Talk:Albania

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 [1], 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)

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 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 [[2]] 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 [[3]].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 [4] 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source? 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:

• "History of Albania". Lonely Planet. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/albania/history. Retrieved 5 January 2012. 
• Elsie, Robert. "1913 The Conference of London". http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1913_2.html. Retrieved 5 January 2012. 

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)