Talk:Albania

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)

Update Map

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

Add for Legue of Prizeren

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)

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)

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 [2]--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 [3] :)--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)

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[4].--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)

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: [5], [6], [7] - they show that parts of Albania and at some time the whole of the country was controlled by Bulgaria for more that 150 years; [8] - this one is for the culture of the first Bulgarian Empire, it can be seen that there were cultural centers in eastern Albania; [9] - 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 [10] --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)

Revert-warring by multiple parties

Warning to all involved, especially (Taulant23 (talk · contribs), Gligan (talk · contribs), Gkmx (talk · contribs): Any further continuation of revert-warring is likely to be met with bans under the WP:ARBMAC rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have banned Taulant23 (talk · contribs) and Gkmx (talk · contribs) from this article for the rest of the month. Not trying to go over your head, FutPerf, but it was getting very disruptive. I also delegate to FutPerf the discretion to amend or repeal the bans. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was actually not quite sure if I ought to have taken action here myself, as I was debating Gkmx on content grounds a couple of days ago on this article. Anyway, good call, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to ban any editor when he or she is trying to reach a compromise. I have been edit this page for more that a year. I do respect all the policies in Wiki. All I asked was that a consensus to be reached before we edit or revert anything. I am Albanian and I know the history of my country. Besides Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, which have left their cultural mark in Albania, no Serb have left neither cultural mark nor any ruins. They did not build anything in Albania.

Greeks, Romans, Byzantines (Bulgarians=???, Serbians=???)  It’s a bogus sentence, a long tale

• To the other users please, change or revert this incorrect part of the sentence.False history--Taulant23 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)