Talk:Albania/Archive 5

Edit request from 95.239.243.194, 18 June 2011
PLEASE CHANGE THIS IN DEMOGRAPHICS TO AVOID MISUNDERSTOODS:

Nonetheless, the Albanian government fears that if a census were adopted, a considerable part of the population would be registered as Greek

IN

Nonetheless, the Albanian government fears that if a census were adopted, a considerable part of the poor population would be registered as Greek to receive the maintenance check by Greek government for the greek minorities.

95.239.243.194 (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely that your edit request will be acted on unless you can find a published source for this assertion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The published source to support the above request is the following: http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20110403com7.html Armendel (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what your source says:"There are fears that results will show an important rise in the Greek community as many Albanians in recent years changed their identity and religion to obtain residency and working permits in neighboring Greece, an EU member." This does not agree with what you want to add to the article. The source says nothing about poor people wanting to qualify for a maintenance check. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the above, Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avic ennasis  @ 17:31, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian occupation
Fascist Italy annexed Albania before WWII and not during it. Precisely, in April 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.16.233 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Eastern Europe at the End of the 20th Century" as source on Greek minority
Yes, the figure is supported, see top of page 69. Athenean (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (above comment copied from my talk page - Jd2718 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC))


 * I see, he does give absolute figures, not percents, in that paragraph. But we should not use it. Jeffries opens with 1.7%, (on the previous page). And worse, the CIA number in that paragraph does not match the CIA number from the first source (the CIA itself). And the numbers are around twenty years old. And even worse, the author works with a population of 3.4 million - even if we could pick which of the numbers he means are likely accurate, none of us could say what that would like after a 20% reevaluation of the actual population. This source is not reliable for Albania's current population. Jd2718 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is not to say that the 3% figure is absolutely the right one, only that it is the only one we have properly sourced. If editors believe that number is low, let's find contemporary sources that provide a reliable alternative. Jd2718 (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

GDP not correct
As Wikipedia estimates in the "Albanian Economy" page, the GDP of Albania is 25.035 billion $, not 24 as in the "Republic of Albania" page. The GDP per capita, is not adjusted and above all, doesn't reflect the change in population, with the actual resident population 2.83 mln and not 3,1 mln, as in "Wikipedia" actual estimate. You can consult my findings in Albanian Institute of Statistics, www.instat.gov.al. The laters publication of census, also shows an reductions in greek minority, in 0.87% of total population and fall of percetange of muslim religion, in 56%.

Suggestion by klevisgjoni@yahoo.com

Greek vandalism and propaganda in the Albanian articles
There seems that the whole Albanian articles are repeatedly being changed by Wikipedia members resulting from Greece, in a way that suits the ultranationalistic Greek agendas. It is a bit strange that all those trying to deform Albanian history and culture, come from Greece. I cannot let Greek vandalism deform facts about Albania, especially when they bring no reference, and put down western sources. (Edvin (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC))
 * In general expressions like 'invasion against Albania' (instead of Balkan Wars) or 'ethnic Albanian territory' (instead of 'areas that lived Albanian communities') are better to be avoided since they are clearly pov. Please take a look at wp:pov for general directions.Alexikoua (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, i cited works which used the same words, and you deleted them. I found the same sources used in the article about Greek history. I guess I will have to report either you for deleting western reliable sources, or the Greek article for using them, given that some people here don't like these sources. The source was Encyclopedia Britannica, and i have seen it being cited as a source in hundreds of articles in Wikipedia. Please go and delete all of them if you need to delete mine. (Edvin (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC))


 * What are you talking about? I didn't remove Britannica. It's still in the article. And I never said it wasn't a reliable source, either. The sources I told were unreliable were those websites you added in Religion in Albania, stuff like Kristo Dako, and 100 year old primary sources (see WP:PSTS why we don't use primary sources). Athenean (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then what is this: 1? The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania,

So any article, testimony written at the time of the event, should not be considered? So, texts by Tacitus for example, cannot be sources because they are 2000 years old?! Anyway, return my Britannica citation. Good night! (Edvin (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC))


 * That's exactly right, we shouldn't be using Tacitus or any other primary sources. It's explained in WP:PSTS. Athenean (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, then return the citation i made from Britannica please.(Edvin (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 7 January 2012
after the publication of preliminary results of 2011 census, the average income per capita increased, bcs a little bit more of 25 billion GDP is now divided from 2,8 mln albanians and not any more from 3,1

Klevisgjoni (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a linkable source to your statements above, please add it below and change the template message above from answered=yes to answered=no and someone will evaluate the request. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Demographics - Consensus
Sources are claiming 300,000 Greeks, too. Most Western reliable sources out there put the size of the Greek minority at around 200,000, or about 6% of the population. Cia figures are from the 1989 census, and reliable sources that show higher figures than this, must be included the same, too. --HumanNaturOriginal (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source. The number may be correct, but neither "sources out there" or a link to a book with no page number, no cite, are adequate to support that number. Jd2718 (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that it is also reasonable to ask that any source that gives ranges be applied to all groups. It will not do to have 95% Albanian, 2 - 6% Greek, and 2% Other. That is, a counter to the last official estimate for the population of the entire country, rather than for one group. I do not know how to find this, but I suspect it is out there. Too bad the CIA estimate is so old. Jd2718 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but since the number of calculation is correct, any show of higher figures counted as reliable sources and should be also included parenthetically as well. --HumanNaturOriginal (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really. First, there needs to be a source for the number. But then, if it is not reported as a percent, we need to show great care if editors try to turn that number into a percent. How do we know how accurate the number is, how much rounding has taken place? But we don't even get there until we have a source. At this moment, that is the greater concern. Jd2718 (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * However, it doesn't mean, it is not a reliable source and I believe it should be better be included too, as well (even parenthetically) --HumanNaturOriginal (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for not being clear: we do not have a reliable source for 6%. We need one. Jd2718 (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we have the most reliable and most official authority on this matter, the UNPO (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization) and they give figures about the Greek minority and every other minority in the world.

STATISTICS

Status: Minority Population: 70,000 (Disputed) Area: 5,000 km² Language: Greek Source: http://www.unpo.org/members/7874 Considering that actually Albania has a population of around 2.9-3 million, the Greek minority represents the 2.3-2.4% of the population. (Edvin (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

There is a general incosistency with the numbers presented by unpo (here [] it claims that the number is 400,000). In general cia factbook is the most preferred source in such cases.Alexikoua (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The link you provided took me to some document which is in Greek. There is a picture there, but i cannot verify that it belongs to UNPO. Then, the most updated information is usually taken as the actual information. Or should we stick to infos from centuries ago? CIA is not the world official source of information. I have seen that sometimes it has mistakes and erroneous information on some countries. Anyway, i checked it and...Surprise, this is what i saw:

Ethnic groups: Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order. Albanian 95%, Greek 3%, other 2% (Vlach, Roma (Gypsy), Serb, Macedonian, Bulgarian) (1989 est.) note: in 1989, other estimates of the Greek population ranged from 1% (official Albanian statistics) to 12% (from a Greek organization). So, the percentage is 3, and not 6 like you claim. There is no source where it says that it is 6%, thus it has to be removed. And bringing the claim of a Greek NGO is not reliable. I can bring you tens of claims of Albanian and other NGO which claim that Greek population in Albania is smaller than 1%, or that ethnic Albanian population in Greece is higher than 15%. (Edvin (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

By the way, i just found another source: US Department of State, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3235.htm which says:

People Population (2011 est.): 2,994,667. Population growth rate (2011 est.): 0.267%. Ethnic groups (2004 est., Government of Albania): Albanian 98.6%, Greeks 1.17%, others 0.23% (Vlachs, Roma, Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Balkan Egyptians, and Bulgarians). (Edvin (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Sure, there are various references about the percentage. CiaF is one of the best we have (3%). My objection is on the use of CiaF instead of unpo. On the other hand 6% (or 200,000) is the number most western sources adopt [].Alexikoua (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * UNPO gives 70 000, so why not use UNPO? Western sources based on what? Or someone citing CIA? Just wait for few months until the results from the Albanian census of October 2011 come out and then you can have reliable national data. (Edvin (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Because UNPO is not a reliable source. This book on the other hand, is a reliable source. I think part of the problem is you don't understand Wikipedia's policies regarding what constitutes a reliable source. Please see WP:RS, and in particular WP:SPS. UNPO is self-published and should be avoided. Also, you had made some mistakes in the history section. When Greece, Serbia and Montenegro invaded in 1912, Albania was still officially part of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, they couldn't have invaded Albania, but rather the Ottoman Empire. Also, to say that over half of Albania's "ethnic territory" was given away is POV and inaccurate. Since there hadn't been an independent Albania until then, it didn't have any "territory". That was Ottoman territory with an Albanian majority, but it's wrong to say "Albania's ethnic territory". Athenean (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was cited from a Western, reliable source, ^ "Albania". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 6 January 2012.

Albania declared independence on 28 November 1912, and it declared independence of that territory you are referring as well. Given that many western sources say so, i cannot accept that a Greek decides what is history and what not. (Edvin (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC))


 * What western reliable source? The figure of 200,000, which you keep removing, is sourced from a western reliable source. No one had recognized Albania's declaration of independence in 1912, so as far as the rest of the world was concerned, it was still Ottoman territory. Final warning, stop the ethnic insults. Athenean (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear that this article has fallen prey to clear Greek nationalistic agenda. I request the administrators to do something on this matter. 95%+6%+2%=103%????? How can there be a population of 103%? I think that here we have some serious math problems. (Edvin (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
 * According this this, the most widely accepted figure ranges from 100,000 to 150,000 (and this does not correspond with the 200,000 figure stated above to be the most accepted). Also, what sources say 6%? If a source doesn't say 6% but is calculated by the user, then this is moving into WP:OR territory. (Another problem with the figure lies with the assumption that the population of Greeks did not decrease with the rest of the population of Albania and I don't see any controlling for that.) The CIA Factbook says 3%, however, and is RS, so this is the number that should be included.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see from this section that there is no consensus so i suggest that the ethnic groups be removed since we have challenged and contradicting sources. We should wait for the results of the 2011 census. Also ranging figures i believe to be unacceptable and not at all encyclopedic. I think that in the infobox there should not be claims but hard facts where possible. Claims can be included in the appropriate section. Please leave nationalism out of Wikipedia which is unreliable enough as it is. Thank you! Purusbonum (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Most western sources put the figure at 200,000...", which is approximately 6% of the population. The source is very reliable, so please don't remove it using artificial arguments just because you don't like it.  That is nationalism.  There is also no rule against including ranges in the infobox. Athenean (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself from accusations and reply to my request in your page. You do not quote the source right! First the source says that it is an estimation while providing additional info in brackets saying: (although EEn puts the number at a probable 100,000) Again its says 200,000 is an estimation and the percentage given is by yourself. Provide the math about the percentage and for what year of the population (this has prime importance). The ranging figures in the infobox despite not being against the rules are not current or hard facts, hence misleading. That is why i proposed to remove the whole thing, while the section provides additional information. Please do not confuse arguments with nationalism just because YOU don't like them. Purusbonum (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The source says "Most Western estimates are 200,000", I am quoting the source perfectly well. I am not going to engage in semantic games and sophistry. Albania's population has been hovering around the 3 million mark for the last 20 years, so yes, 200,000 out of 3 million is approximately 6%.  Demographics is not an exact science, it's more than good enough. Athenean (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't see any request for such games, however the quote wasn't "estimates" you can check it since i replaced it with the right one. Demographics is no exact science indeed but you sir are not a demographer and yet provide percentages; you have moved into WP:OR territory as it has been stated before by a different user. And i expect apologies for rude behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purusbonum (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is regarded as a trusted source by Wikipedia community
Given the latest discussions if EB can be used a reliable source or not, i did some inquiries, and also posted it as a topic at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It appears that EB is a reliable source according to the discussion on the Reliable sources?Noticeboard 1. It is also used in various of other articles, like 2. I guess this should put an end to the discussion on "is EB a reliable of unreliable source to be used in Albania article." All the best (Edvin (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC))


 * That's fine, but I changed your wording slightly to reflect the fact that the armies entered the territory of what is now Albania, not all of which is inhabited by ethnic Albanians (e.g. Himara, Dropull). Athenean (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, the result of the WP:RSN discussion, which I read, is definitely not that "Encyclopedia Britannica is regarded as a trusted source by Wikipedia community". he only conclusion I can see in the discussion is that it's only ok to use it if no other sources are available (which is what WP:PSTS says). Since in general, secondary sources are available for almost anything, that means EB is out.  Furthermore, The EB article on Albania is written by Messrs. Elez Biberaj and Peter Prifti. Mr. Biberaj does not appear to be a scholar of any kind, and Mr. Prifti appears to be a national activist.  So, my advice to you is, don't think that you can now go around and add EB everywhere in Wikipedia because you think that it was decided at WP:RSN that EB is a reliable source. Be extremely careful when using EB as a source, and if we have another source that contradicts EB, that means EB is out. Athenean (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard has not concluded yet, and conclusions such as "if we have another source that contradicts EB, that means EB is out" is misleading. As mentioned in the WP:RSN discussion, it depends on the quality of the contradicting sources as well. In this example the reverting out of http://www.britannica.com/ leaves the sources cited at the end of the sentence as:
 * http://www.lonelyplanet.com/albania/history and http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1913_2.html are not exactly top draw secondary sources that have been published in a peer reviewed journal and present an analysis based on a survey of cited primary sources. The albanianhistory.net article is basically a regurgitation of a primary source (published by an unreliable source), and given the choice where there is a contradiction in information between Encyclopaedia Britannica and Lonely Planet I suspect most editors would consider EB more reliable than LP for historical facts. -- PBS (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.lonelyplanet.com/albania/history and http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1913_2.html are not exactly top draw secondary sources that have been published in a peer reviewed journal and present an analysis based on a survey of cited primary sources. The albanianhistory.net article is basically a regurgitation of a primary source (published by an unreliable source), and given the choice where there is a contradiction in information between Encyclopaedia Britannica and Lonely Planet I suspect most editors would consider EB more reliable than LP for historical facts. -- PBS (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.lonelyplanet.com/albania/history and http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1913_2.html are not exactly top draw secondary sources that have been published in a peer reviewed journal and present an analysis based on a survey of cited primary sources. The albanianhistory.net article is basically a regurgitation of a primary source (published by an unreliable source), and given the choice where there is a contradiction in information between Encyclopaedia Britannica and Lonely Planet I suspect most editors would consider EB more reliable than LP for historical facts. -- PBS (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

edit request forppp and gdp nominal
Dear wikipedia, please correct your own numbers. The new census changer albania population from 3,1 milion to 2.83m, but you dont reflect that in per capita gdp. Actually, 13,2 (nominal) is listed as 4,131 dolars, but 13,292/2.831 is higher, 4 695$. ppp is not about 7,700$, but 25 035/2831 is 8 843$ per capita. Please correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klevisgjoni (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

anon IP statement from March 2012
"Most Western sources put the size of the Greek minority at around 200,000, or about 6% of the population" this quote is cited by one greek source and one american source that says they currently make up 1.7% of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.3.79 (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Albanian-Arabic alphabet??
What is the point of that stupid picture of Arabic text? What is its purpose? How is it justified? Why are Albanian Muslims eager to associate with Arab culture instead of European culture? The whole article has a Muslim Albanian slant. It says, matter of fact, that Tosk influenced Albanian language more than Gheg. That is not true. Tosk was arbitrarily adopted as the official dialect only recently, post WWII i believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.243.210 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2012
Albania's HDI is categorized on this page as 'low' - at .739 it is actually 'high'.

98.207.95.9 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Section structure
I propose to follow the section structure proposed at WikiProject Countries. Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Post independence era
Need someone to edit the post-1912 era. Preferably someone with intimate knowledge of this period. Any takers? Ottomanist (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I intend to rewrite the entire History section. It seems to pay too much attention to the Ottoman era while post-independence events are scarcely described. I'd like to know if there's any opposition to that. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason the Ottoman section is so long is because is because of recent edits by User:Ottomanist. Feel free to tone it down. Athenean (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be working on it in my sandbox and will replace the whole section with a rewritten one in a day or two, so if there's any remarks, let me know in the meantime. Cheers, - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ottoman era lasted between 1385 and 1913 which is 628 years. Post independence era lasts less than a hundred years. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Illyrian era lasted over 1,000 years as well. The question is how much of the information from these periods is relevant. Most attention should be paid to the post-independence years, because that is basically the modern Albanian state. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

yes. I agree with you. Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, "long" relative to what? If you look at other pages, you'll see the history sections are just as long Greece, Egypt etc., I personally don't think that the Ottoman section is too long, but only that other sections are too short which makes it stand out. Ottomanist (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the extreme protraction, had real life issues to deal with. This is the reworked history section. Both periods (pre- and post-independence) receive an equal amount of attention, sources are LoC and Britannica for the most part. Any objections into introducing it ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I object. The point was to pay more attention: "to the post-independence years, because that is basically the modern Albanian state", not to shorten or change text about the period before Albania was established as state in XX century. I think that the section in current version of the article is better (though far from being perfect) than the draft you pointed at. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so I'll add the post-independence part, because the current subsection on modern history is really, really poor. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is really really poor. The whole period is covered with "The Communist Period" section although not all period of 1914—2012 was communst, nor all text within this section refers to communist period.
 * I propose you not to write long drafts in your userspace. Maybe it is better to just start editing the article, and if there are editors who don't agree with what you write, or who can improve what you write, they can react.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not what I usually do, but some sections are bad to the point where they have to be written anew, which is the case here. I'll integrate some of the existing statements into the text I wrote, but the rest is neither sourced not balanced in terms of chronology. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take in consideration Editing policy and its section about the major changes: Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. Please don't make major changes at once or within short time period and allow other interested editors to participate.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you actually read it, most of the previous text on the Ottoman period was basically the same. I just streamlined it chronologically and removed uninformative (for the context of this article) sentences such as the one on inconclusive evidence about Islamisation. Actually I even expanded it a bit with the Skanderbeg episode. As for the newer history subsection, I think anyone would agree that it was poorly written, poorly sourced and extremely chaotic. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, everybody agreed about the newer history subsection. That is what we discussed here. Let me remind you that this section is titled "Post independence era". It was agreed to "pay more attention: "to the post-independence years, because that is basically the modern Albanian state"". Please follow above mentioned policy and don't make significant changes to pre-independence era. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. There was nothing about the resistance, nothing about the battles and everything went from the 15th straight to the 19th century and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.33.1 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering that I didn't make that many changes to the pre-1912 history, why did you revert it ? Basically the content was the same, with a few additions and extra citations that could've been removed anyway. I won't even mention the stunning lack of sources. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you did make changes to pre-1912 history. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did, but none too radical or worthy of a revert. You said yourself that other editors should participate when edits are made, so please state which parts are problematic. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You violated editing policy. Please revert yourself and respect respect editing policy in further edits.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering that I did discuss them and it was agreed that one of the subsections needed to be rewritten, I don't see how the policy has been violated. I haven't stopped you from removing the things that were added, so feel free to keep the patchy quality of the article. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sanxhak of Albania
Here, I've removed a request from the article. The request said, "PLEASE CHECK THIS COMPUTER MADE MAP. There was no such thing as Sanxhak of Albania. The uploader and the resources dont match the historical facts.This is ridiculus. LOL another Slavo-Serbain!"

I don't know anything about the topic, but see Google Books search results here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was never anything called an 'Albanian sanjak' - the sources provided speak for themselves "The feudal cadastre of the sancak of Arvanid, which was completed in 1432, contains data on the Ottoman migrants from Anatolia to Albania..." Later we read that, "Albania, composed of fifteen sancaks (Shkodra, Ipek (Pec), Prizren, Prishtina, Skopje, Bitola, Debar, Elbasan, Tirana, Berat, Korça, Kostur, Yanina, Argyrocastro, Preveza..." This image will be deleted, until a more suitable one is found. Ottomanist (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there was Sanjak of Albania. Most of the towns you listed are not in Albania at all. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the point is that the photo is not appropriate because it only covers a very narrow time-period and leaves out large swaths of present-day Albania. Moreover, the Ottoman-Turkish word for Albania is 'Arnavutluk' not arnavid, so to even call it the 'sancak of Albania' makes no sense. Ottomanist (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The photo covers the whole present day Albania. If you have some objections to Arvanid then present some better source than Halil İnalcık, if it is possible.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're referring to Halil Inalcik! He is indeed the main historian for this period. I think the issue here is more aesthetic - the photo looks tacky (cheap). I think a better map (or, what about the one I had put up, which was in Ottoman and gives a feel for the period?). What do you think?Ottomanist (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The map you put is the map of greater Albania, not Albania during Ottoman rule. It contains vilayets which lasted less than 50 years. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The self-made map mis-reads Inalcik. According to him "Moreover in the south the sand̲j̲aḳ of Awlonya (Avlona) and in the east that of Ohri were created and in 1479 the sand̲j̲aḳ of Iskenderiye (Scutari) was formed in the north..." About the registers he used (and his reference to the 'Sancak i Arnavud') he says that "This kind of tīmārs constituted 16 per cent of all the ¶ tīmār-holders in Arvanid-ili." see: Arnawutluḳ." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online, 2012. Reference. 2012

The map is therefore wrong. I look forward to constructive work with you in the future.Ottomanist (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again incorrect. The map is well sourced. I referred to Inalcik for the Turkish name of the Sanjak of Albania. When he mentioned 16% he refered to timar holders. Still, you are right that the teritory of albania was later divided between sanjaks of Ohrid, Scutari, Avlona... Some sanjaks were formed and soon disestblished. I will try to find some maps that could be used to illustrate that facts.
 * Do not remove the Sanjak of Albania. It existed. Both its name and its map are well sourced. Its name is supported both with sources and consensus. Please respect them.Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the map is created by you not any academic. Firstly, the map is based on a Serbian source, not inalcik. Secondly, Shkoder was only taken in 1478, how could, as you claim, "the whole of Albania" be in one sancak back when the map refers to? Ottomanist (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again incorrect. The map of the Sanjak of Albania is created by Peter Bartl. He is German historian. Please don't remove it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, as explained in the Sancak of Albania talk page, you have misunderstood the issue. Ottomanist (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What issue I msunderstood? You invented several issues and presented many false arguments trying to justify deletion of the map of Sanjak of Albania from this article. Here is a list of your excuses to delete the map:
 * There was never anything called an 'Albanian sanjak'
 * the photo is not appropriate because it only covers a very narrow time-period and leaves out large swaths of present-day Albania
 * I think the issue here is more aesthetic - the photo looks tacky (cheap).
 * the map is created by you not any academic...based on a Serbian source
 * Now when it is obvious that all your excuses for deletion of the map were not grounded you claim that I misunderstood the issue and again deleted the map because of "distributive edit". Please revert yourself and drop the stick.
 * I think that the map you added should be removed from this article. It is not the map of Albania, but map which includes significant parts of Montenegro, Serbia and Greece, half of Macedonia and whole Kosovo. That map is already used in article about the Greater Albania and does not belong here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the vilayet map because it has very little to do with the current republic of Albania. The area depicted on the map is just a nationalist dream by the League of Prizren, which never even came close to becoming a reality. While useful in the Greater Albania article, it is not too useful here. Athenean (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The logic is flawed on several grounds. Namely, the map shows the territories from which the modern-day 'Republic of Albania' was formed, therefore it is useful for encyclopaedic reference. It, moreover, is discussing the Ottoman period when no Republic of Albania existed, but rather regions populated by Albanian speakers.Ottomanist (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ottomanist. The topic of this article is the Republic of Albania and its territory. There are other articles about "regions populated by Albanian speakers", like the Greater Albania article, Albanian Vilayet.... Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The map shows the territories from which the modern-day 'Republic of Albania' was formed, therefore it is useful for encyclopaedic reference. It, moreover, is discussing the Ottoman period when no Republic of Albania existed, but the areas from which it was eventually formed. Ottomanist (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. You forgot to mention that the map you added shows the territories from which the modern-day Montenegro, Serbia, Greece, Macedonia and Kosovo are formed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You're becoming quite disruptive now, please stop this personal crusade. The map added by another user is okay for now, we don't need a cheaply made, factually incorrect map. Ottomanist (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please Comment on content, not on the contributor. The map added by another user refers to the Principality of Albania, not to the Ottoman period like map of the Sanjak of Albania. This map is not self made because it was created by by Peter Bartl. You did not present any valid arguement for its removal, so please don't remove it again.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All the arguments are very clearly outlined above as to why the map is not of a historical entity but a map of timar holders - Inalcik never ever claimed a Sancak of Albania (a modern construct of the 20th century?!) ever existed in the 15th. He refers to a sancak of Albanians which doesn't include all the territory of the modern-day republic of Albania. End of discussion, stop disrupting edits. Ottomanist (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong:
 * All the arguments are very clearly outlined above. All above outlined arguments are false. This map shows, among other things, sanjak that existed, it does show the whole territory of present-day Albania, the map is not cheap but very informative and its author was not me but professional historian (Peter Bartl).
 * "the map is not of a historical entity but a map of timar holders" - Incorrect. The map shows the territory of Albania in 1431. It belongs to the section about the Ottoman period because the Ottoman Empire established formal jurisdiction over most of Albania by 1431.
 * "Sancak of Albania (a modern construct of the 20th century?!)...Inalcik... refers to a sancak of Albanians" - There was consensus about the name of the Sanjak of Albania. Please respect it.
 * "doesn't include all the territory of the modern-day republic of Albania." - Incorrect. The map shows all of the territory of the modern day republic of Albania after Ottomans established formal jurisdiction over most of Albania by 1431 and defined Albania as an unambiguous territorial category, for the first time.
 * Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat my self, the evidence is above for all who wish to see. The key point is that Albania is a modern-name for a modern-territory carved out in 1913. Any map which tries to show that existed in the 15th century is false. End of discussion, see above if you need further clarification. Moreover, wikipedia is not a democracy, neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Please get over this and let's work on something more constructive. Ottomanist (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by (Ottomanist): The map purports to show an entity called 'Sankak of Albania' (Sanjak i aranvid) in the early 15th century.


 * 1) Arnavid means Albanian not Albania because as the historian Halil Inalcik knows very well, there was never an entity called Albania in the 15th century.
 * (his article for the standard text Encyclopaedia of Islam is entitled Arnawutluk (meaning 'Albanian territories') not 'arnavid' which means 'Albanian...
 * Moreover, the Albanian source used in the Sanjak of Albania article reads 'Albanian sancak'= Sanxhakut Shqiptar not Sanxhaku i Shqiperis - further evidence that a territory called Albania never existed until 1913.


 * 2) According to the historian Inalcik, which the other user considers an expert: " (...) in the south the sand̲j̲aḳ of Awlonya (Avlona) and in the east that of Ohri were created and in 1479 the sand̲j̲aḳ of Iskenderiye (Scutari) was formed in the north..."
 * Meaning that the period the map purports to show was a time when the Ottomans hadn't even seized all of the territory that is now a part of the modern-day Republic of Albania (see: Arnawutluḳ." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online, 2012. Reference. 2012)


 * 3) The details given about the map [|here] says that it is an own work, after Bartl, Peter

However, when you click the source you get a map that doesn't say anywhere 'sancak of Albania' and isn't even the same as the one presented here.


 * Thus the map is not historically accurate since a territory called Albania only came into existence in 1913.

Ottomanist (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by Antidiskriminator: It is incorrect that "a territory called Albania only came into existence in 1913" (171,000 Google Books hits for books written before 1911 and 8,000 for books written before 1600)


 * I believe it is important to add this very informative map to the Ottoman period section because:
 * It shows that by 1431 most of territory of Albania was under Ottoman formal jurisdiction
 * or in possession of local chieftains who were Ottoman vassals and paid tribute to the sultan.
 * with small part comprising of Scutari, Durazzo and Alessio which was under Venetian control (part of Venetian Albania).


 * The most appropriate name of the Sanjak of Albania is result of the consensus and irrelevant for this discussion. I am not the author of this map. It is made by User:Jkwchui against the map which author is historian Peter Bartl.


 * Ottoman Empire did not have stable administrative division. The most appropriate map for Ottoman period section would probably be a gif animated map for the whole period 1385-1912. Until such map is created I think that this map is very useful and informative.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Third opinion by czarkoff: My observations:
 * As is demonstrated in Sanjak of Albania article, there is no single consistent naming pattern of the entity in question with "Sanjak of Albania" being one of several possible ways of referring to it.
 * The choice of naming pattern isn't all that important, as no controversy over historical matters is associated with it.
 * The illustration in question is an accurate reproduction of the map with the only change in labels, which are translated from Serbian to English and made consistent with Wikipedia usage patterns.
 * The competency of Peter Bartl wasn't questioned by the editors involved in this dispute.
 * In my opinion, the article benefits from the illustration in question; as the choice of naming pattern is now known to generate a dispute, I would suggest to add the corresponding explanation (including alternative naming patterns) to the text of the corresponding section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was only 1 or 2 people, and it was left to future discussions (this one??)
 * Second Viewpoint by (Ottomanist):

Moreover: wouldn't a better suggestion be to just use this image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albanian_vilayet.jpg) about which no one can dispute. The map shows the Albanian-speaking areas part of the Ottoman Empire - valuable because it gives readers an idea about the whole Ottoman period (rather than a narrow few decade period like the present map) as well as showing the fluidity of the borders during the long 500-year period of Ottoman rule. Moreover, it shows the areas from which modern-day Albania was formed. - Ottomanist (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, consensus may change, but more appropriate place for discussing such changes is talk:Sanjak of Albania.
 * The map you link show a never existing administrative division; thus this map is much less valuable for illustration of Albanian history then any map showing actually existing divisions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually: the map shows a division in that it is a replication of the Albanian-speaking territories during the Ottoman Empire (which the period is meant to depict). I've already explained above that the current map never existed as a division neither, since the translation by Bartl or whoever made the map fails to acknowledge that the territories studied by Prof. Inalcik was based on registers for a Sanjak of Albanians and not Albania. Thus my proposed map is even more accurate because it shows how modern-day Albania was administered throughout the Ottoman period and its close relation and not-static administrative lines vis-a-vis other Albanian-populated lands. If that doesn't convince you, I propose we scrap the map completely until a better one is made. ? Regards - Ottomanist (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems I have to put it yet clearer: it is obvious that the consensus is in favour of the current map. No need to search or "make" another map. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Count me in that consensus. Antidiskriminator's map is useful and follows the sources faithfully, while the "Albanian vilayet" map shows something that never came into existence.  The argument that it shows "the areas from which modern Albania was carved from" makes no sense, any map of the Western Balkans shows the same thing.  Athenean (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The only difference is that map shows the areas that were Albanian-majority. - Ottomanist (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So, now Ottomanist is topic-banned, is the map you wanted back in? I see one in the article, but missed the earlier debate on whether or not to add and not sure if the description given in Commons is the same one as propose? HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What is to the NE of Albania?
Opening para now reads:

 It is bordered by Montenegro to the northwest, Serbia to the northeast,Macedonia to the east and Greece to the south and southeast.

This was changed today, previously it said "Kosovo to the northeast". I realise this is a subject of controversy and I am in no way qualified to make a judgement. So I'm just bringing it to your attention. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nasserism
I'm not sure if this is accurate, but does Albania maintain a view of Nasserism for a political ideology?

Twillisjr (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC) What... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.81.145 (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am BACK and it's sad to see this article...its just plain gray blahhh
What's going on with this article?? It's so bad, needs a lot to be done..what happen to Illyrians, now ottoman era take its own paragraph and scanderbeg is mentioned only once???? What happened to Prehistory: the first inhabitants the Pelasgian and Illyrians?....and it looks the editing is done by some nationalistic greek teens...they gonna writte the Albanian history???? omg how pathetic, I really feel bad for wiki...--Taulant23 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * *Sigh* Not again with the Pelasgians and the Illyrians. Just when this article's history section had achieved a semblance of normalcy.  Already you are being disruptive.  Here you are falsifying sourced information  (the source doesn't say anything about "many scholars"), here  you are removing sourced information for the sole reason that you don't like ("sounds like a npov").  So I'm going to warn you:  If you continue like this, I will report you to WP:AE, and given your long history of disruption, I will push for a long topic ban. Athenean (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You can or report me anytime, if I am doing something wrong. I am not afraid of who have make this page pathetic...Illyrians and Pelasgians were the first people in the modern Albania, nothing wrong to mention them...I see a lot of misleading information about the history of Albania.....I can't find the right word to describe this page...very sad .--Taulant23 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Taulant23! The Ottoman era was the darkest point of Albanian history, a time of economic and cultural decline. The user ottomanist is trying to portray it in better light, failing at it since there is very little good to say about that time hence the short paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drangue (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The official flag of Albania, STOP of the deformation of the flag
In this 100th Anniversary of the Independence of Albania in all Albania a flag with a Eagle without without language, with goosefoot, deformed body, the number of feathers deformed etc.

In Albania exists a law on national symbols and the flag. In the article Albania in Wikipedia exist anothe flag that in the artcile Flag of Albania. I belive that both flags are incorrect.



CIA The World Factbook also use this incorrect flag --The199206 19:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

see the albanian passport or the coat of arms or Albanian government internet site to understand differences between and the second one is the right one (see mouth and crest differences ) have a look here and here   to see the right eagle mouth and crest Ilbiochimico (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

i found and upload on wikimedia the law 8926 here you can see in albanian the real flag and all other things like hymn music score etc Ilbiochimico (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your replacement of the SVGs in the infobox with PNGs. If there is a problem, the SVG files from Commons will be corrected, you should discuss it there, not replace the SVGs with files in PNG format. Also, your files are up for deletion on Commons, so replacing others with them is not prudent at this time.  Fry1989  eh?   00:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * that's ok..important to me is the right flag..lets talk about the red color.. in appendix one of the law 8926 the CMYK red color model should be

Eng        →→ in albanian C - 0%     →→  B - 0% M - 100%   →→   K - 100% Y - 100%   →→   V - 100% K - 0%     →→   Z - 0% Ilbiochimico (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman Period
Albanians lost all most half of their population in these dark times. In some books is considered as the first holocaust of the world. Scanderbeg it wasn't even mention at all nor that Albanians fought and freed Albania. Nor that Albanians were the first to be declared Athleta DiChristi.This paragraph is tooo long about how Albanians were used by the Ottoman Empire since the Albanians were smart, great warriors and the Turks couldn't defeat them, ok we got it. Albanians fought the Ottoman Empire and declared independence in 1912...What happened to the The War of Independence from the Turks??? Please help in this paragraph as it seems that is occupied by some not Albanians users with nationalistic agendas--Taulant23 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

please work add this :



The Ottoman Turks expanded their empire from Anatolia to the Balkans in the 14th century. By the 15th century, the Turks had brought under subjection nearly all of the Balkan peninsula except for a small coastal strip which is included in present-day Albania. Albanian resistance to the Turks in the mid-15th century won them acclaim all over Europe. Albania became a symbol of resistance to the Ottoman Turks but suffered an almost continuous state of warfare. One of the most successful resistance against the invading Ottomans, was led by Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg from 1443 to 1468.In 1443 he rallied Albanian forces and drove the Turks from his homeland. For 25 years, against tremendous odds, Skanderbeg kept the Turks from retaking Albania, which, due to its proximity to Italy, could easily have served as a springboard to the rest of Europe. After the death of Skanderbeg, resistance continued until 1478, although with only moderate success. The loyalties and alliances created and nurtured by Skanderbeg faltered and fell apart, and the Ottomans conquered the territory of Albania shortly after the fall of Kruje's castle. Albania then became part of the Ottoman Empire. They would remain a part of the Ottoman Empire as the provinces of İşkodra, Manastır and Yanya until 1912. --Taulant23 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The history section is fine the way it is now. No, we are not going to add unsourced nationalist POV about "the first holocaust in the world". Athenean (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not saying its true ( which it could be) but some books compare it to thousands of Albanians killed during the siege of Kruja, and specially after Skanderbegs death. It does makes sense though, they were the first to rebel to Ottoman Empire, lets give the others an example.--Taulant23 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "It does make sense" sounds very much like WP:OR. Do not attempt to edit-war your way here, you are already on very thin ice.  Propose specific, individual changes in the talk page, and we can talk about them.  And remember, everything has to be backed by sources, otherwise it won't go in the article.  Athenean (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Census results
According to Top Channel: Source

Nationality:
 * Albanian 83%
 * Refused to answer 14.07%
 * Greek 0.87%
 * Roma 0.3%
 * Aromun 0.3%
 * Macedonian 0.2%
 * Egyptian 0.12%
 * Montenegrin 0.01%
 * Others 0.1%

Religion: The199206 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Muslim 57.12%
 * Refused to answer 13.89%
 * Catholic 10.11%
 * Uncategorized believers 5.53%
 * Orthodox 6.8%
 * Bektashi (Bektashi Order) 2.11%
 * Evangelist 0.11%
 * Other Christians 0.1%
 * Atheist 2.52%
 * Other 0.2%


 * Maybe it would be better to present independent estimations than controversial 2011 census results which could mislead readers. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking into account that most minorities boycotted that census, I'm afraid that this will have the same fate of a similar census conducted in 2001.Alexikoua (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a forum where the results are published according to feelings and claims, or according to figures? How do you know that minorities boycotted the census? Do you live in Albania? Or you were part of the census team? (Edvin (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

"Censusi, 83.2% shqiptarë, vetëm 0.87% janë grekë TIRANE-Publikohen të dhënat për kombësinë dhe fenë, dy prej komponentëve më të rëndësishëm e të shumëpërfolur të censusit të popullsisë. Zyrtarisht, INSTAT do të raportojë shifrat më 13 dhjetor, por burime pranë këtij institucioni ofruan paraprakisht përfundimet e anketimit. Ndryshe nga më parë, numri i popullsisë është 2.821.977 persona. INSTAT raporton se, nga këta, janë numëruar si pjesëmarrës në census 2.800.138 persona. Sipas të dhënave, pyetjes që lidhet me kombësinë iu përgjigjën si shqiptarë 83.2%, ose 2.329.715 persona. Shifra që bën më shumë përshtypje është ajo e minoritetit grek. Në census tregohet se vetëm 0.87% e popullsisë, ose 24.361 kanë thënë se kanë kombësi greke. Censusi tregon një shifër tjetër prej rreth 14.07%, ose 393.979 persona nuk i janë përgjigjur pyetjes për kombësinë. Sidoqoftë, për saktësim, nga këta persona që nuk i janë përgjigjur pyetjes, 386.419 kanë treguar se flasin shqip. Debati dhe polemikat për këtë minoritet kanë qenë të gjera që në nisje të censusit dhe pritet të vijojnë pas publikimit të rezultateve. Shoqatat përfaqësuese të këtij minoriteti kanë kundërshtuar hapur censusin dhe kanë bërë thirrje për mospjesëmarrje. Kombësitë e tjera janë shumë pak. Sipas censusit, vetëm 1.03%, ose 20440 kanë deklaruar se janë romë, arumunë, maqedonas, egjiptianë, malazezë, dhe të tjerë… Në Shqipëri, sipas Censusit, ka 2,329,715 shtetas me kombësi shqiptare, 50,201 shtetas që deklarojnë kombësi të huaj dhe 393,979 shtetas që nuk e deklarojnë kombësinë.(Panorama/BalkanWeb)"

Clarification of results: 386 419 of those 393 979 Albanian citizens who didn't want to answer the question on the nationality answered that Albanian is their mother tongue, so claims that those who didn't want to answer about their nationality are Greeks, do not stand as if they were, they would answer that their mother tongue is Greek. (Edvin (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC))
 * This is school example of WP:OR and one of the reasons why I proposed not to use this controversial census. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source says nothing about people "boycotting" the census, but that 13% didn't answer that specific question. Bear in mind that an important part of Albania's population is composed of emigrants that could be "partly" registered i.e. certain fields remained blank. People that refuse to participate in the census are designated as such as demonstrated by the Serbian census, which was boycotted in Preshevë and of course the data reflected that category. That being said, we'll judge the official results of the census when they actually come out (Top Channel quotes an "unofficial source""). Btw the minorities results, which seem to interest Alexikoua and Antidiskriminator will probably be about the same. While the cherry-picking of sources to present a picture that doesn't correspond to RL is quite popular on-wiki, RL is much different i.e. nobody boycotted the census in areas like Dropull, judging by the 326 votes (total current population of the city:~32.000) that minority parties got in Gjirokastër for example the ~1% sounds about right and the only registered "Slavic-minorities only" party got about ~2000 votes countrywide. There are quantitative things that lead to straightforward deductions and allow no room for self-satisfactory interpretation i.e. facts. Just like Albanian nationalists have to deal with the fact that there isn't even an Albanian minority that can be rated as "substantial" in areas like Prilep, you have to deal with the fact that while there are minorities in Albania they add up to around ~2-3%.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are various sources in the article which claim that the procedures were inappropriate and immature. Typical example was the PDIU proposal, which was accepted by the Albanian government, to fine on anyone with 1,000$ that declared an ethnicity other than what was written down on his communist era birth certificate. On the other hand ethnic Albanians' 83.2% is also a negative record in the history of Albania.

Off course the Gjirokaster example contains some inaccuracies, since a number of local Greek canditates were elected with the DP and SP.Alexikoua (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In most countries you can even get sentenced to prison for falsifying your records (especially during a census period) so 1000$ sounds lenient even for the Balkans. Btw anyone who wants to change his ethnicity as indicated on his birth certificate can do so freely and that is registered. (How do you reckon that Albanians, Russians, Georgians etc. managed to leech off EU funds from the Greek state in the form of pensions/housing etc.. for 20+ years before it was realized that the operation was what colloquially is known as a "scam". As one "elder discussant" from Mursi said: And I will die as an Albanian...But for my present interests, if for example they give me the pension, I will cry long live..).


 * We can't possibly know such personal data but don't extrapolate/generalize issues for which you have no statistical data. Generally (excluding cases like the "elder discussant"), minority party votes are about the same as the total % of the minority in the community.
 * For example the Municipality of Tetovo had a population of which 70,3% declared itself as Albanian in 2002. The Albanian minority parties got a total of ~71% of the municipality votes in the 2011 elections.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In general I don't agree that someone should be fined today, because a past totalitarian regime decided to revoke his ethnic status, like in Himara, or wherever outside the 99 minority defined villages.

In fact the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Off course we can assume that a large part of the ones that didn't declared their ethnicity belong to minorities. Nevertheless the minority numbers are just one case of the bizarre results.Alexikoua (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a comment and a question...
 * First, I guess the comment: in my opinion, these results don't really tell us anything that all the independent surveys that have been done recently failed to get. It's already pretty much well-known that Albania is overwhelmingly ethnic Albanian, for example. There are a couple things in particular that one should be careful of when reading the results: first, the Muslims category probably includes a number of Bektashis who didn't specifically identify as Bektashi, the religious groups probably include many Albanians who vaguely identify with Islam/Christianity but don't practice it, and the results mask a lot of the religious mixing that no doubt occurs, especially in mixed families. The only interesting things to me are that, unlike 100 years ago, the census shows that Catholics outnumber Orthodox Christians. This would seem consistent with earlier Balkan monitor polls showing that the growth of irreligion progressed much further in the south than in the north, which would mean more Orthodox Christians abandoned a religious identity than Catholics, seeing as the former are mainly in the south and the latter are mainly in the north.
 * And then, the question... can someone explain the relation of this result with the earlier release of the preliminary results which said that 70% of Albanians didn't identify with a religious group (here: [])? Did it only count people who checked the box or something, or did the preliminary result only have urban areas or something? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. --Yalens (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Another conclusion is that the ethnic Albanian population is reduced to 83% of the total population, a minimum record if we consider that estimations and past censi put the percentage at 93%+.Alexikoua (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Alexikoua) Of those (~14%) that according to Top Channel didn't declare any ethnicity 386.419 out of 393.979 declared Albanian as their mother tongue, so we can't assume that a large part of them belong to minorities. Falsifying your personal data is a crime in every country regardless of the regime. Minority zones in Albania were decided in a quite democratic (as regards that era) manner in 1945-50. Delegates from each zone decided on their region's status, so Himarë wasn't included in any such zone because the delegation headed by Spiro Koleka (as voted by the local party committees) decided so. Btw while it was a totalitarian regime (indeed it brutally exterminated every perceived ideological opponent), it did recognize that it had minorities and offered them education and media in their mother tongue as well as complete access to important positions in the party based on their abilities (Kiço Mustaqi from Dropull served as Minister of Defence and even in the 1990s he remained a staunch defender of every single party policy). On the other hand, in south-eastern and eastern Europe of that era treatment of minorities ranged mostly from non-recognition to violent suppression.


 * (Yalens) These are politically affiliated articles by the Albanian media. Both Shekulli and Top Channel attribute their data to "unofficial ministry sources" and neither one has an actual source from the government. Electoral season is approaching so we'll be getting more (seemingly) widely diverging stats on every issue. AKZ (a self-proclaimed "patriotic" party) ran a statewide campaign to convince people to declare no religion/ethnicity/mother tongue in order to make the results on those fields non-publishable i.e. invalidate the figures on religion and minorities. Shekulli (affiliated with the Socialist Party) presented these figures on religious beliefs as a success of AKZ and now that electoral season is approaching Top Channel (also affiliated with the Socialist Party) is rehashing similar stories. Btw, AKZ is the third most popular party in the polls and it'll probably ally itself with the Socialist Party after the elections. - [[User:ZjarriRrethues| '— ZjarriRrethues''

—''' ]] talk 19:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But how can we reconcile the two enormously different results- and what is the reason for the huge discrepancy (is it different samplling or falsification?)? Which, or both, or neither, of the sources is reliable? And how should we treat both sources, the 70% no-declaration one and now this one? Should we cite both, or cite neither until the gov't publishes results (will it?)?--Yalens (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted this edit based on the discussion on this talkpage. Assertions supported by controversial census results should not be added to this article without consensus.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Albanian Census is part of Eurostat. These are the only official data about nationality in Albania. Anna Comnena (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (Yalens): I agree with you that there is no way to prove that the 14% were or weren't Albanians. The fact to assume that they were Albanians is just as possible as they were not.Alexikoua (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Anna C.): If you are eager to add this national data, before they are officially announced, why don't you add all of these data? And I mean the ethnic Albanian percentage too.Alexikoua (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added a link where they are officially announced. The data says that around 99% of respondents answered that their mother tongue is Albanian. I am trying to find the official document in English as well. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The link seems to be dead. Also language was a diferrent question than ethnicity, in this census. This is reasonable since we have numerous instances of social groups that mother tongue and ethnicity do not coincide.Alexikoua (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the link again. Please stop reverting. This official document states that 99.6% of respondents that refused to answer about their nationality, did indeed say that their mother tongue is Albanian. So, unless you have other data that state something else, those 14% that did not answer are Albanian. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is clear wp:or, confusing the one question with the other. I believe you should be more convicing by tranforming the decision of the 14% who didn't declare its ethnicity to Albanian. By the way the above url is dead.Alexikoua (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Another very interesting analysis would be the distribution of the number of refusals (13.96%) and invalid responses or undetermined (1.58%) on ethno-cultural affiliation. I refer to these figures, shows that 99.6% of them stated language native Albanian, 0.15% Greek, Roma 0.04%, 0.04% Aromanian and 0.03% Macedonian said today Instat in a press release. The199206 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

@Anna and The199206: The "censusi" is clearly defective. People were threatened with jail time and fines regarding the declaration of ethnicity (and this is sourced and in the text. The stuff about the "mother tongue" means nothing at all, and saying that everyone who stated "Albanian" as their mother tongue is ethnically Albanian is WP:OR.  There are better sources available, there is absolutely no reason we should use a problematic census (should we add that Albania is 83% Albanian? Because that's what the census says). Athenean (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The census figures should definitely be included in the demographics section, along with what's already there, and the controversy regarding it should be stated clearly. And even if 99.6% of the refusals claimed Albanian as their mother tongue, that tells us nothing with regards to their ethnicity. It does seem reasonable to assume that they're ethnic Albanians, but we can't assume here. -- Local hero talk 21:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a good proposal. Demographic section should be amended with controversial census results along with already existing data and with clarification about the controversy of the results. Infobox should remain unchanged to avoid misleading of the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Although your personal opinion is very important, calling the census defective without a reliable source would be fallacious. These data are official and backed by Eurostat. If we are going to find a better way to reflect the data in the article, I would agree to explain everything as it is, so that the reader can decide how they interpret it. —46.99.35.11 (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What "official and back by Eurostat" data? This is an article by Top Channel that cites an unnamed source.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are already some sources in the article that claim exectly that, not to mention that various groups decided to boycott.Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Antidiskriminator and Local Hero. The census can be discussed in the Demographics section, along with the criticisms and problems associated with it, but it is utterly unfit for the infobox. Athenean (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You should put data on the infobox, but that data that Greeks are up to 6% should be changed. The only argument that it used to have it, is that there are estimations that they can be 6%, but these estimations were never based on facts. We cannot keep in Wikipedia things which are based on estimations, when the facts show repeatedly the opposite. Your logic is flawed as well. Do you think that an ethnic Greek living in Albania would have Albanian as his mother tongue?(Edvin (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC))


 * There is an official publication, the final version of the results here. BTW, the whole section about the religion needs to be rewritten. There are official results about religion, but the article states that Albania does not include religious affiliation, which is wrong. The official publications states how many people are Muslims, Christians and other. Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree4 with MacedonianBoy. Here are now official data from the census 2011. If you have any RELIABLE source that says these statistics are not correct, please bring the links forward. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here you have the official main results from the census Population_and_housing_census_Albania_2011. The report is in English, and issued by INSTAT. Given that official censuses are the basis for the official data we have here in Wikipedia, then we should accept it as the official data for 2011. The data can be discussed in the demographics of Albania. The large percentage of people who didn't want to disclose their ethnicity, should be explained that it was a political call by Aleanca Kuq e Zi (Red and Black Alliance). (Edvin (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC))


 * However, it needs to be mentioned in the text that Greeks can declare as such only in the South, Macedonians only in Pustec and Montenegrin near Skadar. Outside these regions, Macedonians, Greeks and Montenegrins were not allowed to declare their nationality and language and that was one of the main reasons to boycott the census. Also, something of topic, why there are so many undeclared citizens in Albania? The number is huge.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not correct. Nobody asked you a certificate when you filled the census. And nobody was charged or there was no news that somebody gave a false ethnicity. I gave a false ethnicity myself for example, an ethnicity which is not found in Albania, not in the Balkans. Nobody charged me, or accused me for that, although I am clearly not member of that nation. Some people put as their ethnicity "Congolese", "Neanderthal", or "Space alien", but none of them was charged or not allowed to do that.

The big number of undeclared citizens is large due to the call from the Red and Black Alliance party to its supporters to not declare their ethnicity in the census. This is the 3rd largest party in Albania, according to the polls. (Edvin (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC))


 * The number of people who boycotted the census is around 21,839 according to data. But of course all this should also be mentioned. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that Macedonians are only recognized in Pustec and Greeks (I think) in Gjirokaster. This is what the Albanian state did and what the Albanian minorities were arguing before, during and after the census. It is not my personal opinion. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Macedonian Boy, do you have any source to back that claim. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can read UNHCR report about it. Since I am not familiar with the Albanian laws, I cannot find it online. However, this is just a note that needs to be considered, the census results are census results and they are priority above all estimates.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but nowhere it is stated or claimed that only the population of these villages were allowed to declare themselves as Greek or Macedonian. In fact if you read the PDF from Instat you can find the methodology used for 2011 census. This does not mean though, that the data from UNHCR should not be added in the article. The link is very helpful. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the UNHCR article, I can find these: "Albania is the only neighbouring country which recognizes the status of the Macedonian ethnic minority, but restricts it to the region of Mala Prespa" and "The Albanian government recognizes as Macedonian only the minority living in the Prespa area and excludes Macedonians living in other areas, especially those in Golo Brdo who are mainly Muslim". BTW, UNHCR provides separate articles about each national and cultural minority in Albania. Best --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That article was published in 2008 and refers to the minority zones of the 1989 census. It can't possibly refer to any details of the 2011 census.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great Macedonian. I think it would be great to have that data on the article. Are you up for helping me update these data. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. My idea was (regarding demographics and religion) first to write down the official census results. After that we can add that in the past censuses ethnicity and religion were not considered. At last we can add the estimates by CIA, UNHCR etc. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the infobox is to show informtation that is both important and straightforward at a glance, to help readers.  Anything complicated or controversial, anything that needs explanation (such as this census), is by definition unfit for the infobox. Athenean (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism (?)
Someone (User:80.78.78.168 ?) has changed the page to say that Edi Rama is Prime Minister. It was changed in the infobox, under "Government, politics and armed forces" and under "executive branch". Could someone please fix it? 75.44.58.24 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Demographics section updates
I am putting paragraphs here so we can edit them together.

The Albanian population is relatively young by European standards, with a median age of 30.6 years. After 1990 the Albanian population has faced new phenomena like migration, which greatly affected the distribution by districts and prefectures. Between 1991 and 2004, roughly 900,000 people have migrated out of Albania, about 600,000 of them settling in Greece.[67] Districts in the North have seen a decreasing population, while Tirana and Durrës districts have increased their population, due to internal immigration.

—Anna Comnena (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole paragraph contradicts the last official census:

"There are no official statistics regarding religious affiliation in Albania. The CIA World Factbook gives a distribution of 70% Muslims, 20% Eastern Orthodox, and 10% Roman Catholics.[81] A Pew Research Center demographic study from 2009 put the percentage of Muslims in Albania at 49.9%.[82] In 2009 According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, 38.8% of Albanians are Muslim, 16.1% Orthodox, 16.8% Roman Catholics and Nonreligious 16.6%.[83] According to the US State Department, estimates for active participation in religious services are between 25 and 40%.[84] Gallup Global Reports 2010 shows that religion plays a role to 39% of Albanians, and puts Albania in the list of the 14 least religious countries in the world, with Albania the thirteenth least religious country in the world.[85] According to the 2011 census 70% of Albanians didn't declare any religion.[86]"

This needs to be redone.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, we should rewrite this one. —46.19.228.27 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's no wonder that the above paragraph contradicts the 2011 census since the latter was accused for a number of serious irregularities. It would be better to emphazise on the questionable nature of the census, since we have plenty of rs to support it. I don't see something wrong with the specific paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you produce any reliable sources that "emphasize the questionable nature of the census"?As far as we can see there was no boycotting or other such irregularity that would have shown up in the stats. Btw we should wait for the countywide results.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Today a declaration was signed by all Albanian minorities claiming that they do not accept the census and its results. I could find this news in English. Probably there is more in Albanian.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(unintend)There's one reliable source on the issue and it deals it in a quite straightforward manner. Btw Alexikoua if there's any anonymous submission of articles to citizen blogs (i.e. "balkanchronicle"), which will suddenly be used as sources, I'll contact the website myself and ask for contact details and then go on to AE.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The specific article is written by a specialist in Albanian politics, so I don't thing that it would be a problem using it. Since the results are fresh news, we will propably see additional publications during the following period. The specifc census was boycotted by the local minorities (its just a tiny sample of various well known newspapers), as the representatives of the 8 main minority groups clearly declared. It also provoked international reactions.


 * Moreover another problematic issue was the accepted proposal of the ultranationlist PDIU party, to fine 1,000$ every citizen that declared an ethnicity different from what was written down on his or her dictorship Hoxha era birth certificate, since before 1989, a great number of minority members was forced to renounce its minority status.[] Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the sources these organizations called for a boycott of the census, but as you can see the census was conducted and apparently there was no boycott. Of course we'll check the countywide results and confirm any issues, however, interpreting a call for boycott as a fact that happened and was supported by a community is OR. As the total number of voters for all these parties and organizations doesn't even reach 60,000 I highly doubt that they could have any kind of influence on any result.


 * The last article was published on December 2011 and according to it some organizations would sue the Albanian government at ECHR. Apparently, that didn't happen too, therefore there's nothing to include.
 * That being said, can we please stop with the repeating of such info? Anyone who wanted to change such data was free to do so in any given time since collapse of the Communist regime and he would have been registered as such in the census.
 * If we're mentioning such issues the one definite organization that should be mentioned is AKZ(3rd party so far in the 2013 elections polls), which didn't call for a boycott but for a refusal to answer the ethnicity/religious affiliation questions, which 14% indeed didn't answer and of those 386.419 out of around 394.000 answered that Albanian was their mother tongue.
 * Btw in order not to have any kind of edit-wars and other such unpleasant events can we work on drafts for every issue?
 * As a last point allow me to say that of course minority organizations are going to protest the results, as they do everywhere in the Balkans. However, unlike other countries in the Balkans they're mild press conferences that are forgotten immediately. The Albanian community in RoM basically stopped the census, that in Serbia boycotted and the Presh. valley is now a statistical black hole, Bosniaks and Serbs are still fighting over the census in BiH, so compared to the general situation of the region nothing really happened, because there are no ethnic divisions and bickering. The population regardless of the census has much more important things to deal with other than nationalist bickering.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note to one comment. We will see what happens to the minorities, since it all minorities protested, something is wrong. Albanians did not block the census in Macedonia, the government did because of irregularities and fringe ideas of what is census. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the fundamental misinterpretation of your thesis. Groups that claimed to represent minorities called for a boycott and then they claimed that they would sue the state authorities (neither happened). What you have to understand not just due to your views being OR, but because of the basics of group dynamics is that claiming to represent someone is not equal to actually representing them. As for the RoM census, per the ample reports we now have it doesn't look like a conscious decision.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, I forgot that there were problems reported regarding the Macedonian citizens that live outside the country. People that live for more than 10 years in European countries were counted as residents of Macedonia (either to achieve that 20% of the total population or other reasons I do not care). The fact it that Macedonia faces the same problem as Albania, people move out. The efforts to show artificial data that in Macedonia live more than 2 million people is useless and has short-term results. However, this talk page is not about Macedonia, but about Albania. Therefore, we know that there won't be any changes regarding the census in Albania, even if all minorities boycott the census, because similar situations have happened in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and all other Balkan countries. The point is that the reactions need to be mentioned and taken into consideration. As far as I could see, other users removed the last census data from the infobox and article. Let us rewrite these two sections because it is a mess. There are several sources claiming different things and when I first read the demographics section I was totally confused. Different data for the same country. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * have some objections in a number of arguments you provide which seem to be weak:


 * The fact that the organizations didn't sued the Albanian government at ECHR yet doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. Actually the major minorities have declared that a another census is on its way which counts their numbers according to modern democratic standarts.
 * Why they haven't registered as non-Albanians in the census... Because they can't. In fact after proposal of ultranationlistic groups (i.e. red&white al.) the supreme court revoked its former decision, [], i.e. every Hoxha era supposed ethnic Albanian is still considered as such.
 * As you claim these organization do not even reach 60,000. (?)... Where you know that? If you base your conclusion on past election results, you have to add the number of the under-aged (-18) population (unless in Albania, children vote too) and the over-aged (never heard people could vote at home, in contrast to the census personell who was supposed to visit every home). So, we can easily conclude that the 60k becames easily 90-100,000+, i.e. over 3%. This number is quite reasonble since the population decrease in the southern districts is enormous (only in case of war we see such dramatic changes).
 * Another case is the supposed democratic manner the communist dictatorship defined minority zones in the past. In fact even academics that have been considered slightly pro-Albanian, refer to the socialist republic of Albania as the European equivalent of North Korea (Petiffer), while it adapted stalinist principles [][][], i.e. persecuted minorities and revoked minority status, like in the case of Himara in 1945.Alexikoua (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand I agree that the result of ths census should be mentioned in the relevant section, as one of the many estimations. Off course we should includ all the irregularities and reactions this procedure provoked and how is this accepted in Albania and abroad.Alexikoua (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

§ Current demographics section needs to be aligned with latest census data. Piasoft (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I propose that the official 2011 census be included similarly to the demographic section of Montenegro Montenegro. That would solve the issue of the undeclared and will provide necessary clarity (some explanation can be included if wanted). Claims of census irregularities by minorities should also be included. Please refrain yourselves from obvious ethnocentric views and provide some relevant sources for claims. Outside claims for minority numbers can be included as well provided that they are up to date and reflect the huge population movement and migration. Sources such as Macedonians and Greeks Join Forces against Albanian Census which make claims for some 1 million minorities i would say are not the most credible and i think make more damage to minorities claims than justice. I would contribute myself but i don't have the time or will to fight the nationalists mills. Contary to my expectations i hope some maturity and rationality can be shown. Purusbonum (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The proper article to deal with any issues in detail is Demographics of Albania. Anonymously submitted articles to citizen blogs indeed aren't credible. Btw any kind of argumentum ad stalinum belongs somewhere near the bottom of the disagreemnt hierarchy, however, if you want to examine the treatment of cultural minorities by the Communist regime we can compare it to the other states of southeastern Europe both modern and of that era. "How many states did/do recognize that have minorities in the region and how are their educational and political rights protected in those states?" would be a good question to start that debate. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you misunderstood me Zjarri Purusbonum (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)