Talk:Myth of Skanderbeg

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

---

This is Wikipedia:Content forking. Nothing in this article warrants its own page. This article deals with views about the personna of Skanderbeg which can be put in Skanderbeg. Furthermore, by itself, this article looks more like an essay than encyclopedic material.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merging requests the following reasons to be met for merging the articles:

1. Duplicate: This is not a duplicate of article about Skanderbeg which deals (or should deal) with historical facts about him. The topic of this article is the Myth of Skanderbeg as one of the most important myths of Albanian nationalism. Albanian nationalism is significant part of the topic of this article. Also, according to the sources presented in the article, Myth of Skanderbeg was made by transformation of historical Skanderbeg into mixture of historical facts, truths, half-truths, inventions and folklore. That is very far from having "exactly the same subject"
2. Overlap: The above mentioned mixture of historical facts, truths, half-truths, inventions and folklore is separate topic, completely different than historical facts. That means there is no overlap.
3. Text: The text of the article is not very short. Considering the number of scholars, works and academic conferences which are dedicated to the Myth of Skanderbeg it is sure that it will be expanded within a reasonable amount of time.
4. Context: This article is not a short article that requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

The same rules of Wikipedia:Merging explain to avoid mergining if:

1. Merging would make merged article too long
2. "separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles"
3. "The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles"

This article meets all requests for avoiding the merging.

The myth of Skanderbeg is obviously discreet subject, otherwise there would not be so many scholars, works and academic conferences dedicated to it. It is separate topic that can be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked with Skanderbeg) article.

This proposal is not valid because there is no rationale requested by Wikipedia:Merging that is met.

On the contrary, based on the Wikipedia:Merging recommendations, merging should even be avoided. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are multiple scholars who talk about the myth of Skanderbeg does not warrant an article to be written about it. I get 49,300 finds when I search for Myth of Napoleon on Google Books (see here) yet I can't find an article about it here. Napoleon is a much more grandiose character in the history of Europe than Skanderbeg and many more myths have arisen about him than Skanderbeg, yet nowhere can I find anything about his myths (except in subsections). Anyway, let me address your arguments:

1. Duplicate: This article is not a duplicate about Skanderbeg but much of what is stated here is a repeat of what is stated in Skanderbeg. See the Legacy section. Skanderbeg: Among stories told about him was that he never slept more than five hours at night and could cut two men asunder with a single stroke of his scimitar, cut through iron helmets, kill a wild boar with a single stroke, and cleave the head off a buffalo with another. This goes in line with what is given in this article. Skanderbeg (the article) says: During the Albanian National Awakening Skanderbeg was a symbol of national cohesion and cultural affinity with Europe. Here: This is stated in this article with another POV.
2. Overlap: This is an overlap with what is stated in the Legacy section of Skanderbeg. It's just given a different name and an extremely nihilistic POV.
3. Text: What is there to expand upon? Everything given here is nothing but skeptical POV. You can't expand POV with success. Skanderbeg's Legacy section, on the other hand, could use much help from the sources here as to make it more neutral.
4. Context:Discounting the references (which do not need to be so long), there are only about 500 words in the entire article and much of that is not even necessary. The main article won't need to be expanded by much since much of what is stated here is already stated in the article, although with a differing POV.

Therefore, the article will not be too long and clunky, the topics could [not] be expanded into [a] longer standalone article since it is entirely based on POV, and the [topic is not a] discrete subject which could be dealt with on its own since it can be dealt with in the Legacy section of the main article. Furthermore, this article blatantly violates NPOV, especially with the sentence: Those who dare to perform a critical analysis of Skanderbeg, like Oliver Jens Schmitt (a historian from Vienna) did, would be soon proclaimed for monster who committed sacrilege and sullied the Albanian national honor. In addition, this article stands more like an essay than anything else. In conclusion, yes, merging should be avoided, but here, it is only necessary.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you now agree that Skanderbeg article should contain information about myth of Skanderbeg.

Before any further claim that this article is duplicate of Skanderbeg (have "exactly the same subject") or have "large overlap" or "what is stated here is a repeat of what is stated in Skanderbeg", please provide a link to the prose section in Skanderbeg article that contains the word "myth".

Please read below the only one sentence you found in the Skanderbeg article that you claim is duplicate of the sentence from this article. Do you notice the difference?

Myth of Skanderbeg	Skanderbeg
Transformation of Skanderbeg into national symbol served both national cohesion and as an argument for Albania's cultural affinity to Europe because the national narrative of Skanderbeg symbolized the sacrifice of the Albanians in "defending Europe from Asiatic hordes".	During the Albanian National Awakening Skanderbeg was a symbol of national cohesion and cultural affinity with Europe.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no essential difference. It's just longer with more POV-pushing. Instead of the hero naturally developing an image as the defender of Europe (which he did as can be seen in the country's legends), he becomes a product of some nationalistic laboratory. What I'm trying to say here is that this article is full of unnecessary POV. The reader can decide for himself whether or not the leader was great or not. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present him in a neutral light, eg. as in the sentence from Skanderbeg. I have already stated the reasons for why it should be merged so I need not present them again. As for the word myth, this pushes a negative POV for Skanderbeg which is not needed. The reader can decide for himself whether or not Skanderbeg's figure is mythical, but this is not an essay or a book trying to present a POV, this is an encyclopedia which presents topics with a NPOV. Our work should be to improve Skanderbeg to be as neutral as possible, not to create forks about POVs.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"As for the word myth, this pushes a negative POV for Skanderbeg which is not needed."

It is impossible to merge the article about myth without using the word myth.

I doubt that so big number of scholars would write so many works and participate in many academic conferences about something that does not exist, or should not be elaborated in articles on wikipedia.

I also think that your proposal is mainly based on your POV-pushing accusation. Therefore I propose you to follow the Wikipedia:POV_pushing#POV_pushing recommendations how to deal with POV-Pushing and cancel the merge proposal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be ignored, I'm saying that it does not deserve its own article. What I'm saying is that POV does not deserve its own article. There is no reason to end my merger proposal. I have already stated the reasons for why it should be merged and they still stand. I honestly don't know what to call it besides POV-pushing. And yes, myth is a POV word, but as always, I'm willing to concede a consensus.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Merge the parts that are sourced without the misrepresentation of sources. Btw since Antid. can't speak French or German he shouldn't use such sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

@ZjarriRrethues: Wikipedia:NOT#DEMOCRACY says "primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." Without explanation about how merge proposal meets or fails to meet the requests of Wikipedia:Merging a vote does not mean much. Wikipedia:No personal attacks clearly says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Please avoid comments about me. Misrepresentation of the source is something you did in this (diff) because the source clearly say (page 43): "... transformation of Skanderbeg into national symbol did not just serve national cohesion... in the national narrative Skanderbeg symbolised the sublime sacrifice of the Albanians in defending Europe from the Asiatic hordes." and "Skanderbeg's myth became the national argument proving Albania's cultural afinity to Europe". Someone (not me) who do not assume AGF could see your misrepresentation as tendentious editing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. It is best not to clutter Skanderbeg's article with too much about his "legacy". The historiography of Skanderbeg, and how he has been used by nationalists in forming a modern Albanian nation-state, seem to be sufficiently notable topics for an article of their own, a sub-article of the one about he man himself. This article is not inherently POV and the term "myth" is neutral. Srnec (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Skanderbeg's article is overinflated with unimportant information and merging would just confuse the reader. WP has several separate articles on "myths" or "criticism" of other articles. For example see The Bible as myth. Also, notice that users who here propose merging have themshelves created more than a dozen of other articles on minor aspects of Skanderbeg's life. For instance, every skirmish has become a "Battle of ..." (e.g. Battle of Pollog), two swords and one helmet have become Arms of Skanderbeg. After all, this present article will explain the plethora of minor articles on Skanderbeg, surpassing even the battles of Alexander the Great or Napoleon. We could, however, discuss the merging of all 20 articles in one. --Euzen (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV

Most of the sections aren't about the subject and there's a widespread source misrepresentation.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Sami and Naim... which Antid. added as Southern Albanian promoters of the Albanianism, like Naim Frasheri and Sami Frashëri, were directly inspired by Hellenism.. The source was misrepresented but the source doesn't even indicate that this part is related to the subject of the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

They imitated and transposed national epics of the literature produced there, like Gjergj Fishta did with his Lahuta e Malcis, but substituted the struggle against Turks with struggle against the Slavs, propagating Anti-Slavic feelings. Again there's source misrepresentation and as before what makes this relevant to Skanderbeg at all?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The section Creation of Skanderbeg as the Albanian national hero has nothing to do with what the title suggests but more to do with anti-Slavic feelings among Albanians which Antid is so keen to present here. The Consequences section is entirely unnecessary and very unencyclopedic and includes a quote from Fatos Lubonja, a very controversial figure with no encyclopedic value and only represents the POV of the main contributor to this article. The Albanisation of Skanderbeg section is very misleading and suggests an attempt to dealbanize the figure (possibly as a springboard to serbianizing him), considering how there is little mention of the said albanization. Many of the sources are exploited to distort the original meanings and should be double-checked.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All informations are supported with properly referenced sources written by contemporary authors. There is short explanation in the lede:

There are two different Skanderbegs today - the historic Skanderbeg and a myth of national hero

In the body of the article, under section titled History transformed into myth, the process of transformation of the historic Skanderbeg into the myth of national hero is explained in the following sections:

1. Built-in part of antemurale myth complex - First it was part of Antemurale myth and
2. Albanisation of Skanderbeg - then historic Skanderbeg was Albanized and tranformed into a myth of national hero.
3. Exploits of Skanderbeg's figure - then comes exploiting of myth.
4. Consequences - which has its consequences

Therefore the names of the sections follow that chronological order.

Are there any sources which present different view of the Myth of Skanderbeg? If nobody presents such sources within reasonable period of time I will remove tag for multiple issues.

Remark about me and what I am "keen to present here" is personal attack. This personal attack is very serous because it is connected with serious accusation about "anti-Slavic feelings among Albanians" which I am allegedly "keen to present here".

Gaius Claudius Nero, please don't continue with personal attacks.

I did not invent anything. The sources I presented here support the information that "national epics... substituted the struggle against Turks with struggle against the Slavs, propagating Anti-Slavic feelings" and "largely contributed the creation of Skanderbeg as the Albanian national hero". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So far you haven't explained why you included parts that aren't related to Skanderbeg. Another example of those parts is:

• Albanian intelligentsia proudly asserted: "We Albanians are the original and autochthonous race of the Balkans. The Slavs are conquerors and immigrants who came but yesterday from Asia.", which has nothing to do with Skanderbeg at all.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Read again without refusing to get the point: "national epics... substituted the struggle against Turks with struggle against the Slavs, propagating Anti-Slavic feelings" and "largely contributed the creation of Skanderbeg as the Albanian national hero".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the source by only using the parts of the quote that fit your edit i.e WP:OR. Can you explain how "We Albanians are the original and autochthonous race of the Balkans. The Slavs are conquerors and immigrants who came but yesterday from Asia.", which has nothing to do with Skanderbeg at all" is related to Skanderbeg?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That being said the pretenders' part is also unrelated, while various edits which include phrases like happy ending etc. are uncyclopedic. Btw when you're quoting a source try to at least paraphrase it and not copy/paste its content.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the source is properly interpreted. It explains how "national epics... substituted the struggle against Turks with struggle against the Slavs, propagating Anti-Slavic feelings" and "largely contributed the creation of Skanderbeg as the Albanian national hero". Please stop refusing to "get the point". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy ending.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If the source doesn't connect topic A with topic B, don't relate them i.e WP:OR.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It does. Read again without refusing to get the point. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, will you please be so kind to explain why did you mark this article with tags for multiple issues? Please explain each tag you used paying special attention to the POV tag which is most serious.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read the cases of source misrepresentation that led to POV.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't avoid discussion and explain each of the three tags you added to this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Tag bombing

I left two talkback messages (1 and 2) on the talk page of ZjarriRrethues. Although he was active in the meantime (list of his edits) he decided to ignore my questions and refused to provide answers to my questions. When someone ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors someone (not me) can see it as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

Unjustified tag bombing is another form of disruptive editing.

There are three tags ZjarriRrethues added to this article:

1. essay-like
2. tone
3. POV

1. essay-like. WP:NOTESSAY clearly explains that this tag should be used only if article presents: "Primary (original) research,...Personal inventions... and... Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)." Every single assertion in this article is supported by referenced sources written by contemporary scholars who are authoritative in this field. Conclusion: this article is based on "opinion of experts", not on the personal inventions, so adding essay-like tag is unjustified.
2. tone. WP:TONE clearly explains "Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. " The only explanation of this tag ZjarriRrethues provided is use of the term "happy ending". That is precisely the term used in the source. WP:TONE essay emphasize that "tone vary depending upon the subject matter". One should take in consideration that subject of this article is a myth. Myths are based on narratives which can have happy endings. Conclusion: adding tone tag is unjustified because this article follows recommendations of WP:TONE essay since it is written "in a formal tone" which "vary depending upon the subject matter" but "follow the style used by reliable sources".
3. POV. ZjarriRrethues justified POV tag he added with his claim that sources are misinterpreted. This is obvious mistake and POV tag can not be justified with source misinterpretation claim. Besides, there is no source misinterpretation because every single assertion is supported with referenced reliable sources. Conclusion: POV tag is unjustified.

I hope that there is no connection between ZjarriRrethues' tag bombing of this article and its nomination for GA. This article is created on February 24. 2011 and nominated for GA on August 24. ZjarriRrethues tag bombed this article 59 minutes after it was nominated for GA.

If nobody provides justification for above mentioned tags within reasonable period of time (say one week) I will delete all three tags.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the AfD comments regarding the article's status?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. According to WP:DEL#CONTENT: "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I removed sentence "We Albanians are the original and autochthonous race of the Balkans. The Slavs are conquerors and immigrants who came but yesterday from Asia." in order to help moving this article to GA status.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed disputed part about Southern and Northern promoters of Albanianism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I renamed two sections because of the complaint on the section name (Albanisation) brought earlier on this talk page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I addressed all concerns that are presented as reason for POV tag, so I will remove it from the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I replaced disputed term "happy ending".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed disputed quotation of Fatos Lubonja.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to bring this article to GA level. Therefore, regardless of my opinion about tag bombing of this article, I addressed to all concerns brought on this talk page and removed all disputed parts. Besides, I brought several new sources written by contemporary scholars to additionally support the text of this article. That proves that information written in the text of the article are not: "(original) research,...Personal inventions... and... feelings about a topic" but "opinion of the experts". Therefore I will remove remaining two tags (tone and essay).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This article's Exploit's of Skanderbeg's figure section does not hold a NPOV. The concepts expressed in the source document are, perhaps unintentionally, twisted by the author of this article in order to portray the historical figure of Skanderbeg in a demeaning way. The expression nomen est omen is explained as nominative determinism instead of the Ancient Roman proverb nomen est omen. The sword is said to be endowed with magical powers, although the source material does not explicitly state that with regards to Skanderbeg's weapon, but only when talking about mythical swords in general. The same idea applies to the horse. In short, the referenced material is evidently misquoted and edited to portray the topic of this article in a manner that is not NPOV. It must be reviewed and readapted. --Stbbdnthfc (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Horse and sword" The source also discuss general exploits of sword and horses in mythology, but also points that Sk's sword and horse were also attributed with magical powers: Una di queste leggende narra che in punto di morte Skanderbeg, preoccupato per la sorte dei suoi uomini e della sua famiglia, chiedesse al figlio di rifugiarsi con la sua gente in Italia dove avrebbe trovato protezione presso il papato e i principi aragonesi per i quali si era battuto strenuamente. Però lo mise in guardia contro l‟inarrestabile pericolo turco e gli predisse che al suo arrivo al di là dell‟Adriatico avrebbe trovato sulla spiaggia, pronto ad attenderlo, un albero al quale avrebbe potuto legare il suo cavallo e la sua spada in modo tale che al minimo soffio del vento i suoi acerrimi nemici avrebbero udito ancora ruotare nell‟aria la spada di Skanderbeg e nitrire il suo cavallo e ciò avrebbe scatenato un enorme terrore fra i turchi che si sarebbero guardati bene dall‟inseguire il popolo albanese. I used google translator "One of these legends tells that at the point of death Skanderbeg, worried about the fate of his men and his family, asked his son to take refuge with his people in Italy where he would find protection from the papacy and the Aragonese princes for whom he had Strenuously beaten. But he warned him against the unstoppable Turkish danger and foretelled that on his arrival beyond the Adriatic he would find on the beach, ready to wait for him, a tree to which he could tie his horse and his sword in such a way that at the slightest blow of the wind his keen enemies would still hear the sword of Skanderbeg spinning in the air and knocking his horse and this would have sparked a tremendous terror among the Turks who would be well looked after by pursuing the Albanian people." If google translate is correct, and I believe it is, the text clearly attributes magical powers to horse and sword.
• Name of Skanderbeg, I think that the source directly supports cited text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Google's translation is not wrong, but as an Italian speaker I don't find it quite right either. The description in source is just romanticizing Sk's military prowess. In context, the sword is attributed a mystical rather than a magical power. It is turned into myth by becoming a symbol of power, passed through generations. The horse does not have any superpowers either. Certainly the fact that his neighs would scare the enemy off does not attribute any magical features to the horse. It's just a hyperbole that magnifies his audacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbbdnthfc (talk • contribs) 06:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • From the linked page's definition of nominative determinism: Nominative determinism, literally "name-driven outcome", is the hypothesis that people tend to gravitate towards areas of work which reflect their names. The name fits because people, possibly subconsciously, made themselves fit. Nominative determinism differs from the concept of aptronyms in that it focusses on causality. But the source states: il nome Skanderbeg, deriva dall‟appellativo islamico Iskender Bej, ovvero il nobile Alessandro, e gli fu imposto dal sultano Murat che con lungimiranza aveva compreso le eccezionali doti militari del giovane. Which means the name Skanderbeg was given to him by the sultan Murat, whom had foreseen his exceptional military skills. He was named after Alexander because of what he did; he did not subconsciously make himself fit that name. Remember, Nominative determinism differs from the related concept aptronym ...in that it focusses on causality. In nominative determinism the name causes an attitude, whereas in our case the behavior comes first and it causes the name. The Ancient Roman phrase nomen est omen means 'name is destiny', which is fitting in Sk's case. Nominative determinism is a psychological concept that has no relation whatsoever to this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbbdnthfc (talk • contribs) 06:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sword and horse - No, its not about just romanticizing Sk's military prowess. The source eplains the exploiting of the figure of mythologized Sk trough stories about his horse, sword and name (nomen omen). The story about nighing of Sk's horse is described here (link to snippet from RPSH), Instituti i Kulturës Popullore (Akademia e Shkencave e (1984). Questions of the Albanian folklore. "8 Nëntori" Pub. House. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)). It explains how the horse who would be tied to a three near Italian Adriatic seaside, wearing Sk's flag on his back and sword placed in the middle of flag. The horse would allegedly be able to recognize "invading Turks" and "spark a tremendous terror" among them simply by neighing. There are plenty of stories that confirm that magical powers were attributed to Sk's sword or horse. Some of them are described in MacDonald, Margaret Read (16 December 2013). Traditional Storytelling Today: An International Sourcebook. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-91714-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). It explains that Sk's sword was able to cut open the springs of water while Sk's horse left the shape of his heel in a rock while he was jumping from one side of abyss to another.
• Name - You are insisting on myth here. I am afraid you percieve myth as reality. Let me present you a little background about Sk's Muslim name. In 1923, when young George was 18 years old he was taken from some small village near Debar to capital city of the Ottoman Empire to be received into Enderun School together with other içoğlans and converted into Islam receiving some Muslim name. There is no doubt that Ottoman Sultan had much more important things to do than to supervise receipt of young içoğlans into Enderun, personally giving them names. Even if he did so, he certainly was unable to forsee George's future military skills. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a misunderstood article. It was a very difficult one that had to deal with abstract and complicated concepts, unlike the biographic articles that have to rely on the simple format "born - did something - died". Almost every nation or state has one or more national myths and this is understood by any educated reader. Albania is not an exception. There are more than few sources that examine the Albanian nat. myths, Skanderbeg being the main of them (the other is the continuity from Illyrians to modern Albanians). The main contributor did a very good job searching all the relevant sources that he could find in english and other main languages. It covers the myth of Sk. as seen from the Albanian and Slavic point of view, possibly emphasizing more on the former. Possibly it has to, since the Albanian point of view has a number of huge think-tanks behind, namely the Vatican, former Italian states (incuding Mussolini's) and Austria, while the Serbians or other Slavs did not base much their national mythology on Sk. However, if some accuse the article for POV, they are expected to add material that makes it more neutral. Deletion is not the way. --Euzen (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

There are unresolved issues regarding this article. There are multiple tags at the top of the article, which have been there for over a month. The article has recently been nominated to be merged, and then nominated to be deleted, with no consensus. Before conducting a full review, I'd like to see these issues explained and/or resolved. Putting on hold for an initial seven days for the multiple issues tag to be dealt with. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at the talkpage I can see that the person placing the tag has given a rationale for the tags, and has engaged in discussion regarding the issue, though the rationale is disputed. GAN isn't dispute resolution - we cannot adequately or appropriately review an article over which a dispute is taking place. The dispute needs to be resolved first. As this article has been the subject of serious dispute I'd like to see the dispute resolved satisfactorily, and then a period of stability of around a month before reviewing. See Talk:Catholic Church/GA1. I am inclined to close this now, though will keep the GAN open for the full seven days to see what happens regarding the dispute resolution. If all parties agree to work together to ensure the article is balanced and neutral, then I will agree to conduct a full review, though I would keep it open for a minimum of one month to ensure stability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You should probably close it as whenever someone points out the article's POV[1] Antid. replies by copy/pasting policy quotes and not refuting the arguments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• The multiple issues tag remains, and I see no realistic attempt to resolve matters. Is there any hope for this GAN? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Carry on SilkTork. The "multiple issues" will stay for ever because the "Skanderbeg" theme is central in the national identity of a modern Balkan nation. There will always be someone "disputing the neutrality" and the likes. I'm not sure if this is a "good article" according to WP criteria, but certainly deserves a review. When I did a review of the "Skanderbeg" article, a username (now banned) attempted to stop me by repeatedly requesting (and sometimes succeeding) quick deletes of the review! --Euzen (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@SilkTork. The user who placed the tags ignored my explanation provided in the tag bombing section. I propose you to follow the advice of another user (Euzen) who thinks you should continue with your GAR and explained why we can expect such tags to be unjustifiably inserted forever. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fail

As the multiple issues have not been dealt with, and the only edits since this GAN started have been a little edit war over one entry, I am closing this GAN. The article can be nominated again, though all disputes and stability issues should be resolved first. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How is this article still standing?

At least like this. It presents theories as facts, without in text citation of other people's works, which makes it a biased article. Instead of saying "...during the 18th century the Myth of Skanderbeg was moulded and transformed to suit the taste and the anxieties of the British readers.", how about "... according to Louise Marshall, during the 18th century the Myth of Skanderbeg was moulded and transformed to suit the taste and the anxieties of the British readers.". By the way, that reference is dead at the moment. This is no encyclopedia. These are theories. They cannot be presented as facts. Fix it, or take it down. Fawkey (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Myth of Skanderbeg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/marin_serban/maner2004.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/marin_serban/maner2004.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Myth of Skanderbeg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121002141620/http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/media/myth2010_abstracts.pdf to http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/media/myth2010_abstracts.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121002045127/http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/media/Myth2010_finalprog.pdf to http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/media/Myth2010_finalprog.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Bold addition of irrelevant text

With this diff bold addition Resnjari added text and explained this addition in the edit line as adding info on Arberesh, as per Skendi. I reverted this adddition as irrelevant addition of music topic amont Arbereshe, unrelated to myth of Skanderbeg.

Instead to respect WP:BRD, Resnjari again opted for edit war and reinserted this text diff. I invite Resnjari to respect WP:BRD, revert himself and reach consensus for their pov at this talkpage first.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please desist with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT thing. I told you, its from an RS academic journal article about Skanderbeg and Albanian consciousness. Its relevant as this wiki page discusses the use of Skanderbeg among various cultures and peoples. Content regarding the Arberesh is relevant.Resnjari (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No doubt you do understand that i did not dispute reliability of the source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Support addition--Calthinus (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Myth of Skanderbeg

If Skanderbeg was a myth... what has stopped slavs and greeks from honoring his memory in books, poems just like 15-16th century Albanian literature of Marin Barleti on Skanderbeg? If you guys want to turn wikipedia into a propaganda battle war then by all means... which serv or romioi would like to be exposed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasuria (talk • contribs) 08:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, do you want to discuss the issues you've raised one at a time? It'll be more constructive. @Pasuria: Because of institutional access to bibliography, I am in the position to verify many of the sources in the article. Indeed, in this section you removed, the cited quotes have been cut in half in order to create the opposite meaning of what the sources say. The "half quote" by prof. Franz Babinger says: Branilo Kastriota UrGroßvater Skander-Beg's ist der älteste, uns wenigstens dem Namen nach be kannte Vorfahre des Volkshelden und, wie sich die Forscher einig zu sein scheinen serbischer Herkunft, ("Historians agree that at least judging by the name the ancestor of Skanderbeg, Branilo, he was of Serbian origin"). Now, if you examine the book the full quote is: Branilo Kastriota UrGroßvater Skander-Beg's ist der älteste, uns wenigstens dem Namen nach be kannte Vorfahre des Volkshelden und, wie sich die Forscher einig zu sein scheinen serbischer Herkunft aber ich werde mich hüten, dieser Frage weiter nachzugchen und mich in die verwickelten Fragen einzumischen, die Fan Noli auf S. 1 f. seines Buches George Castrioti Scanderbeg (1405–1468), New York (1947), in seiner unbekümmerten Art ausbreitet. Ernstzunehmende Geschichtsforscher im heutigen Albanien, die sich mit den Fragen befassen, die die historische Untersuchung der Biographie Skender-Beg's verlangen, sind sich längst darüber im klaren, daß diese Heldengestalt, von unkritischer Verherrlichung wie von skeptischer Schmälerung befreit, erst dargestellt werden muß (vgl. Aleks Buda , Fytyra e Skënderbeut në dritën e studiemeve të reja ( Die Gestalt Skender - Beg ' s im Lichte neuer Forschungen) (Historians agree that at least judging by the name the ancestor of Skanderbeg, Branilo, he was of Serbian origin, but I will be careful not to investigate this question further and to deal with complicated questions. [..] Serious historians in today's Albania, who deal with the questions that require the historical investigation of Skender-Beg's biography, have long since realized that this heroic figure, freed from uncritical glorification and from skeptical degradation, must first be presented (cf. Aleks Buda, Fytyra e Skënderbeut në dritën e studiemeve të reja (The figure Skender - Beg 's in the light of new research)) So, you were right that it was used in a wrong and misleading way towards the readers. If we verify all sources in this manner and examine their validity, we can improve the article. What do you think?--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pasuria: I have tagged the article so that readers become aware of the many problems and in the meantime we can verify bibliography and make corrections. I've seen countless such problems emerge - usually from the editing of the same particular editors. Eventually, they get fixed, there's just the need for editors who recognize the problems to be patient and try solve them within the context of wikipedia's policies. If you read the talkpages of many of these articles you will find out that the same concerns have been raised by many others, but none of them had the patience to do the grunt work of fixing them. I believe that more than that can be done.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@sinebot Since When do names determine nationality? i have a biblical name.. does this make me a jew? Branilo was a serbian defensive order not a name... There is no such thing as Branilo Kastrioti.. Kastriotis may have been included into the order of Branilla wich means to defend in your precious serbian language with almost 9000 Turkish words including the very word Kosovo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerrikas (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is your german translation accroding to what you said : Branilo Kastriota great-grandfather Skander-Beg's is the oldest ancestor of the folk hero known to us at least in name and, as the researchers seem to agree, of Serbian origin, but I will be careful not to investigate this question further and to intervene in the complicated questions. the Fan Noli on p. 1 f. of his book George Castrioti Scanderbeg (1405–1468), New York (1947), in his easygoing manner. Serious historians in today's Albania, who deal with the questions that require the historical investigation of Skender-Beg's biography, have long since realized that this heroic figure, freed from uncritical glorification and from skeptical degradation, must first be presented (cf. Aleks Buda, Fytyra e Skënderbeut në dritën e studiemeve të reja (The figure Skender - Beg 's in the light of new research)

How the serbian orthodox church name Skanderbegs father and Broter buried under Arbanasi tower in Hilandar mount athos and not srpski tower?

Skanderbeg himself writes to Orsini Prince of Taranto during his italian expadition in the 1460's

"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. Our elders were Epirotes, 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?"

Signed Dominus Albania

and His original helmet in Vienna Austria as the following inscriptions :

• IN * PE * RA * TO * RE * BT
• Ihezus Nazarenus
• Principi Emathie
• Regi Albaniae
• Terrori Osmanorum
• Regi Epirotarum
• Benedictat Te — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerrikas (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There was no Branilo Kastrioti, this much has been explained in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Dont mean to barge into this, but apparently there is a whole article dedicated to Branilo, how legit that is im not sure, but most of it is outdatedAlltan (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good find, I did some cleanup - but since you first noticed it, maybe you could try to do some cleanup & expansion. By now, you already know that whenever you see edits by certain banned or on the brink of getting banned editors, there's a 95% statistical certainty that they've either a)modified quotes in a misleading way vs. what the cited author supports or b)used WP:OUTDATED material from nationalist historiography or c)introduced WP:FRINGE/WP:OR. So, the best way to get things done when confronted with the mess that has been created is to 1)verify the sources one by one (keep in mind that there's a 95% chance that they don't support what they have been used for) 2)post the information in the talkpage in the context of relevant policies (OR,POV,SYNTH,FRINGE etc). It's useful not only for other editors who might want to get involved, but to readers too, because it increases transparency 3)make the necessary changes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but thing is its really hard for me to edit cause im on my phone, usually i just edit small details or names and the like. But maybe when my laptop gets fixed, i can do something more than that. But thanks for the encluragement im def getting more comfortable Alltan (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove this Page!

This website is very bad and Skanderbeg is not a myth, there may be myths about him but he is not a myth and moreover this site has few sources and is very biased. ArdianAlb (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename and rework

At the very least, the article needs to be renamed to better reflect its subject. The current title, Myth of Scanderbeg is misleading and may suggest that Scanderbeg was not a historical figure, which could be considered disrespectful, given his significance in Albanian national history and his importance to neighboring countries, as the article itself suggests. Some possible alternative titles that better describe the article’s subject include: Mythical Scanderbeg, Myths about Scanderbeg, Myths and legends concerning Scanderbeg, Scanderbeg legendarium, or Scanderbeg in [insert people] folklore. These would clarify that the focus is on the myths and legends surrounding Scanderbeg while acknowledging his historical significance.

The article’s content also needs substantial rewriting. The current structure is rather disorganized, frequently shifting between historical facts and myths without clearly distinguishing between the two. This creates confusion and dilutes the focus on the myths themselves, which should be analyzed in terms of their origins, development, and significance. In several sections, the article begins to discuss folklore despite the existence of a dedicated article, Skanderbeg in literature and art, that already handles this subject. A clearer delineation of the myths, legends, and their contexts would improve both the article’s clarity and its value to readers.

Finally, it might be worth questioning the necessity of an article like this in its current form. Since the topic of myths and legends could be more coherently discussed within the existing Skanderbeg in literature and art article and the main one, having a separate page for "myths" could be redundant or misleading. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)