Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:43, 10 September 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Albania High‑importance Albania during the Balkan Wars is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Balkan / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Second sentence

Second sentence is already incorrect. There are several nations on Balkan peninsula that had no state. At that time Croatians and slovenians had no state. Macedonians had no state. Cincar and Bunjevci even today are without state. Article is also full pov pushing.--SLAK (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. --Sulmues _talk 18:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Page title

Title is incorrect. Reader could think that only Serbia was occupying Albania, if there were a occupation. Title of the page should be "Occupation of Albanian 1912-13". Serbia was not the only one who was occupying Albania. What was difference betweet Serbian, Greek or Montenegrian occupation? --Alexmilt (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That is  Fixed by now. --Sulmues _talk 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Greek occupation of Albania

User:Athenean has removed referenced content without prior discussion:

"Greek Occupation of Southern Albania lasted from December 1912 to March 1914. Despite the Albanian declaration of neutrality in the Balkan War, the Greek Navy on 4 December 1912 shelled the unfortified city of Vlora."

1. The Albanians: an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present, by Edwin E. Jacques
2. The Albanians: an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present, by Edwin E. Jacques

What is the exact problem with this paragraph? --Mladifilozof (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason was that the original source used, Edwin Jacques, is highly partisan and moreover not a historian, therefore he should not be used. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I now note that Jacques has been replaced by Vickers, yet the same exact text was kept. However, Vickers doesn't say anything about the Greeks bombarding Vlore. Also, Vickers says "though the Greeks" remained neutral until 1917", not that Albania remained neutral. The source is misused. Athenean (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article should be renamed

Albania's borders were drawn December 1913. Considering this the Balkan countries were not in Albanian territory by Ottoman. The current title is misleading, it would be appropriate to name it: Albanian during Balkan Wars. Can someone assist me with this?CrazyMartini (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi CrazyMartini. I fully agree with you over the issue you raise and I have actually looked at this quite recently. It is very difficult for a variety of reasons; the main one is that information on "Albania" is inconclusive. In a technical sense, you are right: Serbia, Montenegro and Greece were merely endeavouring to incorporate the Rumelian regions from which the Ottomans were driven out into their respecive states. The difficulty arises where we introduce the name Albania. It is a fact that ethnic Albanian anti-Ottomans too staged a campaign within lands where they resided and they did this not allied to the Balkan League. To thad end, their opponents were both the Ottomans and the Balkan League. Then there is the fact that an autonomous principality of Albania had come into existence and one that was accepted by the Porte. This I believe happened in October 1912. Now not that this warrants the usage "occupation", Albania (in its current form and including the Vilayet of Kosovo) was declared independent by the Provisional Government of Albania in November of 1912. The question is, when was Albania recognised? This information is nowhere on Misplaced Pages, I raised the issue here and as you can see, no reply. It leaves one more matter, which is that this article is sourced, and right or wrong, those sources refer to an occupation of Albania so its usage is in that small way acceptable. It is one huge gray area. Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

The request to rename this article to Albania during the Balkan Wars has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Occupation of Albania (1912–1913) → Albania during the Balkan Wars —We have a major historical inconsistency: the title is 'Occupation of Albania', but during this period (1912-1913) the territories that were under the control of the Balkan League were de jure still part of the Ottoman Empire. That's because the borders of Albania were established by the Protocol of Florence ] at December 19, 1913 (end of 1913), when the Balkan Wars ended ] ]]]]]]. I believe the title: Albania during the Balkan Wars is much correct.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I favour your proposal Alexikoua, and not for any reason of anti-Albanian sentiment. I presume we can have the vote of CrazyMartini as well. As for your sources, just one will suffice in the modification of the Albania article itself, now applicable since you have this information. Albania is declared in 1912 (defining itself as including the then larger Kosovo), its recognition however comes in 1913 after Greek, Serbian and Montenegrin borders are established, falling into place for Albania's inception as a principality the following year. Can I ask that we allow time for replies, particularly if anyone wishes to defend the current title. Evlekis (Евлекис) 01:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Off course it's not about sentiments, the term occupation applies to occupation of hostile territories: these territories were de jure Ottoman. 'Occupation of Albania' is misleading since it claims that it was a state of war between the Balkan League and Albania, or at least Albania was the legitimate owner of the territories before the establishement of its border.Alexikoua (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose: The Albanian Declaration of Independence in 28 November 1928 declared an Independent Albania inclusive of Kosovo, Chameria and also Oher, Struga, Debar and Yanina. It is sufficient for this just to see what regions were representing the founding fathers in the Delegates section. After the declaration of independence Albania was occupied. The borders were decided outside of Albania as a result of a war in which Albania had not participated, because it didn't even have an army to do so. Those borders shrunk the natural borders of the Albanian people to today's Albania as a result of the expansionism of invading armies. This article shows how Albania was occupied in the Balkan Wars. Moving the article or merging this article would just bring the POV that Albania was an active participant in the Balkan Wars, which it wasn't. It was an occupied country, where its neighbors tried to suck away pieces of territory as soon as the Albanians had declared themselves independent from the Ottoman Empire: in fact the above 6 regions/cities are not currently part of Albania, because they were invaded and the Protocol of Florence decided to award Greece and Yugoslavia with those lands. Making a de jure - de facto point for international law shows just lack of understanding of international law, which consists of de facto situations, not de jure, especially in 1912-1913. For the above reasons this article should stay as it is. --Sulmues 13:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

28 November 1928? Decleration of what? I have the feeling you are out of topic, we are talking about internationally recognized borders not irredentist dreams. Before December 1913 (Protocol of Florence) the borders of Albania were not established and therefore occupation of Albania was virtually imposible. That's very easy to understand.Alexikoua (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)7

According to this utterly inane line of argumentation, Albania is still under occupation, as parts of Chameria and "Janina" are still under Greek occupation. Athenean (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sulmues for replying. I have to say however that as Alexikoua has pointed out, the first recognition of an Albanian international sovereign entity was in late 1913. Upon its inauguration, the present armies of Montenegro, Serbia and Greece agreed to withdraw. To that end, the only "occupation of Albania" was the presence of all non-Ottoman armies on the province that the Ottomans are purported to have recognised on their own territory. Apart from that, it is ludicrous to imply that the Montenegrin military presence in Pljevlja (then Kosovo) and the Serbian presence in Prijepolje (also Kosovo) were part of an "Occupation of Albania". We all know the contents of what happened, but it is misleading and pandering to POVs when we consider an attempt to annex a territory by one army as "the occupation of another land" when that "land" is only considered independent in that name by a unilaterally acting institution from within it. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus if we call it Albania during the Balkan Wars, we are accepting atleast the modern concept of Albania and including it in the title. If we wanted to be outright anti-Albanian, we could move the page to something that implies an attempt by Greeks and Serbs to retake their own territories, or refer to it as a campaign in Western Rumelia or something else pathetic that ignores the essential Albanian people that we both realise. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What irredentist dreams are you guys talking about? All those areas that I mentioned were part of the Ottoman Empire that went to states other than Albania. Irredentist versus the Ottoman Empire? Then all of your states were irredentist. Albania didn't start to be a state from the Protocol of Florence onward, it started on November 28 1912. International recognition has nothing to do with when a country starts to exist. --Sulmues 00:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I fear, Sulmues, this is where we clash. Recognition is everything to do with it. Apart from the fact that the Balkan League allies (less Bulgaria) were present in modern-day Albania before it was declared independent, the allies believed they were establishing their authority as a means of expelling the previous overlord, the Ottoman Empire. With that, they never ackowledge either of the two key words in the concept, neither Albania nor occupation. Think about it, when an occupation takes place, it is usually known by the occupier itself that its presence on the terrain is not ultimately to annex the land but to oversee administration in a way that will defend its interests. The U.S has always known Iraq and Afghanistan to be independent despite American presence in each; Israel has never published a map that presents Golan Heights to be within it, or the south of the Lebanon, but these places have and have had an involuntary ongoing Israeli military presence. Closer to home, if indeed a unilateral declaration of independence warrants the naming of such a page, then we need only recall Kosovo's original declaration of independence in 1990 and how it was seen in the eyes of Albania until the 1999 handover to the UN. We can say that the police and army loyal to Belgrade were an occupying power in an article called Occupation of the Republic of Kosova 1990-99. Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A country is independent when de facto is independent, not when recognitions occur. Show me one single source of information that a country starts to exist when it's recognized. The United States of America started to exist in July 4th 1776, with the declaration of independence, not on September 3, 1783 when it was recognized. In fact we do not learn in history the start of the United States as a country when the United Kingdom recognized it, but when the Americans decided to say "We're independent". The Albanians are no different. The comparison of the United States going to Iraq btw is completely irrelevant and impertinent, not to mention the Israel situation. --Sulmues 23:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

True. But when accusations are made against other states, more factors have to come into account, and Albania's territory was de facto everything that present parties wanted it to be. De jure however, it was Ottoman; the Ottomans fled the onslaught of local armies and that made the entire region abandoned by the Ottomas Res nullius. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is a similar case to several other articles, "Albania under the Byzantine/Serbian/Ottoman Empire" etc. "Albania" of course did exist as a concept, whether in ethnic or geographical terms (at least to modern eyes), but in all these cases, what is meant is "history of the territory now covered by the modern Albanian state when ruled by the Byzantines/Serbs/Ottomans". Given the legally grey area that Albania found itself in during the Balkan Wars, the proposed title is both neutral and descriptive, indeed far more so than the present one. Albania as a state-in-development was certainly a factor in the Balkan Wars: for instance, both Greeks and Serbs made haste to conquer territory lest it be assigned to Albania. Constantine ✍ 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support The proposed title is far more neutral and is in line with other similar articles. There also was no Albania as a state in 1912, so it couldn't have been "occupied". Athenean (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - to declare an official position. My points have been given above, but I fear that this can be yet another example of national interest promotion. It would be the Greeks and Serbs on one side against Albanians, and I can draw this article to the attention of a great many Albanians; as I am none of the mentioned, I hope to count as neutral. To Cplakidas, it wasn't "conquest", not from the point of view of the hopeful kingdoms. To them, they were freeing a people from Ottoman subjugation. Conquest is the game played by old empires that ventured into lands remote from their hub. Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose both titles and start a proper move request otherwise users who aren't involved won't notice it.--— ZjarriRrethues —  17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - First title was Serbian Occupation of Albania, and it was created by user Mladifilozof, who is regarded as pov and non neutral on few wiki projects. Proposed title is far more neutral and encyclopedic that this one. Albania existed only as a concept in those time, so occupation is out of question, and proposition is by that quite good solution. --WhiteWriter 18:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Sulmues. Btw Alexikoua, for future reference see WP:RM (as no one but us involved editors will see it). Cheers. — Kedaditalk 19:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kedadi. I've informed the related wikprojects (Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Greece) Alexikoua (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexi, you still need to notify WP:Bulgaria, because Bulgaria was involved in the Balkan war, and also WP:Macedonia and WP:Kosovo which are the WikiProjects covering countries that used to be part of the Kingdom of Serbia. --Sulmues 21:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They are irrelevant with the events described in the article. But if you find it essential, feel free to post msgs there.Alexikoua (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - the country might not have been recognised but it was controlled by the albanians, and according to Misplaced Pages : Military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army, or belligerent (which in this case are the albanians). you may argue that belligerent status is given only to recognised sovereign states, however according to "Belligerent" it was also given to the Confederate States of America (even though not recognised), it also says that "belligerency is the status of two or more conflicting entities (generally, but not always, recognised sovereign states) --Cradel (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, well, it is arguable whether the Albanian government, such as it was, was even a belligerent. The events described here took place in a legal vacuum, on nominally Ottoman territory, which was occupied or claimed by Greeks, Serbs, and the Albanian provisional government. Since Albania had no definite and recognized borders (neither as a geographic nor as an administrative/national entity) at the time, "occupation" is a bit odd. For one, it represents a logical fallacy: it retroactively applies the borders of the Albanian state (which were settled after the Balkan Wars) to argue for occupation in a legal sense, even though at the time, the nascent Albanian state had never held any authority over exactly these "occupied" areas. For the other, as is evident from the discussion above, its terminology essentially adopts the POV of only one involved party, viz. the Albanians. To the Serbs and Greeks, this was "liberating" territories from the Ottomans. Even if we discard all the legalistic trivialities about belligerence however, the proposed title is both accurate and far more inclusive: essentially "history of Albania during the Balkan Wars", not just the narrow aspects of military occupation. IMO it covers the subject better (and in a more neutral fashion, as "occupation" is obviously regarded a loaded term), and has the potential to become an article of wider scope, rather than just listing the territories occupied and the relevant dates. Constantine ✍ 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

suppose we agree to that title, how would you then write the article? you can't say srb/gre forces marched or attacked albanian (or "albanian inhabited") lands fighting against the albanians (that is occupation) but you can't say liberated the lands either for quite obvious reasons. If you avoid that and simply say "the army entered the lands", you cannot avoid the resistance against it (which was "the albanians"), and if you do mention that they protected their lands (the lands which were inhabited by them and which they considered as being under the authority of the albanian government), you are implying that they are belligerents in an armed conflict, hence they were occupied. If it would have been a case of liberation, the inhabitants would have rebelled against the occupiers (ottoman empire) with the intention to join a specific state (serbia, greece), so what happened here ?.

It would be pointless to discuss what is the legal term for what happened, but de facto, it was an occupation (from conflicting entities to unwillingness (of the majority) to join a specific entity, it's all there). If an army considers it is liberating a territory, does that make it liberation? I don't see how this could have been liberation either factually or juridically . Anyway, I would accept the change of the title (I admit it is the mos neutral) if you can tell me how you could change the article so as not to imply occupation and yet be neutral and factual--Cradel (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that nowhere should the controversial term "liberated" be used, it is one-sided and inappropriate. These were Ottoman territories that various entities had wished to divide and annex. Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree too. Obviously an article 'Albania during the Balkan Wars' should includ the history of the region of that period. As I see we need an additional 'Provisional Government of Albania' section and the structure will be ok.Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As Alexis says, and as is typical for such articles, we define a period in time, and write about it. We need a background section (i.e. some brief coverage of the wider Balkan situation as well as the specifically Albanian developments in the years prior to the wars), then a division by period or subject. Suggested topics might be, Outbreak of the war, how the war was regarded by the Albanians, the Declaration of Independence and reactions to it, the military operations in what now constitutes Albanian soil, the military occupation, internal political disputes, etc. There are many things to cover. We might even consider extending our purview until 1914 and the outbreak of the First Balkan War...Constantine ✍ 09:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the whole point of this article is the occupation, if there wasn't an occupation there would be no need for this article. If you ignore the occupation there is so little to write about that this article should be deleted. That is quite probably what is going to happen after a while if this article gets renamed. On the other hand, if you rename the article but mention the occupation (directly or indirectly) there is no reason to rename it, not to mention that apart from your suggested "provisional government" section, there would be so little relevant information that doesn't involve occupation. The armies of srb/gre/mne marched into territory with none or minority srb/gre/mne population (the majority being albanian) and after a short while left, that is all. On the other hand this occupation is a very important part of the albanian history, their newly created country was invaded, we albanian national figures like Çerçiz Topulli fighting, and large amounts of literature, including Lahuta e Malcis by Gjergj Fishta covering the montenegrin occupation of the region Shkodër, which is one of the most important pieces of albanian literature. In fact there is so much to write about that if this article would be renamed, after a while there would be a need for an article specifically dealing with the albanian point of view (this wouldn't happen in quite a while of course but it illustrates what I said earlier) --Cradel (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Support per user Constantine. Excellent arguments. Don't forget that the term “occupation of Albania” suggests the existence of a state which was attacked and occupied. That was not the case.Seleukosa (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting points from Cradel. The only thing everybody has to remember is that those points seem to imply occupation according to one definition but the whole clause is occupation of Albania and nowhere is it accepted that this was Albania that had been occupied. Serbia and Greece (and to a smaller extent, Montenegro) were hoping to annex the lands and the world outside recognised the Ottoman Empire as the legal overlord. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose: You have to understand theAlbanian Declaration of Independence for understanding this title, after Skanderbeg Albania was occupied, after the Declaration it wasn't any more--Vinie007 12:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A one-sided declaration (and a proposed frontier) doesn't establish the borders of a state inside the international comunity: that happened on December 1913 (P. of Florecne). According to this definition, Vlore is occupied Greek territory, since it was included in the proposed Greek state of 1828 ].Alexikoua (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Albania was independent since declaration of Skanderbeg, since the Venetians and there allys regonite Skanderbeg as emperatore of Albania, it says that after it was occupied! --Vinie007 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion is now becomig ridiculous. The Republic of Venice dissolved long before the activities of 1912. Since 1866 it has been a part of Italy (in all its entities). Never mind about Skanderbeg, that has nothing to do with Albania's 1912 declaration of independence. For Venice to have recongised Albania can only mean it disputed Ottoman sovereignty. And just as other users have pointed out, if Albania was occupied then, it is still occupied today - Montenegro occupies Pljevlja which is in the old Sandžak of Novi Pazar, part of Kosovo in 1912, and Kosovo's then capital Skopje is today in the hands of local rebels - Macedonians, renegade Serbs/Bulgarians that use a Greek name. I'm not opening old wounds on Macedonia-related matters, I'm just pointing out the ridicule that we would go on to adopt if we accept the arguments to keep this article by its current name. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the logic presented by Vinnie, Ottoman Albania should be renamed to Occupation of Albani (1479-1912). Athenean (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Support: According to my comments in the previous paragraph.CrazyMartini (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Support and open to suggestions. We cannot backdate 'occupations' to a time before the birth of a country. All the wikipedia articles that start with 'Occupation of...' are about the occupation of a country at a time of its actual existence. If we google "occupation of", we find 6,430,000 results and, again, we notice that the results of this search in their overwhelming majority are about countries at the time of their existence. If this title is accepted then we could envisage misleading proposals such as 'Occupation of Greece (1453-1821)' simply because the Greek state identified at one point its borders to be that of the Byzantine empire. Or 'Occupation of England' by the Romans, when England did not even exist then. Or an article on Kosovo titled 'Occupation of Serbia (1999-2010)'... Of course an article on 1912-1913 might be useful, but surely an objective title can be found. Politis (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well argued. Articles for Slovenia, Slavonia and Vojvodina can all be moved to Occupation of Austria-Hungary!!!! Much of contemporary Europe is itself an Occupation of Nazi Germany. Humour never ends! Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument is flawed. An occupation is an invasion from foreign armies, as simple as that. Nazi Germany of course occupied most of Europe. So did the Balkanic countries with Albania in 1913. And it is an objective title: what would not be objective is to give the article a descriptive, neutral sounding, but deeply flawed title such as Albania during the Balkanic Wars: Albania existed and was being invaded: the article speaks exclusively about the occupation of Albania from "friendly" neighboring armies. I'll tell you more: it's already a favor that the Albanian editors are doing to the neighboring editors that they are not renaming the article into Albania under Greece and Serbia, because if we have to be consistent with other articles that's exactly what the article should be called. Actually, if this move really goes through, that will be exactly the new title that I will have to ask in order to be consistent with other similar articles. --Sulmues 23:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument not flawed. If you'd been a Nazi sympathiser, you'll have believed that Europe today is occupied by anti-Nazi regimes; this region that in 1912 Greek and Serbian kingdoms were struggling for was not Albania in the eyes of anybody except those that made the unilateral declaration. Res ipsa loquitor. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Evlekis: Greece and Serbia had governments who knew fully well what they were doing. Albania's first cabinet started to function on December 4 1912.--Sulmues 00:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it didn't, but that was a de facto entity that clearly had limited status in that it was involved in a struggle against two other countries that had defined their own territories as including the same lands. Serbia was independent from 1878 and Greece from circa 1830 so they too had fully functioning cabinets. I will also remind you that Transdniestr has a cabinet but it is still widely recognised as lying within Moldova. If the Moldovan forces can build up enough strength and courage to retake the zone, I am every bit certain that the Slavic population of Transdniestr as well as its government will feel cheated but it will never be accepted from outside it that the move amounts to an occupation, or that the territory is a country called Transdniestr. Evlekis (Евлекис) 05:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE. Albania was occupied and the date of worldwide independence should make no difference. The fact is that the territory occupied DID BECOME Albania in the eyes of the world soon after, so it was legally Albania once it was declared. The same of Kosova even though it took nearly 100 years for Kosova to be recognized. All the neutral and reliable sources on Kosova (like Noel Malcolm, Tim Judah, Anscombe) all show that Kosova was always under Serb occupation and was never legally incorporated into Serbia. I admit Kosova is not part of Albania today but it is a good example of a perfectly legal country that is independent and run by it's own people, exactly was Albania was in 1912 when it included Kosova. So it was certainly occupied by Greeks and Serbs. Prince of Kosova (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is interesting and you obviously feel strongly about it, but the logic behind it is not compatible with Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you can think about the repercussion of what you wrote? Politis (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't his logic compatible with Misplaced Pages? --Sulmues 23:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely because it is opinionated and controversial and based on fantasy not reality; he wishes to give Albania a premature birth by his own admission and he considers three certified Serbophobiac sources as reliable, needless to mention his references to Kosova. Here is an example of his "logic". Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please respect this process and do not bring unrelated edits: I am asking Politis why he thinks that Prince of Kosova's argument is not compatible in Misplaced Pages, I'd rather hear Politis himself, not you. As far as Albania's birth is related, the date is November 28 1912: that was no premature birth, it was actually a tardy one, as it was the last of the Balkans. Calling Albania's birth "premature" shows way more lack of equilibrium on your side than what I see in Prince's edits.--Sulmues 00:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat that, irrespective of when the declaration of independence occurred, there were no finalized borders and no recognized government. The Greeks and Serbs occupied Ottoman territory, not Albanian (in the sense of belonging to an Albanian state), and they fought Ottoman troops to get there. The point is, the present title gives retroactive validation to the borders that were established after the fact of military occupation. More importantly, as Alexis and others pointed out, these declarations represent nationalistic aspirations and can not be taken for a source: else we could start articles on the ongoing "Greek occupation of Yanina" (since that too was claimed for the new Albanian state), or the "Turkish occupation of Constantinople", the "European occupation of Aotearoa", etc. The argument using the declaration as the source of legitimacy is simply fallacious, even if it seems perfectly natural to an Albanian (thank national education for that). The same would have been the case if the Greek War of Independence had failed: the declaration of independence would have been consigned to the dustbin. Whether we like it or not, until recognized by an international conference, such declarations are of little legal consequence. Constantine ✍ 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And again I'll have to use the USA example: No recognition, no borders fixed on July 4, 1776. Just a declaration. Recognition came 7 years later for the Americans, still 1776 is the magic number. Recognition and borders fixing don't matter, what matters is the will of a people and it's been a century since president Wilson doctrines that history is written in a certain way. Ottoman troops were still in Albania and they were actually being fought by the Albanians as well in that time: the Ottomans were still denying the Albanians their independence. Yanina was a mix city in 1912 and it would be controversial to claim it an occupation, but Kosovo was occupied by Serbian troops and that's how modern historiography views it. We are here disputing a title and the argument that is being brought by the Greco-Serbian side is simply claiming that only an international recognition might baptize the birth of a country. This is simply not true and there are plenty of examples in history where that is not the case. It's the de facto situation that matters. Again I am opposing the move into Albania during the Balkan Wars but I wouldn't oppose the move into Albania under Greece and Serbia. It's just that through the arguments that you Greeks and the Serbs bring here, simply deny the existence of Albania the country, while this country existed.--Sulmues 05:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

All right Sulmues, what then happens when two or more countries lay claim to the same territory at the same time? Greece and Serbia had both defined the territory as righfully theirs long before 1912, that is why they never went to war with each other; each respected the other party's integrity and had arrived at the agreement betweem themselves as natural allies. Even (FY)ROM authorities never claim to have been occupied despite working on a state since the 1860s and pushing for all kinds of recongition from that time until 1991 when they emerged with the Yugoslav section only. The existence of an Albanian state is not denied by Greeks and Serbs but by everyone of the time, it was a unilateral venture. The U.S in turn has not claimed that it has been occupied unless I am mistaken. And apart from it not being the de facto situation that matters, but de jure, I cannot see that there was anything more than a nominal Albanian government since if the region had such a strong Greek/Serbian presence, just who exactly will have been more powerful de facto? Were Bulgarians/Serbs of Skopje using Albanian money and attending schools with Albanian as first language? Skopje was within Kosovo and that was declared by the Provincial Government so how much de facto power did Albania even have? Evlekis (Евлекис) 06:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

One more thing to Sulmues, by using the term "birth", perhaps I phrased myself incorrectly. Sorry. I meant the state's inception in the eyes of the outside world; yes an Albanian state would come into existence and yes that region endured a Greek/Serb government presence. Prince's argument was that we should all accept a retrospective occupation, that is what I meant by premature. Many entities arose from the wreckage of the crumbling Ottoman Empire, some lasted, some melted away themselves; take the Republic of Tamrash as an example; take also the first modern independent Bulgaria that was never to be, that what included much of the Macedonia region and areas in Greek Thrace including Aegean sea access. The Porte itself recognised this but international involvement created a major setback by carving out a tiny section of the entire region and giving Bulgaria a mere autonomous entity within the Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria has not regained some of these lands to this very day. Everything that happened in 19th/20th century Ottoman Empire pertained to Turkish influence that was now dwindling alongside the rise of nationalism among the multi-ethnic populations that lay within; new ideas of irredenism and plans to redraw old borders. So Prince's remark and reference to "did become" are somewhat premature for the time in question, I didn't mean the actual birth of an Albanian state. His remarks on Kosovo also reflected insensitivity. Remember, when Serbia, Montenegro and Romania gained independence in 1878, they become the 27th-29th states of the world. The U.N alone has 192 members since 2006. Kosovo today is recognised by 71 states so its status is gradually arriving at what it is to become, unlike a century ago when a state went from unrecognised to recognised in one fell swoop; first the Treaty, then the outcome, signed, sealed, delivered. Evlekis (Евлекис) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This topic is only about who likes Albanians, and who don't! Ok we understand you don't like our Albania, we had a state far before 1912, please read Skanderbeg and League of Lezhë --Vinie007 08:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that is sadly how you seem to interpret this. Being defensive-minded is one thing, believing that everyone else is out to get you is paranoid and contravenes AGF. For heaven's sake, read the arguments, and substitute "Albania" with "Greece" or "Bulgaria" or "China" or anything else... You wouldn't disagree then. Of course Albania existed as a geographical/ethnic region, no one in their right minds disputes that. The question is about the term "occupation" and the specific connotations it conveys. And since the Albanian provisional government never even controlled the territories in question before they were occupied, there was no occupation of the Albanian state territory. There was occupation of Albania in a geographic sense, but that is not the issue. And I really don't see how the proposed title is "misleading" either. Constantine ✍ 09:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Sulmues. Beserks (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support: We must not use terms like Occupation or massacre etc especially if they are not backed by serious material.Villick (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support: I believe that Alexikoua is right and that Albania during the Balkan Wars would be a more suitable title.Pavlos1988 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE I think this page should be given a chance. We should allow the authors to finish the page and then declare if we want to change anything about it. The page is clearly on a beginning phase.-Anna Comnena (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Current standing: Support 10-8 Oppose (unless Strong Oppose scores higher). Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Off course it's not about votes but about arguments (all votes are equal).Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: All the "oppose" votes are from Albanian editors, who are here voting as a single national block. No need to comment on the quality of the arguments from said national block. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment:All the support votes except for one are either from Greek or Serb editors. Btw Athenean it would be prudent if you didn't make comments that can easily be considered npa violations.--— ZjarriRrethues —  19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Albania articles
• High-importance Albania articles
• WikiProject Albania articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class Greek articles
• Low-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece history articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• Start-Class Serbia articles
• Unknown-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• Requested moves