Talk:Albanian nationalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fresh start

How do you like this lead:

Albanian nationalism is a general grouping of ideas and concepts that were formed during the Albanian national movement of the 19th century. They address certain goals such as redress of historical 'injustices', free movement among Albanians, control over the 'Albanian space', acceptance of Albanian factor as a major player in the region. But the matter of goals tends to be complex, as they differ from one region to another.. There are other more extreme claims of nationalists among some Albanian circles that lean towards the creation of a Greater Albania, but such claim seem to be rare and isolated examples with no support.

What do you think? —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead's initial sentence is somewhat misleading since it points absolutely to the national movement. Moreover, the word 'nationalistic' is mysteriously absent from the entirely lead.

Expression like:control over the 'Albanian space', acceptance of Albanian factor as a major player in the region, are also misleading -comfusing, need some rewording.

However, the lead in general is really a good start. I'll compare both versions (this and the article's) and see what can be done.Alexikoua (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Too generic and lacks any sort of direction utterly rejectable.The 19th century is again off-topic as this is about systemic nationalism of communism and of our current days.Communism attempted to appropriate ancient Greek history with Pelasgians and the claims with Illyrians in a pseudo-historic manner and as Muzafer Korkuti from Hoxha's regime says like Hitler did."Enver Hoxha did this as did Hitler".Also note that the Albanian state claims Pelasgians,Aristotle,Alexander the Great and others so this is no.Megistias (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Megistias, that will and should be part of the article if there are references. But it is totally not interesting and not important for a generic reader to have that on the lead. (Though it is clearly interesting for you!) We should give people information not bombard them with claims. —Anna Comnena (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is not only generic,misleading and irrelevant it also goes against the article itself.Megistias (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? In detail! —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Its against the theme of the article and the current summary's references.A proper metaphor would be trying to water the wine down with water but your suggestion above seems to be only water.The subject of the article is albanian nationalism , now and how it came to be now meaning how it became a System, and that occured during communism.The summary should summarize the systematic forging of nationalism in communism ,that it carried on to today and what the nuclei of that nationalism were and are.The current summary summarizes those things, your suggestion is the aformenetioned things i mentioned as it is in effect detached(thus "against") from the article nuclei and what it refers to.It has no merit whatsover.Megistias (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"How it became a System" - that is a conspiracy theory. There is no Albanian nationalist system. Of course people in Albania and Kosovo love their country, but that does not make it a system. If Albania was such a country that NATO would not accept it as a member. However I agree with Alex that some minor changes could enrich it. You are welcome to propose. —Anna Comnena (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, forgive me about not sharing your view about NATO... Ideologically, communism was supposed to have nothing to do with nations (as Marx intended it), yet, when Stalin decided to have communism in one country, commmunism no longer in practice contradicted nationalism. In fact, Stalin developed a nationalist communist Russia, so that the people are proud of their communist country. Hoxha, as we know, was a Stalinist, and it was far more natural for him to develop the idea of a communist state with communist-nationalist people when he became isolated from almost the rest of the world (with the exception of... China). So, ideologically, you're right Anna, but practically, Megistias is right. Since one of the main concepts of communism is expansion on itself anyway, it is natural for a communist leader (especially a Stalinist communist leader) to inspire nationalism to his people and nation when a part of this nation lives/might live in large numbers in a neighbouring country.--Michael X the White (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How it became a system is becoming systematic , part of the workings of a State.There was and is an Albanian nationalist system, as in schools Aristotle is considered an Albanian among other issues.Megistias (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I agree with you on that. But citing Megistias, today's Albania has a nationalistic system. That is fallacious is so many ways. (NATO acceptance was one instance - saying Albania has a nationalistic system means NATO supports Albanian nationalism) As for the schooling system, it is debatable if the school texts say that Aristotle was an Albanian. I am from Kosovo and I never heard of such a thing. In Albanian (though I sincerely doubt) it could be! But even then, it does not mean that there is a nationalist system with irridentist aims as Megistias is claiming (it could be a poor schooling system). Furthermore, the article has other really extraordinary claims. It leans toward conspiracy theories. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Your personal attestations are irrelevant.Nato has nothing to do with it ,Nato looks after its own interest.Megistias (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Nato has nothing to do with it ,Nato looks after its own interest." - that is also a fallacious claim. And your personal opinion, totally non-relevant to the discussed issue. If you cannot argue with facts please try and spear us from your "opinion". —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that each of us can do good essays on Albanian communism, but that is not the point. Albanian communism effects on Albanian nationalism are studied and published on the book of Vickers cited above. The fact that according to her opinion (but not only hers see others also) "Hodja was seen by nationalist right as a traitor of the nation" does ring a bell to you? Should we ignore her and others because we think differently? Could we stop OR-ing Aigest (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• And quit the revert-warring also, otherwise I'll be handing out mass revert paroles etc. Final warning for Megistias, Kreshnik, Anna. Moreschi (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we remove the last two sentences of the first paragraph in the Introduction because they do not seem to belong there. One of the reasons is that the issue they discuss is not central to the topic "Albanian Nationalism", it is enough that it is discussed under the Evolution Under the People's Republic of Albania, which by the way needs to be structured; the other reason is that source number 11 and 12 is somehow too loosely interpreted, resulting in a classical case of original research. If you could read further in the chapter, you would be able to see the conclusion the author gives, citing the phenomenon of "representative of 'imperialist' national archaeologies (meaning post-totalitarian archaeologies in young developing nations) may build support for their own interpretations of the past by disparaging those of the archaeologists who once served under dictators. At the same time, some post-processual archaeologists have called for a relativist approach to the past, informed by the post-modern critique. Given this approach, all interpretations of the archaeological record are potentially equally valid, those produced in democracies as well as those produced under dictatorship." Furthermore, the author warns us, that "professional archaeologists must face these issues with some sense of responsibility. There are still today situations in which archeology is grossly distorted for purely political reasons". And frankly, by seeing the way in which this article is being edited, I'd say he is uttermost right. So please, before submitting any sources, do a full research throughout your source, to make sure that you're not merely "rationalizing" your point. Nightphilips (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"as in schools Aristotle is considered an Albanian among other issues" this is pathetically untrue,it seems you draw unreliable sources Megistas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixious6 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"How it became a system is becoming systematic , part of the workings of a State.There was and is an Albanian nationalist system, as in schools Aristotle is considered an Albanian among other issues" That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.No source claims that,I have never seen it in any Albanian history books that refer to Aristotle as Albanian.Your bias and Albanophobia has reached the point where you spout nonsensical fallacies. Nixious6 (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

NLA

Associated with the KLA,ANA and considered a terrorist organization even by association.A transmuted entity from previous terrorist organizations.An updated version of the KLA and nothing more.

• The Fight Against Terrorism and Crisis Management in the Western Balkans by Iztok Prezelj,2008,ISBN-1586038230,page 49-50
• Islamic Terror and the Balkans by Shaul Shay,2009,ISBN 1412808685,page 115,
• The United Nations & regional security: Europe and beyond by Michael Charles Pugh,Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu,2003,ISBN- 1588262324,page 126,
• Understanding Civil War: Europe, Central Asia, and other regions by Paul Collier,Nicholas Sambanis,2005.,ISBN-0821360493,page 238-239,241,242,256,254

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this an essay?

Whoever has written large parts of this article should know that taking sources and then jumping to other conclusions is pointless. If there is to be an article about Albanian nationalism let it be neutral without exaggerations and misconceptions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This need to be rewrited from scratch to be neutral. If some Albanian scholar claims Aristotle to be an Illyrian that really doesn't show that this is a part of Albanian nationalism. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I'm looking through the templates to find any appropriate ones to add.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Albanian nationalism co-identifies Albanians with Illyrians". This is not an aspect of Albanian nationalism but the most prevalent theory about the origins of the Albanians among all scholars. I'll remove it for that reason.

• About Pelasgians there is used a source saying "the mythical ancestors of the Greeks" while that is contradicted by the absolute majority of scholars. Moreover this sentence is out of nowhere linked to "Albanians claiming Ancient Greeks". I'll remove and rewrite it as a theory of Hahn used by some contemporary writers later.

• "This kind of historical revisionist ideology is mainly associated with concepts of irredentism and ethnic superiority over neighboring states and peoples". Is this an essay? Sources 14, 16,17 don't even refer to that, source 15 says it's used by some scholars. I'll remove rewrite it some parts of it later and the sources this time will be related to the sentence.

• The section "Evolution under the People's Republic of Albania" is another essay-ish piece of text and its author can't even cite correctly. The ""supposedly" Illyrian names" apart from being inaccurate since 80% of the names were either used by then or added by copying them from Illyrian tombs and Illyrian names mentioned by ancient scholars, is also very argumentative. "Supposedly" is another way of the author saying "I don't really think they were Illyrian". But we're not looking for a user's opinions in an encyclopedia.
• "Influence on Albanian diaspora" how is that even related to nationalism? Somebody created a company named after Illyrian which is generally considered related to Albanians, and this is a sign of nationalism?.
• Albanian–Serbian relations are foreign relations between Albania and Serbia. Albania has an embassy in Belgrade.[75] Serbia has an embassy in Tirana.[76] Both countries are full members of the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) and the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC). Also both countries are recognized as potential candidate countries by the European Union.

• Albanian-Greek relations are foreign relations between Greece and Albania. The two countries share a history of conflict that continues to the present day. However, from both sides it has been expressed that the foreign relations between the two countries are being transformed into an excellent example of good neighborliness, but also of cooperation.

Whoever copy/pasted this in this article should really wonder where the actual relation of those blocks of texts to Albanian nationalism is.

• "a branch of the so-called Illyrians who had allegedly inhabited the region". "so-called", "allegedly" Should I say for 10th time this isn't an essay?.
• "Shops in Kovoso are frequently named Illyria Tours or Dardania Import-Export.[51] A Dardania Bank exists[52] in Albania." Again theories about naming shops after ancient placenames of regions are connected to nationalism. I'll remove it.
• These ideologies and Greater Albania have proponents and patrons that are not only nationalists but criminals[53] and terrorists[54][55][56][57][58] involved[59] in drug trafficking, human trafficking and other activities motivated by profit.[60]

On the "terrorists" the author "forgets" to add that KLA was delisted from terrorist groups during the Kosovo war and only uses the sources to say prior to the Kosovo War they were considered by some countries as terrorists. We don't live in 1998 but in 2010. Apart from that: the "not only nationalists but criminals" and the drug trafficking etc. is based on sources that can't be even checked. I'll remove them because apart from being argumentative and plain accusations they promote unsubstantiated claims.

• Ismail Kadare, a candidate for Nobel Prize in Literature, himself claims that Albanians are more Greek than the Greeks themselves,[27] and attempts to construct a Greek-Illyrian continuity[27].

The source comments on an Illyrian continuity not a Greek Illyrian continuity. Source: "Beyond the claims of Illyrian descent and continuity etc."

And the Kadare supposedly claimed sentence is taken out of context as the source says: a more powerful myth emerges here: that the Albanians are more Greek than the Greeks themselves because Albanians are closer to Homeric society and Homeric ideals. The way it is written and the unfounded and contrary to the source connection below imply that the connection is based on ancestral origin, while the source says that the connection is made through connections to Homeric ideals. I'll start rewriting it now.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is a total mess. An user has added using some irrelevant sources that Albanian nationalism is a similar concept to Albanianism. Albanianism is another term to say Albanian nationalism not another concept.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Initiating a direct deletion barrage [[1]], from the moment you showed up here, isn't a sound strategy. ZjarriRrethues you need to calm down, just wait for a couple of days and since there is no oposition you can start the necessary adjustments, step-by-step .Alexikoua (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm calm enough, I made some changes and not all of them because many are obvious like the shops named after Illyria a fact that has no relation to Albanian nationalism nor is encyclopedic. But I would really like to know who are those ips from Greece which out of nowhere decided with no previous experience to "rv" and "rv mass POV".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@Zjarri, the problems on the article come from its conceptual problems that we have discussed before here (see archives please) but we saw I own the article behavior many times. The same issues you brought here have been discussed before but we got tired in the end. Hopefully you have the nerves to change it. Best regards Aigest (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is the WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue on things people dont like. If there is a disagreement, offer the cited data from the references and dont go on a monologue that asks and answers itself.Megistias (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And I posted the citations by the sources you have added. Did you by any chance edit the article as IP?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been on for too long and no one has replied. If there are no opinions I'll start implementing my changes.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't obtained the slightest consensus for your "changes" (i.e. mass deletions). A number of users, including myself, object. If you start unilaterally implementing your "changes", I will consider it disruptive editing and treat it accordingly. Athenean (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't even replied to any of my proposals and you just generally disagree without offering any explanation. I will wait and make any changes based on neutral replies and not biased ones.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That is true, Athenean, if you object to the changes proposed, then, rather than throwing accusations that the changes are "disruptive" you should take some time and address the changes proposed. I suggest you enter your comments below the bullet points that Zjarri has entered above in this section. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed through this edit [2] the foreign relations part. Foreign relations between Albania country and the other countries denote actions by Albania the country. As a result, there is no need to bring here Albania country foreign relations, unless you can demonstrate nationalistic and irredetist actions of the Albanian government, which is in charge of the Foreign Relations of the country. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has absolutely sufficient references to establish that this Illyrian meme is part of Albanian nationalism. The article is based on academic sources that discuss Albanian nationalism, which is as it should be (no WP:SYNTH). Vickers, Schwandner-Sievers, Bideleux & Jeffries, Wydra, Malcolm, etc. In other words, you have no case. The fact that you may not like the gist of the references cited is immaterial. You are free to cite scholarly references that call conclusions made in other scholarly references into question, but so far this doesn't seem to be your game.

The only problem we seem to have here is that an article about Albanian nationalism is being edited by adherents of Albanian nationalism. This is problematic under WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for one week

If you intend to remove a large amount of content from this article, please get consensus on the Talk page first. I am especially concerned about recent edits by User:ZjarriRrethues. His account was created on 10 March, and already he is making edits which reveal great knowledge of Wikipedia policy. He is also removing large amounts of content. Please pay attention to what others think, and try to persuade them that your changes are correct. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will. Yeah, I got that trait I learned PASCAL and HTML in about 2 days, so learning all aspects of wikipedia won't take me more than 1 month.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

six months later, still no sign of a learning curve.... I guess "learning html" was easier on you. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Modern Education Paragraph"

I'll quote what this paragraph says as of 3/24/2010:

Albanian schoolbooks assert that the Illyrians are the heirs of the Pelasgians.Characteristically, in Albanian schools, pupils are taught that Alexander the Great and Aristotle were Albanians by ethnicity. Ancient Greece as a whole is usurped along with all her prominent personalities and achievements including the Hellenistic civilization.

I happen to know the Albanian schoolbooks pretty well and I have no idea how Horst Rödinger, a primary source, has figured out that the Albanians learn that Aristotle was Albanian. I cannot see the book, but I don't think he is a peer reviewed scholar. Alexander the Great is considered as a Macedon in the Albanian schoolbooks. Ancient Greece as a whole is usurped along with all her prominent personalities and achievements including the Hellenistic civilization? This sentence is so blatantly POV and not supported that should just be deleted. Thoughts?--sulmues (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is sourced and referenced while your personal opinion and attestation is irrelevant.Megistias (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ismail Kadare

The following sentence: Ismail Kadare, a candidate for Nobel Prize in Literature, himself claims that Albanians are more Greek than the Greeks themselves, and attempts to construct a Greek-Illyrian continuity. Schwinder, a primary source, is probably referring to a preface that Kadare wrote on an Aeschylus collection. Rather than saying these words he says exactly the opposite. He describes the affinities between Illyrians, ascendants of Albanians and ancient Greeks. This is misintepretation of Kadare. The sentence should be removed. --sulmues (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is sourced and referenced while your personal opinion and attestation is irrelevant.Megistias (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you call Schwinder a primary source? Do you know what a primary source is? Or is this just your way of trying to get rid of a source which says something you don't like? Athenean (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually that isn't what the source says if you read my section above you will realize that.

Source: a more powerful myth emerges here: that the Albanians are more Greek than the Greeks themselves because Albanians are closer to Homeric society and Homeric ideals. The way it is written and the unfounded and contrary to the source connection below imply that the connection is based on ancestral origin, while the source says that the connection is made through connections to Homeric ideals. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The article nowhere says that the connection is based on ancestral origin, that is your imagination. Athenean (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ismail Kadare, a candidate for Nobel Prize in Literature, himself claims that Albanians are more Greek than the Greeks themselves, and attempts to construct a Greek-Illyrian continuity.

That's the article, so the article mentions what I said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is insane. Where does the article say "ancestral origin"? I leave you to your own devices. Athenean (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed POV pushing paragraph.

My edit ([3]) was to remove a completely POV pushing paragraph. Unless Megistias comes back with somoe support for what the National Museum of Albania should and should not include in its galleries, this paragraph can't stay in Wikipiedia. In addition, are the Illyrian names not Illyrian names? The sentence just doesn't make sense. So what if the Albanian user Illyrian names for their babies? --sulmues (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kokalari-Pilika-Aref

I see that De Rapper makes some interesting notes on Kokalari's-Pilika's-Aref's work, about the supposed ancient past, that can be added in this article: [[4]]

• the (Albanian) government does not want to raise a conflict with Greece...Such accusations of „silencing the truth‟ are also made against the Greek government who supposedly restrains excavations on the archaeological site of Dodona, in Epirus, because researches would undoubtedly reveal the Pelasgic – i.e. Albanian – origin of the famous Pan-Hellenic sanctuary

• In this context, another factor of revitalisation of Pelasgic theories is the fear that Greek claims on Northern Epirus might still be an actual threat on Albanian territory and, beyond, on Albanian identity. The exacerbation of feelings of inferiority and threat seems to make the border area an ideal breeding ground for the Pelasgic myth of origin.

And some conclusions about this historical controversy:

• The return of the Pelasgians might be an illustration of a wellknown paradox in the anthropology of globalisation: faced with the difficulties induced by modernity, local people participate in the symbolic reconstruction of community through imagination and reversion to tradition and ancient pastAlexikoua (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't related to Albanian nationalism. The first part is a quote from an interview with a "Mr.C", the second and the third are an analysis of the various interviews with "Mr.B" and "Mr.C".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd quote is the author's conclution about the general concept. Quite interesting anthropological appoach. Since there is no objection on that it's something that should be in.Alexikoua (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an analysis because he says "local people participate in the symbolic reconstruction of community" referring to "Mr.B" and "Mr.C"--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

First section

[5] The whole section is a list of the books of some authors, wrong citations of others and isn't related with what the title says. Jacques published a book in 1994, Albanian nationalism existed long before 1994. The whole section has nothing to with the "origins of Albanian nationalism".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this article should go to deletion or be renamed to Albanian patriotism. Nationalism is a pejorative word to show shauvinistic ideas and the fact that Albanians consider their neighbors inferior. There is nothing in this article to support that. Albania has never waged a war against neighbor countries: on the contrary, has been attacked so often that the History of Albania is the history of a people that can barely protect their territories. Having an article on Albanian nationalism, similar to the Italian or the German nationalism is POV pushing. --sulmues (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me with this? Everything, and I mean everything, is sourced to reliable sources. And no, it is not wrongly sourced. That there are chauvinists that claim all these figures, and more, is a fact. In fact, I've met several of them on wikipedia. Check out the userpage of User:Taulant23 to see what I mean. Is that Achilles you see there? If you find this embarassing, well, what can I say, I would too, but that doesn't change the fact that there are nationalists out there. Vague comments to the effect of "This section is bad" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Athenean (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked the rest, but this section is nothing more than a list of authors and it's ridiculous to consider the 90s as the origins of Albanian nationalism. I think at least that section should be deleted and rewritten.--80.80.167.1 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to nominate the article for deletion for now, because there are a lot of sections in the article that can be improved and if the sources are properly read, they'll point to patriotism, not nationalism. --sulmues (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean: were those hats that Taulant is having in his talkpage used by ancient Greeks? I thought they were only worn by Illyrians. That's what at least Stipcevic says and who am I to disagree with him. --sulmues (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you two take this out of the talkpage?This is not the place to talk about your personal issues.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been here for many days and no one has responded, so if no one has anything to add I'll remove that irrelevant list-section.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The section should be renamed to something like "Examples" instead of "Origins", but definitely not removed.Athenean (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Renamed it to Protochronism. That is exactly what it is. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

None of these is the base of Albanian cultural nationalism, so protochronism doesn't apply. Also most of these books aren't even widely known Albanian nationalists, making it impossible for that section to be considered even vaguely related to protochronism. Do you have something to add in the discussion that shows that the section is of value to the article? --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that the Pelasgians are the ancestors of the Albanians is the definition of Protochronism. Please read up on it before you come here. You mean to tell me that Edwin Jacques book is not known to Albanian nationalists? Robert D'angely too? Come on, be serious. These books are treasured by Albanian nationalists. I have seen several Albanian editors try to pass them off as sources on wikipedia (no need to name names). Athenean (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that shows that? "Come on, be serious" isn't enough to stand in a debate.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Protochronism, as we should all know by now, is the act of claiming descent from an ancient group as a way of establishing precedence over rival ethnic groups. This describes perfectly the "Pelasgian" theory, which is espoused by nationalists precisely for this reason. Sophistries to the effect "It's not protochronism, because the term 'Protochronism' was coined after the Pelasgian theory" are irrelevant. The fact that the term "protochronism" antedates the Pelasgian theory does not mean the Pelasgian theory is not protochronism. Athenean (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pelasgian theory emerged as a scientific theory which at its period was considered prevalent, of course later it became obsolete but that doesn't mean that at the time it emerged it was protochronistic. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Some others seem to be obsessed with this theory today.Alexikoua (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide solid evidence that shows beyond any doubt that the pelasgian theory is protochronistic? By default it can't be considered protochronistic because it emerged as a scientific theory, not as a dubious theory created by nationalists etc.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC

From the definion of Protochronism: ...largely relying on questionable data and subjective interpretations, an idealised past to the country as a whole.

Quite simple. Moreover, someone that supports the Pelasgian link (nationalist) also rejects, from his pov, this conclusion too as being historically non-fictious.Alexikoua (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're copying a section from another article, to show what exactly? In the time it emerged it was a scientific theory. Still waiting for you to bring solid evidence.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"....but that doesn't mean that at the time it emerged it was protochronistic" More sophistry. Its origins are irrelevant. What's relevant is that it was immediately adopted by nationalists, for protochronistic reasons. Even if it emerged as a "scientific" theory, it was quickly discredited by academics, but taken up by nationalists, precisely for the purpose establish precedence over neighboring peoples. That is the very definition of protochronism, and as such the Pelasgian theory is perhaps the perfect example of protochronism. Considering your stance on the subject ("Can you provide solid evidence that shows beyond any doubt..."), I don't think any amount of evidence I bring can satisfy you at this point. Athenean (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed on Pelasgians here [6] and from the sources is very clear that they didn't got the support of communist regime, so they were not propagated by the state. Later publications after 90' are private initiatives and they don't have the support of the stat. Moreover in Albanian schoolbooks since communist regime took power and up to now there is no support for this kind of relation (see the discussion on the link above) so I can not understand how it can be seen as protochonism (I am speaking precisely on Pelasgian case) Aigest (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pelasgian theory may not be promoted by the state anymore, however that doesn't mean it's not wildly popular among nationalists, including right here on wikipedia. The fact that it's no longer promoted by the state also does not mean it is not protochronism. As long as nationalists use to claim precedence over neighoboring peoples, it will always be protochronism, regardless of whether it is or isn't state-sanctioned protochronism. Athenean (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you bring solid evidence that prove that "however that doesn't mean it's not wildly popular among nationalists". If you can bring such evidence then it is valid, otherwise it is your personal supposition.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is some kind of April fool's joke. Else, you might want to actually read the sources provided in the article. Athenean (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

This article has either to be merged to Greater Albania or has to be deleted. I doubt that the way it's written, it might be renamed to Albanian Patriotism. The contributors of this article are trying to tell the reader that Albanian and some non-Albanian historians are stealing other peoples' history and the Albanian people beleive them. Germany is the only Western European country that has such article (see Pan-Germanism), but someone has made sure that two of the most torn countries of Europe (Albania and Macedonia) have two such articles in Wikipedia: Albania has Albanian nationalism and Greater Albania; Macedonia has Macedonian nationalism and United Macedonia. It looks like all the political risks that Europe faces, come out of these two countries with their nationalisms. Both countries might have only one article about nationalist movements: both the ideology and the armed movements. My idea is to merge this article (probably the good parts of it, even though I didn't find many) with Greater Albania. Thoughts? --sulmues (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem for technical reasons, because instead of rewriting both of them if merged in Albanian naitonalism the task will be much easier to complete.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Greater Albania refers strictly to the irredentist concept, while this article covers many more areas, particularly Protochronism. Athenean (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I just removed the fantasy-ill of Enver Hoxha supporting Etruscan or Pelasgian origins of the Albanians [7]. I don't know who writes that nonsense. Protochronism has nothing to do with Albania. Next reason? What areas covers this article that Greater Albania doesn't include? --sulmues talk contributions 01:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything with people who either can't understand the concept of Protochronism, don't want to, or pretend not to. Athenean (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, so you agreed with me that that reference on Enver Hoxha was nonsense. Now you are referring to this article in Protochronism, making a vicious circle. Btw, you need to correct yourself in this edit [8], because the pelasgian theory started much earlier than what you claim (it started actually with Johann Georg von Hahn, so it is far from being labeled protochronistic: it started at least in the 19th century. As a matter of fact, you might want to know that there were two newsnewspapers both called The Pelasgian (Albanian: Pellazgu) for the Albanian communities in Greece and Egypt: One published in Greek and Albanian in Lamia, Greece in 1860 by Anastas Byku, and the other published in Cairo, Egypt by Sami Kulla Prizreni, in 1907. There are many Albanian, and non-Albanian authors that started with the Albanian Pelasgian theory more than a century ago. Your edits are a little hasted and I'll tell you why: de Rapper is a contemporary analyst, but he has no clue when the Pelasgian theories started in the Albanian studies. --sulmues talk contributions 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: No need to created giga articles. Every article deals with a diferrent concept. De Rapper is an expert on this field with numerous publications.Alexikoua (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Protochronism, as we should all know by now, is the act of claiming descent from an ancient group as a way of establishing precedence over rival ethnic groups. This describes perfectly the "Pelasgian" theory, which is espoused by nationalists precisely for this reason. Sophistries to the effect "It's not protochronism, because the term 'Protochronism' was coined after the Pelasgian theory" are irrelevant. The fact that the term "protochronism" antedates the Pelasgian theory does not mean the Pelasgian theory is not protochronism. Athenean (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not the definition of Protochronism in the Protochronism article. You might want to edit that article and claim that Albanians suffered of Protochronism before this desease was discovered and before the term to describe it was coined. --sulmues talk contributions 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Both articles are POV and the best to make them NPOV is to merge the NPOV parts of them.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Support If it has to do with the irredentist concept of nationalism it has to go to Greater Albania article dealing with the Albanian irredentist concept of nationalism. If the point of the article is Albanian nationalism, than the National Awakening article is there just like all other balkan articles relative to this topic. Article name is clearly misleading, nationalism is not only irredentism (the article form points that way) Aigest (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, per Athenean. Those are two different subjects. --Tadija^taking 23:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a useless voting if all the voters are Serbians, Montenegrins, Greeks, and Albanians. There should be some neutral users, otherwise it's just a question of how many wikipedians from Albania vs how many from the sorrounding countries are currently contributing. --sulmues talk contributions 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Useless, this is useless discussion --Vinie007 10:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

To much propaganda

This article should be rewritten cause some (greek) users arent neutral here and they're only writing anti-albanian "propaganda here without believable references . This should be a neutral article but i can see it isn't at all.A sample for greek propagandists is megistias ,I'm in doubt if he is a human or a robot cause he repeats constantly only one phrase "This is sourced and referenced while your personal opinion and attestation is irrelevant" as far as I understand only he is intelegent while we others aare only "fools" , propagandists". Everybody can see he isn't interested in contributing on Wikipedia , his only aim is to ruin articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.103.42 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Megistias has a deep knowledge on ancient history, but some of his edits are tendentious. Could you please give some more examples that concern this article? Also please log in when you make contributions. --Sulmues _talk 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with ancient greek history that user is a specialist" for , it's an article about MODERN albanian nationalism not about ANCIENT greece so Megistias should stop putting his nose in others busines if he only wants to sabotate. As I said this article should be rewritten in a neutral view. As long as he isn't a "specialist ' in albanian history he shouldn't delete other users changes to the artcle . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.103.40 (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

== This page is full of anti-albanian propaganda. This voice speaks against albanians, but the pages about macedonian, serb, greek ect. are neutral. I think this page need to be neutralized. --188.218.149.2 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We will try to find a more neutral POV for the article and your help will be appreciated if you log in with a nickname, rather than from an IP address. The change of an article takes some time, because the writers of it took some time to come up with this. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree ! How is this possible?! This article is a total antialbanian propaganda presuming that things are not like this and is trying to present Albanians as Nazi, also it tries to revision indirectly Albanian history by entering true history facts as “Albanian Nationalist” views..The article obviously is written y well know Greek editors and lacks the balance in opinions .--Laboviti (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, please block those Macedonian, Greeks and Serbian Nationalists! --Vinie007 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Terrible page. Nationalism, should be clear cut explained. This page in my opinion should be a grouping page of National Awakening of Albania and Greater Albania, no more, no less. It is nonsense to keep it this way, as the only anti-others propaganda, while Greek nationalism and Serbian nationalism are completely different in the way of writtening. It is clear that the contributors in this page were only concerned of blaming an ethnic group (lol, clear case of the Balkanian way of thinking), and for sure has nothing to do with an encyclopedia.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted on Greek wikipedia

This article is an exact translation of the Greek article that was written by the same user and deleted on the Greek wikipedia because of its extremely POV structure [9] I started about 2 months ago a discussion for all the changes and there were no replies.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberation Army of Chameria

Please see my changes related to the Liberation Army of Chameria Section. I cannot see one single reference to this "Liberation Army" for the various reasons I brought in my diffs. That is why I entered dubious|verify: [10], [11], [12], and [13]. I invite the Greek contributors to translate these sources and bring evidence of their reliability. Thank you! --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rm sentence referring to Kadare

The reference was completely forgetting the context so I made this change. First Kadare is a writer and he should not be held as creator of ideologies. Bring the citation from Kadare within his context: All he says is that there is a similarity between Albanians and ancient Greeks when he talks about Orestes' behavior toward his mother. Entering him here is completely out of place. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So what? Novelists cannot be nationalists? Where do you come up with this stuff. Any attempt to connect Albanians with Homeric Greek culture is entirely ludicrous. It is the epitome of nationalism, part of the usual nonsense coming from Albanian nationalist circles that "the ancient Greeks were Albanians" (as if the Illyrians and Pelasgians weren't enough apparently). Now, I realize I will get an unreadable, nonsensical wall of text in response, so why do I even bother? Athenean (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to read Kadare, which you have not. I have. Kadare makes a parallel between today's Albanians and other people in the Mediterranean. And he does that when he presents Eschylus work in a very well written preface for the Albanian reader. He first compares the hospitality of the Albanians and hospitality of the ancient Greeks. And his parallel is made for what Orestes says when he goes home to kill Clytemnestra's lover. He says something similar to "Are you waiting for people"? Kadare's thought is that this is very similar to what Albanians still say today "A do miq o i zoti i shpis?" English: Are you expecting friends, o head of household? which is the Albanian way of saying when they call in. The second thing he brings is a similarity between the net full of blood of Clytemnestra's husband and the bloodied shirts that the Albanians keep until the blood is avenged. Kadare is simply making a generalization about customs that unite Mediterranean people, such as Albanians, Sicilians, Greeks, Sardinians, and Corsicans by recalling vendetta laws and traditions that were outspread in all the mediterranean by these people, but have remained only with Albanians until lately. Rather than saying stupid things in an article like the "Albanians are appropriating Greek history through Kadare's nationalism", someone better read Kadare in the context of presenting Eschylus' tragedies to the Albanian reader. I hope you understand my thoughts, because Megistias wasn't able to. Kadare has NEVER dreamt of saying that the ancient Greeks were Albanians. I dare anyone to bring his words, even from a literary work. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well ancient Greek customs ...have remained only with Albanians until lately. What's this time travel? The nationalistic background of making clear connections that only Albanians adopt today ancient Greek customs is obvious. Parts like: Beyond the claims of Illyrian descent and continuity a more powerful myth emerges here: that the Albanians are more Greek than the Greeks themselves because Albanians are closer to Homeric society and Homeric ideals." are also obviously relevant with the concept of nationalism. Please, you have to explain exactly what you mean, just by removing sourced content with an abstract approach doesn't make sense.Alexikoua (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are taking only a paragraph from Kadare (the one comparing todays' Albanians to ancient Greeks) without taking the whole context. The whole context of the preface of Eschylus tragedies mentions the Corsicans and the Sicilians as well as ancient Greeks. How come you don't accuse Kadare of appropriating Sicilian and Corsican history? He is making the comparison to all the ancient people of the Mediterranean and he is saying that the Albanians are the only ones to still keep certain ancient customs. The "vendetta", a clear mediterranean concept, spread in many countries, is still present only in Albania. But even admitting and not conceding that he wanted to make only a parallel between ancient Greeks and todays' Albanians: He is clearly calling it "myth", using the same word that you have attributed to Stephanie Schwanders when she debunks the Albanian myths. Now Kadare says "myth" as well (and way before Stephanie, becuase that book has been issued in the 1980s and you accuse him of nationalism. Let's be consistent and let's see Kadare for what he says in the context of a critique to literary work. In addition, this accusation of nationalism is far from going to target. Kadare in the 1980s was clearly moquing the communist system in Albania, saying that Albanians were so poor that they could be compared to Homeric times people. Who had the eyes to read this subtle critique to the regime, could do it back then. Kadare's style is full of these parallels and it was in his style to moque the communist regime. He would call the Albanian pashaliks "the red pashaliks" just to moque the communists. They were unwritten and hidden critiques to the regime. Who doesn't know Kadare well can say a bunch of things but they are completely out of context. Accusing today Kadare of nationalism using those lines without understanding when and how they were written is completely misleading and out of context in this article. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You gave the answer: The "vendetta", a clear mediterranean concept, spread in many countries, is still present only in Albania.. By the way vendeta isn't present only in Albania. Moreover, if you believe that Kadare is appropriating Sicilian and Corsican history you can add this too.Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues' OR interpretation of Kadare is irrelevant. The passage is sourced to a secondary source. Here we have a user who has been editing for two years, and he still replaces a secondary source with his own OR. Incredible. Athenean (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't replace it, I omitted a passage that makes no sense. If you insist to keep such a passage completely out of context, then keep it. You'll just put more ridicule on yourselves. This passage speaks of the Albanian-Homerian continuity which has emerged in Kadare first in the Eschilus preface, then it has appeared in "Dossier H", which although was written in 1981, was published much later, so you are not seeing Kadare's whole thought. It's a critique of a fictional novel and Valtchinova is highly speculative in it. Taking Kadare and citing him within Albanian nationalism is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, but I don't care anymore: I won't fight any battles on this. You can write whatever you like. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rm claim that Hoxha's speech had anything to do with nationalism

I made this edit because the referencing is completely misreading the reader. That sentence, said by Hoxha, is a recall of a 19th century poetry by Pashko Vasa, a 19th century Albanian Governor of Lebanon and poet in his spare time. The whole speech of Hoxha referred to Albania's removal of churches and mosques thus making Albania the first atheist country in the world. Bring those references there and not here, because they have nothing to do with nationalism. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pashko Vasa, did however, mean it in a nationalist context. Athenean (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

He sure did, but the context in the 19th century was completely different. He made a call to all Albanians to forget about their religious differences, which were making them kill one another (remember that a lot of Albanian Muslims were part of the Ottoman Army, whereas many Albanian Christians were fighting for Greece) and remind them that they were part of the same nation. Hoxha's recall of Pashko Vasa was just in the spirit of making Albania an atheist state. He feared too much Vatican agents under priests' vests. Nationalism was far from being realized in Socialist Albania, and Hoxha was way too busy to keep socialism in place. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Megistias edit

Again this megaedit of user:Megistias is problematic (for reasons similar to the ones I gave in Talk:Dardani). Assuming that all the previous editors made the article "unstable" is really assumption of bad faith. Before I revert Megistias, I would like to know from him the reasons behind the many miniedits that compose this megaedit. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dardani is completely irrelevant with this article. To sum up, the edit of Anna Comnena was completely pov [[14]] (erroneously the word 'nationalistic' was vanished). About the foreign relations they might not be necessary in this article.Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Megistias as he had done a blind revert neglecting many constructive edits that were made in the last month. As for the Anna Comnena edit, which was really a good one in formatting, she didn't take out one single "nationalistic" word as there weren't any in the paragraphs that she edited.--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

this article seems to me..despite its possible merits some (most even) of what it claims is unfortunately true..like an exercise in casting the 'other side' in a bad light even if thats not intended...perhaps it comes across to me this way because its a bit like a distilled pamphlet of every nationalist theory albanians have come up with (itd seem to me this way for any people), use this one writer here this theory there etc its really haphazard like the writer didnt want to study albanian nationalism and how its fared and changed since its inception in the late 19th century but rather put up a collection of albanian examples of nationalism that offend or enrage him87.202.53.82 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has very dubious references. Please feel free to improve those references as they are not supporting what the article is saying. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

i dont think its a matter of referencing really foremostly at least in many sections its quite good but rather as i said in my opinion this haphazard use of sources with no attempt to give a history of albanian nationalism how it developed why it developed various theories etc just throw them all out in the open whatever we can find and wherever we can find them...87.202.53.82 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Joke?

Is always funny to see how "Hamburger Seller" wrothe about the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.20.66 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We have to be rational!

Dear friends. I believe that time has come to delete this page, or to place some of the materials in Greater Albania article. This article only repeats what it is said but with a better signifier. Also as we have mentioned earlier many times, relating Albanian Nationalism only to ideas of irredentism, fascism, separatism and whatnot is highly erroneous, as Albanian nationalism (as every nationalism) related to the identity of that certain group of people.

We have to easily, and with much precaution merge this page with Greater Albania and direct Albanian Nationalism to Albanian National Awakening. Regards! —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The translation of this article was deleted on its home wikipedia(the Greek one) because the majority of users found it too biased. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna, feel free to send it to AfD. Cheers, — Kedaditalk 16:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually. It would be great to preserve such information (that are on this article) but with a different name (e.g. Albanian Protochronism—considering there are sources for something like that). If there are editors claiming that Greater Albania does not encompass the main theme of this article, than another one could. But I believe everyone agrees that Albanian Nationalism is a broader concept than just protochronism and irredentism: read nationalism! I also believe that Albanian Nationalism should be merged with Albanian National Awakening. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting this page is against the principles of this project (as well as recycling irrelevant arguments). Imagine deleting all articles about nationalism in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first part (deleting this article is totally not necessary). As for recycling irrelevant arguments, I did not understand that. However, it would be nice to find a better suited name for this article, as Albanian nationalism is a broader concept! This page has consumed much energy so far, without any result. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased article

• The article at its current state is pov. It is full of WP:ALLEGED phrased like so-called, allegedly, which apart from against MOS are also incorrect. For example The supposed "Illyrian" names that the communist regime generated continue to be used today and to be considered of Illyrian origin. No Communist regime generated any names, since they were names copied from Illyrian tombs found in Albania.

• Extreme WP:LABEL because Albanian irredentist organizations are labeled as terrorist which is a phrase that isn't found even on Al-Qaeda or ETA.

• WP:SYNTH and editorializing. For example

A USA-based Albanian company, Illyria Entertaintment,plans a documentary that calls the Illyrians "greatest forgotten people" that "contributed to the formation and development of the Western civilization", "shrouded in myth and legend" though little to nothing is known of their myths (see Illyrian gods) "before the dawn of classical Greece and the rise of the Roman empire" despite the fact the first account of Illyrians comes at the 4th century BC Apart from being incorrect since the Illyrians appeared in the early Bronze Age there is a huge amount of editorializing and synthing targeting and labeling irrelevant events as nationalist and trying to show the truth about the other faction.

• These ideologies and Greater Albania have proponents and patrons who are not only nationalists but criminals involved in drug trafficking, human trafficking and other activities motivated by profit. WP:POV and WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS since many of the sources either don't verify the section, don't even refer to such content and context or fail rs.

• The article in its current form was deleted on its home wikipedia(the Greek one) because of its extremely biased content and context.

• For the factual inaccuracies that are supposedly sourced read the above section

Talk:Albanian nationalism#Is this an essay --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. 1. This text needs to be removed from Albanian Nationalism page, as nationalism as a concept is broader that what is written in the article. 2. Also, the text need huge copy-editing, cleaning and fixing in order for it to be kept for other pages (e.g. Greater Albania). —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The article seems fine to me, especially about the 'Illyrian names' part which is oversourced. I suggest you adopt Dbachmann's proposal on this and remove the pov tag.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there was no proposal about that. I had previous encounters with Dab, so such please try to refrain from what someone might think is ransom. Dab knows that language as it is used in this article is biased, and as a experienced admin he cannot risk his reputation on arguing about something as pointless as is the current Albanian Nationalism lacking POV tag or not!—Anna Comnena (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dab asked for a list of reasons making this pov, which I brought on this RfC. Alexikoua none of the sources say what they're actually supposed to saying and btw please don't try to remove tags. I and others dispute the neutrality of the article so since I provided the necessary reasons you can't remove it because you think it's fine(which is something the users on el.wikipedia didn't find fine since they decided to delete it). --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Greek article was a completely diferrent one. You still need to be precise on the arguments instead of claiming what happened in... another project about another article... About Damb. he is very precise about the quality of your so-called arguments: [[15]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)It was the same one written by the same user. I started a RfC with new and obvious arguments and even if Dab disagrees with this his opinion is one opinion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, if ever there was one. Athenean (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone say that Albanian Nationalism only covers irredentism and megalomania? I mean, would it be correct if Greek Nationalism page (since you are a Greek) would cover only Greek Xenophobia. It would not be correct. The article should be renamed. This article should redirect to Albanian National Awakening. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up the Greeks. You want to work on Greek nationalism? Do it. But stop using Greek nationalism as an excuse for your own pov-pushing. The Albanian National Awakening occurred in the 19th century. It is a sub-topic of this article. All this "Illyrian" hilarity which wastes so much of our time on Wikipedia is a product of the Hoxha regime. The question is not so much whether the Illyrians contributed anything to Albanian language or culture, but that even today adult and literate people (or at least, people able to use a computer and connect to the internet) should make this a question of their own personal identity. On the face of it, this is ludicrous, but our own experience shows that Hoxha's ideological seeds are still bearing fruit even in 2010. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What does Hoxha have to do with Albanian nationalism? Please focus on the weasel wording.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

um, have you even read the article? --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dab, I mentioned Greek Nationalism as an illustration, as, if you can notice this article was created by Megistias (blocked many times) and is edited only by Greek authors. So my illustration was intended towards them. However, my concern is that this text is very badly written. Also it is mostly focused on irredentism and megalomania! And Albanian Nationalism, I believe we all agree, is far more than just that. I do agree that all Nationalism are based on Myths, as does the most mentioned author in this article, Wickers. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure we agree on this. What are you referring to? If you have additional material you want to cover, you are welcome to add it with proper references. If you can establish that the article is mistaken about some facts, I will be very happy to listen to you. Just saying it is "bad" isn't helpful. --dab (𒁳) 21:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Albanian nationalism is a broader concept than just irredentism and Pan-Albaniansm.

2. The article uses a language that is POV "Albanian nationalism is criminal" (Read: Neutral Point of View 2 on WP:ARBMAC2).

3. Most of the sources are misquoted (if you read the sources you see a different story from the one in the article e.g. Kadare case).

4. Article shows many examples of WP:OR (Many sources gathered to make an original claim—there is no Albanian state policy that wants to incorporate any territory, or to discriminate any nationality).

5. This article is created and written by User:Megistias banned many times for edit-warring and disruptive edits.

6. There was CfR on this Article (read Talk archive), Askari Mark was a neutral editor who tried to help, he made his suggestions, they were not taken into consideration... list can go on! —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Pseudolinguistics

I suggest we create a new section by describing the pseudolinguistic background in which the Pelasgian etc. approaches are based, as explained in Da Rapper and Schwandner-Siever.Alexikoua (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What does Schwandner-Siever label as "pseudolinguistics"? The "Pelasgian" thing was considered serious linguistics in the 19th century. Once you build a national identity, you don't want to make it depend on changes of mainstream opinion in scholarship, so all these Balkanese nationalisms more or less reflect 19th century thinking on ancient history. Albanian nationalism has an added excentricity because of the attempts of the communist regime to de-Christianize Albanian culture, so they encouraged people to identify with pre-Christian Illyrians. It's an interesting instance of Communism meets Neopaganism, but it doesn't have much to do with pseudolinguistics if you ask me, they just listed names recovered from pre-Christian epigraphy together with names like Proletare as ideologically acceptable. I am sure this seemed like a good idea at the time. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We have talked a lot about this, of course there is going to be much deletion

Dear Alex. I have only deleted materials that are repeated over and over again. Are you saying that the article is good as it is? —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We have to be precise: simply saying that this isn't good in general isn't enough to initiate massive deletions. As I see most of the removals are problematic and off course make the article seem even more poor. For example you need to explain first why you removed the following parts:

removed	added
Albanians consider themselves to be descendants of the Illyrians, a theory not proven by scientist today	Albanians consider themselves to be descendants of Illyrians, a theory still being studied by scientist
...attempts to construct a Greek-Illyrian continuity	"because Albanians are closer to Homeric society and Homeric ideals" (Kadare)

Also you removed 3 paragraphs with the explanation that this is 'phase one'. It's obvious that your version makes things a little more pov than before. I suggest we should be more precise on what we have to change instead of claiming that this article isn't good or it should be deleted.Alexikoua (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

1. theory not proven by scientist today --> a theory still being studied by scientist is a semantics edit.

2. ...attempts to construct a Greek-Illyrian continuity is not backed by reference (read the reference). Kadare's refenrece was Albanians are more Greek than the Greeks themselves because Albanians are closer to Homeric society and Homeric ideals. This is a classic case of WP:OR!

3. Why the article is not good was explained many times before. This was my last explanation. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said none of this points are precise, only generalisation. Also you should avoid labelling non-Albanian editors as 'enemies'.Alexikoua (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That is total trolling. I never said such a thing! And if you do not have any argument, please refrain yourself from rv-ing edits that are intended to improve the quality of this article. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Anna, stop attacking other editors and playing the victim at the same time. And your edits were NOT good, saying "a theory that continues to be studied today" is uninformative WP:WEASEL wording. Of course it is being studied today, that much is obvious. What is less obvious, and more informative, is that it is not proven that Albanians descend from Illyrians. So that wording is better and more encyclopedic. Athenean (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

By contrary WP:WEASEL is theory not proven by scientist today. And, NO, it has not been proven that Albanians are descendant of Illyrians, but that does not mean that anyone who thinks that way is a nationalist. The current form of the article is leaning towards such allegations. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Anna: In general "everything" in the scope of ancient civilizations "is being studied", the specific part is meaningless.Alexikoua (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)The article gives the impression that if you're someone who supports that Albanians descend from Illyrians you're an Albanian nationalist, which is something that only a supporter of nationalisms that oppose anything Albanian-related in general would say. Apparently no user without a WP:COI will take part in the discussion, so after the RfC I'll probably ask for arbitration.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As far I know uninvolved administrators have found this article enough good.Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Dab isn't uninvolved or even coi.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be mediation, not arbitration, though I doubt mediation is needed or will even be helpful. Though the article does have some issues, this just seems like a case of wp:idontlikeit. If we take Dab's words as representative of non-Balkan editors, that is the conclusion I draw. Btw, Dab is Swiss, neither Serbian, Albanian, nor Greek, therefore no coi. Athenean (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that I am "not even coi" :) But I am not here as an administrator, I have contributed to this article as an editor. Of course this article is far from "finished", and might be substantially improved, but this is not going to happen by enacting political drama on talk. What you guys are doing here is not helping to improve the article, on the contrary it is distracting people from sitting down and working on it. So far, I don't see any glaring problem has been pointed out. The article is based on decent sources and stays on topic. The question here is not possible influences of the Illyrians on Albanian ethnogenesis (which may very well have been the case), but the subjective importance attached to such a possibility by modern Albanians. These are completely distinct questions. The point is that there is just as much evidence for Thracian as for Illyrian influence, but for no apparent reason, Albanian nationalism attaches the greatest importance to the Illyrian scenario, while it couldn't care less about the Thracian one. It could just as well have turned out the other way, and it is the job of this article to explain, just how Albanian ethnic nationalism turned out to have the characteristics it does.

I do not think Anna's suggestions can be taken seriously. "Albanians consider themselves to be descendants of Illyrians"? No true Scotsman! This is the viewpoint of the ethnic nationalist who thinks that "no true Albanian would not consider himself a proud descendant of the Illyrians", i.e. assuming that all members of his group must be ethnic nationalists. This is actually offensive to all Albanians who take a rationalist or pragmatic approach to national politics, in one sweeping move branding an entire nation as backward redneck ideologists. As it happens, Wikipedia does not carry articles written from the point of view of ethnic nationalists, see WP:TIGERS. As for "Albanians being close to Homeric society", give us a break. I don't know if you have ever been to Albania. I have, and I haven't met with Bronze Age warbands charging around the countryside. This is just silly. If you have nothing meaningful to contribute to this article, please avoid distracting the pepole who do from working on it.

If you choose to embrace an ethnic nationalist worldview, peace to you, it's your decision, but please refrain from editing Wikipedia articles about your ideology. I am sure you can find other topics on Wikipedia that you are able to discuss from a detached and neutral position. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please Dab. You clearly have an issue with Albanians. I do not know if you are Swiss or not. That is not important. But claiming that anyone who believes in Illyrian-Albanian continuity is a nationalist is beyond this argument. It sets a new ground for arguments. I recently read WP:ARBMAC2 and it also sends warning to biased administrators (like your seem to be). The article says Albanian nationalists are criminals for crying out loud. How is this article not biased. Where is the line: Albanians are massive rapists? I am sorry but your contribution in Kosovo is from a Serbian perspective, here you do not seem do find anything wrong with this article, furthermore you removed the tags. Which were many times discussed earlier. You made many edits in Albanian related issues always backing disruptive editors like User:Megistias and User:Tadija who are banned many many times. Also you have shown more than once that you do not like Albanians. I will have to report you! —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

you clearly did not read what I said. I do not know who you are quoting, but I certainly did not say anyone who believes in Illyrian-Albanian continuity is a nationalist, I said something else entirely.

I removed tags which have not been explained. Whatevecr you are doing here, trying to have a forum discussion or whatever, you certainly aren't discussing the article.

As for being "biased", now that is really the pot calling the microwave black. By all means "report me", especially if this gets you to stop trolling article talkpages. --dab (𒁳) 17:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Anna, labelling non-Albanian editors without explanation is a very extreme way and you seem to ignore wp:what wikipedia is.Alexikoua (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Dab you didn't remove her tags, but the tags I added when I started the RfC. I have brought all the policy arguments so please don't remove pov tags from an article that labels all Albanian organizations as terrorist ones and is full of similar terminology. People who support an ethnic ideology shouldn't write such articles, but people who support an opposite ethnic ideology shouldn't write them either. Btw I'll ask for mediation because of the WP:IDHT.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

an article that labels all Albanian organizations as terrorist? Why I feel that we have the usual or concert per wp:tigers? I've asked several times for at least one 'precise' argument, but no wonder the typical national advocating in full motion.Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua I've brought whole lists arguments in many of the above sections all of which you WP:IDHT it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal!

As was said before, this article contains information that is useful to keep. But, we have to bare in mind that all this information can be transfered in both Greater Albania and Albanian National Awakening articles. At the current form it is clear WP:FORK. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record there is a discussion here [[16]].Alexikoua (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

POV

There have been no arguments refuting any of the arguments for the pov tag, so if anyone removes them again without refuting the pov arguments I'll ask for formal mediation from the ArbCom(at least they have no WP:COI and won't WP:IDHT the pov arguments).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What arguments? You can ask whatever you want, but it will most likely be turned down. And editors like Dab don't have a COI either, and they seem to disagree with you. Athenean (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Until we have consensus, we cannot remove any tags. Sorry! Btw, your last edit on this page was good. —Anna Comnena (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For there to be POV tags, serious, valid arguments need to be presented as to why the article is POV. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not such an argument. In fact, it's not an argument at all. Athenean (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

HERE are some arguments! —Anna Comnena (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "arguments" may be sufficient to make a few isolated improvements to the article. Your problem is that you refuse to help improving the article, instead you prefer to campaign to have it shot down entirely. If you make a constructive improvement to the article, nobody will object I am sure. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, trust me. I think the information that is here is useful (with some cleaning up) but it should be on the Greater Albania article. Why have two pages about it? We are not talking about two different ideologies/ideas? Also, I believe this page should redirect to Albanian National Awakening page. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The scope of this article extends far beyond that of Greater Albania. For example, the protochronist attempts at trying to use the Pelasgians and Illyrians to claim to be "the oldest nation in the Balkans" is beyond the scope of both those articles. Anyway, I don't think there will ever be a consensus for a merge, at least not any time soon. Athenean (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Protochronist attempts are totally WP:OR, where did you pull that of. For such an idea, create a page of Albanian protochonism if you have any sources to back that up. Otherwise, remove all the material related to Greater Albania, or if they are unique, place them there. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's the definition of Protochronism.Alexikoua (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"The term was coined in Romania to describe the marked tendency of the Nicolae Ceauşescu regime to ascribe, largely relying on questionable data and subjective interpretations, an idealised past to the country as a whole. A pejorative term that was given to the Romanian phenomenon is Dacomania (sometimes Thracomania), while its advocates prefer Dacology."

Is this it? I do not see how did you deduce anything Albanian from that? —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You need also to read the last section 'Modern-day equivalents'. Also yes, "questionable data and subjective interpretations, an idealised past to the country as a whole." applies here. Of course someone that believes that this is real history rejects this 'protochronism' scenario, per wp:tigers.Alexikoua (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok create a page similar to Romanian protochronism then. But you cannot name something simply Albanian Nationalism, as simply it is a broader concept. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Since new battleground activity is rising I'm one step before requesting protection.Alexikoua (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua I'm not sure if you're familiar with the content of your revert because you changed even the word Kosovo to Kovoso, which shows that you didn't really check Anna's edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) Dbmann was actually very clear about the partiotic nonsense of a specific user (whose wp:npa vios are also endless). Recycling the same cheap wp:IDONTLIKEIT arguments is really boring.Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua again during your revert you changed the word Kosovo to Kovoso.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was commenting on the massive removals which the article suffers the last hours (very weird accusing someone of this tiny detail but ignoring complete deletion of several sections).Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes

If this information is being kept, we have to rewrite some parts, remove some to other pages and lookup at some of the sources that are badly placed (like this one: check for yourself). My proposal is to make this page something like a disambiguation, maybe with little information that will redirect people to certain pages, like Greater Albania, Albanian National Awakening and maybe a new page that would cover Albanian Protochronism a term that I could not find any sources to back! Another solution would be to create a sub-section with a proper name and keep some of the information in Albanian nationalism also. We will have to find a name that can be sourced and that would server as an umbrella to the information shown currently on the page, as, Albanian nationalism is a broader concept than what is currently shown. Hope this sounds reasonable. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a seperate article, the term protochronism in this case is very clear and suitable. Also such suggestions need a carefull step by step approach. In general massive deletions of that kind equals vandalism. Morever, please do not again perfmorm such edits before you express your arguments clearly (I remind you that your previous wp:ani case wasn't successfull).Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even commenting on your content dispute as at least at this case I'm uninvolved and I'd like to remain so.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, although in the past you were also trying to trim this article.Alexikoua (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to trim this article for a long time. This article is a disgrace at the moment. You are acting WP:OWN. I raised some questions, no-one replied, so I am not splitting the article. I am just correcting some major flaws that it has. Why do we need the same material here and in Greater Albania, that is WP:FORK! So we can just redirect readers from Albanian nationalism to the other page, we are not deleting anything. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is in consistency with several related articles: "X nationalism" and "Greater X". In case you really believe this is a fork you should start a wp:afd.Alexikoua (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also can you plz explain why this map should be removed [[17]] from this article? (being used in another article isn't a reason for removal).Alexikoua (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(First of all, the link you gave is wrong—but that is not a big deal) The article is really out of focus, you claim it is based on protochronism. If so I cannot make the connection with the map. Why is the map there. Are you stating that "Albanians thinking Aristotel was Albanian" is linked with "Ethnic Map of Albania"? (Just a question). I still believe that this article needs to be split and merged as it is chaotic and without a clear focus. However, until we can have consensus about something like that it would be good for all of us to work on improving it. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry the link I gave is 'right' (it shows that you removed a map there, you still need to explain this also plz avoid unexplained hostile behaviur). Please avoid wp:or deduction, the article is properly sourced.Alexikoua (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the link, but that is really not important. Can you please explain why is that map there, as I really do not see any reason for that. Also, I do not understand what part of my behavior is hostile? Let's freez all the personal remarks for a moment and focus on the article, ok? —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits by Anna Comnena [18] are unacceptable to me and I have reverted to them for several reasons.

• Removing the map of Greater Albania. Greater Albania is at the core of Albanian nationalism, and the idea enjoys widespread support among Albanians in all Balkan countries. I see no valid reason to remove it. If there is a single image that illustrates Albanian nationalism, the map of Greater Albania is it.
• Removing "nationalist" from the first sentence. The resulting sentence "Albanian nationalism is a general grouping ideas and concepts.." is empty and meaningless. Of course it's a "grouping of ideas and concepts". But nationalism is a set of nationalist ideas and concepts.
• Changing the heading "Protochronism" to "Myth and Legend" is weasel-wording and an attempt to whitewash and legitimize protochronist ideologies. The communist Albanian government consciously adapted the Protochronist ideology developed in communist Romania and applied it to Albania (and this is sourced). "Myth and legend" implies something spontaneous and natural. This wasn't the case here. Rather, it was a deliberate, calculated state-policy designed to portray the Albanians as "the oldest people in the Balkans", which is the very definition of protochronism. It's not "myth and legend", or any such nonsense, it was a state policy.
• Removing the territories claimed on behalf in Greater Albania. If this article is going to include greater Albania, which it should, then it is a disservice to our readers to remove the territories claimed on behalf of it. It is an attempt to withhold imformation, and not acceptable.
• Removing the various Albanian nationalist groups in the Balkans from the article. This is simply baffling. Of course a page on Albanian nationalism should include a listing of nationalist groups. To me, this seems like nothing more than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT attempt to reduce the article to a stub by small steps.

It is my impression that what's going on here is an attempt to whitewash and spin "Albanian nationalism" in a positive light, by removing anything deemed "bad" from the article. Nationalism is not good. We should not try to portray it as such. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

- "Greater Albania is the core of Albanian nationalism": Says who? Albanian nationalism is a far broader concept. It covers Albanians relation with their own ethnicity, their pride and national development.

- "But nationalism is a set of nationalist ideas and concepts": That is why you do not have to repeat it. On the other hand, being a nationalist and having a national identity is not the same thing. So if you say nationalist ideas you can mislead readers in portraying Albanian nationalism from only one perspective: the negative one!

- "Changing the heading "Protochronism" to "Myth and Legend" is weasel-wording and an attempt to whitewash and legitimize protochronist ideologies": Again, where did you get this, who says that Albanian nationalism is protochronist. And even if you find any source, it is pretty far fetched to call an entire nations identity protochronist. Like every nation, Albanians have their myths—not necessarily protochronist. However, if you have enough sources for Albanian protochronism, you could make a separate page about it, or use the current one, but with a far clearer division between it and Albanian nationalism as a whole. Or you can just complete the material in Protochronism page.

- "Removing the territories claimed on behalf in Greater Albania": There is already an article Greater Albania; so, this makes it a fork. You want two pages on Albanian irridentism, that is completely a fork.

- "Removing the various Albanian nationalist groups in the Balkans from the article": Same as above.

- "Nationalism is not good. We should not try to portray it as such": Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation (Nationalism, lead). I believe that your view on nationalism is the core problem of this page. While I do not want to whitewash and spin "Albanian nationalism" in a positive light you are doing the opposite, making everything look black. I (and other editors) want a more neutral standing point. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

AC please avoid wp:npa violations and extreme or deductions: comment on content not on users. Also the article is fully sourced and all you questions on how someone got this are very simple just by clicking on the refs. Also plz avoid comments about some nation's pride: they can be easily misunderstood (it's not the right place to claim how proud you are for belonging to a nation).Alexikoua (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I trust what you just said could be considered WP:NPA. I do not see any instance of me getting personal. If so, I apologize.

Issues that I raised above are the core of my (and some other editors) problems with the page.—Anna Comnena (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)No, Anna you haven't made any npa violations unlike others [19].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This means unlike Zjarri? (that's what the dif says).Alexikoua (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua you are making again npa comments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Greater Albania part of Albanian nationalism, yes or no? Are Albanian nationalist groups part of Albanian nationalism, yes or no? Is Albanian nationalism protochronist in nature, yes or no? We have a source for that, read it. If the answer to these questions is yes (which it is), then this information belongs here. Anna, all you have done to this article is remove huge chunks of it. It is my impression, based on your comments, behavior, and edit summaries, that you do not like this article, and are trying to delete by avoiding AfD, by gradually removing everything from it one bit at a time. Athenean (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have displaced huge chunks of text to Greater Albania, as currently this article serves as fork to it. To answer your question again "Is Albanian nationalism protochronist in nature, yes or no?" NO. And please read again. Also read what nationalism is. And yes, it is your impression that I do not like the article, that is not the truth. I want to improve it, by placing content where it belongs. Also, to add another question to your list. Is Albanian national awakening "part of Albanian nationalism"? Yes or NO? —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what Protochronism is? Did you read the sources? The notion that Pelasgians are the ancestors of Albanians was thought of in the 19th century by non-Albanians, and quickly adopted by Albanian nationalists because it made them the "oldest people in the Balkans". That is the definition of Protochronism. The Communist government in Romania adopted a protochronist ideology regarding the Dacians, and then Hoxha's government copied that same ideology regarding the Pelasgians and Illyrians (read the sources for once). The protochronism section is only a small part of this article, where do you see that "the whole article" is about protochronism? Protochronism is part of Albanian nationalism. Therefore, there should be a part of the article devoted to it. I don't see anything wrong about that. As for your question about the ANA, that has its own article, because if it were included here, the article would be too big. However, regarding Albanian protochronism, there is not enough material to justify a separate article, Albanian protochronism, therefore it should be included here. That may change in the future, but for now that's how things are. Athenean (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is against WP:NPOV policy the article to have room for Greater Albania and be "too big" for Albanian national awakening. I trust everyone agrees that Albanian nationalism covers both. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The official version of history of the Hoxha regime was protochronist, can we at least agree on that? Athenean (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that you found one source that makes such claims (although, there isn't even a page number) and I also agree that Hoxha's regime was only focused on proving Illyrian-Albanian continuity disregarding other feasible theories (although I believe WP is not a democracy). —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) We've been through this before, I don't know what you guys mean with Protocronism. What we can see from scholars is that the official history during communist regime did not included Pelasgians. While protocronism is a term that scholars used to describe the situation in Rumania, AFAIK they never used that term for Albania. What you are doing here is just OR-ish.

On the Greek side, the Pelasgic theory was at first used to facilitate the incorporation of all Albanians (and other inhabitants of the Balkans) into the Greek national projects as common descendants of the Pelasgians; this theory was at first welcome by some Greek educated Albanian intellectuals (Sigalas 1999: 62-85). On the Albanian side, it supported the claim of priority and ownership of Albanians on the territories they inhabited. These ideas however were later criticized by scholars from socialist Albania and the Pelasgians were forgotten or at least left aside official history: as a theory promoted for political reasons by 19th century intellectuals, it served to establish the ancient and autochthonous character of Albanians in answer to Greek and Serbian claims on Albanian inhabited regions, but it was not at all scientifically grounded and for that reason could not be defended against contemporary theories on extra-European origin of the Albanians (Buda 1977: 27). Although Enver Hoxha himself supported the Pelasgic theory in his own writings (Cabanes 2004: 119), the directions he gave to Albanian archaeologists in the 1960s focused on the Illyrians and on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity. As a result, studies on the origin of Illyrians and Albanians published at that time do not even mention the Pelasgians.....The official history inherited from the communist period states that modern Albanians descend from the Illyrians, an ancient population living in Western Balkans, north of the Greek world. A large part of the historians‟ and anthropologists‟ task was to demonstrate the continuity from Illyrians to modern Albanians and also to assert the specificity of Illyrians – as different from Greeks – and the existence of a clear boundary between the two populations (Cabanes 1988,Cabanes 2004). Such a conception of the past, which became dominant in the 1960s (Korkuti, Anamali and Gjinari 1969 Korkuti, Anamali & Gjinari 1969) strengthened the idea of an ancient and autochthonous Albaniannation and was legitimising the existence of the international border in the present... Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 2009 PELASGIC ENCOUNTERS IN THE GREEK-ALBANIAN BORDERLAND Border Dynamics and Reversion to Ancient Past in Southern Albania Gilles de Rapper [20]

Are you all clear at least for the official history during communist regime? Stop or-ing then Aigest (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No ORing [21]. Read the part where it says "It was joined in this strategy by Albania." Hoxha may have emphasized the Illyrians over the Pelasgians because he was more worried about Tito's Yugoslavia than Greece, but the idea was the same: To prove that the Albanians were there "first". That is exactly what protochronism is, after all it comes from Greek "protos" (first) and "chronos" (time), i.e. "first-timing". I don't understand why you guys are so against the term anyway, don't see what's the big deal. Athenean (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is against anything. The problem we face is just the lacks of sources. You have A and you have B but you write C (C your opinion), WP:SYNTH. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What Synth? What A and B and C? I only have one source. Source A. There is not B and C. If I don't have a source, you shout "OR!". When I provide a source, you shout "SYNTH!". Come on now. 20:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is shouting. We are just stating our concerns. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as this [22] and this [23] look like shouting to me. There is no SYNTH or OR on this specific point. Hoxha's government adopted Protochronism as a defense against Yugoslavia (using the Illyrians rather than the Pelasgians), and that's sourced. End of discussion. Athenean (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Aigest, Sulmues, Athenean and all other editors, I have called for mediation on the current article. This is the link where you accept the mediator or not. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgians, Illyrians and communist regime in Albania

@Athenean and the others participating here, just two simple questions related to the source mentioned above:

1. Do we all agree with during communist regime Pelasgians were left out of official history in Albanian ?
2. Do we all agree that during communist regime Albanian archaeologists were focused on the Illyrians and on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity. Aigest (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But do we also all agree that the focus of the communist regime on Illyrian-Albanian continuity constitutes Protochronism? Athenean (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Protochronism is a term coined to refer to Romania's communist regime practice that had a certain (positive) stance versus dacologues. I am not aware of any publication that would apply the term protochronism to Albania's communist regime. The application of this paragraph is also tendentious and very far from the sources that the editors have claimed to have used for the support of that paragraph. Besokontrollo (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

[24] for crying out loud. Athenean (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Priestland is not saying that Albania had "protochronism". He is saying that Romania coined protochronism in an atmosphere of a Stalinist policy of hierarchy and discipline, accompanied by nationalism. According to the author, the Stalinist policies were also adopted by Albania, but the author is not claiming that protochronism was present as well in Albania. Linking protochronism to the Albanian nationalism in this paragraph is what one would claim, original research, which would be ok if it were properly sourced, but it is not. If you read Priestland otherwise, please let me know. On the other hand, the author claims that the protochronism had (before the term was even coined) been done by the Russians in the 1940s, rather than by the Albanians, so you may want to edit the Soviet Union article as well. Besokontrollo (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Priestland says "It was joined in this strategy by Albania", and it is obvious from the context that the "strategy" includes protochronism. In Romania they impelled archeologists to prove Dacian-Romanian continuity, in Albania they impelled archeologists to prove Illyrian-Albanian continuity. As Priestland says, both were agrarian, non-slavic societies who were worried about the imperialsm of their larger neighbors (the Soviet Union in the case of Romania, Tito's Yugoslavia in the case of Albania). Athenean (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not how I read it, and I am still concerned about wp:Undue weight problems with presenting protochronism as an Albanian phenomenon. Besides, Priestland doesn't seem to assert any problems that Caucescu would have with the Soviet Union, and I don't know where you found in Priestland's pages that Hoxha would recur to protochronism to protect himself from Tito: it is very well sourced that Hoxha found political help first from the Soviet Union (1948-1960), and then from China (1960-1978): he didn't need (and neither did Caucescu) to invent any histories of Illyrians and Dacians to protect their power: those histories were around for much longer, and well founded. Also, please use the imperialism term properly, that word in Eastern Europe was used with reference to the western world; the term would be completely awkward and out of place if referring to a communist country. Hoxha labeled revisionist the Soviet Union, not imperialist. Every military defense of Albania (see bunkers was to exclusively protect itself from Italy and Greece, not from Yougoslavia. Hoxha, although he may have isolated Albanai, was in good terms with the UDB and with the KGB and exchanged reports with them: Albania was still a communist country as Yugoslavia and Russia were. In addition, as I pointed out earlier, the author is also involving the Soviet Union as a protochronistic country: I find nothing in the Soviet Union article to describe any phenomenon of this kind. Perhaps that a sign of wp:fringe authorship? If Priestland is the only author as far as this claim is concerned, although I still don't read any comparison of protochronism between Romania and Albania (just strategy of nationalism and discipline), his words are insufficient to support the claims in the article. Besokontrollo (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight? No one is saying that Protochronism is an exclusively Albanian phenomenon, but that it was adopted by Albania as well. If you can't read that in Priestland's pages, maybe you should re-read them. The "strategy" he talks about includes Protochornism. Besides it's only a small part of this article. And you're not a new user, are you? Athenean (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I read it several times and the source is not clear whether the Albanian "strategy" as adopted by Hoxha, includes "protochronism" or not. One may deduct that it includes it, although in my opinion the author is not clear. This is the first time that I see "protochronism" associated with Albania. I am a new user, but a very old reader of Wikipedia, especially the Albanian articles, with which I am very familiar. Besokontrollo (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion even if there is a slight chance that one source makes such a deduction, we cannot base an entire article on it. Maybe it can remain as a sentence somewhere, explaining that it is Priestland who said it, and maybe quote him in order to make the issue more clear for the reader to make the deduction himself? —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Caution about edit warring

If this article becomes the subject of an edit war, it will get attention from admins, and they could decide to impose a WP:1RR rule. That would make it less convenient for the editors here to work on the article. Please allow yourself time to have a relaxed discussion about the disputed points. If the article stays in the 'wrong version' for a day or two, it can still recover after consensus is found. Avoid incivility on the talk page, because that is easy for admins to notice and it could disrupt the progress. Did I mention that this article is in the domain of Arbcom sanctions? OK for now. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Anna Comnena, 11 December 2010

{{edit protected}}

Source number 7 does not exist. Wickers never wrote such a report, so it should be removed. There is a report written by International Crisis Group called Pan-Albanianism: How Big a Threat to Balkan Stability (link). But it states that Pan-albaniansim is not a threat. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Anna Comnena (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more precise? the paper speaks about Albanian nationalism and the creation of Great Albania.Alexikoua :Request disabled, awaiting clarification from OP. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Albanian nationalism

I requested for mediation: Albanian nationalism. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have opened this, and am waiting for acceptance from parties. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

New edits

Since we have mediators involved I will go ahead and make some proposals to start with:

1. The Greater Albania material on the current article to be moved to Greater Albania article.
2. Protochronism is not related to Albania (only one vague source is less than considerable); so another name for the subject could be found.
3. While there is also another article on Albanian nationalism called Albanian national awakening the two should be merged.

Do we all agree on this? —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, absolutely not, for the reasons I have mentioned above over and over and over again. Athenean (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You gave only one reason. And it was based on one source that can not be verified for the moment, but even if, the citation you made is far from being enough to keep the page as it is. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Same Old Anti-Alb Propagandists...

The Same Old Anti-Alb Propagandists...

At it again...

The question is, if the Slavs and Greeks are so certain about their provenance and territorial claims, why are they so threatened by Albania and Albanian nationalism? Moreover, how did Wikipedia become their exclusive mouthpiece?

It's just fascinating to see them at work. No doubt entire careers are devoted to sifting through Wikipedia to chip away at Albanian culture and the Illyrian civilization. I am just waiting for them to declare that Albania the nation and its people are only just figments of our imagination. These aren't the droids you're looking for...Hierosolimitanum (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

albanians

is the latin therm for white serbs from the batics. alba means white. albanian language is considered balto-slavic as well. the origin of the arbanasi and sarbani from the caucasus is north pakistani pashtun tribes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun_tribes#Arbanee_.28Sarabani.29.212.13.86.194 (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

latinized serbs.212.13.86.194 (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Albanian language is considere balto-slavic as well"? "Albanians are latinized serbs"? Well, not according to all available sources and facts. First of all, when it comes to Albanian language, as a native Albanian speaker, I really see no similarity between my mother tongue (Albanian) and any slavic language (except for a dozen of loanwords). This is what the official sources say about my mother language(the Albanian)-The Albanian language is a distinct Indo-European language that does not belong to any other existing branch; the other extant Indo-European isolate is Armenian. Sharing lexical isoglosses with Greek, Balto-Slavic, and Germanic, the vocabulary of Albanian is quite distinct. Once hastily grouped with Germanic and Balto-Slavic by the merger of PIE *ǒ and *ǎ into *ǎ in a supposed "northern group", Albanian has proven to be distinct from these two, as this vowel shift is only part of a larger push chain that affected all long vowels.[5] Albanian does share two features with Balto-Slavic languages: (1) a lengthening of syllabic consonants before voiced obstruents and (2) a distinct treatment of long syllables ending in a sonorant.[6] Conservative features of Albanian include the retention of the distinction between active and middle voice, present tense and aorist.Albanian is considered to have evolved from an extinct Paleo-Balkan language, usually taken to be either Illyrian or Thracian. See also Thraco-Illyrian and Messapian language. Perhaps you meant to say that the Albanian was , rather than "is" considered balto-slavic. For all those who are really tempted to believe the obsolete theories about the origin of Albanian people and laguage ( see the "obsolete theories" chapter at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians) my suggestion is that one might need to acquire at least some basic knowledge of the Albanian language first. As for the claim that the Albanians are the latinized Serbs, I personally wouldn't mind being a Serb at all (I don't care about ethnic affiliations), but I really never came across any evidence for that. If the Albanians were latinized Serbs, how come the Albanian language is not a latin one? Second, and more important, how come they have such a small number of Serb loanwords, especially in places where they had no contact with Serbs, like central and south Albania, Macedonia and Italy? How do you explain the Albanian words, which make up for the majority of words in Albanian language. Second, if the Albanians were latinised Serbs, how come they are obviously different from Serbs in so many ways, including the physical appearance. Finally and hypothetically, even if the Albanians hypothetically were latinised Serbs, they obviously no longer are Serbs, and most importantly, they don't want to be Serbs. Can you force someone to "be" what they really don't identify with in any way? If they are Serbs by origin, why are so many Serbs hating the Albanins so much? Is it perhaps bcs they hate any Serb that stopped being Serb at some point at time, like Bosniaks, for example? Best.Besajone (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is Albanian cultivation of Illyrian culture such a "terrible thing" to "some" people?

Dear all, forgive my ignorance, but could anyone please explain to me why is it that when Albanians cultivate Illyrian culture (eg. give their children Illyrian names, study Illyrian history and culture, promote Illyrian culture in general) "some" people in the Balkans (some non-Albanins) consider such a thing a threat or a terrible thing (judging from the language they use when they discuss this topic), while, on the other hand, when the Scotish, Welsh and the Irish, for example, cultivate and promote Celtic culture, nobody has a problem with that? Nobody is depriving the Irish, the Scotish and the Welsh to promote and claim Celtic culture as a part of their own, nor is anyone considering that a tragedy or a threat. Also, why is the Albanian cultivation and promotion of Illyrian culture a "nationalism"? I most kindly ask for mature responses (meaning - no patronizing, lecturing, belittling, expressions of Arachnophobia, direct or indirect, or undermining in any way, pls).Besajone (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are the facts, like the Causasian origin (not Ilyrian origin) of Albanians, so terrible to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.224.17 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Caucasian origin" of Albanians is a baseless outdated theory with utterly no support by qualified academics which nowadays, no more credibility than "Pelasgianism", and it's only supported by rival Balkan nationalists... The only qualified rivals to the Illyrian origin theory are those of Dacian or Thracian origin . Let's not waste each others' time. --Yalens (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is the authoritarian, patronizing and arrogant tone of the user called "megistias" tolerated?

Dear all, I hope I don't sound too sharp, but I must admit that I find the communication style of the user called "megistias" to be authoritarian, arrogant, patronizing and generally lacking basic manners (decency/kindness). Here are some of his statements: " ...so this is no", "your personal opinion and attestation is irrelevant", etc. (see above for more details). Now, if this kind of intolerant, authoritarian behavior, a behavior that lacks any sense of respect for a different opinion is tolerated, I honestly think that the ethical credibility of the article is questionable. I really think that tolerating such behavior and his belittling of everything he dislikes is nit fair. I do not want to presume anything or prejudge anyone here, but I frankly hope for the sake of the credibility of this particular article and all of us here that my appeal will not end up with "megisitas'" typical comment: "This has nothing to do with kindness. Your personal opinion is irrelevant!". Best regards.Besajone (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please calm your albanian nationalism and stop call others intolerant when you are the one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.224.17 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC) It seems the only intolerant person here are you (megistas) who prefers to stay anonymous with this biased and utterly disgusting article compared to the greek or serbian nationalism article,I think I know the difference,it's because it was a Greek person who wrote this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixious6 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Biased article

This incredibly biased article is nothing but Albanophobic.Unlike other nationalism articles in doesn't write about the history of Albanian nationalism,where it comes from,how it was developed,but only tries to defy and portray Albanian people as irredentist and ultra-nationalist.I think this article needs serious re-work.What I find interesting though is that this page was deleted on the greek wikipedia for being too bias,but not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixious6 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Nationalism" or "Nationalist mythology"

While this page is titled "Albanian nationalism", it seems to more accurately report on what would better be called "Albanian nationalist mythology", i.e. viewpoints about history that are favored and circulated by Albanian nationalists. Sure, they are a part of Albanian nationalism just as nationalist mythology is part of any nationalism. However, that's not ALL that Albanian nationalism is, only a part. I would suggest these interesting theories (Pelasgians as "Illyrian-Albanian", Aristotle's alleged "Albanian" identity?) get moved into a smaller section and the page be restructured to focus more on Albanian nationalism as a whole: we talk about its historical development and modern manifestations (i.e. Pan-Albanism, Aleanca Kuq e Zi, and so on). Notably, this is actually how every other page on a Balkan nationalism is structured currently on wikipedia. Even the page for Macedonian nationalism, for all the controversy in the news, talks primarily about the historical development, we only get to "Antiquisation" and Macedonist historical viewpoints at the end of the article (which is actually fairly well written imo and would make a good model for this one).--Yalens (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from Greek bias approach

Hi,

I have noticed numerous Greek account holders, such as Alexikoua (sp) removing very interesting, and academically supported notions that add details to this topic.

I have noticed this in the edit history section, and plan on reinstating a lot once my autoconfirmation is confirmed.

I notice a lot of incorrect, and emotive information here as opposed to actual research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgdotcom (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This user has been renamed to Virgiliosarvanitis (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

Virgdotcom (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello all,

The last reversal by Alexikoua (sp), I believe is incorrect and is based on bias approaches rather than anything else. I request an explanation on the issue of referencing etc, so I can address that in the reversal of the details.

The information removed is actually extremely useful, factual, academic and important for an article like this and should be included.

You must be talking about this change here. It will be more helpful if you are willing to break this into a number of separate requests, so you can explain each one individually. Also, please WP:SIGN your posts at the end, not the beginning. To begin by charging others with bias isn't the best way to win their support. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It will be also helpful to explain why the specific addition are helpful. I'm afraid that they way they are written and poorly cited (some parts not cited at all) make them clearly wp:POV.Alexikoua (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding in new sections to article relating to past absences (i.e Alb nationalism's development).

A note on some additions i have made to the article. Especially during this decade scholarship on Albanian nationalism has grown among Western academia and there is an abundance of references from when this article was last addressed between the 2010-2014 period. Over time i have become well versed on this topic and have sought to cover absences in this article. My additions relate (and complete) to the development of Albanian nationalism (in Albania) and yes the ugly moments of WW2 and the communist period. Please take time to read the sentences and sources i have added. I have initiated the first step of WP:BRD. Additional issues can be discussed with em and i am open to improvements and so on. Absences still to this article are more info needed on Kosovo and Alb. nationalism in Macedonia. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are many additional issues your edit created, though I think it is as a whole beneficial for the article. The issues can be dealt with one by one.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I added them separately from other existing sections so everyone can go through them first. The intended result was after that to incorporate those existing sections into the other new sections through shifting a few paragraphs. Overall my preference is to have this article in chronological layout of sections with additional subsections. Makes it more easier for a reader to identify things then as is currently layered out. A few bits will probably need to be adjusted too. Ping me for additional commentary on bits to iron out. I have stayed up to late. Off to bed for me.Resnjari (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Another important fact especially durin g the P.R.A. era was the Myth of WWII resistance propagaded by the post war authorities. Fischer offers some insight about this.Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I cited that. Its this sentence: "Nationalism became the basis for all of Hoxha's policies as the war created a "state of siege nationalism" imbued with the myth that Albanian military prowess defeated Axis forces which became a centrepiece of regime within the context of education and culture." based on Fischer. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

ok, i have for today only redistributed paragraphs and in some instances sentences into the new sections where relevant.I have not altered any sentences during this process instead setting the scene for content integration. Editors can double check. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Article way too long and needs copyediting

The article is simply way too long, and it is riddled with grammatical inaccuracies, making it VERY hard to read. Massive paragraphs, lack of images, and a lot of repetition (e.g. the fact that religion is not important in Albanian nationalism is repeated several times throughout the article) result in an enormous article that few readers will be able to read in its entirety. Grammatical errors (e.g. "that the Albanian language was the oldest in the region than even Greek.") make things even worse. I've tried to remedy the situation as best I can, but I simply don't have the time or energy to go through the entire article. At least regarding the grammar, there is a guild of copyeditors that is always happy to assist with copyediting. Khirurg (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Article is under 10, 000 words (around 7,000) and within the allowed scope of Wikipedia word limits (see:WP:LENGTH). I had to integrate previous older sections from before which were problematic to say the least filled with reference errors and other POVish written sentences and inaccuracies. This article is still under construction and paragraph splits will happen alongside additional headings for sub-sections are forthcoming on the finished product. Also on images they should relate TO Albania. If a bust of Pyrrhus or Alexander has been photographed in Albania then they are applicable to the article. Otherwise, one can place any image of Mother Teresa (from India to the Balkans), any bust/statue image of Skanderbeg from around the world etc. This main article is to be about nationalism in Albania. As Albanian nationalism has developed differently (though sharing many ideas initially), I am in the process of finalising two other articles about Albanian nationalism in Kosovo and on Macedonia as there is a lot of content out there on that.Resnjari (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Albanian nationalism" plain and simple, not "Albanian nationalism in Albania". As for Pyrrhus and Alexander, it is mentioned in the text that Albanian nationalists claim them, so there is absolutely no reason to remove. Khirurg (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Very soon there will be additional articles which means a further trim down on content. On images, your pictures are not from Albania or Kosovo, Western Macedonia etc and your claim of "plenty of alb nationalists" [25] claiming them is OR unless you have some sources about the plently. Though claimed within Alb. nationalism, these figures are not core like Skanderbeg or even Mother Teresa unless you have something to the contrary that states this. I mean why those two specific ancient figures of Phyrrus and Alexander ? Constantine the Great is also claimed.Resnjari (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement that images need to be from "Somewhere" unless you can point me to the policy to that effect. As for your claim that they are not "core", that's something you just made up. On the other hand, there are many sources in the article (you should know, you added them) that say that Alb. nationalists claim these figures. You are welcome to add constantine, or anyone you wish. There is plenty of room, after all. Khirurg (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then, i added Constantine, a Roman figure as sources state he is claimed too to balance out caption.Resnjari (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Source is given, but no quotation

Dear User:Resnjari, you have for some reason reverted [26] the verification tag, stating that source and inline are provided. However I can not find the quotation saying about figures from ancient to modern times to verify the description below the picture in the article. The source only mentions of the mosaic, but no precise information about what it displays. Am I missing something here? -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

SilentResident, I placed sources: The first is Sawyer: p. 178. In Tirana, Albania’s National History Museum, itself a product of Hoxha’s regime, reaches back to antiquity in a notable mural above the entrance, yet the central figure (a woman) is flanked by a worker and a partisan, making this ultimately a modern moment." The second is Austin: p. 720 [27]. "The regime opened a Palace of Culture in Tirana in 1966 and a massive National Museum, which dominates Tirana's Skanderbeg Square. Its mural depicts depicts the Albanians' struggle through the ages." These two sources are within the wp: reliable and s secondary range and that's why added them. Sawyer notes that the mural is inferring that it goes back into antiquity, the ancient era. Austin notes that the mural is showing (according to the communist regime) Albanians from the ages. There are other sources like travel guide books (from Lonely planet etc) which are more specific about this that note that the mural is depicting people from the Illyrian period onward [28]; [29] (on this one no page number is given and you have go up a few pages up to the bit that says National History Museum). I did not use these 2 sources because i am not sure about their status (meeting wp: reliable and secondary criteria) of using travelogues in an article. I also note the addition of the mural picture in the article is to show the myth making of Enver's era that the mural encapsulates the whole thing in image form (myth of Illyians, of the so called "anti-Ottoman struggle" and so called "anti-fascist struggle" etc.).Resnjari (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all, you have misunderstood me. I am not disputing the sources. Did I ask for you to remove the sources or to replace them? Nope. Did I ask you to provide better sources? Nope. I only asked to be pointed out to the sentence in the Austin's source's document which is about the time periods the mosaic displays. If you read more carefully what I have wrote above to you, I am not saying the sources are problematic nor that they are unreliable or whatever. Please read carefully what I am asking here: "I can not find the quotation saying about figures from ancient to modern times to verify the description below the picture in the article." The Its mural depicts depicts the Albanians' struggle through the ages. is very generic and Austin's source does not specifically mentions it depicting the antiquity or ancient times. Only the other one does, that of Sawyer. I wish there was more detailed information in Austin's source that could verify the text below the picture like the one of Sawyer already does. You have done good job thus far and please by no means confuse what I am asking with the reliability of the source or whatever. The sources are reliable and there is no problem with that. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I had to write that. You did remove the two sources in an edit (and reason given) you made [30]. Then you added a verifiablity tag [31]. That is only added if there is an assumption of the source being dodgy. Sawyer is not (as he meets wp:reliable and secondary requirements) and removed the tag. If you want to read the journal article yourself and do not have access to it through a university institution, Wikipedia allows for a personal subscription (without fee) to access many of those databases in a deal they did some time back. You once said in the changes that there were no ancient Albanians, i am not here to argue for or against. The mural is depicting figures from what Enver defined as Albanian history covering the period of antiquity to the modern. That's all and the caption notes that based on Austin and Sawyer. This article overall in almost finished and hope to make a few more additions and adjustments after i create two other Albanian nationalism articles (on Macedonia and Kosovo) very soon. I hope sometime tonight on those two.Resnjari (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari, please do not respond to me as if you are not getting what I am saying to you or pretend that the "Communist era mural mosaic depicting ancient to modern figures from Albania's history" and the "reaches back to antiquity in a notable mural above the entrance" do mean the same thing, as they do not and such contradictions will be reverted again. I recommend you to update yourself about WP:INTEGRITY of text and sources, as such mistakes must be avoided and make sure that the sources verify the attributed text. The current image caption is much better than the one before my reverts and does not violate the rules. But I could have appreciated if the Austin's source featured more details on this, with a quotation if possible but it is still fine as is. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The current caption is what i wrote before with Khirug adding "purported" to it. This exchange here is a full circle exercise ending up in the same spot. On a quotation, i didn't place it because its accessible and i though that editors would click on it. I only place inlines if something is not accessible for everyone or so controversial.Resnjari (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You know, if the text was more closely attributed to what the source said, the term "purpoted" couldn't even be needed at all, nor I could have reverted the caption in the first place. But still, even though I prefer a better attribution, the current caption isn't that bad as long as it has the term "purpoted" in it, which allows for the meaning of the mosaic to not give the readers the impression if being a fact (i.e. being more than just a claim of the communist-era's nationalism) which goes against NPOV. Still better than that. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari, you said something about plans to create articles on Albanian nationalism on Kosovo and Republic of Macedonia, but I personally couldn't recommend that, or at least ask for some caution of your part, especially on the confusion the shared similarities they have (i.e. Greater Albania and union between Albania and Kosovo), because the nationalism in these two countries are usually an extension of the Albanian nationalism. It couldn't be a bad idea to have this added in its own section within the present article, especially if the nationalism in Kosovo and RoM are not distinct enough to be noteworthy for their own articles. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

One can if there is enough scholarship material. Wikipedia is a different encyclopedia structure allowing a wider array of topics to have articles. A similar analogy would be some Islam articles. One religion, but different historical experiences in various countries and could not be catered for in one article. For Albania such was the amount of content that now there are articles on Islam by time period and even Islamisation. Albanian nationalism is different in Kosovo and Macedonia though having some similarities with its Albania counterpart, but definitely different historical experiences. To keep it short for now, in Kosovo there is the Dardanian myth, the newer Adem Jashari myth for the modern day period and the experiences of Serbian rule making it have a different trajectory than Albanian nationalism in Albania. Also Kosovo is an independent state and there is no article about nationalism there. In Macedonia, Albanian nationalism is a late comer and intertwined with Islam and that factor makes it different from those two as it shaped the experience of Albanians there vis a vis Orthodoxy and the Macedonian majority. Wikipedia has guidelines on splitting WP:SPLITOUT if a article gets to big and can have other related articles to deal with a topic on its own. I got the info almost done with it too. All that will happen is that this becomes a series on Albanian nationalism. After all Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia are where the three biggest Balkan Albanian communities live.Resnjari (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case, how could you name the articles? I guess the Kosovo one will be named something like Kosovarian nationalism, but how could the article about Albanian nationalism in RoM be named? Macedonian Albanian nationalism? -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism in Kosovo and Albanian nationalism in Macedonia. I got the idea after i came across the article German nationalism in Austria. The two articles are under development. They are the result of my sifting through sources. Originally i thought of fitting them into this one. But they differ in historical experience especially after 1912 and even somewhat in ideas (Kosovo).Resnjari (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism in Macedonia could cause a lot of confusion as it could mean the wider region of Macedonia and not just the Republic of Macedonia. To avoid this confusion, the proper name should be Albanian nationalism in the Republic of Macedonia, like how it is done in other RoM-related articles about Albanians i.e. Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah ok, sounds good. >Albanian nationalism in the Republic of Macedonia.Resnjari (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)