Talk:Giammaria Biemmi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rinaldina Russell[edit]

Our involvement is to give reason to Rinaldina Russell, that Giammaria Biemmi, is the only reliable source of true biography of Scanderbeg, which is validated by the fact that the work of Demetrio Franco the famous “Antivarino “ was not taken into account either by that contrary or the pro Biemmi. Only in 2005 in Albania appeared the book of Demetrio Franco, translated into Albanian from Italian vernacular after 525 years, although the book rested in the drawers of the National Library of Albania, no one would remember. An Albanian named Lek Pervizi, he was lucky enough to find in the library of Bologna, not one but four books of Demtrio Franco, in different editions appeared in Venice, the most valuable one in 1584, to care for Giammaria Bonardo, which recognized as an author Demetrio Franco which was said Antivarino. We warn those involved in this story, to search and study the books of Franco, the only Albanian who had lived alongside Scandebeg, and that he knew well its history.

Notes[edit source | edit] ^ Jump up to: a b c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praksitele (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rinaldina Russell holds a Ph.D. in Italian Literature. If her opinion about reliability of Biemmi's Antivarino comparing to Barleti should be presented to the readers, then I think information about her education should be also presented to the readers. Therefore I returned it to the article information about her education which was deleted by this edit.

I think that the best way to deal with opinion of Rinaldina Russel is to follow WP:RS and use works of "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". I think that Rinaldina Russell is not such author and therefore I propose to remove assertion about reliability of Biemmi's Antivarino based on Rinaldina's opinion.

Anybody against it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to RSN.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you have any argument against my proposal?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS i.e please take it to RSN.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing to the policy without providing explanation is not much helpful for the discussion.
I think there is no need to go to RSN. "Antivarino's work, provided by Biemmi, is more reliable than Barleti's" Even if Renaldina is most authoritative expert in medieval history (and she is not), her comparation of reliability with Barleti's work can only mislead uninitiated reader who does not know that major part of Barleti's work is pure forgery. Barleti invented Skanderbeg's correspondence with sultan and with Vladislav II of Wallachia to support interpretation of the events that he made up. He also made up a fairy tale about drunk Albanian chieftains killing each other because they were inlove with same girl (although original documents show that murder, which happened three years earlier than Barleti's forged fairy tale, was motivated by power struggle).
Regardless of reliability of Renaldina's work, her assertion about reliability of Antivarino's work comparing to Barleti's can only mislead readers to believe that Antivarino's work is authentic and reliable. Therefore I propose to remove the above mentioned assertion from the text of the article.
If nobody presents some argument against my proposal within reasonable period of time I will remove misleading assertion from the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Russell is a PhD in Italian literature: Biemmi's work is Italian literature (nonfiction). There's no need for argument.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, of course, a need to present arguments which support adding this misleading assertion to the text of the article. Please read again my above rationale. I will try to clarify it:
  1. Ronaldina Rusell does not hold a PhD in history but in Italian literature. It does not make Ms Russell authoritative enough to estimate a reliability of the historical data presented by Biemmi's Antivarino and to compare its reliability to Barleti.
  2. Additionally, taking into consideration that a major part of Barleti's work is pure forgery, her comparation of the reliability of Biemmi's Antivarino with Barleti can mislead uninitiated reader to believe that Antivarino's work is authentic and reliable.
I hope that it is now clear that misleading assertion should be removed from the text of the article. If anybody have anything against its removal please bring some arguments which support such objection. Otherwise I will remove misleading assertion from the article within reasonable period of time. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antid, I am impressed that even after mine (and others) previous comments on this issue you keep insisting on calling Barletius a forger. Barletius is a primary and basic source of information about Albania in 15th century (see link). In full flavor of his time as a humanist, in writing the "History of Scanderbeg" Barletius has been inspired by the style and has imitated Livy and especially the "Life of Alexander the Great" of Plutarch, thus his style and method. Going by your logic, Livy and Plutarchus (and all ancient historians for that matter) are forgers, because some facts and dialogues they claim on their works, did not take place and were invented?! Would you (hopefully) understand some day, that Barletius was writing in XVth century and it is not the same as writing in XXIth century?! There were no peer reviews, no historical magazines no scientific methods and the history was written by imitating the style of ancient historians. It was called Renaissance for a reason but apparently you didn't get it. It is for this reason that we have in wiki primary, secondary and tertiary sources categories and policies regarding them. Livy, Plutarchus, Barletius etc are called primary sources accordingly. Your insistence in ignoring repetitively such obvious facts, induce me in thinking that you are interesting in trolling and loosing valuable time to other wiki users and this is not the first time you are doing it. Aigest (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of bringing the arguments, you brought personal attack. This is not a discussion about me or how Barletius should be called. This is a discussion about removal of Rinaldina Russel's opinion about reliability of Biemmi's Antivarino. Your comment about me and what I am interested in or what I didn't get about Renaissance can be seen as personal attack. It is the scientific consensus which regard to Barletius and Biemmi as forgers, not me. This consensus is supported by most reputable historians like Kenneth Setton or Franz Babinger.
  • There is already undue weight given to the opinion that Biemmi's Antivarino is actually authentic. Leaving the opinion of Rinaldina Russel would be against NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antid, instead of providing counterarguments, you are accusing others of libeling you and then you just repeat your original point, even after it has been discarded. Please read WP:Tendentious editing and WP:AGF. Also, why do you bring this up now instead of half a year ago when it was originally included? I hope you are not gaming the system.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not repeated my original point. On the contrary. I have introduced a new (third) argument into discussion (based on wp:undue and wp:npov).
It is never to late to present well argumented proposal to improve the quality of the article.
Until now I presented and carefully explained three basic arguments which support my proposal (1)Ronaldina Russel is not historian and 2) her assertion can mislead readers to believe that Biemmi's Antivarino is authentic and 3)violate NPOV because there is already enough UNDUE weight given to one point of view). I haven't noticed any counterarguments. Just personal attacks. Do you have any counterarguments? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I gave one above and you never said anything about Biemmi's work not being part of Italian literature. Then you just gave the obvious argument that she is not an historian but never refuted that Biemmi is not part of Italian literature. Aigest provided an argument and you turned which you construed as a personal attack and then gave the simplistic WP:But it's true argument.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you did not. The subject of this discussion is not if Biemmi's work is part of Italian literature or not. It is irrelevant for this discussion which subject is Ronaldina Rusell's estimations about reliability of historical data presented by Biemmi.
Aigest also did not present any argument for keeping Ronaldina's assertion in the article. He emphasized that it is wrong to regard to renaissance authors as forgers just "because some facts and dialogues they claim on their works, did not take place and were invented", and wrote a couple of comments about me. My above reply to his comment clearly shows that I did not ignore what he wrote. On the contrary.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antid, my concern was about your attitude of easily labeling ancient authors as worthless and forgers and specifically in this case about the work of Barletius who you keep calling a forger not only in this article (which is not linked to Barletius directly) but in every article related to Barletius work. Hope my explanation on that was satisfactory and you don't bring that issue again. As for Rinaldina Russel user:Zjarri asked you not once but twice to take it to WP:RSN but you didn't follow his advice. Aigest (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already explained to you that this is not discussion about Barleti and his forgeries.
  • Yes, user:Zjarri wrote "take it to RSN" twice. Without explanation why. Just pointing to the policy without providing explanation is not much helpful for the discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Antid, please read WP:Ownership, WP:Consensus, and WP:Undue Weight. Setton's opinion is already included as is Babinger's so you don't need to give it undue weight.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Nobody presented information about two chronicles of Brescia that Biemmi also forged.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaius Claudius Nero: Should we delete Noli's opinion which is mentioned three times? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The manner in which you did it (quote box?) was very disruptive and conspicuously charged. I have no problem with your most recent addition.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I din't notice that you just repeated almost word for word what was said in the Antivarino section. I put in the Brescia articles in the section and deleted the repeated info.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you reply to my question about removal some of three Noli's statements?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindented by Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)) Antid. you are being very confrontational. You see, Babinger cites Noli's book as being very important for Scanderbegian studies. Even Setton mentions him, so does Frashëri and Russell. It's obvious to me why it was included. Why are you fighting everything you simply do no like? Majuru (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that Noli should not be included into this article. On the contrary. It is very important to present information to the readers that he believed Biemmi's fraud was authentic. My question was clearly "about removal some of three Noli's statements".
@Majuru: With above comment you violated the following wikipedia rules:
  1. Never address other users in a heading - "using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious"
  2. wp:agf - It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. During this discussion another user actually supported adding the assertion I included into this article saying that he does not have anything against it.
  3. wp:npa - "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (you are being very confrontational)
  4. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing - Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion.
I already politely asked you to avoid this kind of personal attacks two days ago.
According to WP:NPA "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."
This is not the first time you attacked me. Taking in consideration that you ignored my above mentioned polite request written only two days ago, I am afraid that it will not be the last.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antid, first fo all you never said much that is noteworthy about what Majuru said. Majuru is not being very confrontational as you say (no more confrontational than you are being at least). Why do you not address the issue and stop construing some other people’s comments into personal attacks and stop WP:IDHT?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to what Majuru said explaining him that
  • I did not say that Noli should not be included into this article. On the contrary. It is very important to present information to the readers that he believed Biemmi's fraud was authentic. My question was clearly "about removal some of three Noli's statements". link
Why don't you reply to my question about removal some of three Noli's statements? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Majuru already gave a sufficient reason which I agree with.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Majuru's reason why not to delete Noli. But that was not my question. My question was about "removal some of three Noli's statements". Don't you think that it is absurd to keep three sentences of Noli in the article because Majuru says that "Setton mentions Noli" but at the same time to delete two of three sentences of Setton (like you did here under excuse that his opinion is already included in the article) who is far more reliable, credible and neutral historian then Noli?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noli work was about Skanderbeg, while Setton's work about crusades spanning in time about 4 centuries. If one is to be more specialized on the specific source which speaks about Skanderbeg (and not the crusades), that should be Noli, don't you think? Aigest (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. It is exactly the opposite. The only historical work of Noli is a book about Skanderbeg. It is precisely because Setton has much wider historical knowledge (just look at the list of his works) what makes him much more credible and reliable to evaluate authenticity of the medieval works than Noli.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antid it is the other way round. The work of Biemmi is on Skanderbeg at the same time the work of Noli is about Skanderbeg, while Setton work is about crusades. While giving the fact that both Biemmi and Noli are concentrated on Skanderbeg, Noli dedicates several pages to Biemmi, because Biemmi was used indiscriminately before him from the other historians regarding Skanderbeg and was considered one of the main sources on Skanderbeg, while Setton dedicates Biemmi only a paragraph because Setton work is concerned more with crusades and Biemmi had nothing to do with them. As a rule of thumb, books written on the topic are more reliable, extended and should be preferable towards other sources.Aigest (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setton work is about crusades: You ignored my recommendation to look at the list of Setton's works which is not only about crusades.
  • Setton dedicates Biemmi only a paragraph: Why would Setton dedicate more than one passage to a fraud?
  • Biemmi was used indiscriminately before: Biemmi, of course, is not used indiscriminately anymore because the most reputable historians proved that it is a fraud.

I already explained that it is exactly because Setton has much wider historical knowledge, knowledge about the region and historical period what makes him much more credible and reliable to evaluate authenticity of the medieval works than Noli who wrote just one historical work, a book on Skanderbeg and is not able to see the forest for the trees. Deletion two out of three referenced assertions of Setton under excuse that his opinion has already been presented in the article and in the same time insisting on having three assertions of Noli is against WP:NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Babinger does not share your opinion on the "forest and trees issues" while Babinger himself admits that "The standard modern biography in English of the Albanian national hero is Fan S. Noli, George Castrioti Scanderbeg 1405-1468 (New York, 1947)", so I guess Noli is an authority on Scanderbeg, while it can not be the same about Setton. As I said before, books on the topic have a kind of precedence when you try to write articles in wiki. If you have not realised that even after this long time in wiki, then it is useless to debate anymore. Aigest (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your introduction of Babinger into this discussion because he actually supports my point:
  • Besides Setton's opinion about Biemmi's fraud, Babinger's opinion about Biemmi's Antivarino is also already presented in the article:
    • "Franz Babinger, in his work dealing with the foundation of Elbasan, asserted that Antivarino never existed. He furthermore stated in Eine Gefälschte Radolt inkunabel that Biemmi aimed to raise interest in his work so he falsified a source."
  • In 1953 there were no biographies of Skanderbeg on English language written by contemporary historians other than Noli's dissertation. Therefore Babinger's opinion about Noli's work, published in 1953, does not mean that Noli is credible and reliable to evaluate authenticity of the forged medieval works. On the contrary. Babinger believed that Noli wasn't right when he claimed that Biemmi's Antivarino is authentic. Therefore it is obvious that using Babinger's opinion to support giving undue weight to Noli's opinion about authenticity of Biemmi's Antivarino is absurd and actually supports my opinion that removal 2 out of 3 Setton's assertions while leaving all three Noli's assertions does not meet the requests of WP:NPOV.
  • Your opinion that "books on the topic have a kind of precedence when you try to write articles in wiki" is of course right, but only after addition of: "taking in consideration credibility and reliability of authors." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giammaria_Biemmi&oldid=1207416811"