Talk:Siege of Shkodra
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Specific Needs and Objectives Requested
[edit]Solved:Collapsed per author.
|
---|
I have spent considerable time trying to address any specific issue raised with this article. I would appreciate any further comments by the Wikipedia community concerning objective and specific measures needed to improve the article. For now the only main need that I see is the impasse with Antidiskriminator about the Belligerents (see above). To justify maintaining Antidiskriminator's change on 23:11, 4 August 2012 to remove the Albanians from the defense in the Lede box, or at least to not implement my proposed compromise of putting the League of Lezha into that box, I request documentation or a clear guideline about belligerent which demonstrably supports Antid.'s opinion. This is the only issue I am aware of—and have agreed to wait before acting further. But I also welcome any more specific input so this article can be rated higher. --Rereward (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC) This section moved to section below, "Nominating". Can be collapsed but my attempts to do so failed (deleted everything beneath it) Rereward (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
Nominating for Good Article status?
[edit]Anyone object to nominating this article to good article status? If so, how can we improve it? Rereward (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- A very good idea! I will go trough the text of this article and see if there is anything I can suggest to improve its quality, besides the apples and pears belligerents issue of ethnicity + citizens vs. nationality (ethnic Albanians + Venetian citizens vs. Ottomans) of the infobox. After eventual changes it would be good to have it copy edited before the nomination. Maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I look forward to suggestions for improvements and working together with you and any others interested.Rereward (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would be good to have sources within "primary sources" presented with citation or cite book template.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- DoneRereward (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You reverted it, was that a mistake?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think when I finished this, it demanded that these sources be referenced directly in the article so I reverted. Indeed, they are all actually referenced in the text and listed in the References, however, I was envisioning "Primary Sources" as a separate section outlining primary sources in the scholarly sense of "primary sources" ... basically, my attempt failed.Rereward (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- You reverted it, was that a mistake?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- DoneRereward (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Solved:Book of Marin Barleti removed from the lede since it exists in the other uses link
|
---|
|
Solved:Result parameter of the infobox adjusted according the template's page
|
---|
|
Solved:Siege of Krujë is mentioned in the article
|
---|
|
- Sorry, it is mentioned in the third paragraph of the siege section. I consider Kruje siege very important for this event and expected to see it in the lede and background section, together with information about other fortresess captured by Ottomans before or during Scutari siege. Don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I misunderstood. Well, I am fine with that. I just think we should be careful 1) not to overload the lede and 2) to avoid redundancy. I will defer to you on this and if you make a change, I will check it and make any suggestions needed for improvement. Thx.Rereward (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, it is mentioned in the third paragraph of the siege section. I consider Kruje siege very important for this event and expected to see it in the lede and background section, together with information about other fortresess captured by Ottomans before or during Scutari siege. Don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Solved:Sourced information about region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia attacked by Ottomans from Bosnia added to the article
|
---|
|
- In the Background section, there is a quote "Among the population of Shkodra there were people who were suspected to be connected to the Ottomans and who supported the surrender of the city". I think this should be removed or relocated for the following reasons: 1) "Suspected" is somewhat subjective and speculative. 2) In any siege this would likely be true and doesn't add much to the factual background. 3) Even if true, the influence of such people was meaningless, because the Shkodrans resisted fiercely and did not surrender or engage in treachery. 4) Sources report a strong unity among the defenders all resisting. Especially, I object to concluding the background section with this idea, because it sets up the notion of a lack of resolve among the defenders, when the exact opposite was demonstrated. Does this make sense? Any thoughts?
- First of all, I would like to thank you for your efforts to bring this article to GA level.
- I will prepare detailed reply to your question.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Sources report a strong unity among the defenders all resisting". I don't think so. In case of this Venetian stronghold the situation was completely different. Here is why:
- In most of the articles about battles involving Ottoman Empire the situation is black/white. Ottomans are black and other party, especially in case of European Christians, is white. Ottomans are almost dehumanized.
- Venice:
- There was complete chaos in Venetian tax policies toward population of Scutari region. In many cases local Venetian pronoiers, often struggling against each other, were able to set taxes according to their free will. Some people were so heavily taxed that they decided to move to other regions, while other were not obliged to pay taxes at all. In some cases complete villages were almost left without any population.
- One of the consequences was that Venetians simply did not have enough funds to finance reconstruction of the city and its garrison. Even the existing garrison was not paid regularly so sometimes complete units deserted.
- Cities were full of hungry people who left their land and criminal rate was very high.
- Orthodox population and their religious objects were subjected to constant pressure and removal of their legal rights. They were often treated as schismatics
- Population was socially very differentiated with not much opportunity for those who were not members of nobility or rich trading families.
- Venetians were not so determined to defend Scutari. Their modest funds were allocated to fortify Durazo and Venetian coastal towns in Montenegro as their new defense positions. Scutari was almost sacrificed. Venetian Scutari governors sent false reports with underestimated strength and position of Scutari garrison with intention to deceive Senate to make decision to cede Scutari to the Ottomans. Senate actually did it and after they learned about the deception they put those governors to trial.
- Ottomans:
- brought order to tax policy.
- initially returned rights of the Orthodox Christian population in areas around Scutari they captured.
- offered significant social perspective to those who convert to Islam and join the ranks of the Ottoman army
- Conclusion: There was no "strong unity among the defenders all resisting". People were not satisfied with Venetian rule, except for a small number of Venetian pronoiers who had a big interest to protect their privileges. They were rich enough to send their families to safe places before Scutari was besieged. To Ulcinj, Bar... some even to Venice. Poor people had to suffer or to run away to the mountains. Taking all of that into consideration it is of no surprise that some people openly advocated surrender of Scutari to the Ottomans. That was not an isolated event. At that time there was aso a pro-Ottoman plot in Ulcinj which was discovered and prevented by some Christian priests. Readers of the background section of this article are not presented with all those facts. On the contrary. The background section is used to glorify Scanderbeg, who is completely irrelevant for this section, to attribute ethnicity to the garrison, coastline, towns.... all of them are misleadingly referred to as Albanian while in fact they were Venetian. Its population was of mixed ethnicity and remained as such until the beginning of 20th century. On the other hand this section is misleadingly referring to Ottomans as to "Turkish bands", invaders... although they were not predominantly Turkish with many Albanians being members of the Ottoman forces. An unitiated reader is presented with clear message. The coast and towns which are Albanian are defended by united Albanians from invading Turks. Albanians are that way presented as the "last bastion" which protected Europe from Turkish invasion, like Skanderbeg did for decades. Almost all myths of Albanian nationalism in one section. But not much of the real background of the events. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Venice:
Solved:A relief commemorating the siege refer to both 1474 and 1478/79 siege
|
---|
|
Solved:It is clarified how Venetians got Shkoder
|
---|
|
Solved:War issue clarified.
|
---|
|
Solved:“To Rome! To Rome!” assertion based on the primary source temporarily removed from the article
|
---|
|
Solved:Improved wording to avoid simplification that capture of Scutari was necessary for OE advance into Italy.
|
---|
|
Solved:Concerns about connecting Shkodra and Ottoman advance to Italy reduced with very good explanation
|
---|
|
- Scanderbeg of course did not "thwart Ottoman advance for a quarter of a century". In fact he fought for Ottoman Empire for alamost a quarter of century. Even when he deserted Ottomans they continued to expand further to the Europe and captured Serbia, Morea, Bosnia .... in period of its biggest expansion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course Scanderbeg is not irrelevant to the background of the siege of Shkodra (else he wouldn't be mentioned by so many sources that discuss the siege), but I agree to edit the article to localize his impact and not accidentally mislead people. The word "thwart" does not mean "halt" — I meant that he opposed and frustrated Ottoman advance for 25 years, which he did, though it wasn't complete. I will continue to respond little by little to improve this article based on your suggestions. You've brought up a lot of material. So please be patient. I agree with most, will need to follow up with some things. Thanks for your time.Rereward (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Scanderbeg of course did not "thwart Ottoman advance for a quarter of a century". In fact he fought for Ottoman Empire for alamost a quarter of century. Even when he deserted Ottomans they continued to expand further to the Europe and captured Serbia, Morea, Bosnia .... in period of its biggest expansion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your efforts. Yes, you are right. Skanderbeg is not completely irrelevant. But it would not be completely correct to assert that he frustrated Ottoman advance into Albania for 25 years. Ottomans actually advanced into most of what is today region of Albania in 1385. That is almost a hundred years before this siege and two decades before Skanderbeg was born. When Skanderbeg deserted Ottomans at the end of 1443 the only Ottoman town in Albania he captured was Kruje. Rest of his territory was in Macedonia in Debar region and included fortresses of Svetigrad and Modric. I don't object mentioning Skanderbeg in the background section, but if he is to be mentioned it would be simplification to say that he "protected Albania from Ottomans" or "frustrated Ottoman advance into Albania" for 25 years. Readers are informed about the start of Venetian suzerainty in Scutari in 1396, but not about start of Ottoman suzerainty of most of Albania in 1385. Therefore I think it is much more important to explain readers that Ottomans controlled most of Albania for almost a century before this siege then to mention Skanderbeg and only his anti-Ottoman struggle without even mentioning his anti-Venetian struggle. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "'Sources report a strong unity among the defenders all resisting'. I don't think so." Question — you don't think sources report this, or you don't think the sources are accurate? Rereward (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are right, I was not completely clear here. I wrote that I don't think there was a strong unity among the defenders all resisting. And I explained why. I think that every word of my explanation can be supported by sources. Though I am, of course, ready to discuss any of my points from above you might find incorrect.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Solved:Two month sultan's participation clarified in the infobox.
|
---|
|
Solved:The date of the end of the siege is correct.
|
---|
|
Solved:Forces involved should not be merged into background section based on the relevant guide.
|
---|
|
- Number of the Ottoman forces is confusing and contradicting trough the article.:
- Modern estimations: Tens of thousands - infobox
- About 8,000 after sultan left the siege in September - infobox
- Ottoman casualties were: At least 12,000 on July 22 Allegedly one-third of the Ottoman forces on July - that would mean that Ottoman forces were about 36,000.
- He ordered a siege force to remain in Shkodra—led by Gedik Ahmet Pasha and said to have contained between 10,000 and 40,000 soldiers[6]:365—to starve the city into surrender.[10]:135 Then, "disappointed at the outcome of his Albanian campaign, Mehmed started the return journey" to Constantinople, "with 40,000 men."[6]:365 - the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ha! Sorry to laugh, but sieges from this period always have confusing and conflicting estimates of forces! But let me try to work on this, too. Thank you for your editing. Rereward (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are of course right. But in such cases it is probably better better to avoid using precise numbers, like in case of total number of the Ottoman forces estimated to tens of thousands by modern sources. Can you please double check page 365 of Babinger's work and if Babinger really wrote that between 10 and 40,000 Ottomans remained at Scutari while 40,000 left with sultan?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure ... p. 365, "Disappointed at the outcome of his Albanian campaign, Mehmed started the return journey by torchlight in the night of September 7, 1478. With him went 40,000 men. In the same month the governor of Anatolia followed. At the beginning of December the Rumelian army, disinclined to winter in inhospitable Albania, raised camp and set out eastward. Only Gedik Ahmed Pasha stayed behind with 10,000 men—or 40,000, according to other versions—to keep up the blockade of the starving city."Rereward (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quote. Based on Babinger's text which implies the total number of Ottoman forces to more than 100,000 it is probably necessary to check the source for unsourced modern estimation assertion of "tens of thousands"?
- Babinger is pretty clear about four Ottoman commanders and their armies:
- Sultan's army of 40,000 which left the siege in September to return to Constantinople together with Sultan
- Anatolian army under Mustafa Pasha (unknown number) which followed sultan in September.
- Rumelian army under Davud Pasha (with unknown number of men) which left the siege in December
- Vlore army of 10,000 — 40,000 men under Gedik Ahmet Pasha, a sanjakbey of Vlore, besieged Shkoder in period December 1478 — late April 1479 and actually captured the city.
- It might be a good idea to clarify this in the "forces involved" section because Gedik Ahmet Pasha is somehow forgotten there although it was him and his Vlore army which actually captured the city. Though, I am not sure if he could be there from the beginning of the siege. This is something that needs to be investigated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure ... p. 365, "Disappointed at the outcome of his Albanian campaign, Mehmed started the return journey by torchlight in the night of September 7, 1478. With him went 40,000 men. In the same month the governor of Anatolia followed. At the beginning of December the Rumelian army, disinclined to winter in inhospitable Albania, raised camp and set out eastward. Only Gedik Ahmed Pasha stayed behind with 10,000 men—or 40,000, according to other versions—to keep up the blockade of the starving city."Rereward (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are of course right. But in such cases it is probably better better to avoid using precise numbers, like in case of total number of the Ottoman forces estimated to tens of thousands by modern sources. Can you please double check page 365 of Babinger's work and if Babinger really wrote that between 10 and 40,000 Ottomans remained at Scutari while 40,000 left with sultan?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- "a massive Ottoman force containing artillery cast on site[10]:134 and an army reported (though widely disputed) to have been as many as 350,000 in number" I think that estimation from 1828 work about the Ottoman force of 350,000 probably should not have its place in the article, nor in the lede. Also there is no need to present assertion about disputed number of the Ottoman forces in the lede. Modern sources say tens of thousands. I think that is enough for the lede. "Massive" could be seen as WP:PEACOCK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I will continue working on improving this article and your suggestions make sense ... will take a little time, of course. I do want to make one more comment today ... Franz Babinger, a highly regarded historian of this period, writes extensively about this siege, perhaps more extensively than any other modern reputable historian with specific expertise in this field. He records the figures given (e.g., 300.000 men) but then says this figure "must have been vastly exaggerated." But I am intrigued that he does not himself give an estimation. He would be much more qualified to have done that. Inalcik doesn't do it either, from what I have read. Therefore, when I first posted this WP article, I followed Babinger's pattern — reporting the numbers reported (which, in itself, has historical and encyclopedic value) – and then casting doubt upon it. In the absence of reputable sources who give scientific estimates based on more than a guess, I think, personally, that it is both the prudent and scholarly to follow Babinger's example. Or, if reputable modern sources say "tens of thousands", it would be important to quote them. I do think that, at least, the article should mention the existence of higher estimates, because if someone reads the new English Barleti translation, for example, and reads 350,000, they should know that the Wikipedia editors know about that and have refuted it on the basis of Babinger, etc. This actually protects the article's integrity. Does that make sense?Rereward (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I admit you are right. If Babinger mentions this high estimations then the article should also mention it. But I think not in the lede. Please see above comment about figures presented by Babinger. He clearly implies that total number of forces was more than 100,000. It would be good to double check the source for "tens of thousands" assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I will continue working on improving this article and your suggestions make sense ... will take a little time, of course. I do want to make one more comment today ... Franz Babinger, a highly regarded historian of this period, writes extensively about this siege, perhaps more extensively than any other modern reputable historian with specific expertise in this field. He records the figures given (e.g., 300.000 men) but then says this figure "must have been vastly exaggerated." But I am intrigued that he does not himself give an estimation. He would be much more qualified to have done that. Inalcik doesn't do it either, from what I have read. Therefore, when I first posted this WP article, I followed Babinger's pattern — reporting the numbers reported (which, in itself, has historical and encyclopedic value) – and then casting doubt upon it. In the absence of reputable sources who give scientific estimates based on more than a guess, I think, personally, that it is both the prudent and scholarly to follow Babinger's example. Or, if reputable modern sources say "tens of thousands", it would be important to quote them. I do think that, at least, the article should mention the existence of higher estimates, because if someone reads the new English Barleti translation, for example, and reads 350,000, they should know that the Wikipedia editors know about that and have refuted it on the basis of Babinger, etc. This actually protects the article's integrity. Does that make sense?Rereward (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Solved:The source supports the wording.
|
---|
|
Solved:Schmitt's work added to Further reading section until hopefully someone uses it in the article.
|
---|
|
- "hundreds of Albanian men and youths from the region helped from without, making guerilla attacks on the Ottoman tent camps" - This is another example of the potential misleading emphasizing of "Albanianess" of one party in this conflict. I think it is wrong. This was not an ethnicity based conflict therefore there is no need to potentially mislead readers with irrelevant ethnicity issues, especially taking in consideration that Albanians were on both sides. Additionally, it is impossible that only Albanians of all people living in Scutari region struggled against the Ottomans. I propose to replace misleading use of demonym in "Albanian men an youths" with "local people".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above mentioned is not isolated example of the emphasize on Albanianess. "Many Albanians, however, did remain in their fatherland." In this case it is even source misinterpretation because the source does not discuss Albanians and their fatherland but noble families from Albania. Many Serbs also remained in their fatherland and continued to live in Scutari region until 20th and 21st century. But that is not something which should be the emphasized in this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- * We will certainly have solve this issue of Albanians defending Shkodra. I want to go back and re-read the arguments and counter-arguments made previously, in order to reevaluate and not waste time repeating the same thing over and over. My key issue is not pushing a nationalistic or mythical viewpoint but being fair to the abundant, reputable sources who report Albanian local forces defending with the Venetians against the Ottomans. If we need to try to tone down what seems like dogmatism, or acknowledge different viewpoints, or acknowledge that Albanians south of Kruja had become part of the Ottoman Empire, then I am in agreement, but I think it will be hard for me to agree to totally eliminate the strong Albanian presence fighting for what they perceived as their home. Too many sources saying the same thing. I will traveling for several days so I will be silent, but I am in agreement to work on this.
- * As to the alleged source misrepresentation, I see your concern, however please note there are three sources in the sentence you are referring to, Babinger, Shpuza and Pulaha. I think you are referring exclusively to the Babinger quote on page 372. He says, "The sultan obtained unrestricted rule over Albania, whose old families, such as the Arianiti, the Dukagjins, the Castriotas, the Musachi, and the Topias, were obliged to take refuge in Naples, Venice, ..." Then, the footnote #4 at the end of that sentence says, "For more details on one of these Albanian families, see Babinger's 'Das Ende der Arianiten' ..." The plain interpretation seemed like Albanian families, not noble families from Albania. Combined with the other references from Shpuza and Pulaha, I do not feel I misrepresented.Rereward (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- See the same page of Babinger's work where he refer to Budva, Bar and Ulcinj as Albanian towns. The term Albanian is obviously used as demonym in case of population and as geographical designation in case of the towns and families. In documents from that age and historical works about it sometimes the whole Montenegrin coast was referred to as Albanian and its population as Albanians. Using this terminology in wikipedia articles today would be misleading, especially because it perfectly well match nationalistic mythology of the modern age. I of course AGF and don't insist that you did it intentionally.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- First three sentences of the Forces involved section are already, more or less, presented within Background section. It is maybe a good idea to remove them as double entry and to copy detail about Suleyman pasha being commander of 1474 siege to the Background section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, much needed improvement. Done. Rereward (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Fifteenth century Ottoman bombard
[edit]This source (pages 65-67) explains details of the Ottoman bombards used during this siege. It would be great if some Istanbul based editor could take and upload its picture at Military museum in Istanbul.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The Combatants
[edit]To Antidiskriminator:
As you reverted all my edits, i am instead writing on this section. I added that the conflict was part of the 'Albanian-Ottoman Wars' and the 'Ottoman-Serb Wars'. Why did you change this? I only linked 'Albanian-Ottoman Wars' to the page for the League of Lezha as it is the only page which includes a section for the wars. It includes conflicts from 1432 (before the league was created) to 1478 (after the league was disbanded). Also, regarding the flags, the Albanians should be represented by : .
As Zeta was a Montengrin/Serb state, surely the battle comes under the Serb-Ottoman Wars? --- iRi.
Dirifer (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your edits can not be supported by reliable sources nor common sense.
- This battle was not ethnic conflict between Serbs/Albanians and Turks, but between Venetian and Ottoman Empire. Therefore it is classified as such.
- Short-lived League of Lezhe which was disbanded almost 30 years before this conflict is irrelevant for its classification.
- Flag used by Ottoman merchants from Albania can not be attributed to Venetian soldiers from Albania who actually struggled against Ottoman forces. It was probably used by some Ottoman units composed of Albanians.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I do not think you read my writing properly. I aknowledged that the league of lezhe had already been disbanded, but mentioned that this battle was part of the Ottoman-Albanian wars which is only listed on the page for the League of Lezhe. This battle was part of the Ottoman-Albanian conflict, which spanned from 1432 to 1478.
- Regarding an 'ethnic battle', this was already settled by an earlier section in this talk page, which ended with the additional mention of Albanian forces participating in defending their native city.
- Zeta does not refer to ethnic groups of people, it refers to the actual state of Zeta (which was Montengrin or Serb) participating in the battle.
- The flag should be:
. This flag was commonly used by Albanians who did not have a state, or by rebels. That applies in this case, as the Albanians fighting were fighting with the Venetians but also to protect their city.
Dirifer (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think I gave a fairly clear explanation that your position is not supported by reliable sources (original research) nor common sense. 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.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, User:Dirifer. You claim, "The flag should be:
. This flag was commonly used by Albanians who did not have a state, or by rebels. That applies in this case, as the Albanians fighting were fighting with the Venetians but also to protect their city." Do you have any research backing this claim? I have debated strongly on this page—and with copious documentation—that Albanians were a coherent, self-aware force defending their city alongside Italians and under Venetian rule. But I conceded to User:Antidiskriminator that I had no evidence for an Albanian flag such as the merchant flag or the League's flag. Therefore I would welcome evidence if you can produce it. To this point, I have not found such evidence. Rereward (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, User:Dirifer. You claim, "The flag should be:
- I think I gave a fairly clear explanation that your position is not supported by reliable sources (original research) nor common sense. 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.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rereward. Yes, i understand, I guess it's wrong to say they were 'rebels' if they were in fact organised. Thanks for replying to me. Dirifer (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Dubious sentence included.
[edit]"Among the population of Shkodra there were people who were suspected to be connected to the Ottomans and who supported the surrender of the city.[23]" The source of this article is in a Slavic language (Serbian?), so I cannot read it to make up my own mind, but can anyone confirm the status of the reputability of the source? The inclusion of the sentence sounds gratuitous given that the source might have propagandistic motives/interests.
Also, if you are to include a sentence as vague as this one, I think it should at best be backed up by additional statements that flesh out the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.149.39.90 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition, you might want to consult some Albanian sources, esp. Catholic ones, as relating to the history of Shkodra. I would think that the people who have fought for centuries to defend their heritage know something about it.
- The source is authored by Zarija Bešić, member of Montenegrin Academy. There is nothing dubious in this statement. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class Ottoman military history articles
- Ottoman military history task force articles
- C-Class Medieval warfare articles
- Medieval warfare task force articles
- C-Class Albania articles
- Mid-importance Albania articles
- WikiProject Albania articles
- C-Class former country articles
- C-Class Ottoman Empire articles
- Low-importance Ottoman Empire articles
- WikiProject Ottoman Empire articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists