No edit summary |
|||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
* You are right about the length of the rebellion section. There was a consensus reached a long time ago that the Rebellion section is indeed too long and should be trimmed. The same goes for the section about Sk in literature and arts. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 22:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
* You are right about the length of the rebellion section. There was a consensus reached a long time ago that the Rebellion section is indeed too long and should be trimmed. The same goes for the section about Sk in literature and arts. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 22:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
::The second point is OK as we both agree. I don't know where the "Albanization" of Skanderbeg came from because he was an Albanian and always signed himself as Lord of Albania. The "real" Skanderbeg is best known for his anti-Ottoman rebellion. Do you disagree with me? The body of article is concentrated on his anti-Ottoman rebellion and its legacy, the same thing should do the lede because it is the part of article that summarizes what the body says. The sources of the extensive stuff on Skanderbeg's name in various languages and eras should be placed at further reading section, the article is too long and this was the main reason why article failed to pass two GA nominations. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
::The second point is OK as we both agree. I don't know where the "Albanization" of Skanderbeg came from because he was an Albanian and always signed himself as Lord of Albania. The "real" Skanderbeg is best known for his anti-Ottoman rebellion. Do you disagree with me? The body of article is concentrated on his anti-Ottoman rebellion and its legacy, the same thing should do the lede because it is the part of article that summarizes what the body says. The sources of the extensive stuff on Skanderbeg's name in various languages and eras should be placed at further reading section, the article is too long and this was the main reason why article failed to pass two GA nominations. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 22:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::{{u|Antidiskriminator}}, Albanian authorities have not "Albanised" Skanderbeg, they secularised him under the communist regime and misused his legacy by creating a myth to attack Islam and promote Turkophobia and Islamophobia in Albania. Its why Skannderbeg today in Albania resembles something that people in Serbia or Greece are more attuned too regarding their nationalism (the Ottomans were "oppressors" thing ignoring other facets of the period) and the whole Turkophobic and Islamophic outlooks they now have. Looks like i am going to have do some future edits to these articles to clarify things.[[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 07:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:24, 17 April 2017
Skanderbeg was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Albanian resistance" header
I do not see why you had to remove the "Albanian Resistance" heading.Everybody agreed on the sectioning and it stayed like that for years.I would have nothing against expanding it but,something like this seems illogical as "Albanian Resistance" encompasses his activity from 1444-1468 quite well.Can you explain your edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euripides ψ (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Moved from my talk page.--Zoupan 22:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Euripides ψ: Where is this agreed upon? I think it is illogical to put three sections in their own right under a section named "Albanian resistance", when they all deal with Skanderbeg and not this overall "Albanian resistance". They are independent and long enough.--Zoupan 22:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The header "Rise","Consolidation" and "Last Years" is misleading as the reader may not be aware of the events.Therefore sub-headers are perfectly usable in this case.I do not understand why it irritates you so much.IS it due to the fact that Skanderbeg's followers included Slavs,Greeks and Italians?They were a minority and most of his followers were Albanian.If we follow your logic,many wars ought to have their names changed. Euripides ψ (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see them as misleading, but a proper summarization would be better (as the previous section). What would be misleading is to treat his rise as the "rise of Albanian resistance", and his last years as the "last years of Albanian resistance", which is the case now. I am not irritated (?), I am merely raising an issue. The thing is that the article is not about wars, but about Skanderbeg. The next step would be to trim the article; branching is needed as to avoid going into too much detail.--Zoupan 23:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am against using "Albanian Resistance" as subtitle because it does not correspond to sources. Skanderbeg's uprising was not a resistance of people of Albanian ethnicity, nor it was limited to Albania. Most of his major battles occurred in Macedonia, his realm was initiated in Macedonia (Debar) and included Svetigrad (Kodzadzik) and Modrič in Macedonia. As explained in the article, and cited with reliable sources (Oliver Schmitt, Franz Babinger...) his followers included many Slavs, Italians, Frenchmen and Germans. This was not "Albanian resistance" also because there were Albanians on both sides. "The military commanders, leaders and simple soldiers, i.e. the whole army fighting against Scanderbeg, consisted of local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs. There were also Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman forces who owned timar lands. On the whole, it is evident that the rebels were not opposed by “foreign” invaders, but by local forces loyal to the new empire who were willing to fight members of their own ethnic groups longing for pre-Ottoman times. " Robert Elsie (awarded for his Albanophilia selected from Oliver Schmitt book)---Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Antidisrkiminator,
Following your logic should we change the name of the Croatian War of Independence article because there were combatants of other ethnicities as well?Should we change the name of the article because quite some battles took place in Bosnia?I understand you as a Serb want to display your people's importance in this conflict as you've tried before,even going to an extreme.
I believe "Albanian Resistance" is perfectly suitable.Here are some reliable sources that use the term "Albanian"
- ..Hunyadi had not been able to wait for Scanderbeg and the Albanians, for the advance of Murad II........ Second battle of Kosovo 1448 .
- Scanderbeg was still to enact the great Albanian epic resistance to the Turks... Albanian resistance to Turks.
- ...Albanian leader.. or another ..the Albanian athlete and champion... Referring to Scanderbeg (several times)
- .....Albanian army including Catalans contingent sent by Alfonso...Albanian defeat at Berat... Battle of Berat 1455 (bear in mind that the catalan contingent has been mentioned in the article)
- ...(Scanderbeg) sent an Albanian cavalry force into southern Italy.. or another expression ...Albanian expeditions.. Scanderbeg expedition in Italy 1460-61
- ...Elbasan soon proved its worth by resisting an Albanian attack the following spring.... Scanderbeg attack on Elbasan in 1466, the Scanderbeg is not even mentioned but just his "Albanian army"
- ....great Albanian fortress of Kruja... Terms used for localities.
Or The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition reprint, illustrated Publisher University of Michigan Press, 1994 ISBN 0472082604, 9780472082605
- Albanians defeating the invaders in June 1444...Albanians victory over the Turks....the two armies met on the Drin at some point in 1448, and the Albanians annihilated the Venetian force
- In 1452 the Albanians defeated in the mountains a new Ottoman force
- Commander of the Albanian army.......Albanian leader
So,just because Skanderbeg's army included a minority of slavs doesn't mean the whole name of his resistance be changed,therefore I think the term "Albanian resistance" is thoroughly usable. Euripides ψ (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- You are very confused. The issue is the name of a section header, not the name of an article. The issue is terminology, not ethnicities. Basically what you've done here is to search for "Scanderbeg"+"Albanians" to prove something. Do these ref-quotes somehow support the section header? I don't think so.--Zoupan 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Euripides ψ: Per MOS:SECTIONS and WP:AT: "The title indicates what the article [section in this case] is about...."
- Is section titled "Albanian resistance" about the resistance of Albanians? Yes, but only partially because:
- As demonym, Skanderbeg's followers who resisted to Ottomans were not only Albanians but also Macedonians. Except Kruje, almost all other major populated places under Skanderbeg's control were in Macedonia (predominantly Slavic populated Debar, Svetigrad, Modric...).
- In the ethnic sense, Skanderbeg's followers were a mixture of all ethnicities present in that region at that time. In many cases, Skanderbeg's forces were composed predominantly or even exclusively of Slavs, i.e. in the case of Slavic populated Svetigrad in Macedonia. After Ottomans captured Svetigrad, its Slavic population emigrated to the small fortress of Kruje and continued to resist Ottomans for many years to follow. Eventually, Ottoman armies (with the substantial share of Albanians) captured it. The resistance of this Slavic people from Macedonia to Ottoman forces was certainly not "Albanian resistance".
- Maybe the only clear reason in support of "Albanian resistance" subtitle lays in the fact that the Ottoman forces who resisted to Skanderbeg included a majority of Albanians, so their resistance to Skanderbeg was indeed predominantly "Albanian resistance".
- Albanians were actually Skanderbeg's main victims. Skanderbeg was responsible for the death of more Albanians than any other person in history. I began a draft of an article with list of his battles, but when I saw such huge number of Albanians who died because of Skanderbeg only in first 5 years of his rebellion, I simply could not continue with this draft ..... The figures are shocking.
- The section in question is not only about Albanian resistance to Skanderbeg or to Ottomans. It is also about Skanderbeg's struggle against Venetians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Angevins, ....
- To conclude, "Albanian resistance" as section title is incorrect simplification which is against MOS:SECTIONS. The same is valid for "Rise" and "consolidation" subtitles which are unsourced WP:OR that does not correspond to the sourced events described in the text of the article. Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- No consensus was reached whatsoever.I clearly gave my argument and listed all the sources that used the term Albanian for his resistance yet you do not agree with it and give me some poor arguments.If you want to tell me it cannot be called "Albanian Resistance" due to the fact that there was a minority of slavs or vlachs or greeks or whatever in his army then why don't we change the "Croatian war of independence" title due to the minority of Bosnians or Albanians etc.I still do not understand what your problem is with this heading if nobody changed it for years,you suddenly find it problematic. Euripides ψ (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) —moved from talk page.--Zoupan 17:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly, there is concensus.--Zoupan 17:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- No consensus was reached whatsoever.I clearly gave my argument and listed all the sources that used the term Albanian for his resistance yet you do not agree with it and give me some poor arguments.If you want to tell me it cannot be called "Albanian Resistance" due to the fact that there was a minority of slavs or vlachs or greeks or whatever in his army then why don't we change the "Croatian war of independence" title due to the minority of Bosnians or Albanians etc.I still do not understand what your problem is with this heading if nobody changed it for years,you suddenly find it problematic. Euripides ψ (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) —moved from talk page.--Zoupan 17:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
No there isn't.I do not agree with changing the header and adding a main article template to a terribly POV and ridiculously made page.We cane argue about the template later but for now there is no mutual agreement for the header. Euripides ψ (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Euripides, Skanderbeg's resistance contained other ethnicities too. Obviously, Albanians formed a sizable portion of that and considering that the refugees who fled to Italy and kept his memory alive where Albanians, not Slavs or others. However the region of Diber/Debar was a borderland and of mixed ethnicity where Albanians, Slavs and Vlachs lived etc. No need to pursue this with making it a Albanian resistance thing. One must be aware that the communist regime created a myth of Skanderbeg to as to downplay the heritage of autochthonous or indigenous Balkan Islam and historical links with the Ottomans which most Muslim Albanians are still sentimental about though no longer say because Albanian nationalism has made it "taboo" due to its Turkophobia and Islamophobia. This Skanderbeg figure, though important for some (and now days all Albanians) was just a minor warlord up north who was considered a nuisance by some of his contemporaries and considering Schmitt and Elsie both state that there were locals who fought against him, not all even in his family like Hamza agreed with his cause. Seriously this article is fine as it is regarding that bit. No need to put a modernist take on this medieval past. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It is irrelevant the detailed description of other Balkan prices' battles and wars against Ottomans in the section of Skanderbeg's legacy with the objective of limiting his contribution and legacy towards the delay of Ottoman advance in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARSELIMADHE (talk • contribs) 12:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Resnjari that is your opinion. Robert Elsie is a scholar who specializes in Albanian literature and folklore. Not medieval history. Following your POV, the Ottomans never actually bothered to send soldiers from Anatolia right? When they warred with Serbia, Bosnia, Hungary etc. All their forces were locals? I disagree. And also, Skanderbeg forced the Sultans themselves to conduct campaigns personally against him, which all failed. Also I believe that "Turkophobia" and "Islamophobia" has no place here. You can discuss that somewhere else. Best Euripides ψ (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Elsie published work of Austrian academic Oliver Schmitt who is specialized in medieval history - link.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Euripides ψ, my point is that the construct of Skanderbeg's rebellion as being an Albanian one dates back to communist times and is rooted in national identity issues and downplaying Islam. Of course the bulk of troops were Anatolian, but they included sizable numbers of Balkan locals, such as Skanderbeg's nephew Hamza. In 20th century Balkan historiography there has been a tendency to make certain medaveil heroes and battles the preserve on one nationality or the other. Another example of this type is the battle of Kosovo where alongside Serbian forces, troops and their feudal lords from many other nationalities participated, yet the battle for Serbs is considered Serb only with the Ottomans omitting the others. There has been much deconstruction of that myth over time (though not so much in Serbia itself). We should not replicate such myth making here. Skanderbeg is only now being treated outside this scope such as Schmitt's work. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Resnjari, what you are talking about is not a problem in this article. You can discuss that in the Myth of Skanderbeg article. All Albanian sources used here are very reliable. Fan Noli graduated from Harvard. Kristo Frasheri is an excellent historian who has a neutral point of view and is very qualified in his field. He wasn't influenced by the communists at all. Also I don't understand why you are mentioning this downplay of Islam constantly. That isn't an issue in this article either.I do think the article has a few issues left and with a little work I intend to nominate it for GA. Euripides ψ (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- The subtitle issue has been resolved by renaming "Albanian resistance" to "Rebellion against the Ottomans". That was only to top of the iceberg. The article still presents mythologized and nationalized (more precisely - Albanized) version of Skanderbeg, his struggle, his soldiers and the territory they controlled.
- Re sources, the sources used in this article include:
- 13 citations by Francione (a writer also worked as an actor and director, theater, essayist and painter who is from the artistic point of view influenced by Hacker Art, art, Gothic Revival and the so-called cyber-culture)
- Kristo Frasheri who belongs to numerous nationalist historians from Albania who intentionally emphasized "the Turkish savagery" and "heroic Christian resistance against the Osmanli state in Albania" (Central Institute of Islamic Research 1997, p. 192 :" Albanian nationalist historians like Ramadan Marmallaku, Kristo Frasheri, Skender Anamali, Stefanaq Pollo, Skender Rizaj and Arben Puto in their books deliberately emphasized "the Turkish savagery" and "heroic Christian resistance against the Osmanli state in Albania")
- Harry Hodgkinson has 17 citations (a British writer, journalist, naval intelligence officer and expert on the Balkans who suddenly, when he was 86 years old, decided to write his first work about medieval history after he was appointed from 1985 to be a Chairman of the Anglo-Albanian Association and during his career supported the Albanian cause and took up strong anti-Serb and anti-Bulgarian positions).
- etc...
- Re GA nomination. There were two GA reviews and during those reviews it was pointed to many issues of this article which remained unresolved. I would be happy to collaborate with any interested editor to improve its quality to GA status. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have no issue with Fan Noli. However since Fan Noli, other historians have written on the subject which has made some of his research obsolete (he only worked with what was available to him at that point in time), others who don't come from the Balkans have written about the issue since then. Schmitt is the most recent and by far without bias. I will also place the whole Kopanski quote that Antidiskriminator has cited in part as then you will get the jist of what i mean (p.192) [1]
- "The sophisticated culture, literature and art of Islam were ignored by the generality of historians who hardly even tried to conceal their anti-Muslim bias. Their ferociously anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish attitude not only obscured and distorted the amazing process of mass conversion of entire Christian communities to Islam, but also provided an intellectual prop for the ultra nationalist policy of ethnic and religious cleansing in Bosnia, Hum (Herzegovina), Albania, Bulgaria and Greece. For against the backdrop of the history of the Balkans, as generally portrayed, what appeared as a kind of historical exoneration and an act of retaliation for the 'betrayal' of Christianity in the Middle Ages. The policy of destroying Islamic culture and way of life in Albania after the World War II is the primary reason why the history of medieval Islam in this land has not been properly studied. And when it was studied, it was studied within the parameters of the Stalinist ideology which emphasized only the mythical image of medieval Albanians as the 'heroic Illyrian proletariat'. The handful of Muslim scholars in the Communist Eastern Europe who resisted the anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish propaganda were ostracized and often penalized. Albanian nationalist historians like Ramadan Marmallaku, Kristo Frashëri Skender Anamali, Stefanaq Pollo, Skender Rizaj and Arben Puto in their books deliberately emphasized ad nauseam only 'the Turkish savagery' and the 'heroic' Christian resistance against the Osmanli state in Albania."
- From when Kopanski wrote in 1997, things have moved on and there are multiple sources out there and yes they treat the Ottoman era for the good, bad and ugly stuff that happened. However Albanian historians writing about Skanderbeg had a nationalist, Islamophobic and Turkophobic bent to their work and many still do instead of just having the sources tell the history. It was they who also crafted the image of Skanderbeg's rebellions as "Albanian only" which is false and based on nationalism. Caution needs to be exercised on some sources just like when one uses Serbian scholars and Greek ones [2] too when in reference to the Ottoman period and Muslim populations due to their nationalist tones. This can go to a GA in the not to distant future as it has improved much from what this article was before. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have no issue with Fan Noli. However since Fan Noli, other historians have written on the subject which has made some of his research obsolete (he only worked with what was available to him at that point in time), others who don't come from the Balkans have written about the issue since then. Schmitt is the most recent and by far without bias. I will also place the whole Kopanski quote that Antidiskriminator has cited in part as then you will get the jist of what i mean (p.192) [1]
I understand what you mean but I don't think one source like that can confirm such a claim. I never said The rebellion was fully Albanian. Skanderbeg obviously had partial support from Venice. One of his allies was the Serbian lord of Zeta Stefan Crnojevic. He had financial assistance from the Kingdom of Naples and the Papacy. But you are discrediting historians simply for being educated in communist times. Kristo Frasheri, Selami Pulaha etc are relatively good and neutral sources. And you seem to discredit all Albanian sources, simply for being Albanian. Now I think Schmitt is a good source, but recently I've been reading Setton and think he is better. Him and Babinger. Now to the anti-Ottomanism and Turkophobia you are mentioning. While it is true there are many authors who have such sentiments, the ones listed in the article don't. "The Good, the bad and the ugly", obviously, the "bad" which may encompass massacres such as the one ordered by Mehmed II during his campaign against Skanderbeg and after his death should be mentioned in the article. The "good" should also be mentioned whatever they are, but I don't see any worthy of mention in this period. There is an article called Ottoman Albania which is about Albania under Ottoman rule from medieval times until 1912 where the "good, bad and ugly" should be fully detailed. However, I am really interested in what you think should be done in order to nominate this article for GA. Please reply to me in my talk page. Euripides ψ (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. There is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which says:
- "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." - so any discussion about changes to this article necessary for its GA status should take place here, not on your talkpage Euripides ψ.
- "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Both editors who discussed sources presented sources in which their positions are grounded. You presented your personal views. Please take in consideration Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in future. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Euripides ψ, the main issue with calling it Albanian resistance is that is asserts that the resistance given to incoming Ottoman armies was one based on a national platform. Skanderbeg though considered himself lord of Albania, his cause was one about championing Christianity first and foremost. To ascribe a modernist take through a national lens on the resistance as being Albanian resistance is one that those Albanian historians did under the communists, while omitting that others also partook in it or that the main motivation was about it being Christian resistance. Kopanski did an overview of them and that what his conclusion was of their work. Enver was more into peddlgin a certian view and wanted everyone to adhere to it (for more see: Arshi Pipa The Politics of Language in Socialist Albania (1989) [3]). That's why its best to be cautious and or refrain from that. Yes there is, Setton, Babinger and Frasheri is not big a issue like a few other Albanian historians. However Scmitt is the most recent of all the scholars and one who has done an overview of both the primary and secondary literature relating to Skanderbeg and has been vouched for by others. Hence he takes precedence in this area. As for other stuff relating to the Ottomans scorch earth stuff, yeah add it. It happened and the defters in the aftermath of this era many areas up north where depopulated and devastated. We need a sentence on the formation of the Arberesh too (as per Nasse), considering their formation as a community in southern Italy is due to Skanderbeg and the conflict with the Ottomans. I can only assist with parts of the article, not all as the military encounters are a little bit out of my depth. Stuff on religious allegiance of Skanderbeg, ancestry, legacy and stuff like that i can, etc. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Resnjari..First you talk about autochthonous Islam in the Balkans and Albania, then you assert Skanderbeg's resistance was primarly of a Christian nature? What's your point? Don't you think these absurdities based on no historical records should be left out of the historical discourse being these clearly your POV? The communists didn't create the myth of Scanderbeg, this is a moronic and quite vicious lie used many times as an attempt to downplay and often de-Albanise this great character at the heart of Albanian national identity. Scanderbeg became a legend already in his time and centuries after his death he was celebrated throughout Europe in literature and music, so it was not communist Albania who created the myth, he has been a myth for centuries, the regime only put more emphasis on his figure because of the country's delicate political situation being surrounded by very greedy neighbors Etimo (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Etimo: Islam became autochthonous in the region because a sizable number of Balkan peoples embraced the new faith, some by duress others through their own initiative. That legacy has shaped who they are, especially Bosniaks and Albanians. Just like Christianity, (originally also a middle eastern faith) was embraced by Balkan locals through similar means. On Skanderbeg, the communists upgraded this person to the figure of national hero. His memory had not survived the ages among Albanians in the Balkans and was mainly found among the Arberesh of Southern Italy. His uprising was in Northern Albania and overwhelmingly a faith based struggle against the Ottomans. The communists reinterpreted his uprising as a national one while removing the religious context. Such manipulation is mythmaking because Skanderbeg the historical person became embellished within the realm of legend instead of just facts. That king Zog and later the communists used Skanderbeg as a figure to legitimate themselves as some kind of successors to him also contributed to the myth. Skanderbeg was just a warrior figure who found a opportune time to rebel and reclaim his fathers possessions. He used religion to gain the loyalties of local Albanians, outside powers and mercenaries to secure his domain. He attempted to expand that domain through a anti-Ottoman league and it never materialised into a proper state because apart from Ottoman pressure, the local princes or barons did not trust his intentions toward them. You are right that outsiders in Europe did celebrate his memory, and they added to it things that went beyond the historical Skanderbeg. Once again they too where also engaging in mythmaking. As for "greedy neighbours", once supposedly free from the Ottomans every one in the Balkans has engaged in such behavior. Whatever the means undertaken, at least Pax Ottomanica kept things in check in stark contrast to the 20th century dominated by ethnic cleansing of the region by 'free and independent' states.Resnjari (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Skanderbeg's flag
According to whom was Skanderbeg's flag red with a black eagle, flown at Kruja? It seems like a myth. Could you guys please check into that?--Zoupan 20:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
According to Kristo Frasheri.In Gjergj Kastrioti Skënderbeu: jeta dhe vepra (1405-1468) in page 212 he states that he raised said standard and it was in such colors. Ottfried Neubecker writes in The Flag Bulletin, Volume 26 "History records that the 15th century Albanian national hero, Skanderbeg (i.e. George Kastriota), had raised the red flag with the black eagle over his ancestral home, the Fortress of Kruje" Plus it's mentioned in:
You asked this over at Talk:kastrioti as well and fueled an edit war. Now you question it here as well. Do you believe the eagle was white with a red background? Euripides ψ (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, but I still want to know if this is a myth or historical fact.--Zoupan 23:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Joseph ha-Kohen (1496–1575) (1835). The Chronicles of R. Joseph Ben Joshua Ben Meir the Sphardi. Translated by Bialloblotzky. for the Oriental translation fund. p. 270.
and set up his own banner, upon which was the black eagle with two heads
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
So, Kohen says that Skanderbeg set up his banner at Kruja, but nothing about the red background. The Armorials used a yellow background for the Kastrioti, except the Fojnica Armorial. Did Neubecker (1987) and Frasheri (1962) cite the claim? Neubecker's "over his ancestral home" is factually false, btw.--Zoupan 23:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is necessary to see the original text of Barleti who allegedly first mentioned some flag of Skanderbeg. There was extensive discussion about this issue here. There is also a COA which description can be found:
- in the sources presented here. Its representation can be found here on Heraldique Euroeenne and on hu.wiki
- Claude-François Menestrier (1770) [before 1705], Nouvelle méthode raisonnée du blason, ou De l'art héraldique (in French), Lyon: Pierre Bruyset Ponthus, pp. 106 and 107, OCLC 1303130,
Castriot-Scanderberg porte de gueules au pal d'azur à enquérir , chargé de trois châteaux d'or maçonnés de fable, accofté de quatre pattes de griffons affrontées d'argent. Michaeli, à Venife, porte fafcé d'azur & d'argent.
- Johannes Baptista Rietstap (1884), Armorial général, précédé d'un dictionnaire des termes du blason (in French), Gouda: Van Goor, p. 386, OCLC 781309799,
Castriot dit Scanderbeg — Albanie, De gu. au pal d'azur, ch. de trois tours sommées chacune de trois tourelles d'or, maçonnées de sa.; le pal accosté de quatre pattes de griffon'd'arg., affr en pals.
- Claude-François Menestrier (1770) [before 1705], Nouvelle méthode raisonnée du blason, ou De l'art héraldique (in French), Lyon: Pierre Bruyset Ponthus, pp. 106 and 107, OCLC 1303130,
- and in this work Vitezović, Pavao Ritter (1701). Stemmatographia, sive armorum Illyricorum delineatio, descriptio et restitutio, Autore Equite Paulo Ritter. na. p. A2..--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to ask of Zoupan to remove the WP:NOTRS tag. Many reliable sources refer to the Kastrioti's crest as being a black double headed eagle with a red background. I don't see why it should be so controversial. Euripides ψ (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Better source than Kenneth Setton?
With this edit (diff) Euripides ψ tagged Kenneth Setton with better source tag. I think that Kenneth Setton is among the best sources used in the article and if no other more recent scholarly source of exceptional quality does not contradict what Setton stated, tagging Setton with better source needed tag is not appropriate and should be removed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
That is your opinion. However this is a bold claim for a secondary source and is not mentioned in pretty much anything else. That's why I find the claim dubious. Euripides ψ (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect Euripides ψ. The assertion in question is mentioned in multiple primary sources cited by Setton, many of them even quote in the text of his work cited in this case. Please revert yourself and remove the tag. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. I checked the source and there was no mention of such a thing. Euripides ψ (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Euripides ψ, if you really have checked the source (which is available in full text on GB) you would certainly see on page 282 the text which support cited assertion, also with inline quote saying: "....In jeering tone he said the other day to a cardinal that he would rather make a war on the Church than on the Turk" plus citation (ref 43) to source about the letter written by Lorenzo da Pesaro and published in original primary documents collection authored by Pall, even with citation in Latin or Italian "... elo beffando disse l'altro di a uno cardinale che nante voria farre guerra alla ghiesa che al Turco!". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Setton is a good source but the way how sentence is written in article is POV. Setton doesn't clarify if assertion of da Pessaro was what really Skanderbeg has said or just what da Pessaro believed Skanderbeg has said. All what is needed is to clarify that reader is reading what da Pessaro claimed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's the book. On page 282 nothing like that is written. Maybe there's a mistake in the citation? Euripides ψ (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your link doesn't send to page 282 but to page 258 Euripides ψ Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Then scroll down to page 282. Maybe template: [failed verification] should be used? Euripides ψ (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here it is; there are two different books, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The Fifteenth Century (which is where I found it) and The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, which does not contain it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is correct. It was 1976 not 1978 work of Setton. Thanks Dianna for removing better source tag. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clearing that up Diannaa. I checked the source that was in the article but looks like that was the problem. Euripides ψ (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Skanderbeg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202094921/http://www.mus.org.rs/sites/default/files/02_momcilo_spremic_-_borbe_za_oslobodenje_smedereva_1459-1485_0.pdf to http://www.mus.org.rs/sites/default/files/02_momcilo_spremic_-_borbe_za_oslobodenje_smedereva_1459-1485_0.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204194816/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3875/year/1954.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3875/year/1954.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006083419/http://dualibra.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Historical_Dictionary_of_Albania__Second_Edition.pdf to http://dualibra.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Historical_Dictionary_of_Albania__Second_Edition.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910095427/http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts16-18/AH1515.html to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts16-18/AH1515.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902023802/http://albanianhistory.net:80/texts16-18/AH1510.html to http://albanianhistory.net/texts16-18/AH1510.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is not concentrated on where it should
The article in itself is a mess. This is partly a result of aim to include as much stuff as it can be found online. The lede is an example of WP:Undue where the weight is given only to some facts of Skanderbeg's life while information about some important elements of his life such as his anti-Ottoman rebellion is very limited or as in the case of his importance to the contemporary Albanians the information in the lede is inexistent. The Name sections has stuff which is too extensive, there is stuff on Skanderbeg's name in several documents and languages. The articles of other similar figures such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon and so on do no not concentrate in a such way to the names in different languages and eras. The editors have not forgotten to add that his surname was written somewhere in one or more documents (the article does not specify where, just the year that is 1408) Castriothi, a thing that may have been a result of writer's mistake. The Rebellion against the Ottomans section is too long if we keep in mind there is a much shorter article for the issue. In the end, there are four sections dedicated to the post-Skanderbeg era (There are three dedicated to his lifetime). Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your proposal about the lede would lead to further Albanization of Sk, the way it was done in Albanian textbooks to create the myth of Sk. This article is not about that mythical Sk. This article is about real historical Sk, or at least it should be. For the most of his life, Sk was loyally serving Ottoman sultan. Even achieving one of the highest ranks in the Ottoman administration, the rank of sanjakbey. Insisting on his anti-Muslim struggle and neglecting his pro-Muslim pre-1443 life, would be a violation of undue. The same goes for text about the primary sources and its language.
- You are right about the length of the rebellion section. There was a consensus reached a long time ago that the Rebellion section is indeed too long and should be trimmed. The same goes for the section about Sk in literature and arts. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- The second point is OK as we both agree. I don't know where the "Albanization" of Skanderbeg came from because he was an Albanian and always signed himself as Lord of Albania. The "real" Skanderbeg is best known for his anti-Ottoman rebellion. Do you disagree with me? The body of article is concentrated on his anti-Ottoman rebellion and its legacy, the same thing should do the lede because it is the part of article that summarizes what the body says. The sources of the extensive stuff on Skanderbeg's name in various languages and eras should be placed at further reading section, the article is too long and this was the main reason why article failed to pass two GA nominations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Antidiskriminator, Albanian authorities have not "Albanised" Skanderbeg, they secularised him under the communist regime and misused his legacy by creating a myth to attack Islam and promote Turkophobia and Islamophobia in Albania. Its why Skannderbeg today in Albania resembles something that people in Serbia or Greece are more attuned too regarding their nationalism (the Ottomans were "oppressors" thing ignoring other facets of the period) and the whole Turkophobic and Islamophic outlooks they now have. Looks like i am going to have do some future edits to these articles to clarify things.Resnjari (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- The second point is OK as we both agree. I don't know where the "Albanization" of Skanderbeg came from because he was an Albanian and always signed himself as Lord of Albania. The "real" Skanderbeg is best known for his anti-Ottoman rebellion. Do you disagree with me? The body of article is concentrated on his anti-Ottoman rebellion and its legacy, the same thing should do the lede because it is the part of article that summarizes what the body says. The sources of the extensive stuff on Skanderbeg's name in various languages and eras should be placed at further reading section, the article is too long and this was the main reason why article failed to pass two GA nominations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)