# Talk:Siege of Krujë (1466–1467)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:First Siege of Krujë (1450) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 09:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Siege of Krujë (1450) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 02:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose to rely to more than one source while writing this article. Here is one that may be good one.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is explained the role of Giosafat Barbaro in the battles against Ottoman Empire and Second Siege of Kruje. I propose to consider adding this information in the article, because the existing text could mislead the readers that Skanderbeg fought without "support of the Italian states". Also, please note the number of the men who were relief force. Not 8.000 but 13.000.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides adding information about Giosafat Barbaro in the text of the article, deleting the part about “lack of support of the Italian states” and changing the number of the men in relief forces I think the name of Giosafat Barbaro should be added into infobox as one of the commanders, since his position was Provveditore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I added him to the infobox.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind it if I use Francione since he describes his involvement pretty well. I'll make sure to verify him with other sources before including him. I was originally not going to use him, but for the abovestated reasons, I think he should be used.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I still believe that work of Francione (who is not historian but 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) should not be used as reliable source for informations about medieval history because he is not historian and he can not be regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand which is request of this and this guideline. Additionally, one should take in consideration that Francioni was used as a source for some absurd details about battles Skanderbeg participated at (like in article about the Battle of Oranik (1456) where Francioni's work is used to support the following sentence:"... Skanderbeg to stand in doubt. Skanderbeg began to move towards Moisi. As he did so, Moisi turned about and sped back...")
Such level of details doesn't exist for medieval battles and it is only additionally supporting my opinion that Francioni's work can not be considered as RS.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that this article may raise some controversy. Please note that whatever is said is taken directly from the sources. Many describe the massacres in a much more gruesome way than what I have included as I have tried to avoid this. Furthermore, I am not trying to push any political or nationalistic agendas; I'm just stating what sources say.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This map is used in the text of the article with description: "Main Albanian towns during the 15th century".
I noticed many towns which do not belong to Albania (Peja, Prizren, Tetovo, Manastir (Bitola), ....) but to Macedonia, Kosovo or some other region.
I propose to remove this map from the text of the article until mistakes are corrected in order to avoid misleading of the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Or you could just rewrite the description.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Albanian Sanjak: The first Ottoman census in the Albanian Sanjak was organized in 1431. The  Albanian Sanjak existed decades before Skanderbeg deserted Ottomans in 1443 and gained control over Kruje. 
Sanjak of Debar:Not only that the Sanjak of Debar also existed much before Skanderbeg deserted Ottomans, but he was appointed as its sanjakbey in 1440.
Therefore it is absurd to claim that:
Separate from the Albanian Sanjak, the Sanjak of Debar was formed to further undermine Krujë's influence.
Therefore I propose to delete above mentioned sentence (and previous sentence which says that Debar in Macedonia is in Eastern Albania) and to use additional sources to support the informations in this article which is heavily relied on only one source (Frasheri).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, this article is under construction and that is why only Frasheri has been used yet. The references section includes works which I will include later. Frasheri knows about those two sanjaks (he mentions them earlier in the book). Actually, I misinterpreted Frasheri and will rewrite the sentence so thanks for bringing that up.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect and confusing. There is still a sentence that in 1466 sultan  "planned to organize timars in eastern Albania to strangle Skanderbeg's domains". That is incorrect because timars in Eastern Albania already existed decades before 1466. Gaius Claudius Nero, you only replaced word formed to joined (without referenced source for this merge) when it comes to Albanian Sanjak and Sanjak of Debar. I find it confusing because it is not clear how could merging the two sanjaks help "undermining Krujë's influence".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
To organize does not mean to create. Please, take a small moment to understand that citations in most of the articles I work on usually include sentences before the sentence directly included. I never make up sentences, as you so carelessly imply. They are usually translated directly from the closest following citation (eg. Frasheri p. XX), hence I did reference it. You may find entire paragraphs with only one citation at the very end, but this does not mean that only the last sentence is referenced; it means that the entire paragraph is taken from that source, but I have been trying to avoid this recently. I tried to put it simply, but if you don't understand feel free to ask for further clarification. Nonetheless, this article is not even complete so why are you using it to charge invectives towards me (and please don't discard this as a personal attack)?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess that you consider this article completed since you nominated it for GA.
The previous Sanjak of Albania was thus joined with several other administrative areas to form a larger Sanjak of Dibra. - Any source for this assertion about forming the Sanjak of Dibra in 1466 by merging the Sanjak of Albania and several other administrative areas? (let me remind you that Sanjak of Dibra existed much before Skanderbeg deserted Ottomans in 1443 and that Skanderbeg was its sanjakbey from 1440)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Siege of Krujë" -Llc 14 -
"Siege of Kruja" -Llc 12
"Siege of Croya" -Llc 26
"Siege of Croia" -Llc 76 -, but this result includes many old sources.
-- Takabeg (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a big problem to move it to Croia. I asked for the same for Albulena.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason why is this issue still unresolved?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

([1], [2])
Why do you insist on removing what you call POV? This is what he calls them and it would be relevant because you wouldn't want to confuse readers if they decide to read Critoboulos and they see Illyrians instead of Albanians. You are being inconvenient to possible readers. Also, I could care less whom the Albanians are descended from so this is not POV.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the article about the siege, not about archaisms used by medieval historians. Without proper scholarly interpretation of the archaism used by Critoboulos readers can be mislead to identify Albanians with Illyrians. Medieval historians used many different archaisms for different nations (Triballians, Thracians or Sarmatians for Slavs, Scythians for Mongols, Persians for Turks....). That is something irrelevant for this article and could mislead readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a rule saying that I cannot use archaisms in the way that I did, which explained that that is the way Critoboulos referred to them? Furthermore, could you please explain how this inclusion of what Critoboulos said is POV?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a specific rule about the use of archaisms in the way you did. I thought that I already explained reasons for removal Albanian-Illyrian part. Maybe I was not clear enough, so I will summarize them:
it is irrelevant for this article. (now you can read above written explanation: This is the article about the siege, not about archaisms used by medieval historians. ... Medieval historians used many different archaisms for different nations (Triballians, Thracians or Sarmatians for Slavs, Scythians for Mongols, Persians for Turks....). That is something irrelevant for this article and could mislead readers.
it is misleading for the readers. (now you can read above mentioned explanation: Without proper scholarly interpretation of the archaism used by Critoboulos readers can be mislead to identify Albanians with Illyrians.
it is POV. Albanian connection with Illyrians is controversial. Inclusion of irrelevant text which could mislead readers to connect Albanians with Illyrians is POV because it gives undue weight to the archaism used by medieval historian. That could mislead readers to connect Albanians with Illyrians, which is controversial and disputed. In order to provide a balance we should describe the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. But since this is not article about Albanian-Illyrian connection, there is no need to present any of opposing views.
Your comment about me (You are being inconvenient to possible readers) is violation of the WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine, but you never gave a solution to the problem I presented, ie. that readers may be confused if they read Critoboulos and they don't see Albanians but Illyrians instead. (Also, you misconstrued my comment as a personal attack so I ask you to follow WP:AGF because I did not attack you here.)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I, of course, did not misconstrue your comment. Here you can find a diff to your comment about me: "You are being inconvenient to possible readers."
The problem you presented is not the problem of this article. Potential confusion of the readers of the primary sources written by medieval historians like Critoboulos and archaisms he used is not the subject of this article. What is important here is not to confuse readers of this article with irrelevant misleading POV.
I, of course, assume good faith in case of your insisting to insert irrelevant misleading POV to this article (aimed to prevent potential confusion of potential readers of medieval primary sources when faced with archaisms used by Critoboulos). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Misconstrue here means to interpret erroneously which is what you did because it was not meant as a personal attack.
Nevertheless, you did not offer a solution and instead ignored my question. One of the core pillars of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiablity which is what I am trying to take into account so that readers can check the material I included. They may be confused if it they read Illyrians instead of Albanians.
I, of course, assume good faith in case of your insisting to insert irrelevant misleading POV to this article[.] I find that sentence very contradictory since you first said you assume good faith and then you called my edits misleading POV. Nevertheless, I don't see how readers can be mislead to believe Albanians are descendants of Illyrians by my edit. I don't see where it says anything like that. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. I did not interpret your comment about me. I quoted you.
I think I gave a fairly clear explanation about this Albanian-Illyrian issue, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree with my explanations, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. If you are not satisfied with the explanations and above mentioned arguments you can go trough dispute resolution process.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 
You said my comment is a violation of WP:NPA which is an interpretation. This was and still is, nevertheless, irrelevant.
I will decide what to do later.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sultan Mehmed II led an army of over 100,000 men into Albania
According to the latest biography on Skanderbeg (described as the best one): "The military commanders, leaders and simple soldiers, i.e. the whole army fighting against Scanderbeg, consisted of local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs. There were also Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman forces who owned timar lands."Robert Elsie web site with Oliver Schmitt book
That information is supported by the text of the article which explains that:  Mehmed... organized a timar in eastern Albania to strangle Skanderbeg's domains. The previous Sanjak of Albania was thus joined with several other administrative areas to form a larger Sanjak of Dibra. 
The above mentioned sentence from the lede, together with extensive use of the word Turks and Turkish instead of Ottoman (16 times), could mislead readers to believe that Mehmed brought 100,000 Turks to Albania (from Anatolia?) although he had many sanjaks in Albania with plenty of soldiers. I propose to change the above mentioned sentence and rest of the text of the article according to the above mentioned contemporary source (already used in the article 14 times) and modern non-biased approach to the Ottoman history.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no ethnic identification here, just an exonym for the Ottomans. Franz Babinger uses the word ([3]), Setton uses the word ([4]), Schmitt uses it ([5]), Fine uses it ([6]), Frashëri uses it ([7]), etc.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I will assume good faith and assume that your answer is not result of the fallacy but my bad explanation. Therefore I will try to explain better.
This is not an ethnicity issue. I underlined word local in above explanation.
Now a little explanation:
In 1466 there was no state with name Albania. Most of the territory of geographical region of Albania was under Ottoman control for many decades (all southern Albania with Adriatic coast and Vlore, Gjirokaster and other southern cities captured in period 1417—1419 and remained under Ottoman control for centuries) then Berat, Elbasan, Dibra region, Modrice, ...., with government organized within Ottoman sanjaks. According to the above mentioned sourced explanation: "....the rebels were not opposed by “foreign” invaders, but by local forces loyal to the new empire....The military commanders, leaders and simple soldiers, i.e. the whole army fighting against Scanderbeg, consisted of local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs. There were also Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman forces who owned timar lands."Robert Elsie web site with Oliver Schmitt book
Here is what article says:
"Sultan Mehmed II led an army of over 100,000 men into Albania" or
"Soon after, Mehmed's men marched into Albania in full force."
the road was open for Mehmed to lead an invasion
Mehmed grew furious ... and began preparations for a new invasion.
According to the modern non-biased approach to the Ottoman history and above mentioned source it is not true because Skanderbeg's rebels were opposed by local forces from Albania. WP:POV says that all significant views should be represented fairly, without bias.
Therefore I propose to avoid POV and include above mentioned significant view trough more appropriate wording and explanations. Otherwise readers could be mislead that Skanderbeg's rebels were opposed by "foreign" invaders who attacked the whole territory of the region of Albania (or some state which name was Albania) while plenty of Ottoman soldiers from sanjaks in Albania sat at home not participating in this siege.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the Ottoman Empire wasn't a foreign power but instead a part of Skanderbeg's Albania? This makes no sense. Also, what I wrote was taken directly from modern, non-biased sources:
Soon after, Mehmed's men marched into Albania in full force is found in Frashëri p. 424 as such: Fill pas këtij lajmi te kobshëm filloi rreth mesit të muajit maj të vitit 1466, fushata e ushtrive perandorake osmane kundër Shqipërisë.
the road was open for Mehmed to lead an invasion is found in Schmitt p. 401 as such Rruga drejt Arbërisë ishte e hapur and he says earlier sulltani po mblidhte trupa për fushatën e tij kundër Arbërisë.
Mehmed grew furious ... and began preparations for a new invasion is found in Schmitt p. 402 as such: Fitorja e Skënderbeut para Krujës e kishte zemëruar keqas padishahun and Fushata e vitit 1467 u planifikua më mirë se sipërmarrja e vitit më parë. It is also found in Noli p. 335 as such: Mehmeti s'e mbajti dot veten nga tërbimi dhe filloi menjëherë përgatitjet për një ekspeditë tjetër kundër Shqipërisë.
Also, I changed invasion words to campaign in the article so keep that in mind.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for replacing invasion with campaign.
I, of course, never wrote that Ottoman Empire was part of Albania or that you misinterpreted the sources here (though it looks that Schmitt uses word campaign, not invasion as you wrote).
I think that I explained my proposal to avoid POV and misleading of the readers and to "include above mentioned significant view trough more appropriate wording and explanations". It is wrong to pick to present one kind of information from Schmitt's book without providing his above mentioned explanations. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that Schmitt nor anybody that I know states what ethnicity the soldiers fighting against Skanderbeg in 1466-1467 were (and I want to avoid WP:Synth), except for some Ottoman Albanian commanders which are mentioned in the article. The only place I could see this going into would be in the Background section but I'm not sure where it would be appropriate.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not an ethnicity issue. It should be clearly emphasized in the text of the article too. This was not ethnic conflict between Albanians and non-Albanians who came with Mehmed II to Albania.
The text of the article is absolutely confusing and misleading to average reader. Word Albania (and Albanian(s)) is used 100 times in the article although its meaning very often does not correspond with meaning of the widely accepted English name in modern context. Without appropriate explanations average reader can be easily mislead to believe that Albania means either the whole territory of the geographical region of Albania or some state which name was Albania. In case of Albanian(s), without appropriate explanations readers can be easily mislead to believe that this was an ethnic conflict between ethnic Albanians and Ottoman non-Albanians who came to Albania with Mehmed II.
To resolve the problem of misleading and confusing text I propose to provide some basic explanations (at the beginning of the article) and to clarify that:

This was not an ethnic conflict between Albanians and non-Albanians who came with Mehmed II to Albania. If there was a basis for distinction between the opposing factions, it was their religion, not ethnicity. Skanderbeg and his followers were predominantly Christians and Ottoman army was predominantly composed of Muslims. Regardless of their ethnicity. Since Ottoman Empire controlled a big part of Albania, ethnic Albanians were significant part of the Ottoman armies fighting against Skanderbeg, together with local Slavs and Vlachs.
This was not a conflict between Ottoman Empire on one side and the population of the region of Albania on another. In 1466 a big part of the territory of the geographical region of Albania was already under control of the Ottoman Empire and local population of Ottoman Albania was significant part of the Ottoman armies. If we can not find appropriate accurate map of the region of Albania in 1466 it is very important to provide explanation what parts of Albania were under control of the Venetian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Skanderbeg.
This was not a conflict between Ottoman Empire and state which name was Albania. Even the infobox of the article explains that Republic of Venice and League of Lezhe (or what was left of that league) fought against the Ottoman Empire.
According to the above mentioned explanations, the text of the article should be reworded to avoid misleading of the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Antid, these are what the sources say. I tried to make sure that I did not say things which the sources didn't. It doesn't matter whether we like it or not and I cannot change them. That being said, I'm not going to waste time and energy arguing with you about things you don't like, nor am I required to, so I suggest putting those requests to more relevant pages.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Coat-rack
I am afraid that significant part of this article can be probably best described as Wikipedia:Coatrack. In case of coat-rack there is the nominal subject and the real subject of the text.
The nominal subject: The Siege of Krujë in 1466 is only a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.
The real biased subject of some parts of this article: Glorifying Skanderbeg as ethnic Albanian, the national hero of the Albanian nation, who fought bravely and successfully to defend all Albania (which is presented as medieval state of the homogeneous Albanian nation) in ethnic conflicts with foreign invaders (accompanied with a couple of Albanian traitors), protecting Europe from non-civilized Asiatic hordes (who are massacring ethnic Albanians all over Albania) and being left alone (or with insufficient help) by European Christian states for which they sacrificed themselves. That is exactly the impression that uninitiated reader get from this article. The problem is that it is only a cocktail of nationalistic myths which are all heavily disputed. Almost all myths of Albanian nationalists are presented here: Myth of Skanderbeg, Antemurale myth, Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion, Myth of Ethnic Homogeneity and Cultural Purity and Myth of Permanent National Struggle. If you insert Albanian-Illyrian connection we will have here the complete coctail together with Myth of Origins and Priority or Myth of Provenance which attaches great importance to the 19th century idea of possible Illyrian contribution to Albanian ethnogenesis. If I would not assume good faith I could get impression that your insisting to insert Albanian-Illyrian connection was not aimed to prevent potential confusion of potential readers of medieval primary sources when faced with archaisms used by Critoboulos.
"But it's true!"
The usual excuse for coatrack is:"But it's true!" like you Gaius Claudius Nero wrote in your comments here, although I clearly stated that "I, of course, never wrote...that you misinterpreted the sources here". The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?
Fact picking
One of the characteristics of the coat-rack is fact picking. Oliver Schmitt in his work, which is already used in this article, emphasize the following explanations:"The uprising, ..., was motivated initially neither by religion nor by politics...Scanderbeg, the leader of the revolt, ...was driven by a need for personal revenge.. Scanderbeg’s life was no triumphant advance, but a long-term struggle for survival. It was marked by defeat, hopeless situations and yet many fortuitous twists of fate...the rebels were not opposed by “foreign” invaders, but by local forces loyal to the new empire...Many Albanians had good reason not to join the uprising. The movement was not fostered by language or any feeling of belonging to an ethnic group...The military commanders, leaders and simple soldiers, i.e. the whole army fighting against Scanderbeg, consisted of local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs. There were also Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman forces who owned timar lands....Scanderbeg’s life and uprising thus turned into a tragedy for his native land that was devastated and depopulated as no other region of the Balkans before the arrival of the Ottomans....he was in reality the tragic figure of his age"Robert Elsie web site with Oliver Schmitt book. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias.
In order to resolve this problem I presented above mentioned proposal which is not anything dramatic. Only to provide some basic above mentioned explanations and to reword some parts of the text of the article.
I am also not going to argue with you. This is my final comment about this issue in debate with you. If there are other users who maybe need some additional explanation of my opinion, I am willing to waste time and energy to give it. If not, that is also ok. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not WP:forum. If you want Frasheri et. al to change what they say in their books, maybe you can contact their publishers. I can't change what they say. I think you are guilty of your accusations in you blatant attempt to insert your own POV. If you want changes, I assumed good faith and suggested that I was willing to make changes (The only place I could see this going into would be in the Background section but I'm not sure where it would be appropriate), but you just write long, condescending messages criticizing me and what I contribute instead of proposing anything concrete. Is this your method of cooperation? (Of course, I expect that you actually don't want to work with me since most of your messages hint at demagoguery and WP:BATTLE.)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source which claims that Skanderbeg refused to stay in Palazzo Venezia and decided to reside in palazzo that was later named after him, Palazzo Scanderbeg. I propose to double check the sources about the palace he resided during his stay in Rome, because there are other articles supporting the information he resided in the palace Scanderbeg.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed it.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe it is better to use current name of the palace (Palazzo Venezia) instead of the old name Palazzo di San Marco?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the map of South-eastern Europe 1464 is unclear and inaccurate in case of Albania (which is most important part for this article). I.e. it does not show that port Vlore was under Ottoman control (from 1417), or Gjirokaster (from 1419), Diber region, Korçë, .... In the same time significant part of Montenegro is presented to belong to Albania. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the map is not to show where Albania is, but to show the extent of the Ottoman Empire during that time. Vlorë is not labelled and the region which Gjirokastra is in is clearly shown to be under Ottoman rule. Nevertheless, the purpose of the map is to show the extent of the Ottoman Empire, ie. not in Albania, but in South Eastern Europe in general, hence why the caption says Map of south-eastern Europe in 1464 AD and not otherwise. There is a mention in the section to the Venetian siege on Patras which the reader might not know the location of, so that is why I originally decided to add it. If you have another map to propose, please give me a link so that I can see.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I checked again about Gjirokastra and I still believe it is not presented within Ottoman Empire.
This is article about the Siege of Kruje and since the map is inaccurate in case of the part of the territory of Albania which belonged to the OE then it can additionally mislead readers and should be removed.
It is better not to have map then to have wrong and misleading map.
I don't know if there is a better map. I will try to find it. But I know there are many articles about Skanderbeg which are in dire need for appropriate map. I think that the best approach is to create a set of maps (suitable for gif presentation) which would clearly show:
the territory of Albania (without Albania Veneta) which was put under vassalage to OE at the end of 14th century, then
under its direct control at the beginning of 15th century, then
to create a map which would show the 1444 territory of League of Lezha which was formed on the part of territory of Albania
then to present constant reduction of the territory under Skanderbeg's control until
in 1466 it encompassed only northern highlands under Dukagjini control and Kruje and few surrounding castles under Skanderbeg's control
I am sure that coordinated team work can result with decent set of very useful maps which can be used in big number of articles about Skanderbeg. I am willing to participate in such work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not very good at making maps and even after asking at the Map Workshop for two years, nobody was willing to help me. I'd be glad to have help. For right now, I am looking for a map to replace the one in the article.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

COA used in this article has significant issues explained here and here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Below is a list of some issues which resolving might help improvement of this article.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
A lot of your suggestions are irrelevant so I skipped many. However, I have decided to implement the good ones. 
Just a note, both Schmitt and Frasheri concur that it was John who went to the court of Venice. Neither mention how young he was, but I assume he played mainly a symbolic role and the real negotiations were done by the older men. Also, the destruction of Rodon happened after the next siege of Kruje.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Antid, although you have been active on this article and talk page for more than a year, you waited till the end of GA to make again some "general comments" a month after it. It is a very disruptive behavior from your side. Aigest (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Two months ago (at the very beginning of the review process) I informed nominator that I prepared a list of hints which could help improving the quality of the article. And it did help improving the quality of the article because the nominator already addressed many points from that list. Here is a list before I removed many points already addressed by the nominator and copied it in collapsed form here to allow him or any other interested user to use it if they find it helpful. I believe that what I did is very cooperative and helpful. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why you waited two months to do that. Especially since you have been involved lately [8] in the article. I think you are just being disruptive. Majuru (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You made mistake about my last involvement in the editing of the article and presented a diff to nominator's involvement, not mine. Here is the correct diff which shows that my last involvement was a month ago.
Regardless of the date of my last involvement the most important thing is the quality of the article. My activities are aimed to improve the quality of the article and help its promotion to GA level. I am glad that nominator addressed at least a dozen issues I pointed to.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti is attempting to disrupt the reviewing process, a process that is almost finished. What Gaius did, was just ask if he could comment on the userpage, but A. didnt want him to [9]. Anti makes arrogant, unhelpful and negatively charged suggestions. He's already been warned on his WP:GAME, and unfairly places burdens on others, that he himself is unwilling to bear [10]. I think his strategy is to drag down the reviewing process. Many of the issues he brings up are raging POV topics. In all, I think he is a bad contributor. Majuru (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@Majuru: With above comment you violated the following wikipedia rules:
Never address other users in a heading - "using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious"
wp:agf - It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. During GA review the nominator has implemented more than 20 suggestions I pointed to, and by doing that he managed to improve the quality of article a little.
wp:npa - "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (he is a bad contributor.)
Wikipedia:Tendentious editing - Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion.
Please be so kind to avoid this kind of personal attacks in future. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Krujë (1466—1467)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to do that.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Per this explanation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Below is additional source which confirms that League fell apart in 1450 which was 16 years before the event described in this article:

Oliver Jens Schmitt (2012). Die Albaner: eine Geschichte zwischen Orient und Okzident (in German). C.H.Beck. p. 55. ISBN 978-3-406-63031-6. Retrieved 19 June 2013. Ein 1444 geschlossenes Adelsbündnis brach beim Anmarsch eines Sultansheeres (1450) auseinander. [Alliance of the nobles forged in 1444 fell apart when Sultan approached with his army [1450]
Because of the mistakenly presenting this league as one party in this conflict this article contains factually incorrect data and does not satisfy GA criteria. Until League is replaced with correct data the status of this article should not be GA.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Mehmed the Conquerer himself didnt lead the siege 2A02:4E0:2D19:1B7:897C:D935:580F:4AB1 (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

He did at the beginning of the siege. Xhulianoo (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)