secondary.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rm Catholic Encyclopedia and blog sources. --Sulmuesi (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Seal of Skanderbeg

Resolved

Seal of Skanderbeg

I found below picture of seal of Skanderbeg which I believe is very important for this article and should have its place before many other, like various paintings. Therefore I propose to put this seal into text of the article, with short explanation about it and text on it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. The inscription on the seal writes in Greek (from top right anti-clockwise): ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ, ΕΛΕΩ ΟΥ, ΑΥΤ. ΡΩΜ., Ο ΜΕΓ. ΑΥΟ. ΤΟΥΡ.ΑΛΒ. ΣΕΡΒΙ.Κ. ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΙ, (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ, ΕΛΕΩ ΘΕΟΥ, ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝ, Ο ΜΕΓΑΣ ΑΥΘΕΝΤΗΣ ΤΟΥΡΚΩΝ, ΑΛΒΑΝΩΝ, ΣΕΡΒΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΩΝ) meaning "Alexander is an Emperor and a King. Emperor of the Romans (Byzantines) and King of the Turks, the Albanians, the Serbs and the Bulgarians." A Macedonian (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you that it is written on the seal, but it would be better if you can provide link to some source with inscription on the seal and translation, if possible?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I did it in the article. A Macedonian (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case ΡΩΜ ("Romans") refers to Romioi. I clarified it in the article. A Macedonian (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very interesting to notice the cross and crown above the double-headed eagle, but also the animal (a fox? a wolf?) under eagle's feet. A Macedonian (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have few objections about it:

1. picture is too large
2. description below picture is too long. If there is a need to describe the seal, it should be done in the text of the article
3. description is too long, even for the text of the article. This is not article about seal and how long is it in Denmark, but about Skanderbeg
4. subtitle where picture is placed is wrong, because it has nothing to do with relation with Papal States. I think that pic should be placed in more suitable subtitle (before last paragraph of consolidation, where he had glorious victories ?).

If there are some interesting details about seal, then it maybe should be written in the article about seal, not Skanderbeg which can only link to such article or contain incription and text which is not in conflict with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I formatted it a bit better. In witch section do you think it should move to? A Macedonian (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Before last paragraph of consolidation, where he had glorious victories ?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, I just moved it somewhere, if you think it's not right feel free to move it again. I need a coffee. :) A Macedonian (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator and A Macedonian please read the seal without making or deductions. It says ΣΕΡΒΙ i.e Serbia not Serbs, ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΙ i.e Bulgaria not Bulgarians etc.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but before reintroducing that seal, please read the history of the article. The seal is a forgery and a whole paragraph that existed for it was removed here by me. Read this: There was a whole symposium about that seal and it was debunked by all of the historians, exception made by the one who found it. --Sulmuesi (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC) If any mention should be made, please introduce the paragraph that I had removed, with the due changes in the trivia section: The seal is in the queue of the forged documents that include stuff produced by Biemmi and Zef Skiroi. IMO it should be entered here, but it seems like Peter Praentz is going to write something about it so let's wait before labeling it a hoax. My problem is that Gjin Varfi a heraldist with 50 years experience in the field debunks it completely. --Sulmuesi (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No doubt that seal is controversial, like almost anything else connected with Skanderbeg (nationality, religion, cause he fought for, historical role, myths, symbols, flags, inspirations he provide 500 years after his death....). According to the rules on wikipedia, if there are more than one opinion about something that is present in relevant and credible sources, all of them should be present in the text.

I do not think that seal deserves too much attention. As it can be seen from my proposal and comments on edits of A. Macedonian, I proposed to put picture of this seal in the article with only short explanation and inscription. If it is true or fake, and whatever is written on the seal, does not prove anything because anybody can produce seal with any text. I propose (and I think we actually have to) to follow rules of wikipedia and leave pic of this seal in the article, with only short description and incription in the text of the article, not below the picture or much smaller size below it, and stating that it is controversial for Albanian heraldists with refference Sulmues provided above. If some new events significantly change its perspective, we can easily change text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot get too much out of the google translate of the Albanian press reports Sulmues linked to. Can anybody summarize what exactly the "hoax" claim is? A modern forgery? Or just a contemporary object originating somewhere in his surroundings but that wasn't actually used for sealing things? Or what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary:

1. The 2 seal types found in the official and non-official documents and letters of Skanderbeg aren't similar to this one and have no common traits(symbols, heraldry, form, languages) except for the double headed eagle.
2. This seal was first registered as a Russian seal and in 2002 a Danish historian claimed that it was Skanderbeg's seal.
3. The particular seal type wasn't used in the middle ages.

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the evidence from reliable sources, that seal should not be in the article, that's why I removed it again. If you want to write an article about the hoax, please go ahead: there is no reliable source to support that seal, on the contrary, there are several sources that say that the seal is not true, it's not coming from the 15th century, and it is not a typical seal of that time. Forgeries shouldn't be around in this article. Btw, Skanderbeg already had two well documented seals, a smaller one, with a secret encoding for the Ragusan and Italian banks, the other one for the rest of the acts, not as secret. None of them is similar to the one brought by the museum of Danmark. --Sulmuesi (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

“Based on the evidence from reliable sources, that seal should not be in the article, that's why I removed it again.”. Sulmues, it is not our job here to judge what source is reliable and true (Albanian heraldists) right and what sources are not reliable and not true (rest of the world), but to follow WP:NPOV and to present all of them. Your deleting seal from the text of the article is another POV pushing edit within your “struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article”. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As a volunteer here in wikipedia and as an honest intellectual I find it is my duty to use reliable sources. Find me ONE reliable source for that seal and I'll enter it in the article. I really don't understand how this is POV pushing: to reject from the article a seal that didn't belong to Skanderbeg, but was instead sold in the black market as many other historical fakes. You may go and ask for a WP:Third Opinion: I don't believe you have any reliable source for that seal. --Sulmuesi (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting referenced source from the text of the article is violation of wiki rules. Please revert your action, and reach consensus here if you want to delete text from the article. In the meantime I will provide list of sources below.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is first source, written by Tim Judah is book that claim that this seal was basis for flag of Albania. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that I love your dedication to not have sources removed, because it's exactly how I would feel when I started to edit in wikipedia. In general there is nothing wrong with removing a not reliable source like I did when I removed the seal information. That edit removed this reference, which is not a reliable source. Reliable sources are from well established historians and scholars, usually books or professional history publications. That website seems like a personal website with no indication that the owner, Bjørn Andersen, is a scholar with publications in the matter. In general there is nothing wrong with removing a non reliable source, especially when you have reliable sources saying that the thing is a forgery, on the contrary, it should be each honest wikipedian's duty to remove such information. But again, I love your spirit and I believe that you truly want to collect all the information possible on a subject, because you are not sure if we are removing good or bad stuff, and I understand that. Problem is, there are sufficiently reliable sources to debunk that seal, and believe me, I've been reading about that seal in the last 5 years by now, and all we guys who reject it, don't do it because we don't like the seal or anything, but because we have read about it a lot. Skanderbeg had two seals per Frasheri and many other scholars, and Tim Judah is referring to those, not the forged seal. --Sulmuesi (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, I think that you are maybe really right here, and I am accepting your arguments. But since this seal story is connected not only with possible forgery but also with flag of Albania, maybe it would be good to provide some picture or drawing of the seal that served as inspiration for flag. In some sources that I have read it was written that Castrioti family had seal with sun on it, not double headed eagle that probably can find place on the seal of Castrioti only after fall of Constantinopolis, 1453. (Byzantine: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Inc Icon Group International) In that case it would really make some sense that double headed eagle was sign of Skanderbeg's aspirations toward renewal of Byzantine Empire with all people that lived in it, and in that case double headed eagle could be connected with all people or countries mentioned on possibly fake seal. In order to clarify all possible future (mis)leadings and (mis)understandings, I propose to put some picture of the seal that served as inspiration for flag according to sources that you have. Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the true seal, whose image you can put in the article. The secret seal, a second one, was instead an image of Leda: that secret seal was usually used to get the money from the Ragusan and Venice' banks. The former seal (with the Eagle) descended from the coat of arms of the Kastrioti family, which, like many noble families throughout the Balkans had a bi-headed eagle in the center. So it's not that Skanderbeg invented a new coat of arms, he inherited what his father gave him. In the 1870s stenographer Johannes Rietstap documented the coat of arms from all European noble families, and Gjin Varfi, an Albanian heraldist, has published several books on the Albanian families' coats of arms basing his work on Rietstap's. The coat of arms derives the flags and the seals, not the other way around. --Sulmuesi (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Do you have any that is not from internet forum?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that you have the idea, make your pick. --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was hoping that you would provide link to reliable source (not forum or google search) about another seal with two headed eagle that according to link I provided inspired flag after 1453 (almost ten years after it is stated in text about Castrioti family), but since it is not primary subject of this article, there is no need to insist on that here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg owned timar?

Resolved

“Skanderbeg during the 1430s owned a relatively large timar, composed of nine villages, although it is unknown exactly which villages they were” - is written in the article.

In Ottoman Empire timar was controled by timariot, but not owned.

"Timar holder did not own the land; land ownership was held by the Ottoman state." - that is written in the article about timar, referenced with source and coresponds to what is well known about timars and Ottoman state.

Therefore I will replace word "owned" with word "controlled".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg owned zeamet that he inherited from his father? Did Stanisha keep control over old zeamet controled by his father?

Resolved

"After the death of Reposh, then a monk, in 1431, and the later deaths of Kostandin and Skanderbeg's father (who died in 1437), Skanderbeg governed his zeamet with his surviving brother, Stanisha. In 1439 Murad II took Skanderbeg away from his zeamet in Albania and gave him other fiefdoms elsewhere,"

In Ottoman empire zeamet was in timar system, and like timar, was not owned by its lord, only granted by sultan to be governed and could not be inherited.

By above mentioned sentence, readers could be mislead to believe that Skanderbeg or his father owned land that was in fact granted to Skanderbeg's father by sultan in form of timar or zeamet "as compensation for annual military service, for which they received no pay". Sultan could not take away zeamet from Skanderbeg, because Skanderbeg did not own zeamet. Therefore sultan did not steal anything from Skanderbeg, but on the contrary, sultan granted control of land to Skanderbeg.

In the text of the article it is unclear what happened to Stanisha? Did he continued to govern zeamet that was governed by his father, because it is written in the text that sultan took away governing of the zeamet that was governed by their father only from Skanderbeg?

Also, Reposh could not be a monk after his death. He was monk when he died in Hilandar, and since religion was very important those days, it would be good to inform readers that Reposh died and was buried in Hilandar as monk of Serbian Orthodox church.

Therefore I will change above mentioned sentence to:

"After the death of Reposh, who died in 1431 and was buried in Serbian Orthodox monastery Hilandar, as Orthodox monk, and the later deaths of Kostandin and Skanderbeg's father (who died in 1437), Skanderbeg and his surviving brother Stanisha, continued to govern zeamet that was governed by his father, untill in 1439 Murad II granted to Skanderbeg some fiefdoms elsewhere,"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources say anything about the Serbian church so please don't make or deductions. Btw if you revert back the pov tag I'll go to ANI, because you have been deliberately misusing sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hilandar is Serbian Orthodox monastery. By deleting full information about Hilandar you are violating NPOV by “struggling to preserve the nationalistic POV” and removing any information that would prevent readers from being misled about nationalistic nature of Skanderbeg and any connection with anything Slavic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The purchase regards the "Arbanaski pirgue". According to Serbian scholar Petkovic, Reposh was a duke, not a monk. He was given that pirgue and died while was protecting it. Several scholars contrast the claim that he died as a monk: in fact, you can't be nobilty and a monk at the same time. Once you re a monk you give up noblety titles. Since Reposh's grave says "Illyricum Dux", he couldn't have been a monk, but a duke. --Sulmuesi (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Take look at this because I provided source that state:

1. Yes, you are probably right that Reposh did not die as monk (very good observation Sulmues!)
2. “He was given that pirgue and died while was protecting it.” He was not given that pirgue, his father and his three sons (not Stanisha) purchased right to use it in case Ottoman empire force them to flee
3. He did not die protecting tower because it was part of Hilandar that nobody ever attack (but unfortunatelly was burnt in fire several years ago, and recently reconstructed)
4. It was not Reposh's grave says "Illyricum Dux" but on one of Hilandars frescoes it was written »Prestavi se rab' božii Repoš', douks' ilirskii, 6939«
5. please read rest of my comment here because there are few more issues with absurd claim about exchange of properties and ownership on part of monastery that happened with 4 years time difference.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

New article "Skanderbeg myths and interpretations"?

{{Split-apart}}

I find your comment Ning-ning very helpful because it is somehow showed us maybe the only proper way to solve problem with all interpretations and misusing of Skenderbeg up to more than 600 years after he was born. There are many credible and relevant sources for myth that is created based on Skanderbeg. Maybe the only proper way to deal with various misusing of Skanderbeg to create national myth, effects that such myth had, interpretations and inspirations that I described above.... is to create separate article (Skanderbeg myths and interpretations?) and to remove all this controversial and disputed matters to this new article, leaving only short paragraph with information that Skanderbeg is used for creation of nation myth (with link to this new article as main on this topic)? That way we will have only NPOV noncontroversial and nondisputed information in this article and all other things that happened after his death, and especially national myth created 500 years after his birht to place to separate article with appropriate name and burden that it deserves. Again, Skanderbeg should not be connected with both solidarity of Albanian people, consciousness of Albanian people of their national identity, inspiration of Albanian people, national unity of Albanian people, freedom of Albanian people, national independence of Albanian people, struggle of Christendom against the Ottoman Empire during next 5 centuries, SS Waffen division that Kosovo Albanians named after him..... that happened 500 years after him.

I propose to extract all text from the article about using Skanderbeg in period after his death into separate article with name "Skanderbeg myths and interpretations" (or any other name we agree), like it was already hinted by some users before. I think this is good proposal that will remove a lot of unresolved issues from this article and that we should vote about it? Comments are more than welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator you have already been told about WP:OR and WP:POV so please read them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Unresolved

{{Bias}}

Yes ZjarriRrethues, you are right. There is a something on WP:POV page that we did not paid enough attention yet. It is connected with BIAS Wikipedia:Pov#Biased_writing.

I think that this article is school example of biased article because it:

1. “harbors (possibly unconscious) assumptions about the popular opinion of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc.” and
2. it is "writen from your local perspective" with
3. “excessive assumption of local readership”.

There is also absurd situation with biased naming policy that resulted with excessively used words Albania 174 times in the text of the article, despite that:

1. Albania (state) and Albanians as modern nation (like all other nation-states and modern nations in the world) emerged more than 600 years after Skanderbeg was born.
2. excessive using the Albania (toponym) can additionaly mislead readers, because it could define several different geographical regions which does not correspond with todays meaning and territory
3. Skanderbeg's fighters are presented in the article like they were all Albanian nationality (even connected with struggle for freedom, unity, independence of Albanian nation) despite they were mixture of many medieval nationalities struggling for their medieval lord, Skanderbeg, against armies of other medieval noblemen with also many different nationalities in them, (some armies even led by Albanians, see all neutral contemporary sources)

Most of the users wrote comments about this article being POV or even "mass POV" which was probably reason for not noticing so strong BIAS in the article. I think that to deal with BIAS in the article in two ways:

1. to mark this article as BIAS with {{Bias}} tab
2. to remove part of biased text to separate subtitle or article (like I already proposed in above section) which will deal with (mis)using Skanderbeg (sometimes more than 500 years) after his death. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's see a little bit these "bias" claims:

Question

Albania (state) and Albanians as modern nation (like all other nation-states and modern nations in the world) emerged more than 600 years after Skanderbeg was born.

Answer

Although I am not sure what you ment, FYI (1)Albania and Albanians are attested in literature in 1081 more than 300 hundred years before Scanderbeg was born (1405)and (2) Albanian state-form entities had existed 200 years before Scanderbeg era (see eg Principality of Arbër and Kingdom of Albania)) and (3) We've already discussed about the geography of Albania at that time (what was considered Albania in XV century) and FYI Scanderbeg was defined ruler of great part of Albania by contemporaries.

Question

excessive using the Albania (toponym) can additionaly mislead readers, because it could define several different geographical regions which does not correspond with todays meaning and territory

Answer

see point (3) above and the next answer below.

Question

Skanderbeg's fighters are presented in the article like they were all Albanian nationality (even connected with struggle for freedom, unity, independence of Albanian nation) despite they were mixture of many medieval nationalities struggling for their medieval lord, Skanderbeg, against armies of other medieval noblemen with also many different nationalities in them, (some armies even led by Albanians, see all neutral contemporary sources)

Answer J ust picking up a simple source on Scanderbeg....The papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571 by Kenneth M. Setton Publisher American Philosophical Society, 1976 ISBN 0871691272, 9780871691279.

Terms used by Kenneth Setton for Scanderbeg and his army

1. ..Hunyadi had not been able to wait for Scanderbeg and the Albanians, for the advance of Murad II........ Second battle of Kosovo 1448 .
2. Scanderbeg was still to enact the great Albanian epic resistance to the Turks... Albanian resistance to Turks.
3. ...Albanian leader.. or another ..the Albanian athlete and champion... Referring to Scanderbeg (several times)
4. .....Albanian army including Catalans contingent sent by Alfonso...Albanian defeat at Berat... Battle of Berat 1455 (bear in mind that the catalan contingent has been mentioned in the article)
5. ...(Scanderbeg) sent an Albanian cavalry force into southern Italy.. or another expression ...Albanian expeditions.. Scanderbeg expedition in Italy 1460-61
6. ...Elbasan soon proved its worth by resisting an Albanian attack the following spring.... Scanderbeg attack on Elbasan in 1466, the Scanderbeg is not even mentioned but just his "Albanian army"
7. ....great Albanian fortress of Kruja... Terms used for localities.

Or The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition reprint, illustrated Publisher University of Michigan Press, 1994 ISBN 0472082604, 9780472082605

1. Albanians defeating the invaders in June 1444...Albanians victory over the Turks....the two armies met on the Drin at some point in 1448, and the Albanians annihilated the Venetian force
2. In 1452 the Albanians defeated in the mountains a new Ottoman force
3. Commander of the Albanian army.......Albanian leader

Wow Setton and Fines, you do merit a POV tag:) you sneaky Albanian irredentists:). Jokes appart it looks to me pretty obvious that the only bias is within your imagination, unless you find Setton and Fines biased authors. If you think so go on WP:RSN, but as I've stated before you're interested just in trolling. Aigest (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Aigest, you can not solve problem of bias with more bias. It is not lack of sources that makes article biased. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator, what do you mean when you claim you can not solve problem of bias with more bias. The terms used in article are those used by scholars describing Scanderbeg resistance (read above). Do you find Setton and Fines biased scholars?! Have they some Albanian irredentist agenda?! Why do't you go to WP:RSN then? Aigest (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Which commander of the League of Lezhe was non-Albanian? Antidiskriminator you're always making or deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No I am not. "As a matter of fact he fought against a lot of Albanians who were leading Ottoman Armies such as Hamza Kastrioti and Ballaban Badera, so removing it actually decreases confusion. That was a good observation Antidiscriminator! --Sulmues (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)" Talk:Skanderbeg#He_did_not_fought_against_nations.2C_he_fought_against_armies.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator you write about commanders of the League of Lezhe being portrayed as Albanians, implying that they weren't Albanians. So which commander of the League of Lezhe was non-Albanian?.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I did not wrote about commanders of the League of Lezhe at all. I wrote about “Skanderbeg's fighters” portrayed exclusively as Albanians with words “Skanderbeg's fighters are presented in the article like they were all Albanian nationality” (fighters means those who fight, not necessarily command). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Which fighters were non-Albanians?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We cannot write an article based on our own research. It has to be verifiable. Of course Scanderbeg fought against Albanians as well. And of course he had soldiers other than Albanians. But that is not very much significant. Also, Antidisctiminator, Scanderbeg is an Albanian hero. He is regarded as the biggest Albanian hero. He is very much the core of Albanian nationalism. So I do not understand how could this page be biased. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Scanderbeg fought against Albanians as well. And of course he had soldiers other than Albanians". Well said. Where is the "albanianess" of Skanderbeg, then? Even Albanian muslims do not thing much about him.--Euzen (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Euzen is that IP's edit yours?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Aigest, you can not solve problem of bias with more bias. It is not lack of sources that makes article biased. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator, citing you can not solve problem of bias with more bias. Do you find Setton and Fines biased scholars?! They were just

Aigest. Existing one-sided perspective of the biased article is very well supported with referenced sources. Supporting existing one-sided perspective by adding more well referenced text with same perspective will only increase bias, not decrease. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Antidiskriminator which fighters of Skanderbeg were non-Albanians? You are claiming that the article is biased but as always when asked to source your deductions you WP:IDHT. All sections started by you lack sources and whenever you are asked to provide them, you always IDHT.— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, you (again) gave us very, very good link (WP:IDHT):

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors continue to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not.

I think that WP:IDHT is exactly what group of “editors struggling to preserve the nationalistic POV” are doing. Existing nationalistic viewpoint of the article is continuously rejected by consensus of the community supported with numerous credible neutral and reliable sources. Group of “editors struggling to preserve the nationalistic POV” rejected such consensus, repeating unsupportable allegation almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Which fighters of Skanderbeg were non-Albanians? Antidiskriminator you're complaining about POV but as always you have no arguments apart from not all of Skanderbeg's fighters were Albanians. Btw this is the 5th time I'm asking you about your only argument, so please don't IDHT again.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your behaviour is continuing of the harassment that editors that support nationalisti viewpoint of the article perform in order to keep POV pushing. POV tag is placed based on discussion here, and contain link to the source for non-mono-ethnic armies of Skanderbeg. Don't mix it with BIAS that is subject of this subtitle.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"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. "Robert Elsie (absolutely non-antialbanian) web site with Oliver Schmitt book--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator your source doesn't say about the armies of Skanderbeg, but the ones that fought against Skanderbeg, so why do you keep insisting on Skanderbeg's fighters being non-Albanian?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was sure that you were going to apologize to other users last night, after I presented with inline citation from Robert Elsie (absolutely non-antialbanian) web site with Oliver Schmitt book. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I still have not read Schmitt, so I may not judge but taking only one single piece of it. Schmitt has to be brought along with the critique on his work, which is sometimes more voluminous than his own work. --Sulmuesi (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is additional inline citation that soldiers fighting for Skanderbeg were not only Albanians. Source for this citation is work

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

Skanderbeg and a determined force of 8.000 men, among whom were Slavs, Germans, Italians and others....

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is description, written by Marin Barleti, of people that lived in Dibra and fought for Skanderbeg.

Superior Dibra montuosa est et aspera, ferax tarnen et Macedoniam tum ipsa loci vicinitate, tum similitudine morum contingens. Bulgari sive Tribali habitant, ferox in armis gens et non minus Scanderbego multis praeclarae virtutis fidelque meritis grata. Propior tamen externis quam Epiroticis moribus et adhorens multo ab Albano cultu, Graecanico ritu victitabant et plerasque eorum superstitiones sequebatur

— Marin Barleti

Translated on English: Upper Debar is a land of hills and rough ground, but fertile. There are many proximities with Macedonia both for being close to it and for resemblance of customs of people. It is inhabitet by Bulgarians or Triballi, tribe that has merciless arms, but very dear to Skanderbeg because in many cases it proved its bravery and loyalty to him. Though, customs of this tribe were more like alien customs than Epirot. There are many differences in religion compared to Albanians, due to fact they belong to Greek religion, having many of its superstitions.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is link to "Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time", by Franz Babinger:

Skanderbeg had fortified himself with 8.000 faithful followers, including many Slavs, Italians, Frenchmen and Germans.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

How to solve problem with POV?

I hereby start discussion in order to reach consensus how to solve problem with POV of the article. Comments are welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You will never reach consensus by endless discussion. You may go one step farther and bring the article to mediation. --Euzen (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

“The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page.” Template:POV --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Three times I asked you on the section above to tell me which fighters of Skanderbeg were non-Albanians. All times you IDHT me and you keep starting discussions every time you can't refute arguments or support your own ones. This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT activity and I'm removing your tag until you manage to make a point and source your own arguments, which you seem to IDHT when others ask you about them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, you can not solve problem with POV by removing of the tag. All editors that participated in discussion, except you, confirmed that Oliver Schmitt was right when he wrote that army of Skanderbeg was not mono-ethnic. Please stop this disruptive behaviour and don't remove tag untill dispute is solved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Until this article starts “representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” [6] it should remain marked with {{POV}} tag.

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

“This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator I think that your extreme IDHT requires admin intervention because otherwise you'll keep IDHTing every question. For the last time (before I do go to ANI) which fighters of Skanderbeg were non-Albanians?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dont mix discussion about BIAS and POV subtitles. POV tag is placed not based on non monoethnic armies discussion from BIAS subtitle, but because article does not “representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” that is discussed here. You can see answer on your question in subtitle about BIAS.

Please do not harass me anymore with threats with ANI. If you think that I should be banned, please ask for my ban or please do not harass me with ban threats anymore (and you and Sulmues are doing it for months already).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) You IDHTed again but even in that link, which is just another section there is nothing about non-Albanian fighters of Skanderbeg.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs" are not Albanians.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And where did these people fight? It's your argument and since we have articles about most battles of Skanderbeg where did these people fight? Btw why can't you find a source that isn't so controversial? --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, while struggling to preserve the nationalistic POV, you again provided valuable information. All those "articles about most battles of Skanderbeg" should also start representing: fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Untill then, they should also be marked with POV tag. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

How to solve problem with POV? - 2

Unresolved

If anybody wants to write comments with claims that there is no POV in the article, please do not use this section, but POV tag.

I hereby start discussion in order to reach consensus how to solve problem with POV of the article. Comments are welcomed.---Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator your source doesn't say about the armies of Skanderbeg, but the ones that fought against Skanderbeg, so why do you keep insisting on Skanderbeg's fighters being non-Albanian? Btw you have been deliberately misusing a source, which is disruptive and you're starting new sections to IDHT others.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator please don't continue adding the pov tag, while your source says the opposite of what you've been claiming.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you ZjarriRrethues want to write comments with claims that there is no POV in the article, please do not use this section, but POV tag--91.185.117.51 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Stanisha and Reposh, or Staniša and Repoš?

Both Staniša and Repoš are Slavic names that on wikipedia on english language are written not with sh but with š (Miroslav Šatan, Miloš Obrenović, Staniša Stošić, Staniša Nikolić ...). I propose to write their names properly, like in all other articles, i.e. like Repoš name is written in Robert Elsie (absolutely non-antialbanian) web site citing book of Oliver Schmitt.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Native names and those, which are used by the majority of sources are the ones used, not your OR deductions. Btw even Serbian scholars prefer using the Reposh form [7], while in Das venezianische Albanien Schmitt uses the form Reposh like most authors, so please don't monopolize the sources. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I based my proposal on form of names that are already used in majority of the articles on wikipedia, and I provided link for my proposal. This proposal is only one of many that I made while contributing this article, and claiming that it is OR or deduction is violation of AGF rule. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of old references

I had lots of fun finding references to 19th century scholars, but I'll start replacing those references with more modern scholars. I'll get rid of course, of Barleti, but also of Gibbon (18th century), and all the 19th century ones.--Sulmuesi (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Paragraphs to make it chronological?

The more I think about this article the more I get convinced that the paragraphs "Relations with Naples" and "Relations with Venice" should be merged into the rest of the article, so that we have a more clear chronological story. It's actually a strange read that Skanderbeg dies and then we start reminding the reader that he was besides a fighter, also a man who cared about diplomacy and relationship with neighboring states. However before going ahead and making any edits of that nature, I wanted to gather some more opinions from editors who care about this article. --Sulmuesi (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

i agree about the death part, but his military campaigns should remain separate from his diplomacy. I think it would be best to create a section on his death. in the end, the article requires major restructuring and revision.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You have written almost all of Skanderbeg's battles and what I would expect is to write a short and well referenced paragraph for each battle, and also to point to the battle's article. However the diplomacy work is clearly between the battles and if we miss that piece, the battles have not much meaning. Besides we lose the chronological side of the article and the readability of the article will be lacking. Since we are not 100% ready with the battles, it would be wise to do those first and then enrich the article, since the battles should be the most important piece of the article, but still, besides being a general, Skanderbeg was the head of a confederation of principalities, and the diplomatic side of his life is extremely important to both background and legacy of each battle. That's why I think that we ought to get rid of the diplomatic relations' paragraphs at a certain point so that we can have some paragraphs by period. I'm curious how does Frasheri divide his book? Could we follow him? --Sulmuesi (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

His book is divided interestingly. It is in chronological order, but when an important issue comes he breaks and writes a chapter on it. For example, when he's talking about Pal Engjelli's role as a diplomat, he goes into a chapter about the cultural advances in Skanderbeg's state, much of it relating to Pal Engjelli. It basically covers every single aspect of his life.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Skanderbeg/Archive_2#Spliting_the_article: It seems like you cherished the idea a year ago into splitting in three main parts. --Sulmuesi (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get how this is related.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good idea to avoid word "relations" in all those subtitles. I think that it is also according to the wiki rules to make subtitles as short as possible. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who had never heard of Skanderbeg until yesterday, but has now read through this article, I'd say that its fragmented approach does him no justice. It makes no sense to me to separate his fight for Albanian independence from his diplomacy, unless there's a suggestion that the two were not related, which is clearly absurd. It also seems ridiculous, at least to me, to end one major section with his death and then start another with his diplomacy. The structure of this article is analagous to the pieces of an uncompleted jigsaw puzzle; until the pieces are put together, the bigger picture can't be seen, it's just a pile of pieces. Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It will be changed.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll work little by little with Frasheri, Noli, and Hodgkinson, and complete referencing in the foreign relations. As soon as they are completed, we can do the merge. For now I'm not comfortable with those paragraphs, because they are referencing to Babinger &Co with no page numbers at all. But rather than rewriting, I'll find the references in better and more contemporary sources than Babinger. God this article is like the mother of all the articles of Wikipedia. --Sulmuesi (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Merged Relationships with Naples, Venice, and Rome. --Sulmuesi (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Highland clan Kuči

 Doing...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Marko Miljanov wrote about Castriot family claiming that they were from Kuči highland clan. Here is link to the article on Serbian language.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And how did he find that out? --Sulmuesi (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not insist that this statement of Marko Miljanov should be written in the text. I think that it is not even important how Marko Miljanov found that out, nor if it is true, because it can be written that Marko Miljanov stated that. Marko Miljanov was very important person and leader of Kuči clan who probably knew who were memebers of his clan. He had a Serbian Orthodox Christian father (Kuči clan) and Albanian Catholic Christian mother (Koja e Kuçit clan). I believe that fact that he considered Skanderbeg as memeber of his clan is significant. If there are in the text of article statements about Skanderbeg (and most of them are not very encyclopedic or neutral) from:

1. Danish philosophers
2. Italian baroque composers
3. James Wolfe, commander of the British forces at Quebec,
4. Voltaire, Byron,...,French poets, American poets, British poets
5. Sir William Temple
6. Albanian composer, Prenkë Jakova,
7. .......

and in the same time insisting to avoid including informations written by Marko Miljanov (who declared himself as Serb), does not contribute to NPOV of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Marko is a writer, feel free to put him in the trivia along with the Danish, Wolfe, Byron and Prenke Jakova. --Sulmuesi (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Marko Miljanov was a leader of the Kuči clan, judge in Montenegro, warrior, member of Montenegrin Senate and commander of Montenegrin army. Also, he is very credible to be source of informations about Albanians, since he was half Albanian, living and cooperating with Albanians and wrote a book "Life and the Customs of Albanians". He is for sure much more relevant and credible than many other sources that are put in top part of article, i.e. Sir James Emerson Tennent, Irish politician and traveller.

I think (not insist) that information about Castrioti family belonging to Kuči highland clan is important and should be put into text. If you dont think so, bring some arguments, but not advise to write this information into trivia only because Marko Miljanov wrote few poems (who didn't?) after he retired. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We might think about entering a note and then mention all the theories of the Kastrioti origin, by referencing each one of them. My problem with Marko is that he wasn't a scholar though, therefore not a RS. If you think otherwise, let me know. --Sulmuesi (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree with you that Marko Miljanov (absolutely relevant and credible as leader of the Kuči clan, judge in Montenegro, warrior, member of Montenegrin Senate and commander of Montenegrin army, half Albanian, living and cooperating with Albanians and wrote a book "Life and the Customs of Albanians") can be discredited as source because he was not scholar. But I do think that such important facts should be supported with as strong sources as possible, and therefor I will try to find some additional sources about it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Clan leader", "judge", "warrior", "politician", "military", "half Albanian" still don't make you a scholar. Again, he can safely stay in the trivia paragraph in the bottom, which includes what famous people said about Skanderbeg, although I am aware that the size of that paragraph is kind of too big for an encyclopedia. I would first and foremost put that Byron poem in the notes for instance. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I managed to find a scholar who wrote about numerous sources proving that Skanderbeg was member of highland clan Kuči. Unfortunately, he died a week ago. His name is Prof. Vukale Đerković (professor of serbocroatian language and Russian language and literature, famous and well respected who got his PhD on Moscow university, culturologist, scholar of culture, history of literature, publicist and translator) that wrote here about Skanderbeg being a member of Kuči clan stipulated many sources that revealed Pavle Apolonovic Rovinski like: Arhimandrit Gligorije Drekalović, dr Erdeljanović, Stevan Dučić, Toma Orahovac, Marko Bojov Rašović, dr Rastislav Petrović,.... Since Rovinski maybe was not absolutely neutral I will not insist that he should be basis for information about Kuči clan, if anyone objects it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Skenderaj

There is a town in Kosovo (Skenderaj) that (in Albanian language) is named after Skanderbeg. It is interesting that it is town which is center of Drenica region, which is famous because it is where Kosovo Liberation Army is created, Hassan Prishtina born and held speaches, center of kachaks and stronghold of kachak leader Azem Galica, (here is link to official web site of Skenderaj (Komuna Skenderaj) on Albanian language) and here is text from OSCE.

I think that it is important to have information about town named after Skanderbeg in the text of the article and it is also useful to state those facts about history of that town and people that named their town by Skanderbeg. Any comments are welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what the disambiguation page is for. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is important to have text about both museums and whole towns named after him. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The museums are one things, and the city with his name given during World War II is another thing. If you read Stalin, there is no explanation why Stalingrad took his name, although it was himself doing it. Same thing for Tito. Do you find anything in that article about the reasons why Titograd was named after him? And both of these people had sargeant at arms name these cities after themselves: Skanderbeg had NOTHING to do with the naming of the nazi battalion or with the city because they came 5 centuries after him. Please don't compare apples to pears. --Sulmuesi (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

“Skanderbeg had NOTHING to do with”...... “because they came 5 centuries after him.” (feel free to put anything below in the blank space):

1. solidarity of Albanian people,
2. consciousness of Albanian people of their national identity,
3. inspiration of Albanian people,
4. national unity of Albanian people,
5. freedom of Albanian people,
6. national independence of Albanian people,
7. struggle of Christendom against the Ottoman Empire during next 5 centuries
8. poets and composers that drawn inspiration from his military career.
9. many museums and monuments in Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo.... (The national museum "GJ. K. Scanderbeg" has been inaugurated on 1 November 1982 (that is 40 years after Skenderaj was named after Skanderbeg)
10. symbols of Albania, Kosovo and other countries
11. .....

and I completely agree with you. But it is wikipedia that have certain NPOV rules which are very simple. If you put apples (above mentioned list) in the basket you have to put pears, or otherwise you are breaking NPOV rules. It is wikipedia who says either both or neither. Concerning how much apples there are I do not insist on this matter. Your avoiding (because you are afraid that it is connected with Kosovo during WWII and SS Waffen divisions) to put this pear into basket will not change much, but only additionally argument for claims that article is “massive POV”. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) Perhaps you'd like to introduce a short paragraph on 22nd SS Volunteer Cavalry Division Maria Theresia into the article on Maria Theresa on the same principle? Ning-ning (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. In articles without "massive POV" see also section is the only place for informations about events that happened long after persons death and obviously does not have anything to do with the person. And it is only if those informations are significantly present in the relevant and credible sources of informations. This article has not followed wikipedia rules and needs to be significantly improved because of its "massive POV". According to wikipedia rules there are two ways for that:

1. to remove all POV text or
2. to include other informations that makes it more balanced.

I prefer first solution, but since there are some POV pushing active users preventing it, second solution (with SS Waffen divisions) is only possible. For now.

In this exact case I am sure that it is obvious that both Maria Theresia and Skanderbeg does not have anything to do with SS Divisions, Consciousness, inspiration, unity, freedom, national independence, religion struggles, solidarity of any nations,..... that happened centuries after they lived. But since there are lot of informations in the Skanderbeg article that are written despite they are disputed and controversial, some even absurd, and that according to all neutral contemporary and non-nationalistic-Albanian sources Skanderbeg was intentionally misused for creation of national myth that inspired people to do various things, it is wrong and against NPOV rule to cherrypick consequences of such misusing and that is the only reason for my opinion that in the text of the article that we have now (described as POV, even "massive POV" by many users on the talk pages) information about SS Waffen division has to have its place.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You could have taken the hint of the irony of Ning-ning, but you didn't. After your edits, Malleus and Ning-ning, two very nice contributors made sure to fly away from this article, because they can smell your trolling from their countries. I will mark this will "resolved", because you are the only one not to have a clue about the disruption that you are bringing to this talk page.--Sulmuesi (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is todays edit of Ning-ning. Please stop harassing me with false accusations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that reading Maria_Theresa#Jews_and_Protestants, you'd have more say in that article to make her an anti-sionist, than to make Skanderbeg a nazi, like you kind of did, both for the fact that she persecuted the jews, and for the fact that time-wise she was closer to nazism, wouldn't you think? --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"to make Skanderbeg a nazi, like you kind of did".

Sulmues, if anybody is making Skanderbeg connected with religion struggles, national consciousness, national inspiration, national unity, national freedom, national independence, national solidarity, national socialism and SS Divisions, .... 600 years after he was born, then it was/is somebody else, not me, like you can find in the history of the text of the article. It is you who decided to insist on nationalistic “massive POV”, despite not only comments written on talk page by most of the users, but despite everything that science and any historiography know about medieval times. According to NPOV you can not cherrypick only those national connections that you personally like. If you have any proposal how to deal with all above mentioned national.... things, please write your proposal here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

National consciousness, inspiration, independence, and unity are all things that Skanderbeg has influenced, yes. National socialism? That'd be you. I'd remove the SS Skanderbeg stuff, because it's already in the disambiguation page, but I have to convince you first.--Sulmuesi (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

Obilić (Kastrioti municipality)

Not only Skenderaj, but Obilić also has "Albanian name for the town - Kastriot, which refers to Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg."

I think that avoiding to inform readers that Albanians on Kosovo named two towns against Skanderbeg is absurd and against NPOV, taking in consideration that many much less important things are extensively described. There are two whole towns on Kosovo that are named by Skanderbeg. Two whole towns are more important than statue in Rome or pasta museum in Rome that has its place in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Selami Pulaha

Resolved

Antid, can you enlighten me please about what exactly says Selami Pulaha, in your next upcoming opus? --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not my opus, but translation for you I am preparing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

“That is clear proof that there was some earlier middleages time, slavic-arbereshi symbiosis”--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I know your ideas about nationalization of history and so on, but the path you are taking will lead to a lot of problems. The bibliography is overwhelming that Skanderbeg was an Albanian and Obiliq was a Serbian. Making claims that Skanderbeg was a Serbian because his brothers had slavic names is an absurdity. There were two centuries of Serbian invasion of Albania after two Bulgarian ones, so it is normal that Albanians would have Slavic names. After World War II, half of the Albanian had Russian names, did they all become Russian by any chance? Or did they become American in the 1990s when a lot of "Kevin"s started to be called on the streets?--Sulmuesi (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, you asked me to translate one source for you and I am doing that here. There are parts of the text claiming that Ianninna is in Albania, that there was Albanian state in middle ages..... etc... all parts of the text that I dont think are corresponding with reality, but I intentionally did not want to translate only small part of source, but whole of it, either I like it or not. I dont know how you managed to find any bad intention of mine out of that? This translation I am doing because you asked me for, will in couple of minutes have part with monastery donations and dates you requested.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about it. I just can't read any cyrillic and thought that it would be your next article about Skanderbeg's mythization, --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In this exact source (that you saw as attemtp to prove that Skanderbeg is Serb) author does not even imply that Skanderbeg was Serb because of Slavic names of his family members. On the contrary, he see it as proof of symbiosis between Albanians and Slavic people.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, and sorry again. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. Don't worry about nationalization of history and articles I created about historians connected with that article. I did not write it in order to settle path for anything that is connected with this article or any other article. I wrote it for my pleasure. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Aurel Plasari

Word has come to me that Aurel Plasari has written a monumental work on Skanderbeg and has just been published. The title should be "Skënderbeu, një histori politike"(English: Skanderbeg, a political history), where he focuses mainly in the political aspects. The book is still not in google books, but it will be a nice treat to this article. Plasari is the director of the National Library of Albania. A link on the book's aspects --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg had sisters too.

Resolved

There is only one small part of sentence, within brackets:

"In 1456, one of Skanderbeg nephews (son of his sister Yella),"

that is mentioning that Skanderbeg had sister with name Yella. I found a source here that Skanderbeg had in fact five sisters with Slavic names: Mara, Jela not (Yella), Marica, Angelina and Vlajica.

All members of Skanderbeg's family should be clearly stated in the article. It would be violation of NPOV rule to discriminate only female members of the family by avoiding to write their names in the text of the article because of their sex or Slavic names (that should be written in proper form, non retrospectively albanized form like Yella).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

They are all in the article Kastrioti family. Kastrioti_family#Members. I added them not because it's NPOV not to state them, but because I believe all of them will have an article one day, since they were nobility. --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to help you with editing articles about them. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Who are: Isa beg Evrenos and George Stress Balsha?

Isa B(b)eg Evrenos

"In the summer of 1457 an Ottoman army numbering approximately 70,000 men invaded Albania with the hope of destroying Albanian resistance once and for all; this army was led by Isa beg Evrenos, the only commander to have defeated Skanderbeg's forces in the battle of Berat, and Hamza Kastrioti, who knew all about Albanian army strategies."

Isa beg Evrenos or Isa Beg Evrenos (one time is with big B and another is with small b) is one of few red links in the article and no google search results except those connected with this article. Is it possible that name of Isa B(b)eg Evrenos was used in another form in literature?

I have 6 google hits "isa bey evrenos" --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Now after you corrected mistake in text and wrote bey instead of beg problem seems to be resolved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

George Stress Balsha

"George Stress Balsha, sold the fortress of Modrichi to the Turks for 30,000 silver ducats."

George Stress Balsha is also one of few red links in the article and no google search results except those connected with this article. Is it possible that name of George Stress Balsha was used in another form in literature?

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, you and I already know that we'll have a headache with the Balshaj, correct? --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No. You are violating AGF rule. I have no idea what are you talking about and who is Balshaj?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, give me a break. Principality of Balsha And he is not the 14th century djurad balsic, btw, but another guy. Now I think we might leave him a red link, that doesn't bother me, unless you think he is notable, which I don't. IMO we should dewikify completely. --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that my knowledge that you estimated I had, but I didn't, was wrong.

If it will make you feel better, I will admit here that I was planning to give you “a headache with the Balshaj” but since my plan failed, I feel very bad.

Nevertheless, I think that it is not logical to leave red link on George Stress Balsha and without any link i.e. Skanderbeg's father, mother, brothers, sisters.... But anyway, that doesn't bother me if form of the name is proper one, not like Yella or Isa B(b)eg Evrenos.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Arbanasky pirgue (meaning Albanian Tower)

Resolved

“For the first time Skanderbeg's name is mentioned in Albania in 1426, when he and his family purchased the Saint George tower and some other property close to the Serbian Orthodox monastery of Mount Athos, Hilandar. In exchange the Kastriotis gave the two villages of Radostush and Trebisht.”

Pirugue of Saint George (Пирг Светог Ђорђа) is tower within (not close to) Serbian Orthodox Monastery Hilandar. picture of part of monastery with pirgue of Saint George Article in newspaper Politika about reconstruction of the pirgue after fire that happened several years ago Web site about reconstruction of the monastery and pirgue of Saint George, after fire Another web site with mention of the pirgue as part of Hilandar.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is link to one website that state that Castrioti did not buy part of monastery (I don't believe that monasteries, or their towers are subject of trade) but rented it, in case they will be forced by Ottoman army to fled. I know this site is not very credible source, but now I don't have better, and it is probably based on some source since it says that rent was six florins. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I found much better source here. It makes much more sense now. One of towers within Hilandar,(Saint George tower) was agreed (between iguman Atanasije from Hilandar and Gjon Kastriot) to be used by Gjon Kastriot (or Ivan, like it was written in the document) and his three sons (without Stanisha) if they are forced to run away from Ottoman army. This was sale of adrfats on that tower, not sale of any tower and land near monastery. Adrfat (brotherhood parts) (as I could understand from this text) gave right to some person to live in tower within monastery as part of monastery brotherhood (not necessary monk but Orthodox for sure), untill he dies (when this right expires and can not be inherited). Gjon Kastriot (or Ivan, like it was written in the document) and his three sons had four adrfats that gave them right to use (not own) as long as they live all land that was attributed to that tower (vineyards, olive threes...).

Donating of two villages and church to Hilandar that Gjon performed with his four sons happened several years before he purchased four adrfats of pirgue of Saing George in Hilandar, and have nothing to do with this transaction. And again, Stanisha mistery. What happened to him, and why he was not included in adrfats transaction in Hilandar?

There is one inscription about Kastrioti family member on Hilandars frescoes connected with Reposh, like Sulmues stated, prooving that he probably was not monk when he died. »Prestavi se rab' božii Repoš', douks' ilirskii, 6939«

Based on this source, I propose to double check information provided in above mentioned sentences. Especially because they are describing two different events. One is granting two villages to Hilandar in 1426 and another is purchasing of four adrfats on Saint George tower in Hilandar in 1430. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Frasheri dedicates 6 full pages to the two acts of Hilandar. There were two acts, called "Acts of Hilandar": With the first act, dated 1426, Gjon Kastrioti and his four sons donate to the monastery the two villages inclusive of a church in one of them. The second act is the sale (or rent, although I personally believe it was a usufruct transaction), which has no date, but according to Frasheri, it has to be very close in time to the first, as his reasoning is the two acts should be seen together as a do ut des transaction. In the second act Stanisha is not present because according to Frasheri, he was fully converted to Islam (remember he had the Turkish wife and was the father of Hamza Kastrioti), so he could donate, but he couldn't, as a Muslim, enter a sacred Christian place. Makes sense to you?--Sulmuesi (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC) And made chage, you are right it's within the monastir. --Sulmuesi (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have the translation in Albanian of the full "sale act" with no date. It says that the tower is sold for 60 golden to Kastrioti and the three sons, until all of them die, so basically none of them can leave it in heritage, it is a typical usufruct contract. The two acts were discovered by Russian medieval historian Grigorovich in 1848. I have nothing against stating that there were two acts, eccetera, it's only that all this discussion about the dates and so on will make the article really long and although it reveals lots of information for Skanderbeg (such as religion), you will agree with me that the article will be 1M kilobytes if we give that level of info on every aspect of Skanderbeg's life. We are already at almost 100kb, I would expect to get done with the referencing so that it is ready for GA. --Sulmuesi (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that there is no need to burden Skanderbeg article about details of agreement concerning Hilandar. I did not even suggested it. Main purpose of my comment was to correct obvious mistakes in the article: 1) about Saint George tower that is near to Hilandar instead within Hilandar, and 2) that there was some kind of exchange with villages in Macedonia.

Thank you Sulmues for accepting my proposals and making suggested corrections.

But now there are five additional corrections connected with obvious mistakes in sentence about Hilandar that should be corrected:

1. If “prior to the purchase of the tower, the Kastriotis had donated to the monastery the two villages of Radostush and Trebisht” then it was not “For the first time Skanderbeg's name is mentioned in Albania in 1426, when he and his family purchased the Saint George tower” but the first time was document containing donation to the monastery

(Sulmuesi's response): The reason why historians back up that those documents are important to testify that Skanderbeg was present in Albania is that the 1426 document clearly specifies that Gjon Kastrioti's four sons were with him at the time of the bequest, and we fully know that Gjon was in Albania at that time.--Sulmuesi (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

2. If you are not sure about date of purchasing usufruct contract in Hilandar, but you accept it was later than village donation in 1426, why you write year 1426 and not 1430, as I provided source for?

(Sulmuesi's response): According to Frasheri, the second act has no date and I cannot read your source unfortunately, because I lack knowledge of Serbian language, but I doubt that it is more reliable than Frasheri, although I admit I would be curious to have a translation. According to Frasheri, several scholars simply say that the maximum date of the second act is 1431, but his reasoning is that it should be very close to the first. Can you please bring the translation of the scholar's reasoning why he places the 1430 date on the second act? --Sulmuesi (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Antidiskriminator's reply: I will gladly help you with translation from Serbian language any time you need. Text that I provided link for was written by Tatomir P. Vukanović and translation will be done soon. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is translation with details like year 1430 as year of signing the second act of Hilandar. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed very kind of you to give the full article, but all he is saying about the 1430 is "Agreement about this purchase has happened in 1430". Whose agreement? It sounds like a Wikipedia consensus, :-). --Sulmuesi (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not right. It says this agreement, refering to agreement in previous sentence. But since there is another source claiming that there is no date on the document, I am not sure what to think.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

3. It was not Skanderbeg “and his family purchased the Saint George tower and some other property within the Serbian Orthodox monastery of Mount Athos, Hilandar.” but it was, as you agreed, his father with his three sons (and Skanderbeg as one of them)

(Sulmuesi's response): Again, I have nothing against entering a note saying that the bequest was done by the five males of the family and the purchase was done by four males of the family, but is it important? Skanderbeg was in both of them. If you want to enter the note, not a problem with me. --Sulmuesi (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

4. It was not purchase of the tower, but usufruct (adrfat)

(Sulmuesi's response): Frasheri's translation is "adelphate", whereas you say "adrfat": I take it's the slavic translation? Adelphate is the right to reside on monastic territory and receive subsidies from monastic resources. I am not sure that they are equivalent to "usufruct" though. It would be nice to start an article in Wikipedia on the adelphates.--Sulmuesi (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)  Done--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

5. It is important to stress that Stanisha was not there, because he was only one who was not Christian --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Sulmuesi's response): IMHO, this should go to a note, not in the body of the article. --Sulmuesi (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

6. One more thing. In this source I provided above it is stated that two villages were not donated, but only excluded (together with one church in them) from paying taxes to the Skanderbeg's father (but probably to the Hilandar?). It does make sense since Skanderbeg's father was not the onwer, but only sipahi in timariot system, and those two villages were not his ownership but belonging to Ottoman Empire. In that case, maybe it is better to avoid term donating and replacing it with more appropriate one?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Sulmuesi's response): Yes I agree on that. My wording is poor there. I'll rephrase. --Sulmuesi (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I made all the changes that you suggested, if we realize that the article becomes too long we can put them in a note at a second moment: for now they can stay in the article, unless someone else has a better idea on how to be more concise. The two acts of Hilandar are important documents that disclose important elements. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sulmues. I fully agree with you that those two documents are important because they disclose important informations. Besides those two documents that probably deserves to be expanded in separate article maybe it would be good idea to make articles about Reposh and Stanisha?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about it several times and I have desisted from doing it because they might not survive an AfD. I would do Reposh, who died as a duke and would qualify for Wikipedia:Notability_(royalty), although that's a failed proposal of a policy, whereas I'm not sure at all about Stanisha. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Two acts of Hilandar

Now I found much better source about those two acts of Hilandar. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What is very important, in this source says that year 6934 can mean anything between September 1, 1425. and August 31, 1426 year. because it is 6934 year from creation of world.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I know. Frasheri says in his 2002 book in page 86 that scholars tend to think it was 1426, although he doesn't say why. However 1426 seems to be the widespread and plausible interpretation so far. --Sulmuesi (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Another important things (it would be better if I was translating this page) are:

1. Name of Kastrioti family was first mentioned in Ragusa archives in 1368 (already mentioned document on talk pages here I think)
2. Text of first act (written on cyrilic, on Serbian medieval language, Raška Orthography)
3. Text of first act (written on cyrilic, on Serbian medieval language, Resava Orthography, but not very precise)
4. Most important, second act is without date! Above source estimate date between 1426 and 1431!
5. At first Ottoman census 1467. in village Radostuša there is a list of all names of "heads of families": Staniša Đurković, Stepan Đurković, Nenče Koklar, Tošan Koklar, pop Petar, Nenče Plaše, Nikola Kovač, Bojčin sin Rajin, pop V'lkota, Đuro Kovač, Đore Kirak, Staniša Vladislav, njegov brat Todor, Đuro jedinac Todorov, Dragija sin Bojčina.
6. At first Ottoman census 1467. in village Trebišt there is also a list of all names of "heads of families": pop Bogoslav, Radič (ili Radica) Ivančević, Radič Bogojević (ili Bukurović), njegov bratTodor, Miladin brat spomenutog, Volče Bukurović (ili Bokorović), Rajčin Bukurović, Mirko Stanislav, Stajko Macanović, Staniša Tanušević, Rale Đurović, Kale brat spomenutog, Vlaš(e) Jovanović, Petar Stanislav, Lazar Macanović.
7. Very important text about Stanisha: It says that there are no reliable sources that he was not converted to islam, and that despite some claims that he dissapeared, there is a mention of some Venetian document that from February 12, 1445. that mention Stanisha.
8. Also, this source state that it is safe to conclude that Ivan Kastriot is Ioakim Kastriot who died on May 2, in Hilandar
9. Finally, but very important, it is statement that inscription about "duks ilirski" on frescoe about Reposh is made recently, with wrong title?

I have to conclude that this source has certain dedustions that are expanding informations from my previous translation here. Comments are welcome, but I think it is best to leave text the way it is now. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting rid of one of them?

Upon suggestion of Todor, with whom I agree, I propose that we either get rid of the list of battles, or of the campaignbox. At least one has to go, since they are overlapping. Anybody against it? --Sulmuesi (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, but I would suggest that we think about a List article once that there are less redlinks. --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Who controled what and when?

Unresolved

Last part of Eearly life and beggining of subtitle with name Rise:

1. Skanderbeg controlled relatively large timar composed of nine villages in 1430s (I think that large timar is pleonasm because timar is the smallest unit, smaller then zeamet and has.)
2. Skanderbeg's father Gjon Kastrioti, was lord of Middle Albania, which included Mat, Mirditë and Dibër till he died in 1437.
3. Zaganos Bey was vali of Krujë zeamet up to 1432 (I am not sure if vali is proper name for lord of zeamet, because vali is usually lord of vellayet that emerged later in Ottoman Empire[8]?)
4. Skanderbeg becomes a vali of Krujë zeamet 1437–1438
5. Zaganos became again vali of Krujë zeamet 1438
6. Skanderbeg and Stanisha continued to govern Middle Albania, which included Mat, Mirditë and Dibër, for two years after 1437. actually Ottoman zeamet,

Based on above mentioned text, which is mixture of incomplete informations without full chronology, it is remains unclear:

1. Who governed Krujë between 1432 and 1437?
2. Who governed Middle Albania and nine villages timar after 1439?
3. What happened to Stanisha? Maybe it would be logical that he continued to govern Middle Albania (he was the oldest son) and Skanderbeg was sent to some other property? Are there any source indicating something like that?
4. Why would Skanderbeg see getting some land in Bulgaria in 1439 as demotion, and not when Zaganos became again vali of Krujë zeamet 1438 and he was left without any property that he only is entitled to govern?
5. Skanderbeg did not participated in any rebelion in battle near Nish, because he did not fight against Ottoman army there, but he simply quit the field along with 300 other Albanians serving in the Ottoman army ... Therefore I propose to replace word rebel with more appropriate
6. When he went back to Albania from Battle of Nish that happened on November 28, 1443, after long trek, he captured Kruje in the same day?!
7. How did he manage to gain control over more than his father Gjon Kastrioti's domains after capturing Kruje and some other minor surrounding castles, if his father controled Middle Albania, which included Mat, Mirditë and Dibër that are much bigger than Kruje and minor surrounding castles?

Are there any informations in the sources that can help completing chronology and informations that are unclear?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a lot of material to expand "Early life" especially the 1430-1443 period. There are many pages in Frasheri that are still not present in the article. I'll expand and clarify. --Sulmuesi (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, it is not only expanding, but correcting mistakes. Not only in Early life. In the lede of the article is written:

1. “Skanderbeg was ... conscripted into the Devşirme system.” and in note is written: “only one of the brothers of Skanderbeg, probably Stanisha,[1] had been conscripted into the Devşirme system”

(Sulmuesi's response) All scholars agree that he was at a certain point sent as a hostage, but they disagree as far as to when that happened. The lede should avoid "young age", because there is one party of historians that insists on the fact that he went there when he was 9, and the other party says that he went as a hostage when he was 18. I'll enter a note for both positions. No one knows when he went hostage. As a matter of fact the discrepancy of the age of his conscription puts in a shadow the hypothesis that he went through the devsirme system completely because if he went there at 18, he couldn't have been a young boy any longer. Hope you agree with me on this point.--Sulmuesi (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you should note both positions, since it is important detail about his life. I also agree that you should correct mistake with devsirme system.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2. “Skanderbeg was taken hostage at a young age” and then in Early life section "Gjon Kastrioti had accepted to send the eldest son, Stanisha, as Sultan's hostage." then information that Skanderbeg have gone to the Sultan's court only in 1423, when he was 18(!). In those days, even now, if somebody is 18, he is considered as adult, and somebody could be mislead that Skanderbeg was young boy when taken, (sent or given) to hostage. In another part of the text is written that “he spent part of his early youth in Edirne,” (when? was he hostage or what? what is early youth) I also propose to replace taken to hostage with given to (or gone to) hostage, because since it was "Gjon Kastrioti had accepted to send" his sons to hostage, nobody came to take them.

(Sulmuesi's response) Again, the schools of thought as to how old he was when he went hostage, disagree. There are many many interpretation as to what young age was meant with from various contemporary source in several languages (mainly Greek, Latin, and Turkish). Take for now the lede with a grain of salt, because it needs to reflect an "Early Age" section that is not complete: I still need to enter a couple of notes. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but please try to avoid stating that "Skanderbeg was taken hostage by the Sultan" because Sultan did not came to take him as hostage, he was sent to Edirne because that was arranged by his father. I think that it is important to state that it was his father who agreed to send him as hostage, because readers could be mislead to believe that he was forced to be hostage by Sultan himself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

3. "On his return home, the Ottomans gave him the title of bey and a zeamet to govern. Skanderbeg spent his early years governing the zeamet and fighting for the Ottoman Empire as a general." Since “It is assumed that Skanderbeg remained as the Sultan's hostage for a maximum of three years” What zeamet he governed in 1426? First zeamets that are mentioned as governed by Skanderbeg are Kruje and his fathers in 1437. I propose also to check about hime being a general in Ottoman army since general leads more than 300 soldiers he led to Battle of Nish.

(Sulmuesi's response) Fixed the lede so that it accepts both theories. He didn't govern a zeamet in 1426. The soldiers he led in the battle of Nish may have nothing to do with his capacity to lead. We have sufficient sources that he could lead 5000. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. "Later in life he earned the title of sipahi" If articles timar, timariot and sipahi are correct, than sipahi was not title, but occupation of being cavalry.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that there was no rank of general in Ottoman army. Text of the article is writing about sipahi, bey, timariot.... General does not fit into this list of original titles and ranks. One user on first archive on talk page suggested Müşir?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

4. "Skanderbeg's resistance presented a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion, and delayed their attack on Italy." This is exaggerating and against WP:W2W, using word major and whole sentence with obstacle is against rules of wikipedia. Readers can be mislead to believe that Skanderbeg was defending rest of the world from Ottoman expansion, which is, considering geographical position of Albania, absurd. Ottoman sultan planned his expedition to Italy only after fall of Constantinople 1453 and he invaded Italy using ships that sailed from Rhodes to Otranto in 1480. If Skanderbeg delayed Ottoman attack on Italy, why Ottoman Empire did not attack Italy as soon as he died? Ottoman empire did not need to control Balkan before controling the Italian peninsula. I think that this sentence is not only against WP:W2W, but absurd too, and should be deleted from the lede of the article.

(Sulmuesi's response) There are overwhelming sources to assure that he was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion into Italy invasion. And leaders won't be misled to read that he was defending the rest of the world from Ottoman expansion, because Italy is 40 miles from Albania and Skanderbeg's contributions were immense. He harassed the Ottoman forces with many battles and the Sultans had to come several times leading major armies and waste their time with Albania before they could severely threaten Venice. All possessions of Venice in Albania Veneta were taken only after Skanderbeg's death. The Venetians tried everything to settle with the Ottomans but the Ottomans eventually took all the Western Balkans anyways. Had the Venetians started a common front with all the the western Balkanic forces probably we would talk about a completely different history of the world now. They were in fact interdicted twice by the pope for their behavior. The Venetian possessions in Albania Veneta were severely threatened and eventually taken, but if Skanderbeg had not delayed that process the Western Balkans would have been in Ottoman hands for a much quicker time and the attack to Italy would have been much stronger with the Ottomans having an eastern protection. These are uncontestable facts, and many sources can be provided to be panegyric, which I don't want to do. However, we have plenty of authors to prove his importance in the international environment of the time. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. You wrote "delayed their attack on Italy". I thought that you were refering to Italian peninsula (Because Italy as state did not exist for many centuries to follow) and Battle on Ottranto (only attack of Ottoman Empire on Italy). Albania Veneta is not Italy, and Ottoman never attacked any territory of Venetian Republic that is part of Italian peninsula. Major part of Western Balkans was conquered by Ottoman Empire regardless of Skanderbeg (even Bosnia and Herzegovina became Ottoman province 5 years before Skanderbeg died).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Text is full of mistakes and without POV problem solved it is too early to discuss GA nomination.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

May be, and the GA nomination will fail again. So what? I'll renominate it again when I make some more improvements. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted

Reverted an edit of Reaper Eternal: [9] It was actually a reduction of territorial possessions of Gjon Kastrioti, who couldn't be taken away as spoil by Evrenos. --Sulmuesi (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

scanderbeg birth , home and family of scanderbeg.

i think that scanderbeg was born in a castle ,properly in stelluzi castle in Mat district, sine was a small village indigne for the rank and power of castriota family in the time of john castriota, an old french map shows perfectly that the house of castriota family was in stelluzi first, john castrioti was a powerful prince so he owned stelluzi castle ,he was not a simple peasant from a tiny village, so be absolutely convinced that stelluzi castle was the house of castriota family, nowdays in albania stelluzi is the only castle called the house or the city of scanderbeg, so be more serious and reliable when defining great prince family and origin, maybe the far origin of castriota may be from a village ,but not john castriota who was a big prince of Mati in central albania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.60 (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Few questions: Can we take seriously the information that he "was born with the name Gjergj"? What is the meaning of "It is thought"? Do we know any serious author stating this "thought"? I am not even asking for an original source giving his "birth name". --Euzen (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fighting along the Turks.... revolts led by Janos Hunyadi?

"In the 1439–1443 period Skanderbeg is no longer mentioned in Albania and is thought to have been fighting along the Turks in their European campaigns, mostly against the revolts led by Janos Hunyadi."

In Ottoman empire there were many nationalities in the army, not only Turks. Text is biased with insisting on mono-ethnic armies that fight one along another, or against. Skanderbeg was part of Ottoman army those days, like many other non-Turks at that time.

Janos Hunyadi did not lead revolts.

Therefore I propose to change above mentioned sentence to:

"In the 1439–1443 period Skanderbeg is no longer mentioned in documents and is thought to have been fighting within Ottoman armies in their European campaigns, mostly against Janos Hunyadi."

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Change made for the "turks" word, but not for the fact that he is no longer mentioned "in Albania". The source clearly says he was no longer mentioned in Albania during that time, and that's it. --Sulmuesi (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you forget aboutrevolts led by Janos Hunyadi?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I found one sevdalinka "Serbian: Paun pase" (hard and sometimes funny to translate songs, but it is like "Peafowl eat grass") from Sarajevo, that is cathegorized as national lyric poetry. But point is that it describes Skanderbeg as Ottoman pasha who closed roads in Rumelia and has been capturing slaves. here is text on Serbian language which is obviously one of rare "sources" refering to the periond when Skanderbeg was fighting within Ottoman army.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Link the Sultans

The article has many references to "the Sultan", and by a quick count, is referring to up to three Sultans throughout the subject's life. It would be handy if we could link to each Sultan's article and specify in the text exactly which Sultan we're talking about. I don't have time right now to do a good job of this (but might come back later ... consider this a note to whoever wants to sort that issue out first. A search on Sultan will, obviously, highlight the issue I'm raising. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I clarified all the ones which were obvious by the dates of the sultans' reigns. Unfortunately, some are still left. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Dating style

For GA nominations, the dating style should be consistent. In some places of the article, it uses the format 15 June 1447, and in other places, it uses June 15, 1447. Which format should be used? Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Diplomacy - Đurađ Kastriot Skenderbeg using Serbian language in communicating with Slavic region

Unresolved

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

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

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

In this text is also written that Skanderbegs father togather with all his sons gave village Radostuše with church to Hilandar holy mauntin (Greece today) orthodox church.

Based on this source:

1. If this text wants to follow NPOV rule Skanderbegs name on Serbian language (Ђурађ Кастриот Скендербег) that he himself used in his correspondence should be written in the lede.
2. Since there is separate subtitle about diplomacy, it should contain relations with other countries besides Italian (like Dubrovnik Republic and salt trading agreements) and it would be appropriate to write about his using of Serbian language, both by him and his father.
3. Finally, text does not contain important information that Skanderbeg's father and Skanderbeg himself were orthodox christians, before Skanderbeg later was converted to islam and then to catolicism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you get that Skanderbeg was Orthodox from this? I have a copy of this document at home and he says nothing like it. Ragusa was Catholic by the way. And he doesn't even say Durad. He says Ojurg (my Cyrillic transliteration is not perfect, but I'm sure this is close). Besides, just because he wrote in Serbian to a Serb does not mean much. He wrote in Italian to Italians, Turkish to Turks, Greek to Greeks, etc. His name was Giorgio to an Italian, Georgious to the Pope, Iorgo to Greeks, etc.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I provided link to site that contains text of professor Gordana Jovanović and it is written that Đurađ Kastriot so called Skenderbeg was written on old Serbian language, with refference to the document in the book Monumenta serbica. I myself dont have copy of the document and I am not expert of Serbian language so I used information from text of Gordana Jovanović at this site. About orthodox church, there are numerous texts about Skanderbeg and his family (link to the article about his father, Gjon Kastrioti contains those informations) being orthodox Christians, giving presents and villages to Hilandar, living there and dying there. Link to Hilandar on (Mount Athos) speaks for itself, because it is obvious that it is orthodox christian church we are talking about. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiscriminator, thank you for the sources. Skanderbeg has had corrispondence in five foreign languages, Latin, Italian, Greek, Turkish, and Serbian. As a matter of fact he knew 6 language, although the letters have been written by monks. His religion is difficult to assess, as he and his father changed religion four and three times each. What is exactly that you want to assert, and what scholar are you willing to cite? --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"...he and his father changed religion four and three times each...". That very important information about his religion should be included in text, regardless who is the scholar who wrote about it. There simply is no mention about orthodox religion he and his family belonged at certain periods of their life. It is wrong and against NPOV to write about his conversion to Islam and connections with catholics and pope, and failing to write about fact that in certain periods religion of Skanderbeg and his family was Orthodox christian. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly write it if it weren't OR. I find no scholar to tell me what religion his father practiced and what religion his mother practiced. All we have is that they purchased a tower in a Hilandar monastery in 1426 and that his brother, Reposh, died as a duke, and most likely he was an orthodox, because that's what Muzaka says: Muzaka also adds that he was a monk, but that is debunked by contemporary scholars, because you can't die a duke, when you were a monk: monks give away titles of nobility. However all the sources say that he converted from Christianity to Islam and then back to Christianity, but there is not one single source to clearly assert that he was either Orthodox or Catholic. I have no problems saying that he was an Orthodox, but I really don't have sources for that. If you do, please bring them forward. So far no scholar has ever defended one thesis or the other. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, I truly appreciate your help in improving this article with Serbian sources, but please make sure that they all are contemporary. It will be added of course that his family purchased the tower in Hilandar, but for now I am just working in finding pages to the sources that have no pages. In the last two days I have done only that, there were at least 20 sources that lacked full citations, and I still have problems because Jorga and Marinesco are not fully cited, and I don't have those books: on the other hand, I fear I'll have to substitute those sources with other ones, and it's unfortunate, because I would like to give the opportunity to cite everybody, especially with notes, that are subsequently referenced further down. As soon as I'm done, I'll start adding information. But I would gently request that you base the research on new sources only. I'm reading Noli, and I find that he is too old for some things, so IMO probably if we used exclusively Frasheri and Schmitt we'd be ok, however I want to go through Noli first and second see how much Schmitt and Frasheri bring to the table. Isn't Wikipedia a collector of knowledge over time? I'm just trying to prove that. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Christian religion

Unresolved

About orthodox Christian religion: Although it was not specifically written that he or his family were orthodox Christians, I believe that it can be stated in the text that it is quite obvious that they were. Otherwise, why would they give villages and church to Hilandar, why would they buy graves in Hilandar wanted to be buried in Hilandar, why would his brother be orthodox monk buried in Hilandar, why would his father also be buried besides orthodox church... if Castriota family were catholics "All we have is that they purchased graves in Hylandar in 1426 and that his brother was an Orthodox monk." They were not only purchasing graves in Hilandar. They gave whole villages and church as presents to Hilandar, Skanderbeg`s brother (and according to some sources father also was buried near one orthodox church) was buried (after death, I am not sure if I used right expression for funeral) in Hilandar... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your usual OR. What if I mention to you that Skanderbeg became friends with the pope and got money from the catholics all his life (Venice, Holy See, and Naples): Wouldn't that make him a catholic? How about the pope, in a schismatic time, calls him "savior of christianity" and declares him Athleta Christi, something reserved only to Catholics? How about other sources that we have to show blessings of the pope when he meets him? How about he got buried in a catholic cathedral. The facts are way more to opine for the catholic faith, but it would still be an opinion of mine, or yours. If you have such strong opinions, write a book. --Sulmuesi (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course you should mention that. Stefan Prvovenčani also changed his religion from orthodox to catholic and back to orthodox. Religion was very important thing those days, much more important than ethnicity which many scholars question that even existed in todays meaning before 19th century, as I am sure you know. Avoiding to write about his religion is not making this article better. On the contrary. Comment about "my usual OR" is again harassment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not avoiding it. I am just asking for sources. And actually I just found one, it is Marinescu, who says that the proof that Skanderbeg was an Orthodoxe (and not only him, but the whole city of Kruje) is that the Catalan priest sent complains to Alphonse V that the city has no catholic priests whatsoever. p184-185. However in page 184 it says "This would be proof". Can someone have access to p.185 (it's not inline for me)? --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Scanderbeg, who was originally an Orthodox Christian, too, rejected vassal status and, as opposed to the Serb dynasties, turned to Catholic Europe. He was the sole Orthodox ruler in the Balkans to ally himself consequently with the West. Elsewhere, in Serbia, Byzantium and the Peloponnese, the Catholic Church and the “Latins” were rejected. Scanderbeg’s western orientation is thus something of great significance. It removed him from Balkan Orthodoxy and made him presentable as a potential ally in European courts. The political change of course brought about a change of religious affiliation, too. The Orthodox Christian became a Catholic Christian, something quite unusual at the time." Robert Elsie (absolutely non-antialbanian) web site with Oliver Schmitt book

Since this is credible and neutral relevant source that was requested, lack of statement in the text of the article that Skanderbeg was Orthodox Christian, and only writing about Islam and Roman Catholicism as his religions, is additional violation of NPOV rule.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You are citing Schmitt, translated by Elsie. Schmitt, in my opinion follows Marinesco, a Romanian, who in 1923 made a big fuss about Skanderbeg being an Orthodox. However Marinescu has already been debunked by Noli that his claims about Skanderberg's Orthodoxy are kind of far fetched, and behold, Noli was the founder of the Albanian Orthodox Church, so he had his biggest interest in calling Skanderbeg an orthodox. Did Skanderbeg grow up as an Orthodox? I don't know, and no one has brought sufficient proof for that. He might have, though. Isn't the Jirecek line north of Diber? Did he convert to Islam? You bet. Did he convert to Catholic? It looks like it: he was bestowed the Athleta Christi appellation, then he was captain of the pope, and also was buried in a catholic cathedral. However, info on his religion should be entered throughout the article, not in a separate section. I spent all day today to merge the paragraphs of his diplomacy, don't wanna do that again. It has to be chronological. The first step should be that of entering a couple of sources for his faith in his early life but I don't have anything for now. Will look deeper. --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV in religion of Skanderbeg

Unresolved

Again violation of NPOV. If you are not sure about Skanderbegs religion, why is it written that he was Roman Catholic in the infobox? If he switched his religion beliefs being first orthodox then converted to islam, then changed to being Roman Catholic, then again Orthodox, then ?....., text in the infobox claiming that he was only Roman Catholic is against NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put it in there. Be bold and take it out. There is nothing in the article right now to talk about his catholic faith. Right now I am concerned about other. Religion was not as important to Albanians in the 15th century and it isn't now either. The first Albanian name mentioned in the 11th century was a certain "Leka" that was involved in the Bogomil movement. Albania was one of the centers of the diffusion of the bogomil movement in the 13th century and transported it even in Italy in the 13th century, as a heretic church, opposed to the pope. As a matter of fact, in Northern Italy, that church was called "ecclesia Albanensis". So you got some background about how strongly catholic or strongly orthodox were the Albanians. You might understand the concept, because you seem to know Bosnia from your user page, and you may know about the Bogomil movement a little bit more than I do. Again, we don't know if he was Orthodox or Catholic. All we know is that he was a Christian, became a Muslim when he went through the devsirme system 9 years old, then we have him purchase along his family a monastery tower in 1426 in an Orthodox monastery, then he is again a Muslim, because a "bey" and a "vali" in 1432-1438, and then definitively a Muslim in 1439-1443, when he is fighting in the Ottoman Army and continuing to be a bey outside of Albania. We have a conversion to Christianity in 1443, but we don't know if to Catholic or to Orthodox. It might be Catholic because he recognized himself a vassal of the Aragons in 1452, and became Athleat Christi, a title reserved only to catholics, because bestowed by the pope. Show me one source: even when I do work for you, you don't pick it up: didn't I offer you Marinescu? Right now the article is not conveying sources enough, if you want to help, BRING SOURCES. --Sulmuesi (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw, the info about the religion of the Albanians in the 11th-13th centuries is coming from Anamali (2002) p.294.--Sulmuesi (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and your words: "..we don't know if he was Orthodox or Catholic. All we know is that he was a Christian, became a Muslim.." I changed in infobox from Roman Catholic to Christian and Islam. As soon as we get proper sources for Orthodoxy or Catholicism (or both) we should change.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator if he wasn't a Catholic he wouldn't be proclaimed Athleta Christi, so please don't make or deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said that he was not catholic. If he belonged to three religions during his life (Orthodox, Islam and Catholic), than it should be stated in the article and infobox, like I did. There is no policy (that I know about, if I am wrong, please provide link) that stated that person should have in infobox only religion that he had in the moment of his death (or final religion like you stated when you deleted something that me and Sulmues agreed about), and therefore your deleting of Islam religion and writing only Catholic religion in infobox will be reverted.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus about what should be written in religion section. Many users are deleting text about his Muslim and Christian religion and writing only Roman Catholic, which is disputed in sources of informations. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Scanderbeg, who was originally an Orthodox Christian, too, rejected vassal status and, as opposed to the Serb dynasties, turned to Catholic Europe. He was the sole Orthodox ruler in the Balkans to ally himself consequently with the West. Elsewhere, in Serbia, Byzantium and the Peloponnese, the Catholic Church and the “Latins” were rejected. Scanderbeg’s western orientation is thus something of great significance. It removed him from Balkan Orthodoxy and made him presentable as a potential ally in European courts. The political change of course brought about a change of religious affiliation, too. The Orthodox Christian became a Catholic Christian, something quite unusual at the time." Robert Elsie (absolutely non-antialbanian) web site with Oliver Schmitt book.

I propose to write in the infobox all three religions that Scanderbeg was practising: He was born as Orthodox Christian, then he was converted them to Islam and then he became a Catholic Christian.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes must burn in hell. If a piece of information is too complex to be made exhaustively understood in a single short phrase, it should not be in an infobox at all. This kind of content is unsuitable for boxing. There is no need to have anything there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right and I support your decision about removing religion from infobox. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I do too. A very long note should be prepared about Skanderbeg's religion and that note will have at least 10 references. Lede and infobox can be done only once the article is solid. --Sulmuesi (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, there is certain policy about changing comments on talk pages, and it is forbiden to do it, if somebody wrote comment also in the same subtitle. It does not matter you made mistake. We are all making mistakes. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Greek and Anti-Serb NPOV: Avoiding to write Skanderbegs name in the lede on Serbian and Greek language

Unresolved

Gaius Claudius Nero wote: "He wrote in Italian to Italians, Turkish to Turks, Greek to Greeks, etc. His name was Giorgio to an Italian, Georgious to the Pope, Iorgo to Greeks, etc." Sulmues wrote: "Skanderbeg has had corrispondence in five foreign languages, Latin, Italian, Greek, Turkish, and Serbian. As a matter of fact he knew 6 language,"

Avoiding to state Skanderbegs name only on Greek and Serbian language in the lede is against NPOV. Especially considering that there is most primary source for this. Skanderbeg himself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There will be never a consensus for this. All you are doing is to put something in cyrillic in the lede. Skanderbeg's letters are not considered primary sources in wikipedia, read wp:rs. I wish you could spend all this energy to write one single thing in the article that comes from secondary reliable sources. --Sulmuesi (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that Barleti and Franco kind of qualify as primary sources: they knew Skanderbeg and were present at the events. Their writings henceforth should be handled with care. They are in Latin. Other primary sources are some Turkish chronicans (such as Ashid Pash Zadeja), who also were present in battles and oversaw the events. That's why we'll have the lede names only in Turkish and Latin, the two languages for which we have primary sources. Let me know if you still disagree on this. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with this. If main criteria for writing someones name is how someone who knew and was present at the events wrote Skanderbeg's name, then it should be first written on Serbian language, on cyrillic , because it is language that his name was first written in two Acts of Hilandar by people that knew him and were present at the events.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria is that you put in the lede whatever language is used for primary sources, which are important for a scholar, and if primary sources are relevant, then we have to include them. Basically we have to enter Arabic, Serbian, Latin, Greek (if we qualify Laonikos Chalkokondyles and the fact that the Treaty of Gaeta was written in Greek), and Bulgarian, because some of the documents are in Bulgarian too. But do you know how unstable this article would be? 99.9% of the people who read wikipedia don't go beyond the lede: it's just human nature. I don't think that's the best thing for the article, at least right now, and that's why I don't think that by giving in the lede Arabic, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Greek characters, we'd do justice to the article itself. It's to be discussed, but IMO it's not the most important thing in this article right now. Don't know what the others think though, we might want to go with a WP:Third Opinion on this. --Sulmuesi (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose to, of course, follow the rules and the criteria they established, and to add Skanderbeg's name on Serbian and Greek language (and any other that meets criteria). Rules should be followed, not violated. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: Six anti-Serbian/Greek special rules, only for writing the name of Skanderbeg in the lede on Serbian language

Insisting on secondary or contemporary sources is sixth lex specialis special rule invented by Sulmues and ZjariRretues to avoid writing Skanderbeg`s name on Serbian language (special because such rules do not exist for writing his name on other languages, like i.e. Turkish):

1. insisting only on primary sources only on Albanian or Turkish language (I will not discuss neutrality of this sources (yet)) "primary Albanian/Turskish sources, i.e. from 16th to 18th century" - insisted by Sulmues when he deleted Skanderbeg name on Serbian
2. that I should prove that "name used in Serbian historiography was one of the predominant names used in international historiography" (ZjariRretues)
3. "In the lede we should enter the name only if there are historical primary sources" (Sulmues)
4. "article, poem, book.." is not suitable source (ZjariRretues)
5. "list of names would be too long" (ZjariRretues) if I include his name on Serbian language, but it is not too long for other languages, like i.e. Turkish
6. "but please make sure that they all are contemporary" (Sulmues)

There is additional confusion because:

1. rule number 6 and rules number 1 and 3 are opposite to each other.
2. Sulmues and ZjariRretues themselves confirmed in above comments that Skanderbeg spoke Serbian language also and signed himself and his name on Serbian language

If you exclude and delete Skanderbeg name only on Serbian (or Greek) language from the lede, I think it obvious that it is at least against NPOV rules. Ad hominem comments about me, my personal energy or my motifs (to put something in cyrillic in the lede) are one of numerous harassments. This is page for discussion about article, not myself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But aren't yourself discussing about people, not content above? And the content you have it wrong: Because you still don't understand that letters of Skanderbeg written in Serbian are not primary sources. A source is a writer writing about Skanderbeg, not Skanderbeg himself. Let me explain it to you in more simple English: If Michael Jackson writes a letter to a fan in Japan saying "I love you" in Japanese, that letter is no primary source, and Michael will fall short of becoming Japanese, he'll always be a brother. --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You first insisted on primary sources, than on contemporary and now again on primary sources. It is obvious that it is not sources that are wrong, but your editing and text of the article that is against NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A primary source is someone that has been in an event and is directly involved. Wikipedia's policy is that primary sources should be used with care. Barleti is a primary source and should henceforth be used with care. A letter written by Skanderbeg is not a source, neither primary nor secondary. If my editing is wrong, then please feel free to edit better than me.--Sulmuesi (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not provided a link to letter of Skanderbeg, but I clearly stated in above mentioned comment:

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

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

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

Both you and ZjariRretues confirmed in your comments on this page that he spoke Serbian language and that he did use Serbian language in correspondence, signing hismself and writing his name on Serbian language.

I tried to edit myself but you reverted my edits and harassed me.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the following wp:featured articles in wikipedia and I noticed the following:

1. Simeon I of Bulgaria: doesn't have anything in Latin, Serbian, or Greek in the lede, although many documents on him are in the above languages.
2. Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria doesn't have anything in Latin, Serbian, or Greek in the lede, although many documents on him are in the above languages.
3. Manuel I Komnenos doesn't have anything in Latin, Serbian, or Bulgarian in the lede, although many documents on him are in the above languages.

Let me know if you disagree. The many languages in the lede are not NPOV, they are just a bunch of languages to create confusion. These articles are written in English encyclopedia and the only reason why we currently have Latin and Turkish characters are because of the preponderant primary sources, such as Barletius or the Ottoman chronicans. We ought to look at these articles and learn from them. I could, btw bring a bunch of Good articles, to make my point: there are at least 20 of them that would validate it, but Featured Articles are best practices in Wikipedia. Still not convinced? --Sulmuesi (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sulmuesi, I am sorry for not noticing earlier your comment with your proposal of latest (seventh, if I am not wrong) principle for writing Skanderbeg's name in the lede. Of course I don't disagree with your proposal not to create “confusion with bunch of languages” in the lede and instead to use only those characters that are used in “preponderant primary sources”. I completely agree with you, Sulmuesi. Let us follow your latest principle and write Skanderbeg's name in the lede using only those characters that are found in preponderant primary sources. Two Acts of Hilandar are two basic and most preponderant primary sources about Skanderbeg's name (there are no earlier written documents about Skanderbeg's name in the universe), in which his name is written on Serbian language, on cyrilic. Therefore revert your edit when you deleted Skanderbeg's name written in the lede on Serbian language on cyrilic. If you think there is “too much confusion with bunch of languages in the lede” please don't delete Skanderbeg's name on Albanian language, although Skanderbeg's name written on Albanian language using characters that become part of orthography of Albanian language in 1908, more than 500 years after Skanderbeg was born) could not theoretically be characters that are found in preponderant primary sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

List of non resolved issues

Unresolved

POV issues

Unresolved

1. Name of territory that he governed, and basically toponyms using (Epirus, Albania, part of Albania and part of Epirus, small strip of territory....) (numerous users citing numerous reliable and credible sources)
2. Name on Serbian and Greek language in the lede here and here ...
3. Lack of informations in the article about disputed religion of Skanderbeg (numerous users citing numerous reliable and credible sources)
4. Lack of informations about Albanians not being resisting Ottoman Empire, but being supporters of Ottoman Empire on the Balkan here
5. Lack of informations about double headed eagle being not Albanian but originally Byzantine (numerous users)
6. Lack of informations about criticism of biographies of Skanderbeg here and lack of informations based on book of Oliver Schmitt
7. Not enough informations about his conflicts with other Albanian highlanders here
8. Lack of informations about Skanderbeg not having wide support of all Albanians that he allegedly united, especially people from towns.here
9. Lack of informations about Skanderbeg's main supporters were mountain people who were eager to loot and pillage the lowlanders here
10. Not enough of informations about best ottoman forces fighting against him were Albanians converted to Turks here
11. Lack of informations that he did not control all Albanians and whole territory of Albania (toponym) but directly only small strip of land here
12. Lack of informations about religion playing major role in conflicts, not ethnicity or language here
13. Not enough clear informations about fragile alliances with local leaders and his relatives here
14. Lack of informations that his innermost circle included Chancellors, Dalmatian merchants, and members of the Catholic clergy in central and northern Albania - abbots, monks, bishops and archbishops. These were ethnically mixed : Albanian clergymen, Ragusan patricians and Slavic Dalmatian intermediaries here
15. Not enough informations about ties with Serbian dynasties of Skanderbeg and his decedants here

---

Antid. why are you starting again sections about your arguments that have been refuted too many times?.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is summary of non-resolved issues from talk pages of this article. None of above issues are my arguments, but all of them were discussed by numerous users who presented reliable sources. According to WP:NPOV, article should present “all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” and that is “non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors”. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

BIAS issues

1. The idea that the Ottoman compared him to Alexander the Great is disputed by numerous users
2. Idea that Skanderbeg delayed Ottoman expansion is disputed here and here “this sounds like a bit of exaggeration and nationalistic. Surely Turks had quite a lot of space in Balkans to 'move around' Albania. Also they could attack from mediterranean seas. And had Turks not fight in Albania, would they go and invade West Europe during that quarter of a century?”
3. Problematic existence of modern concept of ethnicity and nationality in medieval times (numerous users not citing numerous reliable and credible sources)
4. Italy that was saved by Skanderbeg disputed here and here
5. glorifying language to describe the subjectwritten from an Albanian nationalist perspective here, here...
6. Term Albanian resistance is disputed here
7. Disputed connection of Skanderbeg with Albanian nation (in modern sense) and state Albania here
8. Interpretations and using of Skanderbeg more than 500 years after he was born, 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian), Skenderaj.... religion struggles, national consciousness, national inspiration, national unity, national freedom, national independence, national solidarity....

Various issues

1. What clan his family belonged here and here
2. Romanian arm wrestling here
3. Was he gheg or tosk [http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Skanderbeg/Archive_2#was_skanderbeg_GHEG_OR_TOSK here
4. Movies about Skanderbeg to be added to external links here
5. Including information about Juan Castriota here in the article
6. Meaning and origin of his last (or family) name - Castrioti (numerous users citing numerous reliable and credible sources)
7. Seal of Skanderbeg (numerous users citing one source, but not reliable and credible)
8. Transcription of names in the article his fathers, or his family members here and here...
9. Here one user complained that using title of general for Skanderbeg is not appropriate because there was no such title in Ottoman army. The user suggested Müşir.
10. Map. In this section one user suggested using map based on this map in the article
11. Albanian language. It was stated that all documents about Skanderbeg are either in Serbian, Latin or Greek language, and that there is no credible and reliable source that he even spoke Albanian here
12. Place of birth is disputed. Numerous users citing numerous sources.
13. Name of Skanderbeg. Skanderbeg is known under that name mainly because he has, after his death, become an important figure for the Albanian identity. Please compare this with an important figure for today's France, the Frankish emperor who is known as Charlemagne in modern French. The name Charlemagne is highly unhistorical for this king, who was known as Karl to his contemporaries and on his coins - on which he, just like Skanderbeg on his seal claimed to be a Roman emperor - as Carolus. Christian medieval kings were cosmopolitan - they married internationally and rarely belonged to a specific nation. User:Sponsianus here
14. Skender, name that he was maybe given when he was islamized, because there is no other muslim name that he was given.here
15. Improving chronology of the events and adding missing informations (many users)
16. Creating separate subtitle and article about "Skanderbeg, myths and interpretations" here
17. Various mistakes and missing informations here

Ethnicity (also POV) issues

1. Ethnicity. Lack of informations in the article about disputed ethnic origin or ethnicity of Skanderbeg, his mother and/or father and people that fought for Skanderbeg and against Skanderbeg (numerous users citing numerous reliable and credible sources)
2. Lack of informations in the article about disputed Slavic connection based on his name and names of members of his family (numerous users citing numerous reliable and credible sources)

---

Now when we have all non-resolved issues summarized like this, it should be easier to deal with them. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been many discussions and even a RfC, so please don't IDHT.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "there have been many discussions and even RfC" but this question remained unresolved, and text stil does not present “all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” and that is “non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors” although majority of editors supported policy and presenting all significant views on this issue. I followed advice given by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and followed instructions from WP:DR. I focused on content, I remained cool, discussed with other party, resolving several disputes together with other party, consulting and quoting wikipolicies, asked for help on relevant notice boards (of not one, but three wikiprojects), conducted a survey and preparted list of all non-resolved issues....

This is not first time you are stating WP:IDHT claiming that I am "sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it". Will you please stop doing that because:

1. Above mentioned issues are not “unsupportable allegations of viewpoints”. They are based on comments of most of users on talk page of this article, supported by numerous credible and reliable sources
2. Even if you are right and even if there is consensus about ethnicity and even if nobody supported those informations about disputed ethnicity (which is of course not true), this ethnicity disputes are “significant views that have been published by reliable sources” and editors can not negotiate about it, but they must be presented in the article according to WP:NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you ZjarriRrethues really believe that there is consensus reached about ethnicity and that I am the only one who is “sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it” please present a link to such consensus and I will accept it and I will admit that I was wrong and write that I agree that: Skanderbeg was 100% Albanian and that every one of his ancestors was only 100% ethnic Albanian, every single person of his descendants was 100% ethnic Albanian, every single soldier that he led was only 100% ethnic Albanian, every single person living in the territory under his control was 100% ethnic Albanian, every single ethnic Albanian in the world accepted Skanderbeg as his leader, he controlled all territory that has ever been called in any historical source as Albania, which naturally belongs only to 100% Albanians, every single person from his innermost circle was 100% ethnic Albanian, every single soldier that fought against him was 100% ethnicly non-Albanian, every single peace of land on earth that has ever been named Albania in any written text in the history should be regarded as Albania that naturally belongs to 100% Albanians in text that are written today and presented to the public, every single name of every single person or toponyms connected with Skanderbeg should be used without transcription in Albanized form, because he was 100% Albanian, there was no ethnic Albanian highlander who ever opposed Skanderbeg, every single ethnic Albanian was fighting against Ottoman Empire and not for Ottoman Empire, two headed eagle is invented by Castrioti family that is 100% ethnicly Albanian and has nothing to do with Byzantine symbol since it is symbol of Albania and all Albanians in the whole world, main motif for struggle of Skanderbeg with Ottoman Empire was to fight for freedom of ethnic Albanians and their Albanian ethnic nation-state populated with 100% Albanians, and by doing that delaying attacks to Italy, protecting Europe from Ottoman expansion, Ethnic Albanians were nation in modern sense of the term with their nation-state 500 years before any other nation in the world, that ....

I proposed to cooperate in order to make this article better and corresponding with WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS and all other policies of wikipedia.

If you are not able to present a link to consensus about above mentioned issues connected with ethnicity, please stop using WP:IDHT as your only argument because it would become obvious that it is you who is "sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposals how to deal with non resolved issues:

Any proposals about dealing with nonresolved issues should be placed within this subtitle, in order to preserve above list in form that should be suitable for overviewing. Comments are welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Placing appropriate tag

Unresolved

In order to inspire more users to contribute the article with activities focused on solving problems, not with endless discussions, I think that article should be tagged with Template:Multiple issues with complete list of non-resolved issues within template. Main purpose of this tag would not be marking this article with "badge of shame", but improving the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that, based on non-resolved issues from discussion page, following issues should be listed within Template:Multiple issues:

{{Multiple issues | biased = November 2010 | context = November 2010 | criticisms = November 2010 | crystal = November 2010 | globalize = November 2010 | lead rewrite = November 2010 | POV = November 2010 | recent = November 2010 | unbalanced = November 2010 }}--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

After providing a source that said the opposite of what you claimed and Aigest refuted all your arguments, you keep starting similar discussions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

Unresolved

Now, when there is a clear picture about all non-resolved issues, I think that it is more obvious how easy most (though not all) of POV and BIAS issues can be solved permanently. It is obvious that this article need Controversy section with only several sentences that cover most of above mentioned POV and BIAS issues, together with referenced sources. This solution is not only solving most of POV and BIAS issues, but protects the page from future disputes and edit wars. If anybody in future wants to state that there is some source that claims Skanderbeg, his mother, father, grandfather... is Serb, Greek, Bulgarian..... he can simply add that source in reflist of controversy section without affecting main body of the article. Or if someone finds source that he fought against some other Albanians, with some non-Albanians. Or if someone finds source that claims that he was Orthodox, Catholic..... Or if someone find source that claims that there were no modern ethnicities in Middle ages or that ethnicities were not playing any important role...... Or if someone find some source that Skanderbeg is used for creation of national myth... If there is such controversy section within the article, all future endless discussions (that were inevitable for many years) about most of those POV and BIAS issues would be solved by simple instruction those users to add that source (if reliable and credible) to reflist in controversy section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Read FutureP's comment on this RfC [10] and don't IDHT.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I did read FutureP's comment on this RfC [11].:

1. He said nothing about not agreeing to write about "Skanderbeg's possible Serbian origin in origins section". He only stated that list of sources presented in the subtitle RfC (and of course I agree with him) does not strike him "as particularly relevant/reliable – they are either outdated, or not by competent historians." There are numerous more relevant and reliable sources than those presented in that section, already presented on talk page, written by very competent up to date historians.
2. He said nothing about writing about Skanderbeg's possible Greek or other origins
3. He said nothing about writing about other POV issues that I proposed to solve by controversy section
4. He said nothing about controversy section (which is usually at the bottom of the article), he was refering to origins section (that is usually at the top of the article)

WP:NPOV clearly says that every article must contain “all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” and that is “non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors”.

ZjarriRrethues, if you are not able to present a link to consensus about all sources writing about all above listed POV issues are not reliable, then we have dispute that we have to deal with if we want to improve quality of this article. Please stop acting like WP:IDHT and help us solve disputes. Having one controversy section on the bottom of the article that would explain controversies in couple of sentences and solve most of POV issues is best compromise and best offer that “editors struggling to preserve nationalistic POV” can be offered in order to solve most of the problems with WP:NPOV and other policies.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Antid. please don't start new sections every time you get refuted. Regarding your controversy proposal, it'd be prudent to read WP:FRINGE and WP:OR.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues please, either present a link to consensus about all sources writing about all above listed POV issues not being reliable or being WP:FRINGE orWP:OR, or stop your disruptive behaviour in your "struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Antid. you have claimed a lot in too many discussions and only once you brought a source, which said the opposite of what you claimed so please read those policies and also WP:NPA.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You are always giving good links, but unfortunatelly not those that I asked you for the three times. I did read WP:NPA also and I can only say thank you. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack..

I did not write a comment about your personality, but only about your editing. By suggesting without justification that I personally attacked you and by trolling my efforts to follow WP:DR and organize solving of non resolved issues, you are the one who makes personal attacks. Please stop avoiding to answer one simple question that I am going to ask you for the fourth time:

please present a link to consensus about all sources writing about all above listed POV issues not being reliable or being WP:FRINGE orWP:OR

If you are not able to do it, stop your disruptive behaviour in your "struggling to preserve nationalistic POV of the article".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)