Talk:Skanderbeg

Is it okay if I remove it? Triballiii (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Put it back my friend, this is an evidence. Voisava is a direct child of Brankovic family The true is true (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are the sources used in this article in contradiction with each other? Why do they cite Skanderbeg as a Serbian while the article mentions him as Albanian? 93.86.237.151 (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Because there's good evidence to support that claim, and because this article uses Albanian sources to estsblish his ethnicity, which we have no reason to assume are objective on this matter. Nexxogen (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

In modern academic scholarship, there is no doubt about Skanderbeg's ethnic origin, as he is universally recognized as Albanian. Ptumri (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Skenderbeg was not Albanian He was Serbian who lived in todays Albanian territory,Albanians didnt had wars against Ottomans, they re ottomans, so dont share Albanian propaganda and protect it. 109.245.38.47 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See question 1 in the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of the talk page. Day Creature (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I keep getting reverted for re-adding the part which @Azoral: added that: "Muzaka further describes Skanderbeg as a man "Serbian in nature", but according to historian Oliver Schmitt, it remains unclear whether Muzaka meant this in terms of origin or mentality..^[1]" This was later removed by a user without any proper explanation. I don't see what's the problem here? It's a completely scholarly analysis of a historical document! Jagjit Karan (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2025

I can see it was removed by @Βατο: for POV-pushing and quite frankly, I'd agree with its removal. That quote is not depicted in full for starters, and it is also cited to the wrong page. Furthermore, and most importantly, we have an English translation of Gjon Muzaka's memoir - the 'Muzaka chronicles' - translated by Robert Elsie and published in the following book - . Reading it, I cannot see a single line where Gjon Muzaka writes of Skanderbeg as a man "Serbian in nature", nor does it come up when I search for anything similar. It would seem to be an extraordinary claim that doesn't even show up in the document that it supposedly comes from... Botushali (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a partial block from editing this page has now been answered.

that the name of one the different Kastriot -> that the name of one of the different Kastriot
was as their family name -> was their family name
a relative of Muzaka house -> a relative of the Muzaka house
had donated to was referred -> had donated was referred
and purchase of arms. John -> and the purchase of arms. John
pressure of Ottoman -> pressure from Ottoman
under direct command of the -> under the direct command of the
prevented in participating in a battle which could -> prevented from participating in a battle that could
it was in his intentions to return -> it was his intention to return
in the end of May 1451 -> at the end of May 1451
all of the chieftains -> all the chieftains
expense in which -> expense, which
King Ferdinand to regain and maintain -> King Ferdinand regain and maintain
to secure cordial relationship with Signoria -> to secure a cordial relationship with Signoria
he travelled to Albania and stayed -> he traveled to Albania and stayed
Serbia from Ottomans -> Serbia from the Ottomans
provided to Skanderbeg 20,000 ducats -> provided Skanderbeg 20,000 ducats
artillery and sufficient number -> artillery and a sufficient number
pain of having lost -> pain at having lost
to return him his -> to return to him his
woivodate of "Terra nuova" -> the voivodate of "Terra nuova"
His family were given control -> His family was given control
invincible guerilla -> invincible guerrilla
nationalism of late 19th century, and -> nationalism of the late 19th century and
inflicted to the -> inflicted on the
to the year of 1444 -> to the year 1444
first performed 1735 -> first performed in 1735
used as source in -> used as a source in The Other Karma (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Not Done

It is unclear where the edits are meant to be made, try to include section names for me to understand Theknoledgeableperson (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Uh? Doing it like that was usually fine for other editors, the way to find the problematic structures is: open search with control + F, enter the senteces i noted like "that the name of one the different Kastriot" then the computer shows you the location where I found that, and then change it to the proposed variant, that I provided after checking, in this chase "that the name of one of the different Kastriot". The Other Karma (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

yes. In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Oreocooke (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@The Other Karma  Done Oreocooke (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)