Talk:Venetian Albania

message: Dear Dalmata, I see that we are back to the usual nationalistic fights that damage wikipedia. I am astonished reading that Paxequilibrium want to "cancel" all the voice. May be he doesn't understand that wikipedia is NOT a nationalistic forum, but it is based and ruled on objective and impartial opinions. That is the reason why I require the intervention of an IMPARTIAL administrator, an administrator who should NOT be born in the Adriatic area (not Croat, Serb, Montenegrin, Italian, etc.. ) or with "family and/or  work" roots there.
Now let me start to explain this:
1)Nobody can deny the existence of the "Albania veneta", as CrnaGora states :..."If you google "Albania veneta", there is about 86,000 results, a few I saw did involve Montenegro (Boka Kotorska) to be part of Albania veneta". 
But this is only one research (anyway, I doubt he checked all the 86000...) What about the ACADEMIC research in JSTOR or in the american "Library of Congress", to name only two? I believe the scholars should be trusted MORE than google, don't you?
2)I originally wanted to name the voice "Albania veneta", but in the english wikipedia I preferred to use the related english words. But "Venetian albania" sound related to Albania only, so I decided to relate the voice to Montenegro and to Albania togheter. Anyway, to show that I am not closed to nationalistic points of view, I agree with CrnaGora to "move the page to the correct name", as he wrote. I even ask IN A FRIENDLY WAY the opinion of Paxequilibrium about the possibility of renaming the voice as "Albania veneta", instead of "Venetian albania-montenegro".
3)This is an historical voice and has nothing to do with nationalistic claims. Wikipedia is based on contribution about ANY historical subject, yes or no? I am afraid that Paxequilibrium shows his nationalistic mentality when writes:..."Is it there to present Italian historical claims for parts of modern Montenegrin land?..." This phrase is unbelievable! It reminds me the propaganda of Tito in the forties and fifties. Allow me to remember all of you that we are in a century where it is being created the European Union and the nationalistic points of view are being forgotten more and more.  I am only interested (a) to write about the presence of Venice in coastal Montenegro and (b) to create a voice about the recent history of these areas, with references to the romance language used there (and still used by 500 italians).  
4)The voice is based on the italian wikipedia voice "Albania veneta". This means that some data and informations in my "Venetian albania-montenegro" are translated from the italian voice, where they have been checked and approved by administrators of the italian wikipedia. Why cancel my voice if the italian voice is judged worth of wikipedia? Allow me to repeat that this "cancellation proposal" is against the impartiality of wikipedia (and reminds me the infamous "communist Yugoslavia" 's censure). 
5) Tomorrow I am going to write detailed data & references to support my voice. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY DATA & REFERENCE AGAINST THE VOICE. There are some books (bibliography) that deny the "Albania veneta"? There are academic sources against what I wrote?  Brunodam
:There is no nationalism here. Just the notion 22% Montenegrins speaking the Montenegrin language. What on earth does it have to do with the Venetian Albanian territory? There is no nationalism here, but the problem is that 90% of the article either doesn't makes sense (no relevance) or simply does not refer to this article's subject at all. 
:I didn't check all 86,000 (only some of them), but they are all irrelevant, because not a single of them mentions "Venetian albania-montenegro". No one denies that Venetian possessions in Albania existed - but everyone denies that a "Venetian albania-montenegro" never ever existed. There are no sources that support Venetian albania-montenegro - and thus producing such a name is original research.
:To conclude, Wikipedians are not merited upon their place of birth or ethnic origin - but based upon their personal virtues. You're accusing others for nationalism and applying this rude generalization? 
::I am only interested (a) to write about the presence of Venice in coastal Montenegro. Well then do. No one is stopping you. AFAIK, I am encouraging you. But do not do this. 
::Thus, I propose(d) moving to "Venetian Albania" and cutting out all the irrelevant info (which is sadly, most of the content). --PaxEquilibrium 13:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Data and Evidences on the Albania veneta

message: As the author of the German article :de:Venezianisches Albanien I've just seen that some one has copied our little bibliography into this article. So you have now a good list of literature, but the article is still nonsense. I want to try explaining my point of view, but my English is not really good, please excuse me there for.
1. The English title is completely wrong. It has never existed a territory, which was called Venetian albania-montenegro. 
2. The defenition what Venetian Albania is, should make clear, that it was an historical province of the Venetian Republic, which has existed from the 15th century to the 18th century. So it is completely useless to write about the history, population et cetera of this area in the time before an after these centuries under this title. You should also explain, why this region, today in Montenegro get the name Albania Veneta as we tried in the German version.
3. Quite 50% of the text do not tell anything about the Venetian time in the Montenegrin coast area.   
Decius--217.234.158.172 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Decius, in the point 2 on my former post ("Data & evidences on...") you can find the explanation about the english title. I should have called it Albania veneta, like the italian and german voices. But I have wanted to "enlarge" the subject and so I have included even the history of the romance populations in the coastal montenegro. Do you have a good idea for the title? Allow me to repeat that I want to solve the problem "in a friendly way", as I have written to Paxequilibrium. Furthermore, I have stated in point 4 of my former post that "....The voice is based on the italian wikipedia voice "Albania veneta"....", because I understand minimally the german language of your "Venezianisches Albanien" (from which I have only copied the useful bibliography). Your version looks to me interesting: do you know how can I translate it in english (or in italian/spanish)? Thank you. Brunodam --Brunodam 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Venetian albania-montenegro?

message: 500 Italians in the Bay of Kotor? How can that be correct?
: Ask the Comitato Cattaro and the Comunita' nazionale italiana del Montenegro. They have phone, fax and address. Brunodam
:: I think you misunderstood how things go in Wikipedia - you do not put something and ask us to search for sources - you supplement them yourself, especially in controversial cases like this one. More importantly - there are not much over one hundred Italians in all of Montenegro. How could possibly there be five times more in the Bay of Kotor (which is [only] a part of Montenegro). Where's the logic? --PaxEquilibrium 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italians? 

message: I propose that this page be renamed to Albania Veneta as Venetian Albania is a neologism, is misleading and will likely lead to more misunderstanding. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it as in English history books it is not normally translated to "Venetian Albania". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page rename

message: First of all you cannot claim that the cities were primarily Serbocroat and then write their name in Italian. I know you are used to talking about them this way, but this IS the English Wikipedia. You cannot write names in Italian, you must put them in brackets. 
Second. I know you referenced the section on the history of the Romance-speakers almost entirely. Your effort is commendable, however, some of the things you wrote about are highly controversial and therefore need an unbiased source, that must NOT be Yugoslav or Italian. I can find you many historians around here that say the completely opposite things. I hope you agree with me on this... but somehow I doubt it. DIREKTOR 09:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the historical entity Albania Veneta, the Venetian possession- therefore the Venetian placenames should come first with the modern names in brackets. And as for the claim that it indicates that Slavs should be cleansed from the area because it is really part of Italy, the edits make no such claim in fact they claim that Italian speakers moved or were driven away from the area.  Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian city names, Italian authors with considerable biase 

message: Please take some time to read our guidelines on reliable sources.  There is no way you can consider the Joshua Project in any way a reliable, scholarly source to be used as a reference for any information in this, or any other article (with the possible exception of an article on the project itself).--Isotope23 talk 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joshua Project

message: All right, let's get this straight: if you find an unbiased source for anything, you may post it with no resistance from me. However, if you think I'm gonna back down on your use of ureliable (i.e. biased) Italian sources to formulate an entire SECTION based on strong POV, you're in for a shock. Get this, THIS IS (apparently...) A HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLE based on national (i.e. ethnic) differences, therefore: 
1) Make an effort to find sources that do not have national biase (from both sides), if you want a post to go uncontested. 
2) Try to find level-headed non-involved sources (don't go quoting Mein Kampf or something).
3) No I do NOT need specific sources that specifically say that particular text wich you posted is biased on a national basis (that much is obvious anyway), you need to find normal sources before even posting controversial stuff. 
I will do my best to prevent unreliable historians of the conflicting national groups from finding their way into the article. With regard to my Italian friends, DIREKTOR 00:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many reliable sources, read them without fanatism in the article. Bring you a reliable source that goes against what I have written!
I suggest we move this discussion to your talkpage as it concerns other articles as well. DIREKTOR 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources biased on a national basis 

message: Ok, I'm going to translate some of the geography into English. Here's a detailed list of periods in which various states controlled Dalmatia, periods when Dalmatian cities were in Italian states will be marked with bold/italic script:
* Venetian Republic (up to April 18 1797)
* Habsburg Monarchy (April 18 1797 - 17 March 1805)
* Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (17 March 1805 - 14 October 1809)
* Illyrian Provinces (14 October 1809 - June 8 1815)
* Austrian Empire (June 8 1815 - 1867)
* Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867 - October 29 1918)
* Kingdom of Yugoslavia (October 29 1918 - January 31 1946)
** Istria, Zara, Fiume, and several islands in the Kingdom of Italy. 
* SFR Yugoslavia (January 31 1946 - October 8, 1991)
** Italian occupied Dalmatia (1941-1943) is not considered a part of Italy in accordance with international law, as Yugoslavia is never considered to have dissolved during WW2 (this does not include Zara, Fiume, and Istria).
** All of Istria and Dalmatia, including Zadar and Rijeka, within the SFR Yugoslavia (without Muggia and San Dorligo della Valle)
* Republic of Croatia (October 8 1991 on)
Now, in accordance with Wiki guidelines, we must use the name of the period, but when in doubt "use English name". It is very hard, almost impossible to ascertain the most widely used English name for a short period such as that of the Illyrian provinces. In which case we must use the English name. (see WP:NCGN)
Anyway, like I said, I'm going to translate the bare minimum of names in accordance with Wiki policies. Brunodam, you may revert, but please do so only after careful consideration. In any case you'll have a better idea of what I'm proposing, and users will have the version available for their consideration. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No compromise. Respect the agreements. Brunodam
All right, fine. Have it your way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: Why we did the arbitration on Dalmatia? We are at the same point that we were before the arbitration (but now we have the "destruction" of Giovanni Giove, who is no more balancing the posts of the Croats, of course.....). You want to change to your croatian point of view everything, from the article on Zara, to the ones on many topics about the history of Dalmatia, to this one that is not related to Croatia. I want to remind this initial post to Jimbo about Albania Veneta, because it seems we are back EXACTLY at the same initial position:
Dear Jimbo,
I appreciate very much what you are doing with your Wikipedia. It is a great gift to all of us. But there are some "points" that need to be improved, as you know.
One is the presence of nationalistic groups that in a coordinate way want to impose their points of view without regard of what write serious historians. They usually proceed to ask for help from "friendly to them" administrators and so obtain what they want. In Eastern Europe there are many of these groups (mainly ex-communists) and often are associated with hackers.
What do we have to do with these nationalistic groups? In my case I can pinpoint what is going on with the articles "Albania Veneta", "Zadar", "Istrian exodus", etc., where a group of known nationalistic fanatics (like one nicknamed in the english wikipedia as "Direktor") are erasing and damaging what write others with serious and proven references. They use the typical misinformation with "political pressure" of the Soviets in Eastern Europe.
May be you have a serious and impartial administrator, who can help? Regards.--Brunodam 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're threatening now?! I told you, Bruno, that I have NO intention of restarting the edit-war(s). If you took the time to read my post, you would see that I specifically wrote that version to show you what I meant. Why are you all worked up, anyway! It's just one edit --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why we did the Arbitration on Dalmatia?

message: Is this article about a historic province or isn't it?! Albania Veneta ceased to exist on April 18 1797, but this is not even mentioned in the text, instead it goes on about this area as if the article was about the history of the Kotor Bay. Venice was destroyed by Napoleon, get over it already! its been over 200 years.
Look, if this article is about the province of the Venetian Republic, then treat it as such. At the very least rewrite areas that talk about it as if it still existed in Austro-Hungary and Yugoslavia: it did not. Even Mussolini did not reinstate it during the WW2 occupation.
P.S. Brunodam, are you really User:Pannonicus?
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''''Historic''''' province 

message: Would someone explain what Albania has to do with this province? The name? Maybe Albany, New York should be WikiProject Albania as well? :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny Direktor. Added back Albania, please don't remove: Also don't remove WP Italy. Part of today's Albania as per article were part of Albania Veneta. As far as I am concerned Bosnia should be part of it as well.  --Sulmues Let's talk  18:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part is part of modern Albania? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Durrës in primis. In addition Dagnum, Drisht, and for many years Shkoder. --Sulmues Let's talk  19:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Drač, Skadar, Danj and Drivast? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albania? 

message: I was checking at how this article looked 3 years ago and I found that it was probably better!!! Check this version of 2007 with today's version, please. Who made this mess? --Sulmues Let's talk  19:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Sulmues should restore the 2007 version.Definitively it is better! Jimmy C.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.127.9 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting worse

message: *Please do not add material unrelated to the Venetian Republic province of Venetian Albania, i.e. post-1797.
*Please do not add unsourced information (particularly if its POV). Reference your sources so that they may be verifiable (WP:V), i.e. that they may be checked.
*Please do not add unencyclopedic nonsense, i.e. the (comical) Perasto section.
Yes, its true that upon removal of all the nonsense there isn't much content left in the article. The subject itself is not notable enough to warrant its own article, and was essentially created by (now-banned) Italian nationalists trying to emphasize the "Italian history" of Montenegro, right in the period after her independence from Serbia. What little relevant, sourced info there is in the article should be merged into the history section of the Kotor Bay article, or simply deleted per WP:N. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of who created the article, but the subject is definitively notable. There is vast literature on it, and it is rather surprising that you claim there isn't. You should point out why you think that it is no notability in your opinion. I think that Albanian Venetia is a very well defined historical region, and it would suffice to have a look at the sources in order to maintain this opinion. Secondly, it is painful to me to see that you, as a contributor of this article, would rather see it vanish, or merged into the history of the Kotor Bay: as a contributor to this article you should know that the Albania Veneta was way larger in geographical terms than the Kotor Bay, which Albania Veneta included, but was not limited to. Do you truly think that the Kotor Bay was the only area of the Albania Veneta, or is this claim of yours hurried? There is this good map that completely contradicts your claim. Last but not least, it appears that you are the major contributor of this article see number of edits, but you are also the responsible of this very much unexplained edit, that reduced the size of the article. --Napoletanamente (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its really all besides the point. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to expand the article, just make sure the text is well sourced (per WP:V) and that it sticks to the topic (i.e. that it doe not cover post-1797 events). The way this article was written, it was more like a romantic ballad. What we had was a good deal of 20th century history in an article about a province of the Venetian Republic. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. Well, sometimes it's better to leave things as they are although they might be redundant, rather than deleting. Or at least bring the deleted paragraphs to a more appropriate article such as "Dalmatian Italians", but that's just me. --Napoletanamente (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if it was properly sourced info. It mostly was not. (unreliable forums, blogs and such, or just no sources at all.) And the Dalmatian Italians article already does include the majority of the sourced, post-1797 info that was removed (if not all). This is without even going into the controversial nature of the very biased and unbalanced depiction of history. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article scope

message: The Dukagjin page needs some help, is anyone up for the challenge?
Twillisjr (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dukagjin