Jump to content

Talk:Albania/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Albanian flag 1914-1991

If someone has the time to make some changes this sourceAlbanian flag 1914-1991 shows the official uses of the Albanian flag from 1914 to 1991. I think it can help with accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purusbonum (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Religion section

User:IllusionFinal keeps removing the estimates of the population's religion obtained from reliable sources (such as the CIA Factbook and the Pew Research center) on spurious grounds. These are perfectly reliable sources, and they should stay in the article. Furthermore, they are much more reliable than a flawed census, whose figures clash with all other sources on the subject. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Athenean, again please take your bias away. This is ridiculous. How is the census biased? You are Greek and therefore angry that the Greek population was only at 0.89% opposite to the propaganda your government delivers to you. This is pure abuse of administrative power. The only problem with the census was that a majority of people who were Albanian Orthodox were only calculated for the headcount, and so their religion was not declared the (13-15% undeclared).

Second of all, who are you to say what census is biased and what isn't? Who gives you that authority?

1. Remove the CIA fact, because it is BASED ON AN OLD CENSUS CONDUCTED BY KING ZOG IN THE 1930S!! You have a new census!

Here is a source (in Albanian but you can scroll to the percentage points) that shows the CIA figures come from the 1930 census. This is not 1930 mate. The CIA figures are just the old census. These should be replaced.

http://www.balkanweb.com/forumi/index.php?topic=2033.0;wap2

2. Remove the Pew, because it only maps the muslim population, and overestimates the muslim population.

Look at this Pew Poll before the U.S. Election

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/09/romney-surges-in-new-poll-makes-across-board-gains-on-heels-debate/

This is why Pew is a failure of an institute. They publish a poll (SAMPLE JUST LIKE THIS) saying Romney is leading by 4-5 points, and Obama ends up winning by 4-5 points instead. They were wrong on a margin of 10%, which even if you guessed, you would have been closer than them. This figure does not correlate AT ALL with the other ones and is way off. Pew is NOT a reliable source when it comes to mapping out demographics, because they publish SAMPLES! Their method are skewed as shown above.

Here is Pew Director saying POLLS LIKE PEW ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED BECAUSE THEYRE ONLY A SAMPLE!

http://www.imediaethics.org/News/138/Holy_gallups_ghost___.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllusionFinal (talk • contribs) 01:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

3. Remove the World Christian Encyclopedia, because it biased towards the Christian figures, and overestimates the christian population.


YOU HAVE THE EXACT HEAD COUNT! YOU DONT GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISNT BIASED IF IT IS A GOVERNMENT SOURCE! Wikipedia requires articles to be as concise as possible, please stop spamming the page with random percentage points, when you have the OFFICIAL NUMBER!

The Pew and World Christian Encyclopedia ONLY CALCULATED A SAMPLE!!! NOT THE ACTUAL RESULT!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

You cant go on an election site and put the poll percentage points (samples) when they have the actual final votes. And then say the vote is corrupted because you dont agree with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllusionFinal (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


AGAIN, leave the census as the only demographic mapping, because the figure fluctuate so much, when people read this article, THEY WILL LEARN NOTHING! I've looked at other pages, Canada, Czech Republic, U.K., THEY ONLY HAVE CENSUS RESULTS WHEN MAPPING DEMOGRAPHICS! The only 3rd part results are when saying HOW RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE IN GENERAL. I explained myself as to why those sources are faulty, I need not justify my actions any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllusionFinal (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


8%

Dr.K edits are rather POV and based on misrepresented snippets and a grossly unreliable source (Minahan), so it'd be better not to make such exaggerated claims. That being said, has Dr.K checked the dates of those sources (1993, 1998, 2000, 2007)? The CIA Factbook reports 3% for 2011 and Dr.K just added a 2000 CIA-based source that says 8% based on an early 90s report. The infobox serves only as a part of the article, where current figures and estimations belong.-— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Among the seven new references that I added I also added two references from the Europa World Year Book dated 2007 and 2008. The Europa World Year Book is a recognised authority on population figures and years 2007 and 2008 are close enough I would think. You may not agree with all of the newly-added sources but many of them are reliable. So before you start dropping the "POV" bomb please check all of the references and not the ones you may disagree with. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted you per WP:BRD, so please take your views to talkpage and don't revert and continue the source cramming of the infobox. Btw I can't check those snippets, so would you mind providing full quotes? That being said, the Europa Books are tertiary sources and as such are to be avoided (even EB is avoided). As for Minahan if you consider him RS, among other edits that you could make is the one, with which you could update the list of Byzantine emperors as according to him several Albanians became Byzantine emperors--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So you mean you did not check the quotes I already provided with my references before reverting me? If you had checked them you would have seen that the quotes are already there. I have restored my references because they are both reliable and fully quoted and you reverted my fully-referenced edit without checking. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If you disagree with Minahan please remove his reference. But I have supplied 7 (seven) new references and most of them are reliable. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The 60,000 est. is the one of 1989 census, while the 300,000 that of the Greek organizations(The Greek government, it is typically claimed, says that there are around 300,000 ethnic Greeks in Albania/Athens on the other hand claims that between 250,000 and 300,000 Orthodox Greeks reside in Albania/Claimed by the Greek authorities to number 300,000 (the official Albanian figure was 60,000)) . We don't add such POV estimations on the infobox.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But the sources I added are independent of the Greek government. As such their estimate of between 60,000-300,000 Greeks is not POV and it is an independent estimate. This means that it is an estimate supported by multiple, independent and reliable sources. The quotations I supplied within the citations make my additions transparent and verifiable. These estimates are therefore valid and should be quoted in the infobox. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
They are tertiary sources (WP:TERTIARY i.e. to be avoided usually) and you can't confirm which secondary sources they use. Given the numerous details we have about the 60,000-300,000 range it's rather safe to assume whose claims both figures represent. Btw CIA's stable and rather reliable estimation looks precise given that the (mainly) Greek minority gets between 1% and 2.5% of the total votes.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The Europa World Year Book is a recognised rerearch organisation with many institutional subscribers. Please check the relevant article on en.wiki. But other sources which I added also support the range of 60,000-300,000; therefore they don't adopt the numbers of any one side in the dispute. They just acknowledge that there is a discrepancy in the estimate without taking the figures of any side as true. These are neutral and reliable sources even by your own restrictive interpretation of which source is reliable or NPOV. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)We only add non-POV claims on the infobox, the rest belongs to the article with attribution. That being said, you have no consensus, thus it'd be prudent not to continue the edit-war.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the interests of compromise I restored the 6% figure which was prior to the edit-war and which was removed by user:Albanianp originally. I also removed the Minahan citation, which you objected to, and the Jewish Spectator source. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Like I said in my first summary it could have probably been reverted further back to the prot version (3-6%) and whatever changes are in line with the sources can be discussed.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. I did not realise you meant to restore the protected version and not the version which erased the 6%. I am ok with the current version. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Evaluation of CIA source

As mentioned countless times before, but purposefully ignored, the CIA source is NOT CIA RESEARCH BUT COPIED STATISTICS FROM AN OLD CENSUS. This census has been deemed faulty as it was conducted at a time during a dictatorial reign in the 1930s by King Zog. The demographic reality of the country has long changed since then because during the communist era religion was banned altogether which obviously has affected the statistics.

This source is outdated, and THIS IS FROM THE CIA WEBSITE "percentages are estimates; there are no available current statistics on religious affiliation; all mosques and churches were closed in 1967 and religious observances prohibited; in November 1990, Albania began allowing private religious practice". This was written BEFORE THE CURRENT CENSUS WAS CONDUCTED. This site (3rd paragraph) shows the CIA sources are identical copy of old census conducted almost a century ago. http://www.shqiperia.com/lajme/lajm/nr/15988/Censusi-permbys-fete-70-per-qind-refuzojne-ose-nuk-e-deklarojne-besimin- Therefore, the source is not reliable to be put on an article. Particularly, because it assumes 100% belongs to a religion, and as shown in the new census this is wrong, and theres around 20% that are atheist/unaffiliated/undeclared. All discussions are welcome, but please refrain from edit wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noarmsnolegsnolife (talk • contribs) 05:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment and your edits like this are based on Proof by assertion fallacy. Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What fallacy? CIA failed to update its workings, and even says on their website that the source might not reflect reality because no census existed before that upload. Please check yourself. Where is the fallacy in this? The CIA sources are copied old census figures, which show that 100% of the people belong to a religion. The new official census has up to 20% that have no association to any religion. This clearly contradicts and should be removed as demographic reality of the country has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noarmsnolegsnolife (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Geography Section

Could somebody please add a space between "typicallyMediterranean" in the first paragraph of the geography section? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.92.184 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. --Local hero talk 01:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Aviation

The German airline is named: Lufthansa ! This word is written together and not separately. Glad we can check on their website this! Website --Nobodystranger (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

RELIGION

"The 2011 Census had declared the following religious affiliations: 56.7% Islam, 10.03% Roman Catholic, 6.75% Albanian Orthodox, 5.49% Unaffiliated, 2.5% Atheist, 2.09% Bektashi, 0.14% Protestant/Evangelical."

CAN YOU NOT COUNT?????

I don't give a damn what that article in reference says, please find a source AT LEAST where the bloody numbers add up to a hundred percent. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.180.163 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

World War II

... to be replaced by another monarchy (1928–1939), which was annexed by Fascist Italy and then by Nazi Germany during World War II.

This is simply wrong, at least with respect to Germany. First of all, you don't "annex" a monarchy, you annex a country or territory.

Beyond that, Albania was never "annexed" by Nazi Germany. The Italian invasion of Greece was a disaster, and the Greeks pushed the Italians back into Albania. That prompted Hitler to bail out his Italian so-called ally by invading Greece himself, along with Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, in preparation for his ill-fated attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941. Eventually, after the collapse of the Italian Fascist regime, the Germans occupied Albania as well. I have changed the text to say it was "occupied" by the two Axis belligerents in succession.

Sca (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Palace of Culture

The Palace of Culture of Tirana, Albania whose first stone was symbolically thrown by Nikita Khrushchev. What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Perhaps that its "first stone" was laid by Khrushchev? Please, this is English Wikipedia! Sca (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Religious Bias

The statement: "Churches were not spared either" in the section about an atheist state during communist Albania. Seems very biased, as if churches are somehow more precious than a mosque, synagog or any other house of worship. I assume it's a reference to how in Europe, churches have often been spared in other situations. And if so, it could really use a different wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mriswith (talk • contribs) 00:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

History POV

The history section is biased towards an Ottoman point of view. The medieval state of Skanderbeg, which is an important part of Albanian history, is practically ignored. There is an undue emphasis on Ottoman civil and military servants of ethnic Albanian ancestry; these men never served in Albania and had no impact on Albanian history (other than the pathetic Albanian nationalism or in the Neo-Ottoman Albanian propaganda). The description of economic life under the Ottoman Empire is in certain aspects redundant and incomplete in others. The process of Islamization is inadequately and somewhat inaccurately described. There is finally limited and insufficient coverage of the Albanian National Awakening as well as the period from independence to the communist regime. I would appreciate some neutral input in rewriting the history section of the article. I do not believe I can be of much help myself, but I hope others may view my critique favorably. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.3.38 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 elections and new PM

According to Albanian constitution a new PM is proposed by the majority of the upcoming new parliament which will constitute in September 2013 and approved by decree of the President.

Until then, Sali Berisha holds the post of the PM. I see mass edits in Albanian related pages replacing the name of the current PM with the name of the Leader of Socialist Party Edi Rama. Please stop posting inaccurate information. Piasoft (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion chart

The chart is, of course, not unsourced. It consists of the official data from the 2011 census (source given in the first sentence following the chart). The numbers you put into the bar box are pre-WW2 numbers, according to the text. Also there is no reason given for removing the picture of the church. If you want to change the picture of the mosque, that is OK for me, but that is no reason for removing the old church. Regards! T*U (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced, relevant map

This edit [1] is problematic. The map is very reliable sourced and relevant to the article. Many other country articles, such as Greece have similar maps, I don't see any reason why it should be removed. There is nothing "anti-albanian" about the map, this just sounds like nationalist WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Athenean (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree.Nationalist sentiments have no place in Wikipedia Vargmali (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Misstranslation in Etymology and terminology

The article says: While the two terms are popularly interpreted as "Land of the Eagles" and "Children of the Eagles", they derive from the adverb shqip, which means "understanding each other".[24][25] It cites "the albanian language" by prof.dr. Xhevat Lloshi as a reference. While the Reference [1] (the reference no.25 in the main article),although in very bad english, cites the following explanation:

(Shqip spread out from the North to the South, and Shqipni/Shqipëri is probably a collective noun, following the common pattern of Arbëni/Arbëri. The change happened after the Ottoman conquest, because of the conflict in the whole line of the political, social, economic, religious, and cultural spheres with a totally alien world of the Oriental type. A new and more generalized ethnic and linguistic consciousness of all these people responded to this, distinguished against the foreigners as a community of men (shqiptarë) clearly understanding each-other, that is understanding each-other shqip. This adverb predominates in everyday use, the noun shqipe and the collocation gjuha shqipe are a recent written coinage. There is nothing scientific in explaining Shqipëri as "the country of the eagle" and shqiptarë as "the sons of the eagle".)

Now if we were to translate this in a more correct english way of speaking (and not albanian english :P ) , it says that these men (shqiptare) were recoknized as foreigners, who understood each other clearly in shqip. In the phrase " comunity of men clearly understanding each other , that is understanding each-other shiqip" , the part after the comma is a way of affirmation that the language in wich these men understood each other was in SHQIP. You can, in fact, research that "shqip" does not mean "to understand each other". And the reference material doesn't say such a thing at all. The mistranslation of this part changes the whole meaning of the explanation. In the phrase (There is nothing scientific in explaining Shqipëri as "the country of the eagle" and shqiptarë as "the sons of the eagle".) the author actually states that there is no need for a long scientific explanation for this part. It sounds not accurate as a way of expressing in english, but as I said, the reference is not expressed in a very english way . In Albanian it would be " S'ka asgje shkencore per te shpjeguar Shqiperi si "vendi i shqiponjave" dhe shqipetare si "bijte e shqiponjave" " . This means that the origin is as clear (for an Albanian speaker). In Albanian "Shqiponjë" means "Eagle" , that is why the author intends that it is clear that "Shqiperi" means "vendi i shqiponjave" ("Land of the eagles" or "country of the eagle/s " . Please study the references, and change this article. It is of great importance. you can contact me in skerdilaidgjoni@gmail.com Skerdilaid36 (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

Greeks 3-6%,WOW,25 years living in Albania and i don't know it...,but still i can't understand why on the Parliamentary Elections of 23 June 2013,greek parties + all other minorities took only 0.9% of total vote ...,very strange!!!

I propose to change the greek number from 6% to 16%,why not...if the greeks feel better,lol !!!

ps;i find the references...

For the history most ethnic Greek members of the Albanian parliament don't belong to Greek parties. So, no wonder the Greek parties in Dropull had less than 25% of the votes in total.Alexikoua (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


I take that like a joke...c'mon we are neighbors ;) In your references greeks make not 6% but 99% of Albania populaiton,in reality (- some aromune and albanians that for 300 euros,suddenly a beautiful morning woke up and were turned into greeks) you are less than 0.5%,and every year you are LESS and LESS,and Wiki will not change that fact,you like it or not,and for the history Dropull have 1/4 of the total population that was 20 years ago...,in 2013 more greeks live in Tirana than in the entire rest of the country ...

DEFINE IRONY...a country that asks others for minority rights,but it self refuses to recognize them...

=== ===

-Alexikoua , please refrain from lying . For the history , the greek parties did get 80 % of the votes in Dropull . The fact that you use dropull ( a region of 99 small villages and no (0) town ) , as your main argument , is in itself prooving the very small amount of ethnic greeks living in Albania . On top of that , the greek party is also getting almost all the votes from non-greek , non-albanian ethnic groups , such as ( montenegrins , macedonians) that live in albania , because there is no other party to represent them . Furthemore , the 2011 cencus did show only a 0,89% & of ethnic greeks in albania . Also the cia world factbook , and all other major unbiased sourced links show a MAXIMUM 2 % greek ethnic minority . Sorry , thats how many they are . You can keep editing wikipedia all day long , all year around , but still that number is not gonna change . This persons frustration came as a result of your unethical , biased continuous edits , on the Albanian article . PLEASE PRESENT SOURCED INFORMATION ( IF YOU HAVE ANY ) , TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS . Thinkmore2202 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in the infobox

It's rather hypocritical to continually revert to the 82% census figure for Albanians yet not change the Greek figure to 0.87% and the other to 2.6%; if we're using the census stats for one, we ought to use it for all of them. I actually think, however, that we should leave this stuff out of the infobox completely since there are no universally accepted figures for the ethnic groups in Albania. --Local hero talk 14:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been fixed as soon as noticed . It was a clear vandalism . The sad part is the clear support that these kind of vandalisms get from wikipedia editors of greek & serbian descent . It is sad , that wikipedia has become a playground for people with a dull agenda . Thank you for noticing . --Thinkmore2202 talk 17:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that it's fixed. As the infobox currently stands, it doesn't make much sense. If Greeks make up 4, 5, or 6%, the numbers don't add up to 100%. The 'Albanians' and 'other' are definitively stated as 95 and 2, respectively. Like I said, it'd be best to leave this out of the infobox entirely. The second-best approach would be to have a range for each group, like Greeks currently do. --Local hero talk 03:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well the number is 2 % for the greek minority . But the greek editors are changing the stats all the time , at their best interest . So if anything has to be done , it is the 3-6 % to be changed to 3 % . That way it adds up to 100 % . According to the Cia which estimates a 2 % ethnic greek population , according to the census of 2011 which gave a 0,89 % , according to all the other sources , even the ones presented by them , such as (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/al.html) , the maximum number is 3 % . So i will change it right away to 3 % . Thinkmore2202 talk 04:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not so fast. The 3-6% is supported by many reliable sources. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am watching the sources . I dont see ANY of them , showing a 6 % number . Please , be helpful and present us some . Please bring reliable , unbiased , reputable sources as per wikipedia roules . Thank you , Thinkmore2202 talk 04:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are. Did you see the quotes from several of these sources mentioning a Greek population of 300000 people? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Then why dont your copy paste it here for us to see ?! If that number is indeed what it is , then i dont think it will be a big problem for you to find one : UNBIASED , AUTHORITY source . If you can bring just 1 ...

Thinkmore2202 talk 04:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I pasted 2 (two) to your talkpage. I can paste more. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
More:

^ Sabrina P. Ramet (1998). Nihil Obstat: Religion, Politics, and Social Change in East-Central Europe and Russia. Duke University Press. p. 222. ISBN 978-0-8223-2070-8. Retrieved 6 September 2013. "that between 250,000 and 300,000 Orthodox Greeks reside in Albania"

^ Ian Jeffries (2002). Eastern Europe at the Turn of the Twenty-first Century: A Guide to the Economies in Transition. Routledge. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-415-23671-3. Retrieved 6 September 2013. "It is difficult to know how many ethnic Greeks there are in Albania. The Greek government, it is typically claimed, says that there are around 300,000 ethnic Greeks in Albania, but most Western estimates are around the 200,000 mark."

^ Europa Publications (24 June 2008). The Europa World Year Book 2008. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-85743-452-1. Retrieved 22 December 2012. "...and Greece formally annulled claims to North Epirus (southern Albania), where there is a sizeable Greek minority. ... strained by concerns relating to the treatment of ethnic Greeks residing in Albania (numbering an estimated 300,000) ..."

^ Author No; Europa Publications Staff (6 September 2007). The Europa World Year Book: 2007. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-85743-413-2. Retrieved 22 December 2012. "During the early 1990s, however, bilateral relations were severely strained by concerns relating to the treatment of ethnic Greeks residing in Albania (numbering an estimated 300,000) and to ..."

^ RFE/RL Research Report: Weekly Analyses from the RFE/RL Research Institute. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Incorporated. 1993. Retrieved 22 December 2012. "Albanian officials alleged that the priest was promoting irredentist sentiments among Albania's Greek minority – estimated at between 60,000 and 300,000.". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Also: <ref name="BideleuxJeffries2006">{{cite book|author1=Robert Bideleux|author2=Ian Jeffries|title=The Balkans: A Post-Communist History|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=5jrHOKsU9pEC&pg=PA49|accessdate=6 September 2013|date=15 November 2006|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-203-96911-3|page=49|quote=The Albanian government claimed that there were only 60,000, based on the biased 1989 census, whereas the Greek government claimed that there were upwards of 300,000. Most Western estimates were around the 200,000 mark ...}}</ref> Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What is this ?! These are just articles from the same physical book , that their content cannot be verified . As such , you can change any number at your best interest , or even worst , those articles might not even exist at all . Furthemore , these are not AUTHORITY sources in any way shape or form , OR/AND verifiable online . It truly is amusing , to see how much you are strugling to find a single source , that would support your biased and NOT-standing case .
You have 1) The cia world factbook saying a maximum 2 % ethnic greek minority 2) You have the 2011 official census showing a 0,89 % ethnic greek minority 3 ) You have the fact that on the elections the party that is representing the greeks did win a 0,90 % of the total votes 4) You have all the other AUTHORITY and UNBIASED sources showing a less than 2 % . And your argument is a book that might not even exist ?! Are we in wikipedia here , or kindergarden ?! Please , u can do better ...

Thinkmore2202 talk 04:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

For your information these are reliable academic sources by specialists; that's eight of them, that's a lot. Reverting them is vandalism. If you don't believe me ask any at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
About the elections, I remind you that the vast majority of the ethnic Greek MPs are elected from a variety of parties (included the two main parties of the country), i.e. the infobox figures is still perfectly in accordance even with the election numbers, if we count all ethnic Greek MPs.Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Some uncontroversial edits

There are a couple of uncontroversial edits that unfortunately has drowned in the noice created by the recent edit war. Maybe some admin could reintroduce them while the article is closed for ordinary edits.

  • There is a link pointing to "People's Republic" in the third section of the lede, ending up in China. It should point to "People's Socialist Republic of Albania".
  • More China: In the caption to the second picture under "Economy", "Taivani" redirects to Taiwan! The relevant article is "Taivani" with no need for a redirect.
  • In addition there has been a few bot edits and general fixes, among them removing the category "Countries of the Mediterranean Sea", but I suppose the bots will come back end clean up themselves.

Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Article now only semi-protected, so I have done these edits myself. --T*U (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

About streching of sources

Just for the record, the edit by IP 2.150.43.179 on 30 December was mine. (I did not have access to my account.) I challenge the statement "Today religion plays a role in the lives of only 39% of Albanians, and Albania is ranked the thirteenth least religious country in the world.", as I find it to be much stronger than the source allows. The source is a survey made in 2009-2010 with the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?". The first part of the sentence is partly covered by the source, but there is a significant differense between "plays a role in the lives" and "an important part of your daily life". Even an atheist like myself understands that religion can "play a role" in ones life without being "an important part" of it. The second part of the sentence is deduced from the fact that Albania is number thirteen from the bottom of the list. However, the list covers only 114 of the world's 190+ countries in the world, and it is easy to find missing countries that in all probability would be close to the bottom of the list. As an example: Close to Denmark and Sweden one would expect to find Finland, Norway and Iceland. Also Netherland should be far down on the list. There is no way that the source supports the number 13 claim. It is also a question if the term "least religious country" is covered by the survey's question, but I guess it may be acceptable. I will rephrase the sentence to fit the source better. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV and article

It seems that the Albania article is heavily biased. It is good to try to promote your country by any means, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and promotion via this way is not very clever. I've added in the lead an accurate infromation which is sourced (by BBC) and if required I can sourced it with multiple sources. Everybody knows (a simple ssearch in Google will prove it) that Albania along with Moldova are among the poorest countries in Europe. This is a fact and needs to be shown to get the reader to understand that despite progress, Albania still remains a poor (by western European standards) country. By removing accurate, sourced material, no one promotes Wikipedia reliability and credibility. 77.49.58.129 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Buddy , i dont know in what decade you live , but countries change and economies as well . Albania has a higher gdp than Moldova , Kosova , Bosnia, Ukraine , and is on the same level with Macedonia , Serbia , Montenegro etc.etc. * its AIC and GDP ( ppp ) per capita is around 35 % of the EU average ( source > Eurostat for the year 2013 ) , and it is considered an upper economy ( Worldbank and The IMF source ) . It is preety clear , that you have a huge bias against albania . If you however insist about this , it is your right as an editor , HOWEVER , you will have to write it in the section of economy ... and please do find sources , because the one you have put does not support this !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all I am not your buddy. Bu the way you talk, you show the kind of attitute and personality level. I have no bias against anything. I present only well known facts that you know, but you prefer to erase to try to use Wikipedia for your own purposes. This is, forgive me to say, dumb. It creates a big issue in Wikipedia's cretibility.

Albania is still one of the poorest countries in Europe. Here are some sources (other than the BBC):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10354017/Tony-Blair-signed-up-to-help-Albania-to-join-EU.html http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/start/countries/albania http://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/albania/economy

This information certainly belong at the lead, the same way as you added information regarding HDI and GDP per capita and "upper middle income economy" These information should also go in the economy section, but we all know why you added them there right? Because it suits you. And what doesnt suit you (i.e. the truth) must go. Well this is not gonna happen, because Wikipedia is not the place for countries promotion. 77.49.58.129 (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The links that you provided have no credibility according to wikipedia , 1 of the links is an article from 2005 , and another link is from a newspaper article ... ! For these kind of statements you look at insititutions such as IMF , and WORLDBANK , but they do not support your case .
As i said please do make the edits , but they have to be in the apropriate section ( economy ) , and be reasonably sourced . These are NON authority , OLD sources .
Also user is insulting and agressive and has initiated a war edit with more than 4 other users . As such i will ask for an arbitration if this persists . His persistence to write that albania is the poorest country ( which is not ) in the lead paragraph shows a very biased person . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I didnt say it is the poorest, I said is ONE OF THE POOREST. Which it is. But lets go with the IMF and World Bank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Can you please tell me where Albania stands in comparison with the rest of Europe??? I think the whole discussion is hillarious, trying to prove the obvious! If you persist, I will have to get other contributors as well to this one. The only certain is that this article will not be left biased. 77.49.58.129 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It stands exactly where i told you , as i told you ( even with those 2012 gdp numbers from IMF and The World bank ) . Please do look the latest updated GDP ( PPP ) per capita for 2013 and 2014 , from the Ministry of economics of Albania ( 11.400 $ per capita ) > http://www.financa.gov.al/files/userfiles/Programimi_EkonomikoFiskal/Kuadri_Makroekonomik_dhe_Fiskal/KMF_Periudhen_2014-2016_VKM_NR.73_date_23.01.2013.pdf .

and since you are greek , here it is a greek tv news report showing many greek immigrants in Albania > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tig1BDeE2GQ

But dont worry , Italians as well are emigrating in Albania lately http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llRSxwL1B_g . Please do look these videos to get updated about albania :) .


By doing so , maybe you will understand that no one is promoting albania . Is just the reality today . Albania is changing my dear greek friend ! 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the article needs an Administrator fast. Malbin210 obviously has an issue here. It is also trongly suspected that he/she creates sockpuppets (Allenbond) to avoid the 3RR. He/she doesnt try to reach a concensus but only reverts constantly multiple users: WilliamThweatt, anonymous user: 77.49.58.129 and also me.Astarti34 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It is funny because i would say exactly the same thing for you Astarti34 , the anonymous user with an ip from greece and the user WilliamThweatt . Accusing people , without a reason is not allowed in wikipedia . As per wikipedia rules you are free to ask for an investigation ! In fact i do kindly ask you to do so . If this vandalism persists i will seek an arbitration . I do kindly ask from any moderator , to see all the reverts , and i am confident that they will conclude that they have been mal intentioned , with a clear nationalistic intention ... you all 3 guys have something in common , you are all greek * all 3 of you * !

Maybe we should both mutually ask for a sockpuppet investigation for each other , i think that would be fair ! And let us see who in reality is abusing with wikipedia ... ! I for sure will ask for you astarti34 , if this persists . That user with an ip knows too much about wikipedia for not having an account such as the NPOV term , which frankly not even i know what it means !!! And in the same day you come along , being from the same country , trying to do the same exact thing , chaning goverment references , which are used for a state to get loans , and claiming that they are not trustworthy enough when even the Worldbank agrees !!!

It is preety clear to see that if you follow the edits of these 3 last days , which have been unconstructive , mal intentioned , and all of them being users from the same country , or editos of greece such as WilliamThweatt . ( Malbin210 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC) )

You are provocative. The only common thing I have with the other 2 users is that we dont like your edit war that wants to promote your country and reduce the credibility of Wikipedia. I personally replaced the dubious Albanian Minstry of econony (!) figures with the ones THAT YOU said are credible, i.e. the IMF! See, when it suits you, you go with the IMF, then it doesnt you go with the Albanian Ministry. You also did the same for the rest of the users, constantly reverting sourced material. You are albanian and this is absolutely fine -nothing more or less expected. There isnt a nationalistic perspective in my edits, neither of the rest of the users as far as i saw. They presented credible sourced material. I presented facts from the IMF. By stating that this is nationalistic, only proves that what I believe for you and your edits is right: You only want to twist things up to re-enforce your false opinion. This ain't going to happen. There are rules in Wikipedia and you need to obey them. Astarti34 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat to you for the myriad time , that there is no disagreement between the IMF , the WORLDBANK , and the ALBANIAN MINISTRY OF ECONOMICS for the figure of gdp ( you can check it out and you will see that they are the same !!!! ) , the difference is in the gdp per capita , and the reason is the population used to divide the total gdp !!! IMF uses 3,4 milion , but the ministry of economics of albania uses 2.831 because the SENSUS of 2011 showed 2.831 residents , and that is the official figure !!! Thus the GDP per capita is 25 % more than what the imf shows ... and thats what the ministry of economics of albania is showing as well !!!!! Shall we continue this pointless discussion , when the explanation CANNOT BE more simple than this . CHECK THE FIGURES on your own , all links are there  !!!!( Malbin210 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC) )

I think user malbin is right. This anonymous Greek user not only has a great bias for Albania but also also for Islam .he is fighting over a simple image change in religion section . orthodox albanians are just 6.75% of populace compared to 58.79% for Islam . even catholic Albanians outnumber orthodox Albanians. I know the reason behind this(Greeks are orthodox!).this user has seriously disturbed the whole article of albania. And another thing I wanna say that Greece is now poorer that Albania and is now ruined by austerity measures and anti government protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingling2 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
User Minglink2 , is a religious fanatic ... probably a sock puppet account from a previous user from Pakistan ( who got banned multiple times for the same reason ) , that is vandalizing articles about religion , and has a certain fantasy with albania , which in fact does not correspond with reality ... ! Get a life , albania is a multireligious mostly agnostic country .... ! Let me stress out that , the same administrator will be notified that banned you last time ! ( Malbin210 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC) )
oh god malbin and above mentioned anonymous user are the two sides of the same coin. I don't know what your fairy tales of a sockpuppet really are? But as an albanian I know that the vast majority of Albanians are not atheist or agnostic. The dominant religion in Albania is money worship. Although some people after communism have converted to Islam and xianity but main reason behind the fact that majority of albanians identify as Moslems or Christians is that there was no option for money worshipism on the census questionnaire. Another thing I want to say is that no country article on wikipedia has two different estimates for GDP. The most reliable source for real GDP is Albanian ministry of economics not worldbank. World bank estimates that Albanian populace is 3.2 million compared to actual figure of 2.8. So the difference is obvious. There no need to have two estimates for GDP. Further Albania is one of the few nations in Europe whose GDP is growing rapidly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingling2 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Where there are widely differing estimates by otherwise reliable sources, giving a range of those estimates is preferred to just picking which ever one a particular editor likes better. And, regarding the reliability of sources, generally speaking, international sources (such as World Bank) are more reliable than a government's own estimate which oftentimes tends to be inflated.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 16:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Violent images

Attacking a Turkish camp is an act of violence by some Albanians, we should not foorget that may Albanians did oppose Skenderbeg and some of his acts of violence doesn't come in par with Albanian values (such pictures should be put in Skenderbeg's own page not Albania's official page...lets be progressive182.182.11.11 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's an odd rationale. The images are not supposed to promote any particular point of view (progressive, etc.), but rather illustrate some of the notable events in the history of the country's territory. Whether Albanians supported or opposed Skanderbeg is beside the point; by that thinking, we should remove Hitler's picture from Germany. The image you'd like to add would probably be more relevant at Albanian language if a similar image isn't already there. --Local hero talk 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Local hero . In addition , Skanderbeg is the (only ) national hero of Albania ... and maybe the most important figure in Albania s history . I will also point out , that thats an odd rationale, very odd indeed . Please do not remove established material without consensus . — Preceding unsigned comment added by John221989 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

CIA FACTBOOK

There is a new census in Albania. Every country page in Wikipedia has its ethnic statistics based on CIA Factbook, as such, this page should have them based to it.Balkanian`s word (talk)

A long discussion is located here: Talk:Albania/Archive_6#Ethnic_groups_in_the_infobox, in general infoboxes of countries are based on widely established numbers in bibliography. By the way the 2011 is rejected by almost all parts, not to mention that 15,5% aren't included in any ethnic group, i.e. this makes all the figures questionable since all of them claim a share from this.

You need to explain why you are eager to remove a several reliable sources. Alexikoua (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This statement: "there is a consensus on Demographics of Albania. Cia Factbook is used everywhere on infoboxes" is incorrect and can not be used as justification for addition of text contrary to position of other editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it is the only reliable source we have. All the sources in there are OLD, prior to the new census. They are just OLD DATA. The new census gives that 15.5% of the population did not want to declare its ethnicity. Thats just what we should say. The rest is just OR.95.107.208.205 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Old statistics can still be cited with old, yet reliable, references. Epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You say that CIA Factbook is not a reliable source? It is a fresh reliable source, so old reliable soruces should be gone, as a fresh one comes. COMMON SENSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.208.205 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that we all agree that new data should be used in this article, as it seems that nobody contradicts it. As such, I am going to put those data in the article.Balkanian`s word (talk)

@BW: You must be kidding. Questioned data that have been refuted by intenational organizations can't be part of the infobox. Off course there is a correspodent section which explains why this 2011 census is completely unreliable and caused serious reactions inside and out Albania. In general pretending that there is a consensus isn't a valid argument and instant reverting is disruptive in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Except of the International Organization called User:Alexikoua, and Interlunar Organization Omonoia, who else did question the data? Because, as far as I can see, the CIA Factbook cites exactly those unquestioned data. And of course, if you do not agree that something obvious is not obvious it does not mean that it can last for ever in this ridiciolous situation.95.107.208.205 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the article is a target of various unlogged/blogged evading and returnee edit warriors. In case no decent arguments are presented the previous concensus version will be restored. @Balkanian: wp:canvassing is generally considered disruptive behavior and will be reported.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Moreover, apart from removing all related wp:rs list even the one and single cia number is falsified: There is nowhere written that from the 15.5% that refused to declare their ethnicity 99% of them speak Albanian... It seems that this is nothing more than a childish attempt to established a wp:or&wp:pov ethnic homogeneity in the country.Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
By checking the available metarial there is not the slightest 'new' argument to support the 2011 figures. It's also not the first refuted census conducted in the Balkans, a similar situation occurred in the Republic of Macedonia where the proceddure was problemating from the beginning. To name some official reposts by international organization about the above census:
  • EUDO Observatory on Citizenship[[2]]:

    These ongoing debates in Albania follow the ones in Macedonia where the census was stopped last October due to irregularities in the field, as well as disagreements between the Macedonian and Albanian members of the commission. Undoubtedly they attest to the highly volatile nature of politics of numbers and identity in the Balkans.

  • World_Council_of_Churches [[3]]:

    The World Council of Churches would like to express its concern on the methodology followed and on the reliability of the results of the 2011 Census in Albania

Not to mention that it was boycotted by several sides [[4]][[5]] . Thus, there is no wonder why the last concensus here was in favor of widely established numbers in western bibliography in general.Alexikoua (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so John221987 = Balkanian's word = anon editor? It's kinda hard to keep up with it. Anyways, I stand by what I've said previously, as in the link Alexikoua presented above. The demographic situation in Albania is not very clear, therefore we should not be trying to fit it into the infobox at all. It can be handled in the Demographics section where we can explain that the census results are disputed and also present other estimates from other sources. --Local hero talk 00:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. John221987 is most likely Bonender and Balkanian is IP 95.107.208.205. For more information please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John221989. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Again and again and again The Moon is made of green cheese. So we have that a census, organized by the Government of Albania, which was RECOGNIZED by international governmental organizations, the US Government (CIA factbook), the United Nations, is not recognized by Omonoia organization. EUDO Observatory on Citizenship just says that there were ONGOING DEBATES, it says NOTHING about the RELIABILITY OF THE RESULTS, while the World Council of Churches, expresses some concerns, of course as common sense, if such a thing exists, shows it is about the RELIGIOUS DATA and not the ETHNIC DATA, which we are discussing. So, besides some users in Wikipedia and Omonia, can ANYONE just tell me, who on earth does say that this data are not reliable???? About the rest, OLD DATA are just OLD DATA and as such they should be replaced by NEW DATA. About the fact that 99% of those who did not declare ethnicity had Albanian as they mother tangue, it is true that is missreferenced. The real number is 99.26% and the real reference is the OFFICIAL data of the census. Meanwhile, the Census data are used EVERYWHERE ON WIKIPEDIA. On Albanians, it is said that Albanians in Albania are 2,312,356, refering to the census. On Demographics of Albania of course the data are from the census, and so forth and so on... As this story, is quite funny, the lead itself of THIS page, says that "Tirana was home to 421,286 of the country's 2,831,741" referring to.......THE CENSUS once again! So, please, can ANYONE, just tell me who does think that those data are not reliable, except of some wikipedians and some nonrelevant NGOs????Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You just refuted your position yourself. There is a consensus that wikipedia should not use data from the latest controversial census in Albania. Based on your explanation that CIA Factbook uses controversial census data, it should not be used as source for demography of Albania. Please drop the stick.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks God, not everything you dream is a consensus. There is no such consensus. And if you refute to answe my question it just means you are pov pushing without any argument.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@BW: I suggest you do an "in depth" research on the topic. After all it's not the first census in the Balkans that's ignored in western media and bibliography. Claiming that only 85% in Albania are Albanians isn't realistic, same with the rest of numbers.Alexikoua (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That is totally OR. Cia factbook is citing it. You cannot being a single international organization that doesignore it. Tactical refusal to discuss the source i vrought cannot be used as a way ti not update pages. Please find sources!Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly you misused even the one source you support: there is nowhere to see that from the 15% that didn't declare ethnicity 98% of them are Albanian speakers. By the way the only one in this discussion that supports this extreme point is you, not to mention excessive canvassing, aggresive speech, blind reverting and the most important no serious arguments so far.Alexikoua(talk) 11:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You refuse to read too. As i said earlier About the fact that 99% of those who did not declare ethnicity had Albanian as they mother tangue, it is true that is missreferenced. The real number is 99.26% and the real reference is the OFFICIAL data of the census.. Wp is not about the amount of those who agree is about agreeing on sources!Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
As I've expected you misused even the one and only source you present, nowhere in CIA is this written, so apart from wp:pov we have also a severe case of wp:synth, claiming that all people that didn't declare their ethnicity are ethnic-Albanians. To sum up a highly controversial census should be treatied with heavy precaution by this community... the more it has no place in any infobox per long established concensus in this talkpage.Alexikoua (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Alexikoua, please stop calling it a controversial census, unless you have references from relevant international organizations that dispute it. As you do not have it is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT!Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Per consensus this is the definition of a controversial census: boycotted by several groups, reported as such by various international organizations (per above links) not to mention the synth to name the non-declared 15% as ethnic-Albanian too. To sum up: Accusing all participants of wp:idontlikeit is a weak arguments, on the other hand this applies perfectly on the editor that disagrees with everyone else in this discussion. I suggest you use concrete arguments instead of accusing co-editors who are interested to contribute to the topicAlexikoua (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The only intl oeganization was the World Council of Churches, of course about RELIGIOUS AND NOT ETHNIC DATA! If you can find any RELEVANT intl organization tha please provide a SOURCE!Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-existing "tactical refusal to discuss" you presented as argument for this edit (diff) is not valid argument to add text contrary to objection of all other editors based on existing consensus regarding latest census in Albania. Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@BW: Well, seems you didn't care to read the full discussion: the 'EUDO Observatory on Citizenship' report is also refuting the reliability of the procedure, not to mention that the report is written by an Albanian specialist. Moreover it was boycotted by multiple groups. As I've said, you are the only one in this discussion to claim the opposite, not to mention you manipulate data on ethnicity mixing it with data on speech in order to claim ethnic purity in the country, and this can be easily defined as disruption. Thus, I would suggest you material that claims that this census is widely accepted and not boycotted. Until then, the consensus is clear and you should not misuse wp:brd.Alexikoua (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Eudo doesnot question the results! Not to say that it does not meat any of wp:rs criteria. So please find any international organization that disputes the results, eg EU, OSCE,UN. The census is widely accepted that you and antidiskriminator do not like and nothing moreBalkanian`s word (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Both eudo and the World Council of Churches report that the procedure is unacceptable, as well as the Orthodox Church of Albania [[6]], Omonoia officially boycotted this census [[7]] and conducted another one with the number of the Greek minority being 10% [[8]]. But the worst is that the results of the 2011 census are misused by BW mixing up data on ethnicity with data on speech in order to present an ethnically pure Albania, which is the epitomy of wp:pov&synth.Alexikoua (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My question is quite simple: name one intl organization which disputes ethnic data??? The Albanian Orthodox Church and Wolrd Council of Churches dispute RELIGIOUS DATA! so it is obly Omonia! Cia factbook is widely accepted as a rs and ofcourse albanian statistical office is too! I synth nothing! The table i put is about the mother language of those who did not declare their ethnicity; it is official not a synth, just read!Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I can only assume you are not reading this discussion before posting: The EUDO CITIZENSHIP is an observatory within the European Union Observatory on Democracy (EUDO)[[9]], i.e. an organization under the EU framework. So, your questioned is fully answered. In case you still insist, you need to explain why an EU organization is unreliable. Another serious task you have is why irregularities reported by the Word Council of Churches about this procedure are irrelevant with this very procedure. Alexikoua (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Come on, eudo says nothing about the actual ethnic data results. NOTHING AT ALL! Secondly, it is just an article from an Albanian journaist. It is not a rs! Cia factbook is a GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, as INSTAT is to.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Come on" can be a serious argument in wikipedia, especially if nothing decent is presented so far. I've fully answered the questions raised in this discussion (procedure refuted by international organizations, organizations under the EU framework).Alexikoua (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the "of whom 99.26% had Albanian as their mother tongue" text following the percentage who refused to declare. That seems to be pretty irrelevant for an infobox section about ethnic groups. It seems like you're trying to say that even though those people didn't declare their ethnicity, they are ethnic Albanians, which would be drawing your own conclusions. If we are to keep the census data in the infobox, for which it appears there is a lack of consensus, this particular text should be removed. --Local hero talk 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@aleexikoua: as long as Cia factbook and the Albanian govt are rs, there is no question about the infobox. You may write about the "procedure" at the relevant section. The results seem not to be questioned, only the procudre seems!
@local hero, I try to prove nothing, it is just a relevant infomration about those who did not declare their wthnicity and it is too part of the official results. Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It sounds nothing more than wp:or&synth concert. Although all questions raised by BW have been fully answered, wp:ninja is in full scale. As an act of good faith I have to ask BW to restore last concensus version while this discussion is active. Instant reverting isn't a cool approach even if someone 'has' arguments to present, something that doesn't happen in this case (blindly respecting an unreliable procedure and cia factbook misuse is too weak for an argument). Alexikoua (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The Albanian government statistics are not RS and if the CIA factbook just reiterates them; in this case it repeats false information which is contradicted by other RS. Clearly, there is no consensus on this page for this information to be added to the article. If this edit-war continues I will have no choice but to file a 3RR report for the editor who keeps edit-warring, adding this info back into the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is the way Wikipedia works. DR.K., Alexikoua, and co. Please revert every page that has results from this census, if you really believe it is not RS. Can't you see that the results of the census are in the INFOBOX just two paragraphs below on population data??? Can't you see that they everywhere on the lead of this page? Can't that they are everywhere on Demographics of Albania???? OF course not, because you just bother to try to put some ethnic based POV pushing. CIA FACTBOOK is definitely a reliable source. No one seems to refuse those results. Wikipedia should not be used as a place to do politics by either of us, by using a language, used by parties and organizations. If you use EUDO as a reliable source, than it puts the number of Albanians to OVER 97%, if you bother to read of course, IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE CENSUS. It just says that OMONIA does not recognise it. Please find A SINGLE SOURCE that refutes the results of ethnic data in the census and please stop reverting only because you are a bunch of people, who have the same ideas, without any argument. Sources are needed for your position.Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Balkanian but I cannot discuss anything with you when you reply to me using such extreme language. If you remove the references of these extremist parties and the mention about using Wikipedia for politics I will reply. If not, I have nothing to add. Again, I am being extra patient because I had a good opinion of you and I want to keep having it. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@BW I believe you owe a sincere apology for posting such comments. In general the irregularities of the procedure were reported by organizations under the EU framework (EUDO) (link above), in the UN site it's termed as a "controversial" census [[10]], while it is alternatively widely termed as "disputed" [[11]] (article by B. Likmeta one of the most neutral journals in Albania), additional mainstream media in Albania, such as Tirana Times [[12]] also question the "accuracy" of the procedure, stating also that "Ethnic and religious data was affected by boycott".Alexikoua (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Alexikoua, if you have ever read WP:RS, because if you had, you would have heard of Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations, which means that News Organizations, should be considered reliable, basicly on fact-telling and not on opinion-telling. Tirana Times article, in fact shows that OMONIA have asked the International Community not to recognize the census. And as it is obvious the International Community has not accepted this request. Nonetheless, if you have read your references, you would have found out that the article on Balkan Insight is PRIOR to the RESULTS and as such, normally, it says nothing about them, but speaks about the process BEFORE the census conduction.

So we have that US government agencies recognizes the results of the census. The European Union "...welcomes the smooth conduct of the long awaited census, made possible by thorough preparations at all levels...", a census that it had financed and overviewed. The United Nations, officialy uses the ethnicity data. While, as we have told, Omonia, Besar Likmeta (per WP:RS, the author of a journalistic article is to be used as reference), and some others do not agree with it. For God sake isn't it so obvious????Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@BW it appears that something is really wrong with the links you provided since they are irrelevant with what you claim: the EU link doesnt say a word about the Albanian census the quote you provided is about the census in Bosnia [[13]]..... & UN link just presents the data of each country without evaluating their accuracy, something that's stated here: [[14]] (controversial census data).Alexikoua (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
First, let me say that I appreciate Balkanian's efforts at a civil discussion. Although I met him a long time ago by wiki standards, and even then our interaction was not very long, I took something out of that interaction that told me that he is a gentleman. It is not a coincidence that in the past few days I took a deliberately measured and relaxed approach when dealing with him. It was because of an underlying respect that I have for this editor. So, once more, I thank him for behaving like a gentleman. Hopefully this can set the tone for further civil interactions in the future here and all over Wikipedia and for other editors as well. Now back to business. It seems to me that the 2011 census is basically flawed and should not be showcased in the infobox. But in the interests of reaching a compromise with an editor I respect, i.e. Balkanian, I propose either that we include nothing in the infobox, or if we must include some numbers, we include the 2011 census and the estimate by the other reliable sources and maybe some note explaining the range of estimates. How about that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to admit that both suggestion look fine. There are several iboxes in other countries that also avoid this section, thus it won't be a big deal to get rid of it. About the other proposal the min-max range of each group will widen up (Albanians 85-95, Greeks 1-6 etc, undeclared 0-15%).
Thank you for the background information Alexikoua. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The most important fact here is to avoid manipulation of the percentages of ethnicities by mixing up ethnicity with language, something that's clearly wp:or & synth.Alexikoua (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In volatile areas of Wikipedia it is best practice to avoid unnecessary extrapolations and interlinkages of concepts not explicitly found in RS. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it is totally acceptable to avoid this range on the infobox.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Me, too. This seems like the best option to avoid another edit war. Epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong/old map

While Kosovo is recognized by Albania, the map of Albania is senseless since in the north-east borders on Serbia and not Kosovo as it should be. For example, Montenegro's map is correct by putting Kosovo on it, so i think Albania's map should be replaced with a correct one.

Regards(GentiBehramaj (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC))

You are absolutely right . I Will upload a new map today ( for the moment the image is deleted ) Gjirokastra15 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Albania

I wanted to report the vandalism of a

> user of Wikipedia ,Alexikoua .I think that he has vandalised the > information about the ethnic groups in Albania by incresing the percentage > of greek population in Albania.I think that it is a clear vandalism and > GREEK NATIONALISM and i wanted your help about this problem. > I wanted you to solve this problem as soon as possibl because i think that > it is not just a vandalism,but a SERIOUS PROBLEM,NATIONALISM. > User:Zakoni. > > > > > P.s: Here is the correct informatoin.Source:ALBANIAN GOVERNMENT. > http://www.instat.gov.al/media/178070/rezultatet_kryesore_t__censusit_t__popullsis__dhe_banesave_2011_n__shqip_ri.pdf > > > This user has used sources that are not in accordance with the rates that > the user has added itself in Wikipedia.In addition most of the sources of > this user belongs to year 2002 or earlier.I wanted you to take > disciplinary action against this user ,Alexikoua.

There is nowhere to find that Albanians are 98%, the link you gave estimates that they are only 85%, but all of the sudden this census is disputed by all parties in Albania (you need to read the previous discussion above on the topic). Please provide the necessary references & avoid serious accusations.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Where exactly is the "3-6% Greek" figure coming from? There are numerous sources listed next to it, one of which is the CIA Factbook which uses a figure of 0.9%. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Inline citations in the infobox estimate the number of the Greek minority ca. 200,000 (for example [[15]] states that "Most Western estimates were around the 200,000 mark", +6%), there are 7 inline references in total from which the 3-6% figure is coming from. On the other hand, CIA factbook, is based on the recent disputed census (by UN&EU organs and other international organization as mentioned in the section above). Also note the CIA factbook mentions an 15,5% as "unspecified", so we may with certainty assume that the percentages of the ethnic groups are in fact higher.Alexikoua (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Latest discussion on the topic Talk:Albania#CIA_FACTBOOK reached the conclusion that the percentages should not be part of the infobox (mostly to avoid the wide range on each ethnic group, for example Albanians will be 85-95%), however this was not implemented and the previous version stayed.Alexikoua (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yea, I thought we had agreed to remove it. Nonetheless, I just took it out. --Local hero talk 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We can not edit wrong information.The wikipedia s information should be the same with the albanian census.the only recent study or estimate.85 percent albanian and 0.87 greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakoni (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Poorly explained revert

About this [[16]] the sentence begins with "large parts of Albanians believe...." But no citation supports this view. Most important is that this part recycles the previous sentence: nationalists, various intellectuals organizations and political parties in Albania have expressed their concern that the census might artificially increase the number of Greek minority, which might be then exploited by Greece and it follows this almost recycling the same Large parts of Albanians, similarly fear irredentist claims on northern Epirus following Albanians changing their nationality to Greek due to monetary and other benefits. The same meaning (with the exeption of "large parts" which is unsourced).

Last but not least the results of this census are known to the public, so the entire part is useless. As far as I know this was added even before the preliminary results of the 2011 were known, so each side had some reasons to fear.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Then remove the Large word , but not the sentence as it is multisourced . For more WP:REMOVAL and WP:IDONTLIKEITGjirokastra15 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) As I've said this is completely unsourced (the so-called "large parts") and if not properly sourced (with exact quotes) it will be soon removed.Alexikoua (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Using your logic then the part of the 300.000 ethnic greeks should be removed because we have the official census results . I kindly ask you to see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:REMOVAL thoroughly . Removal of sourced ( in fact more than 5 sources ) , unique and essential content would make me report you . I hope you will relfect . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Alexikoua. None of these sources supports the sentence. This is source falsification and original research WP:OR. If you revert again, I will file an edit-warring report about your conduct. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of well referenced text and copyvio

With this edit (diff) well referenced text was removed from the article justifying it with wp synth. The removed text provides necessary background of the establishment of the Prizren League. It was initially supported by the Ottomans (also confirmed by the tertiary source already used in the article) and based on the religious solidarity of Muslim landlords and people connected with the Ottoman administration who emphasized Muslim solidarity and called for defense of Muslim lands, including present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was the reason for naming the league The Committee of the Real Muslims (Albanian: Komiteti i Myslimanëve të Vërtetë). The source used to support this assertion is contemporary (2006) source published by the Central European University Press and authored by multiple authors specialized in the subject. It is obvious that WP:SYNTH accusation is not justified so I will restore removed text.

Besides removal of well referenced text the same editor probably created a wp:copyvio issue by copying the text from the 2007 source to the article (diff), instead of rewording it. That is why I will also restore the version of the text before creation of the copyvio issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are massively trolling the Albanian section . I could write exactly here , what you have done , but i prefer to forward this matter to wikipedia noticeboard ( changing the text not in accordance with sources , wp synth , POV pushing , and removing other sourced material ) . Here for example you have changed the text , while the source was saying word per word this sentence > > control until AD 548 when the lands now known as Albania began to be overrun from the north by an ever increasing numbers of Slavs who gradually settled in the western Balkans < .

Said otherwise , you present a source here , yet you write totally different stuff from the sources presented . What is even more ridiculous , is that you fill up a whole paragraph with that POV pushing not sourced non sense of yours . Said even more simple the texts that you write do not comply AT ALL with the sources that you bring .... 

Gjirokastra15 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You accused me for changing of the text of the sources. To avoid copyright violations editors can not copy/paste "word by word" what sources say. Wikipedia editors have to change the text of the sources. I used multiple secondary contemporary sources to support the text I added, so your accusation that text I added is "not sourced non sense" of mine is not justified. Gjirokastra15 Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTRELIABLE , WP:SELFPUBLISH and generally WP:VERIFICATION ! Until you provide verifiable sources here , do not change anything , until it can be verifiable . It can be that simple .

Yet again i see that Alexikoua , as always present where trouble is , reverted the edit in your favor . So as per consensus we leave it as it is , said otherwise your text has been restored , and yes that text is sourced enough , and reasonable , although it needs some minor clarifications which i will contribute when i ll have the time for it Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Pointing to list of policies and guidelines does not justify your removal of well referenced text (diff). With your edits you removed multiple reliable secondary sources written by experts in the subject whose works are extensively used in articles on wikipedia. They include:
  • Kopecek, Michal; Ersoy, Ahmed; Gorni first4=Vangelis, Maciej; Kechriotis; Manchev, Boyan; Turda, Marius (2006), Discourses of collective identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945), vol. 1, Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press, p. 348, ISBN 963-7326-52-9, retrieved January 18, 2011, The position of the League in the beginning was based on religious solidarity. It was even called Komiteti i Myslimanëve të Vërtetë (The Committee of the Real Muslims)... decisions are taken and supported mostly by landlords and people closely connected with Ottoman administration and religious authorities.. {{citation}}: |first6= missing |last6= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |editorn=, |coauthors=, |doi-inactive-date=, |nopp=, |editorn-last=, |chapterurl=, |editorn-first=, |editorn-link=, |month=, and |author-separator= (help); Missing pipe in: |last3= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  • Elsie, Robert. "Albania under prince Wied". Archived from the original on January 25, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2011. pro-Ottoman forces ...were opposed to the increasing Western influence ...In November 1913, these forces, ..., had offered the vacant Albanian throne to General Izzet Pasha ... War Minister who was of Albanian origin.
  • Jelavich, Barbara (1999) [1983], History of the Balkans: Twentieth century, vol. 2, Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate of University of Cambridge, p. 103, ISBN 0-521-27459-1, retrieved January 25, 2011, peasants..willing listeners to Ottoman propaganda... attached the new regime as a tool of the beys and Christian powers {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |doi-inactive-date=, |nopp=, |chapterurl=, |laysummary=, |month=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
  • Vickers, Miranda (1999). The Albanians: a modern history. I.B.Tauris. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-86064-541-9. He gathered round him a group of discontented Muslim priests ... and proclaimed himself the savior of Albania and the Champion of Islam.
  • Elsie, Robert. "Albania under prince Wied". Archived from the original on January 25, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2011. ... mostly volunteers from Kosova under their leader Isa Boletini
Will you please be so kind to revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

1 more time , the text has been already reverted by user alexikoua , what is so hard to understand ??????Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The text:

    when the lands now known as Albania began to be overrun from the north by an ever increasing numbers of Slavs who gradually settled in the western Balkans.

was a verbatim copyvio from the reference. Please do not restore. I will check for more copyvios. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm , you changed it to > The territory remained under Roman (Byzantine) control until the Slavs began to overrun it from 548 and onward, <

Yet it should be written as > The territory now known as Albania remained under Roman (Byzantine) control until the Slavs began to overrun it from 548 and onward, <

I think that part is essential , and it does not constitute a copyvio ... Unless any objections , i will change it to that format Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Thanks Δρ.Κ. Gjirokastra15, please stop with IDHT. No doubt you saw that less than third of 6,612 characters of the text you removed (diff) were restored by another editor (diff). Will you please be so kind to restore remainin part of the well referenced text you removed from this article. Thank you and all the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Gjirokastra15: Hmmm , you changed it to... Please understand that I did not change it to anything. I simply restored the old version and erased your copyvio. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring to insert double images of Skanderbeg I and Skanderbeg II

With this edit Gjirokastra15 edit warred to replace appropriate maps of Albania which are here for years with images of Skanderbeg I and II which are already found in this article further in the text, in appropriate gallery. This is (another) violaton of long standing consensus, WP:BRD and WP:MOS. Gjirokastra15, will you please be so kind to revert yourself? Please read what is written at the top of this page about editors who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no violation whatsoever . In a paragraph talking about Skanderbeg i placed a photo of Skanderbeg ( the most important Albanian national hero , and a symbol of Albania s resistance .... )! You see it can be that simple . On the other hand , you have taken the initiative of writing in total 40.000 kbts of text for the Albanian history on your own in a period of 3 days . Please refrain yourself from not standing accusations ... Gjirokastra15 (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://mirror.undp.org/albania/download/pdf/albanian.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albania/Archive_6&oldid=1256762739"