Talk:Siege of Shkodra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Too Offensive

Solved: Alleged offensiveness neither explained nor discerned.
"A small force of approximately 1,600 Albanian and Italian men and 400 women faced a massive force of Ottoman warriors and artillery." Isn't this sentence too offensive? Mirochi (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC) What is potentially offensive? Ottoman, Albanian and Venetian scholars all report this. But something seemed offensive, so please advise.--Albaniadave (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Solved:Agreed not to move page but to keep current title.

Here is consensus to move this page to Siege of Scutari. Is there any specific reason not to respect it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Start a move discussion if you think that it should be moved.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Move discussion is Here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC) There have been many sieges of Shkodra/Scutari throughout history. Scutari is the Italian form for the city. Shkodra is both the Albanian and English form (or Shkodër, which is the nominative indefinite form). Since this is an English entry, it seems most logical to keep the current name, "The Siege of Shkodra." Additionally, with the English translation of Marinus Barletius' work into English, published this year (2012) under the title "The Siege of Shkodra," it is not necessary and perhaps inadvisable to confuse English readers with the Italian form, "Scutari." --Albaniadave (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC) There is a naming convention which says: "For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. " This article does not discuss present time Shkodra but 15th century event. The appropriate name that corresponds to this period is Scutari. That is the name used in substantial majority of reliable modern sources (check this RM discussion). Don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your attention to get this right. I understand the historical context is important, but a few things should be noted: 1) SCUTARI is not the only historical name. SCODRA was the Latin form of the city used in the literature at the time the city was first made famous (in De obsidione Scodrensi, 1504, Marinus Barletius). Scodra was also used in Zachary Jones' 1596 version of History of Scanderbeg. At the same time, Işkodra was the Ottoman form. Both of these more closely sound like SHKODRA than SCUTARI. (Yes, I recognize that Scutari, an Italian version, was also adopted in many English works, but "Scutari" is not the only historical context option). 2) Google searches can be deceiving. Of course, in general, a Google search of "SIEGE OF SHKODRA" receives an overwhelming majority of results (63,000 vs. 25,000 for "SIEGE OF SCUTARI"). I do see your point when you turn that into a "Google Books" search. However, the majority of those results are the 1912 siege of Scutari by the Montenegrins (Western literature chose to use "Scutari" for the 1912 event, which is why I have no problem leaving that Wikipedia entry like it is). But for the 1474/8 event, we also have significant works of serious historians of that time, like Franz Babinger, Robert Elsie, Colin Imber, John Freely, and E.J. Brill, all using the form "The Siege of Shkodra" (or its indefinite English form, "Shkoder"). 3) Furthermore, the English world is just receiving Marinus Barletius' work about the siege of Shkodra (de obsidione Scodrensi, 1504) in English, under the English title "The Siege of Shkodra", therefore in a brief amount of time "The Siege of Shkodra" will be even more widely known as such in the English language (it's already all over the net); and then it would need to be renamed back again. 4) This is why we have disambiguation pages. I am not arguing that Scutari is a form used in English literature (and therefore should be available on the disambig. page). I am arguing that there is not enough evidence or lack of precedent to justify switching this to an Italian form. In summary, the original context (Scodra) favors Shkodra more than Scutari. The English language knows the place as Shkodra (the Albanian language does too, by the way). The best historians of the time prefer the English term Shkodra. And the 2012 emergence of the English translation of the original 1504 book about the siege carries the title "Siege of Shkodra." All this makes it most reasonable to leave it as it is. I welcome your feedback. Thanks. --Albaniadave (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same" According to the GBS hits presented in the RM discussion modern sources don't use Scodra or Shkoder. They use Scutari. It is easy to check what version English sources use: 1478 "Siege of Scutari" -Llc - 34 hits (including Kenneth Setton) 1478 "Siege of Shkodra" -Llc only 7 hits with only Robert Elsie of famous modern scholars using this version mentioning Barleti's work. 1478 "Siege of Shkoder" -Llc - 9 hits, including Babinger, Freely and Imber Modern scholars mention both names of this city in their works. It looks that Babinger and Imber probably use more often Shkoder version while Setton, Elsie and Freely prefer Scutari. But when it comes to this event, the siege, and when you take in consideration GBS hits, then it is obvious that "Siege of Scutari" prevails. I admit that because of Babinger this is not so clear case as it looked like at the beginning. If you still prefer Shkoder version I would not object renaming this article to Siege of Shkoder. The existing Shkodra version is not used at all, except in couple of Elsie's translations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you for talking this through. I enjoy the serious discussions to make the best choices for the English speaking Wikipedia community. By far the most primary and prominent source for all we know about the siege of Shkodra is Marinus Barletius' De obsidione Scodrensi 1504. It is both the most ancient source, but let's not let that throw us off, because it is also the most modern source, because it is now in press, to be available in English as "The Siege of Shkodra" in September. See here. Prof. David Abulafia of Cambridge University, one of the greatest living scholars of Mediterranean history of the period, writes the historical introduction/context for that book and repeatedly uses "the siege of Shkodra." Shkodër (the Albanian nominative indefinite form which has sometimes been transliterated into English) is a better choice than the Italian Scutari, but Shkodra is more appropriate English form (and the Albanian defninite nominative form); Shkodra also is better than Shkoder because it avoids the confusing Shkoder vs. Shkodër spelling. Concerning the idea that "Shkodra" is not used at all, let me highlight the following (in addition to Abulafia's useage and the new English version in press): Robert Elsie does not prefer "the siege of Scutari" (see references here in which he makes the clear English translation "siege of Shkodra"). See also note 31 here on Elsie's page, which shows how he views "siege of Shkodra" as the proper rendition of this event. Edwin Jacques in The Albanians. M Th Houtsma in The First Encyclopedia of Islam. Harry Norris in Islam in the Balkans. The work of eminent Albanian historian Aleks Buda, in conferences and theses like this one. Gabor Agoston and Bruce Alan Masters in Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire There are numerous other instances in journals and historical theses that are not always discoverable on "Google Books." Many of these are deep within the "siege of Shkodra" search, which yields an overwhelmingly greater number of results than "siege of Scutari." Keep in mind, also, that the use of the term "Shkodra" (as opposed to Scutari) is abundant in books and journals discussing the siege, even though "the siege of Shkodra" as a formal quote is not necessarily used. It would seem inconsistent to the English reader to have Marinus Barletius' seminal voluminous work "The Siege of Shkodra" available as a resource, and then to see a Wikipedia article using an Italian or Albanian format that have, unfortunately, made their way into many English publications. Since there is a legitimate and significant amount of highly reputable historical English sources, from ancient times until now, which use "Shkodra" as a form, there is no Wikipedia principle which is compromised. Indeed, one of the main principles of naming an article is to use English. Scutari is Italian. In the end, I see your viewpoint based on the factual information you are using. I have a recommendation: can this decision be delayed and revisited in a few years, after the dust settles on the forthcoming English publication, because new works and articles, both in praise and in criticism of Barletius, will begin to emerge now that they have that seminal text to draw from. I am not sure, but is my opinion that new scholarship will follow Abulafia's and Elsie's lead and adopt the English spelling "siege of Shkodra." In the meantime the disambig. page serves well to direct English readers who only know of "the siege of Scutari". Delaying may help us avoid having to rename it again and revert to the original. Thoughts? Thanks! --Albaniadave (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for such detailed explanation of your point. I also enjoy if discussion has resulted with something beneficial to wikipedia. What I enjoy even more is to admit that my opponents have a valid point. Here is GBS which shows that Elsie extensively use Scutari name. Yes it is Italian name but extensively used in English language sources to refer to Shkoder in 1478 so it would not contradict any USEENGLISH guideline. Re Edwin Jacques, somebody told me more than a year ago that there was a discussion which resulted with consensus that his works are not considered very credible. If you insist I will search for it. There is wikipedia guideline which says that number of search engines hits is not ultimate argument. Therefore it is very important to see what do leading experts think. That is why Googlebooks search hits together with individual analysis are important. Initially, this looked like clear case. Now it does not. There is obviously no most commonly used form, so there is no reason to insist on above mentioned RM result. There is also no reason to insist on changing the existing name after your explanation about Elsie and Abulafia. My personal opinion about Abulafia's works is that they can not be considered completely reliable in matters regarding Albania. Explanation would be too long and of course not relevant for this discussion because that is only my personal opinion which is unsourced for now. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents

Antidiskriminator, forgive me for seeming to start an "edit war" (even though it may seem appropriate for a page describing a significant war!). Sorry, I did not know you had removed the Albanians from the belligerents section on the Venetian side, so I put it back thinking it was an oversight. Now that you have removed it again, I'd like to discuss it with you. I understand your point that many ethnic Albanians had become part of the Ottoman Empire and armies. The Ottoman army was comprised of many different nationalities they had grafted into their Empire.

However, Shkodran, Venetian, and Ottoman chronicles from the 15th and 16th centuries all report both Venetians and Albanians as those who were defending against the Ottomans. The Venetians were commanding the city of Shkodra/Scutari, but the local Albanians both in the city and surrounding villages were heavily involved in fighting the Ottomans. Therefore, to eliminate the Albanians as part of the defending force is not historically accurate. I can provide multiple references from multiple sources ancient and modern for this position.

One might suggest putting Albanians officially on both sides of the conflict, but that would be inaccurate because it was not an Albanian initiative to attack Shkodra, but an Ottoman initiative (that, by default, included many of the ethnic Albanians already conquered by the Ottomans and merged into the Empire). The Albanians of the Shkodra region were defending their homes. The Albanian minority in the Turkish army were primarily mercenary soldiers or conscripts from the devshirme system. That's a big difference.

I look forward to your response on this to learn more of your viewpoint. I think it is fine to note somewhere on the page that there were Albanians on the multi-ethnic Ottoman army, but to eliminate the Albanians as a major force in the defense is not supported by historical evidence.

I'm sure there is significant debate about what happened (it's a historical event set in the Balkans, after all!!!), and we want to make this as fair as we can to all viewpoints. There are ways that can be done in the text. For now I will not put the Albanians back in the belligerents section until we can discuss.

Thanks for your evident commitment to accuracy. --Albaniadave (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a recommendation: can this discussion be delayed and revisited in a few weeks? I am afraid there are more important issues with this article than ethnicity of the people who participated in this siege. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. Let us clean this up. You have a good knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines, which is helpful to me as a WP newbie. You also obviously have a good history of research. Together with other qualified editors we can discuss and improve. Thanks. --Albaniadave (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Offtopic question: Don't you think that it would be more interesting and informative to add information about women defenders (if it is true), then about the ethnicity of belligerents?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Both things can be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albaniadave (talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw your recent edits. Please look at the WP:PRIMARY before you add 5 primary sources to support one assertion. There is an essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill which says: "One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Again thank you for your sharp eye to bad editing. Don't want to overkill. I have modified to remove two of the secondary Turkish sources. What is remaining is not overkill, but "to make sure that there is a good mix of types of sources" (see Wikipedia:Citation overkill). Since there is doubt about the belligerents, i.e., the Albanians being a (if not the main) primary defensive force, there are now three sources—a modern scholar, Venetian archives, and an Ottoman chronicler. These are secondary, not primary sources—even though two are old.--Rereward (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the defenders is irrelevant for the Belligerents issue. They could be all 100% Albanians on both side, the belligerents would still be Ottoman Empire and Venetian Republic. Regardless of the number of the sources you are able to present. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's main entry for a belligerent (and the most natural understanding of the term), "A belligerent (lat. bellum gerere, "to wage war") is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat." Unless there is an official Wikipedia definition for what belligerents should defined as which is extremely narrow. Is that what I'm missing? Because if not, then I cannot agree with your above statement. Please educate me here, because it seems improper to dismiss facts "no matter how many sources you are able to present." Remember that no one is attempting to remove the Venetians but to retain the Albanians as originally accepted. --Rereward (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I already wrote a short explanation in edit line. Here I will repeat it. It is irrelevant WP:IRRELEVANT: "There were Albanians on both sides, this was not ethnic conflict, but Ottoman siege of Venetian town, ". Ethnicity of the defenders is irrelevant for definition of the belligerents in the first sentence of the article and infobox. There is enough space in the main body of the article to present information about ethnicity if you think it is relevant. I don't.

I proposed to focus on the text of the article. Lede would crystallize itself after the text of the article is written properly. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You did not address the definition of belligerent. And "Irrelevant" would mean it "clearly has no relevance to the subject named in the article" and here is where we simply disagree; on the contrary, it "clearly" has relevance, so much that the Ottoman and Venetian sources both name the Albanians as belligerents (not just Shkodran Marin Barleti). Evidence points to this being an Albanian town under Venetian rule. However, I think I may understand your reasoning to eliminate "Albania" proper from the table, as "Albania" was not a coherent political identity at that time (your edit to make it Albanian Veneta is welcome in that regard). Of course the political entity here was The League of Lezhë and I should have noticed earlier that this would have helped this discussion. That League finally fell at this siege of Shkodra. This is what should be added to the belligerents column and that should be the compromise we need. Also, I demonstrated earlier why it is simplistic to assert that there were Albanians on both sides of the conflict: the different was night and day ... "It was not an Albanian initiative to attack Shkodra, but an Ottoman initiative (that, by default, included many of the ethnic Albanians already conquered by the Ottomans and merged into the Empire). The Albanians of the Shkodra region were defending their homes. The Albanian minority in the Turkish army were primarily mercenary soldiers or conscripts from the devshirme system. That's a big difference." Looking forward to your response. (Also, please make specific constructive suggestions or changes based on reputable sources if you assert that the article is not properly written.) --Rereward (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note precedent for my above-recommended compromise here at the Ottoman-Venetian War entry.--Rereward (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "I have a recommendation: can this discussion be delayed and revisited in a few weeks?"
• "I proposed to focus on the text of the article. Lede would crystallize itself after the text of the article is written properly."
• Now for the third, and last, time: Please understand that I don't have intention to continue this discussion now. The reason is very simple. The text of the article has very significant issues. It is better to focus to the text of the article. After addressing very serious issues with the main body of the article it will be easy to address belligerents issue of the first sentence.

I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please remember that you revived this conversation with your "off topic question" concerning women vs. belligerents. I assumed you had returned to the issue. Please do not use statements like "Now, for the third and last time ..." because I don't think they foster healthy editing partnerships. While I acknowledge that we have some different opinions, I do not view you as an opponent but a helper to improve the article; at the same time I am sorry I cannot just accept your opinions blindly. I think this interaction is good for the article. So please, I'd like to keep it free of the emotion that your language evokes. I also, have given a very clear reason and have offered a compromise on this topic, which has documentation and precedent. The belligerents were the Ottoman Empire vs. Venice and the League of Lezha. I am happy to respect your strong opinion on this matter for a little while longer, but in time I will request that you provide reputable documentation, not your personal interpretation of a belligerent. No, I do not expect, but would hope that you would choose to respect and address my proposed compromise as you have time. Please also continue to be specific about "the very significant issues" — Let's focus on specific objectives: right now we are working on adding secondary sources and clarifying casualties.--Rereward (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think you cannot continue to change the article to conform to your opinions in this matter without discussing here. So if you are insisting to continue to wait some weeks, that's OK, but to be fair please refrain from making changes that reflect your views on this matter (especially without documentation). I will revert the recent changes in question until we discuss.--Rereward (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are we on this issue? Now that some time has passed, I would like to see it resolved. With the great deal of evidence and precedent that has now been provided, is there still opposition to the addition of the League of Lezha as a belligerent?--Rereward (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of responses or references, in the presence of strong evidence of the Albanian component as a major relevant combatant force, and after waiting several weeks as a courtesy, this issue was corrected on the page. Please refrain from future changes to the combatants without first discussing on the talk page and allowing a similar time window for discussion as we allowed here. --Rereward (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What you did here is the fallacy known as Argument from silence, a conclusion drawn based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. What I actually did here was to give you the courtesy of the time you requested (actually more) to discuss this; you did not discuss. I asked specific questions; you did not give specific answers. You did not take part in a discussion; instead you just undid my edits, a behavior seemingly intent on starting an edit war. This kind of interaction does not follow the guidelines of civility and discussion with the other party. I kindly request that you not make dogmatic claims (such as about my alleged logical fallacies) without providing specifics, otherwise it appears condescending and unverifiable. I have provided evidence demonstrating why the Albanians were indeed major combatants and I can offer plenty more references, but when I do, you warn me of "overkill" (What can be done? If I provide references, you call it overkill; if I do not, you say it is an argument from silence!). I defined for you the natural and Wikipedia definition of a belligerent and demonstrated why the Albanians qualify most overwhelmingly. Without facts, you just claim "that's irrelevant." I waited, asked for your input, and sought consensus. No one refuted. I kindly asked, therefore, in my most recent edit, that before undoing, you discuss on the talk page. You chose not to honor that. Why are you reluctant to discuss but eager to undo? Additionally, the League of Lezha is regarded to have extended through the early 16th century under various leaders of the Albanian coalition of clans, led by various leaders through Scanderbeg's son and grandson (The League of Lezha's Wikipedia entry, though I understand is not a valid source—but nevertheless gives some credence to the notion—is one example of its running through 1479). Indeed the League becomes more and more disjointed as the years go by, but this is what a discussion page is for, right? Somehow, the Albanians or their northern political entity the League of Lezha (however difficultly hanging together), must be included as a combatant. The evidence is overwhelming, I have provided much, and don't know what you need to achieve consensus. What would you consider as sufficient evidence? If nothing, then aren't you disregarding the guideline that "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here"?--Rereward (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Other than the statement, "the forces of Ivan Crnojević, with Ragusan support, sailed over the lake and attacked Ottoman tents at night," is there any evidence that the forces of Zeta were besieged at the siege of Shkodra? Were the people of Zeta living in the city of Shkodra and its nearby environs (maps show Zeta well beyond the lake, near Zabljak). I gather you are trying to argue that the Lordship of Zeta has as much claim to be a belligerent as the Albanians, which I am open to discussing, but it has to be demonstrated as more than an issue of Ivan's forces sailing over the lake for a guerilla and looting raid. The Ottomans, the Venetians, and the Albanians all claim that the Ottomans were attacking the Venetians and Albanians at Shkodra. Your claim here, assuming it isn't merely a tactic, would be helped by some Ottoman/Turkish or Venetian sources ackonwledging that forces of Zeta were under attack at Shkodra. Again, I think you should develop an article on the siege of Zabljak. I do not object to their inclusion here on account of their ethnicity, but rather because of the fact that the lands they lived in were not besieged in THIS event (rather, at the related siege of Zabljak).--Rereward (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the sources presented in the article forces of Ivan Crnojević participated in this conflict. Ivan Crnojević was present at the meeting in Lezhe in 1444 and was one of the founders of anti-Ottoman military alliance known as League of Lezhe. But in 1479 he was lord of Zeta, not League of Lezhe which fell apart a couple of years after it was founded in 1444. Therefore I will remove cn tag.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please prove your assertion that the League of Lezhe fell apart a couple of years after it was founded in 1444. Show us something official before stating your opinion as fact and changing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.43.159 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No need. Ivan Crnojević was lord of Zeta in 1479. Not League of Lezhe.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Even famous Albanophile Robert Elsie says:"... the so called League of Lezha broke down almost immediately..."

This is not an article about military alliance, so called League of Lezha. If you don't provide a source for assertion that this alliance was one of the belligerents it will be removed from the infobox.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually in Wikipedia you do need to give evidence for assertions made and address other editors' questions. It isn't a private blog. You state that "In 1477 the Ottomans captured most of the territory of Zeta together with Žabljak and defeated the main army of Ivan Crnojević late in 1477 or early 1478." But if Zeta was besieged and conquered "in 1477" then how can they be besieged and conquered in Shkodra in 1478-1479? It doesn't make sense. Despite your opinions, you really do need to support your view that the Ottomans were besieging the lordship of Zeta at this siege of Shkodra. An incident of a guerrilla attack from across the lake is an interesting fact to add, but hardly qualifies Crnovejic for being the main player that the Venetians and Albanians were. I have provided copious evidence of how the Venetian historians, Ottoman historians, and Albanian historians all viewed this as the Ottomans besieging the Albanians and Venetians. You provide no such evidence to disprove my evidence and little evidence for your own declarations. Antidiskriminator, I respect your commitment to accuracy and value this interaction; but again, I am asking you to stop the edit warring on the page itself and DISCUSS things with me instead of making arbitrary pronouncements, undos, and hasty claims of faulty logic.--Rereward (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have and am applying. Please read and apply WP:Dispute_resolution, specifically the parts about working together with other editors and discussing first instead of deleting.--Rereward (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's work to achieve a solution here. I make 1 concession and ask 1 question: I concede that the end date of League of Lezha is difficult to mark officially (otherwise, provide clear source (i.e., "League of Lezha—1444–14XX"). A "breaking down" of a league politically or someone's abandoning it doesn't mean it has ceased to exist altogether as a resistance movement. Though I have sources maintaining its composure through at least 1479, I do not have a problem with changing the League of Lezhe to the Albanians. Here's my core question which must be resolved before we continue: I assume you still maintain your position above that the combatants "could be all 100% Albanians on both side [sic], but the belligerents would still be Ottoman Empire and Venetian Republic, regardless of the number of the sources you are able to present"? But when I requested, you did not cite Wikipedia's guideline for that interpretation. I cannot find it. Without such objectiveness, this discussion is clearly a case of your opinion of a what constitutes a belligerent/combatant vs. mine. So we need an objective definition we can both agree on before discussing further. Therefore, save us both some time and please respond to this particular question: What is your objective basis for your interpretation of a combatant? (Please note I am not merely seeking your definition, but your objective basis for it). Mine is simple: the normal, objective, natural definitions of a belligerent ("an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat" or a combatant ("someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict"). Also please explain why you maintain that sources are irrelevant to this question? My understanding is that Wikipedia requires sources. Please make clear your answers to these particular, specific questions. --Rereward (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I already explained my position about ethnicity of Belligerents three times. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but of course that was not my question. So now I am asking (for the third time) that you state your definition of a belligerent and, much more importantly, your objective basis for it. Please answer that specific question (re-read the above) instead of defaulting to a repetition of an opinion that doesn't answer the only question that is hindering resolution here. Here's an example of what I am looking for: "My definition of a combatant is 'someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict' and it is based on the Wikipedia entry for a combatant." Until you reply, we will have to assume you wish to continue basing your edits about this issue upon your personal and subjective opinion.--Rereward (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Who are "we"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct, I should have said "I." However, you continue to ignore answering the simple question I continue to ask—What is your definition of a combatant and what is your objective basis for it? I would imagine that others will also notice that you are not answering my specific, objective question I have been posing since August 15, 2012. A principle of any discussion of views is that terms must be defined. So again, what is your definition of a combatant and what is the objective basis for it. Please answer this particular question.--Rereward (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position about belligerents, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Who is "everybody"?--Rereward (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So after all your investment in this article, you do not agree to provide me the simple courtesy of answering my question by saying "My definition of a combatant is [fill in the blank] and it is based on [fill in the guideline]? Again, please answer the question so I (and anyone else who views this) can understand how you are defining a combatant.--Rereward (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents numbers

According to Das venezianische Albanien: (1392-1479) by Oliver Jens Schmitt p.623 the garrison was composed of 1600 soldiers and 1800 inhabitants of Shkoder. Brothers Nikolle and Leke Dukagjini also helped the Venetian garrison (in the same book) Aigest (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nikolle and Leke Dukagjini were employed by Venice. They did not help the Venetian garrison. They were paid to do it. If they did. Please check if Schmitt refers to 1974 seige, because Fine says (p. 600) that two of them fled to Italy after Kruje was captured and returned only in 1481.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean 1474 siege, right? (Not 1974) --Rereward (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine's timeline of the different sieges in this reference contradicts Franz Babinger, Marin Barleti, and Ottoman chroniclers like Tursun, Bidlisi, A. Pashazade, Kivami. This makes him suspect for anything else on the page. I will explain this in new section, so this subcategory can stay on-topic, but for now you need to know that Fine cannot be depended on as an accurate source of chronology. Explanation to follow ...--Rereward (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is one of the unresolved issues already noted below.--Rereward (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I don't agree that Fine i unreliable source.
2. His timeline doesn't contradict any of modern RS
3. Marin Barleti or Ottoman chronicles are primary sources so Fine is more reliable than them

Fine is extensively used as source on wikipedia without anybody ever questioning his reliability. But if you believe he is not reliable there is a noticeboard (wp:rsn) which you should consult about this issue. Only if there is consensus reached on RSN that Fine is unreliable you can request sources for assertions already supported by his works. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To address your issues: 1) I am not asserting he is unreliable; I assert he has made an demonstrable error on this issue and therefore cannot be trusted for this issue. 2) Your statement "His timeline doesn't contradict any of modern RS" is simply incorrect (see comparison below). 3) You are citing one secondary (or arguably tertiary source) whose timeline/order of events (see below) contradicts many another secondary sources (Franz Babinger, Aleks Buda, Kenneth Setton, Hammer-Purgstall, Kristaq Prifti, Selami Pulaha, Oliver Jens Schmitt, and so on!):

Fine's timeline:

1. 1477—Zabljak falls (this is supported by Ukrainian Quarterly, but Fine fails to add its being retaken by Crnojevics in early 1478)
2. June 1478—Kruja falls (this is supported by Babinger)
3. Sept 1478—Drivast falls (this is supported by Babinger, but Fine fails to precede it with Zabljak's 1478 fall here)
4. "Shortly thereafter"—Alessio falls (this is supported by Babinger)
5. Then Shkodra is attacked (attack fails) (this here is the big problem—Shkodra appears to be the final thing on the agenda, when in fact it was attacked before Zabljak, Drivast and Alessio)

Franz Babinger's (and the others mentioned above) timeline:

1. June 1478—Kruja falls
2. June & July 1478—Shkodra attacked (attack fails)
3. August/Sept 1478—Zabjlak falls (AFTER Shkodra attacked)
4. Sept 1478—After Zabljak, Drivast attacked
5. ca. Sept 1478—After Drivast attacked, Alessio attacked

Just because a source is generally reliable does not mean it is infallible. Fine's order of events is inaccurate and therefore a citation that is needed.--Rereward (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Antid position about the "supposed" payment. Everyone fought for material interest. Venetian soldiers were paid otherwise they would have not participated at all. The same goes for Crnojevic "help" and every other leader who could enroll some men under his command. The same goes for Ottoman soldiers and leader. They were paid for that. It is a nonsense argument. Aigest (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is easy to explain. I wish your answer was friendlier. There was no need to refer to my comment as "nonsense argument". Please respect wp:civility.

I wrote that they were paid to fight for Venice after you wrote: "Brothers Nikolle and Leke Dukagjini also helped the Venetian garrison ". With my comment I wanted to clarify that if Nicholas and Leka were in Shkoder during this siege they were integral part of the garrison, paid for their service to Venice like other mercenaries in Shkoder. Therefore I believe it is misleading to write "Nicholas and Leka helped Venetian garrison".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, they were outside the city I think. As normal in those periods they had man in arms under their command and this includes them in belligerent part. Aigest (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

They were under Venetian command, so they are not belligerents different than Venetians. Can you provide some quotes which supports your claim that they participated in this siege?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand they were not under Venetian command which means an integration in the Venetian army. They commanded their own troops and if they were paid they were paid to bring their own troops. It is so obvious I fail to see why you don't get it. Aigest (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't understand. If troops were:

1. mobilized on the territory of Venetian Republic,
2. fought for Venetian Republic,
3. under supreme command of Venetian governor of Shkoder
4. and received salary from Venice like all other Venetian soldiers

than those troops were members of Venetian army. There were many Albanian soldiers in Ottoman army, led by Albanian officers, but that does not mean that forces of Albania were one of Belligerents on Ottoman side.

I already asked you two questions: "Please check if Schmitt refers to 1974 seige" and "Can you provide some quotes which supports your claim that they participated in this siege?" There is a little point to continue this discussion before the question on above two questions is presented.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Waht is this WP:OR? Will you understand they were Venetian allies? Quote "..in albanien ermunterte der senat die verbündeten venedigs, Johan Crnojevic sowie Leka und Nikola Dukagjin, die den feldzug Mehmeds II, ohnmachtig hatten beobachten mussen. Doch wusste wohl jeder der venezianischen ratscherren, dass der krieg verloren war. Die friedensverhandlungen wurden zu beginn des jahres 1479 rasch vorangetrieben und am 25 januar in einem formlichen vertrag abgeschlossen. damit vurden die letzten, beinahe vezweifelt anmutenden offensivplane der erschopften republik hinfallig ..." page 628 link. There are many references to Albanian forces mentioned by other editors here. You continue with your own interpretation which constitutes original research while we see authors here speak differently. If someone is not familiar with the topic it is better to refrain from editing in such topics. We don't need to loose time here on simple things. Aigest (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote you presented does not support your claim that "Albanian forces" were one of Belligerent forces. The only thing it proves is that Schmitt indeed refers to 1479 siege when he mentioned Venetian Senate encouraging allies of Venice, Crnojevic as well as Dukagjini brothers. It does not directly support your claim that Leka und Nikola Dukagjin actually participated in this conflict. Are there any other sources which could clarify if Dukagjini brothers participated in this conflict or not and if they did what was the country they fought for?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

My claim is that they were allies during Siege of Shkoder and not "incorporated in Venetian army" as you claimed. Do you have anything against that? Do you accept the fact they were allies (Dukagjin and Venice) during the siege period? Aigest (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The discussion in this section is about belligerents. Your claim was that "Albanian forces" mentioned by other editors here were one of belligerents. The quote you presented does not prove that, nor that Dukagjini brothers participated in this event. On the other hand there are sources that shows that Nicholas Dukagjini abandoned Skanderbeg's forces and deserted to the Ottomans(Skendi, Stavro (1980). Balkan cultural studies. East European Monographs. p. 175. ISBN 9780914710660. Retrieved 24 March 2012. ..Arianiti's nephew ... Nicholas and Paul Dukagjini and Hamza Kastrioti deserted to the Ottomans {{cite book}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)). Maybe you are right that Dukagjini brothers indeed participated in this event. But until now, nobody presented the source which support such assertion. Please answer my simple question: Are there any other sources which could clarify if Dukagjini brothers participated in this conflict or not and if they did what was the country they fought for?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The participation of Dukagjini leaders will be my next reference step, meanwhile I would like you to give a direct answer to my question. Do you accept the fact they were allies (Dukagjin and Venice) during the siege period or not? Please try to keep your answer shorter on this one. Aigest (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't give you direct yes/no answer to your question until you first answer to my question "Are there any other sources which could clarify if Dukagjini brothers participated in this conflict or not and if they did what was the country they fought for?" because I am uncertain what Schmitt actually wrote. The quote from Schmitt's work is not completely clear about it. If German word 'sowie' means something like 'as well as' (in addition to) then Schmitt actually said that Dukagjini were not allies of Venice like Crnojevic was. Looking forward to your answer on my above mentioned question repeated for the third time. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

When asking others to answer questions you've asked three times, please also consider answering questions others have asked you more than three times (see section below on the definition of a combatant).--Rereward (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked this and according to the Historia e Popullit Shqiptar, vol. I (Skender Anamali, Kristaq Prifti; 2000), p. 466, relations between L. Dukagjin and Venice were strained in 1469 because Albanian nobles did not like Venice's strengthening positions in Albania; therefore Dukagjini entered talks with the Ottomans. The Senate of Venice then (1469) decided not to allow Dukagjini to take his possessions in Shkodra, which further worsened the tensions and forced Dukagjini to take up arms against Venice. This citation does not prove that Venice and Dukagjini were not allies five years later in the siege of Shkodra, but it does force us to determine what happened to change the relationship. It would be very logical for both Venice and Dukagjini to have been both fighting together against the Ottomans, not because they were necessarily "allies" but because both Venice and Dukagjini had interests in retaining Shkodra against a greater enemy than they perceived one another. But until we have evidence it cannot be assumed that Dukagjini was fighting with Venice in the 1478 siege of Shkodra.--Rereward (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Albanian forces, we cannot eliminate from the article what history has repeated over and over and over. It would make the Wikipedia article seem incomplete. If you feel you need to slip a note into the article that political Albania did not exist until later, that is, of course, fine, but you can't responsibly prove that the Albanians were not an organized fighting force after so many references have been provided to show that they were.--Rereward (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC) See and please contribute to the new section below on the definition of a combatant.--Rereward (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus sought for the definition of a combatant

Solved:"Definition of a combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict"

This article is a good article and there has been great consensus and teamwork on most everything except primarily one issue: whether or not Albanian forces are to be considered combatants (Clarification: Albanian forces are different from "the forces of [political] Albania" which is a straw man tactic that does not help move the argument toward consensus). Since Antid insists Albanian forces should not be mentioned (in his words, "no matter how many sources you are able to present"), it seems the discussion is fruitless until we can define the term combatant for the infobox. There is no WP guideline for the definition of a combatant for infoboxes because the circumstances in any war are different. We simply must build consensus and I think it is achievable with just a little cooperation (which is hard to achieve). Can all interested editors simply copy and fill in the blanks below: "My definition of a combatant is [fill in the blank]; it is based on [fill in the guideline or source]? I'll go first: "My definition of a combatant is 'someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict' and it is based on the Wikipedia entry for a combatant and the ongoing discussion here." User Antidiskriminator seems to take the position that a combatant may only be a clearly defined political entity or empire like the Republic of Venice or the Ottoman Empire. @Antidiskriminator, is that correct? I've asked you many times to simply state it. I'm sure you feel you have been clear but I am unclear and would benefit by your clarification and cooperation. Please contribute to the article in this way.--Rereward (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Incorrect. None of the sources you presented directly support the assertion about certain "Albanians resistance forces" as one of belligerents. We are talking about Middle Age multiethnical empires like Venetian and Ottoman Empire. If people who lived in Ottoman Empire or Venetian Empire supported their country in war they were not separate belligerents. If there were some separate military units, it can be explained within forces field of infobox. Unless some sources which prove different are presented in the meantime. I can only repeat what I wrote many times. "Please understand that I don't have intention to continue this discussion now. The reason is very simple. The text of the article has very significant issues. It is better to focus to the text of the article. After addressing very serious issues with the main body of the article it will be easy to address belligerents issue of the first sentence." "I proposed to focus on the text of the article. Lede would crystallize itself after the text of the article is written properly."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC) May I ask why you cannot just answer the 2 simple questions and give your opinion on your definition of a combatant? Instead of answering, you write long repetitious statements (that I've already answered with sources); then you say "I don't have intention to continue this discussion now" as if I am trying to waste your time. So, no, I don't want you to repeat yourself. But yes, I still need an answer to this: "My definition of a combatant is [fill in the blank]; it is based on [fill in the guideline or source]?" Is that really so hard? Otherwise it seems you do not want consensus at all, but to edit as if the definition of a combatant is up to you. If you really desire to focus on the text of the article, OK, but do not keep changing the Lede and expect me to wait indefinitely for you to pronounce that the article is free from serious issues. Remember, I waited "a few weeks" like you requested originally.--Rereward (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC) May I ask you why you cannot just forget about the lede and focus on the article? Lede is summary of the article. According to the MOS there is no need even to reference assertions in the lede because they already exist in the text. When article is properly written it would be easy to deal with lede. My definition of belligerents is irrelevant. Please don't ask me this question. Assertions added to the lede have to be supported by the sources in the main body of the article. Or removed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I can forget about the lede; I have made many contributions and provided many sources to the article. So, straw man questions are not needed. But I cannot forget about the lede if what has been proven and sourced to the point of overkill is removed arbitrarily because one editor doesn't like it. If Sources A (and B and C and D and E ...) all say "Rain Is Wet" and Editor Z says "These sources do not say that Rain is Wet, so I am going to remove it," then I will insist upon what the sources actually say. If the MOS says "no references in the lede," why did you insert {citation_needed} requests there to begin with? I agree that your AND my definitions of a belligerent are irrelevant on their own merits, but it is very relevant when we are defining it differently. I am using Wikipedia's definition. You refuse to even say what definition you are using. Your unwillingness to build consensus by answering a simple question is highly disappointing. So I do continue to ask you to answer the question. Of course, you may choose not to answer but it only demonstrates the value you place on consensus and dialogue vs. edit warring.--Rereward (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Below are my answers: Good. Good. Don't forget it. Remember the lede issue and when article is properly written it would be easy to deal with lede. The assertions you added to the lede did not exist in the main body of the article so I had to add cn tags there, in the lede. That is exactly what was my point from the beginning of this fruitless discussion. "Forget" about lede. Write the text of the article and after it is properly written then compose the lede by summarizing the article. "You refuse to even say what definition you are using." Here is the answer: I don't use any definition. I am writing the article. When I have some time. And I don't have much because I am busy answering your questions about the lede and belligerents on this talk page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC) False. The assertions were indeed sourced in the body of the article; you simply did not like them and chose the lede war (except perhaps re: the League of Lezhe, which had less, but not no support, but I asked about that in the talk page, and you were silent for weeks as I waited for you, according to your request). Could you have chosen to simply leave the Lede in tact until proving your point on the page? But you chose to center the debate there. Check the history — you were not focusing on the article — you were totally silent except for a few lines about Ivan Crnojevic and moving the 1474 siege. I have provided most of the content here and over 53% of total edits. Since you continue to charge that the article is improperly written, it is nice to see you finally starting to work on the article last night; that will be much better than merely criticizing it. It will be good to learn more about these good Serbian sources you rely on so heavily; I don't have access to those but value them. Keep up the good work and also please consider using also a variety of sources (for example I've used Ottoman, Shkodran, German, British, Venetian, Albanian, early 15th century through modern, etc.). It is nice to finally hear an answer about your idea of combatant — well, your "non-answer answer." Now I understand why you did not answer — you do not have one. (?) I wish you had saved yourself and me a lot of time by admitting that from the beginning. Of course, before you are done you will have to have that debate with yourself and define it if you desire to alter that part of the lede any further.--Rereward (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Contradicting numbers

Solved: No other contradicting numbers reported.

There are contradicting numbers of defender's casualties: Lede says: A small force of approximately 1,600 Albanian and Italian men and 400 women faced a massive force of Ottoman warriors and artillery Infobox says: 3,000 Casualties and losses on defenders side Text of the article says: hundreds more escaped and approximately 450 men and 150 women survived and many Albanians, however, did remain in their fatherland, retreating deeper into the mountains and organizing occasional uprisings and The defenders of the citadel emigrated to Venice, whereas many Albanians from the region retreated into the mountains. This is very confusing. There were 2,000 defenders, 3,000 of them have been killed and rest of them emigrated to Venice or retreated into the mountains. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC) I will look into this too. Give me some time. We can discuss.--Albaniadave (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Take all the time you need. This is very important event and deserves GA at least.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC) This seems to now be solved. The confusing matter was the combo of 1474 and 1478 sieges in one, which Antidiskriminator has adroitly solved by creating the new page (siege of 1474). If there are any other contradicting numbers we are missing, please point it out. --Rereward (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

Solved: Imbalance of primary vs. secondary sources has been corrected.

This article heavily relies on primary sources. That is violation of WP:PRIMARY which says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources....Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Without reliable secondary source's interpretation of Barleti or Merula, they should be avoided as source in this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Very helpful. I can provide many secondary source material as well.--Albaniadave (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Whoa, antidiskriminator! You're serious with that new box on top of the main page, aren't you?! Wanna give me a few days before posting the equivalent to saying "this article is spurious"?? Your call, I guess. But it would be nice and a better sign of working together if you could be patient ... you were the one who said let's revisit in a few weeks.--Albaniadave (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Until reliable secondary sources are provided this article should be tagged with primary sources template. There is nothing wrong with it. You said yourself that it was "very helpful" to point to that issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC) OK.--Albaniadave (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC) By the way, how many secondary sources are needed before it is no longer considered primary but secondary? Who is the evaluator/judge of such? I can bring many sources in, but don't want to "overkill." There are, after all, many secondary sources already in the references. I can add one for almost every sentence if needed but is it really? --Rereward (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC) There is an explanation here. If there is something you don't understand feel free to ask me or anybody else for explanation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Currently there are 27 references and only 8 to primary sources. Nevertheless I will try to replace some of those 8 with secondary sources, and add several more. But based on consultation and the article you reference above, this article is fine. We will continue to work to improve it further. --Rereward (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Plus four references to Barleti's work edited by Buda. You should not remove primary sources tag before the issue is properly addressed. It is not about the number of references to primary sources. It is also about the use. There is to big share of the references to primary sources in the most important sections of the article which deal with: "forces involved" (4 Barleti/Buda and 1 Selami Pulaha), siege section has only two references, one Barleti and one Pulaha. Casualties section has two primary sources (Barleti + Menula) and one Pulaha. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Aleks Buda is an independent secondary source and highly reputable: not Barleti's work "edited by Buda" (Where did you get that? Have you read his work?). The other specific problems can be worked on. The feedback you have given here is good because it creates objective, tangible goals; whereas before it seemed the subjective view of an editor. My view, according to the page you directed me to view, was that it was fine. It is very close.--Rereward (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC) The reference says: "Buda, Aleks in Barleti, Marin. Rrethimi i Shkodrës". If there is a mistake in the reference and if it is not the work of Barleti, titled "Rrethimi i Shkodrës", then please correct this and provide ISBN and other identification data for this work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC) There is no mistake in the reference. Aleks Buda provided the lengthy essay-introduction about the historical context and analysis of the work, its praise and criticism. Many books carry one title and primary author and contain essays by other authors. In such cases the word "in" explains it. I understand the confusion, though, so I added a clarifying bit in the reference. The Worldcat reference for the 1967 version is here. The 1967 version failed to be registered with Buda as an author, whereas the 1988 version corrects it.--Rereward (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you for clarification about Buda's introduction. Worldcat reference does not mention Buda, but Henrik Lacaj. Is Lacaj coauthor of the essay or it is mistake in worldcat who misidentified translator with author?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC) You're welcome. The general worldcat listing for Aleks Buda is here. H. Lacaj is the translator of Marin Barleti's Latin and did no editing. The Albanian version book also includes essays by Georgio Merula and Marin Becikemi. Buda's work is independent. --Rereward (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC) There are now 40 references and only 4 linked to primary sources (of course, the article User:Antidiskriminator directed me to does not say to eliminate all use of primary sources, just reduce them and include ample secondary sources based on common sense; it is neither good scholarship to rely exclusively on primary sources nor to toss them out altogether. So we must retain some). Furthermore, the article as a whole is now clearly based on the wealth of secondary sources in the references (it was before, just did not have the references to prove that to the reader). In fact there are now so many references that we are approaching overkill and distraction to readers. There is now no question that we can remove the primary sources tag, which I will do now. Thank you for helping to improve this article thus far and certainly if any user thinks a specific point of the article needs better documentation, please provide or request from me.--Rereward (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

Splitting

Solved:Splitting agreed.

I propose to split this article to: Siege of 1474 Siege of 1478-1489 Book This would obviously be content split. Anybody against it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC) You mean three articles?--Albaniadave (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Yes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The three are highly connected and usually discussed together but I would not oppose it so long as there are strong links and connectors.--Albaniadave (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Of course. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I created the article about 1474 siege Siege of Shkodra (1474) by copying parts of this article related to the 1474 siege. Now I will remove them from this article. And then I will add strong links and connectors. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you. I created and submitted for review an article on the book, so do not worry about that one ... I don't know how long it takes to be live; yours was quick.--Rereward (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Great. As soon as it is created all parts related to the book, except "strong links" should be removed from the existing article. If your submission is not reviewed soon, I will take a look at the article you wrote and create it if everything is alright with it. I think that there is a need to create disambiguation page which would cover all sieges of Shkodra and book. Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, your plan is good. Simple a strong statement on the main page that the book exists and is a primary source. Indeed a good disambig page is going to be helpful. And create mini-disambig statements like the current one on the main Siege of Shkodra page. Thanks. So for now we'll focus on beefing up the secondary sources and expanding the 1474. --Rereward (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC) My recommendation is to leave the sentence, "It is also the title of a book describing the conflict, authored by Marin Barleti, a Shkodran priest who witnessed the events firsthand" — and link it to the new page instead of the section on the page, (which I think should be eliminated entirely). Do you agree? Rereward (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I think that template for further uses is enough. Barleti's work is of course important and should be explained, but not in the second sentence of the lede. I agree that one complete section dedicated to this book would be too much, but paragraph probably not.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Date of Beginning of Siege

Solved: Mutual agreement of solution despite relative ambiguity.

Re: selection of June 22. According to Barleti's timeline, Ottoman troops began arriving on May 14. Ottoman chroniclers support this by saying "Spring". June 22 is the date Barleti sets as the first cannon shots upon the city. Additionally, the beginning date has difficulties because Barletius used the confusing Roman calendar (as was style for classical writing) and it is not always simple to make the conversion to modern day (so I am told by the experts). Timelines secondary sources use are not uniform. Perhaps it could be said "Spring, 1478"? Or "May, 1478"? Or "June, 1478"? You make the call. I think I would personally advise against June 22 dogmatically, but it works--Rereward (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC) too. Of course, the end date is easier because it is a treaty. Not necessarily. There are different dates for the end too. Many sources say 26 January and some sources say 24 January. Ottoman troops maybe began arriving on May 14, but that does not mean they set up the siege at that date. Don't use Barleti as source. His work can not be used without interpretation of secondary sources except for carefully attributed assertions. I don't mind May or June 1478.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Treaty was signed ca. Jan 25 in Constantinople and ratified in Venice on April 25. So I will change to May 1478. --Rereward (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Zeta and Ivan Crnojević?

Solved:Participation of forces of Zeta under Ivan Crnojevic clarified.

There is a new addition today: "Venice sacrificed its ally Ivan Crnojević who was not included into the peace treaty and had to leave his Zeta and find a haven in Italy." Please explain the relevance of this new addition to the siege of Shkodra. It seems "loosely relevant" to this article, but introduces an entirely new theme. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic. It seems appropriate for an article on the peace treaty, Ivan Crnojević, or Zeta, but I don't know what relevance it has here. There are many consequences and aspects of that treaty, but all cannot be included in this article. Before I remove it I wanted to ask first. --Rereward (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Crnojevic was ally of Venice, like referenced source says. He was involved in this siege. I will bring more sources later. Congratulations on quick reaction.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC) For those of us who don't know Serbian, the quote here by Božić, "После турско-млетачког рата који је имао за последицу и предају Скадра Турцима 1479, Млечани су се морали сложити са губицима и жртвовати савезника Ивана Црнојевића. Он није ни укључен у мир па је напустио Зету и склонио се у Италију", means "After the Turkish-Venetian war, which resulted in the surrender of Scutari and the Turks in 1479, the Venetians had to agree with the losses and sacrifices allies Ivana Crnojevića. He was not involved in peace and left the Zeta and hid in Italy" (Google translate: forgive the resorting to that, but at least it's the idea."--Rereward (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC) What is your point?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC) My point was simply to provide a translation for those interested in evaluating or becoming involved in this Talk Page item. --Rereward (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC) With Antidiskriminator's additions this morning, documenting Crnojevića's raids during the siege, I no longer have a question about the relevance of yesterday's addition. The effects of the treaty on Crnojevića seemed to have no context for this article because his role in the siege had not yet been established. With this morning's edits establishing that role, I no longer see an issue with relevance. I am quite pleased at how this article is working out and think it's a good example of how Wikipedia should function.--Rereward (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Solved:Fine is reliable source

Please help me solve a logical problem ... According to the reference by J. FINE, "In 1477 the Ottomans captured most of the territory of Zeta together with Žabljak and defeated the main army of Ivan Crnojević late in 1477 or early 1478. Then they concentrated their forces at Shkodra." This is the only source I have ever seen to put the capture of Zabljak before the assault on Shkodra. Every source I have ever seen says that order was: 1) Spring 1478-besieging Kruja. 2) Spring 1478-besieging Shkodra (The Ottomans marched in from the southeast crossing the Drini River, not from the northwest/Zabljak). 3) June 1478-ATTACKING Shkodra w/ cannon & soldiers. 3) June 1478–Kruja falls. 4) August 1478-AFTER failed attacks on Shkodra, the Ottomans then attack and capture a) Zabljak, b) Drivast/Drisht, then c) Alessio/Lezhe. 4) Then they return to maintain a siege on Shkodra. 5) In January 1479 the treaty with Venice is signed. But Fine jumps all over the place and makes errors. He says that Zabljak falls before Kruja (late 1477 or early 1478). Then Drivast and Alessio. Only then do the Ottomans begin to attack Shkodra. He even claims that the peace treaty was in 1480-81. There are multiple problems with this, not the least of which is the inconsistency of Crnojevica's raiding the Ottomans during the Shkodra siege. Zabljak had to still be standing for him to be able to do that. Since this source is a compendia / tertiary source, I wonder if someone could provide a better secondary or primary source that supports Fine's curious timeline. --Rereward (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) The sources used in the article explain that Zabljak was captured more than once by Ottomans. I will present text with details about that events soon.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC) OK, but may I suggest that you write a new article about the siege(s) of Zeta/Zabljak? This Siege of Shkodra article should not go into detail about other towns that were besieged, but should rather mention them in passing and link to other places where they may be treated in more detail. Thanks.--Rereward (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Information about Ottoman capture of the surrounding towns is of course important and connected with the subject of this article. Nobody is going into detail about it. It is mentioned once in the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Yes it is important and appropriate to be mentioned. Perhaps I misunderstood what was meant by "I will present text with details about that events [sic] soon."--Rereward (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC) No. I should use different wording.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Are you ever going to give us sources (more than Fine alone, see above) that support the problematic timeline described at the first paragraph of this talking block?--Rereward (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC) No need. None of the sources you presented say that Ottomans did not capture Žabljak. Also, the fact that Ottomans captured Žabljak in 1477 does not mean that they kept it in their possession. I already wrote that it was taken more than once by Ottomans. Like Shkoder for example.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Why no need? I know what "you already wrote," but you are not a source. On Aug 19 you yourself said, "Zabljak was captured more than once by Ottomans. I will present text with details about that events [sic] soon." But you did not. Why the change? Perhaps you do not have a source? You must provide evidence that, if Fine is correct that Žabljak was taken in 1477 by the Ottomans, that it was retaken by Zeta/Crnojevic forces before Aug 1478 when indisputably it was taken by the Ottomans. Also, I think you misunderstood me—I did not say that the Ottomans did not capture Žabljak. I said that because Fine's order of events is so demonstrably incorrect (placing the sieges of Lezha and Drisht before Shkodra), it compromises his integrity also for the alleged 1477 siege of Žabljak and should therefore be proven by a supplementary source. I am sure you would not be so dogmatic if you did not have such sources, so why would you not be willing to be provide it to be a consensus builder here?--Rereward (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Ivan Crnojevic, a nephew of Scanderbeg, attacked Zabljak, which had fallen to the Ottomans in 1477, and recovered the Fortress.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you. That is a start (for the 1477 dating of fall of Zabljak), but please answer the most important part of my request and the one most crucial to solving the timeline chaos. You still have not provided any sources to show Zabljak was retaken between 1477 and 1478 when it was conquered (again?) by the Ottomans. Until I see that kind of evidence, I still believe that both Fine and the Ukrainian Quarterly (a tertiary source which is certainly not on par with secondary sources Babinger or Oliver Jens Schmitt) simply made an error, because the Ottoman, Roman, and modern calendars can be highly confusing (for instance, Marin Barleti's The Siege of Shkodra is known to be published in 1504, but according to the modern calendar it was actually early 1505). We cannot just assume it was retaken by Crnojevic between 1477 and 1478—you must demonstrate it.--Rereward (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC) This is another example of your violation of wp:npa and wp:civility. Don't shout on me anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Antid, please forgive me for the impression of shouting. I was not shouting, but I have edited my above comment to eliminate anything that could possibly be interpreted thus. As I look again at the source you cited—it was such a small snippet that I missed its point—I see that I was wrong and that it does indeed claim that 1) Ottomans took Zabljak in 1477, and 2) Ivan C. retook it (date unclear). I do not know the reputability of the Ukrainian Quarterly, and they have a footnote there—#92—that must give the source. Would be great to see that source. Can you provide to eliminate all doubt? I will adjust the article to help Wikip. readers not be so confused about the timeline. Still, I am curious as to why all those other major secondary sources—some giving entire chapters to the siege—do not mention this significant event. But it is a source, so I will respect it.--Rereward (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Question on Secondary Source, Srejović

Solved:Srejović is significant source. Sources used for referencing moved into references section.

Re: Srejović, Dragoslav (1981), Istorija srpskog naroda. Knj. 1, Od najstarijih vremena do maričke bitke (1371) [History of Serbs, Book 1, From earliest times to Battle of Marica (1371)] (in Serbian), Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga, OCLC 456125379 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help) The above book is listed under the secondary sources heading, i.e., the main sources on which the article is based (see Citing Sources). I am not aware that the bulk of the article was based on this book by Srejović, and I am further curious because the title of the resource marks its own ending point at 1371 (over 100 years before the 1474 and 1478 Ottoman sieges of Shkodra). Since I do not currently have access to this resource, I wonder if someone (perhaps the editor who added it?) could tell us how much of that book actually treats these sieges of Shkodra. Would you kindly provide the page numbers for its sections about or references to these sieges of Shkodra? Otherwise it should be retained only in the inline footnotes.--Rereward (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Page numbers together with quotes are already provided. This work has six volumes, I might pick wrong one, so I will check later.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I saw 409 and 410 but curious if that is all. Yes, please provide correct volume. Thanks. --Rereward (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Is Srejovic the only one that mentions the Crnojevic involvement?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC) No. He is not. Is there any specific reason for you and Rereward to question Crnojevic's participation in this event so much? There are many other participants in this event but only Crnojevic's participation is questioned. Why?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I cannot speak for ZjarriRrethues, but I have never questioned Crnojevic's participation. I have only questioned your sources of the chronology because Fine wrongly puts the attack of Shkodra after the sieges of Lezha and Drivast and the second siege of Zabljak—totally misleading. In fact it was me who transferred your source for the 1477 activity of Crnojevic from the Talk Page to the main article because I am a team player — even though I still have my doubts about a Ukrainian Journal I know nothing about and could only read 5 lines of online. On the importance scale of this article, I have also pointed out the big difference between being besieged and some guerilla raids on the Ottoman tent camps. Crnojevic wasn't besieged in the siege of Shkodra, but in the siege of Zabljak. I assume that is the reason for ZjarriRrethues's question; you must understand I want to keep the article on topic. So the assumption is inaccurate and contains unwarranted suspicion about my intent. Please assume good faith. I desire a scholarly article and cordial discussion and consensus building.--Rereward (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I will remove this source from the main source headings until Antid can verify it for us and/or replace with the correct volume and tell us the page numbers treating the siege of Shkodra. I'm looking forward to the undo or redo in due time Thanks.--Rereward (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Don't do it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I checked the source. The title of Srejovic's work used in this article is alright.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, missed your note in time. Thanks for checking. Even so, is there material about the siege only on pages 409-410? What I'm trying to figure out is whether or not this is a lengthy treatment or a brief reference. If brief reference of only 2 pages or less, then we either remove this or must add many other books to this section. Please clarify.--Rereward (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC) And why does the title say that it treats only to year 1371, when it this siege was 1474? A curious reference.--Rereward (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Why was this issue closed when there are still open questions on it?! The issue is not merely about the title being correct, but how detailed this book treats the siege of Shkodra 1478. See and answer the above two questions, please. I am not questioning this work as a source, only questioning whether a significant amount of this article is based upon this source (if not it should be retained in the inline references but removed here. Please address the above two questions.--Rereward (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC) There are 6 pages about siege of Shkodra events. I don't know why author chose this title of the book. I think that both of your questions are irrelevant for this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you for answering. I read on the guidelines that the Sources section is really for the meaty, lengthy treatments of the event upon which the article is based, not for individual references for extra details. Since only two pages of Srejović were cited (and in only 2 citings), and taking into account the misleading title, it was a reasonable question to ask. If a scholar looks at these "main" sources and buys a book to learn about the siege of Shkodra, and finds merely 2 pages, that would not be irrelevant to him. So please close talk page sections when questions are actually solved, not based on your perception of how valid the questions are. Thank you.--Rereward (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I plan to cite Srejović more in future editing of this article. The quality of the source is not determined by number of the pages. The siege itself is described on six pages of Srejovic work but there are more pages dedicated to the background context of the events and aftermath events. Nevertheless, the purpose of the Sources section in this article, when it comes to secondary sources at least, is referencing not to define "main sources". Therefore I will rename it to References and References section to Citations, to avoid dispute over interpretation what are "main" sources for this event.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Forces of Albania in 1478

With this edit Rereward removed tag which marked with "failed verification tag" unsourced and absurd claim that forces of Albania participated in this siege although Albania was established almost five centuries after this event.

@Rereward, please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note the following:

1. The local Albanian populace fought in the siege both inside the castle and outside it. It has been referenced over and over in this article to the point of your allegations of overkill.
2. I have checked with other Wikipedia editors of military history and when the local populace organizes and fights they are most definitely considered combatants. And what else would they be? Venetians? No, they did not have Venetian citizenship, but rather had to be given that when Venice took them in after turning over their city. Lucia Nadin deals at length—an entire book—with multiple Venetian documents recording the Albanian influx into Venice and how Venice rewarded them and gave command posts to Albanian leaders who fought in the resistance and pensions for the widows of the Albanian fallen.
3. I realize that you disagree. But I have provided sources over and over. I'm sorry that you do not want to accept Venetian sources, Ottoman sources, Shkodran sources, Albanian sources, and other secondary Western sources on this.
4. I will be happy to revisit the flag issue — need a little time on that.
5. By the way, have you found that source I asked you for — the one that says the League of Lezhe officially and entirely was eliminated on [X date]? Many think it went on at least through 1479. Of course, many movements and resistance forces start with great unity and then undergo a period of decline, fragmentation, and eventual disappearance without a definite end point. It makes being dogmatic about when it ended very difficult. It is not as cut and dry as you make it, unless you can locate a date of official dissolution. I would welcome that. --Rereward (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please let's keep the discussions on the talk page instead of the main page. Nevertheless, I have removed the flag creating misunderstanding in efforts to build consensus, but retained the Albanian forces. Please answer the questions I have posed.--Rereward (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes, local Albanian population fought both inside and outside the castle. They were part of both Venetian and Ottoman forces.
2. None of the sources you presented directly support the assertion about certain "Albanians resistance forces" as one of belligerents. We are talking about Middle Age multiethnical empires like Venetian and Ottoman Empire. If people who lived in Ottoman Empire or Venetian Empire supported their country in war they were not separate belligerents. If there were some separate military units, it can be explained within forces field of infobox. Unless some sources which prove different are presented in the meantime.
3. See above.
4. ok.
5. Yes, I already wrote that even famous Albanophile Robert Elsie emphasized that:"... the so called League of Lezha broke down almost immediately and Skanderbeg allied himself with the Serb despots George Branković and Stephen Crnojević" during Skanderbeg's war against Venice 1447—1448. League of Lezhe is not subject of this article, so please don't insist on discussion about it here. Wikipedia is not forum. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

1. So you have sources that say LOCAL (Shkodra region) Albanian population fought itself? No original research.
2. When the population is one that all the sources mention as a main belligerent (not one of many), then it is much different than your simplification. We follow sources, not opinions (or non-opinions) of a combatant. No original research.
3. Robert Elsie does not provide a date; nor does "breaking down" mean officially ending. Resistance movements like League of Lezha start strong and fizzle over time (i.e., break down); an ending date is not always cut and dry — unless you have sources of official dates. A source must be definitive for one to be dogmatic.--Rereward (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sarcastic Edit and Venetian Archival Source

Solved:Neutral party didn't " find AD's tone any different from what's normal all over this site"

Re: Antidiskriminator's edit: "17:47, 5 September 2012‎ Antidiskriminator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,066 bytes) (+43)‎ . . (the source does not support what is contained in the article - Albania was established about 450 years after this siege. Its forces could not travel trough time.)" This concerns referenced Venetian Archival Source. The source was obviously not intended to comment on time travel or the date of the creation of the modern political nation of Albania; thus the sarcasm is insulting. Please refrain from such language. This is a Venetian archive that demonstrates the volunteer Albanian resistance active in the siege. There is no basis for its removal any more than me removing sources of yours that I do not agree with. There is nothing insulting or sarcastic in my comment. You added flag of Albania into infobox. Flag that was created almost five centuries after this event in which forces of Ottoman Empire attacked Venetian town. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC) If the issue was the flag, you could have initiated an appropriate and dignified discussion about that. But I think most neutral parties would interpret a comment about time travel as condescending, provoking, and in violation of guidelines for civility. Please refrain from continued use of such language.--Rereward (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC) You might be overinterpreting--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Section dedicated to Rozafa fortress

Solved:Section dedicated to Rozafa fortress is proven justified.

I propose to remove the section about Rozafa fortress. This is article about the siege, and dedicating the whole section to the fortress makes this article harder to be read. Since there is existing article about the fortress I propose to remove this section from the article. Does anybody have something against my proposal?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, I oppose this because the fortress figures heavily in the most significant discussions of the siege and the brief paragraph in this article is central to the story. It is the setting of the story. However, I agree that the section can be reworked to make it less general, and more specific to the battle.--Rereward (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I don't agree with you. I will follow wp:dispute resolution and request a comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC) You moved this to dispute resolution in less than 24 hours? You did not follow wp:dispute resolution protocol. "Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately (or even remotely) successful, shows that you are trying to reach a consensus. Also consider negotiating a truce or compromise. This is important if you intend to solicit outside opinions because it allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of constant ongoing edits." --Rereward (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I don't have anything to add to what I already said. You did not convince me. I did not convince you. I think this is simple issue which can be easily resolved by neutral editor.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I said the section can be reworked, but really, 12 hours? Can you at least agree to retract this for a few weeks until I can rework it? Remember when I waited a few weeks at your request?--Rereward (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Of course I can, although you did not wait a few weeks but insisted on belligerents definition in the lede almost every day.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I won't argue because anyone can check the time lines of this discussion to see that I only responded to you and otherwise waited.--Rereward (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC) For starters see improved section. Referencing and more info to come but since it seemed urgent I wanted to give the idea of the relevance.--Rereward (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Feel free to evaluate this now. Good idea to make the section less general and more specific to the siege. There is, of course, much more that could be added and more references, but the main idea and main siege strategy is here. I think there will be little doubt that the section is helpful, if not integral, to this article and certainly not redundant of the main Rozafa Fortress entry. --Rereward (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is separate section for Rozafa fortress necessary?

Solved:RfC withdrawn by user who requested the comment after separate section for Rozafa fortress proven justified.

[Request for comment removed by user who initially requested the comment.] Is it necessary to have separate section for the Rozafa fortress taking in consideration there already is an article about it? Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Editors kindly consider that this was moved to "dispute resolution" by editor less than 24 hours after it was raised as a question. I kindly request to wait a few weeks to answer this while the segment is restructured to be less informational "in general" and more specific to the battle, i.e., the steepness of the slopes, the cistern systems (already there and not in the main article), and the battle positions. I get the AD's point and agree to restructure, but he moved too swiftly to Dispute Resolution; with a little time the text will prove that the battlefield is an integral part of the siege.--Rereward (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I agreed to wait "for a few weeks" until Rereward reworks this section. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC) For starters see improved section. Referencing and more info to come but since it seemed so urgent I started.--Rereward (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Informing of limited Internet access through Sept 18 which affects ability to contribute. Please withhold action until my return unless desire is to retain (and/or) improve this section.--Rereward (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC) More citations coming by 9/20 when access to library restored.--Rereward (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Feel free to evaluate this now. Good idea to make the section less general and more specific to the siege. There is, of course, much more that could be added and more references, but the main idea and main siege strategy is here. I think there will be little doubt that the section is helpful, if not integral, to this article and certainly not redundant of the main Rozafa Fortress entry.--Rereward (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you for writing this interesting text. Number of (sub)sections. I thought that it was not necessary to have separate section dedicated to Rozafa fortress. Now, there are four (sub)sections about it. One section and three subsections. It is the only section in the article which have subsections, although the fortress is not the topic of this article. Two subsections have only a couple of sentences. Size.The article has 15,000 characters, without lead section. About 2,000 are dedicated to the fortress, which is 13% of the main body of the article. The article would not loose any of its value if the following text would be removed from this section:All faces of the fortress mount were recorded as being as steep "as a knife's edge" except the northern face which sloped more gradually.[30] Ottoman chroniclers reported the difficulties of ascending the fortress mount.[31] ...Venice approved these plans on October 20, 1461.[32]:170 Unrelated. Not all informations are related directly to this section's topic. The last subsection contains text which is related to the siege and should be probably moved to the siege section, or its subsection if eventually created. But with one condition. If there are secondary sources which support its text. Any text which is based solely on Barleti should be removed or carefully attributed. Minor issues. What are three rivers under the fortress? I know only two (Bojana and Drim). "looted and burned by the Turks in 1467," is under quotations. I think that according to wikipedia rules it is justified to use quotation marks only if they are supported by the quote from the source. Are they? Conclusion: This section now indeed contains important explanation about the position of the fortress and its connection with surrounding fortresses which was not presented before your recent edits. Together with some other assertions it could justify a separate section about Rozafa although I still think that it would be better to explain broader context of the battlefield in section which would not be so Rozafa focused. Nevertheless, I don't object separate section for Rozafa anymore, hoping that above mentioned remarks can help with its improvement. Therefore I will remove my request for comment. Rereward, you really did a very good job here. Congratulations and thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Just a few answers and questions (you closed it, but still perhaps you will notice - I will reopen if not). Random order ... The third river is the Kir. Flows from Drivast and joins with the Drin before joining with the Bojana. Ottoman cannons were cast along this river bank during the siege. Today it is small and sometimes dry (with seasons). I do not care so much about the subsections. I will attempt a cleanup incorporating your suggestions. "looted and burned by the Turks in 1467" is direct quote from the source ... "Ne kohen e dy rrethimeve te shek. XV qyteti nuk qe i banuar, sepse, mbasi u plaçkit dhe u dogj nga turqit ne vitin 1467, banoret u ngjiten ne keshtjelle..." Also, yes, the Barleti references are backed by secondary but the guildelines say primary sources are not to be thrown out entirely (in fact it is interesting how many reputable secondary sources criticize primary sources and then record the same things); of course, the references here would require immediate help if it were proving something controversial; however this is fairly obvious when doing a Google Earth search of the area. It would be obvious battle practice to attack and defend the main gates on the mildest slope, and Pasha's Hill was the eminently logical place to put the Ottoman cannonade — i.e., opposite the main gate. --Rereward (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your explanation about the third river. I knew you did not make mistake there. My point was that I don't see a particular reason to keep looted and burned quote in this text especially if it was not attributed to some important declaration within quotation marks in the source. I think that in case of Barleti it is better to avoid using him as a source to support any assertion which is not attributed directly to him. In case you don't agree with me take in consideration that it is not the subject of this section about RfC.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Article changed some according to your ideas. I'm not sure I understand the rest of what you just said here. The "looted and burned" quote is Kamsi, not Barleti. The others for now I can say "Barleti claims ..." Is that what you mean?--Rereward (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC) What I meant is that there is no particular reason to present "looted and burned..." under quotation marks because it is not within quotation marks in the source nor it is part of someone's quoted proclamation. I will reply about Barleti within separate section because it is not related to this RfC.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Hmm. The "looted and burned" quote is indeed a direct quote from the source. Maybe you are saying that the quote must be a direct quote within the direct quote to be used on Wikipedia? I am just going on my natural academic inclination not to plagiarize but to quote or paraphrase. I can paraphrase it.--Rereward (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Casualties in other cities

Solved: Casualties from other cities to be clarified to avoid confusion.

I removed Lezhe casualties from the infobox because Lezhe is 40 kilometers from Shkodra and it was a separate assault with separate commanders. The siege of Shkodra 1478 did not include sailors as in 1474 on the Bojana River, so the infobox is misleading. This situation is similar to the siege of Shkodra of 1478, which is separate from the siege of Shkodra in 1474 (and why I supported Antid's recommendation to start a separate page for that). Likewise, the 1478 sieges of Kruja, Zabljak, Drivast, and Lezha were all separate cities with separate commanders. This article is the siege of Shkodra, not the Venetian-Ottoman War in general. Therefore to include the casualties and commanders from all those cities in the infobox would begin to generate confusion, because then we need to add a jumble of other information to be consistent. Being so far away in a separate city, Lezha cannot be reasonably considered merely "outside the garrison." Crnojevic's troops assaulting the Ottoman tents sprawled around Shkodra would be considered "outside the garrison." But that's not 40 kilometers and a separate siege. New articles can be generated for the 1478 sieges of Kruja, Zabljak, Drivast, and Lezha, to include the details there. Does this make sense? --Rereward (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I don't agree with you. Ottoman actions in the region during this siege and murder of 200 sailors were very much connected with this event and even caused by it. Sailors were not murdered 40 kms away, but they "were taken near the walls of Shkodra and killed in front of the people of Shkodra". Don't forget what you wrote: that Shkodra was "considered the central leg of a trivet (or tripod) including Zabljak, Drisht, and Lezhë." that "On July 30, "the sultan ... accepted this counsel (to halt attacks on the Shkodrans) at the end of August and ordered his commanders to attack the smaller fortresses nearby who were aiding Shkodra."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Of course there were strong connections; there was both independence and interdependence amongst these cities. So are you advocating also that we include in the infobox and in this article the casualties and commanders of Kruja, Zabljak, and Drivast, which were all closely connected with the siege of Shkodra? It just seems to me that it opens a bigger door than necessary. At least I would advocate explanations in the infobox ... i.e., 1000 inside the garrison, 200 at Lezhe, etc. What do you think?--Rereward (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC) The common sense and the practice on wikipedia says that both besieged garrison and relief forces or forces that supported the garrison are presented to the readers, both in infobox and the text of the article (i.e. Battle of Vienna). Take for example Skanderbeg and articles about first three sieges of Kruje or Svetigrad (Siege of Svetigrad (1448)). Skanderbeg was never in the besieged towns but most of the text of any of those articles is about him and his activities. I, of course, agree with your proposal to present explanation in the infobox. The explanation was presented about casualties but you still reverted my edits. Why?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I undid your revert of my edit only before you answered the questions on this talk page, not after. Why? Because the infobox was confusing (see above). Now that you agree to include clarifying statements in the infobox, I will revert and edit.--Rereward (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Using Marin Barleti as source

Barleti is not typical primary source. He is author whose forgeries are well-known. I did not say that it is enough to attribute his assertions to him. I think that it is best to "avoid using him as a source to support any assertion which is not attributed directly to him".

For example, if some contemporary scholar wrote about Barleti's claim that Leke Zaharia was murdered .... in 1447 because a drunken member of Dukagjini family fell inlove with one girl... then such assertion should be presented like this:... "According to Barleti Leke Zaharia was murdered from ambush because of love issue...". I think that only in cases like this Barleti can be used as source. Only if some of his assertions were mentioned within somee secondary source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree to formulate it that way ("According to Barleti ..."), however, I do not view Barleti's Siege of Shkodra quite so disparagingly. Aleks Buda deals with this topic in his 1967 intro to the Albanian translation. He makes a distinction between Barleti's two works, Siege of Shkodra and History of Scanderbeg. History is the reason most people criticize him, not Siege (which is hardly known and has not been criticized widely; on the contrary Siege is clearly relied upon by many secondary historians if you compare his work with theirs). Buda presents very cogent arguments on this in his intro. He acknowledges the weaknesses of History but argues Siege should not be judged by that standard, because Barleti was an eyewitness at the siege of Shkodra (so he didn't have to put a story together based on secondary accounts from nostalgic old co-warriors of Scanderbeg or politically motivated influences). Buda acknowledges Barleti's exaggerations in the tallies of Ottoman soldiers, but also argues that the powers of calculation must be altered in the face of such a besieging host. However, even the contemporary Ottoman chroniclers are reporting numbers which validate Barleti to large degree. Buda accepts that all the speeches Barleti records are invented, especially those in the Ottoman camp, but that they are based in truth and reflect the values and sentiments of the times, so, as such, they have historic value. Of course, his work was literature not archival records, so there will be some accentuation. But when it concerns simple things like mentioning churches or people or battle positions, and when such things clearly make sense (like a hill said to be used for the Ottoman cannons), I think (and Buda argues) that Barleti's Siege of Shkodra should be not be written off prematurely as one might do with the History of Scanderbeg. Aurel Plasari's massive new work on Scanderbeg: A political history is showing many things once doubted from Barleti now being discovered as having been accurate or at least supported by other sources. In the end, however, I repeat that of course it is wise to use "according to Barleti" and only use him for fairly obvious points that have no reason to be doubted.--Rereward (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I really appreciate your effort.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)