User talk:Oranges Juicy/Archive 2

Season's greets!


Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thank you Iryna, I hope yours has been a pleasant festive break too! Precisely for this reason have I not been online these past days! Happy 2016! :) --OJ (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to OS on AG lede questions
A. Hello. Please look at these two revisions of Armenian Genocide (mine left and yours right)[1]. Can you explain to me what the right hand revision says that the left one doesn't? More characters are being used yet nothing is being stated so this looks to me like verbiage. --OJ (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, OJ. The one on the right (mine) conveys the fact that the Armenians were members of an officially and constitutionally recognized subject nation under the Ottoman government and not just a collection of individuals with a shared ethnicity.

B. ...Also I haven't a clue what you mean by "rounded up" or even how this can come before "arrested". Surely persons would be under arrest first before being "rounded up". Besides, summary execution of a multiple figure surmises that the group was "rounded up" somehow. --OJ (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

'Rounded up' means that the individuals in question were targeted for arrest in their various private locations in a planned and sudden police sweep through the city of Istanbul. A 'roundup' is exactly what the event was. An 'arrest' does not precede a 'roundup'. Rather, a 'roundup' is a particular situation in which arrests are made. Diranakir (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , could you please indicate where you've found reliable sources for these descriptions as being actual and existing legal definitions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All right thank you for the reply. As I said I didn't wish to amend the content, just make it all shorter. Now I know your points, I'll see if it needs to be looked at again but I'll keep in mind the "rounding up" and "subjects" explanation. --OJ (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Iryna. I think these terms are idioms more than genuinely legal phrases. --OJ (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we have reached an understanding. Diranakir (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo
Hi, I don't understand the reason. In List of states with limited recognition there are non-UN member States recognised by less UN members (like Republic of Abkhazia, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, ecc.)). If Kosovo is a disputed territory, it will be necessary to add disputed territory to all of them. --Skyfall (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that is correct, each of them are disputed territories and I don't know why it is not mentioned in them. On the subject of Kosovo it was down to consensus not that it was properly reached. -OJ (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good edit
Thank you for this but note that there's a pocket of determined resistance to treating Ana I as every other non-Anglo bio on en.wp. Your edit is likely to be reverted. Despite WP:FULLNAME and WP:SERBIANNAMES but per WP:POINTY. Note that every single article which mentions her throughout en.wp treats her differently from every other East European BLP. Cheers! :) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I just realized you haven't actually corrected the oddity on that article, just improved it slightly. Ah well. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. I'm happy to discuss any changes proposed by other editors and there are solutions, such as: Ana Ivanovic or Ana Ivanović (Serbian Cyrillic: Ана Ивановић) so something similar. We'll see what happens, thanks for the heads up. --OJ (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ana Ivanovic or Ana Ivanović" would still be picking on this one BLP because she's pretty and blonde, imho. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Regime changes etc
Hi. Just a note and some thoughts on some of the edits in Catholic Church and Nazi Germany etc, replacing uses of "regime" and "propaganda". We can't delete references to "propaganda" in Nazi articles, because they had a Minister for Propaganda and every history text available uses the term, and rightly so. Also, the term "regime" will often not be interchangeable with the name of a nation eg, "Germany". The term "Hitler regime" is useful to distinguish a period in history from the preceding "Weimar Period" etc. "Regime" means in essence only "the ruling government of a country" and in an avowedly non-democratic state in particular the distinction between government and people will frequently have to be made. From the number of your changes, I'd say "regime" was being overused, and most of your changes are therefore positive, but in some cases - particularly where "regime" is used drawing from a named historian - the word should be kept. Ozhistory (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you feedback. On the issue of propaganda, you may be right though on the whole, if there is a way out I would suggest editors take it because such instances may often lead to more liberal use of the term elsewhere. Note that I draft this reply without having checked changes to my edits. "Regime" I believe is a word that should be avoided at all costs unless taken to mean "regime" per its primary meaning; you very much hit the nail on the head with the remark "the ruling government of a country and in an avowedly non-democratic state", which as you know is editorialising and and if permitted can become an excuse for editors to refer to the "Obama government and Assad regime" in the same line. The encyclopaedia should treat the ruling bodies uniformally and not cast sleazy aspersions. As regards post-1933 Germany, Hitler's rise to power and internal changes that devolved powers from president to chancellor have their legacy in that today's Austria and Germany maintain that structure if not at absolute level, as such he did not seize power unlawfully and there was no "German government is exile" that the world outside viewed as the legal representative of the German people. As such, state actions in 1938 or 1939 can only be attributed to Germany unless someone can reveal where else was Germany at the time. With this, it is perfectly all right to say that Germany invaded Poland, or even this source which acknowledges Germany for 1933-455 period. Such references if left to many editors would have gladly used "Hitler regime" as if to deny that this is what the Weimar regime had gone on to become. Just as I used the word "regime" in the last sentence, many sources use terms such as "Obama regime, United States regime, NATO regimes, western regimes" but these are limited to alternative news sources and never used in mainstream publication and it tends to be the latter when "reliability" is the factor here. So on that note I remain very cautious about use of "regime", thanks for noticing it had been overused in other places. --OJ (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aleksandar Antić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chunk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --OJ (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

RE: Kosovo and its borders
Hello Alchaemia. One of your edits to Kosovo was reverted, concerning the border. This is because the subject has been discussed. I am writing to you because the target in the summary is now inaccurate since the conversation was archived. However I can provide it for you here. Quite simply, Kosovo bordering Central Serbia is what would be controversial from one aspect as it would allude to Kosovo's place within Serbia. By the same token, Kosovo bordering Serbia does the same thing from an independence-centric perspective. However, "uncontested territory" neither hints at one possibility or the other. In order than something be contested or disputed, it involves two rival parties (i.e. both sides do the contesting, one contests the independence claim, the other contests the integral province claim), so it can never be one-sided. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC) message transferred from User talk:Alchaemia for continuity. OJ (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there.

Clearly, "uncontested territory" doesn't properly describe this "central Serbia" that you speak of, since all those countries that formally recognize Serbia contest its claims to certain territories. As you are aware, Serbia claims Kosovo is a part of its territory. Now, since 110+ countries do not recognize this claim, they necessarily contests Serbia's claimed borders and/or territory.

Which is why I think reverting my change is wrong and using "uncontested territory" is also wrong.

--alchaemia (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe reverting you was wrong, but making an edit isn't. I linked the discussion to you to show you that it has been explored. Obviously if know of any terminology that will reflect the parity required in this circumstance then by all means go ahead with it: the community is in desperate need of appropriate rhetoric because everything anyone suggests to facilitate WP:NPOV is considered bad for one reason or another. --OJ (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Dialogue between User:Resnjari and User:Oranges Juicy
Better to continue this type of conversation here where we cannot be accused of turning a talk page into a forum (I need to collapse my long posts and will get onto it).

Ok. I appreciate you say, "there is little appetite for Greater Albania". I want you to reflect with me for a moment and just imagine you're talking with another Albanian, not someone from the other nations. Why should a state that exists in its proclaimed outline have to be a "greater" entity all the time? Every nation has its irredentist ideologies - these form the basis of nationalism, and without it, no national identity is born. If in 1913 the Albanians had succumbed to the same fate as the Basques and Kurds, they'd have been living in countries called Greece, Montenegro and Serbia. All three mentioned at some stage grew from the time of their independence up to 1913 - but were no more called "Great" or "Greater" than they were "Lesser Serbia" or "Lesser Greece" when having been smaller. The country proclaimed in 1912 was simply called Principality of Albania; the governance that existed in Vlora during the fighting with Balkan League states was an adherent of this entity, and the country that came onto maps from 1913 remained the same Principality that was proclaimed in the autumn of 1912. If today, people do not want this from within the region then it is only because they have been "conditioned" by the West to believe things are the way they need to be. The more partition is the less chance of a large country forming, and the more Central Europe will stay in control. It is fine to say that Kosovo and Albania are two countries with Albanian majorities in much the way several countries constitute the Arab world, but there has never been a reason for the two to be apart if the lands exist for the benefit of their Albanian populations.

I'm glad you appreciate that I am by no means anti-Albanian. When prior to 1948 there stood a chance of Albania being part of an enlarged Yugoslavia, this was not without some support from inside Albania. When the split occurred there remained persons in Albania who had wanted to be part of the Yugoslav state just as there had been many loyalists of Albanian origin from inside Yugoslavia - and many remained loyal right up to the 1990s. With regards the name Yugo-Slavia, I will grant you - that is not a good name for a union between various Slavic nations and non-Slavs. In reality, Albanians may have actually been the largest ethnic group in this state, or certainly second after Serbs. I believe an alternative name should have been chosen and I would not have minded if the capital were to be in Tirana. Many countries are multi-ethnic. And here, there was no opposition from the Soviets. Moscow has never objected to a large country in the Balkans - but the West has (and does). One may argue, "ah, but Russia's MO is to have big blocs so control is easier, one instruction to the capital and the local regime will hammer the nail!", but if this were so, perhaps someone can explain to me why after 1947 the Soviet Union never attempted to reduce Yugoslavia to the "constituent nations". The fact was that even after the 1947 Tito-Stalin split there remained many prominent Yugoslavs (of all backgrounds) that were pro-Stalin and found themselves tortured, killed or exiled for their orientations. But that's another subject....

You say, "Pax Yugoslavica - in the end never worked". Interestingly, I and the people who support a Yugoslav state do not accept that notion. Obviously I was young when I took up arms, and I see this era as the darkest chapter in my life, I deeply regret it. Surprisingly in 1999, even with Milošević in power in FR Yugoslavia, I was still granted a passport for that country despite my military past which was declared when I made the application (I moved to Montenegro that year). Anyhow, what you need to realise is this: Breakup of Yugoslavia and aftermath wars. - there are two explanations for this chapter, and they contradict one another. One of them is the mainstream western view that the region was always fractuous, historically diverse and its people were unable to live with each other but were forced together by one dictator called Tito, and that when he died and Communism eventually ended, national tensions resurfaced leading to what happened; the international community was the concerned observer and pecekeeper, and in the end, had to use some force here and there to bring the fighting to an end - the bottom line being that the breakup was orchestrated internally. The other view, mine I accept, and shared by many in this world where pro-west sentiment is not rife, is that the breakup of Yugoslavia, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the breakup of Czechoslovakia and the ousting of communism across Eastern Europe (some of the things I mentioned were peaceful, some violent) was all masterminded from outside the region in question, and that the local players who acted as they did in effecting change acted as quislings (worse than a puppet) who allowed themselves to be corrupted. At this stage, people shut their ears and dismiss my point as a conspiracy theory and then go back to the same Fox news and ABC which gives them the opposite story. I cannot prove to anybody that what I believe is not a conspiracy because I cannot possibly know what was said between leaders and officials in the 1980s when the details were not even published in the first place. BUT...I can however do two things. The first thing is point out how problematic the theories are which originate from western mainstream, namely the unsound and fallacious explanations; the other thing I can do is list piles and piles of aftermath consequences that have directly convenienced the west, a list so consistent that all things to have happened "by chance" is totally implausible. As such, I am of the belief that our country (as well as the communist countries of Eastern Eurpe including Albania) was indeed working well - but was destroyed from outside so that today, most of Eastern Europe is  one large western outpost. In 1953, much of the humanoid population of the west laughed off ideas that the US was behind the ousting of the elected Iranian leadership and the intalation of the authoritarian Shah. Somehow nobody bat an eyelid when in 2013 (60 years later) the CIA confirmed their role.

Obviously I cannot ever cite my assertions on this project since everything is my own analysis of events, so that would be Ultra-OR. I could write a book, but "volleyball coach, and tambura player" is not the same as "historian" or "scholar"!! Obviously if I did publish something, it would not be so much to defend Serbs of the 1990s (let me be clear, I condemn their actions), but more to disparage the West - and in doing so, there is more I can write on the wars in Libya and Iraq than anything else. My only advice to Albanians from wherever is merely to step back for one moment and think, "is this what my ancestors wanted?", and moreover to give them to realise that the West is not the "big friend" that Edi Rama and Atifete Jahjaga will make you think. It's their friend, yes. But they do not have your interests at heart, believe me they don't. Just as Đukanović shook hands with Bill Clinton in Slovenia amid security that you have never seen in your life whilst I myself had to take cover not to be hit by NATO bombs - ON THE TERRITORY of Milo's beloved Montenegro. My grandfather (Croatian) fought in World War II as a partisan, yet he took grave exception to Britain's airstrikes on Zagreb. In the end of the day, the Independent State of Croatia may have been a bad thing, but it had no debt or obligation to Winston Churchill, and it was made up by locals, albeit pro-Hitler. Apart from that, I'm very fond of Albanians as people (and I know a few from Resen). In particular, I appreciate how they are preserving our heritage. In a Muslim house, the older you are, the higher you are respected. Young guests would go into houses in Albanian villages and kiss the elder's hand. Do they do the same in Macedonian/Croatian homes? Do they heck! The young lock themselves in a room, play loud music, and don't give a monkey for the other family members within the household. I've had it happen enough times. I'm trying to educate my children (Slavic on both sides) to be more like your good people. Anyhow, feel free to respond here on my talk. --OJ (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In today's world, having a combined state where Albania and Kosovo are united would be too big a headache. What the ancestors wanted was over a century ago and their wishes due to time, context, socio-political experience differs from that of conteproary Albanians. To much has happened for past wishes to align with that of the present. It would be folly on the Albanians part today to want what they wanted. Apart from all of those neighbouring countries being against unification, people within those two states hold apprehensions themselves about such a union. How would it happen ? Through a referendum, through force etc ? Then if union was achieved, what type of state would it be ? Would it be a centralised state ruled from Tirana? The northern Albanian mountains divided Albania's central and southern plains from Kosovo's plains. The centre of gravity in Kosovo is toward Prishtina. Would Kosovo become an appendage, a distant province of the Tirana government which would eventually create alienation and derision ? Northern Albania has been treated in that way at times over the decades. Moreover if or to avoid that, would it be a Albanian federation of two political entities? And how would that work ? Then there are other issues. For example if the two countries unite, the Catholics and the Orthodox of Albania will feel uncomfortable as their ratios in percentage terms will go down further, even though with the Catholics there are some small number in Kosovo. And so too would the Bektashi's oppose it, even though there is some small numbers of them around Gjakova/Prizren. These groups will not be for a union and will be against Sunni domination. Too much has happened over the past 100 years. Albanians on both sides of the border are currently in a process of reacquainting themselves and it will take many decades for cohesion to reemerge amongst the Balkan Albanosphere in the form to possibly lead to actual unification instead of it being words of fluff on the part of some opportunistic or politicians. Albanians have gotten used to the idea of multiple borders. Their aims are to integrate within Euro-Atlantic structures and to make sure that events like that of 1999 don't happened again (its why NATO membership is seen as important). Yugoslavia could have worked, but it did not reform when it should have (around the 1970s and not the 1980s) and left its woes to long for them to accumulate for opportunists and populists to take over resulting in the disintegration of the state. There is no going back nor would its peoples want to see its reconstitution. The question for the region now is, Quo Vadis: what now, where are we going and how are we going to do it so that tomorrow is not bleak like the past? The Balkans has had to much history. Its time it takes a break and becomes ones of those boring Western European places that has a good democracy and stable socio-political and economic system.


 * As for NATO, the Kosovo war was about containing Russia (Serbia was seen as Russia's last strong remaining area of geo-political influence in the Balkans). Albanians and their human rights where just the pretext for the war. Have a read of the book: Collision course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo by John Norris & Strobe Talbott (2005). Westport, Praeger Publications. Its an insiders account for what was going on amongst the allies and Russians too. Most of it was about Russia this and Russia that. Its the same even with Albanian independence. Albania was recognised by Austria-Hungary and Italy because they wanted to curb Russia's influence in the region whom they saw as represented through Serbia. And if the West expresses any interest in the future regarding the Balkan Albanosphere it will probably be about how it can be used to curb Russia's influence. As for the war in Libya, again apart from natural resources, it also was to curb Russia's influence. Ghaddafi was a close friend of resurgent Russia and could have given them a foothold in Africa in the from of a military base, like Assad has done now. In the end we are all pawns for those most powerful. The left has often cited this. Overturning the global order as a few on the left advocate with the whole people power thing is futile. The question instead is how does one ride the wave instead of getting swallowed by it? Anyway, one can go on, i'll leave it at that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting observations. You're very well versed in these affairs. It is clear that the FRY and Russia were friends, but I don't know about the latter's influence over the former. The SFRY after 1947 became a lone figure in world politics and when the republics broke away, the FRY inherited the remains of a country that was not inside any sphere of influence. Serbia as a country remains a Russian partner in the region but Serbia's ties to Russia are not the same as those of Belarus, Armenia and pre-2014 Ukraine. I've not read the book you quoted but thanks for the reference, I'll make a note of it. With regards Albanian unity: those are interesting points on divisions within society and topography. If anything, they are a petition for why Albanians should not have a single country but multiple micro-states. However, there is considerable oversight in this reflection. Those divisions (Tosk/Gheg; Christian/Muslim; which side of the mountains are they) were all in existence a century ago and nothing since has polarised the community. In fact, even if all Albanians lived in one state across a larger landmass, it still would not be a big country and the diversity within would be no greater than Italy or Germany - needless to mention bigger countries. The larger the population, the bigger the guarantee of cultural diversity. It is not a question of religion and how the intake of another two million from another faith would drown their influence. Even the very talk of "one's influence over another" implies polarisation which to my knowledge concerning Albanians - does not even exist. Albania is a nation state, and one that is multi-religious. I know also that the biggest true religion is exactly what it is for Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks: atheism! The years of Communism saw to this milestone, and I know that despite the efforts to celebrate religious occasions, go to church/mosque and go through the motions (Christians wearing crosses, etc.), there are few people who genuinely believe the so-called "Holy books". I've been all over Albania and I know people who have Muslim names, and who drink beer (and others eat pork, though not all). As I am of mixed Bosniak/Catholic descent (no ancestor remotely sincere, hence the mixed marriage), I do not know what to make of religion so I am moderately agnostic, but my wife is Montenegrin Orthodox. Back to Albanian society, if Christians find that a surge in Muslims on the same territory should create difficulties for them, then the polarisation already exists and cannot be masked by a higher government decision to keep its borders. Either those with power (among whom those Christians can be anyhow) look upon the nation as equals or they don't. If they do, then nobody has anything to concern himself with; if they don't, then there is a problem regardless of current borders. I was of the impression that Albanians saw themselves as one and this was the basis for a nation state - now and a century ago. The same with Gheg and Tosk, if one group realises that influence is heavily dominated by the second group, this doesn't mean there is a policy of discrimination or persecution against the second group, it might just mean that there is a culture of nepotism as there had been in pre-2003 Iraq. So if Tosks claim Gheg dominance, or coastal Albanians claim favouritism among inland Albanians, or if Christian Albanians are suspicious of Muslim Albanians, this can only be because they created the void themselves (us vs them). It is basically an arbitrary barrier. In Serbia, the people of Banat could begin to Banatians and non-Banatians and then complain that everyday life is dominated by the latter. Unless the so-called non-Banatians are purposely making life difficult for the Banatians, then there is nothing for these people to fear. If however they are making life hard for people in Banat, then it is a case of discrimination and persecution which the Banatians will have to face by standing up to defend their rights, or have the constitution changed to ensure their equality. What the Banatians cannot do however is use persecution as a pretext for independence; either an Independent Banat campaign exists or not, and if it does, if will not be because of ill-treatment from the rest of the country, it will be because it views its path as going alone. But unless powerful countries sponsor an independence movement among scholars and influential figures in Banat, secessionist sentiment will not be born. You note that if Kosovo and Albania united that there would be domestic problems on nature of state, constitutional name, location of capital and other things, and you note also that what people thought a century ago, they do not think now. This is what I meant by petition against unification. The first thing is that these are logistics, and the desire for two regions to unify is not defeated by logistics. The worst it could do is create problems of power sharing which could result in civil clashes, but so long as nobody forms a new independence movement then the matter will be contained within. However, this would not happen. The only way there can be peaceful integration is if both entities are led by pro-unity regimes in which case they would be sister organisations to begin with. So in this case, it would most likely be Republic of Albania continuity and abolition of Kosovo - all other factors would be arranged beforehand. As things stand, no way will Atifete Jahjaga and others agree to unification with Tirana. It would be loss of privileges and world stage attention for her and for those that sport the flag of Kosovo. But this still brings us back to the seminal question, what caused these people to want independence? Grass roots? Or were they put up to it by someone else? Given Kosovo as we know it was created in 1946, I am hard pressed to believe that an independence for Kosovo movement could have surfaced if it had been in Albania to begin, I am convinced it is the latter. So if I lived in Prizren in the 1990s, sure I would have hated Belgrade rule but I could only have seen my alternative as being an attempt to attach myself to Tirana as was the plan in 1912. But for me to say, "I want independence, even from Tirana", I realise that I am only declaring loyalty towards a cohort of pro-Washington mandarins who have promoted independence only as a means to satisfy the west in destabilising an enemy whilst enjoying prestige, power and attention at the same time, yet none of this represents for what my ancestors wanted. See? You might now be scratching your head asking, "Is OJ real? Is he someone who is really Albanian and actually wants us to be one state?", but I promise you that I am as Slavic as Emir Kusturica, but I am objective and I know other people's sentiment. I could say the same for Edi Rama, Bamir Topi and the others who have been influential in Albania. These people are merely primed with moving Albania towards the EU, particularly since NATO membership has been achieved. Once in the EU, they can then fulfil their side of a bargain as they aspire to devolve more and more to the central hub. Albanians will hear stories about being under-developed and about Europe pouring millions of euros into it every year for development reasons: well most of that money will line the pockets of the regime as it does in every eastern European state and a fraction of it will go on roads, hospitals and education. At the same time, much of the workforce will continue to work for low wages in virtual sweat shops in textiles and industrial assembly and all for foreign owners - owners that live in and pay taxes in their homeland (e.g. Germany, Britain) and few locals dare to ask just how much money they are earning - by earning I mean generating through their production when the goods are sold, I don't mean the hundred and 25 euros they get a month for working six days per week. Given our countries also have natural resources and other services that have been handed as a gift to outside businesses, I'd say the Balkans being "poor" is a falsehood; I'd say it makes ALL of that money which gets "poured back", and even more. When Enver Hoxha was leader, criticise him or not for his strict year zero policies but Albania became industrialised and its economy grew and grew - and those mercenaries in the west who like to discredit communism did not like this, and few writers acknowledge it. Instead they focus on the usual suppression of political freedom that is associated with one-party rule, but that is beside the point here. I'd far rather surrender the right to vote and to speak out against a leadership if the country was kept prosperous by the austerity. Today's administration in Tirana is composed of quislings to the west just like in most of eastern Europe - all primed to please the rich western benefactor without a moment's consideration for the local population. The final point I am going to make on Albanian unity is that despite the conditioning of people today to be happy with the Albania/Kosovo solution, there is still a nationalist sector across Kosovo, Albania, Preševo, West Macedonia and Northwest Greece, etc. that supports the idea of a unified Albania, and many Albanians would be happy for it if given the chance - but you and I know they won't be given the chance. Too much to lose for the people in power. Onto the SFRY: you note that it could have worked but was let down by failure to reform and the like. Well I will grant you, that country was far from perfect, and it did need fundamental changes to its composition. However, among those to have always believed in the country (including some older Kosovo Albanians I know) and those such as I who voted independence only to become disillusioned later (there are lots of people like me in all former republics), there is cross-party acceptance that the breakup of Yugoslavia had become a fait accompli much earlier than the visible problems began. My own parents told me about this in 1987 (still lived at home then) and I refused to believe them. Six years later I am one of those making it happen. I think it was Warren Zimmerman who quoted in the early 1990s that there is no place in contemporary Europe for a prosperous socialist country that supports itself independently; some high ranking US official is on record as having conceded this. But again, maybe deep down you continue to feel that the whole break-up was exclusively an internal affair whilst I maintain my belief that the pro-independence movements were orchestrated from outside, and their proponents stopped at nothing to bring these promises to the west to fruition. Finally on NATO, you are far too intelligent to believe the NATO fantasy of "protection" where you cite membership. As far as I am concerned, NATO is a "cool members' club" and it looks great for the regime of any member to be part of it (or so they feel). The "protection" factor is a myth. Think about it. When there was the Kosovo war in 1999, Kosovo was not even recognised as independent by the NATO members of the time. However, they provided the secessionist movement with an air force and the promise of eventual land forces just as though Kosovo were independent plus a full NATO member. Libya wasn't in NATO in 2011 yet NATO came to the aid of the opposition forces which they helped bring to power - and with Libya still not in NATO, this organisation's members continue to carry out airstrikes against movements opposed to the regime they helped install. NATO did not come to the aid of its ally and candidate Georgia when it experienced warfare with Russia and loss of sovereign territory in 2008. NATO chooses its enemies carefully, and NATO does not like Russia very much. When you think about it, the likes of Milošević, Saddam, Assad and Gaddafi are just about NATO's mark, leaders without nuclear weapons that are unable to mount a challenge to NATO's dominance. Meanwhile Turkey has experienced regime change through coups throughout its history as a NATO member, but NATO has not interfered - just as NATO did not offer help of assistance in any way to Turkey when its member state considered the Flotilla Raid to be an attack by Israel. But then, only a fool of the highest order could ever think that NATO will run to protect a member state if the occupier/aggressor is called Israel. Member or not. So the membership theory is a myth. Whether you're a rebel leader, an incumbent president, or an advocate for a breakaway state: the manual says you need only make sure that you have ties to America and that your enemy hasn't (and is not called Russia or China), and you can consider it done. Whether your "liberator" is NATO merely depends which berets are being worn and which allies the US are taking with them. If not NATO, they can call themselves the UN, if that doesn't work then they can gather a few loyalist micro-states and present the nexus as a coalition. Either way. The result will be the same. Sorry this was long, though I think I've covered everything. These days I log in weekends only, I'm too busy in the week. Regards. --OJ (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[[


 * Its ok about the length, i too am sometimes long. About your comments, I do agree with much you say there. Of Albania, religious differences have plagued it though its not talked about out loudly. Yes there are Albanian speakers of four faiths from the two great religions Christianity and Islam. Speaking Albanian and having the self appellation of shqiptar was not enough to construct a unitary Albanian identity as we know it today. The Albanian national movement which arose in the midst of the eastern crisis and in turn its remaining by product Albanian nationalism have been obsessed with overcoming these differences instead of allowing those differences to whither away over time. The communists ascent to power and driven by these nationalistic tenets sought to create through force and violence this unitary identity by eradicating religion and differences associated with it (for them maintenance of Albanian rested on it).


 * In a post communist period the legacy of that time has worked to the effect that at least with Muslims, Islam is now only a superficial identity of a Muslim community which has become very secularized. Catholics have clung to their religious identity due to persecution and also that their faith is now seen (even by many Muslims) as being closest to "Europeness" (in a few weeks time be prepared for the Mother Teresa sainthood celebrations). As Catholic Albanians don't border a Catholic people and they too have had issues with their Orthodox Slavic neighbours so they have thrown their lot with the Muslim Albanians and likewise they with them. Its the Orthodox Albanian speakers of the south that the real issue to state construction and social cohesion has been over the past 150 years or so. Albanian Muslims have always been concerned about the de-nationalsiation implications of Orthodox Albanians for a number of reasons. Muslim Albanians have always lived in their midst and they with them due to the sporadic nature of the conversion to Islam some 200-300 years ago. If the Orthodox Albanians had continued early on with Greek education and other forms of hellenization they would have fully transitioned to a Greek identity and language and so on back then. The implication for Albanian nationalists would have been that areas in Albania's south would have become open for outright annexation and incorporation with Greece due to their large numbers in certain areas that overall gave them a slight majority in the Gjirokaster and Korce regions. The other implication would have been that as Muslims who identified as Albanians, their position in a Greece constructed on Orthodox identity would not have been assured (especially in light of the population exchanges with Turkey and with what happened with i.e the Chams too). As the Balkans wars put a stop to the hellenization process and the border being internationally set on linguistic lines, it allowed Albanian nationalists and statebuilders to attempt to incorporate these Orthodox Albanians that were developing Greek affiliations into a wider polity and Albanian society (i.e: campaigning for a independent Albanian Orthodox church), while giving a sense of security to local Albanian Muslims. To an extent the integration of the Orthodox Albanians worked during the communist era. However the opening of borders in 1992 and with the idea of being Greek in Greece still considered as being mainly based on Orthodoxy, poverty in Albania drove many to go to Greece. Greece has given many Orthodox Albanians Greek citizenship and these people now identify as Greeks and their children are monolingual Greek speakers. A sizable amount of those that have remained have come under Greek influence and the Orthodox church in Albania is starting to be acknowledged in Albanian society as no longer being an Albanian institution. Certain incidents have occurred over the years though not in the way as in the Middle East (this is put down to the large reduction of the Orthodox population in Albania as they are in Greece). It has made Albania "more" Muslim (in terms of demographics) and disturbed the nationalist elite who see themselves as transcending religion. Next census and as EU accession talks progress and Greece's role (or what extra demands it will put on the table for Albania to become a member) in it will determine what happens to Albanian multifaith identity. On that point its still up in the air.


 * What can be deduced is that the Muslim Albanian elite has gotten close with Turkey as a couterweight to Greece and what they see as Greek influence in the country. NATO membership of course is fallacious. What NATO does for Albania is that it allows Turkey to get closer militarily under a NATO pretext (i.e for reasons of "stability" etc) without criticism of other nearby states. Turkey and Albania in the immediate aftermath of the communist collapse signed a military deal that if any of them get attacked the other can intervene and assist them (obviously its one way - Turkish assistance of course. Albania has no real army today). Its Albania's main insurance policy (for good or bad). As for NATO not interfering with Turkey, its because Turkey has a large army and many refugees. Any intervention and subsequent collapse would mean large numbers of Muslim refugees entering Europe that would dwarf what happened recently. Also the Turks have a immense distrust of NATO. German intelligence in recent times has referred to the Turkish government wanting to attain knowledge to develop nuclear weapons. If that ever happens it will be a big game changer in the Balkans and Middle East. Iran and the Saudi's would likely follow. Anyway back to the West, it also wants ISIS out of the way and Turkey is pivatol to that aim. Its existence has cut oil supplies from the area and also given Israel a fright (not in a military sense, but in the form of identity politics. But that i mean not since the demise of Arab nationalism after Nassar's death has the Sunni Arab world attempted to forge a new state and break boundaries even if it is under jihad). Israel is important because it borders the Suez canal and has nuclear weapons (forget the religious stuff that just a pretext to cover for support). In the end the Arab world will remain fragmented because it is in everyone interests (Russia, Iran, the USA, the EU etc) that a powerful Arab domain does not come into being until the region is sucked dry of its resources (so many decades from now and at the end of this century i wont be around for that so who knows). Russia and Serbia have a partnership of shared socio-cultural, religious and geo-political interests etc. But its is not equal as Russia does dominate it as was revealed in recent time regarding business deals by the Serb government with Russia etc. Yugoslavia once worked for a while (late 1950s until the early 1980s with the late 1960s-1970s probably being the Golden era) as did the Ottoman state. Both did not reform when they should have left it too late and they now are part of history. Its always like that around the world, countries come and go. The Balkans are no exception.


 * Nonetheless Christian communities in Albania and Muslim Albanians of Albania would have a difficult time in fusing with Kosovo into one state. Different experiences, somewhat religious differences and regional matters, though not spoken about would be a problem and at this point in time still inhibiting union. Serbia and Greece above all would oppose it, and so would Montenegro and Macedonia. As for Macedonia and Albanian leaving it. Those ideas are best not entertained. If that happens Albanians will lose and most likely be expelled. Neighboring countries watched as Albanians asserted themselves in Kosovo and in 2001 with the Ohrid agreement. They will assist the Macedonians this time around and so would a empowered Russia indirectly. Anyway the Ohrid agreement has been damaging to Serbian and Greek interests as it has locked those countries out of the area in a geo-political way. Academic Dimitar Bechev has referred to the state as a bi-national one all but in name. Albanians gained much in 2001, they should work to implement the whole Ohrid agreement. No partition as it would be ugly like Bosnia or worse. As for Kosovo independence they found a patron and took hold of their chance to achieve their dreams. Serbia and others did it with Russia vis a vis the Ottomans. Bismarck always talked about realpoltik. Today that gets lost in the fluff about democracy, human rights etc. Many places around the world are at a deficit when it comes to such things. No one cares unless there is something in it for them. Have a read of the article Islam in Albania. I wrote it up recently and may interest you a lot and have included much, much peer reviewed material and sources for anyone interested to look into further (article still has a little bit to go). Prijatno i dobar nok't from my part of town ! Resnjari (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving conversation to Kosovo War talk
I hope you don't mind, I've moved our talk page discussion to the article talk (removing comments about other editors/ other pages), I thought that it should be attached to that article.Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All good. This type of conversation is technically open to all persons. --OJ (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)