This is an archive of past discussions about Religion in Albania. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ploutarchos, why do you keep putting that 70% of Albanians are Muslims? That is completely wrong and unbased. Even the CIA source mentions that that information is just an estimate, because there is no official data on the matter. The truth is that the majority of Albanians in Albania are not affiliated with any religion, since that is how they were all raised during communism. Obviously the real latest official data dates from back in 1967 when we OFFICIALLY were proclaimed the first Atheist country in the world. So yeah, if you need to have official data, we being Atheists is the latest one. (read the second paragraph here: http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-196152). The is absolutely no official data after that.
Calling us Muslims just because you need to include us in a religious group is offensive. - David
Wasn't Cuba also atheist for a long time (I realize it definitely became officially secular in the 90s but I thought it was atheist before that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay the CIA factbook gives an estimate on the religious affiliation of the Albanians(and states that it is an estimate). So where does this statement come from? "The majority of Albanians today are either Atheists or Agnostics". Isn't some proof required to back it up. The links provided do not give any proof. And 40% is not majority! What information did they use? Who did they survey? That would be like me visiting a Muslim area in Paris and coming up with a theory that all the French are Muslim? Does this make sense? No! If the people surrounding you are atheist, then say that, back up your evidence.
In addition to this what is meant by Albanian. Citizens of Albania? or the national group Albanian? (Honesty 23:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
i suggest you all look at the well respected European Values Survey of 2002 available online at http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ this gives a survey figure that 87% of Albanians considered themselves to be a memember of a religion and of this 87% 66,9% were Muslim, 20.8% Orthodox, 10.1% Catholic. this survey set worship attedandance at 29.4% monthly. note though that most surveys over estimate actual attendance. 217.44.159.173 (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
you just cannot start of by saying that the majority are agnostics... many sites and books state that albania, along with bosnia and turkey are moslem countries... i think that this article needs some fixing.. and albanianism?? what is it?? please define.. do you know what agnostics even means??? it means that people do not at all practice religion at all... albania might be a country where religion is less pronounced ... that doesn't mean that it is agnostic.... this article defenitely needs to be fixed by a albania specialist. eg someone who lives there. Canadian (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am Albanian, who lives in Albania and added a very good source of information, Gallup, which says that in 2010 61% of Albanians were non-religious, meaning that they were atheists, agnostics or just not interested at all in any religion. Living for all my life in Albania and being an Albanian, I would say that this figure is higher, probably up to 70% or 80%. If you just visit any religious edifice in Albania, like mosque, church or turbe, and you will see that the number of people participating in the religious ceremonies can be counties with the fingers of your right hand. (Edvin (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC))
Take it easy, you're not the first to understand you've been lied to about Albania being a Muslim country. Misinformation has been going on for whole decades. Non-Albanians find it difficult to believe at first, and can't get used to the fact that religion was undesired for us, and as soon as we got independent we purged them. Come to terms with it. You as non-Albanians can't go on forever naming and tagging us according to your preconceptions. You can't call me or the guy next to me a Catholic or a Muslim because someone of my and his grand-grandfathers may have been such. Religion is not a genetic trait. Face reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.249.202 (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I live in Albania, religion in Albania is not important and I tell you that in Albania there's never been an official statistic or study to show thhe percentage of the religions in the country, but I'm sure that the truth is that Islam in Albania is less than 50% and that a lot of people have 2 religions such as me.(I was born half Orthodox and half Muslim but I identify myself as an atheist because I'm indifferent if there exists something.)But for one thing I'm sure and the article is right more than 50% of the people are Atheists or Agnostics, personally I don't know anyone who believes in God and especially the young people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.250.130 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. This article is supposed to give a feel as to what religious life is like in Albania. When you quote these Christian/Islamics sources they are very misleading. Almost all Albanians in here agree the country is mostly agnostic (i.e. unsure of god/ believe in a supernatural power but are irreligious). You must make a distinction between very religious people and the "religious" Albanians whom are mostly secular. See my link at the bottom of Talk that shows out of the Islamic countries that this Pew group gathered data from, Albanians are the lowest in religion being very important in their lives, only at 15%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.96.211 (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, I reverted before noticing your comment, so please disregard my change summary. Still, you should not delete these proposals so hastily. I recognize your point, but the existence of a series does not override all other concerns, IMHO. --Rschmertz21:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed this article is very weak. I will try soon to work on this article, and use my work on my website TheAlbanians.com
I do not have enough time right now but when i have some fre time I will come back to revise this page.Albanians do not have one official religion. - VasilGjika
Christianity
Article says:
Christianity was imposed in urban centers in the region of Albania during Roman rule by the middle of the 1st century AD.
That's just plain impossible. Christianity was a minority religion in the period c. 50 CE, with no official recognition. There is no way it was "imposed in urban centers" in the middle of the 1st century. About three centuries later (don't know exact figure), the claim would be true though. Going to remove the reference to 1st century. --SJK (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, the article now says "Since the 1st and 2nd century AD, Christianity had become the established religion in Byzantium". Byzantium didn't even exist until the 4th century, and Christianity wasn't the established religion anywhere in the world until the 4th century. Philgoetz (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Most of churches where albanians live , are build on the Ruins of more older churches or Castles , so they date from 100 A.D.when cristianity spread to Illyrians from Saint Pal . Following the many rage conquerors and bloody wars , some of the Albanian churches and other cultural and defence buildings (called in Albanian-"Kulla") ... were destroyed . Still Albanians arrived to save some of them , and today they are a big cultural value . But, some of these buildings today are used for political manipulation , for example Monastery of Deqan , which the serb entitie pretends to claim , without dignity , and use for political manners, but the truth that everyone knows is that , the Monastery of Decan was build time ago , before the slavic "big raid" in Balkan Peninsula , in the centuries 7 - 8 A.D, Monastery of Deqan was build by Albanians , and still there are proofs of Albanian prezence(paintings in the monastery with men wearing the white albanian hat called plisi), which the Serbs keep in top secret , where rare people can visit it , because of the Serbs pretend that it's a matter of Security , and highly guarded by KFOR troops , which is not neccessary , cause in Kosova the situation is clear and freedom is for all . —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValdrinMaliqi (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Childish
Could you stop this childish situation reverting edits of each other. This is talk page, and everybody has the right to speak.balkanian (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
NPOV
I see that some the numbers are not being presented correctly, therefore this article does not present dhe religous reality in Albania. I hope someone can contribute to make this article neutral.
What is this? 70% Atheism? Is that a joke? Islam is the domintating religion in Albania and the man who has wrote this shitt on wikipedia needs to be shott down. Islam in Albania are about making 60-70% of the population. I live in Albania and the man who wrote this must be the dumbest one I have seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albaneren (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I live in Albania too, and it's not true that 70% of the population is Islamic because Albania has no official statistics on the religious issue and in Albania there are a lot of people that are half christians and half Islamics( me too). And Atheism is not a religion it's about you, do you believe in god or not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.250.130 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I live in Albania too and i strongly believe that religion in Albania is only culturally inportant (e.g holydays, traditions, etc). I agree with the figure 70% atheists. Religion does not play an important role in Albanian life or at least i never experienced it. When you ask many people if they believe in God or not, very often thay will reply that thay do not trust religious institutions but they are positive about the existence of a supernatural being or force. The rest, including me, will give a plain answer that God does not exist. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.69.234 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
How can Islam be 70% of the population when 71% of Albanians in Albania are not religious and do not follow any religion (atheists. agnostic, pagan)? Maybe it 70% of the 39%, meaning that it is 27.3% of the population. (Edvin (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC))
"Propaganda and Misinformation"
This whole section is very POV, there is one citation that is taken out of context. "Perpetuating misinformation"? I'm going to rename the section "misconceptions" and try to make it more NPOV. Thoughts? Αεκος (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Unreliable
This article seems extremly unreliable, and i mean the difference between 25% religious and 95% religious.
The important thing is the self reported religious affiliation of the albanian people, isn't this data available from a recent official census or some recent polling from a credible institution at least ?
Last official data are those of 90% atheists. Some go further, they take the last official data of 2 centuries ago when 101% of Albanians were religious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.91.115.229 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Data
79.9% Muyslim is not correct because it is talking only for muslim, and do not have the datas about ather religions. And you can not put and the top that information, but say that there are 4 religions, and mos of albanians do not practice any religions. So,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15738681/Feja-ne-Shqiperi1,
I moved the statistic further down and wrote a new lead paragraph introducing the major religions in the country and mentioning that many are nonreligious. --Local herotalk16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I think that it's better put the mos neutral statistics, and, in the middle of 10% and 79% to put 38% (of the sources that i linked) and catholics 13% (according to the albanian catholic church). 700.000 are orthodox (see Albanian Orthodox Church, so 22%, and the other are atheists or without religion. It's better than spreading disinformation. Thank you!--Albopedian (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The source of information for Albania for the Pew Research Center study is UNICEF's 2005 MICS3 survey (zipped PDF). One of the tables in that study says that 79.9 % of heads of households are Muslim and the remaining 20.1 % are Orthodox/Catholic/Other. Svick (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I did some more research and the CIA factbook gives "Muslim 70%, Albanian Orthodox 20%, Roman Catholic 10%", with a note that this is only an estimate. Operation World gives: Christian – 1,291,452 adherents (41.48 %); Muslim – 1,207,701 adherents (38.79 %); non-Religious/other – 608,365 adherents (19.54 %) and also says "Over 50% of the population is culturally Muslim, but superstition and folk Islam are strong." Maybe this is where the confusion comes from – cultural vs. actual Muslims. Svick (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Religious superstition, and It's not possible that 50% of the population is "culturaly muslim", because they had 45 years of state atheism.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/127295.htm
This is for the first "citation needed". If anyone visits Albania, his people and state do not know what is religion. How you see, it's impossible that 100% of population (according to CIA) to be religious. It's not funny. This data cames from pre-WWII time, and after there is the state atheism.
We also can not call Muslim person that never have seen e mosque in their life (like me). Actual muslims, if the 60-75% of population do not practice any religion, maybe 10%-15% practice islam, and other maybe are christians. And in ALbania there are a lot of people that have parents of different religions, but doi not practice anyone, so, of wich group is he part? There are a confusion, confusiong and disinformating people about religion in Albania.
So, i think that's better to put the data of Operation World, and ad that Albania is a secular country with a non practising majority.
--Albopedian (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not understanding why:
- Local hero deletes "Albania do not have official statistics
_ Put in all pages about albania, 79,9% are muslims (bektashi or sunni, practising or not???) and doesn't talk about other religions?
Is it possibile to be 100% religious? Are you trolling or what? 79,9% is not neutral, and also 9% muslim is not neutral, why do you not let it at 38%??
Can I also add that, according to another statistics, 70% of them are atheists?--Albopedian (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting a reliable, recent source about the precentage of Muslims in Albania on every single page relating to Albania and religion? It is possible to be 100% religious, although I never said that was the case in Albania. 79.9% is completely neutral, done by the Pew Research Center. Just because you don't think the statistic doesn't support your idea of religion in Albania and that it isn't neutral, doesn't mean it should be removed. By all means add a source that says that 70% are atheists; I never deleted a single referenced fact you've ever put in. I ask that you do the same. --Local herotalk16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The most neutral way to do this is to add several statistics supporting several positions on the figures for religious adherence in Albania. So if you have a reference suggesting that 70% are atheist then add it, but don't remove other sourced information that suggests something else because there is no certain statistic regarding this topic. --Local herotalk18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I requested the actual data from the MICS3 study of Albania from 2005 (that seems to be the source of data for the Pew Research Center study). The figures in the study report are per household and are weighted (I'm no statistician and I'm not sure what exactly that means, but I guess it could be that the data are weighted by the count of members for that household). Here are the raw data:
This does not end the discussion. The statistics on Religion in Albania are too varied to call any single source the correct one until a reliable national census occurs. --Local herotalk14:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
In few months we will have the data from the national census in Albania, which was done during October 2011. I am pretty sure that the percentage of non-religious Albanians would be even greater than what Gallup found (Edvin (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC))
Gallup only asked if religion is an important part of their daily lives. They didn't ask if the respondents were Muslim or not. --Local herotalk23:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
How can a person who doesn't follow any religious practices and doesn't find religion important be Muslim or Catholic? (Edvin (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC))
It does not say that those people do not follow any religious practices. It just says that religion is not an important part of their daily lives. Many of those people may still consider themselves Muslims even if they do not pray towards Mecca five times per day. --Local herotalk17:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Albania does not have any state religion, Albania is secular. But most of the inhabitants, about 70 - 80 % are/have Muslim origin. --NOAH (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
That's correct, however Muslim origin doesn't mean Muslim affiliation. Entered data from Albanian govt, dated 2007.--Sulmues(talk)10:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Albania is not a religious country, and in fact it is the 13th least religious country in the world according to the Global Survey conducted by Gallup in 2010. Gallup is sometimes used as the best credible source, due to its professional surveys it conducts. According to this survey, religion plays a role only to 39% of Albanians, and puts Albania in the list of the 14 least religious countries in the world, where Estonia is the first, and Albania the thirteenth least religious country in the world. You can see the data Gallup Global Reports 2010. Just click on religion and go to the bottom of the list of countries. (Edvin (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC))
Protestants
There ought to be a section on Albanian Protestants, considering their importance in the development of the Albanian printing and alphabet and education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.42.7 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
"and hundreds of thousands of former Muslims have converted to Orthodox Christianity, as they have migrated to Greece." - This has no source and from my understanding, is completly untrue. I'm guessing a Christian/Bias propogandist's been editing this article?
Can someone also edit the Religious demography section; this is the recent most reliable demographics -
A recent Pew Research Center demographic study put the percentage of Muslims in Albania at 79.9%.[1]
Source - ^ Miller, Tracy, ed. (October 2009) (PDF), Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, Pew Research Center, retrieved 2009-10-08
I see here that Bektashis are put together with Muslims in this article. While bektashis are related to Islam, in Albania they are mostly considered as a separate religion, and being a Bektashi doesn't automatically mean that you are a Muslim, or vice-versa. It is like Orthodox are considered different from Catholics. (Edvin (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC))
Albanian pagan traditions
It seems that this paragraph on religion in Albania is bothering the user Athenean:
"Religion has always been taken easily by Albanians. The actual traditional religions (Christianity and Islam) were religions imported and most of the time imposed by the numerous occupying forces in Albania. Thus, most of the Albanians were never truly religious in the traditional meaning of the word. Even nowadays, among people who claim to follow any of the four major religions in Albania, you can see a mixture of various religious traditions and pagan traditions coming from time before Christianity."
Being an Albanian and growing up and living there, I know better our pagan traditions which we perform every year, than a Greek who seems to not know so much about Albania. I invite other Albanians here in Wikipedia to back up my post.
Your additions are completely unsourced. Sorry, but that's not how do things around here. You can't just add whatever you want because you're from Albania. Everything needs to be sourced, especially claims like these. Athenean (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I am putting more sources, it is just that it is harder to find sources on English on this.
Problem is, none of the sources you have added are reliable. Please see WP:RS for how a reliable source is defined in wikipedia. The sources you have added are self-published websites, where whoever owns the website can write whatever they want. Some with a a clear nationalist agenda (e.g. www.ancientillyrians.com). Also, Edwin Jacques is not a historian and is not considered a reliable source. You need to use books like these [1], that's what reliable sources are. John Wilkes is a professor of ancient history. Anyway, I left the Gallup poll results in the article, I think that is sufficient. I don't know why you want to keep repeating over and over in the lede how non-religious Albanians are, once is enough. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Because it is clear that you have an ultranationalistic Greek agenda and keep mingling in articles related to Albania. Why so a Greek is so much interested to portray Albanians as fanatic-religious people? I am not messing up articles about your beloved Greece. (Edvin (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC))
Stop insulting. I didn't insult you, did I? If you continue insulting I will report you and you will be banned. I am not interested in portraying Albanians as fanatics, I only removed one sentence that was sourced to unreliable sources, and one that was unsourced. Websites, whether they are Albanian, English or Greek, are not reliable sources. Try to understand that. Athenean (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I also reported you for violation and deleting sources, which are also used in so many other articles. By the way, some of the sources which for you are not reliable, surprisingly were used for the article about Greek history. I guess that to be fair, given that you deleted mine, you should also delete those on the article about Greece and its history. And also on scores of other pages where I found the same sources I used. Who is being unfair here? And by the way, about the percentage of Greeks in Albania, you cite a Greek book, which I and the others cannot read. So i request that it should be deleted, and no percentage should be put there until the results of the census come up in few months. Sincerely, (Edvin (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC))
Removing unreliable sources is not a "violation". You seem to have trouble understanding what a reliable source is. So Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source, but Kristo Dako is? Come on now. There are unreliable sources used everywhere in wikipedia unfortunately. I cannot remove all of them, I can only remove the ones that I notice. Btw, the book on the percentages in Albania is not Greek, it's author is Ian Jeffries. Does that sound Greek to you? Athenean (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You were the one removing my Britannica citation. So, Ian is above all international organizations, and the Albanian statistics which is the only one legally having the right to provide data? (Edvin (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC))
Ian Jeffries is not quoted anywhere, and there is no reliable information that he is the sole and absolute source on statistics in Albania. I did not see him doing any national survey in Albania. He is not an international authority who has the last word in the matter. And by the way, I can not understand anything in that citation because it is in Greek. I am not sure that excerpt belongs to that book. It needs to be verified. (Edvin (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
The excerpt on pagan traditions was removed on the grounds that I only brought only citations from websites. Ok, then i will bring a citation from Aleksander Stipcevic, a famous Yugoslav and Croatian academic and archaeologist. You can see it here. Now, don't tell me that books from academics are not a source accepted by Wikipedia. (Edvin (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
Sure, but we have to be precise on what academics claim. In this Stipcevic claims something completely diferrent: [[2]] "It is known that many of these symbols, for example, the serpent, the spiral (also believed to be a schematic presentation of the serpent), the concentric circle, swastika, etc., existed...". It seems obvious that this is completely irrelevant in an article titled 'Religion in Albania'.Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way the rest of the specific paragraph (1st of ancient history) is irrelevant with the article, the 'religion of the Illyrians' is geographically and historically diferrent with the 'religion in Albania'. This is also in consistency with all similar articles (typical example Religion in France, Religion in Russia).Alexikoua (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on the religiousfreedom web site IP editor added the chart with percents which are disputed. I believe it is violation of WP:NPOV and remove it from the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
With another edit the same IP editor added chart with disputed percents based on the 2001 tertiary source which contains outdated figures. It is again violation of WP:NPOV and should be removed from the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree, Antidiskriminator!!! I mean, it's OXFORD, for god's sake, so it can't be the violation of WP:NPOV. I know all Wikipedia's rules. And, stop discriminating. My native language is also Serbian, so I can say you should totally change your username. Not trying to be rude, though. Guess we'll have to seek dispute resolution, or you should type more convincing explanation. So, do you have WP:CON on that or sources that are more WP:RS. 178.223.199.235 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree with inclusion of the chart since these figures vary greatly by source. Why, for example, should we the World Christian Encyclopedia as opposed to the Pew Research Center as the source? --Local herotalk22:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The WCE is published by the Oxford University Press i.e. RS, the Pew Research Center on the other hand is a think tank that conducted a poll. If you think that OUP isn't RS please take it to RSN, not to mention that he didn't remove the PRC poll.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk12:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not the reliability of the Oxford University Press, it is that we present it as the best and most accurate source out there by making it the source behind this chart. Until a reliable census is conducted, I don't think we can say that, without doubt, there is one source that is most correct. --Local herotalk14:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to support the inclusion of the chart since, not only that sources are reliable, it also notes that the informations are disputed and that 70% of Albanias didn't declare their religion, I also could agree with it on the more 'natural' level. I lived in Albania (well, I'm in Serbia righ now) and I can say that these informations are the most appropriate. 178.223.123.111 (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Inclusion of the chart with disputed and outdated figures taken from tertiary source just because it was published by OUP is wrong. It is also violation of NPOV and UNDUE. If there are no other arguments presented, besides publisher based ones, this chart should be removed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
OUP isn't tertiary source. See World Christian Encyclopedia. It IS a reference work, so it CAN be freely referenced without any problems and CAN be used for bar boxes. Even though it's from 2001, most other Religion in /European state/ articles used the old informations for bar boxes, like Serbia (2002), Croatia (2001), Bosnia (2001), Scotland (2001), Northern Ireland (2001), Wales (2001), Romania (2002), Portugal (2001), Ukraine (2006), Montenegro (2003), Macedonia (2002), Lithuania (2001), Liechtenstein (2002), Georgia (2002), Greece (2001), Estonia (2000), Hungary (2001), Italy (2006), Austria (2005). Should all those be deleted, Antidiskriminator and Local hero? I don't think so. As for the neutral point of view, please don't say that the Oxford favorizes Christianity and irreligion, since it's not so. I don't know what other argument do you need, but even the census won't help, because the bar box with 70% going to undeclared is... just obsolete. 178.223.123.111 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
OUP is the publisher of encyclopedia which is tertiary source. There are more recent data presented in the article and supported by secondary sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have to second that, Antidiskriminator. However, as you said, there are more recent data presented in the article. Are they disturbed/removed/unheeded by the inclusion of bar box? No, they're not. Are there no notes that 70% of population left their relgion undeclared on 2011 census or that the informaitons are disputed? Well, there are. So, in the nature of other Religion in Europe articles, the 'median' result are put in the bar box. See Religion in Sweden. Even though most 'secondary sources' point irreligion up to 85%, the bar box there says only 23% (with notes of course). I'd REALLY like to see what others say, since now, 3 users (2 unregistered) support the bar box and 2 (both registered) don't. In the best faith, 178.223.123.111 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not democracy. This is not voting. What counts are arguments, grounded in wikipedia polices and rules.
Until now arguments for removal of the chart were grounded in the following policies:
WP:NPOV, the chart represents only one view, not other significant views supported by secondary sources
WP:UNDUE it gives undue weight to one minority view
WP:PSTS it is not supported by secondary sources, only by tertiary source
WP:COMMONSENSE:
The chart does not present data about religious feelings of all Albanians (they are not presented for 25%).
There are more recent data supported by secondary sources which actually present information about the religious feelings of people in Albania without eluding them.
Until now nobody addressed any of above mentioned issues. Arguments for inclusion of the disputed chart were based on WP:OSE and the name of publisher of tertiary source. I don't think that it is enough. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No. It is you who need WP:CON to add it. Read WP:BRD. You were bold and added the disputed chart, then you were reverted according to the explanation on this talk page. Please remove the disputed chart from the article and discuss this issue rather than edit warring.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I reworked the chart to contain 100% reliable, 100% unrevertable informations. Now, which way should the discussion go? My proposal is to end it without any further 'spamming' of the talk page and wait for the census result. Bar box with 70% going to undeclared is non-informational, but it's a must (like 45.2% undeclared in Czechia). 178.223.231.55 (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This is article about religion in Albania. Readers expect to learn something about religious feelings of Albanians when they read the lede of this article. Although you changed this chart it should be removed from this article because it could mislead the readers to believe that many Albanians (maybe even 70%) are not religious. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed the bar box completely, but I assume you understand that, when the complete census results get published, the bar box will have to contain 70% of undeclared. As for people thinking that undeclared means irreligious, it could be close to truth, since there's no reason to 'conceal' your religion other than you being uncomfortable with it (irreligious people being uncomfortable because of the tradition, those who can't 'determine' whether they are religious or not and those wanting to declare themselves as religious or not, but feel they shouldn't do so). Another reason could be persecution (not present today) and belonging to religious sect (highly impossible for 70% of Albanians). See your talk page, Antidiskriminator. Unitl complete census results, 109.92.219.199 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The main Greek organisation, OMONIA, and the Greek minority party, PBDNJ, has called for Greeks in Albania to boycott the census?link
Many Albanian intellectuals, political parties and other organisations have expressed their concern about the political implications of the inclusion of ethnic and religious affiliation in the questionnaire. (same link)
Complete results from 2011 census in Albania will not contain data about religious feelings of the population in Albania. Uninitiated readers of wikipedia would have no benefit from adding the disputed chart to the top of this article.
Yes, yes, sorry!!! I wanted to remove the bar box after I wrote here, but my house experianced power outage and, when it was fixed, the Wikipedia servers were down. Deleted the bar box. Pity for the Albania('s Government) doing what it's doing, but the part of not being able to change the nationality could be because of lots of people 'becoming' Greeks for the benefits. Nevertheless, I have little to no knowledge of post-communist Albanian politics (and even the communist one regarding nationality). If you have anything else to say, feel freely to do so. I'll be checking this page. 109.92.219.199 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Honestly this entire article is a bit of a joke. All the figures are completely distracting and fluctuating. Theres a million statistics all almost completely different from one another. I think the Pew research is unneccesary, as by saying 80 percent of Albanians are muslim is really misleading. Pew recently released an article about muslims again (ill try to find it) that religion to muslims doesnt plays an important part in their life. In Albania religion is just a meaningless label that has been passed down generations, and is not religion in the ordinary sense. Thats not what this article portrays. Also, in that article it says only 2%! of the population attends mosques. 2%!!! When you keep throwing these statistics such as theres this many christians this many muslims etc... is really misleading since a grand proportion of the population is agnostic. Also in the Czech Republic article, the undeclared portion of the census were counted as agnostic/atheist, I dont see why not the same is done with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllusionFinal (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Heres the link to the article: http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-2-religious-commitment.aspx#importance . See how in other countries the % of very important religion to life is in the high 90s, while in Albania only 15%, which is the lowest figure there.
Antiquity issues
The first half of the specific section, apart from serious vn issues in the given references is obviously irrelevant with the article itself. To sum up:
The two main Illyrian cults were the Cult of the Sun and the Cult of the Snake which are still witnessed and practiced in rural regions throughout Albania.[13]vn[14]vn. Why an article under the title 'religion in Albania' should start with some obscure info about the cult of the Illyrians, who in fact were a number of heterogeneous tribes? Anyway both sources can't be verified.
An organic system of assigning human personifications to natural phenomena was culturally developed and remnants of these appear in everyday Albanian folklore and tradition.[13]vn. Same issue as above.
In 2005, the Albanian government acknowledged the ancient vernal equinox festival as a national holiday.. Apart from unsourced, the modern organization of festivals is irrelevant with the topic of religion. It might be part of folklore or modern social politics.
The mythology and religion of the Illyrians is only known through mention of Illyrian deities on Roman Empire period monuments, some with interpretatio Romana. Bingo, this part is sourced and contradicts the introductory part. Thus, this made up cult stuff needs to go. But why is the religion of Illyrians necessary to be part of this article? Does the author 'Wilkes' imply something about the religion in Albania? The Illyrian tribes apart from being heterogenous with eachother didn't live only in present Albania. In fact, geographically, Albania (and not all of it) was a small part of the 'Illyrian homelands'.
There appears to be no single most prominent Illyrian god and there would have been much variation between individual Illyrian tribes. Bingo, that's sourced but still there is not connection with Albania as stated above.Alexikoua (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree. The paragraph from Wilkes in particular is out out of place here. Wilkes is writing about the Ilyyrians in general. the passages are not specifically linked to Albania. The material fits in well at Illyrians, but is relatively off-topic here. There are also a lots of low quality sources such as these [3][4]. I will remove unreliable sources and replace them with cn tags, and place vn tags on those sources that need to be verified. Athenean (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, to suggest that Albania is described in the Western media as a "Muslim" country (as if that were somehow a "bad" thing) due to Serbian influence of the Western media (when Serbia is among the countries most demonized by the Western media - only Iran and Russia fare worse) is the pinnacle (or rock-bottom rather) of conspiratorial "All our problems are the Serbs fault" type nonsense. Athenean (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you did not read the source that was provided, it never stated that Serbia somehow clandestinely influences Western media. In that source in the very same sentence (that Albania is described as a "Muslim country") also stood that this "was mainly due to Serbian propaganda from the 19th century onwards to create a non-European image for Albanians" so it stood to reason that this should be given a mention. Nevertheless, I deleted that sentence since one of you thought that the sources are not reliable, with which I agree. On an unrelated note I suggest you read and inform yourself on the subject you disparaged as "nonsense". — Epicurus B.(Not my talk page)17:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason Albania is described as a "Muslim" country in the Western media is because many statistics seem to indicate that the majority of the population is nominally Muslim (never mind if most Albanians are in practice atheist/nonreligious). Not because of 19th century "Serbian propaganda". That is just a feel-good conspiracy theory sourced to an unreliable source. Have a nice day. Athenean (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Living in the West, I would say that the view that Albania is described as a "Muslim country" in Western media is just flat-out false. It might have been true ages ago but not now. Most references to Albania in the media make no mention of religion at all, as it isn't deemed relevant. If Albania's given an adjective, "Balkan", "Southeast European", "ex-Communist" and "European" are much more common than "Muslim". The only times that the "Muslim" adjective comes up are when religion is actually the discussion, and then there's usually reference to Albania's reputation for religious tolerance and its tradition of secularism, as well as its Christian minorities. I don't know what you guys read, but whatever it is, its not representative of the Western view of Albania.
As for the inclusion of the ancient religions of Albania, plenty of other Religion in x-country pages do this, for example Sweden. I see no reason why Albania should be treated differently. --Yalens (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Pew
That Pew study was about Muslims all over the world and what they thought about x-issues and other stuff. The intention of the study was not to verify the percentage of Muslims in any one of the many countries they interviewed. It is a poll, not a census, and the question they were interested wasn't even the % of Muslims. They're interested in the worldview and opinion on given issues, not the society's demographic particularities. I don't think so much credence should be given to it. especially since, being a polling agency, it mainly interviewed those in the less remote areas- but its precisely the remote I'm not even so sure that Pew would advise to use its data this way, as a quantitative measurement of Albania's population.--Yalens (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Revival of ancient religion in Albania
In the last 25 years there has been a revival of the ancient religion of Illyrians in Albania, based on the surviving forms or worshiping the main Illlyrian deities and with the cult of the Sun being central. So far there are around 300-400 Albanians who claim to be part of this revived religion.
This should be part of this article as it is a community that cannot be discriminate and its existence denied (Edvin (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC))
I reverted your bold addition per wp:BRD. It was unsourced or poorly sourced (forums are not accepted as RS at wikipedia). "Return" to Illyrian religion is giving undue weight to outdated Greater Albanian nationalistic myth based on misusing of Illyrian hypothesis of Albanian origin, rejected by modern scholarship.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed the link then and also the word Illyrian which disturbs you so much. However, the text should stay as the religion is a fact and you cannot undo it. (Edvin (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC))
No doubt you understand that your bold edition was reverted because:
it was unsourced
it implies that Illyrian hypothesis of Albanian origin is a fact, by presenting Illyrian religion as Albanian pre-Christian religion.
No doubt you know that WP:BRD advise editors whose bold edits were reverted to "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring."
And what was your decision? To edit war? To push your Besëlashtët ideas covered with 0 sources. No. That is wrong. Edvini, I expect you to urgently self revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Are there any wp:RS that support the fact that there is such a religion today? You don't believe that fomrums can make the job right?Alexikoua (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Religion in Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Religion in Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Religion in Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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.
I have just modified 6 external links on Religion 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:
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.
A 2018 census/poll from the Insitute for Democracy and Mediation
This is the link to the results, the poll seems to have been conducted in a less controversial way and the non respondends are under 1%. The research gives also more details on practice, on theism vs. religious affiliation etc. While Muslims and Catholics seem to be the same, the Bektashi, the Orthodox Christians and the Protestants have a higher percentage that indicates their past and present presence in the country.
93.37.82.72 (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I was just looking at that, skimmed it. It seems less controversial than the census. However, that is not to say it is not without its own issues. For example, instead of asking people's religion it asks them what their familly's ancestral religion is. This means that the irreligious are quite certainly undercounted -- it's shockign that asked what their family was historically, 4% still said "atheist" though. The high rate of Protestants -- 2%!! -- is also astonishing, though I'm not doubting it, it seems plausible, just surprising. --Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a problem always present in Albania, after the Communist rule people identify the religion with their parents'. It's mainly because we're used to be asked that question around festivities. The number of Bektashis and Protestant in the last census is low because, among the critics raised, there was summary assignation of religion based on the surname of on the place of origin, without askind the question, as reported by some complaints. Most of them were not even asked, and the religion was not mandatory, thus the high non-respondents. So most Bektashis were grouped with general Muslisms, and Protestants were registered in low number because they have a different religion from that of the parents'. Protestant missionaries have been investing in Albania since the 90', their presence is high among the youth of Muslim heritage that find Protestants more appealing due to xenophilia, widespread among us.
But to be less distorting in giving information, it is necessary to specify that, as shown in the research, most Albanians are just theists. Baptizing and conversion is low among older generations, due to the Communist veto, and not much widespread among the new.
93.37.82.72 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that the poll enforces people to identify with the religion of the family, while it should to the opposite, i.e make people think as individuals. Also it had a rather low sample of just 1100 people. Still, many of the results were interesting for the page and I think we should add them. Vargmali (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018
This edit request to Religion in Albania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Christianity - 49.7% (28.4% Eastern Orthodox and 21.3% Catholic)
Islam and Bektashi - 35.3%
Atheism - 15%
For once for for all, can we change ‘The most-commonly practiced religion in Albania is Islam (mainly Sunni or Bektashi)’ to ‘The most-commonly practised religion in Albania is Christianity (mainly Eastern Orthodox or Catholic)’? Furthermore, the 2011 census is unreliable (due to the lack of Eastern Orthodox and Catholic believers actually contacted), which only supports the fact that is should be changed. In addition, these statistics are the goverment’s, which is better than an unrealible 2011 census.
In short, I strongly suggest we change it. I have attempted this before but users have undone my changes (hence why I’m expressing the fact here). ArbDardh (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't seem to access the link you gave here. From which government are these numbers and study did they do? While the 2011 census is my view also unreliable, which is mentioned in the article, other studies on the topic of religion in Albania do not support the figures you have given here. Vargmali (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK, all avaiable sources apart from the one cited above say that Islam has more believers than Christianity in Albania. Hence, the proposed change is not only POV-pushing but it is also giving undue weight to one "statistic" above all the others put together. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
New sources
We should change the 70/30 percent because it’s really old now it was created in 2011 and it has been 8 years now we really should use new sources. Gjondeda 11:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjondeda (talk • contribs)
70/30 percent? You mean the 70% Muslim and 30% Christian figures from pre-WWII? Those figures have been long gone and the 2011 are slighty different. The issues with the 2011 Census are mostly explained in the page too, but as for adding other polls, there is nothing really stopping you from doing it. Actually many polls have been added, but the problem is that there are not that many polls good polls on the topic. Fortunately in 2020 there will be a new Census in Albania which I hope will be of good quality and will not repeat the mistakes of the 2011 Census. The preliminary figures should be ready by late 2020/early 2021. However if you know about good recent polls of the topic most of editors here would like to see them. Vargmali (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for being late I am glad that the government is doing new statistics you are right I hope it will be better. Gjondeda 22:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for being late I am glad that the government is doing new statistics you are right I hope it will be better. Gjondeda 22:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Religion in Albania's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AutreRegard":
From Albanians: "Instantanés d'Albaníe, un autre regard sur les Balkans"(PDF). 2005. Archived from the original(PDF) on 14 June 2007. Retrieved 20 July 2017. Etudiants en Tourisme et Actions Patrimoniales. (plus de 72 % irréligieux ou non pratiquants. 28 % se répartissent en 21 % musulmans, 6% orthodoxes, 3 % catholiques. )
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡08:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Little tolerance is going to be afforded to edit warring, from either side, once this second, longer protection expires — hence the one revert rule restriction now in force. But an especially dim view will be taken toward reverts that are not accompanied by an attempt at resolving the dispute on the article talk page. I am truly puzzled to see the last discussion about this dispute dating back to... October 2019? Not good. If you all end up reaching an impasse on the talk page, please use dispute resolution and accompanying requests. There is simply no excuse to edit war while communicating through edit summaries. Thanks and good luck. El_C04:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Welcome back to the talk page
@Khirurg, Dr.K., Ktrimi991, Vargmali, El C, and Cinadon36: so that a thread exists. For the record ironically I agree with Khi/DrK that I'd rather not have the census highlighted ........ buuuuuuuut Ktrimi is right that the WP:CONSENSUS version had been stable since October 15 when an IP replaced the traditional religion map (the one I made :( ) with the census info [[5]]. So procedurally Ktrimi was right, though frankly I find the present version unbalanced. Attempts to change that existing consensus should have been made on the talk page -- in this case there would probably have been widespread agreement.--Calthinus (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank your for creating this thread Calthinus. Now after long deliberation I do also agree that we do not have to put the census in the forefront. Besides the problems that the census had that we all have discussed before (in which I think the non-religious were a lot more impacted than the Orthodox), as of now it is also 9 years old and rather outdated. The complexity of the religious situation in Albania demands I think that the reader should view the whole "Religious Demography" section to get a proper picture of the situation. Also there will be another census in 2020 in Albania, which will likely be released in 2021-2022. If there are no outstanding issues, it will likely be of a higher quality than the 2011 census, although it remains to be seen. Vargmali (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Census results will always be disputed in Albania, just like in many other countries. Many reasons for that, including government's bad practices and religious' communities lack of willingness to accept that their communities do not have the number of followers they had in the past. Anyways, our aim here is not to explain those reasons. Regardless if a census is disputed or not, other articles such as Religion in France, Religion in Germany and Religion in Italy have pics of census results and other estimates in the lede. The demographics section has too many pics (including two with census results). Not only should the stable version be restored but also Calthinus' map should be moved to the lede. Where those pics stay will not make a revolution, but they will improve or damage the aesthetic qualities of the article. Pics of other estimates and specific religious communities might stay in the demographics section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, at last, someone created this discussion. Thanks Calthinus for the ping. It is so frustrating that some users do not respect the BRD- (back to stable version) procedure. As for the core issue here, I think as general rule, the solution to a Reliable-but-biased-source is attributing, and mentioning the objections raised. I also agree with the remarks of Ktrimi991.Cinadon3621:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
No problem Cinadon. Imo, we have to react to what the situation is on the ground. At present we have a census that was disputed by literally every group involved. If the same is true in 2022, then there will be no change in situation. If the upcoming census turns out less controversial, we will have a new situation. I do think if we keep the census map, and/or my traditional religion map, WP:BALANCE demands the restoration of Vargmali's pie chart to the lede as well as my map plus the census together give a misleading impression of a rather observant country, which is shown by a mountain of RS to not be the case. What do you guys think of having all three near the top?--Calthinus (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
All of those countries are relatively religiously homogeneous and I'm unaware of controversies to the extent observed with Albania. The issue with the 2011 census is that whereas for most cases you would expect a margin of error of +/- 3% or so, for Albania we have enormous claimed errors. The Muslim community claimed their "real" values were somewhere upwards of 80%. Atheists the "true" Muslim percent was 30% or below. That 25% margin is nearly half the raw percent. Was the Orthodox share the reported 7%, or was it 24%? Or 3%? Worse still is the case that it is erroneous to expect Albanian religious statistics to add up to 100% in the first place, because of Albania's specific cultural ambiguity about the issue. But I'm fine with the table if it's beside the pie chart. --Calthinus (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
However smaller the margins might be, those countries have had religious issues. Albanian Muslims in North Macedonia have claimed a percentage 10-17% bigger than that of the census, but I will not go to remove the census results from the lede of Religion in North Macedonia. Several other countries too are in the same situation. Anyways, we agree on having those three pics/charts/tables in the lede. Now that I see it carefully, Vargmali's chart is even better than census results. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Well that is a strong argument there that over-reliance on the NMac census is not WP:DUE. But in this case it seems we agree that the WP:CONSENSUS version with the census can be restored with the pie chart. How about you guys @Vargmali and Cinadon36:? El C implementation of WP:CONSENSUS if there is no dissent, please?--Calthinus (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It is good to know that Cinadon36 is accusing editors for not following BRD, while he followed these editors to this article just to revert them within 18 minutes of the expiry of protection, although he never edited the article before. This indicates how difficult it is to argue with such people. Ktrimi's arguments amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. These are not serious arguments. The 2011 Albanian census is a terrible source contested almost universally as others mentioned. The argument about stable version is nonsense. There can be no stability when based on such clunky sources. Asking the admin to unprotect after such short discussion and on such weak and premature arguments is not the deftest of decisions. Much more discussion is needed on this subject. Dr.K.01:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Calthinus: Yes, there is dissent, and lots of it. The census is unreliable, it has been criticized by reliable sources, and there is simply no way we are going to just have it sitting at the top of of the page without any context. No way. Khirurg (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The source may be contested by some, but it is still the most recent and reliable source available for the religious composition of the country. This census should obviously be in the lede of the article. A new census will normally be held next year, but until then this census will do the job. N.Hoxha (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
N.Hoxha: reliable might be a bit much for the census. @(Dr.)K(hirurg): I don't think you guys realize. If there is not a new consensus that emerges, per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (which exists independently of any WP:HOUNDing that may or may not have happened), the page reverts to the longstanding version. Having an admin El C who happens for whatever reason or non-reason to halt the revert war at one state or another does not change this. Most of the text you have placed is devoted to criticizing other editors. It should be about proposing something that can achieve a new consensus, or supporting existing proposals, if you want to change WP:CONSENSUS. --Calthinus (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
You don't make the rules around here. The page won't revert (is it going to revert by itself?) to any "stable version". The first person that reverts I will report to WP:AE for a revert restriction and/or topic ban. Khirurg (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can look at the census and see it's junk. We can't have fake news sit at the top of the article. This overrides any "implicit consensus" and "stable version" shenanigans. This is just WP:GAMEing the system. Khirurg (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I mean it's not like I disagree on the facts, but people disagreeing with you is not "shenanigans". The census is not "fake news" because it is a matter of a dispute in which we cannot assert a WP:TRUTH.--Calthinus (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure if you realise, but you come across as patronising and crudely dismissive of my comments. First, let me correct the record: your claim that Most of the text you have placed is devoted to criticizing other editors. is nonsense. OTHERSTUFF is standard rebuttal for arguments not for editors. Be careful when casting WP:ASPERSIONS. The HOUND is obvious and should be noted, but it is not Most of the text and you don't have to take it up in your response since it does not concern you. The edit-war signifies that there is no longer any kind of consensus. Per WP:CCC, this is why we are having this discussion. The proposals are open for anyone to make. I and others have already proposed that the 2011 census is fatally flawed and cannot be highlighted at the top. That's a proposal. So don't claim that we don't have a proposal while being crudely dismissive of our arguments. So the past consensus is done, finished. Dr.K.04:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
So edit warning erases any previous consensus. Interesting. No doubt this will be remembered by all present in the future. --Calthinus (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
So the old "stable version" trick erases the requirement for reliable sources. Interesting. No doubt this will be remembered by all present in the future.Khirurg (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I feel I have been attacked by another user, so here is my answer: In small font coz it is rather irrelevant to the discussion. So, instead of Dr.K. explain why he disrespected BRD, he is making a whataboutism claim. Having not edited this article before doesn't mean anything- it is within my field of interest (nationalism in the Balkans). I am not HOUNDING anybody, even though I am tracking users who constantly push their POV almost everywhere, involved in multiple edit wars and being rude to new users. I think it is the right thing to do. It is far for obvious that this article should go to STABLE VERSION and then discuss changes. Does anyone challenge this? Also, note that Dr.K. started making attacks of wikihounding, which is a form of harassment. Also, he used edit summary to make a personal attack.[6] Not going to follow that path. Cinadon3608:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not following him, but, as you suggest, I am considering going to ANI for not respecting Stable Version. Cinadon3609:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Its obvious that the specific census offers a completely different picture compared to traditional estimates & older censuses. I fail to see a similar misleading introduction in other articles. By the way no census was conducted in Greece in 2017.Alexikoua (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Imo this sort of argument is inherently disadvantageous to the irreligious, since "traditional" ones assert a 100% religious country thus erasing the existence of those who lacked either religious practice or identity (the non responses indeed correlate with the shares of explicit atheists, clustered in places like Gramsh and Vlora as they are -- just like in many other European countries). No wonder it is precisely this argument that irreligious Albanians such as Mustafa Nano have accused Muslim community officials as well as the Orthodox church of using as a ploy to marginalize the irreligious in public discourse. re edit summary: And yes Alexi I didn't ping you since I did not see you involved in this kerfuffle, just like I didn't ping some other mutual acquaintances we all know and all deeply adore who I'm sure would take great interest in this convo. EDIT: upon second inspection you were clearly involved and I hastily missed it by scrolling too fast. Apologies..--Calthinus (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Census results and other sources of two or three decades ago are not important for what we are talking about. I doubt the problem is merely the nature of the census, as I had already added a note that "the results have been a matter of disputes". It is OK to have the three pics/charts/maps in the lede, the note on the disputes over the census and a few sentences in the lede on the census results and its issues. If not, do not dilute yourselves that somehow several editors here (more than you in number) will just stay and see you doing whatever you want with the article without consensus. You are very naive if you think that, especially now with the 1RR in effect. If you wish to make an agreement, I think we all are open to doing that. But gaming the system with silly comments and hopes that the page protection will somehow prevent the consensus rules from being implemented will bring you nothing. It is up to you what path you choose. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Your comment is basically a declaration of intent to edit-war, and grounds for a topic ban just by itself. You're playing with fire. Khirurg (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Eh @Khirurg:, not sure what a topic ban has to do with our discussion. But since you mentioned it, the one who has had topic bans, interaction bans and reverting restriction imposed by admins on himself is you....[9] Re reverting, there are several editors here who want to restore the stable version. I do not even need to rv again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Making personal attacks now? Bringing up stuff from the distant past that you have no clue about to make character assassination? Bragging about your revert tag team? You're already in a pretty deep hole. Stop digging yourself deeper. Khirurg (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Just get on with the RfC instead of being fixated with restoring the stable version in the interim, everyone. Once the RfC will be closed, consensus will be codified, one way or the other. And that will be that. El_C16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I dont support any side here. I am coming as a page watcher. I suggest dispute resolution. However, I want to to revert back to the stable version immediately after the protection expires. Nobody should try to force their preferred version through with edit warring. Rules are important and should be respected. Fa alk (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
(unindent) The "Stable Version" trick is a well known stonewalling tactic. Claiming "muh stable version" while edit warring and meanwhile either refusing to discuss or else endlessly filibustering and stonewalling in the talkpage, with no intent to ever compromise, instead relying on superior manpower to have their way. One editor who participates in this discussion, is particularly prone to use this tactic. This can and will be dealt with if it continues. Khirurg (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
All this discussion is bizarre. The OP came in ostensibly to support the viewpoint that s/he supports our position that the census is crap, and did not want it highlighted at the top, then says "........ buuuuuuuut", and makes an 180 turn on his/her position that he supports the other side on the basis of the mythical stable version. Can you hear his/her tires smoking doing this 180-degree turn at 500 mph? I ask again: What kind of "stable" version can depend on such crappy source? No self-respecting Wikipedian can support this crappy version and highlight this propaganda at the top of the article. Dr.K.19:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Dr.K. It is obvious that simply removing the census results from the lede is not a solution. I and Calthinus have described a possible solution. It is a fair and good one. If you have another proposal though, we are open to considering it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm quoting a published CoE paper: "the results of the census should be viewed with the utmost caution and calls on the authorities not to rely exclusively on the data on nationality collected during the census in determining its policy on the protection of national minorities." Thus if the Council of Europe concludes that way I wonder why wikipedia should object that. A similar report by CIA factbook also shares the same view about religious data.Alexikoua (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
El C, please no pings. They are annoying. This is no urgent matter. Also, you know I respect you, but you don't have to police this discussion so closely as not to allow for the free flow of a few replies here and there. I only participate in discussions when I feel free. Having someone intervening with my replies like that feels like unnecessary policing the discussion. I'm not interested in participating under such circumstances. I know you mean well and your actions so far have been excellent. However, this was an unnecessary intervention. I also know that you are a content-aware admin. I also know you don't want to take sides in this debate, as an uninvolved admin. However, I'm sure you understand the logical point I am trying to make here concerning a very tainted source being highlighted at the lead. This was what motivated me to participate in this discussion and nothing else. Having said that, I will withdraw as soon as I realise this a closely-policed discussion. As a matter of principle, I never participate in this kind of discussions. Dr.K.21:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
El C, your actions so far have been exemplary and I have said so on your talkpage as well. Thank you for understanding my point, but I want to reiterate that your editorial advice and guidance are still needed on this talkpage, as well as your admin actions. Thank you for that as well. Dr.K.21:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again, Dr.K. If you or any of the other participants desire my counsel, I'm only a ping away. El_C21:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for repeating yourself, without any arguments. As reliable sources point out, the census is deeply flawed. It cannot go into the lede without being discussed in appropriate context. Any "proposal" that says so it a non-starter. The "census in the lede" side has not presented a compelling argument as to why it should be in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC
There is no consensus to add an infographic based on the 2011 census. There is substantial and well-argued support for the view that the 2011 census' conclusions are insufficiently reliable to be used in the lead; but there is no actual consensus in favour of either position. Therefore the status quo ante continues to apply, and the outcome of this RfC is not to change the article from its current form.—S MarshallT/C11:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose The 2011 was deeply flawed, and has been criticized by reliable sources. Any inforgraphic based on the census needs to be placed in this context. Any such infographic is thus not appropriate for the lede, where it would be difficult to include the appropriate context. Khirurg (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose the census being there alone. Criticism from many quarters including every major religious group plus atheists, few people defending it, workers writing answers based on peoples' last names, and wild inconsistencies across county boundaries are some of the many issues here. I'm also amenable to compromises as discussed previously whereby the census is used alongside another graphic as well. --Calthinus (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Malformed RfC as it does not include all the proposals up for discussion. --Calthinus (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Position changed, see below. --Calthinus (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Calthinus:, since the issue with the wording of the RfC seems to have been solved by my comment below, I would like to know your position. Do you think that the census reults, balanced with Vargmali's pie chart and the traditional religion map, can be used in the lede for reasons elaborated below? Ktrimi991 (talk)
Support The census was very flawed (I see Gun Powder Ma has cited the section I and Vargmali wrote on the matter) but its use for low resolution presentation is supported by WP:RS examples such as the CIA factbook and publications by Oxford Uni, as Ktrimi991 has demonstrated. This treatment by highly respected RS is persuasive to me that the census may be the "least bad" way to convey the info. The most damning issues with the census concerned the complicated interplay between two different sorts of religious identity in Albania: personal identification in terms of (ir)religiosity and confession on one hand, and confessional heritage on the other, which often do not match. With the three figures juxtaposed in a panel as the majority of original participants agreed on, readers can quickly grasp some degree of the complexity. Given that there is ample discussion highlighting how the various issues may have affected the figures in the body, it doesn't seem to me like anyone who is looking for that level of depth would be misled. --Calthinus (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh look, he changed his position again following Ktrimi's lead. First you voted "oppose", then when Ktrimi came here and tried to derail the RfC with "invalid rfc", you changed your vote to "malformed rfc". Then Ktrimi saw that derailing the rfc wasn't working and changed his vote to "support". And now you changed your vote again, this time to support. Unbelievable. Khirurg (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, let's see the facts: You first vote Oppose[10], without consulting with Ktrimi first. Then Ktrimi tries to derail the RfC with the usual (and ineffective) "muh invalid RfC" tactics [11], so then you...correct your vote [12]. Days go by, and things are clearly not going his way, Ktrimi votes "support" [13] (without striking out the "invalid RfC"). I was expecting you to change your vote as well, but oddly you didn't. Maybe you forgot. Then, after some...gentle prodding [14], presto [15]! No conspiracies, just facts. And the usual smear tactics from the usual quarters. Khirurg (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, you kinnnnnd of forgot the importance of Ktrimi pinging me and me taking some time to reconsider. But sure, believe what you want. Here's a more enjoyable way to spend your time, if you have someone to play with: [[16]]. Since there are more than 3 dots, you can actually make squares, amazing right? --Calthinus (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Sheesh @Khirurg, what's with all the barnstar envy. Editors give them out if they like the editing of a fellow editor. Instead of sour grapes, do some editing that may make an editor want to throw one your way.Resnjari (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe not, but individuals who are of that view, as with anything that disinterests them would not bring up it as a topic when others receive or give them. It has absolutely nothing to do with proceedings here.Resnjari (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I brought it up to highlight the degree of collusion between certain editors. Of course, you would prefer I didn't do that, which is why you are trying to divert attention with a red herring. Nice try. Khirurg (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
So now your smearing and making allegations about fellow editors because from what i gather by your comments, this talkpage thread is not to your liking. ok. I guess everyone tries to get their 5 minutes of attention.Resnjari (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Pointing out collusion is "smearing" now? Looks like in addition to the "alternative facts" of the census, we also have "alternative logic". Khirurg (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Its called evidence. Without it, its smears. Barnstar envy presented as a so called smoking gun of "collusion" is hollow.Resnjari (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The evidence is right up there how he changed his vote twice, the second time after some gentle reminding. The barnstars are just the icing on the cake. Khirurg (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
That makes no sense. An editor can't change their vote? So your saying that if an editor changes their vote, which happens on these kinds of things due to discussions and alike, somehow in this instance its due to collusion and the evidence for that are barnstars given out by other editors from eons ago. What do we call this, the 'barnstar conspiracy'? lolResnjari (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't have to make sense to you, as long as it makes sense to those that matter, including whoever will close this discussion. I couldn't care less what makes sense to you and what doesn't. Khirurg (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe i should have been more succinct. If barnstars are the benchmark indicating "collusion" on wiki, then most editors on the project are goners including admins, as barnstars are given and received all over Wikipedia. That's why what is alleged does not make sense.Resnjari (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It is at least the third time Khirurg opens a RfC the wrong way. The dispute is not that described above. It is: should the lede have three pics/charts/maps, the note on the disputes over the census and a few sentences on the census results and its issues? The two other pics concerned are: [19] and the religiosity chart. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
You mean, it's the "third time Khirurg opens an RfC in a way that I don't like". Too bad, you don't have to like it. The community can reach consensus with or without you. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Khirurg:, I did not say "I do not like it". I mean two editors were needed to intervene [20][21]. It is though an improvement from the previous RfC that was closed immediately [22]. No doubt you are learning fast. Cheers :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
"Support". The article Religion in Albania is very complicated issue and as more graphics are there, then clearer will become the issue for the reader. Jingiby (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jingiby: using a dubious census which was disputed by the WP:RS but also criticized by international and intergovernmental bodies and the human right organizations which monitor religious freedom in Albania, isn't an effective way in making the issue clearer to the reader, it only risks misinforming them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)04:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Per Khirurg, and per Calthinus's evaluation of how shabby the Albanian 2011 census is. I know Calthinus changed his !vote on technical grounds and after Ktrimi complained, but I don't think he changed his mind on how flawed the 2011 Albanian census is. We cannot have such sloppy census results be featured at the lead of the article thus promoting Albanian government propaganda at the lead. Dr.K.20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment. I wish to acknowledge Calthinus's scholarly rebuttal of the 2011 census. His breadth of knowledge about the issues surrounding the 2011 census is impressive. The honesty of his assessment is also appreciated. Dr.K.16:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Νο, I am strongly against bringing to the lede a deeply problematic census which was the subject of criticism both in the EU and abroad, as well as by Human rights organizations in the country. A consensus is meant to be informative to the reader, which isn't the case here. Wikipedia refrains from using debated and dubious information on article ledes unless the articles themselves (or a big part of them) are about that subject. Since this article isn't about "Census in Albania" but about "Religion in Albania", this is one more reason to not take this risk. The lede should be a neutral summary of the article instead, and stick to reliable information only. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)03:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Hey everyone. It wasn't my intention part of such a long dispute. Anyway, my opinion is that that similar articles have charts and maps in their lea, though, their census results are not so controversial. The problem is solved by having three different charts in the lead and written explanations close to them. As proposed by @Calthinus: and @Ktrimi991:. The sections have way too many charts and maps, and one of them is even a duplicate. It doesn't make sense to me to not have three charts in the lead (or two or even a single one). I am saying this from my experience of reading the article on the phone. The last point is that the "support" side has offered a compromise. On the other hand the "oppose" side has not done that. Only has tried to change the stable version (the one with the census results in the lead) without consensus.
Comment I don't want to badger you, but can you please explain why we have to highlight at the lead what essentially amounts to fake news? Dr.K.19:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Highly disputed material should not be presented in the very introduction of an article especially as a pie chart: it can mislead the reader.Alexikoua (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Support - I have been following this dispute that appeared on my watchlist, and honestly I think leaving the lede with no pics is wrong. It is the opposite of what is done in similar articles. One, two or three pics; the number is not important for me. Sadsadas (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment This RfC is not about adding pics to the lead. It is about adding a pic based on the 2011 census that is completely misleading and unreliable. Dr.K.15:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment :Thence there can be three pics and one or two sentences per the proposal by Calthinus and Ktrimi991. It is a better thing than to make a sandwich with pics in the sections or, if this RfC is closed without consensus, to keep the census pic alone. Btw the census is not "fake news", it is an official estimate. It has problems (the next one will not be better) but others with similar problems are present in the lede of respective articles. Thank You Sadsadas (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. As the data is misleading, presenting it in the lead in the form of a pie chart may misinform readers who briefly peek at the article and only see the image.--Eostrix (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 2011 census was yet another controversial Balkan census (like the one in Montenegro and to less extent the one in Bosnia and Herzegovina) and it is not WP:RS. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)11:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Support even if the census may be deemed unreliable, its results still depict the majority of the country in an accurate way, except for the minority zones of course. Those pictures and graphs would enrich the article. N.Hoxha (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
even if the census may be deemed unreliable, its results still depict the majority of the country in an accurate way. What logic. Khirurg (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Support with additional infographics too. I think that there is some misunderstanding here. The census in Albania is no more and no less disputed as in all other countries in the Balkans. The census in Serbia was boycotted by Albanians, N. Macedonia hasn't had a census in 17 years because of the pre-existing disputes that will surely ruin the process, the census in Kosovo was boycotted in northern Kosovo, the census in Bosnia & Herzegovina is disputed by all three communities that conducted it. All of these publications are used in bibliography regardless and all have a footnote that accompanies them as a framework for understanding them. All census procedures in the following years wherever they are conducted in the Balkans will be disputed and will be rendered incomplete on the one hand by boycotting tactics and formal complaints by minorities, on the other hand by the determination of all governments to hide the real depopulation that every country experiences in order to minimize losses in EU funding that is allocated on the basis of total population figures.
As with the census of Albania (2011), papers which use census figures will still be submitted and accepted from the lowliest of journals to Brill. They'll also have a footnote for a proper framework. Do you want to work towards a footnote? --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, there is a misunderstanding. We're not talking about the body of the article here, we're talking about the lede. We're not talking about not using the census at all, we're talking about whether it is appropriate to have an image in the lede that is based on the census. Clearly, that is a non-starter. Having such an image would be misleading to the readers, many of whom only casually glance at the lede. There is simply no compelling reason to have the lede image based on a highly inaccurate and biased census, that was roundly criticized by the European sources (not just the locals). Khirurg (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Support This became too long for a trivial detail. Anyways as the RfC is ongoing I am giving my input. The common practice throughout Wiki is to have census results in the lede, regardless how much "reliable" they are. The purpose of a Wiki article is not to tell the truth (though some editors seem to believe that they can seek the "truth" or fight "fake news" merely by editing a rather obscure Wiki article) but to present various POVs from RS. The lede having the three pics with different POVs, a note on the disputes over census results and one or two sentences somewhere in the paragraphs of the lede would be OK. As some editors above pointed out, having so many pics in the rest of the article in a kind of sandwich while keeping the lede without any is aesthetically a bad choice. The perceived "danger" of misleading readers who do not read the rest of the article does not exist, as above the pic would be a note on the disputes. In any case, do not take this dispute too seriously as the world will not be better or worse because of the location of a few pics on a Wiki article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The lede having the three pics with different POVs, a note on the disputes over census results and one or two sentences somewhere in the paragraphs of the lede would be OK. I think we are running into WP:CIR issues at this point. Khirurg (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:CHERRY. Nice try though. There is a world of sources that criticize the census. For instance the European Council states: The Advisory Committee considers that the results of the census must be viewed with the utmost caution and calls on the authorities not to rely exclusively on the data on nationality collected during the census in determining its policy on national minorities.[23]. Khirurg (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. The flaws in the census are too manifold to showcase its results with a diagram in the lead. Clearly, such a prominent position would give the unsuspecting reader a false impression about the reliability of the census data. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Support The three pics are based on reliable sources. The census is used by reliable sources such as the CIA Factbook and Oxford University. Census data from 2011 is still current and we should respect that. Mikola22 (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Support, if census is considered official than inclusion of those graphics should be acceptable, even if process itself was flawed or may or may not be perceived as such - after inclusion editors are free to describe context.--౪ Santa ౪99°03:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Support: as shown above, the official census has been used by a number of reliable sources. Wikipedia articles relating to religions by country usually report pics/charts in the lead section. IMO the most appropriate thing to do in this case is to illustrate three different images (the census chart, the religiosity chart, and Calthinus' map) including the note on the issues about the census. – Βατο (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Three images in the lede is just insane. I can't think of a similar article that does that. Also, all these images are in the body of the article, why repeat them in the lede? Khirurg (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This article is about "Religion in Albania" not about "Analysis of Fake Facts about Religion in Albania". Dr.K.21:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Goodness gracious. You have said "fake news" so many times on this thread, that one loses count. How it contributes in a substantive manner to proceedings is beyond me. The article is about religion in Albania, not Trumpian verbiage.Resnjari (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It is one thing to try to push fake news, another to attempt silly and clueless WP:NPAs to silence critics of the methods of your government. Why are you so attached to these totalitarian methods of taking the census in Albania? Dr.K.02:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Whoa, "your government". And silencing critics. Last one checked, the guy who made it a thing, i.e Trump uses "fake news" to silence critics and distort the public discourse. Just sayin’ By the way, i live in Australia (born and raised) and not a representative of any government. But if you see some editors that way, it’s just so sad, very sad, sad, and it says more about your outlook than anything else. Just to update fellow editors who have scant knowledge about the topic. The totalitarian Albanian communist dictatorship collapsed 3 decades ago. Albania is a democracy today, an imperfect one, just like Greece, Serbia and the rest in the Balkans. Resnjari (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Imperfect democracy you say? Check your facts. According to the Democracy index, it's a "hybrid regime", ranking 79th on the list [[24]]. The inability, or lack of will, to conduct a proper census doubtless contributes to the low ranking. And on top of that we have editors arguing that an image based on this census should be in the lede of a high visibility article. No way. Khirurg (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Why would i do that, this article is not about Greece. Golden Dawn is a right wing facist movement in Greece. Makes no sense for it here.Resnjari (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
You can play with semantics trying to prove how clever at deflecting you are. It doesn't work. Face up to it. You are tightly attached to the garbage census of 2011 for some reason. You need to self-reflect on that. Come back when you do. Dr.K.03:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
First writing "fake news" repeatedly on the talkpage and now resorting to calling the thing you dislike "Garbage". Looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT is being refashioned through colourful vocabulary. That's cool, it’s good to be open about it. At least one knows what perspective has been brought here. But nothing substantive. Everyone has some hot air now and gain they want to vent when they are frustrated. I understand.Resnjari (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
No, at first i said Trumpian verbiage, as it belongs to that canon of speech. Trump is the person who popularized it. I mean if we say "fake news" over and over again what's the aim. Substance over fluff is best.Resnjari (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
You are not reflecting as I advised you previously. In fact you are regressing more and more. The only substance you recognise is the unquestioning adherence to the Albanian government's party line. It is amazing to me your unquestioning allegiance to this trash. Dr.K.05:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
From appearances i guess you just have an issue with Albanian government and are projecting it by inferring that so and so editor is a representative of it, like saying its "unquestioning adherence to the Albanian government's party line". What party and what 'adherence'? For all its issues, Albania is a democracy and has many political parties that have been in an out of power several times in the past decades. The old communist party has been defunct for just as long. Why would one reflect on something, when the person asking refers to the Albania of 3 decades ago as being a current reality? Makes no sense whatsoever.Resnjari (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The way some editors who oppose the inclusion of the census results on the lead are discussing them here is out of context. The disputed sections of the census results in Albania are no more disputed than anywhere else in the Balkans. The census results in Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina are disputed for the same reasons. In N. Macedonia no census has been conducted for the past 17 years because of the ongoing procedural-political disputes. Wikipedia uses those results in all articles (state-wide demographics, municipalities, settlements) - including those about settlements in Albania.
Side comment: Can you keep the facebook-style discussion at a minimum? It makes it very hard for those of us who don't participate in it to scroll through it in order to find comments about the topic of the RfC. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Your point has been made before. It has also been addressed before by invoking WP:OTHERCRAP just above. So please do not repeat points already raised and then accuse other editors for Facebook-like discussions if they clutter the talkpage with repeated arguments for trying to explain things that other people don't want to hear. Thank you in advance. Dr.K.10:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
My comment has to do with the underlying rationale behind your methodology. An WP:OTHERSTUFF argument relativizes the topic to the maximum by ignoring all the peculiar characteristics of the topic, in this case the peculiar characteristics of the census in Albania. But what you're doing is inverse relativization to the maximum, because you're ignoring the context of the census and issues that post-1990 states in the Balkans have inherited. You're comparing the census in Albania with an imaginary perfect census that doesn't exist. Nobody who has written a paper in the past 9 years does that. In the words of Giakoumis (2019): It should be noted, however, that Albania’s non-discrimination policy towards minorities is no different to the policies applied in other countries of the region. Some states recognize de jure or de facto no minority groups other than those dealt with in international treaties in their territories. Greece, for instance, continues not to recognize a number of ethnic groups as minorities, in spite of repeated decisions against this by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (Committee 2016, 3).--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
But what you're doing is inverse relativization to the maximum,... If you have to resort to such semantic, logical, and linguistic contortions to support your argument, then this discussion has indeed degenerated to a level worse than even Facebook. Dr.K.11:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Take it as you see fit in the context of your particular opinion. I hope to have highlighted how people who go through a peer-review process assess the wider issues about religion and identity which involve the census.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment The "Support" side has yet to make a compelling argument as to why an image based on the census needs to be in the lede. All I see is whataboutism ("Greece doesn't count minorities"), WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS ("other Balkan censi are flawed"), some impressive mental acrobatics ("inverse relativization" - that's a good one!), and attempts to personalize the discussion. But not a single policy-based argument as to why we need a census-based image in the lede. The census has been heavily criticized and is deeply flawed. It is inappropriate to have an image based on it in the lede as it would mislead our readers. Period. Khirurg (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
One does not need to make an argument why the status quo is "needed". On the contrary, a change to the status quo via an RfC is what must be justified to avoid "No consensus" being the outcome. This RfC is in effect a proposal to ban it from the lede (and confusingly worded so as to confuse Support and Oppose -- the initial passive consensus version had been in effect since October and remained there all the way to February). What you need to argue is why that is necessary, especially in as much as it locks out constructive compromises that were reached and agreed upon by the majority of editors here. This is disruptive and has successfully even alienated editors who agree with you.--Calthinus (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:LAWYER. The census is deeply flawed, and you of all people know that. You also know why certain editors who share a particular POV are so hellbent on having it in the lede without context, and edit-warred like mad to keep it in. Having an image based on such a flawed document in the lede would be highly misleading to our readers. It doesn't matter what lawyeristic gimmicks you pull with status quo and article histories and other such nonsense. Not misleading our readers comes before any "status quo" games. As far as "alienating" anyone, the 10 Oppose votes speak otherwise. If you "changed your mind" (let's pretend) so as to not displease your friends, leave me out of it. Khirurg (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I must say you are truly a master at persuasion. My original stance is consistent with my long-time stance on the matter, but as I saw this play out, I realized the WP:GAME you were playing... as well as Ktrimi's argument about RS treatment. It is not your right to use confusing RfCs to dictate what may or may not be in the lede in the future. By the way, on the top of WP:LAWYER it makes it clear it is an essay, and not policy. In case you missed that. Like you seem to have forgotten WP:CONSENSUS.--Calthinus (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Khirurg, the census has issues, this is not under dispute and noted in the article. Many censuses in the Balkans have issues due to the government or boycotts by communities etc. Nonetheless the census is the official government view of the country. And as has been pointed out, that kind of census data is given on other articles. So likewise so it should be here.Resnjari (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see some kind of policy which dictates that disputed data should be presented as a lead image at any cost.Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
There isn't. But the RfC -- made by Khirurg -- is actually a veiled proposal to ban it from the lede, and thus circumvent compromise attempts between third parties. --Calthinus (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
If you think my RfC is badly framed, you should strike your vote. Your vote implies you accept the framing of the RfC. You can't vote AND claim the RfC is badly framed. Classic trying to have your cake and eat it. And neither you nor your friends have addressed the main question: Why should an image based on a flawed census be in the lede of the article, where the appropriate context cannot be presented. You are attempting to deflect by personalizing the discussion, using straw men ("ban it from the lede") and arguing technicalities such as "status quo" and "bad RfC", as if those override our duty to not mislead our readers. There are alternatives to the census, such as this image here (your own work, and quite good actually) . Khirurg (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I mean, there was as a rather long period where I did strike my vote and have the position that the RfC was invalid. My current support is conditioned with Ktrimi's understanding per his ping to me, on the insertion of my chart and Vargmali's religiosity pie chart in a panel -- this is a pretty good way to give readers an idea about the matter. --Calthinus (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
You didn't address any of my points. Given that the census is flawed, using two images based on it is even worse than one image. Khirurg (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No, *one based on the census, besides *two not based on it. The deal we agreed to before this RfC was started. --Calthinus (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
That's not an agreement. That's you and your friend discussing it among yourselves. There is no agreement. That's why we're having this discussion. And you still have not addressed my points. Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
If you effing read the thread, you can see when the agreement happened. But no, we can be clear about this, I prefer this one [26] that I also made.--Calthinus (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No, you and your friends agreed with each other. Dr.K. and I never agreed to any such thing. In fact I distinctly remember not agreeing [27]. Unless you can produce the diff where I agreed. Can you? Didn't think so. The map you refer to has the same issues your other map, similar to that one, does. I prefer the one I posted. Khirurg (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Umm, I never said you agreed. I said a majority of active editors. Your role outside of it and your role in creating an RfC that circumvents it is a major factor in why my vote flipped. Not the deep state and its barnstars. Give it a rest. --Calthinus (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
You, Ktrimi, and Cinadon are not a "majority" of editors. As for your role in creating an RfC that circumvents it is a major factor in why my vote flipped., that's really funny. At the start of the RfC you voted the same way as me ("oppose"), so how was the RfC the "major factor" in flipping your vote? No, the "major factor" in flipping your vote was some gentle reminding from your friend. You changed your votes within an hour of said gentle reminding [28][29]. I'm guessing you are quite embarrassed by the obvious intellectual dishonesty of flipping your vote twice so as to not displease certain people, and the end result are the mental acrobatics above. Khirurg (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. At first I naively didn't realize what this RfC was about. And yes, I said editors. Perhaps I should have been specific. Constructive editors, who have actually helped build this page. I hate to break it, but it doesn't include you, whose main activity has been edit warring and insulting people on talk pages. You've actually accomplished a marvelous feat, as this is the topic Resnjari and I tend to have our most persistent disagreements on (how to interpret the census, that is), and after his long attempts to persuade me to no avail, you've finally pushed me over to taking his position -- despite still agreeing with you on some of the facts of the ground -- with your bullishness and your disregard for any sort of appropriate conduct. There was a time, long ago, I thought you could be worked with. Those were the days.--Calthinus (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
At first I naively didn't realize what this RfC was about. Really? The wording of the RfC couldn't be clearer. Twice you changed your vote, within hours of being shown the "correct" way to vote. Once: [30][31], and twice [32][33][34]. The diffs are there for everyone to see, and they are not going to away. But because the cognitive dissonance must be unbearable, you make things personal and try to blame me for your own behavior, instead of taking responsibility for your actions. So much for sense of agency, internal locus of control and all that. As for "those were the days", you must be referring to the days before the Greek invention of hypocrisy[35], the "tastless fumble" [36], bullying and harassment on Thanksgiving Day [37], and creepy sexually harrassive trolling [38] in response to pointing out your falsifying of sources. By the way, you still haven't answered what you meant with you guys[39]. Khirurg (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Since my last post here a few days ago, there have been more than 50 new posts by other editors. However, few new things can be seen from them. Since there is, at least for now, no consensus to change the stable version that has been there for a long time, in other words no consensus to remove the census results from the lede, it might be more productive for interested editors to focus which other pics can be added to the lede. After all, it might be better to have a consensus for 3 or so pics in the lede than to have no new consensus, and keep in the lede the census results alone. Editors interested, try to stay focused on the topic as much as possible. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The census has been gone from the lede for months, so I think you have the wrong "stable version" in your head. And the census is not going to come back unless you are willing to revert it back in. Are you? Khirurg (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The page protection that was made to prevent more reverts till this RfC is closed does not change which is the stable version. And no I do not even need to revert. Other editors have said they want to revert back to the stable version if a new consensus is not agreed on. It is up to you to make up your mind before the RfC discussion ends. Do you want 3 pics in the lede or the census one only? I am OK with both options. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The page protection was already extended once, and will likely be extended again, so don't get too confident about the "stable version". It's in your interest to be flexible, I'd say. But that's up to you. Khirurg (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
*Comment I would just like to point out that of those editors not heavily and routinely involved in Balkan disputes, the results are 3-0 in favor of "Oppose" (Eostrix, HAL333, Gun Powder Ma). Khirurg (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Yuck. Your constant allegations against editors make threads like this toxic. Stick to the topic. If you really thought there was something to what you claim, an experienced editor like yourself would take these allegations to noticeboards. But all i see is just comment after comment by you calling the character of editors into question through smears because you don't like their stances, viewpoints or votes. Shame on you.Resnjari (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying that the opinions of editors from the Balkans about religion in Albania matter less than the opinions of editors who are not even familiar with the region? This is a typical Orientalist outlook about the Balkans. I don't even understand why you want to count opinions when the goal here is to reach consensus, not to engage in a zero-sum event. The "result" right now is 11 in favor of Support and 10 in favor of oppose.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Spare me the pearl-clutching, both of you (R and M). It's pretty obvious there is coordinated ethnic bloc voting on the "Support" side. "Orientalism" my foot. Calling a spade a spade is not "Orientalism". In such Balkan disputes, closing admins do tend to look at the opinions of people not closely involved with the topic more closely, as they should. Now, who wants to find a solution? Khirurg (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm why don't we actually talk about ethnic bloc voting? On the Support side, we have five editors who have either stated they are Albanian, or have nearly exclusively Albanian editing interests (Resnjari, Ktrimi, Sadsadas, Fa alk, N Hoxha) and one more who could plausibly be Albanian (Maleschreiber) and a non-Albanian with somewhat of a focus, maybe about 40% of edits, on Albanian-related topics (me). That a major page about Albania is frequented by people with editing concentrations on Albania should not be shocking. There are also three people who are clearly not Albanian (Mikola, Jingiby, Santasa). On side Oppose, meanwhile, there are five Greeks (Alexikoua, Khirurg, Dr.K., Macedonian -- who doesn't seem to edit much nowadays [40], and SilentResident), plus two people who have Serbian or at least Yugoslav editing focuses (Sadko, Antidiskriminator). The connection of Gun Powder Ma to this page would appear to be concurrent with Khirurg's intervention on [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang|a sockpuppet investigation started by Gun Powder Ma supporting GPM, in a topic he doesn't often edit]], which I normally would not comment on, but let's be real: if the situation was reversed, Khirurg would be in ballistics. Albanian-focused people voting on an Albanian page is not shocking. But what about the other large editing group here? Hmm... --Calthinus (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmm, yeah, if you want to go into this, let's do it. First, have you ever voted differently from Ktrimi, Resnjari, etc? Like, ever? Didn't think so. You also left out Bato on the Albanian side. That's 8 votes right there. As for Mikola, Jingiby, and Santasa, why don't you look into their "clearly not Albanian" editing histories and see if you can tell what their interests are? I'll tell you: Bulgarian, Croatian, Bosnian. That accounts for all 11 "Support votes". See the pattern now? Yeah, let's be real. Khirurg (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to slow down, because you are posting bad links and self-defeating diffs [[41]. And let's not forget your vote flipping extravaganza [42][43][44][45][46][47]. As for those Balkan countries you named, you may think that's very clever, but everyone knows Bosnia and Croatia have a history of hostility with Serbia (and by extension Greece), while Bulgaria does too though to a lesser extent. Anyway, the attempt at deliberate obtuseness doesn't change the fact that it's 3-0 Oppose among non-Balkan editors. The support side couldn't even get a single non-Balkan editor to vote "Support". Not one. Khirurg (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
So you literally think that every single Balkan-focused editor here voted based on their supposed "national interests" which are defined solely by some supposed "alliance" against Serbia and/or Greece which has... what? ... to do with Religion in Albania exactly? --Calthinus (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Just as with the above comments about some 'barnstar conspiracy', the stance there by @Khirurg is sad, very sad, sad.Resnjari (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Cry me a river, both of you. It's now 4-0 in favor of Oppose among non-Balkan accounts. Not to mention "Support" votes from Balkan accounts that haven't edited since 2018 [48]. But keep talking. Khirurg (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
So if we apply your framing, you and a few editors, going by edit histories who edit mainly Greek related topics would also constitute Balkan accounts? According to you, the votes of editors who in no way shape or form have ever touched a Balkan topic are valid , but everone else is invalid (unless they agree with you). And the smearing continues.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Support The pictures give a good and balanced illustration in the lead. They are OK with WP:RS. If an source is criticized by some RS and used by other RS, it is RS. Čeha (razgovor) 17:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Support There is no sufficient reason given to not keep the census pic in the lead or to not add two other pics next to it. Tiimiii (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose As others have stated, disputed material (per the section in the article and per the discussion above) shouldn't be in the lead of the article since it'll mislead readers, and 2011 is pretty dated. Some1 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Support If the results of 2011 census are used by CIA factbook and publications by Oxford Uni, then they are good enough for WP as well (attributed ofcourse). Hope you all are well during this horrible pandemic. Cinadon3621:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: An official statement issue in Tirana reads: No reliable official data on the percentage of national minorities in Albania is available. The October 2011 Census was deemed unreliable in terms of numbers of national minorities. [[50]]. It can't be more clear that any attempt to fill the lead with unreliable data is POV.Alexikoua (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: What page is that? I can't find it or any sort of reference to the census in that translation of the Albanian electoral code you supposedly quoted.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, now I can verify it, but this isn't "an official statement issue in Tirana" - it's a paper by ODIHR which has already been discussed in this article and the beliefs it puts forward have been disputed by papers like that of Giakoumis (2019): It should be noted, however, that Albania’s non-discrimination policy towards minorities is no different to the policies applied in other countries of the region. Some states recognize de jure or de facto no minority groups other than those dealt with in international treaties in their territories. Greece, for instance, continues not to recognize a number of ethnic groups as minorities, in spite of repeated decisions against this by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (Committee 2016, 3). We're going in circles if we start repeating the same arguments again. 14 of those who have responded want the census results to be included and 12 don't want that. Apparently, some form of consensus has to be reached that will both include the results, but also contextualize them. Consensus seeking is not a zero-sum game.-Maleschreiber (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The topic of discrimination is completely irrelevant with religious. Some sort of consensus? Consensus isn't build that way in wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Per all the concerns raised. Being that it's an outdated census and one that has been criticised as flawed, it would be problematic to have it in the lede. --Griboski (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC 2
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm sorry, but you cannot circumvent an ongoing RfC with a new one. Otherwise, list the original RfC at ANRFC and wait your turn. El_C17:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Which image is the best choice for the lede? If more than one is acceptable, please rank your choices in order of preference (e.g. Option 1, Option 2, Option 3...) Khirurg (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Option 1
Mosque, Orthodox Church, Catholic Church
Option 2
Religions by region c. 1900
Option 3
Traditional distribution of religions
Option 4
Religiosity in Albania (2016 Barem-WIN/ Gallup International)
Religious (56%)
Non-religious (30%)
Atheist (9%)
Do not know/did not say (5%)
Pie chart of religiosity
Comment this seems inappropriate as there is currently another RfC in progress about whether another image should be in the lede. --Calthinus (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment I would like to suggest to the editors who have participated so far to the discussion above to ignore this second RfC. This looks like a blatant attempt to ignore and transgress the process of the previous Rfc and portrays disrespect to the contributors by ignoring their previously mentioned stance on the subject. This second RfC should definitely not be taken into account. N.Hoxha (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment Yet another RfC about the same topic? Why is the ongoing RfC being ignored? More than half of the people who took part in the ongoing RfC want the 2011 census to be mentioned on the lead. This new RfC goes on to totally exclude the 2011 census as an option. To me this looks like a form of manoeuvering around consensus-making procedures in order to circumvent a discussion in which the community has expressed itself in a way which calls for the inclusion of the 2011 census on the lead in some way by completely excluding it as an option in a reset RfC. Ignoring community input by trying to reset and reframe the discussion harms consensus-seeking and decision-making. If editors don't feel confident that what we're discussing as a community will lead to a decision which will be respected by all, then no progress is being made.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, anyone can see that the previous RfC is deadlocked (10-11), and that that's not going to change. Now, if you guys don't want to participate in this one, that's fine, the rest of community can participate. We can find a solution with or without you. By the way, Option 3 is the original "stable version", before an IP disrupted it last October. And no, "half the community" does not want the flawed census in the lede. What the above comments show though, is that there is a tight-knit group of users who will settle for nothing other than the deeply flawed 2011 census. Why is that? Khirurg (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Excellent initiative Khirurg. It's obvious that each of the above options are far better compared to unreliable data. I would prefer the "real" stable version: option 3.Alexikoua (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
Correct capture x 1 + 404 capture x 1 now replaced with working capture. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Done Updated the external link for the website. Thanks! ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania#/media/File%3ATraditional_Distribution_of_Religions_in_Albania.png){kind=link}
