Talk:Albanian nationalism

Fresh start

How do you like this lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NLA

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

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

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

Is this an essay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fully protected for one week

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

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

"Modern Education Paragraph"

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

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

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

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

Ismail Kadare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed POV pushing paragraph.

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

Kokalari-Pilika-Aref

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

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

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

And some conclusions about this historical controversy:

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

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

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

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

First section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To much propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted on Greek wikipedia

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

Liberation Army of Chameria

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

Rm sentence referring to Kadare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Megistias edit

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

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

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

this article seems to me..despite its possible merits some (most even) of what it claims is unfortunately true..like an exercise in casting the 'other side' in a bad light even if thats not intended...perhaps it comes across to me this way because its a bit like a distilled pamphlet of every nationalist theory albanians have come up with (itd seem to me this way for any people), use this one writer here this theory there etc its really haphazard like the writer didnt want to study albanian nationalism and how its fared and changed since its inception in the late 19th century but rather put up a collection of albanian examples of nationalism87.202.53.82 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)