Talk:Pal Kastrioti

Sources

Remove entire assumption which says that Skanderbeg's great-grandfather and the earliest known ancestor of Skanderbeg, was of Serbian origin ,that is not true and its beyond any logic because it clearly that Branilo Kastrioti did not exist, http://ioannina.uoi.gr/_en/history/byzantine_period.html. Thomas Prelubovich was the ruler of Ioannina in that era,not Branilo.These claims are only maintained and propagated by those who have no respect for real scholarship and harbor some sort of political agenda.Notforeign (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If a name doesn't occur in English language sources, don't add it. It's WP:UNDUE to present a quote that was taken completely out of context as a consensus or even as a hypothesis. Btw the possible of Garde/Grade is totally irrelevant on such an article as would be the etymology of Karditsa in Greece or Graz in Austria (same derivation) on an article about a ruler of those areas. As Antidiskriminator has been warned 3 times not to initiate edit-wars during in less than 1.5 months, I would suggest that he doesn't start edit-warring. Btw it's very disruptive that refuted and outdated sources are again being POV pushed after they weren't accepted on the central subject, not to mention the distortion of the publication dates of late 19th and early 20th century in order to make them appear more modern. Apparently, most of the article doesn't deal with the subject too, which leads me to think that it should be deleted if nothing comes up about him and not Gjon (70% of the article is about him).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of source misrepresentation half-sentences have been taken from Buda and Noli's works and quoted, while all the other Kanina references come from Hopf and translations of his work (those who know how to properly use sources, know that an author is needed).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Buda: Dokumentet përmendin për herë të parë një Kastriot në vitin 1368 si kështjellar ose kefali në Kaninë të Vlorës. (The documents refer for the first time to a Kastriot in 1368 as a castellan or kephale of Kaninë in Vlorë i.e. nothing about that person having any relation of Pal.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Just above the half-sentence that Antidiskriminator misleadingly used Noli mentions another theory and neither of which is presented as a fact or even solid speculation.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Buda: Kastriotë me prejardhje nga Hasi ...Me rënien e Balshajve fillon fuqizimi i Kastriotëve. Ata kthehen në tokat e tyre dhe i zgjerojnë pronat në luginën e Drinit. (The Kastriotis from Has were located in northeastern Albania .. The decline of the Balshas marks the ascendancy of the Kastriotis. They returned to their lands and expanded their territory in the Drin valley). Antidiskriminator's interpretation' of Buda': With decline of Balšić's power began the empowering of Kastrioti who went to the Drin valley near Debar.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator's attempt to reinsert an assertion refuted on Skanderbeg years ago in discussions he had taken part in is truly disruptive [1][2].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No. What is actually disruptive is removal of cited text supported by secondary source written by historian who is an expert in the topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus with regards to serb origin

@Antidiskriminator:I figured it would be better to go through this with you first before addressing it on an appropriate noticeboard. I believe the following information is misleading: "It seems there is a scientific consensus that kephale Branilo Kastrioti, Skanderbeg's great-grandfather and the earliest known ancestor of Skanderbeg, was of Serbian origin." The source does not support that there is a consensus today with regards to his origin, rather that there seems to have been one when it was written 50 years ago. Consensus can change over time. Would you be willing to make the necessary adjustments to account for this?DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Made some adjustments, what do you think?DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have some source which supports information that today scientific consensus says something else, feel free to add text about it after text based on Babinger. Otherwise, your changes of the text cited by Babinger are unnecessary relativization which could mislead readers that what Babinger wrote is not true anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"It seems there is a consensus" misleads readers to believe that there is a consensus today, when this is not supported by the source. I don't believe it's up to me or anyone else to prove that there isn't a consensus today, rather it's up to you to prove that there is. What's the appropriate noticeboard to ask for advice? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? I did not revert your dating of the text based on Babinger. Why don't you date Noli's hypothesis?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Why what? I wouldn't mind dating it, but for what purpose? I dated Babinger to clarify that the consensus was from 1960s.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Why seeking an advice on noticeboards for something insignificant like (unreverted) dating. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you disagreed with it since you referred to it as "unnecessary relativization". DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)