Jump to content

Talk:Albania: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ottomanist (talk | contribs)
383 edits
Line 157: Line 157:
:::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. [[User:Ottomanist|Ottomanist]] ([[User talk:Ottomanist|talk]]) 20:19, 26 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. [[User:Ottomanist|Ottomanist]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 20:34, 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. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ottomanist|Ottomanist]] ([[User talk:Ottomanist|talk]]) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:20, 2 July 2012

Template:Article probation Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]

There is a general incosistency with the numbers presented by unpo (here [[1]] 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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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 [[2]].Alexikoua (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]
Because UNPO is not a reliable source. This book [3] 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)[reply]
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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
  • Elsie, Robert. "1913 The Conference of London". 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
No, as explained in the Sancak of Albania talk page, you have misunderstood the issue. Ottomanist (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. There was never anything called an 'Albanian sanjak'
  2. the photo is not appropriate because it only covers a very narrow time-period and leaves out large swaths of present-day Albania
  3. I think the issue here is more aesthetic - the photo looks tacky (cheap).
  4. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albania&oldid=500370180"