Talk:Gjergj Fishta

Nobel Prize

It is easy to check database of Nobel prize in literature nominations and see that he was never nominated, so this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.35.223 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thought it would be of interest and of significance to mention that he was the first Albanian considered for the Nobel Prize. Someone should add this piece of information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.237.160 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Gjergj Fishta

I would like to remove the sovietr histography section of this article. The source is biased and not neutral point of view, saying Gjergj reflects "the role played by the Catholic clergy in preparing for Italian aggression against Albania" that he is "a former agent of Austro-Hungarian imperialism" that he "took a position against the Slavic peoples who opposed the rapacious plans of Austro-Hungarian imperialism in Albania" and that "this spy extolled the hostility of the Albanians towards the Slavic peoples, calling for an open fight against the Slavs." --Goalisraised (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. This view is carefully attributed and cited.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it falls under Fringe theories. The sources need to be updated, and what you are bringing here is March 1950 Great Soviet Encyclopaedia of Moscow.Sulmuesapombrojtes (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The view of Soviet Historiography about Fishta is notable and carefully attributed to Soviet Historiography. It would be against WP:NPOV not to present all significant views about Fistha.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Since it was eventually also the stance of Communist Albania's historiography (which was mainly produced in Moscow and Belgrade), I'll go with it, although I still think that the article lacks recent sources, which will eventually make this piece obsolete. Sulmuesapombrojtes (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The view is biased and fringe. Where apart from the soviet histography does it say that for example he took part in the alleged role the Catholic clergy played in perparing for the Italian invasion of Albania, or that he was an Austro-Hungarian "imperialist" agent, or that he called for an open fight against the Slavs? --Goalisraised (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That view is carefully attributed to Soviet historiography. If other sources would share the same view then this view would be presented as scientific consensus without attribution to Soviet historiography. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Do other sources share the same view or is it a view solely attributed to Soviet historiography? --Goalisraised (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I have just noticed that the same view shared the Albanian socialist historiography. I will amend the article accordingly.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the text of the article to contain information that Fishta's work was perceived as anti-Slavic propaganda by Yugoslav authorities and Albanian communists controlled by them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"That view is carefully attributed to Soviet historiography." That is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. If Soviet historiography denied the Holocaust, would you include it? Also, can you provide evidence that it is? --SeldomTimely (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Historical Section

"In Soviet historiography he was referred to as "former agent of Austro-Hungarian imperialism" who took position against Slavic people and Pan-Slavism because they opposed "rapacious plans of Austro-Hungarian imperialism in Albania" and had a role in Catholic Clergy's preparation "for Italian aggression against Albania".[22]"

This section and information is completely gratuitous and inappropriate for the article. Fishta may have been against imperialism and for the preservation of his own people, but that does not by the same token justify the statement made above nor provide evidence for it. It is not objective, and does not describe Fishta's politics in a neutral way. Furthermore whatever gripe the Soviets or proponents of pan-Slavism may have had, do not constitute grounds for this kind of non-neutral depiction to be included in this encyclopedia entry. Not least because it besmirches without due justification the reputation of a distinguished literacy figure of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.94.9 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)