Talk:Battle of Torvioll

Do not remove the categories before talking in the talk page

This goes for Jaraalbe and other trollers. Otherwise, I have an ANI ready.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Soon? Go back? Reins? Rebellion?

"who, soon after his father (John Kastrioti) died, decided to go back to his native land and take the reins of a new Albanian rebellion."

John Kastrioti died on May 2, 1437. Skanderbeg deserted Ottoman Empire army on November 28, 1443 when Ottoman Empire lost Battle of Nish against Hunyadi.

I think that it is wrong to hide from readers fact that it took Skanderbeg 6 years, 6 months and 26 days after his father died to decide to go back to his native land (btw he was there in 1437, because sultan appointed him to be lord of Krujë zeamet in period 1437–1438, therefore there was no need for him to go back to his native land after his father died, because he was there, being sipahi within Ottoman Empire and participating in battles of Ottoman Empire during next more than 6 and half years (period that is hard to be reffered as soon after his father's death).

It was impossible for Skanderbeg to go back to his native land and take the reins of new Albanian rebellion because there was no rebellion that he could take reins of when he decided to go back to his native land after deserting Ottoman army on November 28, 1443.

Since Skanderbeg's decision was not connected with his father's death and since there was no rebellion when he decided on November 28, 1443 to go back, I propose to change that sentence to correspond with informations from reliable sources and basic logic and delete above mentioned part. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This was the 15th century. Six months was not much back then. And Oliver Jens Schmitt says that the only reason Skanderbeg returned to Albania was to avenge his father's death. George Arianiti was still defiant in the South.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I did read carefully. It was not six months. It was 6 years, 6 months and 26 days.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Who was Skanderbeg?

"Skanderbeg was a renegade Ottoman captain of Albanian origin."

I find this sentence absurd:

1. Skanderbeg deserted Ottoman Empire army more than 8 month before this battle, gained control over Kroja and many other castles, elected as leader of League of Lezhe and fought this battle on June 29, 1444. When Battle of Torvioll was fought he was not anymore renegade Ottoman captain, but leader of League of Lezhe.
2. Even if there was rank of captain in Ottoman Army, Skanderbeg was not captain but much higher rank.
3. And finally, ethnic origin of Skanderbeg is disputed and that dispute is probably described in every single work about him (except main body of the article on wikipedia) and writing only information that he is of Albanian origin without description of this dispute is violation of WP:NPOV.

I propose to change above mentioned sentence to:

“Skanderbeg was leader of League of Lezhe.”

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is better to merge beggining of this two sentences:

“Skanderbeg was a renegade Ottoman captain of Albanian origin. He, along with 300 other Albanians fighting at the battle of Nish, deserted the Ottoman army to head towards Krujë which fell quickly through a subversion.”

to be:

“Skanderbeg along with 300 other Albanians fighting at the battle of Nish, deserted the Ottoman army to head towards Krujë which fell quickly through a subversion.” --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Peacock terms and POV

Peacock terms is requesting:

1. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorse a particular point of view.
2. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

There are lot of peacock terms that are supporting disputed perspective of Skanderbeg and his Albanianess and therefore those terms should be replaced with more appropriate that would not violate wikipedia policies.

From there, Skanderbeg continued to reconsolidate his father's lands by laying siege to the most important fortresses in central Albania which had been occupied by Turkish forces. He then participated in establishing the League of Lezhë, a confederation of Albanian princedoms united in war against the Ottoman Empire. Murad II, realizing the threat, sent his most experienced captain, Ali Pasha, to crush the rebellion with a force of 25,000 men.

Skanderbeg, well-versed in Ottoman tactics and strategy, expected a reaction so he moved with 15,000 of his own men to defeat Ali Pasha's army.

The victory served as a huge morale boost to the Albanian men and princes who gave Skanderbeg much support.

All of these were unsuccessful, with the League only yielding once Skanderbeg died.(this is not true)

.....

I could copy paste whole article. But it needs serious reconstructuring because it is serious violation of WP:NPOV and written in absurd glorifying perspective.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Venetian occupation of Lezhe?

Resolved

"Venetian occupied town of Lezhë"

Occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army. Control over town of Lezhe was given by Dukagjini family without fight. [1]. It is wrong to state that Lezhe was occupied.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

...and here it is!

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1. Under "Background", you should introduce who John Huyandi is when you bring him up for the first time, to provide the requisite context for the reader. For example, "Hungarian general John Hunyadi's continued operations..."
2. Same concern with Ali Pasha in the "Prelude" section... the body should be written under the assumption that the reader has not read the lead, since, per WP:LEAD, the lead should not be introducing facts that are not present in the body of the article.
3. Also per above, I feel that the the lead gives a bit more in-depth background that is not present in the body of the article. Again, per WP:LEAD, anything in the lead should also be in the body. For example, there's no context in the body about the death of Skanderbeg's father or the son's motive to reclaim the father's lands. Same with some of the aftermath material about Skanderberg's later career.

And that's really about it! A very nice read and I got through it fairly quick to boot! I am going to put the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that changes can be made. I'm always open to discussion, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 02:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I'm glad you liked it. I understand if you don't have time as I also have this issue. I also understand your concerns and tried to address them. I see that the lead was a bit overdone since I wrote it before the body, so I tried to restructure it. How do my revisions look?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, and I also like that there was an effort made to address the other concerns in the section above. Nice work! I'll be passing the article as a GA now. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review!--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate map

Unresolved

"Ali Pasha, one of Murad's most favoured commanders, left Üsküp (Skopje) in June 1444 with an army of 25,000 – primary sources say 40,000 – in Albania's direction."

The map is inaccurate and misleading and contradicts above sentence. It presents Ottoman forces coming from Prizren (although OE captured Prizren in 1455) and Bitola, although the text of the article explains that they came from Skopje.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Above mentioned assertion connected with Skopje should be double-checked. "En juin 1444, une armée turque de 25 000 hommes, commandée par Ali pacha, pénétrait en Albanie par Ochrid." - Stefanaq Pollo, Arben Puto, Kristo Frashëri, Skënder Anamali.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Kristo Frashëri is probably most precise. He stated that Ottoman army entered Albania "from the Dibra district" (at that time there was no other Dibra district besides Sanjak of Debar). There are many other sources which emphasize Dibra district.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Branilo?

There are sources (like this) which mention certain Branilo as one of the commanders in this battle. I propose to further research this valuable information about this commander of Skanderbeg's forces who commanded with 3,000 men.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ajdin Muzaka

Unresolved

If Ajdin Muzaka was one of the important Skanderbeg's commanders, that information should be presented in the infobox. Together with information that he was killed in this battle, if the article about him is true.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Crnojević?

"Among the nobles that attended were George Arianiti, Paul Dukagjini, Andrea Thopia, Lekë Dushmani, Teodor Korona, Peter Spani, Lekë Zaharia, and Paul Stres Balsha."

Is there any particular reason for excluding Stefan Crnojević and his three sons from the list of nobleman who forged League of Lezhe?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul Stres Balsha

Who is Paul Stres Balsha?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Battle of Torvioll

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: In breach of the reliable sources guideline, specifically WP:AGEMATTERS, and thus violating GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2011. Has been tagged for refimprove since 2020. But its main problem is the numerous non-primary source tags on the article. Would like someone to look and see if the primary sources are an issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the introduction of the linked Moore 1850. It seems to be largely a reworking of a 1596 translation of a prior (to 1596) book by Jacques Lavarin (in French). Lavarin's book relies heavily, according to Moore, on a history by Marinus Barletius but is itself constructed from a list of twelve sources. If not largely a mirror of Barletius – a direct comparison with a modern translation of Barletius may be needed to establish whether that is the case – I would think it obsolete. Ifly6 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Many of the tags were added by Phso2 in Special:Diff/813213605. Tagging for possible explanation or context. Ifly6 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Moore says his "business has been to concentrate Lavardin's history" (i.e. to concentrate the 1596 English translation of Lavardin's 1576 book); Lavardin says his book is "drawned for the most part" from Barleti. As noted by Ifly6, if the result of this Latin->French->Bad English->Good English successive translations may not be a mirror of Barletius, I doubt it can be qualified as a reliable source. That doesn't mean that academic modern history differs from this account (perhaps not, since Barleti is perhaps the only primary source - I don't know), but the sourcing is questionable at least.--Phso2 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Even if modern academic history does not differ from Moore's account, it should the main thing cited regardless; people use Wikipedia's references as a starting place for research. We shouldn't lead them into 19th century dead ends. Ifly6 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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