Talk:Nicholas Pal Dukagjini

Montenegrina.net

Solved:Library is not a source

Montenegrina.net is both internet portal and online library. For wikipedia purposes it can be used only as online library. There is a citation in this article in which montenegrina as internet portal is both publisher as author. It should be replaced with some RS.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Can you possibly help me find the online library of Montenegrina.net for the reference I used, so the fact can satisfy the source reliability's policy? Empathictrust (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Montenegrina.net is one single website which serves both as internet portal and online library. You can not use montenegrina as source. You can use it only as online library to access sources which are regularly written and published.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I understand. What about this archive, section 18: Prvih dana maja 1481. godine umro je sultan Mehmed „el Fatih'*. Smutnje, koje su nastale izmegju braće Bajazita II. i Džema kao da su htjeli iskoristiti i turski podanici U junu 1481. zna se, ida je herceg Vlatko provalio u Bosnu, ali ga Daut-paša razbije („in loco, qui Meniesagite (?) dicitur). Dubrovčani vele, da je Vlatko radio neraz'borito, nemajući ni od koga pomoći ni savjeta nego jedino od V 1 a 'h a, koji su ga zvali. Vlatko je izgubio sve, što je uza se imao i sklonio se u Novi. and 77 (before the above mentioned 18): Herceg Vlatko držao se još neko vrijeme u Novome, te je odavle god. 1481. provalio i u Bosnu, ali je bio razbit. Can we remove montenegrina.net and include this? Empathictrust (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Archive is internet library. You can use whatever library you want to access the source. Regardless of what library you used, real or internet online library, it can not be presented as source. Library is only library. My advice to you is to use worldcat to get exact information about the author, publisher... (Povijest Bosne od najstarijih vremena do propasti kraljevstva. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Gjon Muzaka

Solved:Real author of the source is presented

Robert Elsie is not author of Dukagjini genealogy. It is Gjon Muzaka whose work is published in Elsie's book. Taking in consideration that Muzaka is proven to be non reliable primary source, it is wrong to preset his asserions as Elsie's (ref number 2 and 3) because it could mislead readers to believe that those assertions are Elsie's.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC) First of all, who said, or even proved (except for you) "that Muzaka is proven to be non reliable primary source"? As far as other sources I've given in this article, a long list of modern scholars, academics and historians of "Historia e Popullit Shqiptar" (2002) in 4 volumes, cite Muzaka, have worked on his genealogy and generally maintain his view on the facts I put in this article. That's why I have included all the foreign language quotes. If this still lacks credibility, it would be much easier for me to take some pictures or even a video of the part of the book where these facts are mentioned, and send them to you. Now I will add some more necessary developments regarding the 1480s uprisings section. Empathictrust (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Robert Elsie: "the chronicle is no work of great scholarship ".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Laconic and clear! But, please, "read me" carefully and let me rationalize a little bit: Vojislav Šešelj, the founder and president of the Serbian Radical Party, is suspected of being involved in crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and can hardly be called a reliable author. Nevertheless, for this sentence of Nicholas Pal Dukagjini's article: "He surrendered the fortress of Novi after the siege of the Ottomans and retreated in Herzegovina with his people and later in the Venetian island of Rab, where he died" I cited Vojislav's work [1], where an historic fact is merely mentioned without any modern political connotation. The publication as a whole may or may not qualify as a reliable source, but this simple fact I mentioned seems to have nothing to do with the authorship's person and his views or deeds. Moreover I expect that that on WP:AGF, the historic fact I cited is most probably included in other reliable sources not available to me at the moment... Thus, as a whole "the chronicle is no work of great scholarship" but a fact studied by professional experts of the field, that is cited almost as the original work, makes this fact at least a reliable reference. We can put the author of the genealogy fact otherwise, maybe just the name of Muzaka, and create another subsection of the references' section for the primary sources. Anyway I don't know if this would be acceptable since the author of the book Early Albania: A Reader of Historical Texts, 11th-17th Centuries is in fact Robert Elsie. Any proposal is valuable. Empathictrust (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Please AGF and "read me" more carefully. In this case I don't have anything against using Muzaka as source. I specifically wrote: it is wrong to present his asserions as Elsie's. Elsie just translated Muzaka's work to English language and published its English translation within his work. Since you used Muzaka's work as source then it should be clear, i.e. by adding "According to Muzaka" or by clarifying that author of the chapter you used as source is Muzaka, not Elsie. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Understood! I will make this clarification in the quote, leaving harvnb of Elsie source as it is, but mentioning "according to Muzaka". Empathictrust (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Staying on topic

Solved:Parts not directly related to Nicholas are removed, while parts directly related to Nicholas are expanded

@Empathictrust. Section Return to Albania and early 1480s uprisings contains too many information not directly related to Nicholas. Please "consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic" . --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Good advise, thank you! I wanted even to expand the section by adding more on Gjon Kastioti II's campaign to the south, but now I realize I'd better take the scissors and cut off some loosely relevant information (maybe paste it in another article). I'll reedit the section. Empathictrust (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Don't paste irrelevant information into another article before careful rewording because irrelevant text is also BIASed. Uninitiated reader could conclude that ethnicity and nation-state building played significant role in this events. Ethnic Albanians were in exile while "Turkish army" or non-Albanian Ottomans were in "Albanian country". This was not an ethnic issue or nation-state issue. Almost all of Ottoman soldiers and nobility were local ethnic Albanians, Serbs, Vlachs .... It would be against WP:NPOV to introduce 19th century nationalistic perspective to 15th century events. I will be bold and remove irrelevant text part by part with minor rewording of the rest. If anybody disagrees please present arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 1- Of course I won't paste "irrelevant" information to another article, I just put across the idea and the possibility that the "irrelevant information" of this article might and really can help improve other article where this information really belongs. (i.e. Gjon Kastrioti II, Ivan Crnojević, a new article for 1480s uprisings etc). 2- As additional problems of the article, you have pointed out the alleged "nation-state building", the "ethnic issue" (especially the Albanian one, if I got it right) and the "nationalistic perspective of the 19th century". 2. a) I haven't implied any nation-building in the article, that's why in my DYK proposal: "...that the Albanian lord Nicholas Dukagjini, the son of Pal Dukagjini, returned from Italy to his homeland in 1481, together with Gjon Kastrioti II, to regain his family's lands, conquered by the Ottomans?" I have explicitly written "to regain his family's lands" (his family's, not his nation's) and that's why in this version of the article: [2] (section "Return to Albania and early 1480s uprisings", before our irrelevance-removal campaign) important parts of the uprisings are Vlatko Hercegović and Ivan Crnojević, who weren't Albanians, all according to the sources, because everything happened mostly on common interests basis; the idyll of nationalism and nation-state building was still weak. And if you wanted my opinion on these allegations you made, I just believe Dukagjini were simply politically opportunistic. 2. b) Ethnic issue? It was more about religious, political and merely power issue than ethnicity. But that Nicholas was Albanian it is a fact (as sources say at least). And sources say that the Ottoman conquest triggered massive emigrations. We're talking about mid-15th century and if you believe that "Almost all of Ottoman soldiers and nobility were local ethnic Albanians, Serbs, Vlachs ...." present your references and we can include it in the article if it seems relevant. As for the sources I have they all mention simply "Ottoman forces" or the "Ottomans" or "Ottoman army". To stay on topic: Hadım Suleiman Pasha who was the leader of the Ottomans in these uprisings, is referred just as an Ottoman pasha, if you have sources for his ethnicity just mention them. As far as I know, the local leaders and the Balkan people of this time in general were mostly concerned on religion, that's why they married in between them (i.e. Serbs with Albanians). Anyway if you see any sentence formulation in the article that presents something that isn't true according to the references provided, you and anyone can edit and correct it. 2. c) 19th century nationalistic perspective? All the sources of the article are of XXI and XX century, we discussed previously about their reliability... I engaged in a time-consuming quotation of almost every citation I included in the article and tried hard to include every view I found in English and other foreign languages, still there's a view of this nationalistic perspective. I'm truly sorry for that. I have just presented facts of credible sources. But if you think that the return of Nicholas to Albania, or that the uprisings that occurred in Hercegovina and Zeta not only in Albania, or if the mentioning of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača and I. Crnojević is an Albanian nationalistic perspective, I just don't know what to do. As for this edit [3], you and the source could probably be both right and I think a symbiosis of both reasons is more plausible, but what you have removed is a written fact, while your comment is your opinion/belief. The edits are supposed to be justified on sources' basis, am I wrong? And moreover, if you are to remove irrelevant information, please beware of the narrative form of the text and the sentence's structure. The conjunction "and" in between the sentence "Gjon Kastrioti II, was fighting the Ottomans in Otranto and together with his cousin Konstandin Muzaka sailed to Albania in four Neapolitan ships", just is left out its function. How can Gjon sail to Albania, at the same time (since "and" is used) he is fighting the Ottomans in Otranto? Empathictrust (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC) "irrelevant information" of this article might and really can help improve other article where this information really belongs. - I agree with you. I already emphasized "consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic". What is irrelevant for this article will of course fit in another (I think most of it would best fit into the "new article for 1480s uprisings"). Ethnic issue. I am sorry for not being clear about bias issue. I didn't blame you for this bias. It is not hard to AGF in case of your editing and it is easy to recognize very honest approach in your edits, until now. I stated that the text which I removed as irrelevant was biased, so it should be carefully reworded before it is pasted in another article. I propose to focus on this article and not discuss bias of the removed irrelevant text. If you create new text abot 1480s uprisings and paste removed text there, we can continue discussion there. We should stay on topic both on article pages and article talkpages. I don't mind returning this portion of deleted text, although I think it is absurd to claim that Nicholas took advantage of Naples when Naples transported him and other soldiers across the sea to attack Ottoman Empire who was Naple's enemy. But if you insist, I will return it. Please confirm. Please feel free to copy edit any mistake in the sentence's structure I made. Thanks and all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Ok, understood. No need to return the deleted edits, I simply rearranged that sentence. Moreover have made some further and last edits to the article. Shortly explained the focal point of the uprisings (coastal region of Vlora and Himara) and concluded with a synthetic sentence of these uprisings' importance. That is a fact, well noted in Italian sources and I should add that is the main reason of Nicholas Dukagjini's notability, so I hope you won't oppose its insertion in the article. Wish I'm done with this; I'll further answer your concerns regarding the article's DYK nomination after some sleep. All the best, Empathictrust (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Nice job.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910095427/http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts16-18/AH1515.html to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts16-18/AH1515.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)