Talk:Albania/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Update Map

The map needs to be updated for Kosovo Dotancohen (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As per the article on Croatia, where the map clearly defines the borders of Kosovo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_location_CRO.png - please, update the map for Albania as well. --_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 06:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Albania member of Francophony

somebody ad this information i can not at this point --Andrea stefani (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not do this.....

I don't know who added that "Kris Gjika" next to teh Adriatic sea, but it is not correct or appropriate. If youi cliked on the link it connected to the word "Shit". Whoever did this, please do not change it back. This is serious information and not a venting site ( no matter how much you might hate this country). thanks, eneida

Thank you for fixing this. here is when it was added: [1] John Vandenberg (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush is the first Presindent (U.S.) to step foot in Albania... ever

It says in the article that George W. Bush is the first sitting U.S. President to visit Albania, and that's true, but he's not just that. He is the only one to ever visit the country, sitting or unsitting, so I was thinking, maybe we can take the word sitting out. I know this isn't such a big deal, and if the person who wrote that doesn't want me to edit it, I won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.88.184 (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I did change it to the first president.Thank you--Taulant23 (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Motto

Ti Shqipëri më jep nder, më jep emrin shqipëtar (You Albania give me honor, you give me the name Albanian.) Is this the motto of Albania? Some say that's npt the motto.Where can I find some sources for this?--Taulant23 (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) George Bush Senior visited Albania a few years ago when he was not in the office. So that makes G.W.Bush the first sitting US president to visit Albania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.24.147.160 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC) It's different in french (Feja e Shqiptarit është Shqiptaria. - The albanian's religion is the the fact to be Albanian). Who's right and who's wrong ?--217.154.102.195 (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's the first one our real motto but the translation in English is not appropriate. As we know in poetry usually the You turns to Thou. I would say that the English translation should be "Thou Albania give my honour, give me the name Albanian". what do you say guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholson1989 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Add for Legue of Prizeren

Just because the US sent a man to the moon does not make the moon american. Same thing for ioannina now,since it belongs to greece it is 100% greek. Also there is no vorio epirus, just southern albania also 100% albanian. Life's to short,live it dont waste it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.127.96 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Greece which had been awarded the Arta region of Epirus , was determined eventually to take Ioannina as well,the center of Albanian culture in Epirus.pg153 The Balcans 1804-1999 Misha Glenny 1999 ISBN 862070504 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.30.64 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What??Are you insane?? The only Albanian culture in Ioannina is on the language heard on construction sites!!--Michael X the White (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael the White, the language in the construction sites was mainly greek 100 years ago. Those greeks built houses for the Albanians. The situation was opposite.--Sulmues 16:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)

There are two possibilities Michael the White: One that you are an ignorant and the second you are not but you play the one, for both options you must be a shame of yourself. Albanians are Epiriote ask your grandfathers Lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.64.246 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ioannina had and still does not have anything to do with Albania or Albanians. You wish it was the opposite for Northern Epirus where Greeks are a majority and have been, and still are, suppressed by the respective Albanian governments since 1912.

"Vorio Epirus"?What "Vorio Epirus"?The greek minority in Albania is just 1%-1.5%!Get over it! As for Janina,well...ask your poor grandfathers about Ali Pasha Tepelena,lol--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

New Pictures

Please add some new pictures. All of the cool pictures wore deleted and replaced with some old crapy pictures. It’s very clear to me why they are doing this.Please help--Taulant23 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you've met the Anti Albanian Tourism Cabal. There are some very nice pics left, actually. Some of Apollonia and Butrint even. Cmon now, ruins aren't "old (and) crappy". Just kidding, I know you love them too much for that. 3rdAlcove (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian language

The Macedonian language should be added to the names of Albania that are parenthesized at the top of the page. This style is observed with the Montenegro page and should be applied here as well. Estimates for the Macedonian population in Albania range from 10,000 to 120,000-350,000. The sources (used in the ethnic Macedonians wiki page) are here: http://www.albanien.ch/albinfo/pmwiki.php/Main/AlbGeoInfo ; http://www.florina.org/html/2003/2003_osce_albania.html

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians_of_Albania

In either case it is a significant amt and as argued in the talk for Montengro, it is the local variant of greatest contrast to the other dominant local form. Gkmx (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian, it is not a national language of Albania PLUS the Macedonians are not the largest minority in Albania. .My advice to you is to change your attitude.--Taulant23 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's not appropriate to include the Macedonian name. The way Wikipedia usually does this sort of thing is to give only the name(s) according to the national language of the country in question. Where a country only has one national language - for instance Spain - the name is given in that language, even if the country has large minorities which use different names for it. If a country has multiple national languages, then the name is given in each of those languages. See Switzerland and Finland for examples of that treatment. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the Macedonians are the largest minority or not is not something that can be determined easily as sources contradict each other. As for it not being a national language, that is true. However, it is a recognised minority language in certain areas of Albania. The sourse for that is in the Macedonian language article. The same type of recognition as "minority language" exists for Greek as well - they would constitute the largest minority population of Albania as determined by the Albanian government sources. Perhaps the Greek variant should be added as well? If you meant to imply that the Albanian govt does not respect linguistic minorities to the extent that the Montenegrin govt does and that Wiki should reflect this, then you are right in removing other local variants of the name as. What "attitude" did you perceive from my prior writing? I am saying that we should honour local variants of "Albania" to the extent we honor local variants of "Montenegro" with more regard towards representing the language usage situation in the region and a bit less regard towards the legal rights offered to regional languages given by an emerging/fledgling democratic govt.

I also object to the use of the word "guys" in the edit summary. It is sexist. Gkmx (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please visit the page for Peru. In the intro it reads, "Spanish: Perú, Quechua: Piruw, Aymara: Piruw". Footnote: "Quechua, Aymara and other indigenous languages are co-official in the areas where they are predominant". Macedonian and Greek, like the indigenous languages of Peru, are not co-official at the national level, but at the regional level - much in the way Greek and Macedonian (et others) are recognised only regionally. There is no effective difference presented in the legal rights of these linguistic minorities in their respective nations. Peru is one example. I am too lazy to find others, but the Finland example does not act as precedent in the case of the Albania article as there is no observable cross-article agreement within Wikipedia on the usage of minority languages. Whether or not there is an official administrative position on the issue of minority language presentation in Wikipedia, I am uncertain. If your position is correct and mine is not, then I suggest you proceed to editing the Peru page to comply to your stance. I would personally be satisfied with seeing just seeing all of the regional languages recognised by the Albanian govt listed in the page's infobox. However, that would still not be justice. Gkmx (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC) This is just wrong.--Thispoems (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Why don't we do the same thing to Macedonia then?They have Greek and Albanian minorities[2].--Thispoems (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Thispoems on this one. I don't think the minorities in question are large enough to warrant the inclusion of the country's name in their respective languages. Only languages that are official at the national level warrant such inclusion. As for Peru, well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not really an argument. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is not unreasonable. However, the (FYROM) Macedonia page already makes note of the regional usage of minority languages (at the bottom of the infobox). Similar info for linguistic minorities in Albania has, until now, been excluded from the article here. What I am attempting to do is achieve a higher degree of standardization across Wiki articles. Based on the consensus reached in Montenegro-related discussion pages, place (country) names are to be presented in the predominant language of the country and the language of the minority group whose name variant is of significant difference from that of the region's predominant language. In the case of the article for Montenegro, the predominant regional language is "Montenegrin/Serbian" and the minority language of significant difference is "Albanian". Croatian and Bosnian are omitted due to their names for MNE being identical to the "Montenegrin/Serbian" form. In the case of Albania, there are two minority groups that represent a significant percent of the national population and their names for Albania should be represented as they are significantly different from the Albanian language version. Do the same with the Macedonia article if you please. However, the issue was already resolved months ago by an arbitration committee. In the case of Macedonia, it was ruled that only the Macedonian language be presented in the intro and that in the infobox it be stated that Albanian is also in wide use in Western Macedonia.

Depending on what figures you go by... Lets give Macedonians the benefit of the doubt and say that they constitute 350,000/3,600,523 - that's 9.7%. As for the Greeks 500,000/3,600,523 - 13.8%. SOurces are taken from Wiki articles and are from figures determined by the minority groups. It is not a negligible quantity in either event and their %population numbers do exceed that of the Albanian minority in MNE.

Here is a piece from the Northern Epirus page: The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization estimates the Greek minority at approximately 70,000 people.[9] Other independent sources estimate that the number of Greeks in the Northern Epirus is 117,000 (about 3.5% of the total population),[10] a figure close to the estimate provided by The World Factbook (2006) (about 3%). But this number was 8% by the same agency a year before.[11][12] In total there were an estimated number of about 400,000 Greeks[[[citation needed]]] in North Epirus in the mid-nineties. To these figures should be added the approximately 200,000 [[[citation needed]]] Greeks from Northern Epirus residing in Greece. The number however are suspect as "many, for economic reasons, claimed the Greek nationality" and Greeks are also trying to count Vlachs as 'Greeks.' [2]

The Greek population is of significance as is the Macedonian one. 117,000 Greeks from independent sources is enough for significance (3.5%).

CheersGkmx (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the "other crap exists" statement. It is applicable if the connection between two cases is one where the use of Article A serves as precedent for Article B when the info in Article A, that is used in proving the case, is unstable (e.g. subject to dispute or has been modified repeatedly). This is not the case with the Peru-Albania point as the info in the Peru page is stable.Gkmx (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to erase the last edit,as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a good point for it.Don't back your edits with other wikipedia articles.Amenifus (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits are not solely backed by using the Peru example. The data presented is from articles outside of wikipedia, the fact that they are also found in the articles is of know use to your attempt to label my entire argument as subject to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you disagree with the edits please do justify on reasonable grounds why you desire to revert them. Of course, this would be an act of courtesy to a certain degree on your part. Just claiming that its subject to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is unreasonable for the reasons already written above.99.234.179.83 (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. forgot to login after deleting cookies and such.Gkmx (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I really see no sense of that addition, in this case. It's boring. "Αλβανία"? "Албанија"? It's all the same name anyway. Adds no valuable information. If these minorities had some name for it that was actually substantially different, we might talk about it. I'm against adding names just for the sake of serving as a symbolic badge of recognition. We should be adding them if they are interesting information for our outside readers. Which, in this case, they are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are to transliterate the names, then yes, they would be similar/identical to the English version of the country name. However, the respective alphabets of the languages in question predominantly use the non-transliterated form. Removing the transliteration ("Albanija") from the intro will remove redundancy. The alphabets are not quite the same: Latin alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet, Greek alphabet. Really, I would just like to see a cross-article consensus on the issue of country names in the local languages. My personal belief is that Greek and Macedonian is not req'd in the intro (though should be mentioned in the infobox). I also feel that only the predominant language is necessary to be given in the intro paragraph. Unless it is a situation where the nation is truly multilingual - e.g. Switzerland. Its somewhat common sense. So, until the people that are placing "Mali I Zi" next to "Crna Gora" do not agree to remove "Mali i Zi" from the MNE article I will stand by my prior decision.Gkmx (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This thinking in terms of reciprocity is exactly why these kinds of debates are always so silly and take so long. Please don't do that. Support here what you think is best here, on its own merits. You just said yourself "Greek and Macedonian is not req'd in the intro". Then please stand by that and support that solution. Insisting on the opposite of what you really think is best, just because of something that is going on at a different article, is the paradigm case of disrupting Wikipedia to demonstrate a point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you(Gmx) are missing a point here.There's a huge difference between an "officially recognised" and an "official" language.Greek and ehnic Macedonian(or Slav-Macedonian,in case someone feels annoyed) are recognised, but not official languages.Otherwise all neighboring countries would have their names spelled in a dozen different ways.Amenifus (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

hahahaha,this is ridiculous--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

I think we should go with FYROM,Albania goverment and most of the Albanians I know do not say Republic of Macedonia.What is Republic of Macedonia? Greece,Albania? Slavs?hmm We need to decide if we are using the name The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Most Albanians I know simply say "Macedonia" ;). "Macedonia" is actually the preferred, in theory, name when no possibility of confusion arises, or "Republic of Macedonia" for the first mention with subsequent ones simply as "Macedonia" from what I recall. That being said using RoM for every mention might be preferable in practice for obvious reasons... 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Partially recognized

I understand Republic of KV is "partially recognized" but there is absolutely no point in posting this in the intro of Republic of Albania. It should read that it borders Kosova | Kosovo and if the user clicks that name in the Kosova article it will tell them all about the partially recognized part and the dispute between Republic of Kosova and Republic of Serbia. Does anyone have a valid reason to leave the "partially recognized" part in the intro? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"partially-recognized" is a term that maintains neutrality on the topic. Rather than referring to it as "Kosovo (Serbia)" or "Republic of Kosovo" we are referring to it as "partially-recognized Kosovo". "Disputed Kosovo" would serve as more descriptive... but that does not seem to be the convention in other articles. Any valid reason can be based on moral/ethical reasons in this case. I don't object much to your argument.Gkmx (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could just refer to it as Kosovo and let the reader decide whether Kosovo is de-facto independent or de-jure a province of Serbia. I just thought that the partially part looked bad in the introduction but if the community here has decided to write it that way, I will not object. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Since, the Albanian goverment recognized the republic of Kosovo,I would change it to Kosovo.--Taulant23 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to limit confusion and be informative with minimal bias. I believe that the term "disputed" would serve better than "partially recognized". Disputed implies 'partially recognized' and 'partially not recognized/opposed to'. The most practical solution is probably that of Ari d'Kosova. Gkmx (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is really frustrating. We've been trying for months now to come up with a way of mentioning Kosovo amongst Albania's neighbours that won't impel people to extend the Kosovo dispute into this article. At various times, this page has named Albania's northeastern neighbour as "Kosovo"; "Serbia"; "the disputed territory of Kosovo"; "partially-recognized Kosovo"; "partially-recognized Kosovo (Serbia)"; "partially-recognized Kosovo (claimed by Serbia)"; and probably some other variations which I don't remember right now. No matter what anyone puts here, someone else inevitably insists on changing it. Attempts to discuss the issue and reach a compromise that everyone can live with have gotten nowhere. I'm pretty much convinced at this point that we need to get the Arbitration Committee involved here to impose a compromise wording and then put the Albania article on probation (just as they've already done with the Kosovo article). Richwales (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming here from a note that Richwales posted, I don't think that the involvement of the Arbitration Committee is necessary here. It seems to me fairly obvious that some kind of wording acknowledging the uncertain status of Kosovo be included. "Partially-recognized" would be acceptable, but I reckon "the disputed territory of Kosovo" is a neutral, useful and sufficiently terse wording to convey the necessary meaning. I say this not in any official capacity as an administrator or otherwise but as an experienced contributor who knows what neutrality is. Neither "Kosovo" alone nor "Serbia" alone recognizes the validity of the alternative view; "disputed territory" is most elegant. If people are actually interested in following Wikipedia's core policies, I don't think there is much choice here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll confess a partiality to "the disputed territory of Kosovo" — this was my own suggested wording a while back, and this is also how the introductory sentence of the Kosovo article itself describes Kosovo. If we use this phrase here, I would recommend that the words "disputed territory" should be wikilinked to the "Political status of Kosovo" article.

I know this topic is highly charged and difficult for many to deal with objectively. However, people need to acknowledge that certain formulations (such as "Kosovo" alone, or "Serbia" alone) have no chance of being acceptable to everyone and will inevitably provoke continued edit-warring. And once again, this page we're dealing with here is not the Kosovo page; this is the Albania page, which is forced to make passing mention of Kosovo (disputed territory, newly independent state, rebel province, or whatever) only because the two locales share a common border. I would once again implore people to come up with some sort of reasonably neutral wording, equally distasteful to everyone (!), and let those editors who really feel driven to debate the Kosovo controversy go over to Talk:Kosovo and discuss it there. Richwales (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

partially-recognized Republic of Kosovo would sound neutral to me.I do agree with Richwales,editors should debate the Kosovo controversy to Talk:Kosovo and discuss it there.Do not confuse ethnic Albanians or Kosovo with Albania. --Taulant23 (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Presence of other nations in the territory of present-day Albania

Issue is for the instance pertaining to the Serbian presence in Albania prior to the expansion of the Ottoman Empire to the area of today's Albania. These sources mostly pertain to northern Albania: http://www.montenegro.org/duklja.html http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/duklja/ http://www.rastko.org.yu/bogoslovlje/nikon/simposion/mspremic-zeta_c.html

Also check out these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duklja http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_empire

I don't know if anyone else knows this story - I've been trying to find it online (with no success): There was a Serbian ruler (rank unknown to me) that had two brothers. All three were married. Some kind of sacrifice had to be made in the construction of some form of fortification about Skadar (fort/fortress perhaps?) where one of the wives would have to be entombed alive within the walls of the fortification. The brothers spoke of this among themselves (all knew) and agreed on a way to make the selection of whose wife would die to be random. Two brothers cheated and told their wives how they could save themselves and the other played fair. His wife (from the guy that played fair) was entombed. Then someone came and cursed the parties involved stating (cursing) that Skadar will never be a Serbian city again.

The point of me writing the fragmented version of the story is to pose the question - what structure was it that was built by the ruling Serbians?

"...swept through, leaving their cultural mark as well as their ruins" Lets say that all I provided was a map of the extent to which the Serbian medieval states extended at various times (source link 9). History is a part of culture and that alone is enough to qualify the map as evidence of demonstrating cultural marks. Language is also part of culture visit Balkan Sprachbund and look for the source that was used for the following - "Albanian was influenced by both Latin and Slavic, but it kept many of its original characteristics." It is a logical conclusion that there will be physical changes to the environment of a region by "Nation X" if Nation X is ruling the region. It would not be logical to conclude that Nation X leaves the reason untouched in any way - Regarding contsruction/ruins in the region.

Regardless, these new sources will satisfy your doubts certainly.Gkmx (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and what about greek and macedonian in the introduction ?-- CD 10:21, 21 June 2008(UTC)

About the castle issue,that's just a legend.Similar fables and such are common among balkanians, see Rozafa Castle.Amenifus (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Very TRUE,there is not even one structure that was built by the ruling Serbians.Besides horror,death and barbarian massive killings.Serbs did not build any think on Albania.I would never put Greeks and Romans in the same shoes with the Serbs(Slavs).Greeks and Romans at least did build some large cities (with the help of the Albanians),they never destroyed Albania like Servs did.--Thispoems (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I found the source that describes the history of Fort Skadar and the epic/national story behind it. Here it is: "http://www.jstor.org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/stable/pdfplus/307765.pdf". If there are problems with the limits of use with articles downloaded viewed via JSTOR, the citation can be changed to reflect the direct source.

The Serbs constructed Fort Skadar. That satisfies the "ruins" portion of the aforementioned sentence. I'll add some sources that have less emphasis on the epic in a moment or two. Servs is a rather archaic term. Somewhat like if Albanians were to be referred to as Arnauts. Anyway, you seem to be refusing to acknowledge the evidence presented. What your reasons are I am not certain. Look at it more carefully perhaps. I was hoping that I could retire from editing... That's irrelevant though.Gkmx (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Another source on Fort Skadar: http://books.google.com/books?id=MDmGX5y40IwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+walled+up+wife&sig=ACfU3U0Zat9kEUQED9toELlnPm_eeRQrSw

Alternatively, you can go to google books and search/view "The Walled-Up Wife".Gkmx (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "source" is incorrect plus they are not reliable since they are taken from Serbs sites.--Taulant23 (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently I'm wondering about two things.Since when we're using google and any other search-sites as reliable sources and how exactly can a 4th century BC castle have been built by the Serbs.Amenifus (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And Thispoems, try to keep it down a bit, will you?Even if someone pisses you off you can always give a response with 'gjakftohtesi'.Amenifus (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Google is not the source. Google is the means of viewing the source. I have forgotten the exact century of construction, however ::the fortress in question is from medieval times not the 4th century. The source also refers to the building as a "fort" not a ::"castle". Perhaps you have a different building in mind then the one the source is mentioning. Taulant23, you are not right in ::making that call. The source is from Alan Dundes and he cites Vuk Karadžić. They are quite respectable sources. Taulant, ::they are not "Serb sites". Even if they were, they would not be able to pass as controversial/debatable matter in the eyes of ::reasonable/sane individuals. Perhaps you (Taulant) would like to offer a counter-source? On the point of responding with ::"gjakftohtesi" - please translate non-English words into English when writing in the English language wiki. Gkmx (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The fortress as it is has existed for about 2,5 millenia, meaning that it has been ancient,medieval,modern etc.It is the Rozafa Castle that is tied with the 'milk on the wall' legend, so in this case fort and castle are the same.Every single coqueror or ruler of the region probably made his own additions to the fortification, which means that Romans,Ottomans,Venetians have likely added a few bricks on the wall.This doesn't classify it as an exclusive Ottman,Roman,Venetian,Serb etc construction.Again, your source,whether reliable or not, deals mainly with a myth which is an almost exact Serb translation of the Albanian version(or vice versa if you will).Amenifus (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Prior to now I did not know the name of the castle/fort. Though, it does seem that we have agreed on the point that Serbs did in fact leave some [cultural] remnants in Albania - albeit minute in comparison with that of the Greeks. I appreciate your not reverting me. And thank you for the translation. I was initially afraid that gjakftohtesi might be an offensive term. I didn't mean to sound like one of those bigots that demand of people to "Speak English! This is America!" Sorry about that. Its a nice sounding term actually. I shall use start using it. I will let the rest of you decide on whether you want Serbia to be mentioned or not. At a later point in time, I will most definitely add a section to the Scutari article to more constructively contribute. I am sorry about all the fuss I may have caused and potential frustration felt by others.Gkmx (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No fuss at all.Taulant has a point though.We are talking about cultural remnants of long-term occupation or presence of other nations such as the Ottoman or Roman presence which lasted centuries.There has been Serbian presence in Albanian territories every now and then but I don't think it lasted long enough to leave a visible mark.The most notable are few toponyms here and there but I'm not sure if they are Slavic in general or Serb in particular.One thing's certain however, more sources are required and currently we don't have any.Amenifus (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Venetians and Ottomans.There is no point of adding more people.If we add Serbs,let's add Slavs,or Bulgarians or Italians or Germans.The sentence is fine like that do not add anymore biaS,please.--Taulant23 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You are continuously committing vandalism.Gkmx (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies won't work in an uncollaborative environment. Your editing here is doomed to fail.It is easy in the "heat of the moment" to forget violations in the face of warnings to cease such activity.Your presence here does nothing but create severe irritation, edit wars, and lots of wasted time. I and other users have provided you with plenty arguments why Serbs or Bulgarians is a bias to add in that sentence.I do not wish to loose any time explained to you what your actions do translate in here.Please change your attitude.Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Amenifus (talk), Gkmx (talk), and Gligan (talk) have come to agreement on the inclusion of Bulgarians and Serbians in the sentence. Taulant23 (talk) is the user that objects to the consensus and continues reverting constructive editing to the article. Refer to all of our talk pages and the discussion above to analyze the history of the argument.Gkmx (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A bulgarian and a serb want to include bulgarians and serbs, if that is not their national POV then I don't know what is. Personally I think this should get a peer review, agreed ? -- CD 10:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, can you tell me a reason that makes sense why should Venetian be included and Bulgarian not?Do you mean that Greek is not POV but Bulgarian is? I think that this double standard. --Gligan (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see in the discussion, the inclusion of Bulgarians and Serbs is disputed, if something is disputed between two or more parties then what each party says is POV, this is why a neutral POV is needed to satisfy everyone, and to reach that, people with a neutral point of view are needed, which is exactly what a peer review does: it gets NPOV users involved -- CD 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a peer review although I can't see the reason - one user does not want to include Bulgarian (probably because he doesn't like the country, who knows) so I can say that I disagree with Venetian for instance and keep removing it which is exactly what that user is doing. And I don't see in that discussion a single argument why should Bulgarian be omitted. See those maps: [3], [4], [5] - they show that parts of Albania and at some time the whole of the country was controlled by Bulgaria for more that 150 years; [6] - this one is for the culture of the first Bulgarian Empire, it can be seen that there were cultural centers in eastern Albania; [7] - here you can see that the whole territory participated in the Bulgarian revolt of 1040-41 and finally that is a map of the Second Empire [8] --Gligan (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would go and remove venetian without any explanation, you would probably be blocked, because just removing what has been there for a long time without any dispute is considered vandalism, however if you want to add new information, you have to reach consensus first, even if what you want to add is technically true, also, it is not only one user that doesn't agree to this, it is one, active in this article, user, I'm sure that if you would invite more albanians they would also disagree, I personally (as an albanian) think that bulgarians have left some marks but I dispute whether serbs have, this is of course my personal POV and it is based on what my culture says and quite little on facts and you (as a bulgarian) are pretty sure that bulgarians have left marks, probably by not being based on facts but on your culture, even if you are based on facts it may seem as you aren't because of your nationality, I hope now you understand why a peer review is not only necessary, but the only way to consensus -- CD 21:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't argue for the Serbs, I am competent only on Bulgarian history ;-) Make a peer review then, but keep in mind that from Friday evening to Sunday I am not going to be at home. --Gligan (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. What is your problem of including Bulgarians and Serbs in that sentence? What is wrong that they have ruled Albania - it is mentioned in the articles of history of Albania. You said it is bias- what bias - isn't the mention of Venetians bias as well? What are your standards of including nations? Gkmx can tell you about the Serbs but as far as the Bulgarians are concerned, they ruled part of what is now Albania for centuries; part of the population was Bulgarian, in 1040 a Bulgarian uprising against the Byzantines under Tihomir broke out in the area of Drach.

I think that your edits are bias - if you are going to write about who had ruled Albania, add them all, an uninformed reader would have the impression that the Bulgarians never actually ruled Albania - or that is your aim?! --Gligan (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think by your actions it proves why you need to put your country in that sentence."Drach"?? It's called Durrës but Slavs can call it wtevr they want too. It does not need a scientist to tell that you are pushing a POV. Bulgarians did not left any mark as the Greeks or the Romans left in Albania.

Bulgarians are NOT comparable to the powerful empires of Ancient Greeks or the Romans and they did not left any big mark to even to be mention in such a small sentence. Did they build Apollonia? Butrinti? It's meaningless. Yes Albania was seized by Bulgarians and “mighty “Serbs, at the same time as she was attacked by other foreign troops. Great accomplish right? As an Albanian, I do know for sure that Bulgarians have left no culture mark in Albania.Perhaps, demanding to change the name of Berat to Beligrad,or Durrës to Drach. So please let me know, what culture marks have Bulgarians left?

I was only striving to bring to light the origins of the Albanians, as evinced by a number of chronologically ordered facts, to do away with the darkness, confusion and audacious speculation that had been prevalent, and to make this nation known in the whole course of its history, a nation that is among the oldest inhabitants of Europe and that, despite the influx of the Greeks, Romans, Goths, Slavs, French, Italians and Turks, has managed to survive.Johann Thunmann,1774:On the History and Language of the Albanians and Vlachs--Taulant23 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s.These kinds of "Balkan mentality" debates are always so silly and take so long.I have no problem of using Serbs and Bulgarians (use the word Slavs) which most of them have left their bones in Albania but let's come to a consensus before adding or reverting.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There are ruins of castles, churches and monasteries in eastern Albania built in the Middle Ages which might have been built by the Byzantines but also by the Bulgarians because they ruled those areas for centuries. When the Greeks are referring to Bulgaria they call Plovdiv Philipopolis or Nessebar Messembria and then why shouldn't the Bulgarians call your cities Drach, Belgrad or Devol? And no, the Bulgarians seized Albania when the Byzantine Empire was in its height and held it almost to the end of the rule of Byzantium's greatest Emperor Basil II and many castles in what is now Albania fell to the Byzantines after heavy sieges which, of course is not mention in your history books. And are you trying to tell me that the Bulgarian Empire wasn't a mighty state??????? Did you know that Devol was one of the seats of Clement of Ohrid who developed the Cyrillic alphabet? Some of the first works in that alphabet used from the Balkans to the Pacific might well have been written in what is now Albania. And what did the Venetians left?

PS What on earth does a Slav mean? It could be a Russian, Croat, Ukrainian, Bulgarian or just a tribe which hasn't reached the level to create a state. The Bulgarians are Bulgarians and I insist on mentioning them. You just can't omit a country which has ruled Albania in the main page. Write the sentence in whatever form you want to but Bulgaria must be mentioned. As I said, I can't argue for Serbia, you should agree with Gkmx on that matter. --Gligan (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Albania was not even united when Bulgarians arrived. To put Bulgarians in the same sentence as the Greeks and Romans, it’s a joke dude. South and the east of Albania has a strong Greek influence. Go visit Albania. Please let me know if you find anything in Bulgarian. Hmm,I do not where are all the Greek users are, because this is offending even for them too. So what is next Epirus to be called Epiradac. All my friends are laughing at you. Go find another site to show your Bulgarian pride,"mighty empire of Bulgaria" --Taulant23 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Roman influence in Albania? Where is the Venetian influence? And what is offending? You are offending. Whether you like it or not, what is now Albania was ruled by Bulgaria and it must be mentioned. And do not mock at Bulgaria, please. What does Epiradac mean? And finally, you find a site to show your complexes. --Gligan (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Roman influence in Albania???Well if you do know that answer,why in hell you edit in Albania's page in a first place.Albania was overuled by Bulgarians BUT answer this question Where/What are the CULTURAL MARKS left in Albania from the Bulgarians???You and the other bigot from Serbia Gkmx (talk) are simply kept on reverting with no supportive arguments for your case.--Taulant23 (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You continue to be offending. You don't answer my questions and you don't even read what I have written. --Gligan (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Offending?? What question about the cultural marks about Greeks, Romans and Ottoman’s should I loose my time explained to you. Are you crazy? You would tell me that there is no cultural mark that Greeks have left in Albania? If you don’t know this, why you really revise in here. Maybe we can come in a compromise by adding that Albania was overruled by these people(Serbs,Bulgarians etc etc) but there is not such a think as cultural and ruins in Albania from Bulgaria or Serbia.As I asked before,Where/What are the CULTURAL MARKS left in Albania from the Bulgarians???.Thank you,--Taulant23 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I really think, at this point, that it would be appropriate to ask once again if those editors who want to list the Bulgarians and the Serbians in this paragraph would please add at least one relevant source reference to the text of the article for each of these groups. It would probably be good to add at least one reference for each of the half-dozen groups mentioned as having "swept through" present-day Albania — but at least for these two, since they have been the basis for so much arguing and edit-warring.

I think some sources may have been proposed earlier, but they're gone now, and it would be good to put whatever people can come up with back into the article — or else add {{fact}} tags — or else remove any unsourced and unverifiable claims.

FWIW, I don't consider myself allied to any side of this discussion. My only connection to the Balkans is that I studied Romanian in university some years ago. Richwales (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richwales. I agree with you on including direct links to the sources. I included three sources (with embedded links in the article) for the former presence of Serbians in Albania and Gligan included one source for the Bulgarians.

• http://z.about.com/d/historymedren/1/0/R/8/serbia400.gif
• http://www.montenegro.org/duklja.html
• http://books.google.com/books?id=MDmGX5y40IwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+walled+up+wife&sig=ACfU3U0Zat9kEUQED9toELlnPm_eeRQrSw
• The above sources are evidence for the Serbian case
• Zlatarski, Istorija na Pǎrvoto bǎlgarsko carstvo, pp. 334–337
• The above source is evidence for the Bulgarian case

These were previously included in the article, removed later on. I would also like to note that Taulant is now claiming that we have been making edits with no supportive evidence when in fact I have told Taulant just the same thing to her/him on numerous occasions. I will copy this to your discussion page as well. Gkmx (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• The first one is just a map of Serbia/Balkan-useless
• Second is more about Montenegrins, they took Durrës and what did they build/ruins/cultural mark?
• Just by saying that "The ballad of the city of Scutari is also known in Albania" it's not enough to declare that Bulgarians made any kind of cultural mark in Albania.Plus if this is compared to Rozafa,the Albanian ballad it makes things way harder.There is the same ballad in Indian,Greek and Romanian.I like the cover though :)
• About Serbs there is none.So please take the word Serbs in the sentence.

The sources are very unclear. Don’t even put them. I am trying to find any trustworthy source that can show any cultural marks that Bulgarians have left in Albania. So far I have found nothing. Maybe because they did not stay too long in Albania or perhaps they just used the castles and other places that already wore there before they arrived.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here seems to be that the expression "cultural mark" is inherently POV. "Sweep through" is probably also POV, for that matter. Maybe we would be better off replacing "swept through, leaving their cultural mark as well as their ruins" with a more neutral description — possibly something which leaves flexibility as to just how much lasting influence any given outside group did in fact leave behind. How about something like "occupied the region, leaving behind varying amounts of ruins and cultural impact as they left"? I imagine we can probably come up with something more elegant than that, but I think the basic idea is worth considering. Any thoughts? Richwales (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any much change on the sentence.If we state that Bulgarians and Serbs left their cultural mark and we have no sources (nor I found them to be true), I think it's a big POV.Besides the Romans,Greeks,Ottomans and Italians during WWII(who have build streets,goverment buldings/The centre of Tirana was the project of Florestano de Fausto and Armando Brasini, well known architects of the Mussolini period in Italy. The Palace of Brigades, the government ministry buildings, the National Bank and the Municipality are their work etc)there is no other ruins left by anybody else.It's your call guys.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Richwales that the sentence could be rephrased. I do not believe that "sweep through" allows for any significant POV. Including Italians (the WWII Fascist Italians) would be more than appropriate. It does seem that they left quite a significant cultural impact that is felt to this day. I am uncertain of the time when Italian became a popular foreign language in Albania, but if it did in fact become popular after WWII, then there's further evidence of their cultural impact. What I intended to do was not to suggest that there are significant elements of Serbian culture in today's Albanians, but rather demonstrate that there were in fact Serbians living on the territory of today's Albania and that they did leave their cultural remnants in the form of their ruins and added chapters to the history of the Albanian people. Please do refer to the map that shows the boundaries of the various Serbian (pre-Ottoman) states most of them included at least a small portion of today's Albania. Especially northern Albania. The cultural impact is not noticeable in the everyday lives of today's Albanians, however the impact is quite present in the history of the Albanian people/nation and their history is part of their culture. I believe that the sentence could be rephrased as suggested - "The following nations ruled over part(s) of the present day territory of Albania and left behind their ruins as well: __________________________________. They left varying degrees of cultural impact with the Greeks and Ottomans (and whoever else Taulant23 suggests) having the greatest impact of all." You get the idea. Two sentences is a good compromise. One basically listing all the nations that been present in today's Albania and the other stating which of these nations had the greatest cultural impact. We most certainly should include the Italians of WWII. Any thoughts on the Italians and the rephrasing to form two sentences? (This will be copied to a few user talk pages). Gkmx (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

True, the impact is quite present in the history of the Albanian people/nation and their history but is SERBIFICATION of the ethnic Albanians not in the modern state Albania.If we state Albania, than I think we put to much "bad reflection" :) of the killing machine of the Serbs,specially in Kosovo.Many culture-changing events have occurred in Kosovo over the last 15 years. From 1990 to 1992, Slobdan Milosevic, President of Serbia, conducted a Serbification campaign in Kosovo, which included the killing of thousands of Kosovo Albanians.[9]

In 1924, a brilliant Bulgarian observer and connoisseur of Albania gave the following description of the Albanians: "…isn't the Albanian, who, being a slave, did not allow enslavement, freedom-loving? This is a question that could hardly be understood by anyone who has not lived in Albania. The most liberty-loving people in the Balkans are the Albanian people.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What the particular article section was referring to is cultural remnants of other nations in present day Albania, not who ruled Albania when and for how long.I never agreed to adding any such info and would appreciate it if people didn't twist my comments.Adding Serbs and Bulgarian is as necessary as adding Normans or French or Germans or Italians,which all occupied parts of Albania at times.Taulant isn't the one disrupting and vandalising, so I suggest we leave the artivle at its previous state.Amenifus (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion

This should be added to the Religion section: "Most citizens associated themselves with a traditional religious group. Citizens of Muslim background made up the largest traditional religious group (estimated at 65 to 70 percent of the population)." Source: US Department of State - International Religious Freedom Report 2006 - [10] (Inuyashas brother (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

65 to 70 percent of the population, that’s a joke buddy. Most of us do not practice nor believe in God. Think about it, 50 years no religion.Not only that,but Islam was forced to the Albanians.If Albania was so Muslim why have troops in Iraq, Afganistan? and why the Saudi and other Islamic countries do not recognize Kosovo??In one block there is a huge Orthodox Church(it looks like is reaching mighty Heaven), on the other the Mosque and two blocks down is the Catholic Church What does that tell you?Trust me,it's more about just being Albanian,that's all.--Taulant23 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to offend you, but your personal experience is irrelevant since the Article Policies are: no original research, neutral point of view and verifiability. In addition, my comment is not in regard to "practicing" religion, rather self identification (i.e., 65 to 70 percent of the population "associated" themselves as Muslim).(Inuyashas brother (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Self identification, than the truth is that most of the Albanians are atheist.Plus it does sounds good as it is,why we need %'s--Taulant23 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This section starts out that Christianity was imposed????? on the people. First of all, there is no evidence of that and there has been nothing written about that historically. We do know that the Apostle Paul in the first century took the gospel as far as Illyricum, present day Albania, as it is recorded in the new testament. This sounds like it was written by someone who is oppossed to Christianity and is inserting his own prejudice instead of being objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaticsea (talk • contribs) 14:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with above comment, re:Christianity being imposed on Albania - the earliest recorded churches in Albania date to the era before Christianity became the official religion of the empire and to the period that christians were still being officially persecuted in the Roman empire. It's therefore difficult to argue that it was "imposed." This needs to conform to a neutral point of view. Ahusni (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The same point of view that Islam was "imposed" is incorrect. It is historically known that the Ottoman empire did not impose Islam on any region, one just has to look to Greece and realize this is true, as they have been ruling them for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.136.90 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried editing the article about ten times, merely mentioning the 70% Muslim population of Albania. Each time my edits were undone. Many sources, including CIA Factbook confirm this. For every 10 Albanians, 7 will be Muslims. That is significant. If you ever meet an Albanian, chances are, statistically speaking, they will be a muslim. Why is this so insignificant that it is not mentioned anywhere in the article (religion, demography, etc.). 50 years of atheism is supposed to make your atheism second nature? Pakistan was worshipping statues for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. The same for Indonesia, Saudi Arabia. But now. Is that a joke? Buddy?173.98.143.62 (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Farooq173.98.143.62 (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The religion section of this article was obviously written by a Roman Catholic nutter. It is fucking ludicrous, lol! As if 70 percent of Albania is atheist, if only there was a single nation on this earth that was that rational, if only! The CIA World Factbook, as of 2009, says 70 percent of Albania is Muslim, 20 percent Orthodox and 10 percent Catholic. And why is there only one picture of a Mosque and three of Christian churches? I suppose the communists only pulled down the Mosques? Maybe they respected their fellow Christians as token atheists, Lol!

Change to Intro

I added the Union for the Mediterranean in the introduction. Albania is sourced in that article but if anyone wants to he may source it here as well. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Former Antic Macedonia territory inhabited mostly by Albanians

The territories of antic Macedonia are separated in three modern states now; in all of them they Albanians live, does it tells anything to you. Recently I found out that some important cultural part of Albania itself belong to ancient Macedonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.91.122.11 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Macedonians to day represent former antic population of Macedonia who spoke the Hellenic doric or epirotic dialect, a thraco-illyrian language from where to day Albanian language originates, but higher classes used the koinne dialect of Atiki. In case that anyone knows that then I am the one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.64.246 (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Names of Geographical Places in Albania

I have noticed, for some time now, that many articles related to geographical places in Albania, such as cities, villages, counties, districts, etc., contain the names of those places in other languages on top of the Albanian language. For instance, the city of Sarande contains the Albanian name, and also the Greek translation or referencing of the name (Avlona, I believe). Now, the only official language in the Republic of Albania is Albanian. Therefore, facts and logic claim that every geographical place name be provided in the Albanian language and, if accurate, in the English usage, and not in other languages such as Greek, Italian, Serbian, Macedonian, Latin, etc.

Based on that argument, I have been editing quite a few articles and I have been placing my reasons on talk pages as well as on edit summary boxes. I notice, however, that my edits get reverted, regardless of my messages on the respective talk pages. Therefore, I decided to start a discussion right here, with the good intention of helping Wikipedia pertain to its NPOV. The only way it may assume a neutral viewpoint is by examining the neutral facts. One is the fact that Albanian language is the one and only official language in Albania. Therefore, every name of geographical places in Albania should be provided in the Albanian language in the introduction paragraph and further.

I believe Task Force Albania should do its best to accurately edit all articles containing such disinformation or misinterpretation of the facts. --_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 07:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NCGN, for starters. The fact that other languages aren't official is not a reason for their systematic eradication, as you are calling for. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the academic circles as well as other encyclopedias, maybe you will have a little glimpse of what I'm talking about. If we all agree on your line of reasoning, then we should also place the Albanian names of all the cities and villages in the region of Chameria ;)--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:NCGN? --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did even read that document. The fact that I read it doesn't mean I will have to agree with your arguments. Anyhow, I will be starting a manual of style soon. --_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 07:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you so insecure that including another language in the lede will shake your world? The same thing you did to other articles? Should we start using your own bullshit arguments against you? 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Putting reason asleep, produces monsters", c.f. yourself.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 11:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, you made it clear that you have no sane arguments a while ago. 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you did not examine my arguments, so let me summarize the conclusion. Becase Greek language is not recognized as an official language in Albania, it cannot be added to articles related to geographical places in Albania. Also, the fact that you spot a similarity in articles related to geographical places in other countries, does not necessarily mean the same must apply in the case of Albania. Leave emotions aside - otherwise you may undermine the NOPV, which we so frequently mention.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 11:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But, after you removed the Greek names, you added Albanian names to Greek articles? Is Albanian an official language in Greece? I don't think so. So, what's your argument? (I know what it is, but let's hear it from you) 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I just wrote my argument. And, as a matter of fact, I edited the Ioannina article as a counter-response to another user here, to make him explicitly and practically understand my argument. Now, I see you want to chat over this, but I'm having quite a bloody battle with time at the time being.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 11:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At least you admit that either a)your argument doesn't maky any sense, or b)you edited another article in retaliation(!). Exemplary editing. Take your time. 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, have you ever heard of the Straw-man fallacy? Congratulations, you qualify!--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 11:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Albanian language is not official in Greece sure it will be , so some like you will stop messing around and creating confusion--Macedoni from Korca (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given the properties of the Greek state, I doubt they would ever commit to the truth.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 11:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

we can do this: either both some greek and albanian cities use greek and albanian in the lead or neither does, agreed? -- CD 11:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I did. They'll probably stay that way until ArberBorici decides to retaliate(!) again. (watch him accuse me of ad hominem this time while his arguments stay as nonsensical as ever) 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to understand or maybe bear in mind that this Project is not about ad hominem arguments!--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's all about lex talionis, though! 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My slogan at this project is to strive for NPOV. And I don't think your motto is fascism myself.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but please don't abuse WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I understand why you might but still... 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, the fact that a language is not official does not mean it should not be included in the lead. Wikipedia is not about official policy, and for good reason. For those places where there is a living minority, including the name of the place in the minority's language in the lead is entirely justified. This applies to all towns and village in Albania where there is a Greek community. And please, no more WP:POINT violations to support fallacious arguments. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does get annoying after a while. That being said, we'll at least have to be consistent. I never really understood why users from all over the Balkans are that resistant to mentioning a few other names. No one's going to question sovereignty via wiki... 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr.3rdAlcove,watch your tongue buddie, when you say to him "bullshit arguments".Trust me 3rdAlcove,no one's going to question sovereignty via wiki or in any other way. I am sure that using Greek names in some of the cities in southern Albania it does no harm. Instead, it makes our relationship stronger again. Plus with the Greeks we have a lot in common. It is funny though, that the Greek users, come and spend a lot of time in Albania’s articles but only when their interest is in the game.--Taulant23 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry "buddie" but I don't like your tone and you can keep your advice to yourself. The only interest "Greek users" have in this article is that of NPOV. If that didn't come into play, this article would still be going on about Dodona being an important Albanian sanctuary. As for the references to "stronger relationship" that you keep making all over the place, I do hope you believe in them one day. You obviously don't, as it is. (I will let you find out that ArberBorici was the one removing names while Greek users tried to keep them in the articles for yourself; you will, eventually) 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not talk about Dodona or Pellasgians anymore because we will bring some old fights :).You never liked my tone, so that's not news for me. It kind sucks though, that you would think I do not believe in stronger relationship with Greeks. I don't like the Greek nationalistic movement of claiming southern Albania, but with the average, normal, educated Greek I have no problem nor I will have any problem. And as for Arbër he does have some good points too though.All the southern cities of Albania have their Albanian and Greek name translated too.Why? When in some areas there is no Greek community at all.Maybe where the Greek community is larger,we can put the Greek name too.Let’s find a consensus between us.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The new argument that certain editors are now using is the following:

The greek minority livign in the city (e.g. Permet, Sarande, and the villages) has the right to call the city with the greek name, according also to the conventions Albania has signed

Now, these editors have to comprehend that the English Wikipedia is not a project that bases knowledge and facts on certain arguments. That is, you cannot say that the city of Permet needs to be expressed in using also the Greek name and/or script just because there is a Greek minority there. Who cares, all in all? A reader from New Zealand could care less. Rather, the fact that there is a Greek minority could be expressed inside the article.

Also, a reader would assume that the city of Permet has two versions: One name in Albanian language, and the other Greek, which is not actually the case. If you come to visit Permet, no road sign uses other languages except for Albanian. Therefore, including the Greek name of the city inside an encyclopedia article is a manipulation of the factual truth.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC) •  ? 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The road signs are not there because your state does not comply with what had signed or maybe are destroyed by vandals. Guys, Albania have to respect the human rights of its minorities as as well as FYROM and Serbia for its Albanian minorities which is the right and I support this.Knonis (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia was not launched to rebuke Albania or Albanians for their attitudes towards Greek minorities... I you want to achieve that, go get a blog.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 08:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Knonis,just for the record Albania, did and does respect the human rights of its minorities.The Greek minority,even during Hoxha's regime had Greek schools,they spoke their languange and had more rights than any other minorities.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and tell me what exactly Albania respects from these articles (expect some road signs which most of them are destroyed systematically).Not to mention some other Albanian laws which theoretically only protect the human rights of the minorities. I live in the area I am a "minoritar" and let me know better.If you live here you will notice what I am saying.I don't want to discuss here the minority issues but its ridiculous some users (see ArberBorici) to insist that there is not at all officially recognized a Greek minority in Albania!!!A little bit reading of history and briefing about the inhabitants of your country is not bad....Knonis (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm at least now you guys have internet lol J/K

Well I can't talk for Arbër, but I know the history of Albania. Besides that, since my roots are from Gjirokastra,I do know a lot more about minorities. The Greek minority in Albania was just about 47,000 people, and now because of economic problems that Albania is facing, we have more people who declare the Greek ancestry. Did you get your Greek passport yet?? If you want to compare Albania with Greece, you should thank God you are not Cham, remember Metaksain and Zerva, or the that dude Paramithi(EDHES) what barbaric crimes they committed to the Çam people? Ask your grandpa if he remembers 6/27/1944? Or when Zerva killed 2300 of Çam in 7/8/1944? So please do not come here and complain about Albania.And please do not justify the Greek crimes with that idiotic propaganda that Çam's helped Germans during WWII, because only the boorish can believe in that fiction. So let’s not talk about minority rights anymore, when Albania did and does the best to respect any kind of minority.--Taulant23 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Taulant I suppose you don't live now in Gjirokastra but do you know about the "minority zones"?Hoxha and the present govermnt of Albania define as Greek minotity only 99 villages.If you leave these vilages you are not any more "minoritar".Moreover in the times of communist regime if you did so you had also to change your kombesi from greke to shqiptare in all your papers.Does this tell something to you about the 47.000 ?(the official census of 1989 puts this number to 58,785 only for the villages leaving out the people in towns. I doubt for you sources of 47.000 ....).As for Chams see Chameria issue. If you don't like the sources about the collaboration with Nazis that "imputate" Chams you can change them by your own reliable sources saying something different. We are on Wikipedia... :) Thanks.Knonis (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You speak for Chams but you must know that you speak for autochthon population of south Epirus Epirotet actually, and speaking about the collaboration of a civil populations with Nazi makes you Nazi yourself , although I know that individs like you have ceraitn limitation since when the speak about Greek minority in Albanian or try to delete the counterpart Albanian name Epir from the Epirus region. If the Arvanites came from Epirus then what is Epir after your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.101.188 (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I started this section to ensure that proper geographical naming is used for geographical places in Albania. But as far as Chameria is concerned, we all know about the Greek genocide against Albanians (cf. Karadzic's genocide against Bosnia). Also, commiting killings just because a particular group supposedly collaborated with another particular group is not an argument in favor of death. There is no argument in favor of killing people, not even the death penalty. However, this remains an open discussion as far as it concerns human nature. Rest assured that when our Cham issue gets resolved, we'll start a new section.--_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 11:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of reference to Caroline Thorpe and Liverpool

I have removed the highly dubious reference to 'Pulitzer prize winning emeritus professor at the University of Liverpool Caroline Thorpe and her statement on Albanian food and Liverpool. This had no source and could not be referenced online (other than references to this article). The Pulitzer site has no record of this person, neither has the Liverpool University site. A hoax no doubt. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope you like

The history section!--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

NO we did not like your edit! You blanked almost all the page,specially the history part was very destructive.Should I call this [11] a act of vandalism?

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box.The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The revision was an encyclopedia level revision of a mess of unrelated sentences out of a brochure of a cheap tour guide.Even if i don't like to see an hour work of me erased by a nationalistic- wiki partizan i couldn't care less.The whole article is a mess from top to bottom.If you like it eat it.That's your and the administrators problem. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC) IN ROMAN EMPIRE AND BYZANTINE.. there is a referance to the serbian tsar stefan dusan unless albanian have decided to steal more history from the world can some one get it off republic of albania

Rreth flamurit e përbashkuar VS. Himni i flamurit.

The name of the Albanian national anthem is Himni i flamurit, which means The Anthem of The Flag, and not Rreth flamurit e përbashkuar which is the first line of the Anthem. • Illyricum 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto too,needs to be changed.A Roman Catholic intellectual, Vaso Pashko (1825-92), made the trenchant remark that "the religion of the Albanians is Albanianism."In some Albanian site thats the motto.--Taulant23 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Probation notice

I've added an {{Article probation}} notice to this talk page, because ArbCom's still-active "Macedonia" probation ruling is defined as applying to "the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted." (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Findings of fact for more details.) Richwales (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

tvsh??

I think that Albania#Entertainment is a bit crappy promotion. TVSH, for sure is not any more the leading tv in Albania. So, we should rephrase it.balkanian (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

history section

Unsourced material that looks like it's borrowed,has no place in this article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to prove us wrong with your work but it is has references,so you have no right to revert my work.Plus, as I said before in old posts, you should be banned from editing Albania's page since you have vandalized this page so many times.Thank you--Taulant23 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The paragrpah: Illyrian Kingdom, is just a low level unhistorical propaganda. Why should Albanian history become a huge POV? The source http://www.unitedalbanian.com has off course no place in a encyclopedia.

I see that someone wants to make in wikipedia original research, stating direct Albanian link with Illyrians, which is until today unproved by the scientific community (except unitedalbania and related stuff which is not scientific material). I put a POV sign until things settle.Alexikoua (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The history section is a total nightmare. For one, it is hugely cluttered. Some idential sentences appear twice (the one about Scodra, the one about Illyrian territories being expansive, the one about the "Devastating invasions by Slavs, etc..). The Roman and Byzantine sections also overlap and are redundant with each other. History sections of country articles should be short and concise, per WP:SS, ESPECIALLY the ancient history. Why don't you people look at the history sections of other countries, especially those that are featured articles to get some ideas. Look at Turkey, for example. Do you see ramblings about ancient glories and such? Look at Greece. Centuries of ancient history compressed into two paragraphs. THAT's how it's done, not this ridiculous "Prehistory section" that is completely unreadable, incoherent and unnecessary. I'll try my best to clean up the history section but fiercely tribalistic reactions like these [12] don't help at all. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Did my best trying to de-clutter and remove most of the redundant material. I think it's much more concise, readable, and NPOV now, although in my opinion the whole "Prehistory" section is unreadable and worthless and should be removed, but oh well. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Roman and Byzantine must be merged as Ottoman era and medieval culture. The entire history section should be half than it is now, as these should be covered in History of Albania.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I also feel the whole "Medieval culture paragraph is superfluous and doesn't really belong in a country's main history section. Comments, suggestions? --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We can add a sentence in the byz. paragraph like: At 14-15th cent. the region was divided by albanian clans (...). The rest of the paragraph's material is just assumption. Balkanian can give a hand.Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Truth is, the particular history sections are too big to fit in one article, a summary should do.Each of those parts can be expanded in its own article.Amenifus (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Day of Liberation

I have made a minor change in article. The official date of Liberation of Albania is November 29, 1944. The article stated the month of October as the month of liberation. I have changed it in November as it was e clear mistake. Hope no argues about this. Aigest (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:ABA Business Center.jpg, found on Albania, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Economy Section: Copyright Violations

It appears that a major portion of the "Economy" section is a direct copy from [13] and [14], and possibly others. Generally it reads very much like an advertisement. --Brindt (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As most of the section was a verbatim copy from the sources listed above, and I'm not able to provide a good replacement, I've deleted it (leaving the reference to the Economy of Albania). --Brindt (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

OK, guys, I'm not the first one to propose a map update. Because in the introduction the articles state that Albania borders Kosovo, then the latter should appear on the map. See the article of Croatia. Can somebody please update the map?--_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 06:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I updated the map.--_{A B X} ^{T • ៛} 06:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Borders

Albania is bordered by republic of Kosovo to the northeast.More than 40 countries recognize Kosovo independence and one of them is Albania. --Thispoems (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 70%ateist?There is 70% radical islam.

I'm really, honestly not trying to argue the Kosovo question here. (Or, stated another way, I'm trying not to argue the Kosovo question here, in the article about Albania.)

In a passage such as this one, which is only trying to describe the geography around Albania, we should try if possible to simply mention that one of the entities surrounding Albania is Kosovo, but ideally without delving deeply into a discussion over the precise status of Kosovo. Such a discussion, if it belongs anywhere at all, should ideally reside in the Kosovo article and its talk page — and as I said in my earlier edit summary, the Kosovo article currently says that Kosovo is a disputed territory, which is why I felt that mirroring that same phrase here was appropriate as a way to keep the geographical description neutral.

My main concern over saying just "Kosovo" is that we've already seen some people inclined to "correct" this to say "Serbia" — which is almost inevitably going to get "corrected" back, quickly leading to an edit war. Saying "the disputed territory of Kosovo" will hopefully be equally distasteful (!) to partisans on both sides — which, of course, is what you sometimes have to do in the name of impartiality.

If you feel it just isn't right for the Kosovo article to describe Kosovo as a disputed territory, I would propose that the right forum for that discussion would be the talk page for that article. Please note, though, that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has put a "probation" notice on the Kosovo article (see the talk page) — which I assume means that there's already been quite a bit of edit-warring going on over there, and anyone new who just jumps in and (for example) replaces "disputed territory" with "sovereign state" in the first sentence of the article is likely to get stomped on quickly and messily by admins. Richwales (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest let’s keep it as Kosovo, because Albania does recognize Kosovo as an independent state(so does the rest of Europe,U.S etc).I hope not to see any edit warring because finally we had some peace around here.

For more info please check this website too [15]--Taulant23 (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally would have no objection to just saying "Kosovo", because anyone who wants more information about the status of Kosovo can easily click on the wikilink to get to the article about Kosovo.

I'm not the kind of person you'll have to convince, however — largely because I don't have any cultural ties to Kosovo, Serbia, or Albania, and I don't have a strongly held position one way or the other regarding Kosovo's status. The question, I believe, is whether some other person out there who is convinced that Kosovo's claim to independence is illegitimate and wrong — a person who believes that Kosovo is still rightly a part of Serbia as passionately as you believe that Kosovo is entitled to be a sovereign state — whether that sort of person will be content to let this article simply say that Albania's northeastern neighbour is "Kosovo". We've already seen that at least one other editor has insisted on saying Albania is bordered by "Serbia", not by "Kosovo". Will that editor, or others like him/her, be content to let the article say "Kosovo" after all? Only time will tell, I suppose. Richwales (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And, indeed, just as I feared would happen, it appears that this same other editor went in again just now and changed "Kosovo" back to "Serbia". I would once again suggest that we try to take a middle ground via a formula such as "the disputed territory of Kosovo". That's what the Kosovo article itself currently says about the status of Kosovo — and it seems factually correct to me, since (as has been pointed out) a sizable number of countries have recognized Kosovo's UDI, while another (also sizable) number of countries have declined to do so and apparently still support Serbia's claim to sovereignty. Again, the Albania article (or, at least, an introductory paragraph that is simply trying to describe the geographical location of Albania) is not the place to have a knock-down, drag-out argument over the rightful status of Kosovo; that argument discussion belongs in the Kosovo article itself, and for our purposes here, it seems reasonable to simply acknowledge (in passing) the fact that Kosovo's status remains in dispute and move on to discuss the proper topic of the Albania article — namely, Albania. Richwales (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I put a note on the Kosovo talk page just now, alerting people over there to this ongoing dispute. Richwales (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw it, but it's not a smart move.You will create more edit warring.Let's keep it way from Kosovo's article,they have enough problems there.Let's use "a disputed territory" for now.--Taulant23 (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I must disagree. The people working on the Kosovo article should be kept aware of problems regarding mentions of Kosovo in other articles. And the Arbitration Committee (which has put a probation notice on the Kosovo article) should also be made aware of what's going on here, since they're intending to take quick action against abusive edit-warring in "related" articles (a category which I think includes the Albania page now). I'll concede that my earlier text may have been too long, so although I've reinstated a note about our problem here on the Kosovo talk page, I've put a much shorter note there than before. Richwales (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said [16] :)--Taulant23 (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a disputed territory but a partially recognized country. I do not understand the logic behind the "disputed territory" theory. The Kosovo article to which you seem to refer, is also disputed since it is being held hostage by few users. So there is no need to use it as a reference. Jawohl (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Those countries that recognize Kosovo as a country view it as a partially recognized country. There are others who recognize it as a province of Serbia. Like Spain, Romania, Russia, and the UN for example. 167.206.75.157 (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Çfar eshte ky muhabet disputed territory ?! i wonder why serbs and greeks keep prosecuting and vandalising albanian pages all the time , i think we should post demographic maps of the balkans, the more information the better;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly wisdom (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that it should be listed that Albania borders Kosovo. It is only partially recognized as an independent state, most of the other countries do not recognize Kosovo's independence. It it was officially recognized by all the countries then we could say that "Albania borders Kosovo". It should be removed. Norum (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I added the new statistics from Tirana http://www.scribd.com/doc/15738681/Feja-ne-Shqiperi1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dessy92 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia centralised discussion

Following the conclusion of the Arbcom case (WP:ARBMAC2), a new centralised discussion for Macedonia-related naming issues has now been opened at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Albanians fluent in English, Italian, Greek or German - Source?

"Many Albanians are also fluent in English, Italian, Greek, or German."- This is such a provisional statement. I have been to Albania and honestly it is hard to find people that are fluent in English, or German. About Italian and Greek, it might be, but depends on the area, in the North-East many people know Greek, and Italian through the coastline, still a source is needed in order to make such claims.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.1.158 (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Article clean-up complete.

I took some time to tweak the mechanics of this article, as well as ensure that the content was properly organized. Though this article still needs a lot of sourced content for some of its existing sections, it is currently on the right track towards improvement. In short, I cleaned up the article as much as possible,and wish the best of luck to anyone who can further improve its content.--Taulant23 (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your edits to the history section were a good idea. They were not. Everything should be summarised here, and linking to specific articles. BalkanFever 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So please change them on the History of Albania not on the main page.To much fight over it, BalkanFever.Again,thank you Balkan for you help and your time!--Taulant23 (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that it should still be talked about (a little bit) in this article, for people who don't want to read everything about Albanian history, but want an overview. BalkanFever 09:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the History part did not help when discussing Albania's new politics, new economy and transportation. Things that most people wont to know about the current development of Albania. Not what hapenned 10000 years ago and what Albania used to be part off.--Taulant23 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an article about the current events in Albania is in order? I think, however, that this article can handle both: history and current events. Beam 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it anathema to mention the religious demographics, that Albania is at least 70% Muslim, Islamic, that many notable Muslims are/were from Albania. I have many Muslim friends, but this is not a gesture of friendship towards them. Its just a physical reality. You can't have Christianity, but minus Jesus, you shouldn't be able to mention Albania's religion without mentioning 70% Muslim. Meanwhile, There is now a whole paragraph dedicated to an insignifiant fact pertaining to a even less significant (numerically) minority, Jews. Apparently a Jew doctor added that, and it stuck. There were a lot of holocausts, Jew, Native American Indian, African American, African, Armenian, Gypsy, Bosnian, Palestinian, the present Muslim Holocaust encompassing at least Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan (see Dr. Gideon Polya's research). Why is it "the" holocaust, and why is it more significant than a Euclidean truth (70% Muslim, 20% Albanian Orthodox, 10% Roman Catholic, Negligible, insignificant number of Jews. Jews of Albania are not mentioned in the CIA Factbook) (CIA factbook). Please don't call me an anti-Semite, that's as pathetic as some Muslims constantly apologizing for themselves by saying their religion is "a religion of peace" to appear as pacifists, which they absolutely are not.

But they do make up at least 70% of Albania's humanity. Well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.31.150.237 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with guy above me. All the data points to Albania being 70% Muslim and the other 30% being Christian. For some reason someone is trying to present Albania as a non-Muslim country. If this is supposed to be a trick for us in the US to fall for it ain't working. Especially since we don't care if you are Atheist, Muslim or Christian. I did a pretty thorough search and the info presented here is completely wrong. I think somebody should change it. (Stevenpro (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

its rediculous name a country in the world with a more than 20% atheist or non-religeous population, for the future albanians who are going to contribute to this article you should know americans are enslaved to their government so you dont have to try and impress them as the oil pipeline from the black sea to durres has already got the attention of their president. just dont mention how fast your political ideology changes when times get tough... .anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.249.236 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)