Talk:Mehmed II's Albanian campaign

Hamza's ransom
We're saying that Hamza was ransomed for 10,000 once and then for 13,000. What's the correct amount? --Sulmuesi (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * its actually 10,000 for him and 3,000 for his staff. ill fix this.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg responded in such a way that the Ottoman officers began to cry
One paragraph from the (existing version of the) article:

''Hamza and his staff were captured in the battle. Fearing punitive measures, Hamza begged for mercy, arguing that he had only fought against Skanderbeg since he had been ordered to. Skanderbeg responded in such a way that the Ottoman officers began to cry and he offered to have dinner with them. After this, he ordered for his prisoners to be put under guard and to be treated properly. The men were freed in the end, but Hamza and his staff were ransomed for 13,000 ducats. Skanderbeg's magnanimity became known throughout Albania and the Ottoman Empire to the point where many of his men gained much more respect for him as a warrior. Skanderbeg's intention in doing so was to show that he would not take advantage of the unfortunate and that he had enough confidence in his ability to let his enemies fight him again another day.''

The above mentioned paragraph inform the readers of this article how:
 * Hamza feared punitive measures.
 * Hamza begged for mercy.
 * Hamza argued that "he had only fought against Skanderbeg since he had been ordered to." (?!)
 *  Skanderbeg responded in such a way that the Ottoman officers began to cry 
 * Skanderbeg "offered to have dinner with them."
 * Skanderbeg's magnanimity became known throughout Albania and the Ottoman Empire to the point where many of his men gained much more respect for him as a warrior.
 *  Skanderbeg's intention in doing so was to show that he would not take advantage of the unfortunate and that he had enough confidence in his ability to let his enemies fight him again another day.

I am wondering if the reviewer of this article's GA nomination knew about Reviewing good articles. There is a section First things to look for which says something about the situation when the topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way.

Are Franco Demetrio (primary source) and Gennaro Francione (a writer also worked as an actor and director, theater, essayist and painter who is from the artistic point of view influenced by Hacker Art, art, Gothic Revival and the so-called cyber-culture) the only sources for the above mentioned text?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed(the reviewer) has written 85 GAs, so he does know much about good articles.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All the details about the battles of Modrica and Mecad are supported only by works of Franco and Francione who were/are not historians. This was obviously important battle with more than 40.000 soldiers involved and should be supported with reliable sources written by historians. Above mentioned Reviewing good articles guideline and its section First things to look for says something about: The article completely lacks reliable sources. I am concerned because Francioni/Franco are used as source in many articles about Skanderbeg to support many details not usually known in case of medieval events. Is it possible to provide sources about the topic of this article which are works of historians? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dhimitër Frëngu (1443-1525) was an Albanian scholar, soldier and Catholic priest. His foremost work is considerered to be Comentario de le cose de' Turchi, et del S. Georgio Scanderbeg, principe d' Epyro, a biography of the national hero of Albania Skanderbeg. The details on this battle (and others also) are on Frengu and the contemporary sources. The generic facts on these battles you can find in later Scanderbeg biographers (eg Noli 1947 p.65) but the later biographers of XXth century were not interested in describing single battles, only in Scanderbeg activity in general, so if you want a description of battle in this case you should go for primary sources, those who were written immediately after the events such as Frengu, Barleti, Becikemi, Venetian reports etc. Aigest (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I reply to your comment, I kindly remind you that my comment included Gennaro Francione (a writer also worked as an actor and director, theater, essayist and painter who is from the artistic point of view influenced by Hacker Art, art, Gothic Revival and the so-called cyber-culture).
 * Is Gennaro Francione contemporary source?
 * How does he know that:
 * Hamza feared punitive measures.
 * Hamza begged for mercy.
 * Hamza argued that "he had only fought against Skanderbeg since he had been ordered to." (?!)
 * --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Francione is a XX-XXI century polyhedral figure who has written a study on Scanderbeg. You should see which sources he uses as reference, probably Frengu or Barletius. Aigest (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably? Do you want me to find sources for statements of other users? Let me remind you that WP:BURDEN The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
 * I find Aigest's claim that "the later biographers of XXth century were not interested in describing single battles, only in Scanderbeg activity in general" is incorrect. Many reliable works of the XXth and XXIst century historians are used as sources for battles of Skanderbeg. They, of course, do not contain information about the feelings of the people during 15th century battles, crying of Ottoman officers because the way they were responded,...
 * The Wikipedia:No original research policy emphasize: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
 * ...so if you want a description of battle in this case you should go for primary sources...? Let me reply by reminding you what is also emphasized in the above mentioned policy:
 * Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources.
 * In this case there is a reason for additional concern about basing all information about the battles in this article solely on primary sources: many of the primary sources about Skanderbeg were proven to be forged (by Barleti, Biemmi...).
 * Conclusion: According to the one of the core wikipedia policies we should not base all information about the battles of the Mehmed II's first Albanian campaign solely on primary sources and instead we should refer to reliable secondary sources with proper interpretation of primary sources by professional historians (not by polyhedral figures like Francione). Until then the sections about the battles ( Battle of Modrica and Battle of Meçad should be marked with appropriate tag:


 * --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Barleti was not a forger, Biemi (18th century) is not a primary source and anyway they are not used here. If you find a synth on Frengu work just say it. Aigest (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Barleti was forger and Biemi forged primary source. Even if they were not forgers but saints, we should follow wikipedia polices instead of evaluating material found in medieval primary sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Antid, this is not the first time you brought this up and still you refuse to listen. And for the third time, WP:OR on primary sources says A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sometimes tempted to believe that those Ottoman officers really cried because the way they were responded.
 * This is not the first time you accuse me instead to focus on the provided arguments grounded in core wiki policies.
 * In my above comments I clearly emphasized: The problem is when material added to the article is entirely based on primary sources.
 * Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources . I pointed to the major portion of the two key sections about the Battles of Mecad and Battle of Modric are entirely based only on primary source (Franco).
 * What is the problem with following the above mentioned request of WP:OR and supporting the material about the battles of this campaign with reliable secondary sources? Are there any? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, there is no section based entirely on a primary source. This article is not based entirely on primary sources so that point fails here. I could not find many secondary sources that dealt with the battles in much detail, except for Alois Schmaus and so I added that.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the version of the article before your recent changes. The whole sections about the Battle of Modrica and Battle of Meçad is written solely on the basis of primary sources (Franco or certain Francione (polyhedral figure who uses primary sources as reference, Aigest says "probably Frengu or Barletius"). Was Alois Schmaus historian? Are you able to present any secondary source written by historian about those important battles? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alois Schmaus was a Balkanolog and a member of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities and his work was published in a respectable journal on southeastern European studies. Meanwhile, I am in the process of searching to find more sources for that section.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that he was also a Slavist who studied philology and who specialized in "language, folklore and cultural history of the South Slavs".
 * I really hope that you will find some reliable secondary sources about this very important campaign which included about 40,000 soldiers and ended with almost 10,000 casualties. Maybe you support Aigest's entertaining explanation that "XXth and XXIst century historians...were not interested in describing single battles"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Location
I think that this article is factually inaccurate regarding location. Infobox says it is eastern Albania. That is wrong because Modrič (one of the major battlefields described in this article) is actually in Macedonia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

League of Lezhë
The article is factually inaccurate regarding one of two combatants. League of Lezhë fell apart in 1450, two years before events described in this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Find Mehmed II
In an attempt to locate Mehmed II's actual location in 1452:


 * , can you provide a quote from the Hodgkinson (p. 109) source? Also, would you happen to know the MOS concerning the military infobox template? Would Mehmed II be listed, even if he were not there in person, since he presumably planned the campaign?


 * Ending August (1542) Mehmed II was having the Rumeli hisar built. Granted he was not needed there the entire time, nor does it imply he was there the entire time.


 * August 28- 3 September, 1452 :Mehmed II marched his army to Constantinople and inspected its walls.


 * Early October 1452: Mehmed II raided the despot of Morea.


 * 1466: Mehmed II lost this campaign into Albania
 * 1467: Mehmed II lost this campaign into Albania

Pitcher states Mehmed II lost both campaigns during the years 1466 and 1467. Pitcher makes no mention of a previous Albanian campaign, stating that Mehmed II's first campaign was in 1466.

From my talk page, thanks to StephenMacky1:
 * Hodgkinson's source and the following is written on pp. 109–110: During the second phase the Turks, as enthusiastic as when the first charge began, even tried to break through the gate with their lances. But the walls still held. Murad saw that he was losing men pointlessly, for there was no hope of victory that day. He ordered the retreat to be sounded, and for the next two days held a council of his generals to decide what should be done next. One immediate precaution was to guard the camp against a further surprise attack. A force was placed at the point where the original attack had taken place that afternoon, in the hope that Scanderbeg would repeat his exploit and so be captured. Prince Mehmed stayed with them the whole of one night, but his ‘wild beast’ was equal to so :unsubtle a ruse.


 * The quote on p. 106: When spring arrived, the Sultan Murad II and his vast army moved westwards to destroy the ‘inexpugnable walls’ of Kruja. With it went the new weapons, the marks of Turkish technical superiority, the small artillery on the backs of the lunging camels and the supplies of brass and other metals from which the great guns were to be cast on the spot. And with these again a mass of crowbars, mattocks and pickaxes for undermining the walls. Each fighting man, and there may have been as many as 160,000 of them, brought with him provisions for several days so that he could feed himself on the march through the forests and mountains between Macedonia and the Adriatic plains. The march began on 5th April 1450. So it's actually about the first siege of Krujë. Nothing about 1452.


 * So the Hodkinson source is, as far as we can tell, not about 1452 and that particular Albanian campaign. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, the article needs an overhaul and then a GA reassessment. It needs to comply with the Good article criteria. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is a mess. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree too. I find that the prose is all over the place. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)