Talk:Oliver Schmitt

Untitled

"Because he dared to perform a critical analysis of Skanderbeg he was accused for committing sacrilege and sullying the Albanian national honor." your kidding right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.217.103 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lechner, Gerhard. a journalist?

Where are the facts that even the translator has been called ??? what was the word????--Flokarti (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Vojsava

Undue weight... The article is about Schmitt, not 15 century people. Majuru (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No its not. That was one of the main reasons why he was "accused of committing sacrilege and sullying the Albanian national honor."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason he was "accused" of "sacrilege" was because he chose not to present Skanderbeg in a nationalistic way. Most of this criticism came from people who were not historians and had not even read his book. This article makes another ethnic group look bad and should be rewritten (there are also a lot of big grammatical mistakes). Here is two articles about Schmitt which show him as a respected academic in Albanian circles: [1] [2]. (There are others too and many Albanian scholars eg. Dritan Egro, Kasem Biçoku have good relationships with Schmitt.) I hope I'm wrong in my interpretation that this article makes Albanians look bad.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The lede of the article says that Schmitt "is a member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences" which clearly present him as "a respected academic in Albanian circles". If he is appointed for a member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences although he wrote a critical biography of Skanderbeg that can not present Albanians as bad. On the contrary.

The article also explains that he wrote "a critical biography" of Skanderbeg which is, including his claims that Skanderbeg's mother was Serbian princess, the most important reason that he was "accused of committing sacrilege and sullying the Albanian national honor". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That is simply not true. While it was one reason why he was accused of "sacrilege," the main reason is because he wrote a non-nationalistic biography of the figure. (Also, you can't write "critical" biographies as that would be unscientific.) Here is what Robert Elsie says to illustrate my point: Schmitt was able to paint what he regards as a more accurate picture of Scanderbeg, analyzing him as an historical figure rather than presenting him as the traditional, larger-than-life national hero. Schmitt’s discoveries shocked the Albanians, almost rocking the foundations of the Albanian state. Again, like I said, the main "accusations" of sacrilege came from those who did not read the book (did you even look at my sources?). What this article does is assume that those who have criticized the book criticized it for saying that Vojsava was a Brankovic, which makes Albanians look like idiots for caring, but the main reason was because he presented Skanderbeg in a way most Albanians weren't used to. (As a matter of fact, if you listen to the debates, they mainly surround the historical figure of Skanderbeg, not who his mother was.)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrote: While it was one reason why he was accused of "sacrilege," the main reason is because he wrote a non-nationalistic biography of the figure. - and with this comment you confirmed my point that information about Schmitt's opinion of Skanderbeg's Serbian origin is one of the reason why he was accused of "sacrilege" and therefore should be presented to the readers. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) I didn't confirm anything you said. On the contrary, I showed how much undue weight you have given to a topic which isn't even very important, as I pointed out. WP:Undue weight confirms what I say: [D]iscussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You contradict yourself in more than one aspect of this discussion. Yes you did confirm what I said. You confirmed that Schmitt's claims that Skanderbeg had Serbian origin was one reason why he was accused of "sacrilege". You even confirmed that this is not a case of "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports" when you quoted how Robert Elsie emphasized that "Schmitt’s discoveries shocked the Albanians, almost rocking the foundations of the Albanian state, and the debate that arose in the autumn of 2008, involved passionate arguments and counter-arguments in the media, the public, and even in the Albanian government.".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I did not contradict myself and I explained why it is undue weight. I did not contradict myself because Schmitt did not only say that Vojsava was a Brankovic but also said many other things which many Albanians were not used to hearing. It is undue weight to present that Vojsava was the only one or the main one. I am just repeating myself now, please read WP:Undue Weight.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that you are obviously wrong. The third sentence of the article clearly explains that "a hot debate in Albania" was result of Schmitt's book being a critical biography of George Castrioti-Skanderbeg." Vojsava is mentioned only after this sentence. Still, there is some point in what you say. There are many other things that "many Albanians were not used to hearing" which should be presented in this article. I will add some of them very soon. Thanks for the idea.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing is just plain wrong. You know that that is not what I was arguing for and I am against giving undue weight to topics which are relatively unimportant. What I am proposing is not to make it so that only one (or several) reason(s) caused the Albanian media to go mad, but say that his research caused media controversy in Albania (and I already explained that Vojsava wasn't the main issue at all.)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You again contradict yourself. Let me remind you what Robert Elsie (who you introduced into this discussion) wrote about this "unimportant topics": Media, public and even the Albanian government were involved in passionate arguments and counter-arguments which almost rocked the foundations of the Albanian state. Something which had such significant consequences is far from being unimportant case of "media going mad". On the contrary. It deserves detailed explanation of all reasons you mentioned.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Even if that were the case (which isn't convincing) that would still not warrant an investigation into the reasons why there was so much controversy as this is not what this article is about and it would be undue weight. Perhaps the model of this article about Holm Sundhaussen on de.wikipedia should be followed: Die Veröffentlichung seines 2007 erschienenen Standardwerks Geschichte Serbiens. 19. - 21. Jahrhundert in serbischer Sprache verursachte im Frühjahr 2009 in Serbien eine gesellschaftliche Debatte über die Geschichte des Landes und die Möglichkeit, diese durch einen Ausländer korrekt darzustellen ([3]). It does not go into undue weight territory but still mentions that there was media controversy surrounding his work.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You again contradict yourself.

1. You confirmed that Schmitt's claims that Skanderbeg had Serbian origin were one of the reasons why he was accused of "sacrilege": "While it was one reason why he was accused of "sacrilege," the main reason is because he wrote a non-nationalistic biography of the figure."
2. Then you introduced the above mentioned explanation of Robert Elsie that it even caused the Albanian government to be involved into passionate arguments and counterarguments which almost rocked the foundations of the Albanian state (which you labeled as "unimportant topics").
3. Now you claim that what you yourself wrote "isn't convincing"

I think that the only thing which "isn't convincing" is your attempt to remove the referenced information about the important aspect of Schmitt's work. Please stop doing that because somebody who doesn't AGF could see it as tendentious editing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'm contradicting myself and nothing you said seems to contradict what I said. I think I gave a pretty clear explanation and if you want to WP:AGF then you should probably not call my edits tendentious.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory statements

Gaius Claudius Nero (not) confirming the point of Antidiskriminator Antidiskriminator: That was one of the main reasons why he was "accused of committing sacrilege..." Gaius Claudius Nero: it was one reason why he was accused of "sacrilege," Antidiskriminator: you confirmed my point Gaius Claudius Nero: I didn't confirm anything you said. Gaius Claudius Nero: Although it shocked the Albanians, involved the Albanian government and almost rocked the foundations of the Albanian state it is "a topic which isn't even very important": Gaius Claudius Nero: Here is what Robert Elsie says to illustrate my point: ... Schmitt’s discoveries shocked the Albanians, almost rocking the foundations of the Albanian state. Gaius Claudius Nero: ...a topic which isn't even very important. Antidiskriminator: You even confirmed that this is not a case of "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports" when you quoted how Robert Elsie emphasized that "Schmitt’s discoveries shocked the Albanians, almost rocking the foundations of the Albanian state, and ...involved... the Albanian government". Gaius Claudius Nero: That is incorrect. Schmitt did not only say that Vojsava was a Brankovic but also said many other things which many Albanians were not used to hearing. Antidiskriminator: I will add some of them very soon. Thanks for the idea. Gaius Claudius Nero: that is not what I was arguing for Antidiskriminator:.... Something which had such significant consequences ... deserves detailed explanation of all reasons you mentioned. Gaius Claudius Nero: that ... isn't convincing Antidiskriminator: You confirmed that Schmitt's claims that Skanderbeg had Serbian origin were one of the reasons why he was accused of "sacrilege", you introduced the above mentioned explanation of Robert Elsie that it even caused the Albanian government to be involved into passionate arguments and counterarguments which almost rocked the foundations of the Albanian state Now you claim that what you yourself wrote "isn't convincing" Gaius Claudius Nero: I don't think I'm contradicting myself

I think I gave a fairly clear explanation that you are contradicting yourself because you actually confirmed my point that such important issue which almost rocked the foundations of the Albanian state and even involved the Albanian government can not be considered as a case of "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports... disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". 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) 08:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Antid, again, nothing which you said or showed contradicted what I said and Fut.Perf's message to someone else doesn't convince anyone. You are making straw man fallacies and misinterpreting what I am saying. "You are of course free to disagree" but that doesn't warrant misconstruing everything I say. If you refuse to at least listen, fine, but at least don't write long, condescending messages taking everything that I say out of context. ANd of course, you ignored this diff entirely where I made clear what I was asking for: Link.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Schmitt: Revolucioni i Lenin hakmarrje personale. Iliazi Fatmir Historiani Oliver Jens Schmitt: Revolucioni i Lenin hakmarrje personale.

by Iliazi Fatmir on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 11:20pm ·

Historiani shumë i njohur në Europë Oliver Jens Schmitt publikoi një libër për Vladmir Lenin. Historiani kishte zbuluar ne arshivat e Kremlinit nje dokument shumë të rëndësishëëm te kohes se Carit. Në dokumentin e zbuluar shkruhet per nje bisede qe Cari ka bere me disa vartes te tij kur shpërtheu revoulcioni i Tetorit. Cari u ka thënë atyre qe Lufta e Lenin eshte nje hakmarrje personale, në hakmarrje të vrasjes së vëllait tij të madh Aleksandr Ulyanov.

Vëllai i madh i Lenin, Aleksandr Ulyanov u përfshi në një atentat kundër Car Alexander të III-të. Aleksandëri ishte caktuar nga oraganizata revolucionare të përgatiste bombën për vrasjen e Carit. Aleksanderi u kap para realizmit të atentatit dhe u dënua me pushkatim nga gjykata e Carit.

Shmitt gjeti këtë evidence te pazbuluar der me sot, si dhe nje evidence te dyte: urdhërin e dhënë nga Lenin, kuptohet evidence indirekte verbale, nje bisede midis zyrtareve te larte te shtetit e regjistruar nga nje agjent i sigurimit te shtetit ku njeri prej tyre urdhëronte tjetrin të zbatohej urdheri gojor i Lenin për vrasjen e gjithë familjes mbretërore së Carit. Shmitt zbuloi perseri nje evidencë gojore, qe dikush i thoshte dikujt tjeter, evidence ai tha- ai e beri për, që urdhëri i ekzekutimit të familjes mbretërore u dha nga Lenin gojarisht dhe duhej zbatuar.

Hakmarrja e tij e egërdo bëhet bindëse nga pena e shumë të yalentuarit Shmiit , ngjashëm me atë të Skënderbeut, kur Lenin urdhëron gojarisht eleminimin fizik të njëkohshëm të dukeshës Yelizaveta Feodorovna, dukës së madh Sergei Mikhailovich, princit Ivan Konstantinovich, princit Konstantin Konstantinovich, princit Igor Konstantinovich dhe kontit Vladimir Paley , djali i Paul Alexandrovich, të gjithë në një vënd tëvetëm , Alapaevsk.

Pas realizimit te hakmarrjes Shmitt hedh hipotezën që Lenin zëvëdësoi vetem me sozinë etij, sepse e dinte që familja e madhe e Carit, qe madje kishte lidhje me familjet me të njohura mbretërore Europiane do të lante gjakun e Carit dhe familjes së tij duke i bërë një antetat. Pas zëvëndësimit me sozinë ai bëri një jetë të lumtur e gëzuar në Australi me fondet e vjedhura nga pasuria e Carit. Sekretin e tij e dinin vetëm një reth shumë i ngushtë- supozon pësëri Shmitt- ku kryesori ishte Stalin që organizoi në ndihmë mbulimit të çdo gjurme

Por, gjithë historia e sozisë është ende një hipotezë derisa- Shmitt thekson- të gjëndet ndonji dokumeti i rallë, i fshehur mirë deri tani nga ish komunistët rusë, të cilë ende kanë pushtet të fuqishën në Rusinë paskomuniste, kuptohet ndirekt si gjithmone karakteristike e evidencave te tij autori, që Stalini ja kishte thënë dikuijt tjetër që armiqtë i bënë atentat sozisë së Leninit.

Ky autor i njohur ka edhe një veçori tjetër: ai bazohet vetëm në një "ai tha" evidencë. Jo më shumë se një ai tha evidencë. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.88.58 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)