# Talk:Battle of Ohrid

"The Battle of Ohrid took place on 14 August 1464 between the Ottoman Empire's forces and Skanderbeg's Albania"...."The battle near Ohrid occurred as a result of an Albanian incursion into Ottoman territory where the Turks stationed in the area were assaulted by Skanderbeg's men."
"Skanderbeg's men" attacked Ottoman forces in Ohrid (Macedonia). It is wrong and absurd to state that this was the battle between Ottoman Empire and Albania. Albania was not state in 1464. It was only the geographical region. A small part of that region was controlled by Skanderbeg in 1464.
I propose to follow the WP:NPOV policy and to delete Albania as the participant of this battle and information about its incursion into the Ottoman territory.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain that to Skanderbeg, who signed himself "Lord of Albania"? --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Ohrid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canadian Paul 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

The background section needs just a smidgen more context... there are some names introduced with Wikilinks (which is good), but otherwise no context as to who they are, such as Skanderberg and Lekë Dukagjini. Although the lead makes mention of how the article is discussing figures from Albania, the background section does not, and since the lead must not introduce information that is not present in the body of the article, the "background" section should be written under the assumption that the reader has not read the lead, even if you have to do a little bit of stating the obvious. Overall, I feel that the background section, while well-written, is like the second paragraph in a book that is missing the first one. Also, a little bit of context on the "Bosnia" that you're referring to (ie. "Mathias Corvinus of Hungary recaptured many of the Bosnian strongpoints, which had been taken by the Ottoman Empire in blah blah blah") would be helpful here, as most uninformed readers are going to be much more familiar with Bosnia and Herzegovina than the kingdom or the eyalet. I'm kind of having a hard time explaining the issue, but the overall point is that what you are trying to get across in the "background" section isn't immediately clear.
Also per above, the actual date (and year) of the battle is only mentioned in the lead, not anywhere in the body of the article. This information in the body would help for contextualization as well.
Under "Aftermath", "the Venetian Senate (Signoria) hailed the campaign as a victory despite the setback". It's probably just me, but I don't understand what the "setback" was here.
The "Aftermath" section seems a little incomplete to me... maybe a sentence about how the Battle of Vaikal turned out, or something broader, would help tie the article together?
In the lead, the sentence "he battle near Ohrid occurred as a result of an Albanian incursion into Ottoman territory where the Turks stationed in the area were assaulted by Skanderbeg's men and 1,000 Venetian soldiers under Cimarosto" is way too long and confusing. It needs to be split up into at least two.
To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, 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, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 00:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for deciding to take up one of my nominations again. I agree with your suggestions and tried to implement them. If there are any other issues you'd like to see fixed, feel free to tell me. Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
Much much improved and bonus points for finding a good free-use picture for the article. I'm 1,000x more tired right now than I was when I first reviewed this article, but the formerly-problematic sections make perfect sense to me now. Therefore, I will now be passing this article into Good Article status. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 05:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. :) --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dorotheos, the Archbishop of Ohrid and his clerks and boyars were expatriated to Istanbul in 1466 probably because of their anti-Ottoman activities during Skanderbeg's rebellion.
Source: (Shukarova, Aneta (2008), Todor Chepreganov (ed.), History of the Macedonian People, Skopje: Institute of National History, p. 133, ISBN 9989159246, OCLC 276645834, retrieved 26. December 2011, deportation of the Archbishop of Ohrid, Dorotei, to Istanbul in 1466, to-gether with other clerks and bolyars who probably were expatriated be-cause of their anti Ottoman acts during the Skender-Bey's rebellion. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |nopp=, |lastauthoramp=, |separator=, |laydate=, |laysummary=, |month=, |chapterurl=, and |doi-inactive-date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help))
The above sentence is referenced information removed from aftermath section by User:Aigest two times.
His explanation was Scanderbeg rebellion started in 1443 and ended in 1468. This article is for a battle in 1464!! What happened in 1466 (if happened) is not related to this battle article. In 1466 Scanderbeg was not in Ohrid and the battle happened two years before.
I believe that it is obvious that what happened to the Archbishop of Ohrid and his clerks and boyars in period after this battle, because of their anti-Ottoman activities during Skanderbeg's rebellion, is related with aftermath section. If nobody else complains within reasonable period of time, say one week, I will return removed referenced text to the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about Ohrid, or Bishopric of Ohrid, or Scanderbeg rebellion (1443-1468), but about the singular event of battle of Ohrid 1464. The Sanjak of Ohrid was established in 1395 and ended in 1864. During this period it was in Ottoman hands. Scanderbeg attacked it once in 1464 and this article is about that. In 1464 the sanjak bey was Seremet bey, but since he was defeated, he was replaced with Ballaban pasha. Ballaban pasha was sanjak bey of Ohrid in late 1464 in 1465 and also in 1466. During all this period sanjak of Ohrid was in Ottoman hands. The bishop of Ohrid might (or not) have been punished for collaborating with Scanderbeg, but that is an event of 1466 and even the source you claim says clearly Scanderbeg rebellion and not battle of Ohrid 1464, citing "eportation of the Archbishop of Ohrid, Dorotei, to Istanbul in 1466, to-gether with other clerks and bolyars who probably were expatriated be-cause of their anti Ottoman acts during the Skender-Bey’s rebellion." Now Scanderbeg rebellion started in 1443 and ended 1468 and they might (or not) have cooperated with Scanderbeg in 1466, but this is not part of 1464 battle event. Unless you think that when author says "Scanderbeg rebellion" he means "Scanderbeg battle of 1464"(?!) and also to suppose that Ottomans waited for two years from 1464 to 1466 before deporting the Bishop of Ohrid(?!). Aigest (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The referenced information you removed from the article was in Aftermath section, not in section about the battle. The Archbishop of Ohrid and his clerks and boyars were very important people. Let me try to clarify my opinion based on what you wrote:
Skanderbeg attacked Ohrid in 1464
During Skanderbeg's rebellion (1443—1468) Archbishop of Ohrid and his clerks and boyars were included in anti-Ottoman activities
Do you suggest that Archbishop of Ohrid and his clerks and boyars suddenly decided to put all their anti-Ottoman activities on hold before and during this battle? Do you have any source which supports your OR that "Archbishop of Ohrid and his clerks and boyars performed "their anti Ottoman acts during the Skender-Bey’s rebellion" except during the battle of Ohrid"?
If you do have such source please present it here. If not, please don't delete cited addition of other users because someone could see it as tendentious editing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that the bishop of Ohrid (if) engaged in these activities sometime around 1466 as source suggest. This bishop activity (if happened) is not related to the battle which was a single act of invasion of Scanderbeg forces in Ottoman sanjak. The source does not link it anyway with the battle of 1464 and you are moving in WP:OR territory on that. This article is about the battle of 1464, if you want to put some religios contribution to it, you should find a specific source that says exactly that the bishop of Ohrid collaborated with Scanderbeg for this battle. Simple as that. Aigest (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Don't misinterpret the source. It is your suggestion, not suggestion of the source, that archbishop "engaged in these activities sometime around 1466". The source says "during the Skender-Bey’s rebellion". Let me remind you what you wrote in your above comment "Now Scanderbeg rebellion started in 1443 and ended 1468". There is a big difference between "during the Skender-Bey’s rebellion" and "sometime around 1466".
Let me remind you that you ignored my question:
Do you have any source which supports your OR that "Archbishop of Ohrid and his clerks and boyars performed "their anti Ottoman acts during the Skender-Bey’s rebellion" except during the battle of Ohrid"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
(unindent) Antid, please read WP:Synth. The book does not say anything about the Battle of Ohrid.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Again accusation instead of focusing on the provided arguments.
Can you provide some source which says that ""Scanderbeg's rebellion started in 1443 and ended 1468" but it did not include the Battle of Ohrid"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Your argument is WP:Synth. This was directed towards your argument, not towards you, unless a human can somehow be WP:Synth. The source you gave does not mention the battle and does not say Dorotheos participated in any way in this battle. What you are saying is OR and Synth (ie. Skanderbeg fought in Ohrid and Dorotheos was the bishop so Dorotheos contributed to Skanderbeg's campaign of 1464 in Ohrid) and the source does not support that.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes you accused me for synth. In your comment you accused me for for writing arguments which are synth. There is no synth without human who wrote it.
Your deduction about my synth (that "Dorotheos contributed to Skanderbeg's campaign of 1464 in Ohrid" because "Dorotheos was the bishop") is so obviously wrong and without any basis in the presented arguments and source that I don't think there is a need to respond to it.
The text which is removed does not contain information that Dorotheos participated in the battle. I clearly emphasized that the above mentioned sentence was removed from the Aftermath section (even the title of this section is aftermath).
Dorotheos, the Archbishop of Ohrid and his clerks and boyars participated in anti-Ottoman activities during Skanderbeg's rebellion and probably because of that they were expatriated to Istanbul in 1466. This is precisely what source says and that is precisely what was written in the aftermath section, where it belongs.
Do you have sources which say that Battle of Ohrid was not one of the battles during Skanderbeg's rebellion?
Do you have sources which say that Dorotheos, the Archbishop of Ohrid and his clerks and boyars participated in anti-Ottoman activities during Skanderbeg's rebellion, except during the Battle of Ohrid?
If you do, please present them.
If you present another accusation instead of arguments grounded in sources and wikipedia policies please consider this comment as my last comment in this debate with you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I am accusing you of anything. If you want to interpret my disagreements as accusations, fine, but that is your choice and not mine. As I said above, your argument is WP:Synth and was not an ad hominem or anything like that. Anyway, I find your arguments weak and just turn me and Aigest's argument on its head: There is no clear indication that Dorotheus participated in any way in this battle is reversed into There is no clear indication that Dorotheus did not participate in this battle. If you are going to keep repeating this weak point, then I will stop debating with you here as well.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your reply reminds me on straw man fallacy (A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds).
My proposal to include this information into aftermath section was never based on the weak straw man resembling argument you mentioned: There is no clear indication that Dorotheus did not participate in this battle.
I never attempted to include information about expatriation of Dorotheus into the section about the battle based on the assumption that Dorotheus participated in this battle. It is exactly the opposite: your argument for exclusion of this information about the very important event which happened after this battle is weak because your only argument is your (unsourced) claim that Dorotheus did not participate in the battle.
This expatriation happened after the battle. I wrote word Aftermath 8 times in this section and carefully explained that I added information about very important event which happened after this battle. There is a very clear string of related events which happened:

after this battle in Ohrid in 1464 Mehmed II was angry because Skanderbeg broke the truce and attacked Ohrid, extremely important city and the seat of the Sanjak of Ohrid. Therefore Mehmed II sent
first Şeremet in 1464
then Ballaban (in 1465 and 1466) to punish Skanderbeg and destroy his forces.
After Siege of Kruje Mehmed II withdrew from Albania and he
expatriated Dorotheus, his clerics and considerable number of people from Ohrid (1466) because of their support to Skanderbeg...
All of above mentioned events are mentioned in the aftermath section, except expatriation of Ohrid Archbishop, his clergy and considerable number of citizens of Ohrid. Why is pope mentioned 9 times in this article (pope 4 times and Pius 5 times) although all pope gave to Skanderbeg were false promises and titles? Is it according to WP:NPOV? Has pope participated in the battle of Ohrid?
Dorotheus was extremely important man. He was the Archbishop of Ohrid and in that period all Orthodox Christians from Albania were members of the Ohrid Archbishopric. Archbishop of Ohrid with clergy of the Ohrid Archbishopric and considerable number of citizens from Ohrid gave their support to Skanderbeg and suffered terrible consequences because of that. There are tons of sources about it. That is why this information should be included into the articles about the battles of Ohrid (which started all this string of events) and the Siege of Kruje in 1466—1467 because Mehmed II expatriated Dorotheos after this siege.

Now aftermath word is mentioned 11 times in this section. I think there is no chance for misunderstanding now. My proposal is supported by well sourced arguments. If nobody presents any other argument I will include this important information into aftermath section.  --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Response:
First of all, you are assuming bad faith and moving towards accusing me of pushing a pro-Catholic, anti-Orthodox bias, something which I find baseless.
Second, you are not addressing any of my arguments. Instead, you cite it as a straw man argument, another baseless accusation which I don't believe needs much explanation.
Third, you are failing to understand that the Aftermath section deals with the aftermath of the battle of Ohrid. The deportation of Dorotheus happened two years after the battle. You attempt to connect him with Skanderbeg and then assume that he also played a role in the battle of Ohrid (and I do not mean a military role, as you misunderstood). As far as I can tell, none of your sources make reference to Dorotheus cooperating with Skanderbeg in any way in 1464. The ones that do talk about the batte in 1464 (Stanojevic, Pavlovski) make no mention of Dorotheus in relation to this battle. All you are doing is using WP:Synth to assume that Dorotheus somehow participated.
Fourth, some historians (Schmitt, authors of History of the Macedonian People) mention Dorotheus' cooperation with Skanderbeg only as a possibility. It doesn't seem certain that Dorotheus cooperated with Skanderbeg and there are obvious difficulties for an Archbishop to support an insurgency. Says Schmitt pg. 133: And the Archbishopric of Ohrid, the city where a strong Ottoman garrison was present, was not in the situation to give help openly to the Orthodox insurgents. In the summer of 1466 Mehmed II banished Archbishop Dorotheus: perhaps an indication of secret contact that this clergyman had with the Albanian [Arbër] leader. (my translation)
Fifth, Schmitt also says on pp. 133-134: In general, the highest ranks of the Orthodox Church showed withdrawal [from Skanderbeg]; this is explained by the complete conversion of external circumstances [fall of Constantinople].
Finally, since it seems not to be known with certainty if he even helped Skanderbeg (Schmitt and History of the Macedonian people only give a speculation and Schmitt also explains the difficulty for a bishop under Ottoman rule to help an insurgency), then it is absurd to use WP:Synth and say that Dorotheus played a role in the battle, which is what would be implied by including your edits in the Aftermath section.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Dorotheos, the Archbishop of Ohrid and clerics and boyars of Ohrid Archbishopric together with considerable number of Christian citizens of Ohrid were expatriated by sultan to Istanbul in 1466 because of their anti-Ottoman activities during Skanderbeg's rebellion.
I still believe that this information is much more important and much more related with events in Ohrid after this battle than information about popes, cardinals, crusades, Venetian money, ...
Straw man fallacy again. Based on the misinterpretation of my comment you first created illusion that I am assuming bad faith and moving towards accusing you of pushing a pro-Catholic, anti-Orthodox bias. Then you attempted to refute the illusion (my bad faith) without ever having actually refuted the original position (Why is pope mentioned 9 times in this article (pope 4 times and Pius 5 times) although all pope gave to Skanderbeg were false promises and titles? Is it according to WP:NPOV? Has pope participated in the battle of Ohrid?).
On the contrary. You did not address any of my arguments and instead you are dealing with straw men illusions you created.
"The deportation of Dorotheus happened two years after the battle." Battle of Vaikal (in Albania?) happened one year after this battle, the Second siege of Kruje happened in period 2-3 years after this battle, death of Balaban Badera happened also in 1466, two years after this battle. But it did not stop you from adding this information to the aftermath section together with information about pope Pius, hope of remaining (?) cardinals, information about the crusade (which never actually happened), money that was given to Venice (?) .... "As far as I can tell, none of your sources make reference to Dorotheus cooperating with Skanderbeg in any way in 1464. The ones that do talk about the batte in 1464 (Stanojevic, Pavlovski) make no mention of Dorotheus in relation to this battle. All you are doing is using WP:Synth to assume that Dorotheus somehow participated." I couldn't believe that you wrote this comment although I specifically wrote and underlined:I never attempted to include information about expatriation of Dorotheus into the section about the battle based on the assumption that Dorotheus participated in this battle. Your claim "All you are doing is using WP:Synth to assume that Dorotheus somehow participated" although I wrote and underlined the above statement is WP:IDHT which is a form of disruptive editing.
Again straw man fallacy. You created illusion (that I added the information about expatriation of Dorotheus, his clerics and considerable number of citizens of Ohrid to the aftermath section of this article based on the assumption that Dorotheus participated in this battle) and you are arguing with illusion you created (straw man) instead of my arguments.
So what? Does that mean that they were not expatriated after this battle? Even if sultan made mistake and expatriated them for nothing that would not change the fact that they were indeed expatriated from Ohrid because of their cooperation with Skanderbeg during his rebellion.
"it is absurd to use WP:Synth and say that Dorotheus played a role in the battle" Again straw man fallacy. Please scroll to the beginning of this section. There is a text which was added to aftermath section of this article. That text covers one important event which happened after this battle. It does not say that Dorotheus played a role in the battle.
You did not present any argument that I am wrong. Instead, you continued with fallacy and false accusations. Therefore I conclude there is no point to continue this debate with you.  --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
My final points:

I will not address accusations.
The events in the Aftermath section are directly related to the battle and that is why I included them. The expulsion of Dorotheus is not related without the assumption that he cooperated with Skanderbeg (which he could have done without an army, but there is no evidence that he did).
They were expatriated two years after and there is no evidence that this was a result of the battle of Ohrid (and like I explained, only speculations exist that he even cooperated with Skanderbeg).
Your argument relies on a violation of WP:Undue weight, something which I think is clear.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)