This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I know this one is emotive - perhaps we can attribute some of these claims to specific groups? 2toise 17:28, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Sure, if you look at the image itself it says Albanian Diaspora which means it's only stating where Albanians live in a relatively high concentration. If you do a search in Google, you will see that most of the claims of a Greater Albania are made by Serbs, Macedonians, and Greeks, not Albanians. Have a look: [1][2] --Dori 17:34, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean, you're saying that the idea that some Albanians want to create a ga is an allegation made by Serbs, M and G? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2toise (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2003 (UTC)
No, I am sure there are Albanians that say that, but there are more non-Albanians making that claim. Like I said, at least this image is only saying where Albanians live. It doesn't even mention a Greater Albania, but it does mention Albanian Diaspora so the caption is misleading in my opinion. --Dori 17:40, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree, I moved the image from Kosovo War, and created this page to house it, mostly because I didn't think it was germaine to that page. I don't know where the image came from, and have no real "opinion about Greater Albania. Shall we just mention that it is probably a view espoused by very few Albanians? 2toise 17:43, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, it was uploaded by Igor, so I guess he could tell us. You can change the article however you wish so that in your opinion it is in NPOV, I presented my version and I added the disputed claim. --Dori 17:47, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm not really disputing you, I'm happy to work on the article, and would preffer to get to the stage where we can remove the dispute tag. What are you unhappy with?2toise 17:50, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, we know why Albanians might present this claim, but why do non-Albanians do so? I presented the reason that I could come up with, and you proceeded to delete it. I would consider that disputing my version. I would imagine non-Albanians would dispute my claims as well. If the argument is not presented at all, then I dispute the NPOV of the article. The map's name and caption are also misleading in my opinion. --Dori 17:54, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Appologies for deleting it, there was an edit conflict, and it must have gotten lost, I'll go and look for it - how does that read now?2toise 17:58, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The sentence "Although it is likely that only a relatively small number of people are committed to the idea, it is often presented by non-Albanian politicians as a threat to non-Albanians in situations where Albanian minorities seek greater minority rights (for example in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), or in Kosovo." doesn't make much sense to me. What do you mean by "threat"?
I would not remove the disputed claim until Igor and Nikola Smolenski have looked at it. --Dori 18:05, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm trying to say that the idea of GA is presented more by politicians from other ethnic groups as a way to make electorates fear Albanian political ambition, and so deny them rights, than by Albanians trying to create a ga - isn't that what you were saying?2toise 18:08, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
That is part of what I meant. I also meant that this claim is presented to change world opinion of Albanians and of their claims. As in (a hypothetical understanding), "The war in Kosovo was not to protect the human rights of the Albanians, but to acheive the goal of a GA. The Serb military was just protecting non-Albanian minorities from KLA terrorists aiming to achieve this goal, and NATO should not have gotten involved in internal matters." As it is, the sentence does not even clearly say what you just explained. The phrasing is awkard. --Dori 18:15, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I see where you're going, what do you think of the edit I just made? Otherwise, what about a section just describing the project in geographic terms, and then another called 'political uses of the idea of a Greater Albania' or something like that?2toise 18:21, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I tried another rewording. You cannot describe it in geographic terms and maintain a NPOV stance. Which areas would you include and who decided on them, for what reason? --Dori 18:29, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think we're almost there, I'm not talking about describing 'it', because it doesn't exist, but we could try to describe what some people claim it should be, which is kind of what the map does. Perhaps that's just asking for trouble though! ;) 2toise 18:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
How about that? Feel free to revert it if you like, 2toise 18:56, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Infrogmation (Talk) (if someone disputes it, it is disputed. If no one disputes it, it is not.)
;) Thank you Infrogmation, it was a joke, the whole discussion having focussed around alleged disputes. 2toise 19:33, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I suggest removing the dispute note unless anyone feels they still dispute it - I'll do it next week unless there is more heated debate. :)2toise 16:34, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Guys I just want you to note that there is an Albanian who supports the idea of Greater Albania.And that of course is Arben Dhaferi,the leader of DPA in Macedonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
On pre-WWI borders
The justification for the borders presented often includes reference to the situation prior to World War I, and the argument that these pre-war boundaries should be restored.
What pre-war borders are meant? Andres 07:43, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm not really aware of the details, only that I have seen the notion of a ga justified with reference to its historical borders. On a personal note, I am skeptical, and in any case, think that historical borders are a poor justification for current borders. [3] this site might be interesting if you wanted to research it.
To be honest, it seems to me that this whole page is not really so much about what ga is or might be, but about the politics of arguing about it.2toise 02:58, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think the passage, as it stands, is misleading. The borders assigned for the state of Albania in 1913 (see Geography of Albania) was felt unjust by Albanians since one third of Albanians in the area of their more or less compact settlement was excluded. So the "Greater Albania" only may mean what Albanians have desired, not has been. On the other side, for instance the Britannica of 1911 includes to Albania (not a state yet) much more than the present-day Albania. So it is reasonable to say that the state of Albania is a "cut" Albania.
Just delete the whole article its a complete farce, its just albanians dreaming of a different country its like saying oh there are lots of english people in scotland why not take it over and call it greater england. Litrally the same and considering the history of the region albania should be even smaller than it is now.
I don't know how to re-word this passage. - Andres 16:46, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Invalid/Irrelevant Map
The map showing the Greater Albania is really misleading and without sources. Off course the '?' sign is far from reallity. In Albania the last censuns conducted in the base of nationality was during communism (1988). Maybe most appropriate is to put an '?' in the entire Albania if we want to rely only in scientific material. There are sources that point out what the percentage of the Albanians in the '?' regions is, just look on published material about the 2001 census in Greece.
Every reliable research showed no Albanians today in the '?', or just small percentages (1-2%). [[4]].
If there are no opossing results, deleting the question tags will be a matter of days.Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"The term Greater Albania or Great Albania was coined by modern Serb politicians. Its equivalent in Albanian - Shqipëria e Madhe - is rarely used, usually in translations. The English term is more commonly used and it has been popularized by Serbian politicians."
This is completely NOT TRUE. It comes from decimonomic romanticism back to the days from independence from the ottomans.--88.3.225.189 05:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You find the term "Greater Albania" only in Serbian or pro-Serbian Webpages. Just google search. Albanians in former Yugoslav countries are nostalgic about Albanian all togetherness but the idea of Greater Albania has little appeal inside Albania.
You find the term Greater Albania on Serbian sites because that is the main threat to Serbia and thus the main topic of discussion, not because it was invented by Serbs. Correlation fore not equal causation. Jenga3 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
POV
Where do I start?
"The term Greater Albania or Great Albania was coined by modern Serb politicians."
Where is the evidence for this?
"The term implies a desire for territorial expansion, when in reality survival of Albania and Albanians has been threatened by Albania's neighbors."
Neutrality, anybody?
"The four Ottoman vilayets with Albanian majority in the late 19th century."
Sources confirming that parts of Greece and the former Yugoslavia had Albanian majorities?
"This is understandable however, even more so if you keep in mind that since 1912 Albanians have faced continuous racism, and have at times been murdered and/or forced to emigrate."
You can't be serious.--Theathenae 14:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
quotation one, to many Albanians the term Greater Albania is a pejorative term. And in reality there have never existed a Greater Albania. The term was used by Albanians opponents in the Balkans, and not by the Albanians.
quotation two, that text needs some arrangement.
quotation three, there were not parts of Greece and Yugoslavia didn't exist then. It was parts of Ottoman Empire that's why it is called Ottoman vilayets.
quotation four, yes Albanians were killed during the Balkan Wars and the wars between. --Albanau 17:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is not neutral at all and could have been written by an Albanian Independance politician. That the author tries to pass this off as an article for an encyclopedia is disgusting. I hope an admin will happily remove the article. - 86.133.33.83 21:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In answer to question four: Yes, but when I read my history books, I found that Albania was FREED during the Balkan Wars by Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.197 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
...said: ...in reality there have never existed a Greater Albania.
I suggest viewing Albanian history during World War II when it was led by King Benito Mussolini - isn't that a Greater Albania?
... said: to many Albanians the term Greater Albania is a pejorative term and The term was used by Albanians opponents in the Balkans, and not by the Albanians
Serbs and Croats proudly express their Greaterserbianism and Greatercroatism.
Theathenae's lack of neutraility makes it difficult to coperate with him. He needs to read books written by the mainstream schoolars insteed of changing and manufacturing false history to fit his agenda. Furthermore he needs to accept the simple fact that Arvanites are descendent of the mediaeval Albanian immigrants, and stop reading Greek propaganda books about the Arvanites and stop making up things.. Albanau 10:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what is Theathenae doing - but as I hear from User:Probert - you're the one who is permanently blocked on the Swedish wikipedia for expressing nationalistic tendencies - not him.
You wrote: Wrong. Greater Albania as state have never, not even during World War II.
Albanian armed forces like Vipurii executed 10,000 Serbs on Kosovo in extermination camps and forcibly removed over 100,000. They had done similiar things to Macedonians who didn't want to declare as Bulgarians and didn't want to cross the border of Albania-Bulgaria. A similiar thing was done to the Serbs of Skadar - today there are barely Serbs in Shkodra - or to the Greeks in Epirus. This is yet another reason why there are so little Romas and no Jews in Albania. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that these subjects are too fishy => but look at the Greater Serbia article - and then look at this one. Greater Serbia never existed - unlike Greater Albania, which did. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyway - that Albania included large portions of Yugoslavia and Greece - all forcibly conquered. And had a policy based on ethnic extermination and genocide. On what basis would you not call it "Greater Albania"? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Albanau said Serbs and Croats proudly express their Greaterserbianism and Greatercroatism.
This is generalizing - but if we ought to generalize - so do Albanians. Remember the meeting at Ulcinj which promised that Eastern Montenegro would again be (Greater) Albania? Or the fact that most of the Kosovar Albanians want to join Albania? Even on wikipedia we have that - like User:Getoar who put that Prishtina is a part of Albania. Surely you cannot claim such things, Albanau. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"Serbs and Croats proudly express their Greaterserbianism and Greatercroatism."
I agree with HolyRomanEmperor, this is genrealizing. I live in Serbia and have never heard of Greater Serbia being mentioned today, except as an old idea in history classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.197 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
While looking at proposed flags for Kosovo on an Albanian website, I saw an animated .gif starting with Albania as it is today, and then showing little pieces being shaved off of surrounding countries (Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece) and congealing to make a "Greater Albania". I wish I could find the link, since it would illustrate in an easy and appealing way that the idea of a GA carved from surrounding countries is relevant and appealing to at least some some Albanians. --JudgePenitent (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Rant by 68.41.187.247
--Albanian armed forces like Vipurii executed 10,000 Serbs on Kosovo in extermination camps and forcibly removed over 100,000. They had done similiar things to Macedonians who didn't want to declare as Bulgarians and didn't want to cross the border of Albania-Bulgaria. A similiar thing was done to the Serbs of Skadar - today there are barely Serbs in Shkodra - or to the Greeks in Epirus. This is yet another reason why there are so little Romas and no Jews in Albania.
First of all, I've never heard of such an organization call Vipurii. To be sure, I checked the index of Albania at War: 1939-1945. No mention of it there. And the senior German official in Kosovo during the war, Hermann Neubacher, estimated that 40,000 Serbs were expelled, mostly colonists from the the interwar years. I don't know what happened with Macedonians in Albania during the war, so I won't comment. And there were hardly any Serbs in Shkodra, period. The ones that lived there were probably from the small town of Vraka, a few miles away. Greeks in Epirus? Epirus was never part of Albania during the war.
Your comment on Roma and Jews are bizarre too, because like Serbs there have never been a lot of Jews in Albania, period. There were around 1,800 after in the country after the war, most of whom were from other countries. They left shortly after, and the ones that stayed fled to Israel after communism collapsed.
--I know that these subjects are too fishy => but look at the Greater Serbia article - and then look at this one. Greater Serbia never existed - unlike Greater Albania, which did.
Greater Serbia existed. During the Balkan Wars and World War I it conquered Kosovo and Macedonia, which was to be the begining of more territorial expansion.
--Anyway - that Albania included large portions of Yugoslavia and Greece - all forcibly conquered. And had a policy based on ethnic extermination and genocide. On what basis would you not call it "Greater Albania"?
What portions of Greece? Minorities obviously weren't treated that well, I admit. But it was no worse than Croatia or Bulgaria in its treatment of them.
--This is generalizing - but if we ought to generalize - so do Albanians. Remember the meeting at Ulcinj which promised that Eastern Montenegro would again be (Greater) Albania? Or the fact that most of the Kosovar Albanians want to join Albania? Even on wikipedia we have that - like User:Getoar who put that Prishtina is a part of Albania. Surely you cannot claim such things, Albanau.
I don't know of any meeting at Ulqin that promised Eastern Montenegro to Greater Albania. And in Julie Mertus' book Kosovo: How Myths and Truths Started a War, she includes a poll that shows that 55% do not want Kosovo to joing with Albania, and I'd be willing to bet that if anything the percentage has gotten higher. In any case, the UN said that if Kosovo were to be granted independence, it would not be allowed to join any other state. Plus, the Albanians in Macedonia has been silent since the war there ended and they got equal rights. The ones in Montenegro were waving the Montenegrin flag during the independence celebrations. And the Arvanites or whatever there called in Greece have been assimilated. As much as some nationalists in various countries would like for the idea to continue, it won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.187.247 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"Greater Serbia existed. During the Balkan Wars and World War I it conquered Kosovo and Macedonia, which was to be the begining of more territorial expansion."
Well, not quite. Greater Serbia, IMO, could have been used had Kosovo never been part of Serbia. But, since (before Ottomans conquered it) Kosovo was the original place of Serbia, before it expanded to the north, I think "reclaiming old territory" should be more appropriate. If you go by your logic, then at the time of the Balkan Wars, there have been a Greater Greece, or a Greater Bulgaria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.197 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Why Ioannina?
I've been looking at maps of Cameria and Greater Albania, and although I can understand the inclusion of Thesprotia (since it had a large number of Chams) I can't understand why they include the city of Ioannina ( or Jannina or Jannena) into it. maybe because a larger and developed city would look nice in their land ? There isn't a single trace of a historic presence of Chams or Albanians in that region, and, at any rate, the large majority of the population there is Greek. Of course there are a lot of Albanians living and working in the region, but almost all are immigrants from Albania after 1991. So, out of curiosity, I'd like a founded and lengthy explanation by Chams or generally Albanians that would sustain the argument that Ioannina is a historically and culturally Albanian city - not counting Albanians assimilated into the Turkish-Ottoman regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.161.135 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Search chameria and you will see the result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.46.82.213 (talk • contribs) 20:42, February 7, 2007
That's not even an answer. --Rschmertz 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of evidence - despite everything that Greeks have done, and they have done a pretty thorough job of erasing a huge part of Greece's Albanian heritage - that Janina was indeed Albanian. Athens itself was a small Albanian village before it became capital of Modern Greece. An extract from countriestudies.us follows. The first mention of "Albanians as such" is related to the despotate of Epirus, of which Janina was capital
The first historical mention of Albania and the Albanians as such appears in an account of the resistance by a Byzantine emperor, Alexius I Comnenus, to an offensive by the Vatican-backed Normans from southern Italy into the Albanian-populated lands in 1081.
The Serbs occupied parts of northern and eastern Albania toward the end of the twelfth century. In 1204, after Western crusaders sacked Constantinople, Venice won nominal control over Albania and the Epirus region of northern Greece and took possession of Durrës. A prince from the overthrown Byzantine ruling family, Michael Comnenus, made alliances with Albanian chiefs and drove the Venetians from lands that now make up southern Albania and northern Greece, and in 1204 he set up an independent principality, the Despotate of Epirus, with Janina (now Ioannina in northwest Greece) as its capital.
In the region of Thesprotia,where it was almost all the Chams in Greece,according to the 1928 census they were almost 20000 when the total population was 80000...They were minority even in their own region... Pavlos1988 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Search about Ali Pashë Tepelena and you will learn about the real history of Janina ;) --Jurgenalbanian (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Come on,please,stop this propaganda!Since when Ioannina was albanian city?The fact that Ali Pasha ruled the city doesn't make Ioannina albanian.Mohamet Ali ruled Egypt for a long era.Is Egypt albanian?If Ioannina was so albanian why the great Austrian albanologist Hahn,on his book Albanian studies,published in Jena (1858) wrote that his acommodation in Ioannina couldn't helped his studies cause Ioannina was (an is)a greek city and even the Muslims (except some albanian families) and the Jews spoke greek? Pavlos1988 (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I vote in favor of the merge. I don't know which is the better term, but Greater Albania seems to be the better article, and I'd lean towards that for the title as well, but I have no knowledge of this topic at all. --Rschmertz 22:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Rschmertz. Edrigu 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the two articles should not merge. With the use of the word "Greater" we are reffering to a bigger Albania without any special reason or showing no connection between Albania and the claimed territories. On the other hand, with the use of the word "Ethnic" -which according to "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary" means: "connected with or belonging to a nation, race or tribe that shares a cultural tradition"- we make those nasionalist demands seem more reasonable and patriotic. Therefore a common article would probably be misleading. E.Kostaras
I am in favour of the merge. In response to Kostaras' objections, the article would mention Ethnic Albania where appropriate, so it shoulnd't be a problem. Nikola 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"Political Uses of the Concept"
The following phrase is used here:
"On the other hand non-Albanian politicians and ethnic leaders have often used the idea to generate ethnic hatred and fear of Albanian political activities, and to justify policies that undermine political and human rights of Albanian minorities, for example in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia."
Stating this without giving any sources definitely seems POV. Could anyone give any evidence of these claims, or I will delete it. Trampoline Man 05:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Besides, in Kosovo, Serbians are the minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.128.197 (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The whole section is far from neutrality, and cites absolutely no sources. I will remove it.- TourbillonA ? 14:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Why no mention of groups like Albanian National Army
Why no mention of some of the ethnic albanian terrorist groups such as ASKH or the ones that operated in Presevo valley or rap acts such as Etno Engjujt who rap about greater albania? Sure there are some Serbs who might use such terms to create fear..but are you serious suggesting that NO Albanian has ever sugested creating a United States of Albania?
On doing a quick google search I found many Albanian sites or forums..surporting Greater Albania, or Kosovo/a joing Albania proper, or Presevo becoming part of Kosova/a or Greater Albania, or that map of Greater Albania.
I think this phonomenan must be given more significance in this article because at the moment it is rather a pov
Will merge the "Ethnic Albania" article this week, once I find a way to incorporate all the information (specifically region names) into "Greater Albania."
CapedCamish 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Robert Luke Camaj
The modern population of Epirus is 336.392 according to the official census carried out by the Greek state in 2001 (www.statistics.gr). How is it possible Southern Epirus to have 350.000 Chams back in the 1940s???Hansi667 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No citation given yet. I'm considering removing most of the paragraph. Any objections?
From a small research in the net I found some sources giving numgers from 20.000 to 30.000, mainly in, what is now the Greek prefecture of ThesprotiaHansi667 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the text should be changed from "Their number was estimated up to 350,000 people before the war", into "According to the 1928 census held by the Greek state there were 18600-19600 Cams (albanian speaking muslims) in Southern Epirus (Cameria). In the first post war census (1951) only 123 Cams were left in the area. The number of Cams in the 1928 census could be bigger, as Greece then, had a policy of reducing the population of the minorities due to reason of external affairs. Descendants of the exiled Cams claim 350000 Cams before WW2. But their allegation is possible to be groundless as this number approaches or even surpasses the total population of the area at that time." Hansi667 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The claims for 350.000 Albanian Chams in Chameria is absolutely ridiculous. The Chams lived in what is now Thesprotia Prefecture, Parga, an some villages in Ioannina(Janine). The TOTAL population of that area back in the 1940's was much more smaller than 350000 people. Even in the page about Chameria, the number mentioned is 40000 [35000 fled to Albania and 5000 were killed]. There is also a citation for that claim. I' ll change the paragraph, in the following days, if there are no objections. Hansi667 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone changed a part of the article again. Some notes on the matter.
1.The albanian speaking christian orthodox people of epirus/chameria (self called arvanites) have a greek national consciousness today, as far as i know.
2.Why have you changed the sentence "But their allegation is possible to be groundless as this number approaches or even surpasses the total population of the area at that time."? You can't count them as Chams.
The total population of Chameria (thesprotia prefecture, part of preveza prefecture and a small part of arta prefecture - not the whole epires region of greece) is about 100000 people today. I' ll try to find a pre-war census.
PS. I've made the previous change. I just forgot to sign in. Hansi667 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thesprotia's pre war population was about 80000 people...Chams were 20000 in 1928 and about 23-25000 in 1940. Pavlos1988 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
About: "The equivalent phrase in Albanian - "Shqipëria e Madhe" - is rarely used, usually only in translations[citation needed]."
There is no need for a reference here because this is a cult in the spoken Albanian language. I don't even know how this can be referenced. Albanians favor "Ethnic Albanian" instead of "Shqipëria e Madhe" which in turn means "Great Albania". I think it is necessary to point this out as the article name is "Great(er) Albania" but I sincerely don't know how this can be referenced. It's just spoken language, any Albanian can confirm you this. Besides, it's still the same concept, it's just a matter of expression. I think requiring a citation in this case is irrelevant because the true meaning stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardhylius (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
please see WP:CITE. Controversial or political issues MUST be referenced--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
How am I supposed to reference a colloquial term with the same meaning to that of the article itself? Am I supposed to start a survey in the streets? I have no idea how this could be referenced and because the true meaning doesn't change, I see no reason for a needed citation in this case. However, because our views are very different on this matter, I ask the opinion of another neutral user. If the dispute is not resolved within 5 days (until November 19), I will remove the need for citation as it would indicate an invalid ground for them. Bardhylius 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
there should be a reference saying that Shqipëria e Madhe is rarely used. Any removal of cn tag could be considered vandalism. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If there should be a reference for that, then a reference for every word in every Wiki article should be needed too. My offer stands. Bardhylius 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If the word in every Wiki article you say is a part of a controversial political concept, yes, it should be referenced--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that it changes something? Or that it gives the article or the meaning itself a different form? It is the exact same, it's speaking language and it can not be referenced. You're like "the world is round", put a [citation needed] there. You can't just go on and ask for reference in every two sentences. This is speaking language and doesn't change the meaning. Bardhylius (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw you used some wikipedia articles as sources. That's not a good thing as those articles were lacking sources TOO about this issue. Second I saw The violation and the terror exerted on the Albanian population of Cameria by the criminal bands of the Greek theocratic chauvinism led by the notorious greek general Napoleon Zerva, forced the cameria Albanians to flee from their ancient lands and to find refuge in the Republic of Albania. and that showed me a specific POV from you and that sentence seemed very unprofessional with such inflammatory words such as "chauvinism", "criminal bands". Please refrain from putting such things in. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
OK since the mentioned articles lack references, I will leave the needed citations in this one too. But as soon as they are confirmed in those respective articles, I will remove the needed citations. (Please note that the majority of the users who edited those two articles are Greek so there is little chance of propaganda and/or bias.) Second, it wasn't my POV. It was a quote from "illyrians.net". I'm saddened by your hasty review of the edits, I believe if you had given it a better look you would have seen it was taken from an article of the Chameria leaders itself and not from my own perspective. Bardhylius 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Second, I don't think your source "illyrians.net" is verifiable! I saw it is full of allegations and baseless propaganda. If you want to include it, please note in the sentence "Illyrians.net claims that..." so we know by that way it's not an established fact among world historians, scholars etc..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That included Kosovo. Kosovo's inclusion into that Albanian entity resulted which resulted in a serious persecution of non-Albanians (mostly Serbs) by Albanian fascists. Most of the war crimes were did by the Skenderbeg SS Division. [1][2]
1. You dare call my sources "baseless propaganda" and yet you post your own undocumented, clearly propagandic and claim these atrocities? http://www.kosovo.net and http://www.rastko.org.yu are websites created for the sole purpose of twisting the truth in the eyes of the world. We can see this from their lack of sources in anything they claim.
well, rastko is a reliable source. I added two more, the magazine of the Serbian Orthodox Church and Glas Javnosti, also reliable. Thank you for taking the issue up, I now found more info. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How are these reliable sources when they are filled with Serbian-Orthodox flags, emblems and contain only articles which are against Albanians, accusing them of atrocities? I think we're dealing here with an obvious problem of neutrality. These pages are propaganda machine of the Serbian nationalists who still believe Nachartanya is alive and kicking. Please try to find non-Serbian articles that back these stories. Otherwise it's a clear sign of non-neutrality. All your sources are Serbian. Please note that
so what, every nation has its emblems, take the example of your user page. "Načertanije" has nothing to do with this discussion, you cannot even prove it is praised in those webpages. The fact that it's all in Serbian shows that no-one has been writing about that yet. That's no POV. However, I found an article by a guy named George Thompson (plus Jared Israel), writing about the issue. That's one english source: http://globalresistance.com/analysis/revenge.htm --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "so what"? If you take sources from articles that are written by Serbian nationalists and have nationalistic content all over the page, you can't be taken seriously. I can find opposite claims to yours from Albanian nationalist webpages but those aren't reliable and thus it's not right. You always show a nationalistic Serbian POV in all your references. For the last time, take neutral sources only! As for your English article, look at the references he put in his article. You will find "Dr. Smilja Avramov, Genocide in Yugoslavia", "Dr. Dusan Batakovic, The Kosovo Chronicles (1992); Avramov, supra.", Dr. Slavenko Terzic, Kosovo, Serbian Issue and the Greater Albania Project.", etc. You did not offer any English article. You offered a passing bridge to the same Serbian nationalistic source, the propaganda. Bardhylius (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Above all, please note that Nazi Germany created SS-divisions in every occupied country (see list). SS Skanderbeg was one of them and attributing them explicitly the entire crimes of the Nazi Germany in Balkans, whether be it against Serbs or anyone else, is extremely vague and harsh. Albania, and the Albanian people managed to save the most Jews during the war, the highest percentage all across Europe! (See this). SS Skanderbeg was just a group of around 9,000 soldiers who were forced to follow Riech's orders.
yes 3 Jews lived in Albania and by case all 3 survived! We're talking here about Kosovo, "Chameria" and other territories wished to be Albanian. Kosovo minorities (incl. Jews) were being persecuted (see link above) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That is by far the most ignorant sentence I've seen in Wikipedia since my time here. That's not only disrespectful to Albanians, it's also to Jews. Let me show you, true facts, from the Jews themselves who wouldn't lie about this. See here. According to the article, printed by The Jewish Daily Bulletin, New York - In Albania in the early 1930s there were around 200 Jews living there. After the end of the World War II, there were close to 2,000! Jews living in Albania. Thus, Albania is the only country who can claim that every Jew was saved from the Holocaust. As per your lack of knowledge, Kosovo was part of Albania, so the same goes for it. Bardhylius (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Why is this important at all? This article is not about violence, oppression or killings. This article is about the ethnicity of Albanians in certain parts of Balkans, and those parts are claimed by Albanian nationalists as "Ethnic Albania" or "Great Albania". This not an article of war. None of what you introduced was present until know because obviously everyone got the point. Why didn't you?
This article is not about violence, oppression or killings. What about Zerva's alleged crimes, then? See please WP:NPOV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes but read it again. Between the First World War and Second World War, the Greek paramilitary of Zerva, backed by the Greek government, forcing ethnic Albanians to leave their homes, and seek refuge in Albania or Turkey. Even though the sentence contains "force", we're still not sure what kind of force was used so the sentence is mainly concerned with the migration (movement) of the ethnic Albanians, demographical changes, exactly what the article is about. This is here to prove that those areas contained ethnic Albanians, but those Albanians are not present there anymore because they've been forced to leave. It doesn't concern with the atrocities or forms of enforcement caused by Zerva's paramilitary because that doesn't comply with the article's essence. That's why, your "genocide" claims are firstly not documented, and second in the inappropriate place. Bardhylius 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Fix your grammar. a) It's not "...war crimes were did by..", it can be: "...war crimes were done by...", b) "Kosovo's inclusion into that Albanian entity resulted which resulted in a serious persecution..." - What?.
thanks for the grammar advice. I will fix it :) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Please don't give this article an inflammatory nature. This article is about the ethnicity of Albanians and they're migrations either by will or force from different part of Albania. We are to view this in the demographical sense, and not in a militaristic sense.
Well, the demographical sense was evident in the Kosovo persecutions, as it clearly made the Albanian demographic percentage go up and Serbian down. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Persecutions based on what? See, we return back to the start. Bardhylius 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Please try to document your claims. This is not the first time you add highly propagandic, out of order, texts which seem to dwell on the inflammatory (see above, 4) sense and the will to spark extremism in the article. Bardhylius 10:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. 4 refs now present. See no 1 and 2. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't remove sourced text. As the sources said, there was a "greater Albania" and it's creation led to those deaths. Anyway, no additional info on that is needed here, the rest goes to Persecution of Serbs in World War II. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't recognise these as illegible/valid sources. You avoid my questions (question 1 to be exact) and until you make your point and prove these claims, nothing is being changed. Anything else can only lead to an edit war which I'm sure nobody likes. As for "Persecutions of Serbs during WW2", you can keep that propaganda article, filled with the exact propaganda that springs from the sources you have brought here. I'm ready to answer to any of them and prove them wrong, simply because they're false.
While we're at this, let's review this one: Mustafa Kruja, the then-Prime Minister of Albania, was in Kosovo in June 1942, and at a meeting with the Albanian leaders of Kosovo, he said: "We should endeavor to ensure that the Serb population of Kosovo be – the area be cleansed of them and all Serbs who had been living there for centuries should be termed colonialists and sent to concentration camps in Albania. The Serb settlers should be killed."
He wants the cleansing to happen and during that very speech he says "...Serbs who had been living there for centuries..." among the lines? How naively was this forgery propaganda executed in this case. Have a good day. -- Bardhylius (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That matters the article Persecutions of Serbs during WW2. Talking about that here could be considered trolling --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That was one example to expose your propaganda machine in the eyes of the administrators. Bardhylius (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please dont remove sourced text. This is fact that during second world war SS Skenderbeg division was fascist unit and that was very active in extermination of Serbs. --Medule (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
..and that the crimes were a direct consequence for a "Greater Albania". It should be pointed out what happens and what could happen again when "Greater Albania" is being created.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on what? I already proved your sources to be fake and unreliable. What else are you going to base this on? Plus, this is not an article of genocide, this is an article of mainly demographical sense of the Albanian ethnicity and its development through the years. You're supposed to write what's important for that, not what's important for the Serbs. So first you make fake claims then you post them in the wrong article. Well done. Bardhylius (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The name of this whole section is misleading. no-one alleged genocide here. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I am bemused by your intellectual capacities. What's the difference between extermination that you claim and genocide? Not much after looking up at these two I guess, huh? Bardhylius (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Quoting Medule with whom you seem to share the same point of view: Please dont remove sourced text. This is fact that during second world war SS Skenderbeg division was fascist unit and that was very active in extermination of Serbs. --Medule (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
When I said you, I meant you Serbs, as apparently you are both Serbian and have the same opinion about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardhylius (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Protection
This page has been protected until the edit waring stops. Bring your discussions here or seek dispute resolution. If you need my help, I will do my best. JodyBRoll, Tide, Roll 14:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I have unprotected the page and will watchlist it. JodyBtalk 19:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
exonyms
I don't see the reason to have Albanian exonyms here. It can create POV problems and imply those areas are naturally and by right Albanian, since they have a (artificial) Albanian name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The standard that I've seen resulting after such discussions in other articles of similar irredentist type is: [[Linked Official Name]]/"Linked or unlinked exonym in quotation marks (depending if there is a specific article by that name)". For example, I would use: Southern Epirus/"Çamëria". I hope that helps. --NikoSilver 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I support that --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You didn't change anything at all except for style but I'll accept it. Have to remove the quotes though, they make it ugly. Bardhylius (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Proper sourcing needed
The article is in desperate need of immediate sourcing with reliable sources. In particular, the section on population estimates needs fixing. As you know, Wikipedia requires verification and material that is not sourced cannot remain. Please include your sources as inline citations for ease of verification. JodyBtalk 13:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Map & other
The map lacks Albanian-populated settlements in eastern Montenegro.
What specific parts do you think are prone to POV? Bardhylius (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Connection between Illyrians and Albanians
I know it's disputed but at the same time it is also proved that Albanians are descendants to some of the Illyrian tribes, not all. In the area where Albania is today situated, Illyrian tribes have had very common culture and language with that of today's Albanians. There are numerous facts to prove this and since this is the standard opinion, those users who wish to change it should provide facts to oppose this claim.
And yes, it is important for the article (the Epirus part) because it tends to clarify that Albanians didn't move/migrate, they had lived in those areas since the ancient times because they are descendants to those particular Illyrian tribes. Bardhylius (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so you "know it's disputed" but at the same time "it is also proved"? How can that be? If it's disputed it's unacceptable, period. Just about every word in that sentence you re-introduced is disputed. "Epirus has been inhabited by Illyrians (to whom Albanians are descendants) since the ancient times." — (Southern) Epirus inhabited by Illyrians? The view that the ancient local tribes were (predominantly) Greek is at least as strong in the literature, I'd say much stronger. And: "...has been inhabited..."? No, at most it was inhabited by Illyrians. They lived there 2000 years ago, if at all. Your sentence implies that they, the same Illyrians, are still there. Which presupposes the correctness of the Illyrian-Albanian hypothesis.
Plus, the whole presence of the sentence implies a political POV-pushing message: that the supposed historical presence of Illyrians could somehow be relevant to the justification of present-day claims to the area. Typical nationalist ideology, insiduously injected into the article by means of insinuation.
Totally unacceptable, in short. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Saying Albanians are descendants to Illyrians is DISPUTED. Saying Albanians are descendants to SOME Illyrian tribes if not all, IS NOT disputed. Read better. Are you questioning their settlements in the Epirus region in the ancient times? You're confusing. "has been" because Albanians and Illyrians (the particular tribes that lived in Epirus) are the same people, but at different epochs they were called with different names. Newsflash!
It is not POV, however you're right to doubt, it's logical. This historical fact has been mentioned because the article is predominated by demographical information which is the essence of the nationalistic claims in the first place. Being such, one should offer information of the movement of the population as well as their positioning in certain areas.
If you can prove that there is no connection between any Illyrian tribe with that of today's Albanians, then you'll be right to remove the sentence. Until then, go learn history. Bardhylius (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I uphold everything I said before. Nothing of what you said will change this fact: the hypothesis that today's Albanians are direct descendents of ancient inhabitants of Epirus is disputable (1) as to its truth, and (2) as to its relevance. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I am disappointed to see your ignorance decline the quality of the articles in Wikipedia.
1. Again, the fact that Albanians are descendants to Illyrians in the collective sense is disputed. However, the fact that Albanians are descendants to some Illyrian tribes, most of which are Taulantias, Dardanet, Glauket, Moloset etc. is not disputed at the slightest and only a person of shallow knowledge about basic history of Balkans can claim the opposite.
2. It is relevant because the article deals with the demographic aspect of the population in its essence. You have to know who lived where and where did they go, how did the population migrate and under what circumstances. These are the core of irredentist views and are thus RELEVANT! Bardhylius (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Constructive suggestion: Instead of the hopelessly speculative, unsourced nationalist claim about ancient Illyrians, how about exchanging that for something more realistic and probably sourcable, namely a statement about the Albanian population in modern (pre-19th/20th century) times? I'd do it myself, but I have no references here to show how strong it actually was.
But the claim about the Illyrians goes out, period. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Administrators like you only destroy Wikipedia. Sometimes they make me feel ashamed I put on time and work to improve the general knowledge in here. In fact, it makes me quit contributing here. You are totally abusing your position. First, you imply your total ignorance to a commonly and greatly known historical fact (at the same time showing you know absolutely nothing about Balkans) and second, you reported a three-revert rule case when you know very well that the previous disputes have been resolved through discussions and not edit wars - one which you and 3rdAlcove started altogether.
Since I believe in the true, open knowledge, I'm going to take time and stay here to enlighten you more on basic facts that a common 3rd grader knows.
“
The Illyrian king, Bardyllis turned Illyria into a formidable local power in the 4th century BC. The main cities of the Illyrian kingdom were Lissus (today it is located in Lezha, Albania) and Epidamnus (also known as Dyrrhacion, Dyrrhachium, today located in Durrës, Albania). In 359 BC, King Perdiccas III of Macedonia was killed by attacking Illyrians.
But in 358 BC, Macedonia's Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great, defeated the Illyrians and assumed control of their territory as far as Lake Ohrid. Alexander himself routed the forces of the Illyrian chieftain Cleitus in 335 BC, and Illyrian tribal leaders and soldiers accompanied Alexander on his conquest of Persia.
After Alexander's death in 323 BC, independent Illyrian kingdoms again arose. In 312 BC, King Glaukias seized Epidamnus. By the end of the 3rd century BC, an Illyrian kingdom based near what is now the Albanian city of Shkodër (ancient Scodra) controlled parts of northern Albania, Montenegro, and Herzegovina. Under Queen Teuta, Illyrians attacked Roman merchant vessels plying the Adriatic Sea and gave Rome an excuse to invade the Balkans.
In the Illyrian Wars of 229 BC and 219 BC, Rome overran the Illyrian settlements in the Neretva river valley and suppressed the piracy that had made the Adriatic unsafe. In 180 BC the Dalmatians declared themselves independent of the Illyrian king Gentius, who kept his capital at Scodra. The Romans defeated Gentius, the last king of Illyria, at Scodra in 168 BC and captured him, bringing him to Rome in 165 BC. Four client-republics were set up, which were in fact ruled by Rome. Later, the region was directly governed by Rome and organized as a province. In the ancient world, the capital of Illyria was Scoder, which is the the present day city of Shkodra in Northern Albania.
”
This is from the Illyria article. This is basically all it says about it and it doesn't take more than a simple scan to see names of cities and kings/rulers that Albania has inherited in the modern age. Serbs haven't, Greek haven't either, so who are the descendants of Illyrians? Or maybe they disappeared, an alien spaceship abducted them, then Albanians grew out of grass? Considering your recent posts I wouldn't be surprised you believed in this.
I encourage you to stop abusing your position as an administrator and start facing the truth. I know you know it, you're just acting blind. You're assumptions are clearly prejudiced by my claims in the personal page, but what we're talking here is all sourced. I said it in the beginning, Albanians are descendants to SOME Illyrian tribes and this concludes it.
I also want to make use of the moment to send a shout-out to all Albanians contributors sleeping there, doing nothing, instead of coming here and defending their history. They are a complete disgrace. One can't call himself a true Wikipedian if he doesn't interfere in defending his nation's basic principles of history.
In the end, your position as an administrator should be reviewed as your attitude is a danger for the pursuit of true and open knowledge which is what all Wikipedia is about. Bardhylius (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Minor add
I suggest the following minor edit . i welcome any constructive thought
The current process in the Balkan is in fact nothing but the maturation and consolidation of the Albanian nation with their own identity and choices between post modern European and traditional values.
Perhaps what we are to see happen in the Balkans in the first decade of the 21st century is nothing but this maturation and consolidation of the Albanian national, cultural and civil identity, as well as the difficult personal, family and social choice between tradition and postmodern European values Antonina Zhelyazkova Albanian identities 1999. International center for minority study and intercultural relations.Sofia .BULGARIA [6] Dodona --Burra (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't work without context. You can't take a reference that says "perhaps...what we are to see" (a tentative prediction about the future) and turn that into "...is in fact nothing but..." (a definite claim about the present). Moreover, the claim makes no sense taken out of content. What processes is the author even talking about? What does "this" in "this maturation" refer to? You can't just rip isolated sentences out of their context like this. And where in the article do you think would this sentence fit? Fut.Perf.☼ 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Albanian are majority in Epirus
Could you give any real source to contradict this , if you see the ethnic map 1861 you will understand that in south Epirus there are Albanian orthodox Greek speaking, please is not your position to keep clearly favorable positions and more I do not like the term "Great Albania" there is not as such but only one and real Albania.
Reference: Maps of ethnic Albania produced by émigré groups are generally based on Ottoman administrative boundaries from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, viz. the vilayets of Scutari, Kosova, Monastir and Ioanina. Source : Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 145.
Reference:It can be argued with some confidence that Greece in the nineteenth century enjoyed a considerable degree of homogeneity since, until the end of that century, populations living in Greece but speaking different languages, such as Albanians, were fully assimilated into the Greek culture and political system and did not exhibit any separate national identity. The annexation of the northern territories, however, at the beginning of the twentieth century proved to be more complicated. Source: Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 151.
Reference: Northward expansion of the independent Greek state established in 1830 focused on historic Macedonia, the Greek claim to which encompassed not only the whole of Epirus but also much of what is now Albania Source : .Day, Alan. Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe.London, , GBR: Europa Publications, Limited, 2002. p 190.
Reference: Nationalism became the guiding principle of policy after the successful outcome of the Balkan Wars. In addition to Venizelos? diplomaticinsight, 36 a wide programme of institutional reforms was undertaken with the dual purpose to modernise Old Greece and to homogenise the very diverse new provinces. Source : Teichova, Alice(Editor). Economic Change and the National Question in Twentieth-Century Europe. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2000. p 207.Dodona --Burra (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ethnic map of the Balkan Peninsula from 1861, by G. Lejean
There are no reliable data about ethnicity in to day Greece, you can not tell if the majority in South Epirus is Greek![7]Dodona --Burra (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
They -the ones on your maps-left for Turkey in the population exchange in the past century(1923) with other muslims as well.There are Greeks in Epirus not albanians.Even arvanites consider themselves Greek all over Greece.Megistias (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Give me a source showing that all south- Epiriotes were send to Turkey and the” Greeks” came in exchange , you must know that most of Epirotes were Orthodox by religion,they are ethnically Albanian but Greek speaking. Dodona--Burra (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Epirus and Chameria is not the same thing , “Chameria” is only a part of south Epirus.Dodona --Burra (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You are talking about Greeks and 148 years later even if Lejean map was correct and its not the "bible".Even arvanites consider themselves Greeks.I dont have to prove anything and up to now you havent disproved any greek position.Megistias (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Give source for your claims, the source that i just gave tells that in Greece there are Not reliable data for ethnicity, what they call themselves is another thing because I do not know that either. Dodona--Burra (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You even lied on your linked source.You are not even able to discuss.Megistias (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologias for the insult Dodona--Burra (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Lejean doesnt take religion and ethnicity and language into account and baptizes a mix of populations as Turks for example when they were simply werent.That is what is called a questionable source and what Lejean is in this aspect.Megistias (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And in her map that is a questionable source she calls Grecs-Roumains-Zinzares-Sqipetars as Greko-Latins.Your source on CIA factbook was a lie since it didnt support your claim.Dont mislead.Megistias (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologias for the insult Dodona--Burra (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is that in Greece there are not data for ethnicity I did not say nothing else but it is understandable “Population:Greek 93%, other (foreign citizens) 7% (2001 census) note: percents represent citizenship, since Greece does not collect data on ethnicity”Dodona --Burra (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
CIA on GreeceNothing on south Epirus or Chameria.Or that it is inhabited by Albanians .It also is not a specialised source on Greek epirus or demographics since they take 2 lines in their pages.Megistias (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You must apologias to me first for you indecent method you use in conversation. I am sorry but you logic it makes not sense, the south Epirus is in Greece and the source is for all Greece. Dodona --Burra (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There are no ethnic divisions in Greece and your source doesnt support your albanians in epirus claim.Its appropriate for a generic article on demographics.Megistias (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
In the same "logic" that you follow i could claim that Greece in inhabited by escimoes at the moment.There is no ethnic division thus only citizenship is needed.Megistias (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion for change is “except south-Epirus where not reliable ethnicity data are currently available” and it is very fair, as fare you can see.P.s I know very well who are the inhabitants of Greece.Dodona --Burra (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The Greek Government states there are no ethnic divisions in Greece so you cant put it.2005Megistias (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What you mean , there are not minorities in Greece!? That is the point there are not data avaiable for ethnic divisions , if you are orthodox and you speak Greek then you are Greek. Dodona--Burra (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Here you go.Ethnic map of the Balkan Peninsula from 1877, by A.Synvet.No Albanians.Megistias (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What you mean no Albanians,i thought we had a deal , the other maps you indicate is a religion map, you still have no source to indicate that there are not ethnic Albanians in south Epirus. Dodona --Burra (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to mention Epiriot- Muslim -Chams genocide to indicate that there are not Albanian left you are wrong, because there are left those who were Albanian Orthodox and those who were obligated to convert as such. See the source for the policy of homogenization which was undertaken. Still the Albanian language can not be learn in Greek school, we are no nationalist we want only justice. Epirotic music once in Albanian now can be heard only in Greek, but the ethnography and the anthropology is vivid , testimony of their existence.Dodona --Burra (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but what kind of sentences is that(but not in Epirus, where even in the part that lies inside Albania there is a sizeable Greek minority) what is this double menning "sizeable" , i mean you have converted this articul in Greater Greece and Greek nationalistic propaganda .Dodona --Burra (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of some HIGHLY outdated map from 1860, I propose using this one [[8]], from the highly respected and reliable French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique. The source is modern, secondary, and verifiable, thereby fully meeting WP:RS. Oh and Albanians are definitely NOT the majority in Epirus. That's just nationalist nonsense, of the kind we don't need in wikipedia. --Tsourkpk (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent.Megistias (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that the map is of course copyrighted. Someone will have to redraw it (but they can use the information there as a source.) Fut.Perf.☼ 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We don’t need pseudo -greek nationalism either, just give ethnicity sources ok and stop proclaiming staff. dodona--Burra (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Its French.Who and what are you talking about Burra.Megistias (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
give source for ethnicity of Epirus region, the map you indicate is base on religion, Greek orthodox = Greek still is like that .Dodona--Burra (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Read wiki rules.Megistias (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The map presents ethnicity, not religion. It doesn't say "Greek Orthodox" anywhere. You are imagining things and reading things that aren't there. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"No Albanian minority in Greek Epirus"?
Megistias, this [9] repeated edit of yours is pretty ridiculous. The fact that this map doesn't mention Albanians in that area doesn't equate with an explicit assertion that such a group doesn't exist; even less does it justify stating such a denial as an undisputed fact. Other sources do mention such groups, of course. Start out with the GHM report quoted on the Arvanites page (quoting Banfi, an eminent Balkanologist). I will check the Trudgill/Schreier chapter in the Ammon (ed) Sociolinguistics handbook; unfortunately the relevant pages aren't online on Google books. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Even Arvanites or to better put it Greeks with any degree Arvanite ancestry all around Greece as you know do not consider themselves Albanian.If you are talking about those populations?Megistias (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
They are apparently described as Albanians in the literature, specifically those in Epirus as opposed to those in southern Greece. It doesn't really matter how strongly they are assimilated these days. You are, by the way, engaging in pretty blatant tendentious editing now. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What they declare is what matters and its about now not the Ottoman era.123 chams were left in Epirus.Is that your minority?Megistias (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
collaboration
How can a sourced fact be a POV statement? Was there no WW2?Megistias (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The way you included it it sounded as if it could serve to ethically justify this act of ethnic cleansing. These issues are extraneous to this page, they can be fully discussed at Cham Albanians or wherever else. By the way, I personally find your apparent stance morally despicable to the highest degree. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about.The planned statehood is a fact.The fact that they were attacked after they collaborated with Nazi forces and not before proves just my point.They were not in any danger before the nazi's.Megistias (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So because some individuals of that ethnic group collaborated with the Nazis, it was OK to get rid of the entire ethnic group? The fact that you choose to defend war crimes is pitiful. BalkanFever 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Collaborating with the Nazis is also a war crime. And just like not all Chams collaborated with the Nazis, not all Greeks participated in or approved of the cleansing of the Chams. This was WW2, after all, and a lot of savagery was committed all around. In any case, regardless of the the circumstances, the fact remains that no Muslim Chams remain in Epirus today, and that the Orthodox Christian Chams are largely assimilated. This map here [[10]], from the same source, also shows that the number of people who identify as Albanian in Epirus is miniscule. How this came to be and how justified it is is irrelevant to this article and should be discussed in the article on Cham Albanians. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But the reason this irredentism exists is because there were Çam Albanians in Southern Epirus. Whatever the reality is, this article must describe (not justify or discredit) the irredentist concept, and the concept is based on the minority. BalkanFever 03:44, 6
February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point and I agree with you on it, but it should also state the demographic status quo (again, without passing a value judgement on the irredentist concept). --Tsourkpk (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. The section on Southern Epirus already does all these things. Based on your map above (and other sources I've read), the phrase only immigrant Albanians should be replaced with something along the lines of only a very small remnant of the original Albanian populations, along with recent immigrants. They may be few, perhaps extremely few, but their presence is still historically significant in the context of this article. Fut.Perf.☼ 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
What i wrote never justified any kind of cleansing it just shows what the events were that lead to deaths and expulsion.I certainly did not "The fact that you choose to defend war crimes is pitiful" this thing.If their goal was to cleanse completely them they would not have been expelled and it would have happened prior to Nazi involvement.It happened after these events.Megistias (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It gave them an excuse - which only means that they thought things through. They are still war criminals. It's like if Spain were to expel the Basques on the basis that they are terrorists. BalkanFever 10:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the war criminals had the opportunity and the attack was mainly on civil population. The main atrocities were in women, children and old people the scenario looks as ethnic cleansing similar to those made in Kosovo and elsewhere. The fact that they were collaborative of Germans is out of the issue. Many died after the expelled from shortage of food and water and exhaustion .Other Epiriot Chams orthodox and some Muslim who appeared latter as orthodox remained in south Epirus but Albanian ethnic character was repressed and the language spoken only inside the family, they continue however to have a strong ethnography customs, music and character very well preserved, I must say more preserved then in Albania itself, I have seen myself this folkloric gatherings. Still the atrocity is not condemned and this community not only is given any excuse or compensation but is not allowed still to return home and the property never return--Dodona (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As usual, you don't provide a single source for your claims. Such baseless Greek-baiting qualifies as hate speech in my book. I find your constant baiting and trolling despicable. You really have a problem with Greeks don't you? And then you have the nerve to talk about "collaboration". One can only guess what your definition of "collaboration" entails. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If you could see here i have provided many references, anyway i am sorry for what you just said, in fact is quite the opossite , but if you are not inform for the issue read this: Miranda Vickers, The Cham Issue - Albanian National & Property Claims in Greece, the collaboration start when the war crimes are condemned--Dodona (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Reference says and this: Cham communities have managed to preserve their dialect, traditions and folk songs, in Greece itself those Orthodox Chams, now numbering around 40,000, who were allowed to remain in Greece, have suffered from assimilation and the public suppression of their Albanian heritage and language. As a result, Albanian is only spoken privately in home--Dodona (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Reference again here says : By classifying the coastal Chams as "Turks" rather than Albanians, Greek historians have been able to justify the earlier confiscation of Cham-owned land, much of which was given to Greek refugees from Turkey during the population exchanges in 1923.6 Following their expulsion from Greece, most of the poorer Chams went to Albania, whilst the wealthier ones went to America and Turkey. Nevertheless, today the Chams are amongst the richest and most successful entrepreneurs in contemporary Albania.--Dodona (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Reference and here says :For those Chams living close to the Greek border it is especially frustrating being technically so close but politically so far from their ancient homeland. There are roughly 14,000 Chams or their descendants living in the southern Albanian town of Saranda and the villages north of the Albanian-Greek border. Many originally came from the Epirot coastal town of Sivota and the surrounding region, and none has ever been allowed a visa to go back to see their properties or the graves of their families.--Dodona (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In June around ten thousand Chams marched to the Greek border at Qafa e Bota to mark the anniversary of the massacre of Cham civilians which occurred on 27 June 1944 in the Epiriot town of Paramithia. The event gained wide publicity within Albania and even the Greek media ventured up to the wilderness of this remote border crossing. Although the Chams commemorate this event every year, this protest was by far the biggest political action taken by the Chams in the 62 years since they were driven from Greece. It was the first time in as many years that so many Cham people, of all ages and social classes, came together from every district of Albania. These were not “extremists” but ordinary people, taxi drivers, lawyers, shopkeepers, who regard themselves as Greek (and Albanian) citizens and wished to let the world know their desire for “a peaceful return to their homeland and to the graves of their forefathers”.--Dodona ([[User
talk:Dodona|talk]]) 20:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with your earlier, highly offensive, and baseless claims of genocide and pre-meditated ethnic cleansing. You are completely changing the subject. I have no doubt that the Chams want their properties back. How could they not? But you should be aware that accusing other people of genocide and pre-meditated ethnic cleansing is a very serious charge and is very offensive to others, and could even get you in trouble. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but you are not reading my posts and also my references, what I am proposing next has nothing to do with how homogenize are the Greek, my opinion is that they are not although.Anyway if you need to read more about the Cham Albanians issue you probably should, a civil population of Muslim religion (in that case) has nothing to do with the context of WW2 if they were collaborative of Germans or not.What I want to point out is that they are peaceful people and they want to return home, else I think that you are the next hand of s.b else here --Dodona (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In 1944 al-Husseini approved of a plan that had been presented to him by the Albanian Nazi-muslim leader Bedri Pajani that would have created a pan muslim state for Albania that was to include Kosovo, western Macedonia ,southern Montenegro ,portions of Bosnia and the Rashka region of Serbia.While the Nazi's retreated and were unable to complete this goal this idea has been resurrected today.Ref;The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini -page 81,by Chuck Morse,2003,ISBN0595289444.Megistias (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Totally irrelevant, i am asking you the same questions, are you sure anyway?!Around 50% of Albanians do not practice religion at all ?! --Dodona (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"in the Greek territory of Epirus (the Chams) collaborated with the invader"
The New Albanian Migration - page 67,by Russell King, Nicola Mai, Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers - - 2005.They did Collobarate Megistias (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
And what is the connection with repression of civil population, this is the reasons you assume?--Dodona (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The topic title is Collaboration and its has been established and that being part of a Greater plan.Megistias (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What about those who were with Greek resistance? --Dodona (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Which one collaborate the Chams population ?!--Dodona (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Reference it and correlate it with the discussion.What would be your point and were are you getting at since you see that nazi collobaration was a fact.Also your 50% not practicing religion is about today not in WW2.Megistias (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but are you normal, what are you talking about the civil population collaborative and what the hell is this Greater Plan --Dodona (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What not normal?the Greater plan was "a pan Muslim state for Albania" see the above posts and the chams collaborated see the above posts .Megistias (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Albania never was a islamic state always the religion was mix.What you say again has nothing to do with civils , so you can not say that Chams population were with Nazi and justify what happen .--Dodona (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Both my positions are a fact and referenced above.You personal denial and opinion is irrelevant.Megistias (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but you have to read and the reference i introduced, so only Muslims were collaborative and not the Orthodoxs as well!! --Dodona (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think now Tsourkpk has a role. --Dodona (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You are not making sense.Express what you want fully and were you are getting at.What is your point?Megistias (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you did make your point very well.--Dodona (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
From my understanding of Burra, he seems to be implying that I am your sockpuppet. My advice is don't waste your time with this individual. Seems no one else takes him seriously. Let him ramble, he'll eventually get bored if no one responds. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are the bed hand of him, you too cooperate very well, if you insult me this does not mean you will escape the argument. --Dodona (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The former user views are at least disgusted, he mixes the civil population with the fact that some member of Chams community collaborated with Nazi , not only the Muslim but also some Orthodox and some Greek collaborated as well, the other members of Chams community collaborated with the Greek resistance . There is not any justification with what happen with Chams community and civilian in south Epirus in general, they still are not able to speak in their language and express freely their identity, so I propose change according the points I made. --Dodona (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge as Ethnic Albania proposals continue
My proposal is that the article to merge as [Ethnic Albania], I strongly oppose the term Greater Albania which is very offensive to Albanians, the injustice happen when Albanian territories were separated, we ask that the right of Albanians outside to be respected such as language and other elements of ethnography, to be respected as distinct ethnicity where ever they are--Dodona (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No, because Southern Epirus is "Ethnic Greece", not "Ethnic Albania". Because the population is 99.9% Greek. Get it? --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Totally irrelevant, are you sure anyway ?! --Dodona (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Dodona (talk), it needs to be merged as Ethnic Albania. The term 'Great Albania' was coined by modern Serb politicians who use the term as an argument against the imminent independence of Kosovo. Albanians have never occupied or fought to rule other people, nor did they even dream about ruling Balkan. Albanians like to live in peace, in their ancient lands, and do not wish to rule Serbs or Macedonians or Greeks.
I think, I do express the opinion of the vast majority of the Albanians, when I say that, what we really dream and desire, is peace and harmony for all the Balkan people.--Taulant23 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That may be the case for Albanians in general, but Albanian irredentists do actually dream of ruling the areas where Albanians are a substantial minority (or at least think there are). Saying "there are ethnic Albanians there" is one thing. Saying "there are ethnic Albanians there, therefore that land should be part of Albania" is another. This article describes the latter. BalkanFever 10:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The most of Albanians do not support nationalistic ideas of Greater Albania, taking in the account this you are not going to insult all the Albanians with this term, I purpose therefore that the term ethnic Albania to be used instead, meaning that the main purpose is the respect for Albanians human right what ever they live as ethnic identity. --Dodona (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In 1944 al-Husseini approved of a plan that had been presented to him by the Albanian Nazi-muslim leader Bedri Pajani that would have created a pan muslim state for Albania that was to include Kosovo, western Macedonia ,southern Montenegro ,portions of Bosnia and the Rashka region of Serbia.While the Nazi's retreated and were unable to complete this goal this idea has been resurrected today.Ref;The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini -page 81,by Chuck Morse,2003,ISBN0595289444.
No merging since it has a historical counterpart in the past and Greater Albania has been featured in thousands of articles worldwide due to the war & the fears of the international community of destabilizing in the Balkans.This began as a concept in WW2 and before that and continues to this day.Enver's rule taught albanians pseudohistory to claim neighboring lands so this is a story going on for nearly a century if you dig deep enough.Megistias (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What we have see is only the extrem Greek nationalisem,your views included as well,please see the references thta they contradict very much what you just said:
1.Reference : For most native speakers of Greek, ethnicity is an unproblematic concept: Greeks are those whose mother tongue is Greek, whether they are citizens of Greece or not. It is difficult for many Greeks to conceive of situations where language and ethnicity might be problematical or indeterminate Source : Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 151.
2. Reference: Nationalism became the guiding principle of policy after the successful outcome of the Balkan Wars. In addition to Venizelos? diplomaticinsight, 36 a wide programme of institutional reforms was undertaken with the dual purpose to modernise Old Greece and to homogenise the very diverse new provinces. Source : Teichova, Alice(Editor). Economic Change and the National Question in Twentieth-Century Europe. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2000. p 207.
3. Reference:It can be argued with some confidence that Greece in the nineteenth century enjoyed a considerable degree of homogeneity since, until the end of that century, populations living in Greece but speaking different languages, such as Albanians, were fully assimilated into the Greek culture and political system and did not exhibit any separate national identity. The annexation of the northern territories, however, at the beginning of the twentieth century proved to be more complicated. Source: Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 151.
4.Reference: Under the Treat of Bucharest of August 1913, Albania’s independence was internationall recognized within virtuall its present-da borders, including northern Epirus (where ethnic Albanians outnumbered Greeks), Source : Day, Alan. Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe. London, , GBR: Europa Publications, Limited, 2002. p 190
5. Reference: Northward expansion of the independent Greek state established in 1830 focused on historic Macedonia, the Greek claim to which encompassed not only the whole of Epirus but also much of what is now Albania Source : .Day, Alan. Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe.London, , GBR: Europa Publications, Limited, 2002. p 190--Dodona (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You have reposted these before.They have been answered and they are quite out of place in here since this is about whether we should merge an article with another.Your sources dont nullify our own .You can repeat this a million times but it has not other effect than one on yourself.Megistias (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well they are very good sources i love them . --Dodona (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
One: Wikipedia goes by most common term.
Two: I have absolutely no clue what you mean by respecting Albanian human rights in this context. Of course we should respect human rights in the real world, but the use of one word on the internet does not violate human rights in any way. BTW, "Ethnic Albania" seems to be concluding (to the Albanians) that the irredentism is justified.
Three: Those sources have nothing to do with this article. While I do agree that Greece has a way darker past than the one that most Greeks pride themselves on, this is not for discussion here.
Therefore, no move. BalkanFever 11:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Dodona, when you reply to a comment, make one more indent than the previous one. BalkanFever 11:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think they show that Albanian in fact are not nationalist or irredentist ( term used often in the time of former Yugo i assume ?!), so the term Great Albania does nothing but enforce this unjustice while the oposite is with the other term use instead, anyway if you want to use this term arbitrary , i am not the only one which disagree--Dodona (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
New change
Proposed: Albanians',not unreasonably,have a strong feeling of belonging to a nation with ancient roots which has been cheated out of its ethnic territory.
Reference:This book starts before the beginning, that is before the Albanians started calling themselves ‘Shqiptars’, those who speak a mutually comprehensible language, and it takes us into the future, when the independence of Kosovo will be formally acknowledged. Almost a third of the book covers Pelasgians, Illyrians and Indo-Europeans; another quarter deals with Kosovo, with Serbia's myths and its ‘national project’ from Karageorge to Miloevi. The author,.........sympathises (not unreasonably) with the Albanians' strong feeling of belonging to a nation with ancient roots which has been cheated out of its ethnic territory Histoire des Albanais: Des Illyriens à l'indépendance du Kosovo ST. K. Pavlowitch University of Southampton :Histoire des Albanais: Des Illyriens à l'indépendance du Kosovo, by Serge Métais (Paris: Fayard, 2006; pp. 450 --Dodona (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Serge Metais is an economist and an amateur historian.Économiste et historien, spécialiste des économies post-socialistes
Serge Métais a été maître de conférences de sciences économiques à l'Université du Maine (Le Mans, France) jusqu'au début des années quatre-vingt-dix. Entrepreneur en Europe centrale et orientale depuis l'effondrement des régimes communistes, il s'est consacré en parallèle, ces dernières années, à une activité d'historien des Balkans. Spécialiste des économies post-socialistes, il a appris le polonais, le russe et l’albanais. Il travaille actuellement sur la question de l’identité ukrainienne.MetaisMegistias (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
From the above he also invests in these countries most likely after he pampers them with pseudohistorical mumbo jumboMegistias (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Does he includes Greece as well ?!--Dodona (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean my source is not as good as French one ?!--Dodona (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Its an unreliable source meaning a questionable source.Megistias (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Why my friend why??--Dodona (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
it si secondary , from University of Southampton, many greeks study there ?!--Dodona (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
He maybe an excellent economist and i dont doubt this field he commans but he is not a historian and he does not supersede other sources as well.His book is pseudohistory and takes a political stance on Kosovo.University of Southampton can have any people study there and publish books but the Author is what matters and what the writes. Megistias (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be resonable, you can not continue like this , read it the comment, is not from author.It is a review and made from someone else, it si not published in this university either --Dodona (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The source is not appopriate and its clear.Megistias (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who I'm replying to any more but "not unreasonably" is, by definition, trying to justify something, which as we all know must not be done. Not to mention POV words like "cheated" and the notion of "ethnic territory". BalkanFever 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The map is inaccurate
As per these references here [[11]] and here [[12]], four of the five districts of Albania that border Greece, do not have an Albanian majority, but as both maps clearly show, the percentage of Albanians is 30-50%. Thus the map in the article is inaccurate and should modified/replaced. Same goes for the district of Struga in fYRoM. Seems like only the districts of Tetovo and Gostivar have Albanian majorities. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In here you say [13] I like this map,[14] now (on 21:04, 7 February 2008)you say you don't.Get ur ideas straight buddie.--Taulant23 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Use the one that was published in 2008, not the one from 1999. BalkanFever 10:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That’s a well known Serbian propaganda website. Not a reliable source at all.--Taulant23 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And this is the known Albanian ultranationalist propaganda siteillyrians .org Its quite laughable but you can discern many things from it.Megistias (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Kalimera Megistias , you made me laugh right now.a)18:38-b)18:43, Are you chasing me? We are not talking about your maps ;).
BalkanFever what a about Great Macedonia,Macedonia used to be part of Greece.No Slavic just Hellas.--Taulant23 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The site is related as it also mentions "Ethnic Albania" and what it entails[15] and tries justify it.Megistias (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK everybody calm down.
Megistias, we are not talking about illyrians.org. We are talking about the map on serbianna written in Albanian.
Taulant23, the map is in Albanian - and explains perfectly to anyone reading the page the proposed borders of the irredentist concept. It does not justify or discredit anything, it merely illustrates what some people (Albanian irredentists) believe. In regards to United Macedonia, it is also an irredentist concept. The map there was probably originally from a nationalist website as well - but the fact that the Macedonian irredentist minority believes it remains. What we must do in Wikipedia articles specifically about irredentist terms is describe them. We must not say whether they are right or wrong, just or unjust; the reader can judge that for themselves. BalkanFever 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Taulant23, when replying to a message, add one more indent ":" than the previous one. BalkanFever 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry my friend.--Taulant23 (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like to know how the authors of that map arrived at the conclusion that the Korça region contains only 50% or fewer Albanians. I've spent some time in that region, particularly in the city of Korça itself, and I never met a local who spoke any language but Albanian to me. I guess that doesn't outright contradict the 50% figure - there could be 50% ethnic Greeks who speak Albanian in their public lives, but is that really likely? Kenji Yamada (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Propaganda??
Please , what of those that i wrote are propaganda and untrue ??--Dodona (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
New map improvement
Alright, I think that two first steps towards improving balkanian's map are: fully explaining the legend below it and making country borders more clear. We'll see what else may come up--Michael X the White (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
"Unknown number" in Greece
I have replaced the areas in Greece shaded in gray ("unknown number") with white (less than 10%). The grey color stood for "unknown number", and was a journalistic trick by User:Balkanian`s Word, a journalist, to imply there might be large numbers of Albanians in neighboring areas Greece (unknown could mean 0%, could mean 100%). While it is true that the Greek government does not include ethnicity in its census, numerous sources exist concerning the Albanians in Epirus [16]. What they tell us is that even according the maximalist estimate, the number is around 30,000 (Ciampi, Gabriele (1985) (in Italian), Le sedi dei Greci Arvaniti [The settlements of the Greek Arvanites], 92, Roma, Italy: Rivista Geografica Italiana, pp. 29), which is less than 10% of the population of the Periphery of Epirus. Note that I am not saying there aren't any Albanians in Epirus, just that they are less than 10% of the population. --Athenean (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please DO NOT REMOVE MAP OF 1861
This is a historical map and as such has to stay in its historical part.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 20:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If we do include that map of yours, I suggest that we also include this map, another French map from the same period which shows Northern Epirus as predominantly Greek and Vlach for comparison. It would illustrate the differences of opinion from that period and we'd avoid turning this article into a propaganga page in favour of "Greater Albania".--Ptolion (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly my point! You can include that map into the nationalistic article of Greece. However Great Albania and United Macedonia should use this one. This is why these ideas do not work: there is a map for everything! This is one of the maps that supports the idea of Greater Albania so it should be included.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because this article is on an Albanian nationalist topic, that doesn't mean that it has to be written from an Albanian nationalist perspective. What you are proposing is transparently an attempt at disinformation.--Ptolion (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, including this map would be good information. It's also on the basis of this map that the Greater Albania concept has spread out: Albania under its vilayets. Not mentioning the sources of the Greater Albania concept, but keeping them hidden would be disinformation. By the way, Albania under its four vilayets was the main idea of the League of Prizren. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The 1861 map is obnoxiously wrong. It shows Albanians all the way down to the Corinthian Gulf. I can come up with *dozens* (no exaggeration) of maps that show the opposite. In fact not a single ethnographic map from that period shows Albanians reaching this far south. No way. --Athenean (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Athenean, please feel free to do so in the greek nationalistic article. It can show whatever maps support the nationalistic idea of a Greater Greece.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sulmues, who do you think you're kidding? You described the map in the article as "according to this 1861 Ethnographic French Map Albanian inhabited territories are presented in yellow". To me this looks more like an attempt to convince the reader that the map in question reflects the main point of view at the time and that the "Greater Albania" claims were justified. It certainly doesn't mention vilayets or the League of Prizren. We can talk about readding the map once you've thought of a suitable caption.--Ptolion (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm, right now there are no maps with the four vilayets in commons. How about instead of "according to this 1861 Ethnographic French Map Albanian inhabited territories are presented in yellow" we put in the caption "This 1861 Ethnographic French Map supported the nationalistic idea that the four Albanian held vilayets were purely inhabited by Albanians"? sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Ptolion? sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No Sulmues, because the map didn't support that. Maps like that are just intended to represent majority populations, not ethnically "pure" regions. If you want to see the boundaries of the vilayets, they are in this map (the one I referred to earlier). If your map absolutely must be included I suggest including a neutral caption without original research such as "Guillaume Lejean's ethnic map of European Turkey and its vassal states (1861)" and including a second map with a similar description. As I said above, just including one map, especially one that represents a minority point of view, is disinformation, because it gives the reader the wrong impression of the prevailing points of view at that time.--Ptolion (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your caption, but I don't understand why I should include the second map because I don't clearly see there the vilayets as they truly were. The Manastir Vilayet is not appearing properly, the Janina Vilayet is not appearing properly, and neither is the Kosovo Vilayet. I don't know why Lejeune did that map and under whose supervision, but the map is ethnographic, not political, still it would support some nationalistic claims. I agree that the vilayets' map is the most appropriate one to represent the nationalistic point of view. Definitely I think that the vilayet map is the only one that should appear together with the ethnographic one but I don't want to be the only one in proposing this, I think others should also be involved.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 13:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering if Sulmues' involvement here can be construed as a violation of his topic ban on Kosovo-related topics, as Greater Albania obviously includes Kosovo. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Megali_idea has a similar map. @Athenean: This map is under the Atlas of Albania [17] in commons, how am I banned from Albania now? sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Does Greater Albania include Kosovo, yes or no? Athenean (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Off course, every map of G.A. includes Kosovo.Alexikoua (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I am no longer Kosovo banned as my ban expired yesterday. So now you can answer my questions. Thank you! --Sulmues Let's talk 15:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Danilo Zolo Source
Zolo writes that the project of creating a greater Albania was conceived and supported by western forces during WWII, not that the term was actually historically conceived then. I replaced that with a Barbara Jelavich of Cambridge source, which doesn't refer to the plan or project but to the historical "birth" of that notion.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 11:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Suppose by saying 'western' you really mean 'Nazi German and Italia' (p. 24 [[18]] "It was under the Italian and German occupation of 1939-1944 that the project of Greater Albania... was conceived."). I partially restored the wwii part on lead since it is essential for the general concept.Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm just copying what Danilo Zolo wrote. In his book he labeled them as "western forces". I have no problem about the sentence you added, in fact I was going to add it myself later in one of the sections.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 14:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Great Kosovo
Includes Kosovo , Northern Macedonia and Southern Serbia .
Map of Greater Albania and modern demographics
If have looked at all the articles about local nationalism in Balkans and this is more kinda propaganda. I mean this 'territories claimed' title sounds that there is a current threat, so better rename it 'parts of Grea Albania'. Generally speaking the article is not like an encyclopedia but more than a newspaper of extreme political beliefs.Metsobon34 (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This article adopts an extreme povish approach in specific parts (that's why it's overtagged). About the map (suppose you mean this [[19]]) which was recently unburried by User:Kustrim123 [[20]], due to his extreme edit-warring nature [[21]]. As I remember even the creator of this map admitted in past that it is POV [[22]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Rv MkLion edit
Reverted with [23] banned user contribution. This user was an SPA account and his contributions should all be closely monitored and possibly reverted. This article still has many flaws in my opinion. First, the title. "Greater Albania" is no where to be found other than in what political analysts from neighboring countries perceive. The term has never been used by Albanian patriots. Second, many references are made to Communist Albania, when communist Albania NEVER has claimed any territories outside of Albania, on the opposite, it ceded to Yougoslavia all the lands acquired through nazi and Italian invasions in WWII. Third, it's very poorly referenced and has high POV. --Sulmues Let's talk 15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, your revert in fact messed up the article, just like that of MKDLion did. I have restored it to it's original state, the way it was before the disruption caused by Kushtrim123 (talk about an SPA). If you want to add the map of the Kosovo vilayet proposed by Albanian nationalists that is fine, but the map of greater Albania should stay at the top. As for the claims that "there is no such thing as Greater Albania", that is plain OR and of no interests. Obviously there are PLENTY of Albanian nationalists who dream of a greater albania, and that is well documented. If you're so sure, why don't you put the article up for deletion and see what happens? Athenean (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(after 2 edit conflicts)MKDLion seemed to just revert Kushtrim123 to a map you uploaded, which is too strange since as a new user he couldn't possibly have known what to revert to unless someone had given him instructions to do this. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter since he was banned for his disruptive activity so I don't intend to continue examining his actions. As for the discussion yes the map of Greater Albania should stay on top but Kushtrim123's more accurate version not Athenean's version(although I think that I can make an even better map, but don't have enough time available).--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I apologize for putting the wrong map on top, but MkdLion had to be reverted. Now Zjarri brought the correct version of the map. "Greater Albania" is a controversial term and it should be explained on the lead that people who want to expand Albania's territories prefer "Ethnic Albania". The article is incorrect in many places, starting from the name, but it's not to go to AfD. --Sulmues Let's talk 16:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The "Grey" map, as you guys call it, is highly POV and inadequate for two reasons: First, the claim that there is "no official data" in Greece is designed to mislead our readers into a) making the Greek government look bad (one of the missions of the map's creator) and b) implying that there could be a LOT of Albanians in Epirus. However, while there is no official data, there IS data from other sources, lots of it in fact, and it tells us one thing: People who identify as "Albanians" in southern Epirus are very very few, definitely less than 10%. So we have data, just not official data. Since when is official data the only data? And even if there WAS official data, it would be immediately labelled as POV and unreliable by the usual suspects. The whole idea of painting Epirus as grey is to create innuendo and is a cheap journalistic gimmick. There is not "official data" about the number of Albanians in Albania too, so should we paint all of Albania as grey? The map is also POV because it pretends southern Albania is ethnically homogeneous, which EVERYONE here knows it's not. Greeks near Saranda and Gjirokaster, Aromanians in Korce and Kolonje. Athenean (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually this 'grey' map, is completely pov. Only by taking into account that it's based on the Albanian totalitarian census of 1989 that supports the country's racial purity, this is enough.Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't know how many Albanians are there in the periphery of Epirus and neither do you because there isn't a census to provide the necessary data. The necessary data isn't available because Greece hasn't conducted an ethnographic census since the 1950s. Your personal deductions are irrelevant and not needed. This is a 50%> map not a 90%> map, so no one is implying that there aren't any minorities in Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 05:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, we have plenty of OTHER sources about the number of Albanians in the Periphery of Epirus. And they tell us that Albanians are very very few. Besides, even if there was an official census, you would reject it as biased. Athenean (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually according to data taken from the official census of 2001, the number of non-EU immigrands (Albanians included) in this region is low (for sure less than 5% in avg). There is a map [[24]] p. 18. that confirms that. Also according to Hart, some Albanian/Arvanitika speaking communities in the region are not part of the Albanian nation. So I don't see a reason why to believe a map that adopts the 1989 tottalitarian Albanian census while on the same time ignores the Greek census and a number of reliable research conducted. Also this 'grey' map, as already said has been regarded as POV even by his creator [[25]].Alexikoua (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
And this is somehow relevant to this discussion because.....? Athenean (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Because that revert is related to Alexikoua's insistence on the use of Hart as the only source ignoring 99% of all the other references.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 07:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
99%? What 99%? What on earth are you on about now? Besides, I thought you only wanted official data. Athenean (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
@ZjarriRrethues: I suggest you should become more concrete on your arguments instead of breaching wp:npa against me. Since even the creator of this 'grey' version admitted that it's pov [[26]], the issue is over.Alexikoua (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
When did I breach wp:npa against you in this conversation and how? In fact you stating that is a personal attack against me and if you can't back it up in the future avoid making such statements. For the record that was the exact summary FutureP used when he reverted you.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 11:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That was my intention when bringing that revert because Hart's thesis isn't the norm but contrary to the norm.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually it's exactly the opposite (for example Winnifrith denies even the presence of lignistic communities), as already stated by Balkanian comments.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Removal of two sources.
I removed these vague two sources. First because they are generically claimed and second, because they are never used.
Archivo storico, Ministero degli Affari Esteri (Italy).
Sottosegretario di Stato per gli Affari Albanesi (State Undersecretary for Albanian Affairs) of Italy (1939–1943).
We are left only with Belgrade and Athens publishings with the exception of the New York published "The new European diasporas: national minorities and conflict in Eastern Europe" by Michael Mandelbaum. I just brought the last one and I'll start using it.--Sulmues Let's talk 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Removal of quote from Christopher HIll
I removed a quote from Christopher Hill here. Hill is not a historian, nor a political analyst. Quoting him like that is just WP:SYNTH. Hope we have no disagreements here. --Sulmues Let's talk 19:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
tendentious cn tag placement
Placing cn tags for stuff that one doesn't like but is common knowledge is tendentious and falls under WP:PUSH. It is well known that Albanian nationalists dream of including "Cameria" into a Greater Albania. Placing a cn tag there smacks of apologism. Athenean (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I just want that passage to be referenced so that we can upgrade the quality of the article. If a passage is not sourced than the quality of the article is poor. Don't you want to bring this article to GA? Why are you even working on it? I suggest you bring some sources rather than claim that something is "well known" [27]--Sulmues Let's talk 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You're telling me to provide sources for something that we all know, when all you write in your above postings is a bunch of OR "All Albania has to be in purple, with the exception of Dropull which is the only place with a Greek majority. 10 villages. That's all there is actually. The 1989 census gives the correct number of the Greeks: 58K out of 3.2M. Mind you, you'll never get a better census than that. The Greeks in Albania were treated better than the Albanians in communist times, whatever Stephanie Schievers was writing in the 1990s. I have met her personally and she hung out only with Greeks.... " Incredible. Who you claim to know personally is irrelevant and of no interest to anyone. Besides, how could you know her personally since she "only hung out with Greeks"? Not to mention you are bordering on a BLP violation. Athenean (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I really can't find any any sources on the list of the areas that the "nationalist Albanians" are claiming. Really. I'm trying to find sources myself, that doesn't mean you should delete {{cn}}. About my comment on Stephanie, you know what? I'll delete my edit on her and thank you for pointing it out. --Sulmues Let's talk 21:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the map which was removed without any explanation by an account with very few contribs, likely vandalism
I made a comment on the talk page of this map . It seems like User:Athens2004 (Am I to understand that that is User:Athenean?) has copied it from this source. Now the map copied is not representing correctly the source for multiple reasons: First and foremost the source claims the Albanians around Kumanovo and Skopje between 50% and 80%, whereas the map that we have in the article doesn't represent that. Can the author make that change please? And actually can the author copy the map exactly as it is in the source. If not, then we will have to discard this map. --Sulmues Let's talk 18:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Albanians make up 23% in the Skopje Statistical Region and 30% in the Northeastern Statistical Region, which includes Kumanovo, according to census statistics. So the map from mondediplo.com is incorrect. --Local herotalk 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Local Hero! Would you agree that this is then an incorrect map, not to be used? --Sulmues Let's talk 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
While the mondediplo map is incorrect with regards to Macedonia, the percentages on Athens2004's map seem to be correct according the 2002 census. The Kosovo, Preševo region, and Montenegro percentages on his map also seem to be correct. I just don't like how one of the ranges is 20-50% because 20% is very different from 50%. --Local herotalk 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's assume that you are right for the Macedonian and Kosovo part. Southern Albania in Athens2004 map is including the areas of Korce County and Gjirokaster County as having Albanians at 20-50%. I cannot accept this map at least for its southern side. Athenean & Alexikoua?--Sulmues Let's talk 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I will try to make my map follow the Monde Diplomatique map as closely as possible, how's that? Athenean (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems ok. A small correction on some regions, like Tetovo, Skopje and surroundings would be ok. The scale is problematic (from 20 to 50?). Moreover it seems that Permet district is near 50% according to this [[28]] p. 1619.Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: That map is just bringing the Greek POV and is clearly saying "It is usually said that Greeks account for 3% of Albania's population, although some Greek sources give a larger figure." In the meantime the map is the Greek version.
@Athenean: You may give it a try with two condition on my side.
All Albania has to be in purple, with the exception of Dropull which is the only place with a Greek majority. 10 villages. That's all there is actually. The 1989 census gives the correct number of the Greeks: 58K out of 3.2M. Mind you, you'll never get a better census than that. The Greeks in Albania were treated better than the Albanians in communist times. You may say totalitarian as much as you can, that's the only source we have. And I'll help you with that: Dropull is the easten side of Lunxheri. --Sulmues Let's talk 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You have to design Chameria and Konitsa and say that these areas are claimed by Cham Albanians who were expulsed. The fact that there might be very few Albanians there goes into the direction of this article, in that the Cham Albanians claim that land back.
@Sulmues: what are you talking about? This map has nothing to do with povs [[29]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Alexi, that map is not representing a 3% population but a 10% population. --Sulmues Let's talk 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid it represents 3%. If Albania is 3,2M total Greeks are 120K, its more than double of the 1989 census. (The map shows a mixed 50-50 (Green-Blue) population on Northern Epirus, not a Greek only region) If you check the region Himara mysteriously is out of the Greek inhibited sector, I doubt that this is a Greek pov.Alexikoua (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually 3% of 3.2M would be 96K, however that book is even claiming badly the 1989 source, because 3% were ALL MINORITIES (inclusive the Macedonian, Gorani, and Vlach ones). Besides Northern Albania is very scarcely populated, so you can't make that argument. That map is bringing Greek POV, because it is claiming a Greek majority in that area, which it's far from the truth. The only area where you would have a Greek majority is in Dropull. And it's not Green-Blue because the Albanian population is not Green nor Blue in the legend. It's just Green with some mountains. And let's not even talk about Himara, because I have a long history of dispute with Athenean about that and I don't want to start again. The problem with Himara is that it was not part of Northern Epirus since 1914 and the Greeks have never claimed it, so that's further proof that that map comes from Greek sources. --Sulmues Let's talk 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
i have to...partly...agree with sulmues about the mondediplo map being inaccurate...there are no Greeks left eg in Korce including non greek speakers with Greek national feelings. the greek population is obviously mostly in delvine, souht sarande and south gjirokaster with some also in south permet and vlore (area of himare and narte) but i doubt they make an important part of the population anymore especially due to migration. i DONT KNOW what EXACT percentage greeks and vlachs make of south albania anyway but there are not as many as 50-80% and greeks are not a majority in the WHOLE of sarande, gjirokaster and kolonje and half of korce...87.202.42.14 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has turned into an wp:or concert. Please don't show minorities there at any cost, no matter multiple sources prove the opposite. Moreover, this article is one of Kushtrim's targets [[30]], a revert only spa account that never participates in discussions. Until he receives his new long-term block, I feel everyone agrees that his disruptive edits should be reverted as 'vandalism'.Alexikoua (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
i can bring reliable sources if youd like...this is only a discussion page. many of the secondhand sources you cite arent THAT RELIABLE coz they are based on various sources themselves that can be dubious...eg activists or cultural organizations that inflate numbers...for example ive seen 'sourced' maps of (greek) macedonia with slavic speaking or even worse 'macedonian' population in places where such dont exist or albanians in epirus in places where they dont exist at least not anymore. the same is true here...there are no Greeks in many places where mondediplo or other sources depict them. in the end do we want reliable information to appear on wiki or maximalist and untrue claims that bolster nationalism..? anyway..something every source agrees on is that the population of Greeks in albania has lowered a lot during the last 20 years due to permanent migration to greece but i see here huge numbers both in greece and in albania...and the same is true of the 300 plus thousand "chams" who must been having children like crazy if we trust the dubious sources used in their article..we could seriously cooperate instead of arguing like this...(i mean greeks and albanians not i and you)87.202.49.61 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Tourbillon A ? 14:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[4]](http://cartographie.dessciences-po.fr/cartotheque/42C_albanais.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Presence_of_Albanians_in_%22Greater_Albania%22.png){kind=link}
