Talk:Siege of Svetigrad

Sfetigrad
It seems like the Sfetigrad fortress is not in Koxhaxhik, but in the Dervenik mountain according to this source. It seems like Kasem Bicoku agrees. --Sulmues (Talk) 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I'll change it right away.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved to "Svetigrad" and changed names with the exception of the Albanian historiography. While in Albanian has historically been said Sfetigrad, the English version should be closer to Slavic Macedonian "Svetigrad". --  S ulmues (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * it is because albi in latin, or beli serbi from elbe, or elbanians (elbasan toponym for instance), were slavic speaking peoples. all those slavic toponyms, hydronyms, oronyms in albania were left by albanians. later kachaks, bashibozouks, turks adopted that name and forced their language on albanian population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.14.18 (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Siege of Svetigrad in 1448 or 1449?
✅

"On May 14, 1448, an Ottoman army led by Sultan Murad II and his son Mehmed laid siege to the castle of Svetigrad.....In late summer 1448, due to a lack of potable water, the Albanian garrison eventually surrendered the castle ..."

There are plenty of reliable sources claiming that siege was in 1449. In this source "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century" year of siege of Svetigrad is 1449 (p. 558). The same is with wikipedia on Macedonian language and this book that can also be found here. There is also book written by Andrija Kačić Miošić here and here that says that siege was in 1449. Also, here is information that siege was in 1449.

I know that there are a lot of reliable sources with information that siege was in 1448, but maybe it can be put in the note that there are some stating it was in 1449?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There is something wrong with chronology
"Skanderbeg continued to shadow the Ottoman army as it headed back home in the hopes of dealing some serious damage, but his forces were not strong enough to risk provoking them."

This sentence is based on Harry Hodgkinson work (british secret agents of 2nd WW (H.Hodgkinson), who did not check any archive - Prof. Oliver Schmitt). There was discussion about Harry Hodgkinson reliability without consensus reached, but with majority of users that took part in discussion being against using his work in article about Skanderbeg.

If Ottoman forces conquired Svetigrad in July 31, 1448, they not "headed back home" but went to Second Battle of Kosovo. If Skandebeg shadowed Ottoman Empire army, he would not be delayed by Branković to participate in battle. I propose to use some more reliable sources then Hodgkinson and to check everything in the article that is based only on his work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, maybe work that was claimed to be written by Hodgkinson was not totally wrong if battle has happened in 1449 like many other sources say? Comments are more than welcomed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes this has already been established. It will be worked on. We have lives outside of Wikipedia so we can't fix everything right away.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only that articles about Skanderbeg and Siege of Svetigrad have wrong chronology, but article about Battle of Oranik (1448) that is also mentioned in this article has wrong chronology. In this article is written:
 * “Skanderbeg tried to regain Svetigrad the next year (1949 - Antidiskriminator), but he did not have the proper artillery to do so. He surrounded the fortress, but he realized that his position was hopeless and lifted the siege. Ottoman invasions did not stop. A few weeks after the siege, Mustafa Pasha led 15,000 men into Albania, as requested by Skanderbeg's Venetian rivals, only to be heavily defeated with Mustafa being captured.”
 * Mustafa Pasha and Battle of Oranik are in all of the articles about Skanderbeg described to happen in August 1948. If Skanderbeg “tried to regain Svetigrad the next year (1949)....but he realized that his position was hopeless and lifted the siege” and after that is written that “few weeks after the siege, Mustafa Pasha led 15,000 men into Albania” into Battle of Oranik that took place in 1948, than chronology is wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Blog as source
There is a blog referenced as source. It is against WP:RS policy to use blogs as source of informations. I propose to find another source or if there are no other sources, to delete all informations sourced with blogs.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

When the time comes, they will be largely taken over by better sources
@Gaius Claudius Nero:You said almost a year ago "when the time comes, they will be largely taken over by better sources". I was wondering if the time has come to use works of main scholars and historians as sources for this article "not works of 20th century British inteligence officers or movie actors and painters"? I emphasize the main section of this article (the Siege section) is based solely on Franco/Hodgkinson non-scholarly sources .--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Distance to Kruje
Distance between Drevenik and Kruje is 82 miles or 132km as the crow flies, or 275km today, using modern roads.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is Svetigrad?
The location of Svetigrad is unclear. Part of the article says it is Koxhaxhik, northeast of Kruje near Debar, and part of the article says it Dervenik near Demir Hisar. This should be clarified.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This source says that Svetigrad was in Upper Debar (modern day Debar in Macedonia).
 * If nobody complains I will add the above mentioned assertion instead of Demir kapija blog referenced assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I found additional sources which confirms Kodžadžik assertion:
 * many other sources
 * so I will use it in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * many other sources
 * so I will use it in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Skanderbeg?? Numbers?? Loses??
✅ In the past couple of months there have been edit wars and debates on the article. Generally this debates are about 3 diffrent topics. Lets take them each one by one: Firstly did Skanderbeg actually take part in the campaign on Sfetigrad? This is the easiest part to conclude as literaly every single source and reference inside the article says yes. So im gonna keep this part short and just say yes. Secondly How many loses did the Ottomans take in the siege? There appears to be 2 diffrent sources for this. The first source is from Francione which states that up to 20,000 Ottoman soliders died (you can look this up in the article). While the second source, a modern source talking about an Albanian expedition to what is today Sfetigrad and uncovering a massgraves, stating that there are 900 muslim (Ottoman) graves and therefor 900 Ottoman casualties. So which one has most weight? lets look at them shall we? lets start of with the second source, the Albanain expedition, as it provides direct proof (graves) to the number. But lets dig a little more here here (this is the source btw https://humanisticus.blogspot.com/2007_08_02_archive.html)  Firstly the article states that this expedition happend in 2007 (or at least when the article about it was published) and it claims that the article was also published by Tirana Observer, a local newspaper in Tirana. Tirana observer has gonna to web surfeces since 2007, but I was unable to find the article published by Agon Rrezja, the head of the expedition. Secondly, there is an issue here that is linked to every single battle during the middle ages. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15740773.2017.1324675 this article here is part of a book titled "Journal of Conflict Archaeology" and the volume is titled "Where are the dead of medieval battles? A preliminary survey" which outlines several problems which finding and uncovering mass graves from medieval battles. One of the later points it makes its that most bodies fallen in medieval battle are usually looted for their armour and then cremated. Now lets look a bit at the first source. Demetrio Francione was a historian that lived in the 16th century, a century after the fall of Skanderbeg. This time difference gives credit to Francione as its inline with Skanderbegs main biographers, Barleti. (Also for aincent and medieval times, when the source is closer to the date it happend its regarded as better due to later sources "romantacising" the events or writing them off based on hearsay). And he isnt the only one that claims the number of 20,000. Barleti and Hudschinson also claim the same number of dead and/or wounded. So beacuse of the at the least disputed expedition source, and the 2 other sources that back up the first one im gonna have to conclude that 20,000 is the right number. Third and lastly, how many troops did the Ottomans have? the conflict seems to be weather to add Turkish Proffesor M. Tayyib Gökbilgin source into the article. The 80,000 Ottoman numbers sources have been accepted ever since the article was created and so coming in the article with a print source like this and claiming 15,000 soliders is, at the very least, a bit dubious. For this last argument im gonna have to ask help from the turkish community here and provide a link to the book or at the least the page of the book that claims 15,000 beacuse I cant find it. So for this last one I firstly wanna look if the source provided does state 15,000. Although I would probably still argue that the sources from article that state 80,000 have more weight I firslty wanna look up the turkish source. Also stop the edit wars and dont explain your reasons in the sum up of edits, thats not the use of them. Gertice4 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Did Skanderbeg Participate?
 * How many losses did the Ottomans suffer?
 * What were the numbers of Ottoman soliders?


 * Do you really mind the loss of 20,000 soldiers? Modern sources and research are always more reliable. A historian who lived in the 16th century cannot use any technological development of our age. If the Ottomans had lost 20 thousand soldiers in that war, the authority in the Ottoman army would be broken and the soldiers would start to flee to the right and left.This happens in every war, if an army loses 20 thousand or so, the main army collapses and other armies start to flee in fear. But Sultan Murad's army continues to besiege and marches on the Kruje fortress. While Sultan Mehmed's soldiers lost 13-24k in the siege of Belgrade, they started to flee to the right and left because the authority of the army was broken. And why would I lie about the number 15,000? If you have a social media account, contact me and I will translate the book and send you a photo. And we should use the academic figures given by historians, not what we think. Editing about the army numbers of many pages continues. See Siege of Belgrade (1456) edit history There is still research and regulation on army numbers. A source written in the past does not always have to show the truth. New sources are added, and another historian claims to have found another document. Wikipedia should take these as a basis. Keremmaarda (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You have missed my point about the second topic (the casulaties) but its fine. Firstly, the idea that 20,000 casualties would destroy the Ottomans isnt really true. Medieval wars revolved around a couple of battles, which would have a lot of number of soliders. This is a siege, and notably sieges cause way more casualties than actual battles. So the number of 20,000 is possible. Secondly, my entire point of the casualties is that during medieval times, the bodies used to get burned up and only more nobely men would get buried, it wasnt to disscuss the 20,000 casualties number, it was more so to disscuss that even when the graves were found that doesnt exlude the 20,000 number. And if you look at the edit history of the Article it would support my point. Since the creation of the article the expedition that found the graves was noted but never changed the 20,000 casualties numbers. Like the information is not new, it has been known since 2009. For your second point, I do have reddit. u/Gertice. Gertice4 (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't use Reddit. Don't have an Instagram account or Discord account? Keremmaarda (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have discord, Gertice#8582. Gertice4 (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Every source says he fought in skirmishes around Svetigrad not in the siege itself there's a difference. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No there isnt a difference, Skanderbeg lead the relief force to rescue the city of svetigrad and lead several attacks againts the turkish camps. The siege article also covers those events and therefor they should be considerd when makeing the infobox. You cant excpect to remove Skanderbeg from it entierly. Gertice4 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The page notes that Skanderbeg's first offensive move occurred on June 22nd, about a month and a half into the siege. Furthermore, it mentions his victory over a Venetian force during the siege, indicating that Skanderbeg left Svetigrad to engage with other foes. In the aftermath section, it's stated that Perlati and his troops returned to Skanderbeg and begged him for mercy, suggesting Skanderbeg's absence from Svetigrad for most of the siege, except for a single skirmish. The question arises:
 * should Skanderbeg be put in the Belligerents section, considering his limited presence? Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, skanderebeg was the main show againts the Ottomans in the siege. The part where you state that Perlati's men went to Skanderbeg doesnt mean he wasnt there, he was hiding in the mountains as he usually did againts the Ottomans in sieges. The reason why Skanderbeg went to venice is that at that time he was also in conflict with the venetians. Even in the article about the war with Venice it states that he left to go fight the Ottomans. You cant remove Skanderbeg from the article just beacuse he lost. Gertice4 (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Main show" When the siege started Skanderbeg wasn't even close to Svetigrad and his first attack was a month and a half after the siege already started and later he left again to fight Venetian forces and when Perlati surrendered and came back to Skanderbeg he still was not near Svetigrad so the question is do you believe that someone who only did few skirmishes around the Svetigrad area and later left the entire area should be put in the commander section. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A few skirmishes? Where do you think the 20,000 ottoman casualties came from? Certantly not from the 2,000 garrison of the castle. Also even though Skanderbeg attacked the Ottoman army a month after the siege began that 1) Doesnt really prove anything and 2) During that time he was recruiting pesants to fight the Ottoman soliders. Also, as noted by the article of the war with venice. Venice did not seriously challenge Skanderbeg which let him focus on the Ottoman threat. Skanderbeg did the most damage to the Ottoman forces in the siege. Even still you yourself acknowledge that Skanderbeg was in the siege when you said "a few skirmishes" (allthough your wrong), so whats your point of removing him except for blinded nationalism? Gertice4 (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) That causality number came from the skirmishes, garrison and diseases
 * 2) The time it took Skanderbeg to attack the Ottoman army is very important because the first stages of a siege are most of the time most successful for the besiege force (Ottomans in this case) and it doesn't matter what he did in that month and a half scope
 * 3) It doesn't matter how big of a threat Venice was to Skanderbeg the main point is that he wasn't at Svetigrad
 * 4) Skanderbeg didn't lead soldiers inside Svetigrad and had no way to actually participate in the siege itself he only did skirmishes around Svetigrad to try and relieve the garrison
 * 5) The Talk space is to find the middle ground so I propose this, we write Siege:... and Skirmishes around Svetigrad: Skanderbeg Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The garrison couldnt have inflicted such high casualties and there was no reported diasese in the Siege, meaning that much of the damage was done by skanderbegs relief force.
 * 2) Yes I agree it doesnt matter (for my point) what he did in that 1 month that he didnt attack the Ottomans beacuse he eventually came to harras them.
 * 3) Yes it does matter beacuse your previous point was the he was busy fighting Venice the majority of the time which isnt ture.
 * 4)Noone here is arguing that Skanderbeg led forces inside the city of Svetigrad, and you seem to greatly undermine and undeappriciate his "skirmishes" to reliev the city.
 * 5) The talk page isnt necceceraly for reaching a compromise as in this case (About undermining the importance of Skanderbeg to the siege) your simply wrong.
 * 6) We dont have to write every single detail in the infobox. "Skirmishes around Svetigrad" isnt necceceray beacuse for one that means that his importance was so minor that we have to specifiy it (which it wasnt) and two beacuse these "skirmishes" inflicted the most casulaties in the siege. Gertice4 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If we write "skirmishes: Skanderbeg" it will help people know Skanderbeg only was involved in skirmishes around Svetigrad (Which is true). Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Youve completly missed the point of my argument. Yes Skanderbeg did lead skirmishes and camp raids againts the turks, but that was the most important factor of the siege campaign, adding it would 1, undermine his involvment and 2, would be completely uneccecery. Thats like going to every commander ever and putting "lead the armies". Gertice4 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
@Keremmaarda Apart from the issue that the place is completely inappropriate (a footnote would do it,  if  the content would be appropriate) the source you have given is indeed a RS, however, it is completely irrelevant to this article per WP:RELEVANCE. The source doesn't even mention the battle on the particular page. Even if it did, this source is not to be represented as "the only right one". There would be many estimates, one source that you have WP:CHERRYPICKED does not suffice for this matter to be standing on the top of the page per WP:UNDUE. Also, the claim "15.000 is more reliable" isn't the quote of a scholar or historian, it's your interpretation, and that does not belong to Wikipedia. It's also up to you to convince me to add the content to the article, it's your responsibility to open a talkpage, but you did not open even one regarding this issue. This behavior (+ constant reverting and WP:DONTGETIT behavior) is worthy of admin's attention if that continues. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It is a footnote source I gave. Footnotes explain methods to establish context with the subject of the page. I did not make any changes to the body of the article. And the number 15 thousand comes from Prof. It is given by Gökbilgin. It was a distortion of history to think that a state that had 60 thousand armies in 1451 would have 100,000 armies in 1450.  To think that a state that had 60 thousand armies in 1451 would have 100,000 armies in 1450 is to distort history.  I give as a footnote the source of the fact that there would be an army of 60 thousand in 1451. If you can't think enough to make context, that's your problem. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Footnotes are small informational notices. It is not the duty of footnotes to explain the event. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are trying to say, it's still beyond the scope of the article. The current numbers are what reliable sources regarding this battle and the Battle of Kruja say. In this article, "Turkish sources: 15,000" is even given in the infobox. Therefore I'm gonna remove the content. And remember: one source does not overrule other high-quality sources. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are the sources you call high quality the works written by Francione and Hadkingson who make vague claims? Do these people have a historian thesis? M. Tayyip Gökbilgin is a person who became a Professor and made great contributions to the field of history. His sources are undoubtedly more valuable than Hadkingson and Francione. And as I said, footnotes do not explain the event, they only establish context. If we are not going to use what we call the method, they attribute the victory in the Battle of Kosovo (1448) to the conquest of Istanbul, then let's not use this either. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SCOPE and WP:RELEVANCE - do the sources discuss the battle itself? If not, then there is no need for the note, and even if it did talk about the battles the article is based on, it could be included in the actual article subheadings rather than as a footnote. It establishes absolutely zero contextual information regarding the battle. It would seem as though you are trying to insert one scholar’s view as an absolute fact (WP:UNDUE) even on pages where the scholar does not discuss the article in question. Botushali (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I claim here that the Ottoman army would not have numbered 100-80 thousand people, and I provide sources for this. I do not make any claims regarding the siege of Kruje. And the links you provided do not threaten my footnote, I see no problem in adding them. However, it is obvious that Hadkingson and Francıone are not reliable academic historians. This situation violates the following rules; RSOPINION RS/AC USEBYOTHERS Keremmaarda (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of everything you say here, the addition of that note serves no purpose, achieves nothing in regards to the purpose of a note in the infobox, and it presents a certain scholar with WP:UNDUE weight. There is no plausible reason for its inclusion in the infobox. If the content you are trying to include does not discuss the article at hand, it is not within the scope of the article, and it could very well be irrelevant to the article. Botushali (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, now delete all the sources given by Hadkingson and Francıone. As I said above, these are not academic historians and they violate the rules I stated. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t just remove swathes of sourced information and leave an article blanked. Francione can stay for the reasons I mentioned in the TP discussion below, Hodkingson will be replaced when I have the time with newer sources.
 * Also, I suggest you refrain from trying to order me around. I’ll chalk it up to a language barrier as it is very clear that English is not your first language. Botushali (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Francıone cannot stay, real historians' sources should be referenced. Keremmaarda (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Real Historians
I request that this article be written from the beginning and properly by academic historians. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You mean Gennaro Francione? Seems to be pretty reputable to me; maybe not a specialist author, but credible nonetheless.
 * The article can indeed be written, but I don’t see why Francione doesn’t fall under WP:RS. Hodkingson is indeed an older source, and newer ones can be found in its place. Botushali (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see that he has an academic background in history. Keremmaarda (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: This article has been marked as a good article. One opinion does not warrant the complete transformation of an article and the WP:STABLE version. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He still does not maintain that Francione and Hadkingson are reliable sources. Violation of the rules I mentioned above continues. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And I didn't say let's create a new page, I said that it should be written properly, taking references from academic historians. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello StephenMacky1. I had a question for you, you told me that articles should be referenced by academically successful historians. And here I said that the sources of Francıone and Hadkingson, who do not have academic history success, are not reliable and violated some wikipedia rules, and these should be corrected. Do you think I'm wrong? I would be very grateful if you express your opinion and help us with this! Keremmaarda (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We haven't made our points yet regarding Francione and Hadkingson that a neutral user could judge upon. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've reverted Keremmaarda's edit. This user does not have a clear understanding of Wikipedias policies regarding citation. I've explained to them several times what primary and secondary sources are and they're still pushing to me a random source over contemporary sources regarding the size of the Ottoman army at here . They've also expressed intention of decreasing the number of Ottoman losses. I am finding it hard to assume good faith. Keremmaarda, please seek consensus before removing Francione. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Will we use any vaguely unreliable source? Francione proved to be an unreliable source, and no one objected. Keremmaarda (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * CoconutOctopus Francione is not a historian, so it would not be right to use him as a source. Keremmaarda (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Keremmaarda as per previous comments in this discussion please seek consensus before removing him; I am not making a claim of whether he is notable or not, and if the community decides so then it can be removed properly and within guidelines. CoconutOctopus   talk  18:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No editors objected to its removal. Moreover, the issue is not up for debate. Francıone is not a historian. Francione is not a reliable historian and academic. This situation is a violation of the following rules; RSOPINION USEBYOTHERS RS/AC (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)