Jump to content

Talk:Albania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taulant23 (talk | contribs) at 18:24, 7 December 2012 (→Ottoman Period). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Article probation

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Post independence era

Need someone to edit the post-1912 era. Preferably someone with intimate knowledge of this period. Any takers? Ottomanist (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to rewrite the entire History section. It seems to pay too much attention to the Ottoman era while post-independence events are scarcely described. I'd like to know if there's any opposition to that. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the Ottoman section is so long is because is because of recent edits by User:Ottomanist. Feel free to tone it down. Athenean (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be working on it in my sandbox and will replace the whole section with a rewritten one in a day or two, so if there's any remarks, let me know in the meantime. Cheers, - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman era lasted between 1385 and 1913 which is 628 years. Post independence era lasts less than a hundred years. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Illyrian era lasted over 1,000 years as well. The question is how much of the information from these periods is relevant. Most attention should be paid to the post-independence years, because that is basically the modern Albanian state. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes. I agree with you. Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "long" relative to what? If you look at other pages, you'll see the history sections are just as long Greece, Egypt etc., I personally don't think that the Ottoman section is too long, but only that other sections are too short which makes it stand out. Ottomanist (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the extreme protraction, had real life issues to deal with. This is the reworked history section. Both periods (pre- and post-independence) receive an equal amount of attention, sources are LoC and Britannica for the most part. Any objections into introducing it ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I object. The point was to pay more attention: "to the post-independence years, because that is basically the modern Albanian state", not to shorten or change text about the period before Albania was established as state in XX century. I think that the section in current version of the article is better (though far from being perfect) than the draft you pointed at. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I'll add the post-independence part, because the current subsection on modern history is really, really poor. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is really really poor. The whole period is covered with "The Communist Period" section although not all period of 1914—2012 was communst, nor all text within this section refers to communist period.
I propose you not to write long drafts in your userspace. Maybe it is better to just start editing the article, and if there are editors who don't agree with what you write, or who can improve what you write, they can react.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what I usually do, but some sections are bad to the point where they have to be written anew, which is the case here. I'll integrate some of the existing statements into the text I wrote, but the rest is neither sourced not balanced in terms of chronology. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take in consideration Wikipedia:Editing policy and its section about the major changes: Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. Please don't make major changes at once or within short time period and allow other interested editors to participate.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read it, most of the previous text on the Ottoman period was basically the same. I just streamlined it chronologically and removed uninformative (for the context of this article) sentences such as the one on inconclusive evidence about Islamisation. Actually I even expanded it a bit with the Skanderbeg episode. As for the newer history subsection, I think anyone would agree that it was poorly written, poorly sourced and extremely chaotic. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everybody agreed about the newer history subsection. That is what we discussed here. Let me remind you that this section is titled "Post independence era". It was agreed to "pay more attention: "to the post-independence years, because that is basically the modern Albanian state"". Please follow above mentioned policy and don't make significant changes to pre-independence era. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. There was nothing about the resistance, nothing about the battles and everything went from the 15th straight to the 19th century and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.33.1 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I didn't make that many changes to the pre-1912 history, why did you revert it ? Basically the content was the same, with a few additions and extra citations that could've been removed anyway. I won't even mention the stunning lack of sources. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did make changes to pre-1912 history. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but none too radical or worthy of a revert. You said yourself that other editors should participate when edits are made, so please state which parts are problematic. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You violated editing policy. Please revert yourself and respect respect editing policy in further edits.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I did discuss them and it was agreed that one of the subsections needed to be rewritten, I don't see how the policy has been violated. I haven't stopped you from removing the things that were added, so feel free to keep the patchy quality of the article. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanxhak of Albania

Here, I've removed a request from the article. The request said,

PLEASE CHECK THIS COMPUTER MADE MAP. There was no such thing as Sanxhak of Albania. The uploader and the resources dont match the historical facts.This is ridiculus. LOL another Slavo-Serbain!

I don't know anything about the topic, but see Google Books search results here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was never anything called an 'Albanian sanjak' - the sources provided speak for themselves "The feudal cadastre of the sancak of Arvanid, which was completed in 1432, contains data on the Ottoman migrants from Anatolia to Albania..." Later we read that, "Albania, composed of fifteen sancaks (Shkodra, Ipek (Pec), Prizren, Prishtina, Skopje, Bitola, Debar, Elbasan, Tirana, Berat, Korça, Kostur, Yanina, Argyrocastro, Preveza..." This image will be deleted, until a more suitable one is found. Ottomanist (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there was Sanjak of Albania. Most of the towns you listed are not in Albania at all. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the point is that the photo is not appropriate because it only covers a very narrow time-period and leaves out large swaths of present-day Albania. Moreover, the Ottoman-Turkish word for Albania is 'Arnavutluk' not arnavid, so to even call it the 'sancak of Albania' makes no sense. Ottomanist (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The photo covers the whole present day Albania. If you have some objections to Arvanid then present some better source than Halil İnalcık, if it is possible.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're referring to Halil Inalcik! He is indeed the main historian for this period. I think the issue here is more aesthetic - the photo looks tacky (cheap). I think a better map (or, what about the one I had put up, which was in Ottoman and gives a feel for the period?). What do you think?Ottomanist (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map you put is the map of greater Albania, not Albania during Ottoman rule. It contains vilayets which lasted less than 50 years. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The self-made map mis-reads Inalcik. According to him "Moreover in the south the sand̲j̲aḳ of Awlonya (Avlona) and in the east that of Ohri were created and in 1479 the sand̲j̲aḳ of Iskenderiye (Scutari) was formed in the north..." About the registers he used (and his reference to the 'Sancak i Arnavud') he says that "This kind of tīmārs constituted 16 per cent of all the ¶ tīmār-holders in Arvanid-ili." see: Arnawutluḳ." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online , 2012. Reference. 2012

The map is therefore wrong. I look forward to constructive work with you in the future.Ottomanist (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again incorrect. The map is well sourced. I referred to Inalcik for the Turkish name of the Sanjak of Albania. When he mentioned 16% he refered to timar holders. Still, you are right that the teritory of albania was later divided between sanjaks of Ohrid, Scutari, Avlona... Some sanjaks were formed and soon disestblished. I will try to find some maps that could be used to illustrate that facts.
Do not remove the Sanjak of Albania. It existed. Both its name and its map are well sourced. Its name is supported both with sources and consensus. Please respect them.Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the map is created by you not any academic. Firstly, the map is based on a Serbian source, not inalcik. Secondly, Shkoder was only taken in 1478, how could, as you claim, "the whole of Albania" be in one sancak back when the map refers to? Ottomanist (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again incorrect. The map of the Sanjak of Albania is created by Peter Bartl. He is German historian. Please don't remove it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, as explained in the Sancak of Albania talk page, you have misunderstood the issue. Ottomanist (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What issue I msunderstood? You invented several issues and presented many false arguments trying to justify deletion of the map of Sanjak of Albania from this article. Here is a list of your excuses to delete the map:
  1. There was never anything called an 'Albanian sanjak'
  2. the photo is not appropriate because it only covers a very narrow time-period and leaves out large swaths of present-day Albania
  3. I think the issue here is more aesthetic - the photo looks tacky (cheap).
  4. the map is created by you not any academic...based on a Serbian source
Now when it is obvious that all your excuses for deletion of the map were not grounded you claim that I misunderstood the issue and again deleted the map because of "distributive edit". Please revert yourself and drop the stick.
I think that the map you added should be removed from this article. It is not the map of Albania, but map which includes significant parts of Montenegro, Serbia and Greece, half of Macedonia and whole Kosovo. That map is already used in article about the Greater Albania and does not belong here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the vilayet map because it has very little to do with the current republic of Albania. The area depicted on the map is just a nationalist dream by the League of Prizren, which never even came close to becoming a reality. While useful in the Greater Albania article, it is not too useful here. Athenean (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is flawed on several grounds. Namely, the map shows the territories from which the modern-day 'Republic of Albania' was formed, therefore it is useful for encyclopaedic reference. It, moreover, is discussing the Ottoman period when no Republic of Albania existed, but rather regions populated by Albanian speakers.Ottomanist (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottomanist. The topic of this article is the Republic of Albania and its territory. There are other articles about "regions populated by Albanian speakers", like the Greater Albania article, Albanian Vilayet.... Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The map shows the territories from which the modern-day 'Republic of Albania' was formed, therefore it is useful for encyclopaedic reference. It, moreover, is discussing the Ottoman period when no Republic of Albania existed, but the areas from which it was eventually formed. Ottomanist (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. You forgot to mention that the map you added shows the territories from which the modern-day Montenegro, Serbia, Greece, Macedonia and Kosovo are formed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're becoming quite disruptive now, please stop this personal crusade. The map added by another user is okay for now, we don't need a cheaply made, factually incorrect map. Ottomanist (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Comment on content, not on the contributor. The map added by another user refers to the Principality of Albania, not to the Ottoman period like map of the Sanjak of Albania. This map is not self made because it was created by by Peter Bartl. You did not present any valid arguement for its removal, so please don't remove it again.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the arguments are very clearly outlined above as to why the map is not of a historical entity but a map of timar holders - Inalcik never ever claimed a Sancak of Albania (a modern construct of the 20th century?!) ever existed in the 15th. He refers to a sancak of Albanians which doesn't include all the territory of the modern-day republic of Albania. End of discussion, stop disrupting edits. Ottomanist (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong:
  1. All the arguments are very clearly outlined above. All above outlined arguments are false. This map shows, among other things, sanjak that existed, it does show the whole territory of present-day Albania, the map is not cheap but very informative and its author was not me but professional historian (Peter Bartl).
  2. "the map is not of a historical entity but a map of timar holders" - Incorrect. The map shows the territory of Albania in 1431. It belongs to the section about the Ottoman period because the Ottoman Empire established formal jurisdiction over most of Albania by 1431.(Licursi, Emiddio Pietro (2011), Empire of Nations: The Consolidation of Albanian and Turkish National Identities in theLate Ottoman Empire, 1878 – 1913, New York: Columbia University, p. 19, By 1415, after a chaotic interregnum, Sultan Mehmet I sent the military to erect the first Ottoman garrisons throughout southern Albania, establishing direct military authority in the region...By 1431, the Ottomans established formal jurisdiction over most of Albania... {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors=, |editorn-link=, |nopp=, |editorn=, |month=, |editorn-first=, |doi_inactivedate=, |chapterurl=, |author-separator=, and |editorn-last= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help))
  3. "Sancak of Albania (a modern construct of the 20th century?!)...Inalcik... refers to a sancak of Albanians" - There was consensus about the name of the Sanjak of Albania. Please respect it.
  4. "doesn't include all the territory of the modern-day republic of Albania." - Incorrect. The map shows all of the territory of the modern day republic of Albania after Ottomans established formal jurisdiction over most of Albania by 1431 and defined Albania as an unambiguous territorial category, for the first time.
Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat my self, the evidence is above for all who wish to see. The key point is that Albania is a modern-name for a modern-territory carved out in 1913. Any map which tries to show that existed in the 15th century is false. End of discussion, see above if you need further clarification. Moreover, wikipedia is not a democracy, neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Please get over this and let's work on something more constructive. Ottomanist (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

czarkoff (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Ottomanist)
The map purports to show an entity called 'Sankak of Albania' (Sanjak i aranvid) in the early 15th century.
1) Arnavid means Albanian not Albania because as the historian Halil Inalcik knows very well, there was never an entity called Albania in the 15th century.
(his article for the standard text Encyclopaedia of Islam is entitled Arnawutluk (meaning 'Albanian territories') not 'arnavid' which means 'Albanian...
Moreover, the Albanian source used in the Sanjak of Albania article reads 'Albanian sancak'= Sanxhakut Shqiptar not Sanxhaku i Shqiperis - further evidence that a territory called Albania never existed until 1913.
2) According to the historian Inalcik, which the other user considers an expert: " (...) in the south the sand̲j̲aḳ of Awlonya (Avlona) and in the east that of Ohri were created and in 1479 the sand̲j̲aḳ of Iskenderiye (Scutari) was formed in the north..."
Meaning that the period the map purports to show was a time when the Ottomans hadn't even seized all of the territory that is now a part of the modern-day Republic of Albania (see: Arnawutluḳ." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online , 2012. Reference. 2012)
3) The details given about the map [[1]] says that it is an own work, after Bartl, Peter

However, when you click the source you get a map that doesn't say anywhere 'sancak of Albania' and isn't even the same as the one presented here.

Thus the map is not historically accurate since a territory called Albania only came into existence in 1913.

Ottomanist (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint by Antidiskriminator
It is incorrect that "a territory called Albania only came into existence in 1913" (171,000 Google Books hits for books written before 1911 and 8,000 for books written before 1600)
I believe it is important to add this very informative map to the Ottoman period section because:
  1. It shows that by 1431 most of territory of Albania was under Ottoman formal jurisdiction
  2. or in possession of local chieftains who were Ottoman vassals and paid tribute to the sultan.
  3. with small part comprising of Scutari, Durazzo and Alessio which was under Venetian control (part of Venetian Albania).
The most appropriate name of the Sanjak of Albania is result of the consensus and irrelevant for this discussion. I am not the author of this map. It is made by User:Jkwchui against the map which author is historian Peter Bartl.
Ottoman Empire did not have stable administrative division. The most appropriate map for Ottoman period section would probably be a gif animated map for the whole period 1385-1912. Until such map is created I think that this map is very useful and informative.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion by czarkoff
My observations:
  1. As is demonstrated in Sanjak of Albania article, there is no single consistent naming pattern of the entity in question with "Sanjak of Albania" being one of several possible ways of referring to it.
  2. The choice of naming pattern isn't all that important, as no controversy over historical matters is associated with it.
  3. The illustration in question is an accurate reproduction of the map with the only change in labels, which are translated from Serbian to English and made consistent with Wikipedia usage patterns.
  4. The competency of Peter Bartl wasn't questioned by the editors involved in this dispute.
In my opinion, the article benefits from the illustration in question; as the choice of naming pattern is now known to generate a dispute, I would suggest to add the corresponding explanation (including alternative naming patterns) to the text of the corresponding section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second Viewpoint by (Ottomanist)

The consensus was only 1 or 2 people, and it was left to future discussions (this one??)

Moreover: wouldn't a better suggestion be to just use this image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albanian_vilayet.jpg) about which no one can dispute. The map shows the Albanian-speaking areas part of the Ottoman Empire - valuable because it gives readers an idea about the whole Ottoman period (rather than a narrow few decade period like the present map) as well as showing the fluidity of the borders during the long 500-year period of Ottoman rule. Moreover, it shows the areas from which modern-day Albania was formed. - Ottomanist (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, consensus may change, but more appropriate place for discussing such changes is talk:Sanjak of Albania.
The map you link show a never existing administrative division; thus this map is much less valuable for illustration of Albanian history then any map showing actually existing divisions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually: the map shows a division in that it is a replication of the Albanian-speaking territories during the Ottoman Empire (which the period is meant to depict). I've already explained above that the current map never existed as a division neither, since the translation by Bartl or whoever made the map fails to acknowledge that the territories studied by Prof. Inalcik was based on registers for a Sanjak of Albanians and not Albania. Thus my proposed map is even more accurate because it shows how modern-day Albania was administered throughout the Ottoman period and its close relation and not-static administrative lines vis-a-vis other Albanian-populated lands. If that doesn't convince you, I propose we scrap the map completely until a better one is made. ? Regards - Ottomanist (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems I have to put it yet clearer: it is obvious that the consensus is in favour of the current map. No need to search or "make" another map. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in that consensus. Antidiskriminator's map is useful and follows the sources faithfully, while the "Albanian vilayet" map shows something that never came into existence. The argument that it shows "the areas from which modern Albania was carved from" makes no sense, any map of the Western Balkans shows the same thing. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference is that map shows the areas that were Albanian-majority. - Ottomanist (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, now Ottomanist is topic-banned, is the map you wanted back in? I see one in the article, but missed the earlier debate on whether or not to add and not sure if the description given in Commons is the same one as propose? HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is to the NE of Albania?

Opening para now reads:

It is bordered by Montenegro to the northwest, Serbia to the northeast,Macedonia to the east and Greece to the south and southeast.

This was changed today, previously it said "Kosovo to the northeast". I realise this is a subject of controversy and I am in no way qualified to make a judgement. So I'm just bringing it to your attention. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasserism

I'm not sure if this is accurate, but does Albania maintain a view of Nasserism for a political ideology?

Twillisjr (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC) What... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.81.145 (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am BACK and it's sad to see this article...its just plain gray blahhh

What's going on with this article?? It's so bad, needs a lot to be done..what happen to Illyrians, now ottoman era take its own paragraph and scanderbeg is mentioned only once???? What happened to Prehistory: the first inhabitants the Pelasgian and Illyrians?....and it looks the editing is done by some nationalistic greek teens...they gonna writte the Albanian history???? omg how pathetic, I really feel bad for wiki...--Taulant23 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh* Not again with the Pelasgians and the Illyrians. Just when this article's history section had achieved a semblance of normalcy. Already you are being disruptive. Here you are falsifying sourced information [2] (the source doesn't say anything about "many scholars"), here [3] you are removing sourced information for the sole reason that you don't like ("sounds like a npov"). So I'm going to warn you: If you continue like this, I will report you to WP:AE, and given your long history of disruption, I will push for a long topic ban. Athenean (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can (Personal attack removed) or report me anytime, if I am doing something wrong. I am not afraid of (Personal attack removed) who have make this page pathetic...Illyrians and Pelasgians were the first people in the modern Albania, nothing wrong to mention them...I see a lot of misleading information about the history of Albania..(Personal attack removed)...I can't find the right word to describe this page...very sad .--Taulant23 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Taulant23! The Ottoman era was the darkest point of Albanian history, a time of economic and cultural decline. The user ottomanist is trying to portray it in better light, failing at it since there is very little good to say about that time hence the short paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drangue (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official flag of Albania, STOP of the deformation of the flag

In this 100th Anniversary of the Independence of Albania in all Albania a flag with a Eagle without without language, with goosefoot, deformed body, the number of feathers deformed etc.

In Albania exists a law on national symbols and the flag. In the article Albania in Wikipedia exist anothe flag that in the artcile Flag of Albania. I belive that both flags are incorrect.

[4] [5]

CIA The World Factbook also use this incorrect flag [6] --Irvi Hyka 19:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


see the albanian passport or the coat of arms or Albanian government internet site to understand differences between [7] and [8] the second one is the right one (see mouth and crest differences ) have a look here [9] and here [10] to see the right eagle mouth and crest Ilbiochimico (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


i found and upload on wikimedia the law 8926 here [11] you can see in albanian the real flag and all other things like hymn music score etc Ilbiochimico (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your replacement of the SVGs in the infobox with PNGs. If there is a problem, the SVG files from Commons will be corrected, you should discuss it there, not replace the SVGs with files in PNG format. Also, your files are up for deletion on Commons, so replacing others with them is not prudent at this time. Fry1989 eh? 00:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that's ok..important to me is the right flag..lets talk about the red color.. in appendix one of the law 8926[12] the CMYK red color model should be

Eng →→ in albanian
C - 0% →→ B - 0%
M - 100% →→ K - 100%
Y - 100% →→ V - 100%
K - 0% →→ Z - 0%
Ilbiochimico (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Period

Albanians lost all most half of their population in these dark times. In some books is considered as the first holocaust of the world. Scanderbeg it wasn't even mention at all nor that Albanians fought and freed Albania. Nor that Albanians were the first to be declared Athleta DiChristi.This paragraph is tooo long about how Albanians were used by the Ottoman Empire since the Albanians were smart, great warriors and the Turks couldn't defeat them, ok we got it. Albanians fought the Ottoman Empire and declared independence in 1912...What happened to the The War of Independence from the Turks??? Please help in this paragraph as it seems that is occupied by some not Albanians users with nationalistic agendas--Taulant23 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please work add this :

Skanderbeg Museum.

The Ottoman Turks expanded their empire from Anatolia to the Balkans in the 14th century. By the 15th century, the Turks had brought under subjection nearly all of the Balkan peninsula except for a small coastal strip which is included in present-day Albania. Albanian resistance to the Turks in the mid-15th century won them acclaim all over Europe. Albania became a symbol of resistance to the Ottoman Turks but suffered an almost continuous state of warfare.[1] One of the most successful resistance against the invading Ottomans, was led by Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg from 1443 to 1468.In 1443 he rallied Albanian forces and drove the Turks from his homeland. For 25 years, against tremendous odds, Skanderbeg kept the Turks from retaking Albania, which, due to its proximity to Italy, could easily have served as a springboard to the rest of Europe. After the death of Skanderbeg, resistance continued until 1478, although with only moderate success. The loyalties and alliances created and nurtured by Skanderbeg faltered and fell apart, and the Ottomans conquered the territory of Albania shortly after the fall of Kruje's castle. Albania then became part of the Ottoman Empire. They would remain a part of the Ottoman Empire as the provinces of İşkodra, Manastır and Yanya until 1912. --Taulant23 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is fine the way it is now. No, we are not going to add unsourced nationalist POV about "the first holocaust in the world". Athenean (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying its true ( which it could be) but some books compare it to thousands of Albanians killed during the siege of Kruja, and specially after Skanderbegs death. It does makes sense though, they were the first to rebel to Ottoman Empire, lets give the others an example.--Taulant23 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Library of Congress Country Study of Albania
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albania&oldid=526900694"