Talk:Skanderbeg

Q1: Was Skanderbeg Albanian?

A1: Yes, Skanderbeg was an Albanian feudal lord from the Albanian House of Kastrioti.

Q2: What language did they speak in Albania during Skanderbeg's lifetime?

A2: Skanderbeg's native language was Albanian. In the Balkans Italian, Greek, Vlach, Latin, South Slavic languages and Ottoman Turkish were also common during Skanderbeg's lifetime.

Q3: What was the background of Skanderbeg's mother?

A3: Primary sources refer to her as being from Polog, most likely being the Polog valley in modern day North Macedonia. It has also been argued that another Polog, closer to the town of Bitola in the plain of Pelagonia may be the location of the Polog mentioned by Barleti. some sources claim that she was from the Albanian and related to the Muzaka family, while others claim she was of Serbian or Bulgarian origin with many historians pointing at the Serbian Branković dynasty. There is however no mention of Voisava on the Branković dynasty family tree.

Q4: Was Skanderbeg a Roman Catholic?

A4: Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg was a Roman Catholic in the period from 1444 to his death in 1468. In the period prior to 1444, he had converted to Islam. The exact date of his conversion is unclear but it must have been between 1426 and 1431. His father, Gjon Kastrioti changed his religion several times (Roman Catholic/Christian Orthodox/Muslim).

Q5: What was Skanderbeg's real name and who were his parents?

A5: His real name was Gjergj Kastrioti, Gjergj is the Albanian version of the name George. His father was Gjon Kastrioti and his mother's name was Voisava Kastrioti

Untitled 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.

Streets in Belgrade

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

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

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

Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer about Skanderbeg in Das albanesische Element in Griechenland

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

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

Unresolved

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

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

Serbian mother?

Unresolved

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

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

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

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

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

Iljaz Hoxha

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

Additional source, Nathalie Clayer

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

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

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

 Done

Scrolling lists

According to WP:ASL:

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

 Done

Is it really necessary?

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the road to GA and FA

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

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

"Skanderbeg and Albanian Nationalism" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

The important points to keep in mind:

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

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

1. First part (the first sentence or maybe first two sentences) are comments about the section we here discuss as the first step in improving the quality of the article. Name for section about controversies. Maybe this section should have name "Controversies" like usually does? Any other name could suggest or imply something to the readers, or limit its content. Every single historical person, especially in Balkan, is connected with lot of controversies. This section should deal with all controversies, not only those connected with nationalism.
2. Second part is description of misusing Skanderbeg as a tool by Albanian nationalists. That is something you consider as a fact. Even if it is a fact, I do not think that this article should deal with it and to explain -why- this was done and by -who-. I find it against WP:NPOV to suggest what is the fact to the readers. According to the WP:NPOV article should fairly present all POVs with reliable sources and to leave to the readers to decide about the facts. If there are sources about it, details should be explained in another article about it. Like you said yourself: "This article is about his person, not modern politics."
3. Third part contains proposals how to deal with other points of your review (moving battle descriptions to their separate articles, timeline article, summary of current article...). I think this is all very good idea.
4. Fourth part is your advice for rebuilding of the article on the basis of such summary and timeline. This article exists from year 2004 and it was edited by about one thousand editors (check here [1] if you don't believe me). One can not expect that this article with 1.000 editors and 100 watchers can go trough substantial changes at once. Even if there is consensus about it. Let us be pragmatic. Improving the quality of this article and raising to GA and FA level is like eating an elephant. Let us do it slice by slice, trough following WP policies and by reaching the consensus on every step.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZjarriRrethues, why did you revert this edit: [2] from Antid? In your edit summary you write to "stick to the sources" but here you seem to agree that his source is solid, but you compare it with Spanish and German? Did Skanderbeg write his name in Spanish or German? Did he actually write his name in Serbian Cyrillic? If so, pls, elaborate on the reason you reverted his edit. FYI: adding data into more fields of the infoboxes is a general guideline on WP. It allows automatic cross-indexing etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page FAQ

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

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

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

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

• Principality of Arbër 1190
• Kingdom of Albania 1271
• Princedom of Albania 1368

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Mark Mazower

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

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

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

<add comments here>

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

<add comments here>

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

<add comments here>

• Skanderbeg's father was Albanian? Neutral sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Descendants

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

sandwiched text

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

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

Discussions about (reliable) sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ: From where was Skanderbeg's mother?

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

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

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

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

I'll repeat FutureP's past statements by saying that sources used should be relevant and reliable academic ones, and not general tourist guide books that may be reliable if you're looking for a hotel in Kosovo or some general information about it, but don't belong in a references list about such a subject. For example the author made a mistake even when writing the name of Ulqin(Albanian)/Ulcinj(Montenegrin)[3], which is reasonable since he isn't a scholar dealing with the League of Prizren, but the author of a general tourist guide. He also labeled Skanderbeg the governor as the governor of Skuria, Misia, and Jonima, whose capital is supposedly Kruja. There are no areas in Albania called Misia, Skuria, Jonima, however, Skurra, Mesi and Jonima were noble families, whose territory wasn't located in Krujë or had the town as its capital, but [4] their area was that of Dagnum.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

FAQ: Was Skanderbeg a Roman Catholic?

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