This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sulmues (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 12 February 2010 (→Biased editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:06, 12 February 2010 by Sulmues (talk | contribs) (→Biased editing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff).svg){kind=small} | Europe Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | History Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Inpartial vocabulary.
Several times the authors use incorrect or imprecise wording upon description of events. Exchanged wording suggesting a biased and emotional side in the representation of the facts which disturbs the obligatory impartial tone of professional historical narrative ("smashed" s state, "smashed" an army was replaced with more meaningful wording. Metaphors and hyperbolas thoug appropriate for belletristic literature have no place in academic expression)
This article is too long.
This article is too long. Are there any objections to the following breakup?brikena ages section could be merged with another. --Jiang
I did some changes to the section of Ethnic Origin. In one place the citation was missing and I've removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albjuve (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would rather most of the information remained in the article. I am wikifing it a bit. After I do that I will try and trim it down as much as I can. I am especially interested in keeping the early history (Illyrians). Perhaps in this article we could have a bit of each section and then make new articles that contain all the info. What's the guideline for the length of an article? Dori 14:42, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- See History of Germany. No information should get lost. There is only a few sentences in each section, and if the reader is interested, he/she can switch directly to the article covering the time period in full by clicking the link. -- Cordyph 14:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- No, don't remove any information. Trimming it down is a bad idea. There's some text from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/altoc.html that I'm also adding in. This page could contain a general overview. See also http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3235.htm#history --Jiang
- OK, I guess I misunderstood. I don't have any problems at all with sectioning it. Thank you for doing so. Dori 23:09, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Okay, the subarticles are done. Now we just have to edit the main page. --Jiang
external links
About the external links. The first one is a collection of materials which also contains material in English. The second one is a thorough histiry, but it ends with the year 1912. Andres 12:56, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I just figured they were interesting and pertinent links. I can't really vouch for all the info in there as to being accurate or complete. --Dori 13:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, they are good sources. What concerns me is that their characterizations should be more accurate, but I am not sure about how they should be formulated. I think for the first one it is not right to say that it is a comprehensive history. And it is important to know that it also contains material in English. If you just say it's in Albanian most people won't look at it. And the second one is comprehensive except for the recent history, I think it's important to mentuin this. I hoped to find information about the original name of the National Liberation Front but there wasn't any. Andres 14:00, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. When I looked at it, they seemed to contain just info in Albanian, and there was lots of it, so I just called it comprehensive :) You can change the wording if you want, I realize they're not completely comprehensive. --Dori 14:06, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Origins of Albanians
These section is highly delusive. The claims such as Albanians surviving from Antiquity to modern times or the intactness of their language are nothing more than utter ignorance.
Firstly, the last mention of Illyrians, and these were Romanized Illyrians that lived in Roman empire for more than 300 years, are made in 4th c. AD. The first mention of Albanians is in 11th and than in 12th c. The gap between these two dates is at least 600 years wide and in these 600 years no one mentions any “Albanians” surviving. Not to mention that it would be logical if Albanoi tribe survived to continue calling themselves Albanoi and not to change their name to Shquip…
Secondly, Albanian language has SOME traces of pre-Roman substrates, although it is very much disputed weather this is closer to Thracian or to Illyrian (and this is because there are no remains of Illyrian or Thracian language longer than a few words – which tells us about radical Romanization and Helenization processes mentioned above!). But these remains are found also in other Balkan languages such as Bulgarian or Serbian. The language was therefore very much altered, one would say even beyond recognition. One of the facts that tells us vivdly about it is that ancient Illyrians were skilled sailors yet almost all the words about sea and seafaring in Albanian language are of Roman, Greek or Slavic origin. That much on intactness.
I’m not saying that Albanian language and Albanians have no connections with Illyrians (and for that matter with Dardanians and Thracians), they do, but these are very scarce. It is a Balkan mythomania to have roots in Antiquity, therefore Bulgarians are Thracians, Romanians Dacians, Macedonians are descendants of Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great and Albanians of Illyrians. Yeah, right! In that way Anatolians may claim that they are Galatians and Moroccans – Carthaginians! Bollocks. This is a historical logic from dark ages: just rename modern day inhabitants with the name of the ancient people that dwelled there and – voila! History is a bit complicated than that, even in encyclopedias, and therefore someone should use far less certain claims on such shaky subjects such as origins of peoples! --Dultz 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
well said!
Emperor Justinian
Born in Illyricum---was the town he was born in (near Skopje, in what was at least for a time the Roman province of Macedonia) incorporated in the province of Macedonia or Illyricum? I lean towards Macedonia, but I'm not sure. Anyway, there is absolutely no indication that he spoke Albanian--historical sources say his family spoke Latin. Alexander 007 07:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Justinian's was born in a Northern province of the Byzantine Empire, his mother language was Greek, and he considered himself a Roman citizen. He was not an Illyrian but even if he was, there's no scientific link between Albanians and Illyrians, it's all a hypothesis, hence it's ridiculous to assume that he might have spoken "Albanian". As for Constantine the Great, no comments... I would advise Albanian nationalists to restrict their national myths to the Albanian wikipedia. Miskin 17:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
People like you would make Arnold Schwarzenegger Greek.--Sulmues 19:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)
- Emperor Constantine and Justinian were born in Nis, which is above the Greek border in the Jireček Line, actually I assume they were Thracians and Illyrian mixture since they were from Dardania. Both were native Latin speakers and Justinian was especially known for his terrible skills in Greek, have you read historical mentions on him? Nobody says they spoke Albanian as there was no such thing then, but it is safe to say they spoke the closest thing then since Albanian is said to be a "Daco-Moesian" language( No surprise as the Albanoi tribe was very like part of the dardani). The link between Albs and Illyrian is more then just a hypothesis. Considering the fact that it overshadows everything else, including the Thrakian theory. According to a neutral position, Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians since no other theory has more ground. Plus, learn not to advise. You do not have any power on this encyclopedia, as you are just another member here. -- Tpilkati 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
During the Byzantine period the lands north of Macedon had already been colonised by Greeks and Romans, and as part of the Eastern Roman Empire the region was Hellenised'. What the hell does it matter that he was born in a land that was once the Roman province of Illyricum and today is in Serbia?? I was born in Turkey, does that make me a Turk? I can guarantee you that it does not. If seriously you want to examine the ethnic origin of Constantine the Great, all you have to do is refer to the respective wiki-aricles. Let's see what they have to say. Every person has a mother and a father (that's not in the article, it's me saying it). Who was the father of Constantine the Great:
- Father: Gaius Flavius Valerius Constantius who was of Greek descent.
- Mother: Flavia Iulia Helena who was born on the Gulf of Nicomedia.
You have certainly one Greek and most likely (considering the Hellenisation of the East) two Greek parents, so how on earth did you dream that Constantine was Thraco-Illyrian (let alone "Albanian")?? Yet, despite those facts, I would never say that Constantine the Great was a Greek, because we're talking about different historical periods where nationalities have different meanings, and that makes Constantine the Great nothing more than a Roman.
On the language of Constantine, I mean besides the fact that he had two Greek parents and hailed from the Hellenised Eastern Empire, the man had a vision with a cross and the inscription "ΕΝ ΤΟΥΤΟ ΝΙΚΑ" (On This you shall win), so delusional could he be if he wasn't a native speaker of Greek?
And as for Justinian, he was a nephew of Justin I, how can you dream that he was anything but Roman? And as for his language, in the introduction of his constitution 'Novellae' (which was written in Greek - Νεαρές) he states "We didn't write the law in our paternal language, but in our common language of Greece, so that everyone will be familiar with its context" (ου τη πατρίω φωνή τον νόμον συνεγράψαμεν, αλλά ταύτη δη τη κοινή και Ελλάδι, ώστε άπασιν αυτόν, είναι γνώριμον δια το πρόχειρον της ερμηνείας). Basically there was no Eastern Roman Emperor whose first language had not been Greek. Imagine that since the time of Julius Caesar, even Western Emperors were fluent with Attic Greek and would occasionally use it for their literary works or as even as a vernacular language (as William Shakespeare informs us), let alone in the Byzantine Empire where Latin was practically dead. In that respect, I continue to advise you to stop insulting historical figures in favour of your personal national myths. As for the connection between Albanians and Illyrians, just read the article on the Origin of Albanians, it's all there. It's nothing but a hypothesis. Miskin 20:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I was just dragging you. I never said they were "Albanian", but the area in question was a latin influenced area, of which was inhabited by the Dardani. Nis, where he was born, was one of those areas. You said Greek was his mother language.
According to DIR on Roman Emperors, here
"3 On Justin, see Procopius, Anekdota, 6. On Justiniana Prima, see Procopius, De aedificiis, 4.15-28. Justinian's native language was Latin, which he calls his ancestral tongue in Nov. 13 (535 AD) and probably he was of Romanized Illyrian stock. For the hypothesis, now discarded, that he was of Slavic origin, see Carmelo Capizzi, Giustiniano I tra politica e reliogione (Messina, 1994), 25-26."
Tpilkati 06:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes I still insist on that. Latin was not Justinian's nor any other Eastern Roman Emperor's first language, Latin was hardly spoken at the time and place. He probably was and he equally probably wasn't. So what are you trying to prove now, Illyrian genes in Justinian? Do you think that this will somehow allow you to include him in Albanian history? I really don't think so. Miskin 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Im not placing him in Albanian history. It just makes mention that these guys were Emperors of Illyrian origins. If you can find their origins, come and bring some and info, otherwise dont waste people's time. You never bring a drop of evidence to back your claim all you bring is words. Justinian is also considered one of the last Roman Emperors of Byzantium by the west due to the fact that he was a latin speaker during an era where the Byzantine Empire still used latin as the first language. Now dont waste my time....
Here is another quote from that site Justin's family came from an area of the empire where Latin rather than Greek was spoken: Justin himself was a native of the town of Bederiana near Nish and his sister's son, Justinian, was born at the village of Tauresium, near Scupi, ca. 482
Another; Flavius Anicius Julianus Justinianus was born about 483 at Tauresium (Taor) in Illyricum (near Uskup)
There's no other explanation, you must delusional. Didn't I just give you the entire family tree of Constantine the Great? As for Justinian, I showed you that he had Imperial blood on his mother's side and from his father it's unknown. Drop of evidence? I was quoting the respective wikipedia articles Einstein, have a look for yourself. I'll make it easier for you, it's right here -> Constantine the Great. Now take another look at the map in the article Origin of Albanians. It shows that prior to the Slavic migrations those areas were hellenised. I don't care what that site says, I've already quoted what Justinian himself wrote, and if you don't believe it, go look in the original text. Justinian is called the last Roman Emperor because he was the last person who reunited the West and the East and include the city of Rome into the empire. It has nothing to do with him being a Latin speaker, and Latin was never a first language in Byzantium, it was the official one, there's a huge difference. Of course his rule was entirely from Constantinople, which makes him a Byzantine Emperor, don't try to teach me my own history. Constantine the Great was a Roman emperor, he had Greek origin but that's irrelevant. Justinian was simply a Byzantine or if you like also a Roman Emperor, and that's the bottom line. In fact you can believe anything you want, hell, you can even believe that Aristotle was an Albanian, I couldn't care less. Just make sure you keep it between your family and friends and not include it in any articles. You're the one who's wasting your own time and mine. Miskin 22:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
You may not care but its not up to you, DIR is a well known site on Roman Emperors and according to sources it siates Justinian was most likely of Illyrian decent(prior theory was slavic) and came from a latinized family. His writing? Lol, care to bring me the original source? Until then, it stays according to NPOV as every encyclopedia that mentions his origins says he was of Illyrian origin or born in the province of Illyricum, to a latin speaking family above the Jireček Line. So either get the original source or just end it cuz your not doing anything. The article never says anything about him being "Albanian" it says he was of Illyrian origin. Which is sourced above. In fact, read Procopius. He explains Justinians Greek skills really good... Also where did you get the idea his father was Greek? According to Catholic Encyclopedia;
He was born at Naissus, now Nisch in Servia , the son of a Roman officer, Constantius, who later became Roman Emperor, and St. Helena, a woman of humble extraction but remarkable character and unusual ability.
In fact his father came from the Roman province of Moesia. Tpilkati 23:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that the extra information provided in the wikipedia articles is wrong? Hence the editors of those articles were stupid enough to not include your sources? Intersting... But POV. I did bring you the original source and quoted the Greek text above, it's not my fault that you're not paying attention. Anyway, just because I'm a nice guy, the translated title is 'Novellae'. Look it up. As for insisting on Constantine, you're just making a fool out of yourself, his father Constantius was a well known Roman Emperor of Greek origin, and his mother was at least born at Greek city of Asia Minor. In any case, there's no remote connection to Illyria except his birth (which means nothing since with know about his parents). Miskin
Of course he was, yet Constantine is not in question here, but anyway, according to who? Ill get the accounts of Procopius to finally show it to. Im sure they are around online. As for now, have fun digesting yet another source that states he was a latin speaker;
"Most historians consider the reign of Justinian (527-565) as marking a significant break with the Roman past''. This is difficult to support—Justinian not only considered himself the emperor of all of Rome ,including the territories occupied by the Goths, but also spoke Latin as hisprimary language."
Proving your ignorance on the topic is really quite fun...
Another interesting quote from a book on Justinian;
Page 32; He could not even speak Greek, but had to mumble away in Latin while his interpreter-an Italian, I' suppose-turned his words into ones we could understand.' Once translated, those words seemed friendly enough. ..."
Tpilkati 02:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
You almost make me laugh. You don't have a clue on Byzantine history and you cite as "evidence" some random information from unreliable online searches. To say that Justinian had a diglossy between Latin and Greek with Latin as his first language is something unsupported, but yet an opinion. To say that Justinian "could not even speak Greek" is plain ignorance. You keep repeating Procopius, a name you randomly encountered during your online searches, and pretend you know who he is and what he wrote. Procopius was an Atticist, he imitated the literary styles of Thucydides and Herodotus, and he used an archaic literary language. You see at the time of Justinian, Classic Latin and Greek were only used in literature and not in oral. In that respect, Procopius criticism would be in the literary skills of Justinian i.e. his knowledge on Ancient Greek. Justinian wrote in a popular form of Medieval Greek, which means that he knew the language as a native speaker, not as a scho-----------------------------------------------------------lar who took it up in a university. His Latin texts were in Classic literary Latin, meaning a non-native language. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that he was not familiar with Vulgar Latin as well, but it's just something we cannot prove. The evidence shows us that like all Byzantine Emperors, he was a native speaker of Greek who used Classical Latin for his official state affairs. By the way I don't understand how you get the nerve to brag. You have already admitted that you were wrong about Constantine, which makes you at least 50% wrong overall. Now you're also exposed for ignorance on your claims on Justinian and you're almost proven entirely wrong. Imperfect education is worse than ignorance. Miskin 15:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
First, get it through your head that there are no claims on Justinian, simply mention. Second, his family was a latin speaking family and I ask you to get any biography that mentions otherwise. And yes, we all all aware of Constantius being born in Illyricum. Yes he is well known to have Greek origins. Keep guessing. Constantine was half-Greek on his mothers side. Read every bio available on Constantius, they will all say the samething. Born in Illyricum...... In fact, check the wiki article on Constantius as did the entire House of Constantine... Your ability to simply try and refute sources but force your view through in impressive, especially considering that rarely do you bring any sources to back it up. You must have a chip on your shoulder against Albanians or something, but thats not my problem. What esactly makes those sources useless? Can you find potical motication in any of them? As for your last sentence, touche! Tpilkati 19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
They were indirect and unsupported claims on Justinian and Constantine. What Justinian's family spoke is irrelevant, the question is what did people speak in the part of the empire that he lived, that's what we call 'first language'. As for Constantius, how hard to understand that being from Roman Illyricum does NOT mean Illyrian? First of all the Roman provinces did not follow the borders of their ancient regions, Macedonia for example included Epirus, Thessaly, part of Thrace and Illyria. Secondly great the lands close to Constantinople and mainland Greece were already colonised by Greco-Romans and had been culturally Hellenised. The wiki-article on Constantius actually back up my position, you just didn't read it closely. Constantius was of Greek origin. Historia Augusta reports him being son of Eutropius and Claudia, daughter of Crispus. Crispus was reportedly a brother to Roman Emperors Claudius II and Quintillus. However, historians suspect this connection to be a genealogical fabrication created by his son Constantine, thus connecting his family to two rather highly regarded predecessors. He's Greek on his father's side and supposedly partly Roman on his mother's. The "fabrication" refers to his Roman heritage from his mother not the Greek one from his father. Chances are that he was fully Greek as well. Open your eyes and read the article, Constantine the Great has no remote connection to Illyrians. Miskin 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
People in Roman Illyricum could only mean Illyrian or Roman due to the fact that most was shrunk down and parts of the south were given to other provinces. Roman Illyricum was actually smaller than the old province. Ofcourse its a fabrication, but where is there evidence of his fathers Greek origins? Nearly all sources point to Illyrian origin....Myabe you really need to open your eyes. Tpilkati 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Ha, that's something you'd really like to be true wouldn't you? Too bad it has no historical basis, Dardania and Illyria are not the same thing. If Eutropius was not a Greek, then why would Constantius be recorded as a Roman Emperor of Greek origin (since his mother was supposedly Roman)? That doesn't make any sense. Besides the name 'Eutropius' is not exactly the typical Illyrian or Dardanian name, nor a name like Alexander of international use. Just deal with it, you were wrong. Miskin
What would I like to be true? Dardania was a mix Thracian and Illyrian, however it was a latinized land and mostly seen as an Illyrian subsect. Where exactly is he recorded as a Greek emperor? Can you bring me the exact sources? Illyrian Emperors are recognized as those born in Illyria. Tpilkati 03:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Islamization of Albanians
Here are some interesting quotes from an encyclopedia article:
“Even more important than forceful resettlement and ethnic migration was the Islamization of certain population groups, mainly in Bosnia, Albania, the Rhodope massif, and Crete. The period of Islamization was not the same everywhere. In Bosnia, the process developed predominantly in the period 1463–1600, while in Albania and on Crete the critical years were in the second half of the seventeenth century. In 1468 in Bosnia less than one percent of the population was Muslim; by about 1600 71 percent had been converted.
“In Albania, it is clear that the state was interested and directly involved in conversion. This happened especially during the second part of the seventeenth century when the Ottomans tried, through conversion, to suppress the Venetian reconquest of parts of Albania and Greece and to create a Muslim shield from northern Albania to Bosnia in order to halt possible Habsburg intrusions. The Ottoman archival data show how the central and local administration extended gifts in kind, objects, and money to the converts—certainly an incentive to conversion. Chronicles by Ibrahim Peçevi (d. 1649) and travel accounts by Evliya Çelebi (d. after 1683) preserved reports of sporadic violence, especially in the big cities, which would end with the conversion of individuals or groups of people.”
“In addition to converts proper, there were communities of pseudoconverts or half-converts who kept their previous beliefs and customs, while adopting some Islamic ones. Many such communities were still alive in the mountains of northern Albania at the end of the nineteenth century.”
“The Ottomans allowed non-Muslim communities to regulate their own internal religious affairs. What the Ottoman state was interested in were the taxes these communities were obliged to pay to the state treasury. The paying of these taxes was regulated in the form of long-term and short-term tax farms, and non-Muslim religious leaders were considered, from the point of view of the Ottoman administration, as tax farmers of the state revenues. A newly appointed Christian or Jewish religious leader was expected to pay an investiture fee for the diploma he was issued by the imperial council and to render yearly taxes to the state treasury in the name of the community. On the other hand, as a member of the ruling Ottoman military class, he could ride a horse, carry weapons publicly, and have personal armored guards, and he was also entitled to collect taxes from his flock for his own needs and those of his office.
The Ottoman authorities assisted these leaders in tax collecting. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the patriarch of Istanbul, for instance, asked the Imperial Council to assign him a number of Ottoman soldiers to help him while he was touring his dioceses in order to collect taxes. When the Serbian Patriarch Arsenije III Carnojevic was on his pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1680s, he was accompanied by a guard of four hundred mounted warriors.
The Greek Orthodox patriarchate continued its work immediately after the conquest of Constantinople. In 1557 the Serbian patriarchate, abolished in 1459 after the conquest of the despotate of Serbia, was reestablished. The first Serbian patriarch after its reestablishment was Makarije Sokolovic, a close cousin or, according to some reports, brother of the future grand vizier Sokollu Mehmed Pasha (d. 1579), and the reestablishment of this institution would not have been possible were it not for Mehmed Pasha's intercession.
Tensions between lay and religious leaders of non-Muslim communities were especially noticeable among Greeks and Serbs. The conflicts between local church boards, led by lay notables, and patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops took place daily. These conflicts were mostly over the control of the revenues of the church and church taxes, and how they were assessed.”
SOURCE:
FILIPOVIC, NENAD. "Balkans." Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World. Ed. Jonathan Dewald. Vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004. 191-201. 6 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. 28 December 2004
Also, an essay by Antonina Zhelyazkova would be enlightening: http://www.omda.bg/imir/studies/alban_id18.html
this is an open site, add whatever you wish to add. There is nothing wrong with this. Tpilkati 19:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Miskin
Delating without disscusing it here first is not the right way to go... I basicly quoted Britannica, From the mid-3rd to the mid-4th century AD the reins of the empire were almost continuously in the hands of emperors of Illyrian origin: Gaius Decius, Claudius Gothicus, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian, and Constantine the Great.... This information are taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, so, they are legitimate (whether right or wrong about the origin) and so they can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy. Albanau 03:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, but if you have any knowledge of history you must know that the Illyrian Emperors were not called like that because they were Illyrian by origin but because they originated from the prefecture of Illyricum! Same as the Illyrian legions that played a crucial role in 3rd and 4th c. were not made of Illyrians but were stationed in Illyria! So even if we are discussing history of Illyrians in the article history of Albania, there is no point in emphasizing "illyrism" of emperors born in what is today hundreds of miles from Albania (Solin, Sremska Mitrovica, Niš etc.). The facts given on Illyrian emperors are not only distorted but are of no importance to the history of Albania. --Dultz 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The history of a country is not limited to the time of its political existence. Since, the prevailing theory is that Albanians are descendants of the Illyrian tribes I see nothing wrong with referring to Illyrian emperors. Whether, they were born 100 miles or 10,000 miles away from what is known today as Albania, they were still Illyrians. Until, the theory of Illyrian ancestry is dropped from the scientific circles it can still be used in this article. Evolution is one of the mostly attacked theories and you will find as many arguments and resources that try to defend it and to disprove it. Yet it is used in school textbooks. By the same logic, the Illyrian theories can be used in this article. Please do not engage into a debate by pointing to sources that disprove the Illyrian theories (remember the Evolution analogy). We are nothing more but amateurs and we should let the experts resolve the matters of ancestry that have nothing more but educational and sentimental values. The theory that Albanians are the descendents of the Illyrians should not be viewed as a challenge to the current borders or as a threat to the cultural heritage of the people of the Balkan Peninsula. Toni78 04:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Serbian Empire
Where is the history of the Serbian Empire??? It is missing, and this is is a very important period of Albanian history, since harsh centralization of the government was imported and there are many Orthodox cultural remains like three Episcopies and a whole city. Not to mension that after, when feudalism came, many Serbian noblemen ruled there. Why miss that part of history just because Albanians have a present quarrel with these Serbs??? HolyRomanEmperor 20:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Don't be so agressive. If you have information about that period we would be happy if you cover what is missing in the article. But don't forget to be neutral when you write. --Albanau 16:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not being agressive, really. But what I find strange is the fact that you are ignoring my posts to your talk page... HolyRomanEmperor 15:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Why are you so concerned with the serbs appearing in the History of Albania, when very little is known about the albanians when you go to the HIstory of Serbia? If serbians had the cradle of the civilization in Albanian land, wouldn't that mean that they were not that civilized before that? Wouldn't that also mean that Albanians were very important in the creation of the Serbian nation?--Sulmues 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
NPOV / tone etc. of final section
The last bit is basically a literature survey which makes POV recommendations and endorsements for reading - this should be put in a references section with the personal tone eradicated.
"The standard of living, partially due to a large influx of capital from illicit drug-connected activities, has been steadily increasing". I've removed this because it's ridiculous and unnecessary. It now just reads "The standard of living has been steadily increasing".
Nomination for NPOV
I agree with the NPOV nomination in the article.
Login didn't work
Albania and First World War section
I am adding the tags for unref. and PoV. It talks of King Zog coaxing Parliament and not issuing reforms. I know for a fact neither of these statements are true. If you have read as much about Zog's rise to power also this would be clear, as it stands it is pushing a PoV.--Couter-revolutionary 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- No its not pushing a POV at all. It may be inaccurate, and it may be unsourced, but that doesn't mean it is pushing a POV. Why not concentrate on improving the section yourself, if you know so much about the subject? --SandyDancer 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did, but my edits were deleted and the user said I wasn't allowed to make them, that's why. It is pushing a PoV when it constantly, and inaccuratly, criticises the Kingdom under Zog, why else would it do this? It has gone out of its way to be inaccurate = PoV. By removing the tag does this not show you have a PoV, perhaps.--Couter-revolutionary 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with having a POV. I don't actually have one here, you clearly do. You seem to be very interested in presenting this Zog character in an exceptionally good light. If you think something is inaccurate, discuss changes and/or edit relevant sections. Don't add the tag. The tag is for when there is a dispute and that isn't possible without an edit war. I am removing the tag again - you are misusing it. --SandyDancer 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- As I said I believe a change will result in an edit war, in fact there seems to be one over this tag. I tried to change the incorrect parts of the article and it was immediately reverted. I simply want this article to be fair, at the moment it is very anti-Zog, I shall not make it very Zogist simply neutral.--Couter-revolutionary 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with having a POV. I don't actually have one here, you clearly do. You seem to be very interested in presenting this Zog character in an exceptionally good light. If you think something is inaccurate, discuss changes and/or edit relevant sections. Don't add the tag. The tag is for when there is a dispute and that isn't possible without an edit war. I am removing the tag again - you are misusing it. --SandyDancer 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did, but my edits were deleted and the user said I wasn't allowed to make them, that's why. It is pushing a PoV when it constantly, and inaccuratly, criticises the Kingdom under Zog, why else would it do this? It has gone out of its way to be inaccurate = PoV. By removing the tag does this not show you have a PoV, perhaps.--Couter-revolutionary 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I would only like to observe that when the word "greeks" in mentioned, it would be more correct to be replaced by a "Hellas" derivant, especially when a tribe matter is being questioned. KdF
Biased editing
This article has been written by Greeks, Serbs and non-Albanians. It is interesting to note that the references to Greeks and Serbs in the history of Albania are more than abundant. What i can comprehend is why don't you guys try to expand the respective histories of these countries insted choosing to write non-sense about a country you have seen only through your nationalistic lenses. I had a thesis on Albania and to be honest i couldn't find a single decent information on this page. Lame!!! Instead of contributing something you write the usual BS. By the way Albanians never existed, they are mythical creatures.Be aware of that.
- You haven't seen the other articles about Albania yet. And you haven't seen the impersonating drones yet: users pretending to be Albanians and messing articles up. Also you haven't seen how selective banning works when things begin to resemble reality. There's one way out, though. Whatever departs from reality fails. Boycott wikipedia (or put some more lies in there, they'll fit in nicely and you'll notice that you'll even find them sourced after a while if they're told real good even if you just made them up. Follow the mob of dysfunctionals.)
- In the last month I have been the only Albanian editor writing and editing in the English Misplaced Pages project (if you know someone else who is working on it besides kedadi, please let me know), and I am in civility supervision and topic banned from Kosovo. Everything that I say can get me out of wikipedia because four or five people follow every move of mine to report me. I can get banned because of this very comment. The other Albanians have been already banned. Btw many editors don't even have to pretend to be Albanians to get their way: they get away with it because they work in tandem. If you are writing a thesis on Albania, you have to go to the French Misplaced Pages where things are more normal. The English project has too many problems. sulmues--Sulmues 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Map of Illyria
Someone should change the map, as it is unhistorical and inaccurate, giving the incorrect impression that the whole of Epirus and the island of Corfu belonged to Illyria, which they didn't, as they were in fact Greek. Obviously the creator of this map is a fan of the false theory of Pan-Illyrism. Here are some historically accurate maps of Illyria and Epirus, showing the actual bordering between them:
Good, the new map is accurate. Helladios 12:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This back and forth map reverting caught my attention, and started to read some of your comments in several user talk pages (too bad wikipedia has too be so dispersive and doesn't make it easy to follow a thread). I have to say I didn't like either of the images, as they didn't specify any sources in the first place, and completely agree with User:Macrakis' comments on them. Regarding this particular article, the lack of pictures is quite evident, and having only one about Illyria - a very poor one at that - didn't make much sense to me. I hope to come back with some relevant pictures for the other sections, and if we manage to find a "modern source pre-Roman Empire Illyrian tribes map" it would be great to have it linked to this site too, at that point. jonosphere 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- It will indeed be great to find a modern historically accurate map, please come back with one. Helladios 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Referencing
I cannot cross-reference all that is being said to the published material that is cited at the bottom of the page since I don't have access to most of those books, but I guess who has put them there has done it for a reason. I actually am somewhat ignorant on how the referencing should be really done. I did try to read the guidelines, but maybe a couple of links to a couple of well-referenced articles would be more helpful jonosphere 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
"Albëri" tumuli?
To the text Another population to the south is evidenced by an early tumulus culture, has been added and this is considered to represent the Albëri of the tenth and eleventh centuries, for whom the region of Arbëri (Gheg Albëni), north of Tirana between the Mat and Erzen rivers, is named. Is there any published connection of the tumuli and the "Albëri", for whom Misplaced Pages does not yet have a page? --Wetman 22:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Historical Revisionism
This whole article is false, there is absolutely no reference to back the claim that Albanians try to "albanianize" christians, and the comparison that Scanderbeg is a "hero like Robin Hood" is utterly ridicules. Robin Hood is a myth, and Scanderbeg (George Kastrioti) is a real person who fought against the Ottoman Empire, this paragraph must be deleted immediately. <<Behar Mehmeti>>
Lack of NPOV
After trying to find something out about Albania diring WW2 it's become obvious that large sections of this page are sickeningly POV and, in several cases anti-Albanian.
If I knew more about Albanian history I'd just rewrite the sections myself, however as I dont, I can't. -IkonicDeath —Preceding undated comment added 10:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
- I agree! This is absurd! Entire WWII Section must be rewritten! Albania was Nazi Puppet state. --Tadija (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)