Talk:Skanderbeg/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Protection, again

I've upped this to full protection because it's clear that this isn't solved yet. When I see new editors add vandalism edits to become auto-confirmed and overcome the semi-protection, there is a concern. You now have four weeks to sort this out, using the reliable sources noticeboard, dispute resolution, or in the last resort, a request for comment. Rodhullandemu 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________

It is not question of reliable sources...

These books :

• The World's History: South-eastern and eastern Europe, By Hans Ferdinand Helmolt ([1])
• Chambers's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 7 ([2])
• The Ottoman dynasty: a history of the sultans of Turkey from the earliest authentic record to the present time, with notes on the manners and customs of the people, by Alexander W. Hidden ([3])
• The International cyclopedia: a compendium of human knowledge, rev. with large additions, Volume 13, by Charles Francis Richardson, Selim Hobart Peabody ([4])
• The Book of History: Eastern Europe to the French revolution, by Viscount James Bryce Bryce, Holland Thompson, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie ([5])
• The Standard American encyclopedia of arts, sciences, history, biography, geography, statistics, and general knowledge, by John Clark Ridpath ([6])
• ...

And these authors:

• Alexander W. Hidden
• Hans Ferdinand Helmolt (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
• Charles Francis Richardson (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
• Selim Hobart Peabody (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
• Robert Elsie (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
• Harry Thurston Pech
• Viscount James Bryce Bryce (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
• Holland Thompson
• Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie (Already used as source in Wikipedia)
• ...

Tell us that Voisava was Serbian princess. What can be problem with that information, after all those above?

--Tadija (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your responsibility here is to persuade other editors that these sources satisfy your proposition. That is not a matter for me, but I have outlined above various options for taking this issue forward. Rodhullandemu 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question: Is it okay for me to state my position as to why I don't consider these sources to be reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is a long-term tendentious topic, with editors being strongly polarised, and most external editors would not have sufficient topical expertise to properly judge the various sources being cited. However, when multiple sources differ, it can be inappropriate to make a selection on the basis of one's personal point of view- a responsible and encyclopedic approach would be to summarise the sources on both sides, leave the matter unresolved, as are many historical questions, and leave it up to the reader to make up their own minds. It seems to me to be an issue of national identity and possession, which by the 21st century, should be supremely irrelevant. That is why I make no comment on the debate itself, or the sources cited, and I am not going to go there. There are multiple remedies here for dispute resolution, but they haven't been used by either side of this debate; rather, it seems to have been a waiting game, and in some cases somewhat underhand, in order to push a point of view. Such stealth tactics will not prevail as long as I'm alive, so in reality, you've got a few months to play such games. Meanwhile, editors either talk constructively, or this article remains locked. If necessary, I will keep it locked while an WP:RFC proceeds. Gaius Claudius Nero, the short answer to your question is that you may do that, but that apparently would be unlikely to satisfy your opponents. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

With total honesty, i think that these sources rejection was just question of national possession and identity, as i really cannot see how can this much sources be unreliable. After all these years, it is pointless to ask that question, if we all know that sources are true. Gaius Claudius Nero, i am ready to see your explanation, as that you write to me on your talk page was not explanation at as, it was just asking not to add that data. Also, i would love to see sources where i can see that Skanderbeg mother was not Serbian princess, so that will help also. And even more, these are just some of the sources. Will all sources with that one sentence, "Servian princess" be rejected in the future? After all, i am ready to cooperate! :) --Tadija (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Musachi claims that she is related to him (See compilation with Musachi's work here: [7]). Fan Noli interprets that Musachi says she is Albanian in his dissertation on Skanderbeg ([8]). Harry Hodgkinson agrees that that she is a Musachi (Can't find online source), but I'm not sure how reliable he is. But, if you are willing to cooperate, what do you propose doing?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He had a fancy helmet too.

But why anybody would want to walk around with a goat's skull on their head is beyond me. Anyway, would it be controversial to add one of these images to the article? The helmet is prominently displayed in the Neue Burg.  Sandstein  21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about controversy, but I prefer the first image, rotated off centre - it gives a better feel for the dimensions of the dead goat. Josh Parris 11:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's controversial about it. Put one in if you want, preferably the first one. If you have an image of his sword as well, you can put it here: [9].--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I did so.  Sandstein  17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

the truth about scanderbeg

who is responsible for this article ,should be serious to correct an obvious mistake,because by all documents ,scanderbeg was born in Mat in the castle of Stellush,dibra at the time was not the principality of scanderbeg,but moisi gole,mi was the prince of diber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.67 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. It is true.  Fixed --sulmues (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Irena Paleologina wife of Skanderbeg's son?

<s>See this edit ([10]). The user is trying to reference to Barleti, but I have no idea who this Irene is. Help! --sulmues (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I'll correct myself, that's what the source says. Referenced.--sulmues (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin

It seems that the bibliography somewhat disagrees about the origin of Skenderbeg. A new section should be introduced based on various sources like:

• [11]: Born about 1404, his family of Serbian origin.
• [12]: family of Kastriot, allegedly of Serbian origin.
• [13]: Skanderbeg, a most valiant man of Serbian origin.
• [14]: was of Serbian origin.
• [15]: Of Serbian origin and brought up as a Muslim.
• [16]: the national hero of the Albanians, was of Serbian origin.
• [17]: Greek hero Saknderbeg
• [18]:of Serbian-Greek-Albanian origin.
  
• Greek again: Moore Clement Clark (1850) George Castriot Surnamed Scanderbeg, D. Appleton & Co., New York. p. 9.

There are plenty of them mainly suggesting a Serbian origin. Suppose this needs to be added.Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources that you brought are not serious. They just throw there that he was of Serbian origin without fully referencing or investigating on the origin of Skanderbeg. Are you suggesting a Serbian or Greek origin of the Kastrioti family or of the Tripalda family (his mother's) because none of the sources that you brought specify that. The only source that according to you is suggesting that the Kastrioti family was of Serbian origin, cannot be seen, if clicked. --sulmues (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The second source says it clear 'family of Kastriot'. These sources are just a few that make this claim, and as far I see they meet wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I still cannot see that source. If I click on it, nothing appears, however I can see that the title is about architecture, so nothing that relates to a historian or biographer of noblety. Completely unreliable. --sulmues (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are also plenty of sources in Google Books describing his origin as Albanian as well. Perhaps all the various theories could be discussed in the "Early life and family" section. They could also be mentioned in the Kastrioti article.--Ptolion (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am interested in this subject and have been wanting to discuss some issues about it. Given this opportunity I'll reply to the sources presented. Before reviewing them I read the link about reliability of sources, which was presented by co-editor Alexikoua. This is my review:

• [19] I honestly find it at least strange to use the book of a scholar specializing in (postage) stamps(Paul G. Partington) used to as a source for a person's origin. According to this link presented by Alexikoua wp:rs, this person should not be used as a source in this issue as he isn't a historian.

• [20]I can't really read the footnote because this is just a snippet view and the use of the word allegedly makes it a hypothesis.

• [21] Although this was published in 2008, it wasn't written in the same period. This book was written by Theodore Spandounes(or Spandouginos), Byzantine who lived in the 15 and early 16th century. As such according to wp:rs you presented Alexikoua this cannot be used as a source. The book itself was written in 1519 as you can see. [22].

• [23]This is the 1954 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, which is contradicted by the modern edition of Britannica. To be taken in consideration is also the fact that the main source for the 1954 edition is

Karađorđe Petrović(mentioned as George Petrovich), making it even more unrealiable.

• [http://books.google.com/books?id=zHxsWspxGIIC&pg=PA420&dq=skanderbeg%2Bserbian

%2Borigin&lr=&as_brr=0&hl=el&cd=7#v=onepage&q=skanderbeg%2Bserbian%2Borigin&f=false].If you read the summary of the book, you'll see that the book is a shortened version of the Encyclopedia of Islam. The Encyclopedia of Islam is not what anyone would call a reliable source.

• [24]. That's a book from 1912, meaning not modern, meaning not reliable.

• [25]The author quotes a line from a fictitious story as he states before quoting it. You should check what you post, Alexikoua.

• [26]. This is not written by a historian and its subject isn't Skanderbeg's origin and because of that the author just states what you quoted.

Therefore for now, this discussion is over since I checked all the sources and I don't think that anyone can disagree with my input which was 100% according to the guidelines. Thank you for your time,----ObserverFromAbove (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's my point: to mention all these theories in one section, I'm not the one to judge every author.Alexikoua (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, they should not be mentioned because they are wp:fringe theories per above explanations. --sulmues (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The present sources aren't suitable for use in the article as I explained in my previous post, but in the future if reliable sources are presented we can rediscuss this.--ObserverFromAbove (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No wonder User:ObserverFromAbove completely misused the rules here, suppose it's because he was a newcomer. Anyway, since the entire bibliography (there are additional 20 wp:rs in googlebooks) confirms this fact, I will make the appropriate adjustments the next hours creating a new section. Any advice by a user that edits from a non-blocked proxy is appreciated.Alexikoua (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Since now I am a member of the Albania Taskforce I should express my opinion. His observations seem accurate and as Sulmues has pointed out you still haven't brought anything reliable. If you make any changes I will revert you. My additions were reverted by some users previously and I respected it, you should do the same thing since you have no sources.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The more I read this discussion the more I think that Observer was completely accurate. There is no need to analyze all your sources as they have already been analyzed so I'll comment on just one of them. [27] a quotation like Observer pointed out says:

• wrote his fictitious story the Rise of Iskander, about "the Greek hero Skanderbeg who fought the Turkish peril". However, not all British writers were anti-Turkish in the era of colonial crusade. That's funny because you want to write a whole section based on quotes from fictitious stories.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For example comments like 'The Encyclopedia of Islam is not what anyone would call a reliable source.' are completely nonsense by ObserverFromNowhere, you need to read wp:rs, off course the Encyclopedia of Islam is wp:rs. Also read wp:what wikipedia is, threating someone that 'I'll revert you no matter the entire universe is against me', is disruptive. This is not a battleground promoting a nationalistic agenda. Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you admit that you looked only one source but you declare you are revert-read what can I assume?Alexikoua (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you assuming things I never said? I said that I would comment on just one, not that I didn't check the rest.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please answer to my comment before jumping to conclusions. Why do you want to use a quotation from a fictitious story as a source in an encyclopedic article?--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you dont like this one, why dont you read the rest of the bibliography? There is plenty of bibliography to read. Suppose, being a representative of TF Albania, isn't an argument itself to justify blind reverts.Alexikoua (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, there are thousands of tertiary sources to claim that he was Albanian, you tried with the Greek and the Serbian origin and did not succeed, what's next: Bulgarian? --sulmues (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg origin

Actually it seems that there is plenty of additional material:

• [[28]] This force was led by John Kastrioti, who was of mixed Albanian-Serbian origin and whose son, Skenderbeg, was venerated by Albanians as the founder of their
• [[29]] Fourth, nor were they connected with the Albanian hero Skenderbeg, though Skenderbeg did have Serbian blood.
• [[30]] the Albanian national hero Skenderbeg is said to have been "semi-Serb"
• [[31]] Skenderbeg, the great Albanian medieval leader and hero, was of Serbian origin
• [[32]] myths about historical figures such as Skenderbeg who were actually Serbs
• [[33]] He was the fourth son of John Kastrioti (Castriota), a high official of Serbian origin, and his given name was George.Alexikoua (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Myths are not sources, quotations from textbooks of the 1910s are not sources, "is said" and similar versions again are not sources.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear a neutral opinion on this. Not just national advocating.Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks get us nowhere so please stop labeling users who don't agree with you. I commented on the sources and that is what the sources say not me. You yourself posted that your sources are myths, rumors etc.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I ask for a neutral opinion. If you find this a personal attack that's not my problem.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I was commenting on you labeling other comments not similar to yours as "national advocating".--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua after you didn't get tired making a Greek out of Skanderbeg you are trying to make him Serbian because of the name of his mother. I have discussed this ad nauseam: She was from the Polog valley and her last name was Tripalda, an Albanian name. Back then the use of Slavic last names "Vojsava" was very common. Serbian and Albanian chieftains were very often intermarried. Vojsava Tripalda was Albanian though, I really challenge you to give me a decent source that seriously claims that Vojsava was Serbian. --sulmues (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On this page you have more then 10 "decent" sources that claim she is Serbian. And also, very good sources that claim she is NOT Albanian. --Tadija (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not looking for sources that you find "decent" but sources that are reliable according to the policy and such haven't been presented yet unless you think that myths and "is said" or textbooks of the 1910s are reliable sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

People, please! For Wikipedia, it does not matter if she was Albanian or Serbian. But the fact is that some Serbian authors claim her Serbian origin, and it should be mentioned in the article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As nothing was added i taged article. It must be mentioned all of this. There are too many sources. --Tadija^speaks 19:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there is no serious scholar that would say that the Kastrioti were not Albanians. As far as Vojsava Tripalda is concerned we have some sources that say Servian princess. However, these sources do not elaborate too much about her. As a matter of fact we have almost nothing on her account. The areas of the Pollog valley (today's Tetovo, and then between the Kingdom of Prilep and the Realm of Branković) were under the dominance of Serbian and Bulgarian rulers, although the majority of the population was Albanian, and there were also Albanian princes. We don't know if the Tripalda family was Albanian or not. It's just a speculation of a historian who looks at the Pollog map and finds out that a Serbian ruler is ruling there. I removed POV from Tadija because I believe that the wording should be very careful and should relate exclusively to Vojsava Tripalda. I suggest that a note of this nature be entered: Some authors think that Vojsava Tripalda may have been of Serbian origin, whereas others think that she was from an Albanian family. Noli states that she is an Albanian, Marin Barleti, Frang Bardhi, and Becikemi idem, and they are the main biographers. And don't tell me that they were primary sources because they spanned two centuries after Skanderbeg and everybody else relied on them. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 13:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove tags. That is vandalism. OK, what is your proposition for that info? Type it below. And AFTER we agree, tag will be removed. Until then, it is disputed. :) --Tadija^speaks 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please read before you blindly revert? I said you CAN mention it, but with the due care. And I also proposed the wording. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

? What else? Where you should add that? What more? What about Skanderbeg origin? Explain better, please, dear Sulmues! :)-Tadija^speaks 14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Right after this sentence His mother was Vojsava, a princess from the Tribalda family, (who came from the Pollog valley, north-western part of present-day Republic of Macedonia), or from the old noble Muzaka (Musachi) family. You may enter the following Some authors think that Skanderbeg's mother was of Servian {{cn}} or Bulgarian origin{{cn}}. Be bold and go ahead and edit, and remove the POV sign. After you are done with it, if you feel like you should give an explanation on your edit, bring it to the talk page. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is already explained and supported with an enless bibliography. Suppose it's time to see it on the article.Alexikoua (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately all the sources that Tadija entered are unacceptable. He managed to enter two outdated tertiary sources (Chambers and Britannica), one outdated secondary source (Stevenson) through a snippet and no context, and a secondary source (Spandounes) who again points back to Barleti (who of course presents Skanderbeg as an Albanian.

• 1. Chambers's encyclopædia: Tertiary source, moreover from 1889.
• 2. Encyclopedia britanica: Tertiary source, moreover from 1954 and relying on highly POV source of George Petrovitch
• 3. Francis Stevenson: Publication of 1912? Ridiculous: not a contemporary scholar. Furthermore the book is entitled "History of Montenegro". Highly unreliable and snippet abuse. All he says is again "Serbian origin".
• 4. Helmolt: 1901. Old and again not reliable. Albania didn't even exist at that time.
• 5. Theodore Spandounes: Although secondary source and contemporaneous (1997), it is highly unreliable because all he says about Skanderbeg is "Serbian origin". That's it. For the rest he points back to Marin Barleti, who wrote the biography 4 centuries before him and much better. Then let's go back to Barleti and if we find that Skanderbeg is of Serbian origin per Barleti, let's say it. For that matter few of us have read Barleti in latin.

As a result, we have no reliable sources to present Skanderbeg as of Serbian origin. Unless you give me a secondary source that goes into detail and presents some more reliable facts, I can't accept this version and I am going to have to revert. I thought Tadija had anything more than the sources that were brought already by Alexikoua. Those sources we already analyzed them and they are unreliable. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sanctioned to give another 50 words of justification to any revert until the end of June so here it goes. Besides what I stated above, here are my thoughts: I have nothing contrary to the citation of a contemporary author that has done a serious study on Vojsava Tripalda and doesn't blindly repeat that she was from Serbian origin. The only contemporary scholar that we have to claim that Voisava Tripalda was from Serbian origin is Spandounes, who says only that, and then he points to the biography of Marin Barleti. Now Barleti doesn't say that she was Serbian, but Albanian, so Spandounes contradicts himself. If we really want to give some references to Skanderbeg that are sour, let's start with Oliver Jens Schmitt who really has made a bad biography of the national hero of the Albanians. Schmitt is a voice out of the choir and I would love if someone brings to the table what he says, because I want to see if he is fringe or serious.--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree per Tadija: we have an entire 16 (at least) book bibliopgraphy that mentions Skanderbeg's origins, some example: Theodore Spandounes, Britanica and Chambers's. Tertiaries are ok since we have plenty of secondaries too (see wp:rs). Additional credible sources are the Balkan Research Institute [[34]], Mitja Velikonja and William Safran [[35]]. Just being revert ready in order to 'defend' the origin of a personality is simply disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As I see Safran (2000) is a nice source and we will have no problem to place this alone in the origins section [[36]] ...This force was led by John Kastrioti, who was of mixed Albanian-Serbian origin and whose son, Skenderbeg, was venerated by...Alexikoua (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also this: [[37]] Can Serbs and Albanians live together? P Hondus - Western Balkans Security Observer-English Edition, 2007 - CEEOL: "...On the other hand, Skenderbeg, the legendary Albanian hero, is seemingly of an ethnically mixed background, with his mother reportedly being a Serb."

many of these sources arent that good theyre tertiary sources that repeat what has been written elsewhere..there has been since hopf (the editor of the relevant 'chronicles') at least some talk of the possibility of skanderbeg being half via his mother or even entirely slav based on spandouginos and the slavic names from what i know but what else..? sulmues above has summarized this position well which i think has been abandoned even if seriously considered once by some historians87.202.22.2 (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We should be very careful with old sources, Skanderbeg main biographer was Marin Barleti. Although its battle numbers are exaggerated and sometimes he puts very long speeches in Herodotus style, I want to point out that basically all the other historians have repeated the same things. Barlet main stories are confirmed by archives of Venetians, Naples, Rome, Ragusa, Ottoman chronicles etc. Other important source is the chronicle of Muzaka, which has also been confirmed by archives and historians. There are many later speculations on various topics for eg. that Kastoria name comes from Kastrioti etc, but now they are all like urban legends and should be treated as such. Aigest (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg is half Serb by mom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best source is the nonfictional book of Haki Stermilli "Kalorësi i Skënderbeut" published in 1968 by Naim Frasheri Publishing House and republished in 2003. [38]. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Facts about origin

OK, this section is below.

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

References

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britanica reference is outdated and wrong since it is pointing to the same old meme of Branilo and Kastriot, discredited before (Jorga, Noli 1947) and later (Ducellier 1987) by historians. You might want to use a later Britannica version, but per WP:RS "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion" and this is a detailed discussion, moreover later versions of Britannica don't support that view anymore, so it can't be used as a reference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

References

---

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

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

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

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

There are sources that claim...

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

Cake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are sources that claim...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the tertiary sources:

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

There is also additional bibliography that mentions this possibility/fact ([[40]], [[41]], [[42]], [[43]], [[44]], [[45]]) but I believe the above sources are enough. Comments by involved parties are found one section above.Alexikoua (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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

@Fut.: I've followed the instructions as per wp:rfc, although they are not 100% clear about how to deal with repeating comments by involved part, so I have to apologize on this. By the way a similar style move was also used on a recent wp:rfc [[46]] which you also participated.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

1. Well-written?

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

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

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

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

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Broad in its coverage

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

- Coverage of all views regarding Skanderbeg's origin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some more examples:

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewer: Plenty.

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

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

Rev.: Why not??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to summarize all non resolved issues

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

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

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

Antidiskriminator has already been warned by the Cavalry about WP:IDHT, so he shouldn't make any further comments regarding ethnicity because there has been a RfC [48] and numerous other discussions, which he can find in the archives.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I fully and completely agree with you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yess.... I found one very nice primary source for name of Skanderbeg on serbian language and importance of Skanderbeg for Serbs. It is The Mountain Wreath, one of the most important or maybe the most important poem on Serbian language written by Petar II Petrović-Njegoš at the beggining of 19th century (more than half of the century before Albanian alphabet was defined) and published in 1847. Sulmues you can find here a link to the english translation from serbian language "Скендербег је срца Обилића, ал умрије тужним изгнаником" and it is "In Skenderbeg beats Obilic's heart, but he perished as a forlorn exile." [49]. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sulmues POV pushing harrasment

Sulmues, you again (for the third time) invented another special rule ("historical primary sources") valid only for Serbian language (but not for Albanian, Turkish...) and by doing that you are breaking NPOV policy. Also, sentence "Feel free to expand..." is against basic fundamentals of wikipedia, that is that wikipedia is free encyclopedia for reading and editing and it is not you who should decide what should I feel free to edit or not. Your editing and comments about this article (you even sent me messages on my talk page complaining about my editing of this article [50] - unwanted correspondence that you even continued by threatening me ( by sending me warnings [51]) when I copied that correspondence here, where it belongs) are not only against basic fundamentals of wikipedia and wiki policies, but can be easily defined as Wikipedia:Harassment and such behaviour is not "acceptable or without consequences". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Albanian resistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. Since I am the biggest contributor to this article [52], I am interested that someone with your experience keeps this article its talk page clean. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! --Sulmues ^(talk) 03:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

"Albania and its people" and Skanderbeg?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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