![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Second sentence is already incorrect. There are several nations on Balkan peninsula that had no state. At that time Croatians and slovenians had no state. Macedonians had no state. Cincar and Bunjevci even today are without state. Article is also full pov pushing.-- SLAK ( talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Title is incorrect. Reader could think that only Serbia was occupying Albania, if there were a occupation. Title of the page should be "Occupation of Albanian 1912-13". Serbia was not the only one who was occupying Albania. What was difference betweet Serbian, Greek or Montenegrian occupation? -- Alexmilt ( talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. There were parts of territory that now belongs to Albania, that were under control of Ottoman empire after 28. November 1912, like Shkodra and big region with Valona and Berat and their sourounding area. If Albania really existed from 28. November 1912, before Treaty of London (1913) was signed, then Ottoman empire occupied Albania as well, and it should be added to the list of countries that occupied Albania.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Athenean has removed referenced content without prior discussion:
What is the exact problem with this paragraph? -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Albania's borders were drawn December 1913. Considering this the Balkan countries were not in Albanian territory by Ottoman. The current title is misleading, it would be appropriate to name it: Albanian during Balkan Wars. Can someone assist me with this? CrazyMartini ( talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This has been no way to conduct a civilised discussion, nor any sensible way to close one. It is clearly not done to close a discussion in which one has commented, nor should someone who was involved produce a compromise like a rabbit from a hat. Having said that, Petri Krohn's other comments are quite appropriate. I'd suggest a rerun of the discussion. Put aside nationalism and look at what the subject might be called in any other encyclopedia. Returning this article to the original, pre-discussion name is certainly not intended as an endorsement of that name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am closing this discussion as a neutral outsider invited here on the
Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. As the arguments demonstrate, the old title is unacceptable under the Wikipedia central principal of neutral point-of-view; it precludes the creation of a neutral article. The suggested alternative has not reached a consensus. There is also evidence, that a state of military occupation existed. As a compromise In am moving this to
Occupation of Ottoman Albania. Please do not try to undo this unilaterally. If you believe that you can come to a consensus on a better name, start a new discussion.
The discussion has been dominated by national and ethnic POV pushers. If you continue to edit Wikipedia with such attitudes, you will face administrator action or arbitration, meaning topic bans and indefinite blocks or bans. To save you from the temptation of having yourself immediately banned or blocked, I have salted the redirect at Occupation of Albania (1912–1913). Petri Krohn ( talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Occupation of Albania (1912–1913) → Albania during the Balkan Wars —We have a major historical inconsistency: the title is 'Occupation of Albania', but during this period (1912-1913) the territories that were under the control of the Balkan League were de jure still part of the Ottoman Empire. That's because the borders of Albania were established by the Protocol of Florence [1] at December 19, 1913 (end of 1913), when the Balkan Wars ended [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]][ [8]. I believe the title: Albania during the Balkan Wars is much correct. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The armies of srb/gre/mne marched into territory with none or minority srb/gre/mne population (the majority being albanian) and after a short while left, that is all. On the other hand this occupation is a very important part of the albanian history, their newly created country was invaded, we albanian national figures like Çerçiz Topulli fighting, and large amounts of literature, including Lahuta e Malcis by Gjergj Fishta covering the montenegrin occupation of the region Shkodër, which is one of the most important pieces of albanian literature. In fact there is so much to write about that if this article would be renamed, after a while there would be a need for an article specifically dealing with the albanian point of view (this wouldn't happen in quite a while of course but it illustrates what I said earlier) -- Cradel ( talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Current standing: Support 10-8 Oppose (unless Strong Oppose scores higher). Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Metsobon34 hadn't made a single edit since the end of May and now he joins the discussion.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, check the first of the HISTORY point.
“ | the status of the territory of present-day Albania, the vast majority of which had been overrun by Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece | ” |
Maybe this does solve something-- Vinie007 13:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, my point here was that some further definition should be added, like the "(1912-1913)" of the present title, only I prefer "in the Balkan Wars" because it is much much clearer and to the point, and also implies, to anyone knowledgeable enough, who the involved parties were. @Cradel my main point is first that "Occupation" is, by evidence of this discussion alone, a non-NPOV term, especially when used without acknowledging the legal vacuum of the period. Bearing that in mind, the proposed title covers the period well, defines its scope clearly, and passes no judgement. The fact that it also adds the opportunity for some expansion of the article is a welcome bonus. I already indicated above what could be added. The internal Albanian developments for one are entirely missing, and they were happening parallel to the process of the military operations and partially in response to them. As for "Ottoman Albania", the term is vague, it extends practically to all of " Greater Albania" and even further beyond. Should this article then cover the conquest of Kosovo or the Greek capture of Ioannina and (southern) Epirus? To me, it makes sense to limit this to the extent of the modern Albanian state, since it is that state that essentially emerged from the Balkan Wars. Ideally, to my mind, this article should chronicle how that came to be... Constantine ✍ 07:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Mine was just an advice, none is stopping you to say what you want, but if you (but other users also) would at least read the article (the Ottoman accepting was there in the text apparently you didn't read) before commenting, should have spared to others kbytes of space and a lot of time. USA celebrates 4th of July, Albania November 1912 and practically every state celebrates the date of independence and not that of recognition. Summarizing to you "It is the act of Declaration who initiate a state". For legal issues related see above my comments. Aigest ( talk) 10:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line – If you need to base your argument on legality – however justified or unjustified – then the word "occupation" should not be used. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 10:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | The Liberation of Albania from Ottoman rule was the result of the Balkan Wars in 1912-1913, when the armies of the Balkan League member states: Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece entered Ottoman territory. The Treaty of London in May 1913 created the independent Principality of Albania under Prince William of Wied while the liberated Kosovo Vilayet became the province of Kosovo in Serbia. | ” |
NOTE – This discussion has now been posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. I ask that the time for votes be extended to allow neutral parties to take part in this discussion. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 18:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | The title as a result is Occupation of Albania. Since Albania has been occupied multiple times, the title will be Occupation of Albania (1912-1913). As easy as that. All the attempts to change the name of the article are going to mislead the reader. Albania existed as a political entity and it was occupied. Greece, Serbia and Montenegro could have chosen to occupy it or to recognize it. They occupied. | ” |
This comment of Sulmues is very easy en very right i think, every one need to agree with this explanation i think -- Vinie007 19:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The whole conversation is now exhausted; neither one block having convinced the other of its rationale. One side is adamant that the Albanian political entity was fully functional and valid, the other says it was neither and hence the actions were neither an occupation nor were they taking place on any Albanian soil. It's been said dozens of times, and we cannot find new grounds for solution or argument, it is becoming tiresome to continue. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
@Sulmues, Prince of Kosovo, etc. I do not doubt your good intentions over the title 'Occupation of Albania...'. There are also editor who would like to refer to Southern Albania as 'Occupation of Greece', or others to speak of Kosovo/Kosova as 'Occupation of Serbia'. But occupation can only take place of an internationally recognised country. The territory occupied in 1912 was Ottoman, most of its inhabitants were probably Albanians but in was not 'Albania'. Southern Albanian then became for a short while an autonomous province of Northern Epirus, etc. I have explained if you make a search of 'occupation of...' in google or wikipedia, the results are not about non-existing official countries. We cannot have an 'occupation of France/England by the Romans' but 'occupation of Gaul/Britain by the Romans'. That is why I say, look into the matter. We all try to behave like good, objective Wikipedian editors. Both of you have many good contributions to make in your specialist field and it is a shame if your edits are judged by your support of this title. Politis ( talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Evlekis. You can have a look at:
I think your arguments would be great for these pages also. Beserks ( talk) 07:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As a neutral who have not been following this debate for so long. Could someone please explain to me why the word occupation only can be used when sovreign nations are occupied? To put this diffrently, ifa Albania had been returned to the Ottoman empire, and been part of Turkey today, the natural title of the article would be the occupation of Albania(disambiguated for time period). It seems clear to me that a nation, or in this case alliace of nations, can occupy parts of another nation. In the case of WWII we have Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany, but nobody is arguing against the fact that Belarus was a part of USSR at the time. Taemyr ( talk) 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Why was the discussion closed? I don't see any consensus for Occupation of Ottoman Albania or any variants thereof. As far as I can tell, the discussion is still stalled. The main problem remains the use of the word "occupation", which is inherently POV. Athenean ( talk) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The title is wrong. There could be no occupation of Albania since Albania as a country didn't even exist at that time. The title should be Occupation of ethnic Albanian territories ( even that is not 100% true ). I see nothing of Ottoman occupation of Albania ?
These Balkan History Wiki articles are getting a little boring with all the POVs....especially from Albanian side. Thank god we have other resources in the nearby libraries that cannot be "deleted" or/and edited. Goodbye and enjoy your childish history makeover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.89.219 ( talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This article exists on Wikipedia on Serbian language. The title is (I am not sure if I will manage to translate it correctly) "Occupation of portion of Ottoman Balkan villayets (1912–1913)":
I agree that above mentioned title on wikipedia on serbian language could be estimated as too long but I think it corresponds with informations that can be found in relevant and appropriate sources about this occupation. Existing title is not supported by any relevant source of informations and therefore I propose to rename it to one of following names: Occupation of portion of Ottoman Balkan villayets (1912–1913) or Creating of Albanian Principality.
Discussion about title maybe prevented contributors to realize that there is one much bigger problem than title. It is text of article. There is nothing in text of article that is describing occupation itself (either it is occupation of Ottoman empire villayets, Ottoman Albania,or Albanian principality). -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 10:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly this debate has come to a stop, people on both sides have remained unconvinced at the others arguments. Fresh views are needed, but they shouldn't have to wade through all the stuff above. What I suggest is that people present their full arguments out below. This is not meant for discussion of all the arguments, that has been gone over again and again above, but to present it for others to read. In your arguments you can include a rebuttal of opposition arguments used, although no names etc. should be used. Focus on content over contributor yes? Also, if you cite any precedents of decisions on wikipedia or other such things, please use diffs so others can see that too. Hopefully this will allow other editors to read all the arguments themselves, for and against, and make it a lot clearer for everyone. I'll include a third path, if anyone wants to take it. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 18:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree Proposed title is NPOV, current title is victimological and POV. It is also misleading since the territory was in the possession of Ottoman troops, not Albanian troops, and Albania was not recognized by any states at the time. We have articles about other the Balkan countries during the Balkan wars (e.g.
Greece in the Balkan Wars), I don't see why we can't have
Albania during the Balkan Wars.
Athenean (
talk)
Agree Per previous norm. Historical sequence is clear: 28 November 1912: Decleration of Independence, but neither de jure nor de facto control of the majority of what would become modern Albania (apart from one sided declerations nothing more), December 1913: (de jure) recognition of the border of the new state. Not to mention that the de facto control of all the territories, that were included to Albania, by Albanian authorities started from 1921.
Alexikoua (
talk)
22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree The arguments have been made. "Occupation of Albania" in the legal sense cannot be applied given the legal vacuum and competing claims from all parties, for this would mean choosing sides. I also insist that the proposed title is more general and would allow a wider study of the process of the creation of the Albanian state. The military occupation by Greeks/Serbs/Montenegrins is but one aspect which cannot and should not be treated in isolation, for reasons of NPOV.
Constantine
✍
22:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree The operations in question predated what was merely a unilateral declaration of independence. The whole chapter itself testifies that this declaration was not widely accepted, and even when an Albanian political entity was finally inaugurated, it was not to contain every land within its proposal. In addtion, the Provincial Government of Albania never even established control over some of the regions remote from its power base. The current article implies that a Montenegrin military presence in the town of Bijelo Polje one month before Albania declared independence somehow constitutes an occupation of Albania.
Evlekis (Евлекис)
22:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree I will again stress the importance of adding the text based on facts about Albania itself and situation in Albania during period of Balkan wars. In the text we can find little or nothing about Albania (except for declaration of independence that is subject of another article) and situation in Albania during this period. There is nothing written about who governed this territory during Balkan wars, through what kind of institutions (Serbia created new administrative regions of portion of this territory, as it is part of Kingdom of Serbia, with its institutions, stuff, legislations...), what was the position of people there toward this institutions and vice versa (Albanian historiography is full of texts about Serbian soldiers robbing Albania and it should be stated, together with Serbian historiography claiming that Serbs and other Balkan allies liberated Albanians from Ottoman slavery). Without such text I think that we are having debate about the title of the article that should be deleted because its name is describing the event that did not occur (there was no occupation of Albania during Balkan wars, but there was only occupation of almost all parts of European territory of Ottoman empire) and its text does not correspond with name of the article but with name of other existing articles (Balkan wars and Albanian declaration of independence).--
Antidiskriminator (
talk)
07:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree Per my post above, per npov, and per Evlekis great post. -
WhiteWriter
speaks
18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree : I believe that this was easy to interpret, even if Ottoman propaganda said that we had Autonomus Albania 3 months before the Balkan Wars it was not recognized.
CrazyMartini (
talk)
21:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree Per my previous post.It is quit clear that term occupation cant apply here.
Seleukosa (
talk)
16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree Per Athenean and per Evlekis.
A Macedonian (
talk)
21:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree This sounds enough. Occupation is a term we should replace and in Balkan topics is used wrong and mostly overused.
Villick (
talk)
15:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree Albania existed before and during the occupation that lasted during a whole year, both as a political entity and as a geographical region. Given its existence as a political entity, the word "Occupation" is necessary. A country exists when it is de facto independent and it has a government that runs it. Albania declared independence on November 28 1912 (for many reasons it was done so that in Albania there would be a "second November", after November 28 1443 when Albania national hero,
Skanderbeg, went back to
Kruje after deserting the Sultan's army). A government started to work full time on December 4 1912. The date of independence of the United States is 1776, when a declaration of independence was made, not when the country was recognized (in 1783). This should suffice to have in worldwide history books the independence of Albania as November 28 1912. Given the existence of Albania the country, the legal arguments are completely futile. Albania existed as a political entity and it was occupied by its neighbors exactly because they didn't wish to recognize the just born country. Actually the main reason of the worldwide recognition of Albania with the Protocol of Florence was made because of the heavy resistance of the Albanians to this triple foreign invasion of its dear neighbors. I want to add something else: I find it very disturbing that after a long discussion when no consensus was found, this was put for vote: voting is completely unneccessary as we have many more Greek, Serbian, and Montenegrin editors than Albanian ones, so a voting process will clearly give a name that will suit editors pertaining to the "invading" countries. In addition I find very disturbing that there is so much emphasis in changing the name of the article rather than work on the article itself, which is still in a start status. Thanks for taking the time to read me again. --
Sulmues (
talk)
11:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree Albania existed as the Autonomous Region of Albania since August 1912 and included all four Albanian-populated vilayets, so there aren't any actual legal arguments against this title, but I don't think that the main focus of this article should be the region's invasion etc.. In November 1912 Albania declared independence with those borders, which were reduced to the present day borders after the treaty of London. Since then two minor changes have occured: the first was the cession of the area of the monastery of St. Naum to Yugoslavia, while the second was the annexation of some villages from Greece in 1925 after an agreement between the Albanian and the Greek government. I disagree with the proposed title but I also disagree with the present title, because the occupation is just a small part of the political entity that was created after the capture of Uskub in 1912.--
— ZjarriRrethues —
talk
17:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree For use of "occupation of albania", we don't need Albania to be an independent country. It's a region in Empire that was occupied by the Balkan countries (at least some parts of it were occupied). See
Occupation of Constantinople.
The territory was under Ottoman Sovereignty, but in the possession of Ottoman Albanian troops.
We cannot assume that the aim of Balkan countries was to liberate Albania, if Western great powers did not intervene they could have annexed Albania.
In article
Indonesian National Revolution, it is said Allies occupied Indonesia though it was formerly a Dutch colony occupied by Japan Empire. In article
Nedić regime, it is said that Serbia was occupied by Nazis, was Serbia a country then or part of Yugoslovia?
Kavas (
talk)
13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree - I've given my arguments above. This doesn't look like it's improving though, still the same editors and same arguments, only 1-2 users are neutral on national basis --
Cradel (
talk)
14:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
User is permablocked as a sockpuppet, case's here [
[16]].
Alexikoua (
talk)
19:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree The opposing party did not bring one single argument that makes sense, for the change. I liked especially "you can't occupy something that doesn't exist".
Beserks (
talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Based on my above comment, I propose two different suggestions:
-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The article should be expanded further to decide what name is more appropriate. Kebeta ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In October 1912, the Balkan states, following their own national aspirations jointly attacked the Ottoman Empire and during the next few months partitioned nearly all of Rumelia, the Ottoman territories in Europe, including those inhabited by the Albanians.
I agree that creating sounds wrong, but since my english is not perfect, will you please help and suggest another word instead of creating?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 10:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Establishment is better term than creating. That means that proposal "Establishment of [the] Albanian Principality" is proposal for third path that is neutral. Should we vote for it? -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There was no Occupation of Albania in 1912-1913 period, because Albania did not exist during occupation of parts of European Ottoman Empire. It is not question Occupation or not and Albania or not. It is question of choice between:
-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I wrote that there are two options, renaming or deleteing the article. Simanos introduced third option, to "clean" the text. I do not see how Simanos proposal to "clean" the text of the article from "many weasel words and phrases and snide comments that are unnecessary and un-encyclopedic" can solve the only serious problem: title of the article and subject of the text in the article that would correspond (now it is not the case) with such title actually never happened. Not only that it never happened, but can mislead readers of the article to think that this really happened and to affect their judgement in real life. I still think that there are only two options, renaming or deleting. I still propose to vote to rename it to "Establishment of [the] Albanian Principality" -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 11:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"In November, with the outbreak of the First Balkan War, the Albanians rose up and declared the creation of an independent Albania, which included all of what is now Albania and Kosovo"
I propose to delete this sentence because it can mislead readers to believe that today part of Albania is occupied by Kosovo.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You can not reword text in order to match your point of view. If Albanian vilayet was declared independent by group of 40 people gathered in Valona and if that declaration on 28. Nov 1912 created Albania as state then significant part of that territory was occupied in 1912-1913 or is still ocuipied by:
I think that we should face main problem that is causing all this confusion. Real date of creation of Albania and its real territory. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it could help to read part of Treaty of London (1913) (signed on May 30. 1913!) that deal with region of Albania and says: "His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans and their Majesties the Allied Sovereigns declare that they remit to His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias the care of settling the delimitation of the frontiers of Albania and all other questions concerning Albania." [17]. Balcan allies and Ottoman empire accepted that Great powers should decide what will be polytical status and final frontiers of teritorry of Albania. This is sentence from the Treaty in which is obvious that Albanian vilayet that was declared as independent on 28. Nov 1912 did not existed as independent state and that the frontiers of Albania were still to be defined. It is impossible to occupy territory of country that does not exist and does not have territory with its frontiers. Only when Great forces (GB, Austria, France, Germany and Russia) based on this treaty created Principality of Albania and after that defined its frontiers Albania was created with its definitive borders. Therefore I believe that this article should be deleted because it is describing the occupation of territory which frontiers were not defined and therefore impossible to be occupied. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Sulmues. No you are not wrong. I really don't have problem with date of creation of the Albania. You do. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Alexikoua. What template message do you think should be placed on top of this article untill it is decided if it is going to be deleted or renamed?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
A move request tag would be better. According to me a 'Albanian during the Balkan Wars' title is fine, but alternative proposals are welcomed. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is still open on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#More opinions needed. Was there a parallel discussion and subsequent decision made on another noticeboard or location? If so, shouldn't the discussion on the noticeboard be closed in some fashion before the move?
Also, I do not see an entry in the contested moves section of the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Is the person who made the move an administrator? The person who appears to have made the move, User:Villick, had participated in the debate and had voted so should know it would be contested which, while I may be naive in this matter, brings up a Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins concern. What protocol led to the move while at least one discussion was still open? I don't know why people are being asked to offer opinions in an "official" discussion when the decision has already been made.
If there is some Wiki policy that I am unaware of, please inform me. Veriss ( talk) 17:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Admin note -- Ok, the talk page and article are now at the same name, and the page is move-locked indefinitely at the current title. If you want it moved elsewhere, carry out the Requested move process again.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"On the other hand the Albanian Declaration of Independence, at November 1912, and the formation of the provisional Government of Albanian managed to control only part of central Albania that period, including Vlorë and Berat."
Here you can find meomoirs of Ismail Qemali, who organized declaring of independence. At page 371 it is written that there were local Ottoman "gendarmes" that first chased him and then were instructed to honour him. Even Qemali on page 374 says that Ottoman army still control parts of territory that was declared to be independent. If somebody look at the map of occupied territories of Ottoman empire in FBW it is clear that it can be only Valona and Berat. On the same page (374) Qemali stress that after independence was declared, Greek navy blocked Valona port and fired guns bombing the Valona and keeping it cut from the rest of the world not been able to use even telegraph. Therefore, the above mentioned statement that people that declared independence "controled part of central Albania that includes Vlore and Berat" after they declared independence is not completely right, at least not untill ceasfire was signed in December. This is very important point, because if Qemali himself admit that he did not have control of territory that was declared as independent from Ottoman empire, readers could be misled by above mentioned text. Only after London peace treaty was signed in May 1913. Ottoman empire retreated fully from the Valona and Berat, not because Qemali and his government put it under control, but because London treaty was signed. Based on above mentioned I propose to delete above mentioned sentence. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You may be right on this. But feel free to make the appropriate corrections/additions (properly referenced). Alexikoua ( talk) 20:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I clearly wrote:"I propose to delete above mentioned sentence". I do not want to add anything. I proposed deletion based on Qemali memoairs. I know that he was not reliable and credible since he was so much involved in events. If he himself, admit that provisional government had no control, then it can be reliable source for deletion.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"Albanian politician Esad Pashë Toptani collaborated with Serbian government during the occupation. He created a puppet state based in Durrës, called the Republic of Central Albania and fought against the Provisional Government of Albania."
Somebody made mistake with chronology in those two sentences because during the Balkan Wars Essad Pasha Toptani was most of the time (six months) fighting against Serbian and Montenegrin army during Siege of Shkoder which resulted with thousands Serbian and Montenegrin casualties and losses. Also, Republic of Central Albania was established in October 1913, which was after Balkan Wars.
Based on above explained mistake with chronology I propose to delete above two sentences.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 14:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The Serb army first entered Ottoman territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians in November 1912 as part of its campaign in the then-ongoing First Balkan War.
The above sentence is incorrect and referenced source does not contain that information at all. Army of the Kingdom of Serbia started its operations and entered "Ottoman territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians" in October like it is written in below sentence extracted from the Battle of Kumanovo article.
"On 21 October the entire Third Army began its advance and on 22 October, without serious resistance, entered Priština".(Borislav Ratković, Mitar Đurišić, Savo Skoko, Srbija i Crna Gora u Balkanskim ratovima 1912-1913, Belgrade: BIGZ, 1972, pages 50-62.)
Therefore I will change the above mentioned incorrect sentence and add the correct referenced source for it.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 07:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
what about population of Albania in 1912. Do you know that almost 50% of albanian population of that time wasnt of Shqip ethnic background? why we have all possible docuuments about national background of population in Greece, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia in that time, and about Albania nothing?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.70.7 ( talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Maybe you should know that expression "albanian" is not ethnic term, it is name for everey inhabitant of land of Alba(nia): Greeks, Shqipi, Serbs and Vlachis, obviously you dont. This is not politics, this should be enyclopedia!-- 109.245.70.7 ( talk) 22:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) In the end, in last census in Albania (in 2011 i think), over 560,000 was in line "people which doesnt want to say their ethnic background"!-- 109.245.70.7 ( talk) 22:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Albania during the Balkan Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Second sentence is already incorrect. There are several nations on Balkan peninsula that had no state. At that time Croatians and slovenians had no state. Macedonians had no state. Cincar and Bunjevci even today are without state. Article is also full pov pushing.-- SLAK ( talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Title is incorrect. Reader could think that only Serbia was occupying Albania, if there were a occupation. Title of the page should be "Occupation of Albanian 1912-13". Serbia was not the only one who was occupying Albania. What was difference betweet Serbian, Greek or Montenegrian occupation? -- Alexmilt ( talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. There were parts of territory that now belongs to Albania, that were under control of Ottoman empire after 28. November 1912, like Shkodra and big region with Valona and Berat and their sourounding area. If Albania really existed from 28. November 1912, before Treaty of London (1913) was signed, then Ottoman empire occupied Albania as well, and it should be added to the list of countries that occupied Albania.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Athenean has removed referenced content without prior discussion:
What is the exact problem with this paragraph? -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Albania's borders were drawn December 1913. Considering this the Balkan countries were not in Albanian territory by Ottoman. The current title is misleading, it would be appropriate to name it: Albanian during Balkan Wars. Can someone assist me with this? CrazyMartini ( talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This has been no way to conduct a civilised discussion, nor any sensible way to close one. It is clearly not done to close a discussion in which one has commented, nor should someone who was involved produce a compromise like a rabbit from a hat. Having said that, Petri Krohn's other comments are quite appropriate. I'd suggest a rerun of the discussion. Put aside nationalism and look at what the subject might be called in any other encyclopedia. Returning this article to the original, pre-discussion name is certainly not intended as an endorsement of that name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am closing this discussion as a neutral outsider invited here on the
Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. As the arguments demonstrate, the old title is unacceptable under the Wikipedia central principal of neutral point-of-view; it precludes the creation of a neutral article. The suggested alternative has not reached a consensus. There is also evidence, that a state of military occupation existed. As a compromise In am moving this to
Occupation of Ottoman Albania. Please do not try to undo this unilaterally. If you believe that you can come to a consensus on a better name, start a new discussion.
The discussion has been dominated by national and ethnic POV pushers. If you continue to edit Wikipedia with such attitudes, you will face administrator action or arbitration, meaning topic bans and indefinite blocks or bans. To save you from the temptation of having yourself immediately banned or blocked, I have salted the redirect at Occupation of Albania (1912–1913). Petri Krohn ( talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Occupation of Albania (1912–1913) → Albania during the Balkan Wars —We have a major historical inconsistency: the title is 'Occupation of Albania', but during this period (1912-1913) the territories that were under the control of the Balkan League were de jure still part of the Ottoman Empire. That's because the borders of Albania were established by the Protocol of Florence [1] at December 19, 1913 (end of 1913), when the Balkan Wars ended [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]][ [8]. I believe the title: Albania during the Balkan Wars is much correct. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The armies of srb/gre/mne marched into territory with none or minority srb/gre/mne population (the majority being albanian) and after a short while left, that is all. On the other hand this occupation is a very important part of the albanian history, their newly created country was invaded, we albanian national figures like Çerçiz Topulli fighting, and large amounts of literature, including Lahuta e Malcis by Gjergj Fishta covering the montenegrin occupation of the region Shkodër, which is one of the most important pieces of albanian literature. In fact there is so much to write about that if this article would be renamed, after a while there would be a need for an article specifically dealing with the albanian point of view (this wouldn't happen in quite a while of course but it illustrates what I said earlier) -- Cradel ( talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Current standing: Support 10-8 Oppose (unless Strong Oppose scores higher). Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Metsobon34 hadn't made a single edit since the end of May and now he joins the discussion.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, check the first of the HISTORY point.
“ | the status of the territory of present-day Albania, the vast majority of which had been overrun by Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece | ” |
Maybe this does solve something-- Vinie007 13:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, my point here was that some further definition should be added, like the "(1912-1913)" of the present title, only I prefer "in the Balkan Wars" because it is much much clearer and to the point, and also implies, to anyone knowledgeable enough, who the involved parties were. @Cradel my main point is first that "Occupation" is, by evidence of this discussion alone, a non-NPOV term, especially when used without acknowledging the legal vacuum of the period. Bearing that in mind, the proposed title covers the period well, defines its scope clearly, and passes no judgement. The fact that it also adds the opportunity for some expansion of the article is a welcome bonus. I already indicated above what could be added. The internal Albanian developments for one are entirely missing, and they were happening parallel to the process of the military operations and partially in response to them. As for "Ottoman Albania", the term is vague, it extends practically to all of " Greater Albania" and even further beyond. Should this article then cover the conquest of Kosovo or the Greek capture of Ioannina and (southern) Epirus? To me, it makes sense to limit this to the extent of the modern Albanian state, since it is that state that essentially emerged from the Balkan Wars. Ideally, to my mind, this article should chronicle how that came to be... Constantine ✍ 07:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Mine was just an advice, none is stopping you to say what you want, but if you (but other users also) would at least read the article (the Ottoman accepting was there in the text apparently you didn't read) before commenting, should have spared to others kbytes of space and a lot of time. USA celebrates 4th of July, Albania November 1912 and practically every state celebrates the date of independence and not that of recognition. Summarizing to you "It is the act of Declaration who initiate a state". For legal issues related see above my comments. Aigest ( talk) 10:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line – If you need to base your argument on legality – however justified or unjustified – then the word "occupation" should not be used. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 10:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | The Liberation of Albania from Ottoman rule was the result of the Balkan Wars in 1912-1913, when the armies of the Balkan League member states: Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece entered Ottoman territory. The Treaty of London in May 1913 created the independent Principality of Albania under Prince William of Wied while the liberated Kosovo Vilayet became the province of Kosovo in Serbia. | ” |
NOTE – This discussion has now been posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. I ask that the time for votes be extended to allow neutral parties to take part in this discussion. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 18:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | The title as a result is Occupation of Albania. Since Albania has been occupied multiple times, the title will be Occupation of Albania (1912-1913). As easy as that. All the attempts to change the name of the article are going to mislead the reader. Albania existed as a political entity and it was occupied. Greece, Serbia and Montenegro could have chosen to occupy it or to recognize it. They occupied. | ” |
This comment of Sulmues is very easy en very right i think, every one need to agree with this explanation i think -- Vinie007 19:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The whole conversation is now exhausted; neither one block having convinced the other of its rationale. One side is adamant that the Albanian political entity was fully functional and valid, the other says it was neither and hence the actions were neither an occupation nor were they taking place on any Albanian soil. It's been said dozens of times, and we cannot find new grounds for solution or argument, it is becoming tiresome to continue. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
@Sulmues, Prince of Kosovo, etc. I do not doubt your good intentions over the title 'Occupation of Albania...'. There are also editor who would like to refer to Southern Albania as 'Occupation of Greece', or others to speak of Kosovo/Kosova as 'Occupation of Serbia'. But occupation can only take place of an internationally recognised country. The territory occupied in 1912 was Ottoman, most of its inhabitants were probably Albanians but in was not 'Albania'. Southern Albanian then became for a short while an autonomous province of Northern Epirus, etc. I have explained if you make a search of 'occupation of...' in google or wikipedia, the results are not about non-existing official countries. We cannot have an 'occupation of France/England by the Romans' but 'occupation of Gaul/Britain by the Romans'. That is why I say, look into the matter. We all try to behave like good, objective Wikipedian editors. Both of you have many good contributions to make in your specialist field and it is a shame if your edits are judged by your support of this title. Politis ( talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Evlekis. You can have a look at:
I think your arguments would be great for these pages also. Beserks ( talk) 07:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As a neutral who have not been following this debate for so long. Could someone please explain to me why the word occupation only can be used when sovreign nations are occupied? To put this diffrently, ifa Albania had been returned to the Ottoman empire, and been part of Turkey today, the natural title of the article would be the occupation of Albania(disambiguated for time period). It seems clear to me that a nation, or in this case alliace of nations, can occupy parts of another nation. In the case of WWII we have Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany, but nobody is arguing against the fact that Belarus was a part of USSR at the time. Taemyr ( talk) 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Why was the discussion closed? I don't see any consensus for Occupation of Ottoman Albania or any variants thereof. As far as I can tell, the discussion is still stalled. The main problem remains the use of the word "occupation", which is inherently POV. Athenean ( talk) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The title is wrong. There could be no occupation of Albania since Albania as a country didn't even exist at that time. The title should be Occupation of ethnic Albanian territories ( even that is not 100% true ). I see nothing of Ottoman occupation of Albania ?
These Balkan History Wiki articles are getting a little boring with all the POVs....especially from Albanian side. Thank god we have other resources in the nearby libraries that cannot be "deleted" or/and edited. Goodbye and enjoy your childish history makeover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.89.219 ( talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This article exists on Wikipedia on Serbian language. The title is (I am not sure if I will manage to translate it correctly) "Occupation of portion of Ottoman Balkan villayets (1912–1913)":
I agree that above mentioned title on wikipedia on serbian language could be estimated as too long but I think it corresponds with informations that can be found in relevant and appropriate sources about this occupation. Existing title is not supported by any relevant source of informations and therefore I propose to rename it to one of following names: Occupation of portion of Ottoman Balkan villayets (1912–1913) or Creating of Albanian Principality.
Discussion about title maybe prevented contributors to realize that there is one much bigger problem than title. It is text of article. There is nothing in text of article that is describing occupation itself (either it is occupation of Ottoman empire villayets, Ottoman Albania,or Albanian principality). -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 10:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly this debate has come to a stop, people on both sides have remained unconvinced at the others arguments. Fresh views are needed, but they shouldn't have to wade through all the stuff above. What I suggest is that people present their full arguments out below. This is not meant for discussion of all the arguments, that has been gone over again and again above, but to present it for others to read. In your arguments you can include a rebuttal of opposition arguments used, although no names etc. should be used. Focus on content over contributor yes? Also, if you cite any precedents of decisions on wikipedia or other such things, please use diffs so others can see that too. Hopefully this will allow other editors to read all the arguments themselves, for and against, and make it a lot clearer for everyone. I'll include a third path, if anyone wants to take it. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 18:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree Proposed title is NPOV, current title is victimological and POV. It is also misleading since the territory was in the possession of Ottoman troops, not Albanian troops, and Albania was not recognized by any states at the time. We have articles about other the Balkan countries during the Balkan wars (e.g.
Greece in the Balkan Wars), I don't see why we can't have
Albania during the Balkan Wars.
Athenean (
talk)
Agree Per previous norm. Historical sequence is clear: 28 November 1912: Decleration of Independence, but neither de jure nor de facto control of the majority of what would become modern Albania (apart from one sided declerations nothing more), December 1913: (de jure) recognition of the border of the new state. Not to mention that the de facto control of all the territories, that were included to Albania, by Albanian authorities started from 1921.
Alexikoua (
talk)
22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree The arguments have been made. "Occupation of Albania" in the legal sense cannot be applied given the legal vacuum and competing claims from all parties, for this would mean choosing sides. I also insist that the proposed title is more general and would allow a wider study of the process of the creation of the Albanian state. The military occupation by Greeks/Serbs/Montenegrins is but one aspect which cannot and should not be treated in isolation, for reasons of NPOV.
Constantine
✍
22:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree The operations in question predated what was merely a unilateral declaration of independence. The whole chapter itself testifies that this declaration was not widely accepted, and even when an Albanian political entity was finally inaugurated, it was not to contain every land within its proposal. In addtion, the Provincial Government of Albania never even established control over some of the regions remote from its power base. The current article implies that a Montenegrin military presence in the town of Bijelo Polje one month before Albania declared independence somehow constitutes an occupation of Albania.
Evlekis (Евлекис)
22:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree I will again stress the importance of adding the text based on facts about Albania itself and situation in Albania during period of Balkan wars. In the text we can find little or nothing about Albania (except for declaration of independence that is subject of another article) and situation in Albania during this period. There is nothing written about who governed this territory during Balkan wars, through what kind of institutions (Serbia created new administrative regions of portion of this territory, as it is part of Kingdom of Serbia, with its institutions, stuff, legislations...), what was the position of people there toward this institutions and vice versa (Albanian historiography is full of texts about Serbian soldiers robbing Albania and it should be stated, together with Serbian historiography claiming that Serbs and other Balkan allies liberated Albanians from Ottoman slavery). Without such text I think that we are having debate about the title of the article that should be deleted because its name is describing the event that did not occur (there was no occupation of Albania during Balkan wars, but there was only occupation of almost all parts of European territory of Ottoman empire) and its text does not correspond with name of the article but with name of other existing articles (Balkan wars and Albanian declaration of independence).--
Antidiskriminator (
talk)
07:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree Per my post above, per npov, and per Evlekis great post. -
WhiteWriter
speaks
18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree : I believe that this was easy to interpret, even if Ottoman propaganda said that we had Autonomus Albania 3 months before the Balkan Wars it was not recognized.
CrazyMartini (
talk)
21:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree Per my previous post.It is quit clear that term occupation cant apply here.
Seleukosa (
talk)
16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree Per Athenean and per Evlekis.
A Macedonian (
talk)
21:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree This sounds enough. Occupation is a term we should replace and in Balkan topics is used wrong and mostly overused.
Villick (
talk)
15:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree Albania existed before and during the occupation that lasted during a whole year, both as a political entity and as a geographical region. Given its existence as a political entity, the word "Occupation" is necessary. A country exists when it is de facto independent and it has a government that runs it. Albania declared independence on November 28 1912 (for many reasons it was done so that in Albania there would be a "second November", after November 28 1443 when Albania national hero,
Skanderbeg, went back to
Kruje after deserting the Sultan's army). A government started to work full time on December 4 1912. The date of independence of the United States is 1776, when a declaration of independence was made, not when the country was recognized (in 1783). This should suffice to have in worldwide history books the independence of Albania as November 28 1912. Given the existence of Albania the country, the legal arguments are completely futile. Albania existed as a political entity and it was occupied by its neighbors exactly because they didn't wish to recognize the just born country. Actually the main reason of the worldwide recognition of Albania with the Protocol of Florence was made because of the heavy resistance of the Albanians to this triple foreign invasion of its dear neighbors. I want to add something else: I find it very disturbing that after a long discussion when no consensus was found, this was put for vote: voting is completely unneccessary as we have many more Greek, Serbian, and Montenegrin editors than Albanian ones, so a voting process will clearly give a name that will suit editors pertaining to the "invading" countries. In addition I find very disturbing that there is so much emphasis in changing the name of the article rather than work on the article itself, which is still in a start status. Thanks for taking the time to read me again. --
Sulmues (
talk)
11:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree Albania existed as the Autonomous Region of Albania since August 1912 and included all four Albanian-populated vilayets, so there aren't any actual legal arguments against this title, but I don't think that the main focus of this article should be the region's invasion etc.. In November 1912 Albania declared independence with those borders, which were reduced to the present day borders after the treaty of London. Since then two minor changes have occured: the first was the cession of the area of the monastery of St. Naum to Yugoslavia, while the second was the annexation of some villages from Greece in 1925 after an agreement between the Albanian and the Greek government. I disagree with the proposed title but I also disagree with the present title, because the occupation is just a small part of the political entity that was created after the capture of Uskub in 1912.--
— ZjarriRrethues —
talk
17:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree For use of "occupation of albania", we don't need Albania to be an independent country. It's a region in Empire that was occupied by the Balkan countries (at least some parts of it were occupied). See
Occupation of Constantinople.
The territory was under Ottoman Sovereignty, but in the possession of Ottoman Albanian troops.
We cannot assume that the aim of Balkan countries was to liberate Albania, if Western great powers did not intervene they could have annexed Albania.
In article
Indonesian National Revolution, it is said Allies occupied Indonesia though it was formerly a Dutch colony occupied by Japan Empire. In article
Nedić regime, it is said that Serbia was occupied by Nazis, was Serbia a country then or part of Yugoslovia?
Kavas (
talk)
13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree - I've given my arguments above. This doesn't look like it's improving though, still the same editors and same arguments, only 1-2 users are neutral on national basis --
Cradel (
talk)
14:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
User is permablocked as a sockpuppet, case's here [
[16]].
Alexikoua (
talk)
19:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree The opposing party did not bring one single argument that makes sense, for the change. I liked especially "you can't occupy something that doesn't exist".
Beserks (
talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Based on my above comment, I propose two different suggestions:
-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The article should be expanded further to decide what name is more appropriate. Kebeta ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In October 1912, the Balkan states, following their own national aspirations jointly attacked the Ottoman Empire and during the next few months partitioned nearly all of Rumelia, the Ottoman territories in Europe, including those inhabited by the Albanians.
I agree that creating sounds wrong, but since my english is not perfect, will you please help and suggest another word instead of creating?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 10:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Establishment is better term than creating. That means that proposal "Establishment of [the] Albanian Principality" is proposal for third path that is neutral. Should we vote for it? -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There was no Occupation of Albania in 1912-1913 period, because Albania did not exist during occupation of parts of European Ottoman Empire. It is not question Occupation or not and Albania or not. It is question of choice between:
-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I wrote that there are two options, renaming or deleteing the article. Simanos introduced third option, to "clean" the text. I do not see how Simanos proposal to "clean" the text of the article from "many weasel words and phrases and snide comments that are unnecessary and un-encyclopedic" can solve the only serious problem: title of the article and subject of the text in the article that would correspond (now it is not the case) with such title actually never happened. Not only that it never happened, but can mislead readers of the article to think that this really happened and to affect their judgement in real life. I still think that there are only two options, renaming or deleting. I still propose to vote to rename it to "Establishment of [the] Albanian Principality" -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 11:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"In November, with the outbreak of the First Balkan War, the Albanians rose up and declared the creation of an independent Albania, which included all of what is now Albania and Kosovo"
I propose to delete this sentence because it can mislead readers to believe that today part of Albania is occupied by Kosovo.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You can not reword text in order to match your point of view. If Albanian vilayet was declared independent by group of 40 people gathered in Valona and if that declaration on 28. Nov 1912 created Albania as state then significant part of that territory was occupied in 1912-1913 or is still ocuipied by:
I think that we should face main problem that is causing all this confusion. Real date of creation of Albania and its real territory. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it could help to read part of Treaty of London (1913) (signed on May 30. 1913!) that deal with region of Albania and says: "His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans and their Majesties the Allied Sovereigns declare that they remit to His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias the care of settling the delimitation of the frontiers of Albania and all other questions concerning Albania." [17]. Balcan allies and Ottoman empire accepted that Great powers should decide what will be polytical status and final frontiers of teritorry of Albania. This is sentence from the Treaty in which is obvious that Albanian vilayet that was declared as independent on 28. Nov 1912 did not existed as independent state and that the frontiers of Albania were still to be defined. It is impossible to occupy territory of country that does not exist and does not have territory with its frontiers. Only when Great forces (GB, Austria, France, Germany and Russia) based on this treaty created Principality of Albania and after that defined its frontiers Albania was created with its definitive borders. Therefore I believe that this article should be deleted because it is describing the occupation of territory which frontiers were not defined and therefore impossible to be occupied. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Sulmues. No you are not wrong. I really don't have problem with date of creation of the Albania. You do. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Alexikoua. What template message do you think should be placed on top of this article untill it is decided if it is going to be deleted or renamed?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
A move request tag would be better. According to me a 'Albanian during the Balkan Wars' title is fine, but alternative proposals are welcomed. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is still open on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#More opinions needed. Was there a parallel discussion and subsequent decision made on another noticeboard or location? If so, shouldn't the discussion on the noticeboard be closed in some fashion before the move?
Also, I do not see an entry in the contested moves section of the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Is the person who made the move an administrator? The person who appears to have made the move, User:Villick, had participated in the debate and had voted so should know it would be contested which, while I may be naive in this matter, brings up a Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins concern. What protocol led to the move while at least one discussion was still open? I don't know why people are being asked to offer opinions in an "official" discussion when the decision has already been made.
If there is some Wiki policy that I am unaware of, please inform me. Veriss ( talk) 17:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Admin note -- Ok, the talk page and article are now at the same name, and the page is move-locked indefinitely at the current title. If you want it moved elsewhere, carry out the Requested move process again.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"On the other hand the Albanian Declaration of Independence, at November 1912, and the formation of the provisional Government of Albanian managed to control only part of central Albania that period, including Vlorë and Berat."
Here you can find meomoirs of Ismail Qemali, who organized declaring of independence. At page 371 it is written that there were local Ottoman "gendarmes" that first chased him and then were instructed to honour him. Even Qemali on page 374 says that Ottoman army still control parts of territory that was declared to be independent. If somebody look at the map of occupied territories of Ottoman empire in FBW it is clear that it can be only Valona and Berat. On the same page (374) Qemali stress that after independence was declared, Greek navy blocked Valona port and fired guns bombing the Valona and keeping it cut from the rest of the world not been able to use even telegraph. Therefore, the above mentioned statement that people that declared independence "controled part of central Albania that includes Vlore and Berat" after they declared independence is not completely right, at least not untill ceasfire was signed in December. This is very important point, because if Qemali himself admit that he did not have control of territory that was declared as independent from Ottoman empire, readers could be misled by above mentioned text. Only after London peace treaty was signed in May 1913. Ottoman empire retreated fully from the Valona and Berat, not because Qemali and his government put it under control, but because London treaty was signed. Based on above mentioned I propose to delete above mentioned sentence. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You may be right on this. But feel free to make the appropriate corrections/additions (properly referenced). Alexikoua ( talk) 20:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I clearly wrote:"I propose to delete above mentioned sentence". I do not want to add anything. I proposed deletion based on Qemali memoairs. I know that he was not reliable and credible since he was so much involved in events. If he himself, admit that provisional government had no control, then it can be reliable source for deletion.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"Albanian politician Esad Pashë Toptani collaborated with Serbian government during the occupation. He created a puppet state based in Durrës, called the Republic of Central Albania and fought against the Provisional Government of Albania."
Somebody made mistake with chronology in those two sentences because during the Balkan Wars Essad Pasha Toptani was most of the time (six months) fighting against Serbian and Montenegrin army during Siege of Shkoder which resulted with thousands Serbian and Montenegrin casualties and losses. Also, Republic of Central Albania was established in October 1913, which was after Balkan Wars.
Based on above explained mistake with chronology I propose to delete above two sentences.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 14:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The Serb army first entered Ottoman territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians in November 1912 as part of its campaign in the then-ongoing First Balkan War.
The above sentence is incorrect and referenced source does not contain that information at all. Army of the Kingdom of Serbia started its operations and entered "Ottoman territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians" in October like it is written in below sentence extracted from the Battle of Kumanovo article.
"On 21 October the entire Third Army began its advance and on 22 October, without serious resistance, entered Priština".(Borislav Ratković, Mitar Đurišić, Savo Skoko, Srbija i Crna Gora u Balkanskim ratovima 1912-1913, Belgrade: BIGZ, 1972, pages 50-62.)
Therefore I will change the above mentioned incorrect sentence and add the correct referenced source for it.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 07:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
what about population of Albania in 1912. Do you know that almost 50% of albanian population of that time wasnt of Shqip ethnic background? why we have all possible docuuments about national background of population in Greece, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia in that time, and about Albania nothing?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.70.7 ( talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Maybe you should know that expression "albanian" is not ethnic term, it is name for everey inhabitant of land of Alba(nia): Greeks, Shqipi, Serbs and Vlachis, obviously you dont. This is not politics, this should be enyclopedia!-- 109.245.70.7 ( talk) 22:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) In the end, in last census in Albania (in 2011 i think), over 560,000 was in line "people which doesnt want to say their ethnic background"!-- 109.245.70.7 ( talk) 22:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Albania during the Balkan Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)