Talk:Skanderbeg

Editors who are interested in improving this article are encouraged to read this talk page discussion and the previous discussion at the Talk:Skanderbeg/Archive 1.

Skanderbeg is half Serb by mom

Certainly. Barleti says: "... Ioanes ... uxori Voisavae nomen erat, nó indigná co uiro tum pater nobilissimus Tribalorum princeps,...".

"Tribali" (Triballians) are the Serbs for the authors of that time. See http://www.archive.org/stream/historiadeuitaet00barl#page/4/mode/2up , p. 4 upper left. --Euzen (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Albanians, instead of stoling Alexander the Great and Constantine the Great... respect own history and historical facts! Skanderbeg is Serb by mother Vojislava and do not try to fake it as you did with fake encyclopedia in FYR of Macedonia. No passaran!!!!

Why you don't add that historical fact that he was half Serb? Wikipedia can use relevanat sources or to ask Serbian and real Albanian historians about that? I see that this article has a lot of not confirmed facts. You should clean it and write it correctly and real if you want people to trust to Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.25.103 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He could hardly be Serb but rather Bulgarian. According to Bulgarian sources his brother's name was Stanish. Besides, Skenderbeg joined the European coalition to liberate Bulgaria at a time when the Serbs were Ottoman allies. --Vladko (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

New article on Gjon Kastrioti II, the son of Skanderbeg is warranted

Gotta work on that, but am I missing anything? Why isn't it done so far? I remember from history lessons that there was an insurrection in 1481 in Albania, led by Gjon Kastrioti, son of Skanderbeg. He went through Himare. --sulmues (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The best source is the nonfictional book of Haki Stermilli "Kalorësi i Skënderbeut" published in 1968 by Naim Frasheri Publishing House and republished in 2003. [1]. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Facts about origin

OK, this section is below.

His mother was Vojsava Tripalda, a princess from the Tripalda family, (who came from the Pollog valley, north-western part of present-day Republic of Macedonia), or from the old noble Muzaka (Musachi) family. There are sources that claim that Voisava was of Serbian origin, and by mother, Skanderbeg also.

References

---

Alexikoua, please, which sources should i add, and where? As all of those are ok, so we just need more. That will not be problem, with so many of those... --Tadija^speaks 17:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The main text is ok, about the source: #1,2&3 are outdated and need to go (they aren't necessary) #4 is ok, #5 needs to go (better to use historians only). #6&7 are outdated and need to be replaced with this:

Can Serbs And Albanians Live Together? by Patrick Hondus. Western Balkans Security Observer English. Issue: 4 / 2007, pages: 412, on www.ceeol.com (p. 5: Skenderbeg, the legendary Albanian hero, is seemingly of an ethnically mixed background, with his mother reportedly being a Serb. One of his sons married Jerina, the daughter of Serbian despot Lazar Brankovic.) which meets all the wp:rs criteria. Moreover, source #7,9 are outdated, #8 is just fine and enough.Alexikoua (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these very old sources fulfill WP:RS.

1. As for Britannica, tertiary which keeps repeating the old history of Branilo Kastriot look here for original text explained by Jorga first and later by Noli. I am putting it here: 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.." I believe Tadija understands the slavic version while latin I believe is clear to us all. Two conclusions from the text. 1. Branilo and Kastrioti are two different persons. 2. There is nothing that links Skanderbeg family with that Kastrioti of Kanina. see here again Ducellier This wrong interpretation of passage keeps coming and coming again by Serb historians and is becoming very boring. That's why sources should be chosen carefully, and those who are more detailed should be used.
2. As for Stevenson 1912, see mine and sulmues argumentation above
3. same for Spondanus very old and very short the same argumentation. He speaks more of how Skanderbeg could cut to pieces on ox and clearly directs the interested readers to the work of Barletius (shouldn't we follow his advice?)
4. 1889 and 1907 encyclopedias?! Guys at least smth more recent and more detailed.

It is a fortune that we have Skanderbeg's biographies and we should use them for Skanderbeg article, not just short passages from old or very very old authors (some of them dead wrong) which have written for other things and just happened to mention Skanderbeg. No references, no argumentation, just plain short passages .. Really they are not interested on the topic itself and they can not be called specialists on this specific issue. Aigest (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Britanica reference is outdated and wrong since it is pointing to the same old meme of Branilo and Kastriot, discredited before (Jorga, Noli 1947) and later (Ducellier 1987) by historians. You might want to use a later Britannica version, but per 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" and this is a detailed discussion, moreover later versions of Britannica don't support that view anymore, so it can't be used as a reference.

As for Patrick Hondus, I notice that first ..this guy is practically unknown in academic world, two ...his claim has no reference and three his book is not on topic, Skanderbeg is merely stated once through all his article. If all Skanderbeg biographers maintain that he was Albanian, surely an extraordinary claim like that should be based on extraordinary references not an unreferenced mere sentence of a practically unknown author.

I want also to bring out what Skanderbeg thought of himself since this pertain to this issue. Skanderbeg words in the letter he writes to Prince of Tarant before his expedition in Italy in 1462:

...Moreover, you scorned our people, and compared the Albanese to sheep, and according to your custom think of us with insults. Nor have you shown yourself to have any knowledge of my race. My elders were from Epirus, where this Pirro came from, whose force could scarcely support the Romans. This Pirro, who Taranto and many other places of Italy held back with armies. I do not have to speak for the Epiroti. They are very much stronger men than your Tarantini, a species of wet men who are born only to fish. If you want to say that Albania is part of Macedonia I would concede that a lot more of our ancestors were nobles who went as far as India under Alexander the Great and defeated all those peoples with incredible difficulty. From those men come these who you called sheep. But the nature of things is not changed. Why do your men run away in the faces of sheep?.. Croia 31 October 1460 see letter referenced in note 83 here

He is describing himself as Albanian. The same argument is used first by Noli in 1947 and by later historians. The letter is in Naples archive, you may find a latin version of it in internet and it is cited in Barletius work.

P.S. Epirotes was the term used for Albanians in that period and Albanians of that period believed they derived from Epirotes, curiously enough they didn't call themselves Illyrians:). Even Skanderbeg in Barletius book is called Epirotarum Principis Aigest (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

All of that you say, Aigest, is quite nice and cool, but not really related to this question. There are 10000 other sources, so i will use other. So, Alexikoua, this?

---

His mother was Vojsava Tripalda, a princess from the Tripalda family, (who came from the Pollog valley, north-western part of present-day Republic of Macedonia), or from the old noble Muzaka (Musachi) family. There are numerous sources that claim that Voisava was of Serbian origin, and by mother, Skanderbeg also.

References

---

--Tadija^speaks 00:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, text ok and sources meet wp:rs. I suggest we ask also to rfc.Alexikoua (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A question. Who is Patrick Hondus and how it can be relevant to Skanderbeg issue? Do you notice that he does not bring any reference for his claim? It's not fine in any way, sources do not meet WP:RS, as I have explained above. Later versions of Britannica don't support 1954 edition. Are you sure to call 1954 edition WP:RS when this is not supported by later editions of Britannica?! There are his biographers and they should be used for details like that. Aigest (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What? :)) First, Britannica is not used any more, so doesn't matter. And second, sentence is:

There are sources that claim...

so no problems found. His biographers are used also. NPOV, Aigest. We must mention and see all sides of the cake! :)))

Cake

--Tadija^speaks 12:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Tadija, Britannica is still in use (see Encyclopedia_britannica#Fifth_era) and we shouldn't go after editions of more than 50 years ago, when the articles in Britannica have already changed many times. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 16:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, you made me curious. Who is Patrick Hondus? Aigest (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

[[2]]...a London-based independent researcher.Alexikoua (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I had arrived up to that point since the first article link. I was curious because i found nothing about him over internet. Apparently he is a researcher (not well known though, the only ref I could find for him was about his article "Can Serbs And Albanians Live Together" )Is he a historian, sociologist, economist, journalist (whatever), has he other publications and how is he related to Balkan history? Aigest (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Hondus may not qualify as RS. All he says is "Skanderbeg is many times reported as of Serbian origin by his mother side". He is not a historian, at least not a middle ages historian. He is repeating the fringe story that Voisava was of Serbian ancestry, incorrectly reported by encyclopedias in the past. Btw, I still see in the same sentence that two encyclopedias are cited. While tertiary sources may be used in Wikipedia, this use has to be done for broad summaries and if there is a good support by secondary sources. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As you always disagree, maybe we should ask for rfc. As i told you, there are numerous other sources, so this one can be one of the many. And, once again, There are sources that claim... Until other sources are there, no problems.

And, why is it incorrectly reported by encyclopedias in the past? By which source you claim that? All we do here is NPOV search, and instead trying to minimize all sources we have here, you should try to help by introducing new ones that will cite those claims, and will be better then Hondus. It is fact that many sources tell us that Skanderbeg was of Serbian origin, so we should just find best possible source for that, instead using many others. I hope we all agree with that? :) --Tadija^speaks 15:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"As i told you, there are numerous other sources, so this one can be one of the many."

• Then you should bring them to the table. Just make sure to be credible ones. Cheers. kedadial 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tadija you can't use any of these citations because they are either outdated or unreliable tertiary sources and if WP:RS shouldn't be ignored repeatedly by experienced users. You all are familiar with the policy so don't abuse it otherwise admin intervention will be needed. Sulmues and many others have refuted these sources many times so recycling them repeatedly is considered tendentious.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Islamic desk reference By E. J. van Donzel brought as reference is full of controversies in all its claims.

1. Stating that he Skanderbeg became an Ottoman vasal in 1460. -> None of his biographers confirms this on the contrary. Moreover during that time he was the captain general of the Curia (Papal forces)
2. He was a loyal local governor after 1436?->Actually he was no governor by a commander in Turkish army.
3. His resistance ended in 1466. -> No, he died in 1468 and he continued to fight up to that date.
4. Mehmed conquered Albania in 1466 -> actually Mehmed forces were defeated by Skanderbeg forces in 1466 and 1467. Moreover Kruja was captured in 1478 and Shkodra in 1479 and that is generally accepted as the final conquer of Albania by Turkish forces.

I have left aside the claim on the origin but practically all the other claims on Skanderbeg are wrong so I don't find it RS especially in such delicate details. While for Encyclopedia Americana I can not state my detailed opinion since I see only snippets, but I stay to my general opinion expressed above about the use of tertiary sources in this topic as long as we have its biographers. Aigest (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, i really cannot see any problem here, except national claims problem, that should not be a problem in civilized world. He will not be less Albanian hero, and great leader with Serbian mother.

There are sources that claim...

We have sources, and it is quite bad to minimize those. Marin Barleti, 1508 is WAAAy more outdated then all my other ones. So we should remove that also? Pointless. His mother was Serbian, so he was half Serb, that is fact. Anyway, Aigest, you twisted the source very, very much. None of those sentences you wrote above are in the source, which is valid, and regular. That is something like forgery you did. There is nothing wrong with those sources, and as i dont trust you guys anymore (sorry), i will ask for rfc. This article is {{POV}} tagged again. Don't remove tag until dispute is over. --Tadija^speaks 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a good thing to accuse others of forgery and you should apologize for your statement. All the claims from Islamic desk reference I stated above, are on the reference Tadija brought here. I was giving my opinion on the sources Tadija brought and my opinions are based on the references that are used in the article. His earlier biographers (Barletius, Muzaka) and later ones (Noli , Hodgkinson) do not say what you keep claiming here. Aigest (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. For example, only one.

"His resistance ended in 1466." - Non existent sentence, REAL sentence is "...he resumed his guerrilla warfare until Ottoman sultan Mehemmed II started to conquer Albania in 1466." This DOESN'T mean that his resistance ended that year, it means that sultan started to conquer that land in 1466, and that was most important thing in that moment. Dont translate source from English to English. --Tadija^speaks 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As per my knowledge of English, If someone says "one resisted until 1466", it means " his resistance ended in 1466". Check the English dictionary plz Aigest (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that Alexikoua reverted me. My opinion is that since Tadija (and for that matter Alexikoua) don't have anything to say, but "we disagree", the tag needs to go, unless who disagrees with it brings it to RfC from someone outside of the Balkans. Here Tadija is beating a dead horse and we can't wait until he brings the matter to RfC. I will wait a little more and if he still doesn't bring the claimed POV in RfC, I'll remove the tag. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a long discussion, I suggest to wait a couple of days. No need to remove the tag too soon. On the meantime I'll check the additional bibliography. Sulmues: I suggest we remove the tag on Friday night.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have time to rfc, so i suppose you can wait a bit. Or you can propose here something constructive, instead just removing everything that is not your POV. Until we add facts from above, tag will be here. What is your version of new sentence about origin? --Tadija^speaks 21:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alexi that if by Friday someone hasn't brought the question to RfC, tag goes. Tadija, if you put a tag and then there is a discussion and nothing comes out of it, you request an RfC, but you have to state a time by when you'll do that, otherwise we can't be waiting till you make up your mind to take action. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

apart from my agreement with the albanian editors here more or less...what needs to be perhaps addressed more explicitly is the 'per natione/origine Serviano' mention of spandouginos and the vojsava triballian connection (was it a family name or an ethnic name in the sense triballian = slav of some kind..? ive seen both opinions)..if anything because such things (among others..) convinced hopf and even jirecek (if im not mistaken about the latter)87.202.18.117 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Spandouginos pretty much says "Servian princess: for more refer to Barleti", while Barleti never says that she was Serbian. If you are referring to the fact that the Tripalda last name might have any connection to the Thracian tribe of the Triballi, I believe that is far fetched and there are no sources to make that connection, however interesting and appealing it may sound. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

no no im referring to spandouginos description of **skanderbeg** as of 'Servian' nature/origin..as for the triballian=slav connection see william miller here eg http://www.jstor.org/pss/554790 im not saying that spandouginos' reference or the interpretation of vojsava as a 'triballian' hold any water necessarily but since there are knowledgeable people involved here they might be addressed somehow..87.202.54.152 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua is again recycling sources that have been refuted to make pointy edits. For example the Islamic desk reference and the research center for Islamic history are unreliable. The Encyclopedia Americana snippet isn't a 2000 reference but the republication of the 1911 version. A source is a journal of the 15th century(Theodore Spandounes), while another one is from 1932 both are outdated and not WP:RS. Some of the sources brought repeat a theory started by the House of Karađorđević as part of a future assimilation process of the northern highlands of Albania that someone named Branilo was Gjon Kastrioti's ancestor, although there no historical data and sources about that. Books about postage stamps when regarding history subjects aren't RS. Banac and Trbovich for obvious conflict of interest can't be considered RS. Aigest/ObserverFromAbove/Sulmues have refuted the arguments with lengthy posts, so I just summarized as much as possible their opinions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All of this sources can be RS. We already know what you POV is, Zjarri, this is for someone else, not participants from above. --Tadija^speaks 13:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hodgkinson is not a reliable source. He was a good friend of Albanians and Albanian governments from King Zog to Berisha and during the Kosovo war. He also worked as journalist, travel writer, "business intelligence" and UK government advisor on oil business. Read http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-harry-hodgkinson-1440805.html
and this The Albanian question: reshaping the Balkans, by J. Pettifer & M. Vickers (2007) referring to his role in the Anglo-Albanian Association. Apart from being non-neutral, it seems that he did not do anything more than copying previous works on Skanderbeg. --Euzen (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hodgkinson is way better than Gibbon, which you have been advocating for the last two weeks, in which I've had the chance to witness your "review". He may not be the best historian ever, but it is a good secondary source and reliable. Gibbon will be replaced little by little by Hodgkinson, who heavily relies on Gibbon, but taking into account many more sources, such as Noli and Frasheri, which are the best biographers so far. The advantage of Hodgkinson is that it's in English, which, in the English Wikipedia, has a preference. If you think that Hodgkinson is not reliable for a 15th century personality, bring it to WP:RS. --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should we mention Skanderbeg's possible Serbian origin in origins section?

The question is if we need to mention this posibility in the 'Early life and family' section. There is a huge bibliography that mentions this or the half Serbian origin of Skanderbeg:

1. Can Serbs And Albanians Live Together? by Patrick Hondus. Western Balkans Security Observer English. Issue: 4 / 2007, p. 5.
2. Theodōros Spandouginos, Donald MacGillivray Nicol. Theodore Spandounes: On the origin of the Ottoman emperors, Cambridge University Press, 1997. ISBN 9780521585101, p. 47.
3. William Safran. Identity and territorial autonomy in plural societies. Routledge, 2000. ISBN 9780714650272, p. 175.
4. Ottoman architecture in Albania, 1385-1912. Research Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture, 1990. ISBN 9789290633303, p. 173.

And the tertiary sources:

1. E. J. van Donzel. Islamic desk reference. BRILL, 1994. ISBN 9789004097384, p. 420.
2. The Encyclopedia Americana. Grolier, 2001, ISBN 9780717201341, p. 878.

There is also additional bibliography that mentions this possibility/fact ([[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]]) but I believe the above sources are enough. Comments by involved parties are found one section above.Alexikoua (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• none of the sources strike me as particularly relevant/reliable – they are either outdated, or not by competent historians. BTW, Alexikoua, I find it very bad style that in filing this RfC, you felt free to take up a big amount of space for re-stating the presumed arguments for your opinion, with list of sources and everything, but then aggressively edit-warred to force other previous participants in the discussion out of the same section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

@Fut.: I've followed the instructions as per wp:rfc, although they are not 100% clear about how to deal with repeating comments by involved part, so I have to apologize on this. By the way a similar style move was also used on a recent wp:rfc [[9]] which you also participated.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, we should wait for someone else. One editor is WAAy to small number. I really expected someone more to write. There are too many sources here. It will not be correct and neutral not to mentioned those. --Tadija^speaks 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The amount of sources isn't a reason to include any of them(saying that it's not correct to include them isn't a reason too) because as FutureP already said they are not rs.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Skanderbeg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Euzen (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article. I am of the opinion that does not meet the Good Article Criteria, especially the Neutral Point of View.

1. Well-written?

I am not native english speaker, therefore I cannot judge the quality of writting. There are some errors in the transcription from other languages (Greek, Slavonic etc) to english, but I will not focus much on them now. I suppose the author is willing to make corrections after suggestions from native speakers of Greek or other languages. This may be done through the discussion page.

If you cannot judge quality of writing, then you'd be better off leaving this review which is turning out to be a ridiculous essay. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is my second request that you avoid bullying, stop claiming article ownership and be civil. I will leave this review when I'm done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are done. I retired the nomination because this article has many references which are missing the page. As a reviewer you have the responsibility to opine on each point required per Good Article, and you admit to fail the very first one. --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?

a) It provides references to very many sources but these are selected so as to conform to the point of view that Castrioti/Skanderbeg was a national Albanian in the sense that Albanian nationality is understood today. From the references are excluded those which support that Sk. was Serb, both from mother and father. It is true that some of these references are difficult to find and are in non-english languages. For instance, an important work is that of the German Karl Hopf, an expert in the medieval history of the Balkans who did original research in the Balkans and Italy. His work was published in German and I don't know if there is an english translation. Hopf supports that Sk. was a Catholic Serb. Also F. Blancus dedicates many pages of his work to examine the slavonic origin of Castriotae from the family of Tomco Marnavich (or Margnavich, or Margnavitius) although I am not sure if he finally accepts it as a certainty or not.

Please bring the source for either Hopf or Blancus. I really don't think you have read any of the above. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We may not mind what you think. Here I recommend and propose that YOU bring the sources. However, pages from both will be soon uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 11:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course we don't expect that a wikipedia author is some kind of professor of history with white hair, but at least the author should refer to a small collection of titles with a different point of view or, at least, mention that there is such a category of works. In the discussion page some of us have repeatedly mentioned the theory of Serbian origin of Sk. offering references but the author and others hastily discard it as "serbian propaganda".
But if the assumption of serbian origin from both parents is excluded as not well founded, there is no excuse for the silence on Vojsava's origin. Barleti was almost contemporary to Sk. and contemporary to his children and he certainly had first-hand information on Sk's parents. He says that Vojsava was the daughter of a Triballian lord, which in the medieval terminology means a Serbian. This is a simple and short information that could be included in half a line in the article. But moving to the opposite direction, the article missinforms the reader comfortably adopting the name "Tripalda" (*) and by telling us that "Tripalda" was a family which is wrong.

I conclude this part recognizing again that access to such original sources is difficult because they are in "strange" languages, such as Greek and slavonic. However some extracts and abstracts in english can be found in many university libraries and even online. Interested users are willing to help if authors agree. Reading a latin text cannot be considered OR, because latin is a standard part of thousands of historians, is adequately understood by italian and french speakers and latin references are 100% verifiable.

I worked on the bibliography recently [10]. Feel free to include all the contemporary authors that would qualify as RS. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

b) Some references do not verify the corresponding text. For example, the name "Vojsava Tripalda" points to Barleti as reference (No 7), but Barleti does not mention any "Tripalda". Instead he says that Vojsava was from a noble Triballian family ( ".. . nobilissimus Tribalorum princeps..."). References No 8 & 9 are supposed to support the "Tripalda family" but these are tertiary sources, translations of translations, and possibly biased. This distortion of the name is not a minor editorial issue but is quite important, as I will explain in my comments on neutrality.

(*) This "Tripalda" is taken from the Historia della casa Musachia, italian manuscripts from around 1600, published by Hopf. Unfamiliar names are heavily distorted and italized in those manuscripts (e.g. Moameto, Amuratto). Distortion of "Triballian" to "Tripalda" in Musachi's manuscript is an evidence that Musachis were unfamiliar with the name (or they were not happy with it either).

That's because Vojsava Tripalda is the name of the article. If you want to call her by primary sources, you ought to review that article first. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said, if an article is created to support a name in another.

"Tripalda" is found in italian sources. This -da is a suffix that turns some names to female, while -do is for male, (e.g. Ronaldo - Ronalda) in latin languages. Actually means "Voisava the Tribaldian (lady)".

I propose that should appear as secondary name in parenthesis, as there are some more Voisavas in history and more articles may appear later.--Euzen (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

You cannot have a broad coverage if you don't have a broad spectrum of references. Some aspects of "broadness of coverage" are discussed in the previous paragraph. I understand "broad coverage" not the full descripion of life from childhood to death but also the coverage of many points of view on the subject. The article can be broader if it includes at least the following:

- Coverage of all views regarding Skanderbeg's origin.

- A brief comment on the status of national identity and national geography in the area in the middle ages (15th-16th century). The reader has to understand what the historians of that period meaned by terms like "Albanian", "Serbian", "Greek", "Triballian" etc.

- A criticism on the biographies of Sk. It has been already recognized by Gibbon (and possibly by others earlier) that Barleti and other biographers exaggerated Skanderbeg's personality. Gibbon discribes Barleti's work as "a voluminous cloack with some false embellishments" in the footnotes of his History. Other contemporary byzantine historians do not even mention Sk. (like Doukas (historian), while others dedicate only few lines about him. The author does not have to include criticism on Sk/beg's biographies produced in Albania in the 20th century, but he could just mention the importance of Sk. as a basic element of Albania's national myth. Nothing is wrong in national myths in general and every nation or state has or should have one or more. But the outsider reader has to know this, and this only adds to the broadness of the article.

Primary sources will try to be avoided in future: we're going to use secondary sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Euzen, I fully agree with you and everything you wrote on this page, especially in this subtitle about coverage. The way article is written now, it should be renamed to Skanderbeg in Albanian nationalistic mythology. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

This is the main weak point of the article. I mentioned above some examples of this bias and here I will expand some more. Bias is obvious from the very first word of the article: "Gjergj". This is only the albanian version of the name, found mostly in tertiary albanian sources, but is not the name that is normally found in the original literature. All the existing biographies of Skanderbeg are mostly based on that of Marin Barleti. This biography no-where mentions Skanderbeg as "Gjergj" (http://www.albanian history.net/texts16-18/AH1510.html). Barleti's early translators refer to Sk. as "Georges" (Lavardin, 1576), "George" (Jones, 1596) or "Georgius" in latin. Another early biographer, Fank Bardhi/Franciscus Blancus in his 1636 book calls him "Georgius Castriotus" (See front page of his book at Frang Bardhi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frang_Bardhi) and only in his 1635 "Dictionarium latino-epiroticum" (page 58) names him both "Georgius" in the latin text and "Gierg" in the albanian text. Therefore, the article in Wikipedia should start firstly with the latin name, not only for historical reasons but because this is the name that a scholar would like to look for in a library catalog or in a search machine. Interestingly, the Latin or other main europan language version of the name does not appear at the introduction of the article.

 Fixed by this edit and this other edit. The English source is to be first as per secondary sources, in addition provided the Latin one as per Bardhi. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The "peculiar" selection and even alteration of original names characterizes the whole article.

Some more examples:

- According to Gibbon, Skanderbeg's father was Gjon Kastrioti, . However, Gibbon calls him "John Castriot", and so calls Huniades. The author(s) of the article retain the westernized name of John Huniades ("The rise", 2nd line) as in Gibbon and in most of literature, but arbitrarily change Castrioti's name into albanian. "John" is also the name of Skanderbeg's son (see "Descendants" section).

Gjon Kastrioti is the name of the article. We ought to go by English sources and I don't have a problem moving to John Castriot that page, unless someone else disagrees. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

- Article says Skanderbeg allied with George Arianiti (born Gjergj Arianit Komneni, (The rise, line 15). Here there is some confusion. Firstly, the correct surname for a male is Komnenos, while Komneni is female. The author may be excused for not knowing the Greek grammar, but is expected to explain who called Arianiti "George" and who "Gjergj". Apart from the fact that in Orthodox Christian practice nobody is born with a name (the name is given several months after birth), if an author claims that someone is "born (name)" in the deep Balkans of 15th C., must cite some original reference supporting that (e.g. some archival material).

We ought to work on that article and I believe that article should be called Gjergj Arianiti. Not sure if we have contemporary sources to call him otherwise. Again we can't use primary sources in English Wikipedia. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if we have contemporary sources to call him otherwise.

Reviewer: Plenty.

Which ones? --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Again we can't use primary sources in English Wikipedia".

Rev.: Why not??

Please read wp:secondary sources dear reviewer.--Sulmues ^(talk) 02:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

- Article says "daughter Andronike (born Marina Donika Arianiti") (line 16). The same phenomenon: While "Andronike" is the original and full name that any priest would officially give to a baptised child, a classical Greek name from "Aner" (man) and "Nike" (Victory), the author(s) claim the opposite, i.e. the child was "born" with the corrupted name "Donika" which was somehow later restored to the original. "Andronikos", the male name, is well established in history (e.g. Andronikos V Palaiologos and nobody dared yet to name him Donico or something. The motivation behind this fiddling with the name may be better understood if the reader review the history of the article Gjergj Arianit Komneni (View History), where some users (including one declaring himself as "Illyrian patriot") constantly erase the original names George and Andronike and replace them with the Albanian versions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gjergj_Arianit_Komneni&diff=265830601&oldid=265677457).

Again, secondary sources should be used. Donika Kastrioti is the name of the article. You are doing OR here. We don't have any documentation on the priest that baptized Andronika. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I accept the joke about priest. Andronike is an original name and if you cannot find it in medieval books I will find it for you.

Here you have one: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ALBANIA.htm

This site includes citations from "secondary sources" that you prefer. Citations are taken from a K. Hopf's work whom I mentioned earlier (references 189, 190 ...). Many names out of citations may be in albanian form (probably by an Albanian author) and some in slavonic, but inside citations are original and formal, i.e. latin or latinized Greek. See Ch. 4, "Arianiti":

"A manuscript which records details of the Musaki family names "la prima signora Andronica...". Notice that "Andronike" is found also out of citations several times, and not a single one "Donica". I wonder were you found that corrupted form. --Euzen (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what are you arguing about now? The specific name "Donica"/"Andronika" aside, the source you just pointed to is just another proof that modern scholarship unanimously treats Sk. and his family as Albanians, and (sometimes, legitimately) Albanifies their names. Your whole argumentation here, above and below, is quite misguided: if you find that primary sources are using Latinate/Greek name forms but modern scholarship uses Albanian forms, that's not proof that the modern scholarship is "wrong" and the primary sources are "right". To the contrary: it's proof that modern scholarship doesn't consider that usage in the primary sources as an argument against their Albanianness, so stop using it as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The reader will notice that many names of questionable or mixed or obscure nationality are linked to other Wikipedia articles (many of them stubs) where the reader is informed that the person is "albanian". For example, Gjergj Arianit Komneni is again "albanian" and has a "distant relation with the the famous Byzantine Komnenos dynasty from Asia Minor". However, more than a century later, in the manuscript that I mentioned above, Musachi says "È di bisognio notificarve, ..., che la Signora Scanderbega, il suo proprio nome era Andronica de casa Comninata Ò vero Comnino" (We need to notify ... that Lady's Scanderbeg proper name was Andronice from the House of Comneni, a true Comnene". Musachi also says that has blood ties with this lady. Musachi should have been more than happy that Comnenos' blood was in his and Sk's family tree, because Comneni was a realy noble family, directly related to Byzantine royalty, while their Albanian or Epirot roots involved only minor landlords and heads of obscure mountainous villages. Titles given to them later were only inexpensive rewards from their services as mercenaries by Italian despots and had no face value.
The repeated cross marriage between the noble families of that area is well established and is unquestionable. However, the article follows the logic "if one in the family is Albanian, all the family is Albanian". Certainly we are examining a highly phallocratic society of that period, when it was believed that "the father begets the children". Nevertheless, under todays values and scientific knowledge the mother's contribution to the family is considered equal to the father's and phallocratism and machism have no place in wikipedia articles. If the father is Albanian and the mother Serbian, the children are mixed. If the mother is not Serbian but comes from the Musachi family, again the lineage is mixed.
On the use of certain linked articles as auxiliaries of this article I had already commented earlier, but user Sulmues requested "quck delete" on the basis of some acrobatic arguments. May I assure the reader and any interested party that this issue is highly related and important for this review and the basis of recommendations that will follow. For the moment I will only recommend the editor(s) to re-examine the use of term "Albanian" in this article (if it has ethnic significance) and inform the reader on the possible mixed origins of most persons (including Sk. himself) or on the obscurity of family lines and ethnicities. If they do not agree on revisions, I will not insist, but I have the right to express my opinion. Further deletions of my review will be considered malevolent.--Euzen (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The same albanization is applied on medieval toponyms. Notably, the names "Epirus" and "Epirotes" are almost eliminated and in most cases replaced by "Albania" and "Albanians". In the original sources, like Barleti and Blancus, the term "Epirus" is widely used and Skanderbeg himself is called "Epirotarum Princeps" (Prince of the Epirotes). Epirus, a geographical area wider than today's Albania, was then (as is today) inhabited by various ethnicities, mainly Albanians, Greeks and Slavs and secondary Latins, Gypsies and others. Indeed, Sk. allied with christians of all the local ethnicities in fighting the Turks, as I will explain later. "Epirus" and "Albania" are synonymous in Blancus ("Epirus seu Albania" in many parts of his text). Of course that Albania was only a geographical term and there were no states or borders. Consequently, people from that geographical area, independently of their language, religion or other collective identity, are called Epirotes or Albanians by contemporary authors viewing the area from the comfort of their european clubs. As I recommented earlier, the article should clarify the meaning of "Albanian" so that the reader does not get the false impression that national Albanians are meant. The word "Epirotes" should be used in cases that we are not sure even for the language of the people, for example for people with non-albanian names.

1. Albania at the context was equivalent with Epirus. You can consult your Gibbon for that and will find out that it was interchangeable. Can you please be more specific of such changes?
2. Please learn Italian "il suo proprio nome era Andronica de casa Comninata Ò vero Comnino", simply means "her name was Andronica from the Comninata house, i.e. Comnino". In old Italian O vero means ovvero (Latin:id est).--Sulmues ^(talk) 23:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No different at all, at least when we are closer to the Byzantine period. See above.

Similarly other historical toponyms are changed. E.g. the classical "Dyrachium", appearing as such in relevant literature till 19th century, is changed to "Durres" which is the modern Albanian name. The encyclopedically correct approach would be the display of both names, so that the reader can verify the reference by searching in old books and position the place on a modern map.

Who told you that Dyrachium was the name of the city in the 15th century? Most of the primary sources will refer to it with Durazzo. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Franciscus Blancus/Bardhi (1606-1643) told me. (Thanks for the question, Sulmues. The more you ask the more you get from primary sources):

In his book Georgius Castriotus Epirensis, vulgo Scanderbegh, p. 54: "Comneni a nobili Constantinopolitanorum genere loca littoralia tenebant Dyrachium, Aulonam, aliaque qua plura. It means (if I understand well) "Comneni (family) from a noble class of Constantinoble, (had) the litoral area of Dyrachium, Aulon ...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euzen (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blancus wrote in Latin. AFAIK this is the English Wikipedia and works differently from the Latin one. --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, the massive albanization of names in the article gives the unaware reader the impression that in Castrioti's time the whole area was inhabited by a single nation that is the ancestor of what is today ethnic Albanians.

If we have sources for today's Albania names we'll use those. Can you please be more specific? --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But even when the names retain their original, non-albanian form, the nationality of the person is arbitrarily ascribed as "albanian". For example, "... managed to capture some important Albanian noblemens, including ... Vladan Giurica ..." (The Last Years). In this case the man has the typical serbian name Vladan (and common to all slavic world) but the author insists that he is albanian. Is the author aware of any "ethnicity declaration" of Vladan?

All the sources that we have report Vladan GJURICA as an Albanian. The name "Vladan" is a form of Vladimir, and you may know that Saint Jovan Vladimir was very cherished in Albania: actually his remains are still there. The use of Serbian names was widespread in Albania at that time. In addition there is a settlement close to Durres with the name of Gjurica. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, because Slavs were present in Albania. This is what I am saying: "Albanian" means "coming from the area of Albania" for contemporary authors.

In other cases whole groups of people (such as soldiers) are collectively called "Albanians", although the historical research leads to a different conclusion. Of course this collective "albanization" of thousands of persons may be found also in prominent historic works as Gibbon's history. But since Gibbon the science of history has progressed and new data are available. These new data should have their place in an article as lengthy as the one we are reviewing. One can notice that the volume of this article about a brave local hero who had a secondary role in history, surpasses that of Alexander the Great and is comparable to Napoleon I. This is not bad at all, but such a long article should accomodate more points of view and opinions other than those of the Albanian encyclopedias. A good example of this aspect is the article on John Hunyadi, a contemporary and co-fighter of Castrioti. That article starts by displaying Hunyadis names in six (6) relevant languages, but most importantly, under the section "Legacy" recognizes that Hunyadi is part of a national myth and is claimed by more than one nations, including Hungarians and Romanians. This is a good example of a Good Article, at least from the neutrality point of view.

Please be more specific in your review and tell exactly what passage of the article has an "albanization". Whether Skanderbeg was or not as relevant as the heroes you mentioned above is disputable: they lived in different periods. As far as John Hunyadi is concerned: his article is not a good example as it has not reached GA status, which we are trying to achieve. However I am giving the latin version in the lede which is how we have the majority of the source. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But I wish to explain briefly why the so called "Albanian" fighters of Castrioti's are not necessarily of Albanian ethnicity but a mixture of ethnic Albanians, Greeks, Serbians and others of obscure or no ethnicity. After all we must have in mind (and the article should remind us) that we are in a period when many nations have not emerged yet, and for many people religious segregation was more important than national. Some information about those "Albanian" armies comes to us in relation to their expedition in South Italy and subsequent service as mercenaries in various countries, known under the Greek term "Stratioti".

Please review the Stratioti article well and you'll realize that 80% of the Stratioti were Albanians, but it wouldn't be an argument anyways because that is after Skanderbeg's death. Were there soldiers of Skanderbeg of another descent, other than Albanian? Possibly yes: Sfetigrad had Macedonians at that time, and that is confirmed by some sources, in addition there were some forces sent by the Vatican and the Kingdom of Naples, but only around 50 according to sources, and completely ininfluent as they didn't seem to adopt themselves to the tactics used by Skanderbeg's army: they were used to open field battles, which was not what was followed by Skanderbeg's army at that time; in addition their horses seemed to be too heavy for the Albanian mountains. I am not aware of ANY Greeks or Serbs to have fought under Skanderbeg though, you are welcome to show me some sources on that. Skanderbeg called himself Prince of the Albanians and of the Epirotes, and there were Greeks in Epirus at that time, but all the battles have occurred in northern Albania with some exceptions of Devoll and Berat (alas this one a loss for Skanderbeg), which are settlements with no Greek presence at that time. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Epirotes" and "Albanians", as "Epirus" and "Albania", are used interchangeably in sources of that time, mainly Barleti and Blancus. They have clearly a geographical meaning. Blancus repeats so many times "Epirus seu Albania" as if he wants to underline this synonymy. For some reason Blancus is investigating these terms as were used in epistles, historical texts etc. It is possible that either some debate or missunderstanding was emerging already or the term "Epirus" was not familiar to the new readers. Here is only one example:

"Vide quam vnanimiter ab omnibus Scanderbegus Albanesius, seù Epirota nuncupetur, & existimetur, vt pro nunc relinquam Annales Turcicos, qui eù passim Arnatum, hoc est Epirottam vocant, Leunclauiú, qui eum Arbanosium (quae vox Illyrica est, & Albanesium significant) apellat .... " (page 62).

Notice that even "Arnavut" is considered synonymous to "Epirot". Surely in his time (17th c.) "Epirus" was becaming archaic and was gradually replaced by the latin "Albania", something understandable as the Greek influence on literature had almost ceased. In later sources (e.g. Gibbon) we rarely find "Epirus" and "Epirotes" when referring to 16th c. This was done in good faith as Gibbon was accepting the synonymy established by the primary sources. This good faith cannot be presumed in authors after 19th c. as the Albanian nation becomes a recognizable entity and the Albanian state is on the making. The term "Epirus" re-appears again in 19th c. (in travel literature etc) but frequently in relation to ethnic Greeks or in geographical or political context.
The study on "stradioti" mentioned above involves names but no nationalities. On the connection between names and nationalities we may discuss elsewhere, as we agree that names do not always indicate nationality (see debate about Vladan).

For this article I propose that frequent use of epithet "Albanian" is avoided unless it is clear that it refers to someone who possibly was considering himself Albanian at that time. Alternatively (and preferably as is very unlikely that someone declared nationality), a paragraph should be added to explain the meaning of "Epirus" and "Albania" as it evolves in primary, secondary and tertiary sources accordingly. This will be both encyclopedical and fair.--Euzen (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?
Not very, but really needs more revisions and editions. So, let it roll.

6. Use of images
I think it's OK. The pictures of Alfonso of Aragon and Ferdinand of Naples could be removed without much loss, so that the article gets a bit shorter. --Euzen (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed --Vinie007 14:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

May I ask who is the nominator, since User:Sulmues removed the nomination tag?Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to summarize all non resolved issues

In last souple of weeks text of the article has been significantly changed (unfortunatelly I can not say this for POV in the article) and therefore I propose to extract all non resolved issues based on this review and all talk pages in archive and to try to work on solutions by focusing on each issue. I am preparing list of non resolved issues here and I propose that we use talk page of this article in order to prepare undisputed list of nonresolved issues that should be tranfered here on this talk page and then resolved by joint efforts. GA nomination is not important, what is important is that we really make this article GA. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)]

Sounds good and thank you for your help with improving this article. Some of the issues that you bring up for the ethnicity, I forecast will have very lengthy discussion, so I believe we'd be better off leaving them in the talk page, rather than in the GAN page, and then the results of those discussions can go to the GAN. If you think that the nomination should fail for now because the differences are irreconciable for now, than let me know, and I'll retire this second nomination. --Sulmuesi (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not have any intention to discuss anything on GAN page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator has already been warned by the Cavalry about WP:IDHT, so he shouldn't make any further comments regarding ethnicity because there has been a RfC [11] and numerous other discussions, which he can find in the archives.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That RfC should be repeated, with more then one editor commenting. And if we sometimes discuss it, that doesn't mean that all is agreed. As you may see, numerous editors still finds this question as unanswered. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WhiteWriter.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg revert

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you will enjoy your time here. I would like to explain further my revert: First in lede we enter only info that has been substantially expanded in the body of the article. Second, other languages are important if there are relevant primary sources in those languages: because as far as secondary sources are related, every one may have an interest in Skanderbeg: a book on him may exist in Iceland, that's not a reason to enter the name in Islandic language. Please feel free to bring primary Serbian sources, i.e. from 16th to 18th century and we may update the article. The name is in Albanian and Latin for now, because those are the primary sources we have. Thanks again! --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully and completely agree with you

and your revert of my edit in Scanderbeg article. I think I will also delete the names of Scanderbeg on Albanian and Turskish language, because you obviously failed to notice that there are no "primary Albanian/Turskish sources, i.e. from 16th to 18th century and" if you bring them "we may update the article". By the way, who are we and how can I become one of we?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Albanian name is there because he was an Albanian. The Turkish sources do exist although I don't know Turkish, but someone will bring them sooner or later. Btw, at that time Turkish was written in Arabic, so what we currently have in the lede is not Turkish in Arabic script, which is what it should be. Listen, we are trying to write a good article, I don't understand how come as a new user you are here worrying about Albania all the time. Don't you have any other topics to write about? --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antidiskriminator (talk • contribs)

Although I fully agreed with you and your logic of deleting all names without primary source of information, you are using ad hominem attacks on me, writing about myself and topics of my wikiexperiance, interests and editing, instead writing about my comments. That reaction could lead me to conclusion that you are not editing according to NPOV policy and that you unintentionally scored autogoal. If I use the same arguments you did when deleting Serbian name of Skenderbeg and if I would like you insist on having primary sources for naming this person, I should delete both Turkish and Albanian name from the text of the article. If there are no primary Albanian/Turkish sources from "i.e. from 16th to 18th century" how do you know what was his name on Albanian/Turkish language? Now you have three alternatives:

1. To stick to your arguments and delete name of the Skanderbeg on Albanian and Turkish language untill you bring "primary Albanian/Turskish sources, i.e. from 16th to 18th century"
2. To revert your deleting of his name on Serbian language
3. To leave text without name of Skanderbeg on Serbian language and break NPOV policy and lead anyone to conclusion that main reason for your deleting the name of Skanderbeg in Serbian language was not "trying to write a good article"

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Albanians care about Skanderbeg ten million more times than Serbs or any other nationality do. We can't use the primary source argument since Albanian was not a written language during the time. But songs are sung about him all throughout Albania as a great Albanian hero and the Albanians of Italy (Arbereshe) view him almost as a saint. We have statues of him throughout the country and in all of the Albanian communities in the Western Balkans. I have yet to see a Serbian or Greek statue of him. He is of massive importance to Albanian culture and identity, therefore, his name should be presented in Albanian. Until someone makes a legitimate case that his name should be included in Serbian (besides the fact that Vojsava, a very common Albanian name during the time, sounds Serbian), then it will not be included.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can't use the primary source argument (I am wondering if there is any wiki rule about this matter) for Albanian name (which I completely agree) than we can not use it for any other language. He is very important for Serbs too, no matter how can Vojsava name sound, or how other names of his family members can sound (Kostandin, Stanisha ....). His family members were even present at Battle of Kosova 1389. together with Serbs. Then he fought against Serbs, communicated with their leaders, married his family members to other Serb rulers, entered with his army territory that was inhabited by Serbs, his family members were Serb vasals during Dushan empire.... At the same time there is Turkish name of Skanderbeg in the article despite the fact that there are no primary sources on Turkish language and despite the fact that he fought against Turks also, ..... Using primary source argument for Serbian name of Skanderbeg only is simply a way to artificially avoid any possible connection with Serbs and against NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, this article gets lots of views, it is an important one, still it is in a weak B status. Many of its editors spend too much time just discussing the names of Skanderbeg in the lead. Mind you he was a statist and spoke 6 foreign languages, had correspondence in Latin, Italian, Greek, Turkish, and Serbian because they were his neighbors. He himself was an Albanian and national hero of Albania. The lede should simply be a summary of the article itself. Focusing too much on summaries when we have not reached a good status of the article itself is useless. The article as of now can't reach GA status because it is not well referenced. The problem is not giving the name in a language or another, the problem is that the article is poor from a secondary sources support standpoint. I won't spend too much time with Serbian name or not, and so that you know you'll be edit-warred by Albanian nationalists for that, and it will just make the article unstable. If you really care about this article and Skanderbeg, then you should read Hodgkinson, which is the only secondary source in English we've got and seriously start to contribute to the article. The rest is useless sterile discussion about a lede, which is like a roof to be made only when the house has been built. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, I understand that you feel like the father of this article, but please do not overdo it. Wikipedia is the legitimate owner of the article. You may always publish your own article using your own means (book, web-site etc) under your real or other name. Anyway, thanks for accepting some of my recommendations and reverting the names. But there is a lot more to be done. I have the ambition that this article surpasses that of other encyclopedias. For this discussion I would advise you to stop recycling the argument that "he is Albanian and National Hero of Albania" as it is not convincing. There is a difference between "Albanian" and "National Hero of Albania". Take a similar case: The newly founded Republic of Macedonia is almost venerating Alexander the Great as a National Hero. Would you accept undoubtedly that Alexander was "Macedonian" in the sense that the Rep. of Macedonia ascribe to this term? In the references there is link to the online book of Barleti (http://www.archive.org/stream/historiadeuitaet00barl#page/n1/mode/2up ). Could you please give us the page where Barleti (probably Albanian himself) says that Castrioti is Albanian? I am not saying that this statement does not exist in the book. I am still looking for it with my poor latin. Finally, may I request that you kindly stop deleting the parts of my review that you don't like. Review means criticism. Deletion of criticism means censorship and is not permitted in an open encyclopedia. If you disagree with something, you are welcome to discuss it here. NOT between the lines of my review. Thanks.

Even if you won't be able to find it, it means little. If someone was called the King of France, they did not need to say he was French. The only way you can know is through dynastic lines as with Richard I of England, which was French in origin. The Kastrioti, according to the most critical historians, were nationalistic Albanians who wished to control all of Albania (Oliver Jens Schmitt). Jut because they may have been Serbian vassals for a time means little. The Brankovic and Lazarevic were vassals to the Turks for a while. This does not mean they were Turkish. Nevertheless, I have extensive primary soures on Skanderbeg and I will do research for you.--68.10.93.161 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, we use the Albanian name because a significant number of the sources use it as it is the native name of Skanderbeg. The Turkish name is also used because it also has been documented in a significant number of sources. If the name used in Serbian historiography was one of the predominant names used in international historiography then we would use that too.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

First Sulmues deleted name of Skanderbeg on Serbian language because he insisted that (only Serbian) name of Skanderbeg should be referenced by "primary Serbian sources, i.e. from 16th to 18th century". When I explained that there are no "primary Albanian/Turksih sources, i.e. from 16th to 18th century" and that Skanderbeg had much more family and proffesional relationships with Serbs than with Turks (name in Turkish language is not deleted) then ZjarriRrethues introduced new rule (also valid only for Serbian language), that I should prove that "name used in Serbian historiography was one of the predominant names used in international historiography" despite the fact that Serbian name of Skenderbeg is much closer to the name Skanderbeg predominantly used in international historiography, than Albanian name Skënderbeu. Writing the name of Skanderbeg in both Turkish and Serbian language does not imply that he is Turk or Serb by nationallity, but is simply giving more information to the reader, about how was his name pronounced on languages that have significant written sources about him or his family members and events that he was involved in. I noticed that both ZjarriRrethues and Sulmues are referring to some WE that are more entitled to edit this article than other users. I am sure that such attitude is as wrong as deleting of the article text supported with rules valid only for Serbian language. Group of WE editors should not be surprised with weak status of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskr/tor (what a name!), the dialog with albanian nationalists on Castrioti leads to no-where because they don't care for history, they care for the conservation of a myth. Castriotis/Skanderbeg is the cornerstone of the Albanian national myth (see Albanian identities: myth and history, http://books.google.gr/books?id=oRASDq3rc-YC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=national+myth+albania+skanderbeg&source=bl&ots=7rY9KgiIeo&sig=bYbPXgpuXYz9tLQ6c6NLu0e61Nw&hl=el&ei=Op2fTPf3H9Du4gb70_yuDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=national%20myth%20albania%20skanderbeg&f=false page, 43++). Fortunately, the serious reader does not start with wikipedia, the semi-serious reader will probably search the Discussion page, and the indifferent reader will forget everything after few days.

Yess.... I found one very nice primary source for name of Skanderbeg on serbian language and importance of Skanderbeg for Serbs. It is The Mountain Wreath, one of the most important or maybe the most important poem on Serbian language written by Petar II Petrović-Njegoš at the beggining of 19th century (more than half of the century before Albanian alphabet was defined) and published in 1847. Sulmues you can find here a link to the english translation from serbian language "Скендербег је срца Обилића, ал умрије тужним изгнаником" and it is "In Skenderbeg beats Obilic's heart, but he perished as a forlorn exile." [12]. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean before the Albanian alphabet was defined in its current form: I don't know Serbian, but I accept in good faith your edit. No problems with me whatsoever that that stays in the lede. Thank you for enriching the article. --Sulmues ^(talk) 11:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Wait a second, is that a poet, not a historian? What kind of a source is that? --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That can only be added after being contextualized in the literature section.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It already is.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please get the point Antidiskriminator. In the lede we should enter the name only if there are historical primary sources, not fiction ones. Secondary sources on Skanderbeg are widespread in 100 languages, especially fiction works. Feel free to expand on relationships that the Kastrioti family had with the Crnojevic one, that's an area where you might be helpful.--Sulmues ^(talk) 11:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues POV pushing harrasment

Sulmues, you again (for the third time) invented another special rule ("historical primary sources") valid only for Serbian language (but not for Albanian, Turkish...) and by doing that you are breaking NPOV policy. Also, sentence "Feel free to expand..." is against basic fundamentals of wikipedia, that is that wikipedia is free encyclopedia for reading and editing and it is not you who should decide what should I feel free to edit or not. Your editing and comments about this article (you even sent me messages on my talk page complaining about my editing of this article [13] - unwanted correspondence that you even continued by threatening me ( by sending me warnings [14]) when I copied that correspondence here, where it belongs) are not only against basic fundamentals of wikipedia and wiki policies, but can be easily defined as Wikipedia:Harassment and such behaviour is not "acceptable or without consequences". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that you may not copy paste my edit in your talk page into Skanderbeg's page without my consent. You may show a diff, but if my signature needs to appear on a certain page, that should be up to me to decide, don't you think? --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator poems are related to the literature section, because if we added every name of Skanderbeg reported in any article, poem, book, of any language the list of names would be too long. On the lead names widely used for a person are added. Start a RfC if you disagree with Sulmues.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is fourth special rule ("article, poem, book.." is not suitable source) valid only for Serbian language (but not for Albanian, Turkish...) and another proof that this article is subject of POV pushing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Albanian resistance

"Albanian resistance continued sporadically until 1912 when Albania was no longer part of the Ottoman Empire."

I propose to delete this sentence because it is without any source, irrelevant and untrue. There are lot of uprisings of Albanians, especially after young turks regime was installed. Not only in the region of Albania, but also regions with Albanian population, especially in Kosovo, Metohija and Macedonia in period between Lidje e Prizrenit 1878 and 1912 (when Albanian rebels conquered Skopje). But since this has no connection with Skanderbeg and is irrelevant for the article, I propose to delete this sentence. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked into mentioning the Albanian National Awakening movement, which encompasses the 1831-1912 period. In general I wouldn't focus too much in the National Awakening, with the exception of mentioning of the importance of Skanderbeg had in this movement. And I already forecast the hords of editors who will bring Stephanie, an ethnographer, with no degree in history. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is safer to delete anything referring to resistance of Albanians against Turks after 16th c. otherwise this article will get too hot to handle. During the Ottoman occupation the Christian Albanians were a little better than slaves and the Muslim Albanians were the right hand of the Ottoman Empire. The Muslim Albanians are held responsible for atrocities all over the occupied Balkans. There are thousands of references on that. The resistance was very rudimentary, if any. A crash test will be a disaster.--Euzen (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The only disaster is the insistence of your Greek fellow editors who sent to AfD the resistance of the Albanians in the 18th century in Chameria. --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The only "Chamerians" who did resistance and participated in the Greek Revolution were the Greek "Souliotai". These were not "Albanians" but "Arvanitai" as called in Greece, i.e. bilinguals (greek & albanian) with Greek national awareness, massacred by the Turcalbanian Ali Pasha in early 19th c.
--Euzen (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That article was deleted by consensus because it was extremely poorly sourced. As far as I know, the Albanians were loyal subjects from the 16th century till well into the 19th century. The sentence was unsourced OR, so I removed it. Athenean (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1714_revolt_of_Chameria was hardly a consensus. Albanians btw had many insurrections in Peloponnesus (otherwise called More' by them) in the 15th and 16th centuries, I don't know how you feel about me putting that in the article. --Sulmues ^(talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat? If you do, I will remove them as off-topic, and possibly report you for POINTy disruption. About the Peloponnese, you got it backwards: The Turks used Muslim Albanians gangs (referred to at the time as "Tourkalvanoi", i.e. "Turkalbanians") as local garrisons to put down Greek uprisings. These gangs were particularly brutal and known for their savagery. Athenean (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, you got it completely wrong. Albanians started to convert to Islam en masse in the 16th-17th centuries. The tales of the Turkoalvanoi start in the 17th-18th centuries. What I am talking about are the upheavals in More' against the Turks, about which probably you have no clue. Never mind, I'll add it little by little. --Sulmues ^(talk) 03:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anything off-topic will be removed, and the editor adding it will be reported for WP:POINT, however "little by little". I hope I'm clear. Athenean (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Since I am the biggest contributor to this article [15], I am interested that someone with your experience keeps this article its talk page clean. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! --Sulmues ^(talk) 03:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If some "Albanian resistance" has to be mentioned in this article, then for the sake of neutrality the vastly greater "Albanian cooperation" with the Ottomans should also be mentioned in the same paragraph. Unfortunatelly for Castriotis and the other major families of the story (Musachis, Thopias etc), the newer branches of their family trees are full of names that the patriarchs wouldn't approve, I suppose. Regarding the incorporation of Albanians into the Ottoman system, the reader may be directed to the article List of Albanians and count the Turc-albanian prime-ministers (about 45 in total), the veziers and the other officials--Euzen (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

"Albania and its people" and Skanderbeg?

"Skanderbeg was a prominent historical figure in the history of Albania and of the Albanian people."

Albania did not exist till beggining of 20th century. One can not be historical figure of country that was created 500 years after he lived. What about those 500 years? Of what country Skanderbeg was historical figure during that period? This is completely wrong.

Also, it is not only Albanian people that find him important. There are also people of Macedonia or other countries that find him important and even erecting monuments of Skanderbeg in the centres of their towns (Skopje, Prishtina, ....), naming schools after him (Preševo in Serbia), ..... The conclusion can be made that he is specially important for all Albanians, not only those living in Albania.

I think that above mentioned sentence should be changed to be like this:

"Skanderbeg was a prominent figure of medieval history and Albanians." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg was the first one that created an Albanian State, and was regonised by Venice, Spain, etc.

So He was important to Albania because he was the first that created it! --Vinie007 14:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to yell. Are you sure that state he first created was Albania or that state he first created by constitution was defined as state of Albanian people? Of course not. Whatever country he created, it was not Albania and it was not constitutionally defined as country of Albanian people. Those were medieval feudal times. If he created any country, that was neither Albania or country of Albanians. It was country of his family Kastrioti. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The League of Lezhe was a confederation of Albanian princes, not a Katrioti dominion. As a matter of fact, only about 15% of the Laugue's Army personally belonged to Skanderbeg. The rest were contributed by other Albanian princes.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion. Do you have any sources to back it up? --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion? Are you joking with us little bit, Sulmues? :) Albania was created in 1912. There is no question about it. Albania was created almost 500 year after Skanderbeg died. So, it seems that he didn't create Albania. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The medevial name of Albania was Arbëria. See Principality of Arbër. The importance of Skanderbeg in the History of Albania is undeniable as he brought for the first time the union of Albanian principalities into the League of Lezhë. --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? In the correspondences between Skanderbeg and his allies/enemies, he is always referred to as Albanie domino. Also, the first Albanian state was founded centuries before 1912, as Sulmues pointed out.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we do not understand the term Albanian state the same way. If Albanian state means Abania than you are wrong because it was created in 20th century. If that means state that belongs to the people who declare themselves as Albanians then you are again wrong because such national states were not existing in medieval times, but only from 19th century. Using the term Albanian state could misled some reader to think that Albania existed 500 years before it was created. As WhiteWriter said, "Alania was created almost 500 years after Skanderbeg died". What Sulmues said does not support his theory that he was prominent historical figure in the history of Albania because League of Lezhë is not Albania. It is union of medieval principalities. In those principalities lived not only Albanians, but Greeks (mostly south), Vlachs (mostly at Moskopolje), Serbs ,.... therefore it would be wrong to state that such medieval principalities that belonged to feudal families (Kastrioti, Topia...) were Albanian national states in the sense of constitutional national states that will be founded 500 years after Skanderbeg. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Antidiskriminator, exactly... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Only Marin Barleti wrote about Skanderbeg's struggle only against the Ottoman Empire that is remembered?

"..through the work of his main biographer, Marin Barleti, remembered for his struggle against the Ottoman Empire.."

There are lot of other written sources about Skanderbeg and if we leave above mentioned sentence the way it is, someone could be misled to conclusion that only Marin Barleti wrote about Skanderbeg and that only one book of Marin Barleti is source of information about him.

More important, this sentence is not supported with the well referenced text in the rest of the article that says:

"After his military school Skanderbeg went up the ranks and led battles for the Ottoman Empire. For his military victories, he received the title Arnavutlu İskender Bey, (Albanian: Skënderbe shqiptari, English: Lord Alexander, the Albanian) comparing Kastrioti's military brilliance to that of Alexander the Great. Skanderbeg distinguished himself as one of the best officers in several Ottoman campaigns both in Asia Minor and in Europe. He even fought against the Greeks, Serbs and Hungarians. Sultan Murad II gave him the title Vali as a governor in Krujë and Dibër ... "

First, I doubt that there is any person that remembers his struggle against Ottoman Empire because it was almost 600 years ago and nobody lives that long. Second, it is obvious that he fought not only against Ottoman Empire, but also for very long time for Ottoman Empire and that he should be grateful to Ottoman empire for granting him the title of Vali and governance in Kruje and Diber. Also, he fought against Greek, Serbian, Austrians, Venetian... princes and their armies and for Kingdom of Naples, Ottoman empire, Austrians ....

Since it is obvious that biography written by Marin Barleti is not only source of information about Skanderbeg, that nobody remember any of this events, and that he fought against/for almost all surrounding empires and principalities, that he was fighting for Ottoman Empire most of his life, leaving above mentioned sentence in the lede could mislead some reader to believe that only Marin Barleti biografy of Skanderbeg described his struggle only against Ottoman Empire that was main event of his life.

Therefore I propose fundamental changes of the text in the lede, in order to correspond with well referenced text in the rest of the article and to avoid misleading of the potential readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"his struggle against the Ottoman Empire whose armies he successfully ousted from his native land for more than two decades."

Since he did not oust only armies of Ottoman Empire but also Venetians and he was sending troops to Italy to crush rebels, fought against all surrounding empires and princes, planned to take part in Crusade... this part of sentence that glorify his "ousting of armies of Ottoman Empire from his native land for more than two dekades" can also mislead somebody to wrong conclusions and should be part of fundamental changes of the text in the lede.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at any of the other articles? My main source in most of the articles that I have written is Demetrio Franco who wrote in 1480.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would love to look at them (can you please provide me with some links?) despite the fact that I don't understand connection of your reply with my above comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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 ([16]). 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.[17].--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.

"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?

"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, [18], 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)

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)

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

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)

Has Kostur belonged to georaphical territory of Albania or Macedonia?

"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

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)

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

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 graves in Hylandar in 1426 and that his brother was an Orthodox monk. 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 grave 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

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)

Violation of NPOV in religion of Skanderbeg

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 grave 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)

Resolved

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

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)

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)

Highland clan Kuči

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)

Oliver Schmitt (2008): The end of Skanderbeg mythology

In 2008 Oliver Schmitt, a professor of history at the University of Wien, published his book Skanderbeg: ein Aufstand und sein Anführer (Scanderbeg: an Uprising and its Leader), which shocked the Albanian public opinion. The book rocked the stereotypal and romantic picture of Skanderbeg and described him in his real human dimensions. As Alban Tartari, a journalist and academic, put it “There are more reasons, more quality in this book than any other text full of myths.” http://training.journalismnetwork.eu/profile/AlbanTartari[19]

You can read here the epilogue of the book, translated from German by Robert Elsie. http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts21/AH2008_2.html [20]

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

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