Talk:Bunkers in Albania

Number of Bunkers

President Moisu, who headed the bunker building programme, has been on record as saying that the total number of above ground structures was in fact only 350 000.

The bunkers are being removed

I was just in Albania earlier this month (my third time in the past six years) and I saw far fewer bunkers scattered through the countryside than previous trips. I also saw many bunkers in the process of being demolished by heavy machinery. I do not know the specific reason, but heard two possible reasons from locals. One - there may be valuable metals inside the bunkers which people across the country are reclaiming to sell. Two - they are viewed as eyesores and a sad reminder of a horrible time in the country's history, and people are taking it upon themselves to remove them.

I will report back if I hear anything on this, but I suspect some day soon the Wikipedia article will have to be edited to reflect the fact that the bunkers are disappearing. Popcontest (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. Each bunker contains a couple of hundred Euros worth of steel, more than enough to make it worth while hiring a concrete breaker. Easily accessible bunkers are vanishing everywhere. For example, the impressive lines across the lower Drino valley near Gjirokastra, built to stop the Greek army, are all now gone, replaced by small piles of crushed concrete. Elsewhere steel gun mantlets are being removed, even where the bunkers themselves remain.

I suggest checking the automated peer reviewer

You can access it via the archived "peer review" link, then go to the "toolbox" on the right-hand side. It did find a few things to improve. Allens (talk | contribs) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. Prioryman (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bunkers in Albania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading this several times over, I believe this meets the GA criteria easily. Well written and sourced, no issues with prose, nor imaging. Just some minor quibbles:

• This is largely written in British English so should 'kilometer' be, in fact 'kilometre'?
• Extra spacing in one-or two-person could be removed
• "75 per cent of the regular forces and 97 per cent of reservists", should be percent going by the rest of the article.
• Publisher for Ref 33 is dailytelegraph.com.au. Should be 'The Daily Telegraph' as opposed to 'Daily Telegraph' – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

These are now done (thanks to Timbouctou). Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bunkers in Albania. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108102752/http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20101103com4.html to http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20101103com4.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ideological Questions

1st: is there any proof of Albania's government being "xenophobic" ?

2nd: How did Enver Hoxha support people's war when it was a) a strategy for national liberation which would have already occured in their view and b) critisized by Hoxha himself?

Examples:

,,Although he talked about the role of the proletariat, in practice Mao Tsetung underestimated its hegemony in the revolution and elevated the role of the peasantry.”

(Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution) ,,The revisionist concepts of Mao Tsetung have their basis in the policy of collaboration and alliance with the bourgeoisie” Upasaka123 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA

I removed per WP:TRIVIA a piece of content which didn't discuss the subject but in a typical fashion of journalistic sensationalism mentioned certain aspects.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The "aspect" you refer to received wide coverage in major international media, such as The Guardian and France 24. There are probably people walking around that were literally conceived as a result of what is described in those sources. But I understand some editors would rather exclude this from wikipedia, and they have the numbers to impose their will. Well, it's out there, and cannot be removed from the Guardian and France24 at least. Khirurg (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that what a Guardian piece writes is part of what determines encyclopedic content. Something can appear in the media and still be trivial. The bunkers in Albania are the subject of many papers, PhDs, book format studies. Academic output determines what is encyclopedic and what isn't in such cases.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

That it is trivial is just your opinion. The Guardian is a perfectly reliable source, as is France 24. A source does not have to be academic for something to be included. But like I said, certain editors have the numbers to decide what goes in an article and what can be kept out, as long as there is no community involvement. This could easily be circumvented by RFC though. Khirurg (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

A source can be reliable, but this doesn't make the content worthy of inclusion just because a generally reliable source mentions it. And numbers don't really matter or play any role or really exist. The better argument tends to prevail overall. In this case, I think that we both realize how trivial this "aspect" is.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see whether the Wikipedia community at large would find it "trivial". I'm not so sure they would. Khirurg (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

number of bunkers per square mile

i did some quick math and got ~15.7 bunkers to a square mile, is my math faulty or is the article? Caucasianhamburger (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)