Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::Liburnians are an Illyrian tribe, so no problems there.] (]) --Sulmues 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Liburnians are an Illyrian tribe, so no problems there.] (]) --Sulmues 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::No they are Liburnians and the location( ] ) is irrelevant, so is this quote from Pliny.] (]) 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::No they are Liburnians and the location( ] ) is irrelevant, so is this quote from Pliny.] (]) 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Liburnians were an Illyrian tribe, but I see that Misplaced Pages has made sure to bring them out of Illyria. Mission impossible now to fix all this mess. ] (]) --Sulmues 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
Albanians is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
````
Can someone explain where the alleged terms "Arbanios, Arbanitai" appear in Polybius.
and then hasn't anyone noticed that Polybius' Arbona is too far North to have any relation to Ptolemy's Albanopolis. The text (2.11) is refering to the islands of the Adriatic (the blockading of Issa) hence the reference to Rhizon (today known as Rizan which is situated in Montenegro) and Pharon (the Adriatic island known as Hvar).. one wouldn't go too far to suggest that his (Polybius') Arbona is the island of Arba mentioned by Pliny (John Bostock and Henry Thomas Riley in their notes suggest that Arba and Crexa were ancient Cherso)
hasn't anyone noticed that the Olbonenses in Pliny (3.21) are too far North to have any connection to the later Albanopolis since he mentions that they belong to the jurisdiction of Scardona, (today Skradin located in Croatia)?
There are large Albanian colonies found in Pakistan notably in and around the urban cities of Karachi as well as in the capital. These colonies are rather large and sustain entire communities with Albanians and Bosnians who settled in Pakistan during the civil war of Yugoslavia. These settlements include schools, community centres, and vovational training centres. I dont know the exact numbers, but am quite sure, judging by the size of these colonies that figure must be @ 5000-15000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.226.198 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Population figures???
Can someone PLEASEcite some reliable sources for the Albanian population figures. I think that by now, it's quite obvious that that table is full of POV and propaganda. You can't "pretend" that 99% of the earth's population is Albanian. I'm going to try and find sources (some of you may want to look up that word) regarding the number of Albanians. Any help is welcome. Rex18:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Two recent academic papers which give some quotable figures are Migration and Development in Albania and Migration and Ethnicity in Albania. For the number in Greece, the second is more accurate, but you can cite my survey for the Greek Interior Ministry -- although I did not give a precise figure in the publication. My estimate is 650.000 for 2004 (cf Barjaba at 600.000). If you need more help, email me through our website address. Martin Baldwin-Edwards Mediterranean Migration Observatory
Changed data
Do not change numbers or analysis of the data concerning Albania and Greece without discussion in this page. Someone changed the total of Albanians in Greece to 1m and also the analysis in the text, linking Arvanites with recent Albanian emigrations. THIS NATIONALIST ALTERATION OF DATA IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR WIKIPEDIA. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards02:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The above comments apply to the entire Table which I have reverted. There is no justification for putting any number at all for Turkey, without evidence of Albanian ethnic identity of those in Turkey. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards11:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Martin. Please cite your sources on Albanian immigration into Greeve. As for the issue of Albanians in Turkey, albanians deported to Turkey arent really "Albanians" anymore but rather "Turks with Albanian roots".
Turkey did take in some Kosovare Albanians as refugees recently because the Kosova War. Im sure you could add them into the article as they self identify as Albanians and should also speak Albanian, as opposed to Turkish albanians who are mostly integrated into mainstream Turkish society.
I dont believe that there are only 30000 albanians in Britain, this is either 10 years out of date or an extreme under estimate, the figure is closer to 1 million or at least in the hundreds of thousands, according to the table there are as many Albanians in Britain as there are in Sweden! And no source is stated! Angryafghan14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
TURKEY SECTION
I would like to know why the Turkey section says "Albanians considered themselves Turks before Albanians". That was the single most disturbing tatement I had ever heard and a "youtube journalist" is not a good citation. Please Lord Jesus Christ someone change the Turkey section...I'm a Catholic-Albanian I got no problems with Muslims most Albanians are muslim, but NOT TURKISH and Don't consider themselves turkish...I'm very disgusted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.123.58 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Religion Section
(albananians of kosovo)
what a hell is that???!! 70% of albanians in kosovo are muslims?!!!!! how would that be possible or u meant 70% of albanians in albania???? and 90% of albanians in macedonia are muslims??!!! it is well known info that 99% of albanians in macedonia,95% of kosova and 70% of albania are muslims ................ idont know from where u get this informations do u people invent it???!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike monotheist (talk • contribs) 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Today, majority of Albanians are Muslims. Most of them are Sunni-Muslims but a smaller part are Bektashi. Also smaller parts of Albanians are Albanian Orthodoxes and Catholics. In the albanian comunity, religion is a personal thing and belief, while everybody are Albanians.
For most of its history, Albania has had a noticeable Jewish community. Most of this community was saved by the Albanian people during the Nazi occupation . The majority of Albanian Jews have left to settle in Israel, but a small number still remains .
Starting with the occupation by the Ottomans, the majority of Albanians have been Muslim. During the Ottoman occupation, the shared religion of Islam created a tendency for Muslim Albanians to side with their occupiers and thus become considered enemies by the Catholic Albanians. Gradually over time this changed as Muslim Albanians decided that their ethnicity and Albanian identity outweighed the religion they acquired from their occupiers. Although at times in the past religious differences caused hostility and tensions amongst the Albanian people, in the 21st century this has become less of an issue.
For most of its history, Albania has had a noticeable Jewish community. Most of this community was saved by the Albanian people during the Nazi occupation . The majority of Albanian Jews have left to settle in Israel, but a small number still remains .
His objections, as stated in the edit summary are: "Revert POV. This ain´t history so give me the situation today and not 500 years ago, specilly when it´s no proof."
My problems with the changes he wants (besides the grammar errors which are easily fixable with a bit of copy editing - and understandable as he is apparently not a native English speaker) are:
for some reason, he keeps unwikilinking Sunni and Bektashi, and changing Roman Catholic to just Catholic.
the history is very relevant to the article. The legacy of Ottoman occupation has impacts to this day on the entire Balkan region. I can't see any serious dispute that the Ottoman occupation is the reason Islam took root in Albania, but if challenged I'll go dig up sources.
The sentence "In the albanian comunity, religion is a personal thing and belief, while everybody are Albanians" is inaccurately POV, in that relgious tensions do persist to this day although much reduced. For example, here is a project aimed at increasing religous harmony in Albania: Religious Harmony Project in Albania I'm sure more sources could be found.
as a general matter, history is very appropriate for an article like this, as long as the current conditions are also prominently included
I believe the existing section fairly reflects that there has been religious conflict in Albania, and that it is less of a problem today. But I'm certainly open to discussion and/or changes. CarbonCopy(talk)20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Allright. Yes, I speak Bosnian and not so good English. I´m sorry that Sunni and Bektashi wasn´t linked I didn´t thinh about that. But the thing is that Albanians are ONE nation. And I don´t just mean Albania I mean Kosovo, Macedonia and all other regions to. Shure maybe some smaller parts don´t agree, but so can two Albanians also fight about hows town is best Prishtina or Prizren? Of course this is stupid as religios fights but in some exeptions it happens, but should we write that Albanians from different cities don´t get along? I am a Bosniak and many people in Bosnia fight over hows town is the best but should we write that in the Bosniaks article. Of course not! A man that declaire him self as an Albanian where ever he livs, what ever religion he is, poor or rich is an Albanian and writing about conflicts isn´t that good. Specilly sens most Albanians I know don´t even think about where they are from and what religion they are, the important thing is that they are Albanians. You can change the article how ever you want but please don´t right about some religios conflicts and such things if you ain´t gonna right about city-conflicts, conflicts between rich and poor and al sorts of conflicts. And I have never herd about a war between Albanians of any cause and onastly, writing about problems that ain´t even there can cause them. Specilly when you say that catholic and muslim are enemies even if they are the same people. Thanks... —the preceding unsigned comment is byDr. Muu (talk • contribs)
How about the following replacement for the second paragarph? Does this address your concerns? In particular, I eliminated the word "enemies". (Note I'm not the original author of this section, but I have contributed some rewriting.)
During the occupation by the Ottomans, the majority of Albanians converted to Islam. The shared religion between Muslim Albanians and their Ottoman occupiers, and their different status under Ottoman law, caused divisions between Muslim and non-Muslim Albanians. Gradually over time these divisions have been reduced as Albanians decided that their ethnicity and Albanian identity outweighed their religious differences. Although at times in the past religious differences caused hostility and tensions amongst the Albanian people, in the 21st century this has become a relatively minor issue in Albania.
Allright, I agree. As I said i´m not Albanian but i´m interested in Albanian history. Can you give me a link about good history and if you can let it be in Bosnian. And this is just a friendly question, are you Albanian and do you for sure now about times when Albanians have fougt becuse of religion? Most Bosnians thing that religion isn´t an issue in the Albanian people, is that true?User:Dr. Muu
No, I'm not Albanian myself. There was definitely civil conflict in Albania in the 1910-1924 time period, and again during World War II. It's hard to clearly distinguish the causes, as external wars and ordinary economic and political conflicts were undoubtedly significant factors. Italian links to Roman Catholic institutions caused some conflict in the late 1930's, but the problems probably had more to do with Italian Fascist political ambitions than religion. I can't help you with Bosnian resources, since I don't speak/read the language. I'll take what is above and some other edits that have been made and see if we have a better section now. CarbonCopy(talk)01:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes CarbonCopy I think you made a god site. I just want to ask if the part about Jews is in place their. Becuse this is an article about Albanians as a nation and people and not about Albania as a country. The Jews in Albania wasn´t/are not Albanians nationally, they only lived in Albania. If somone hase other statments please give them but this way I don´t thnik this is relevant in the article about reiligion in the Albanian people. That´s why I also think you should make a dostens between Greek otrhodoxes(is that how you spell it?) and ALbanian ortothoxes in Albania becuse they are not the same. And I think that the leader of the Albanian Churc hase to be Albanian and not Greek.Dr. Muu
Inanna, here is the main reason why I reverted your edits. Firstly, you replaced many cited numbers with uncited ones. You also replaced "Turkey's public administration and administrative law is a citizenship policy with ideally no ethnic consideration" with "many Albanians, who were deported from their land to Turkey, have been assimilated due to the assimilation policy of Turkish government". These are two very different claims. I'd be nice if you could let us know where you got the latter information.
You also removed "August of 2003 was marked by renewed terrorist attacks by the ANA (Albanian National Army) both against Serb border guards and (allegedly) Serb civilians". Why?
Lastly, you removed the link to Albania and Greece in the "See also" section. You mentioned on your talk page that you "hate Greeks" , but I hope that you removed this link for a different reason.
1-) I dont know what articles you are talking about.I didnt remove anything.
2-) You have to expain me where did you get that unfair information at first."In Turkey, Turkish demographers have continuously mentioned numbers up to five million. However, many Albanians, who were deported from their land to Turkey, have been assimilated due to the assimilation policy of Turkish government. Turkey does not compile official census figures for Albanians." This is completly lie.It is only provacation to create enmity between albanians and Turks.The everyone are defined as Turks who lives in Turkey except for three nations who has minorty status (greeks,armenians and jews).
3-) Even i have never seen that article.I think it's one of your insidious plans again.
4-) I understood one more time by your friend's commment why i should hate them ].
I'm talking about this article. Your claims are POV and uncited. How do you know that Albanians are completely assimilated? Also, I have never heard of User:GreekWarrior before Latinus told me about him, so how could he be my friend? --Khoikhoi08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You have not showed "resources". Just because you have a lot of Albanian friends who speak Turkish doesn't mean that all Albanians are assimilated into the Turkish. What kind of logic is that? You don't have real evidence, because you have not shown your "resources". --Khoikhoi02:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Aromanians - don't you mean Arvanites?
The page has just been protected but there is a grave error on it. The article claims that the Aromanians are an Albanian group in Greece. The Aromanians are Vlachs and speak a Vlach language. I'd imagine the article means Arvanites.--Damac14:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, under the Greece section it should say Arvanites. The Aromanians are an ethnic group who speak a language close to Romanian (Romance language) and are not Albanian. The Arvanites are the Christian Albanians of Greece. So whoever can edit the page please make this fix. Also, although the number of speakers may be 30,000, the number of ethnic Arvanites is much higher than that. Imperial78.
the Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina-answer
Dear Sir ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
I was wondering if you could help me, by sending me information on an exact or approximately number of Albanians living in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Many thanks in advance!
Awaits to hear from you!
best regards,
..... .....
answer:
Drear Mr. .....,
first of all I would like to express our sincere thankfulness for your kind e-mail.
Having in mind your question which you sent us a few days ago, I would like to inform that we got data regarding how many Albanians are living in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from one of representatives of Albanian population in BH.
According to the data in Bosnia and Herzegovina are leaving between 10 and 12 thousand Albanians (approximately).
If you have any questions please let us know.
Sincerely,
The section with the Aromanians needs to be removed. Aromanians are not Albanians and therefore needs to be removed from the page. Imperial78
Since editing is closed off - please fix the pop est for Albanians in the US. It is NOT 300 000. US Census (2006) puts its at 113 661. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkmx (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the person below who said that you cannot just make up all those numbers and publish them on the internet, as far as the population census goes!!!!!8 million Albanians??? Give me a break!!!!!!!! NOt only that the Greek-Albanian population is overestimated (one million people)- which cannot be proved cause Greece doesn't classify people in that way (which clearly leaves a lot of room for the manipulations), but Kosovo population also!!! Where did you get the number of 2,2 million Albanians in that province?!?!It's certainly not according to UNMIK estimates that put the entire population of Kosovo to about 2 million (out of which 1,7 million are Albanians)!!!!!!!I personally see the number of 6,5 million Albanians quite reasonable (that's the number that Misplaced Pages was using until just a while ago)! You cannot pretend that ALbanians are the largest ethnic group in the Balkans, cause that simply isn't true! 3,5 million in Albania + 1,7 million in Kosovo + 0,5 million in Macedonia= 5,7 million + approximately 1 million worldwide, out of which one half in Greece. Those are the official data that you can check anywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by194.106.169.155 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 23 February 2006.
Hello to everyone.
I would like to write some remarks and figures about number of Albanians in the Balkans and the World. First figure; Albanians in Germany 10.500. This figure is quite incorrect because the number of Albanians in Germany is way larger than it appears on the sample. You can check german offically data about numbers of Former Yugoslavia (2), the number there is 381.563 the largest ethnicity among them are Albanians, Serbia Montenegro (3),the number there is 125.765 even from them there are quite big number of Albanians due to the fact that UNMIK Travel Documents issued to K.Albanians are considered as citizens of Serbia and Montenegro.
I saw a comment posted in wikipedia where somebody wrote it that there are 1.700.000 million Albanians in Kosovo, because total population of Kosovo numbers 2.000.000 million. This records are old 25 years, because last time population in Kosovo was registered was in 1981, since then there was no official records. Kosovo has the highest growth of population in Europe.Kosovo Government is going to register the Kosovo population next year, so far, they had some tests about registration. According to them Kosovo population numbers 2.550.000, over 91% of them albanians.
If I may give you just one interesting figure about Albanians in USA. In 1981 city with largest number of Albanians in the world was Boston, so you can just search for numbers of Albanians in capitol Tirana in year 1981 and you can just compare the number given in USA and the number of Albanians in Boston, and hopefully you can draw a fair and correct conclusion.
Regarding Switzerland, number of Kosovar Albanians alone is over 220.000. Switzerland Foreign Minister said: "Kosovar Albanians number in Switzerland is equal to 10 % of Kosovo population".
Yes there most be far more than 10500 albanians in germany.Its impossible for only 10500 albanians to make so much criminality.Maybe the 10500 german count is the albanians sitting in jail there?
Woohookitty restored protection, but has since said that he's bowing out of the page protection business for now. I've applied on WP:RFPP for unprotection again. --Tony Sidaway12:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, religious harmony in Albania is not as much of an issue as you might think. For the most part, Albanians tend to identify themselves mostly based on their ethnicity (with religion playing a distant second in their identity). As a result of Enver Hoxha's rule in Albania, religion was stifled. Most Albanians who have emerged from under Communism have no real affiliation with organized religion. Some have re-discovered religion, however, any hostilities between Albanians are probably personal in nature and not based on a religious divide.
I think one should make a clear distinction between the Albanians in Kosovo and those in Presheva valley. Not instead include them under SCG Federation. Kosovo has its own population census. Thank you, Ilir pz22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense, if the have the figures broken down to include them separately. On a more practical side though, it makes the infobox really really long. The Albanian population in S&M is already analyzed in the "Population" section. Until S&M actually break up (pending), they are still one state and should be treated as such. Not to mention that I have a feeling that each state of the USA has its own censi as well. You haven't broken those figures up yet. --NikX00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Pjetër, please relaise you are about to go over 3RR. I assume you are not happy with Kosovo being listed as part of Serbia and Montenegro? Well, I am afraid that this is out of discussion at least till the Geneva talks end. As for UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1244(1999) of 2 June 1999 (S/1999/649, annex 2 to this resolution), The UN reafirms the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region. Hence, Kosovo is still formally a province of Serbia and any mention should acknowledge this. Regards, Asterion01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
some people are determined to vandalize every page that has SOMETHING to do with Albanians. Well, I am more determined to protect them. This IS the relevant information, the current version. As long as Kosova's status is not resolved, the statistics and figures should refer to it as an entity, and not indirectly through any other neighbouring country, and claiming that it is a part of it. It is an entity under UN administration. Talks are taking place in Vienna, not Geneva. Kosova has its constitutional framework, which defines it as an compact entity, and it has its democratically elected government and parliament. Please refer to rather updated sources , the statement which determines what is about to happen with Kosva. So there is no return of Kosovo to the pre-1999 situation, no partition of Kosovo, and no union of Kosovo with any or part of another country. Live with it, and stop your nationalist-revert-war and vandalization of wiki pages with Albanian content. That is not wikipedia like. Ilir pz10:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Lazy reverts are not allowed as they're immensely unconstructive and disruptive. If you want Kosovo listed separately, there is justification for doing to and can be done - just do it properly, not by eliminating other people's work in the process. While the article should make clear that Kosovo is still part of S&M, the Kosovo population should be listed separately. However, Montenegro, should not (at least not in the infobox - it is already mentioned in the population section and the figures are fully analyzed there). --NikX10:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about saying whether Kosovo is a part of any country or not. Your reverts seem to be the "lazy" type, of copy pasting. This article should list Kosovo as separate, and say that it is a disputed region under UN administration. This way you would not fuel the revert war that is going on, unfortunately, in the rest of pages that have to do with Albanians. Some people are just determined (and I could freely guess, that even paid, due to their determination) to change content of any page that has something to do with Albanians. That is sad to see. I will remove any label here that predicts the status of Kosova, as this is not the place to do that. Thank you, Ilir pz10:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No one knows about what will happen, this is not the article to discuss Kosovo. I'm merely suggesting two sets of figured Kosovo and the rest of S&M in the infobox. S&M can then be analysed separately in the population section and that is what is already being done. As much as you don't like it, Kosovo is part of S&M today, so the article cannot be misleading. No one knows what will happen tomorrow and you are welcome to include a footnote to reflect that. However, lengthy explanations of the UN administration do not belong in the infobox and certainly do not belong in the first paragraph. --NikX10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Now it is fine. It is not mentioning the status or anything, just talking population-wise. Let other pages discuss what part is of what part, ok? great! See? we can reach consensus. Ilir pz10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
OK - I have listed Serbia and Montenegro subcategorized into Kosovo, Central Serbia and Montenegro. I have also specified that Kosovo is a UN administrated territory - happy? --NikX10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No, not happy, because you again predict its status, by listing it as a part of SCG. I do NOT agree with it here. It is not a place to talk about the status. Call your reason, please!!!Ilir pz11:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not predicting the status; there's no point in predicting the status. Kosovo is now part of Serbia and Montenegro - that's the reality. You are presenting it as if it's independent when clearly it's not. We can list it separately, but only if we make clear that it is currently part of S&M. According to my version, Kosovo is a UN administrated territory in Serbia and Montenegro - the future is unknown. What is inaccurate? --NikX11:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
and who are you to say what can "only" be acceptable for the article? it surprises me that you even reply to people in "miupafshim". Is that a way to mislead who you really are or what? I am not stating anywhere that Kosova is independent, it will be, soon, but I did not say that in the article. Instead I thought we agreed to have Kosova be represented separately, and suddenly your nationalistic pulse jumped up and you reverted it backing sending me threats what can "only" be acceptable for you. You DO NOT OWN the article, buddy. Take care, Ilir pz20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Nenë Tereza
I'm sorry guys, but Mother Teresa cannot be in the infobox. Her image is a fair use only image and cannot be used this way. I don't know why you're objecting; Skanderbeg is Albania's national hero, he certainly belongs in the infobox. I chose the people in the image very carefully (there aren't that many public domain images of really well known Albanians) and I think it's OK. You're welcome to come up with another proposal if you want, just don't like this, just please, don't revert to the last time you edited (I'm talking about User:Pjetër Bogdani). The old image has been deleted as a copyvio. --NikX10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever wondered what her real name is? let me tell you it is Gonxhe Bojaxhiu. It is a pure Albanian first name and last name. What is wrong with having her in the infobox? of course she belongs there. Ilir pz10:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Using her image is a copyright violation - that is why it was removed!!! Only PD images are allowed in the infobox. If you find a PD image of her, we can use that. --NikX10:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I propose including a text on the Ghegs and the Tosks. How about this one:
There are two major dialect groups, the Ghegs, to the north of the Shkumbin River, and the Tosks, to the south. Kosovar Albanians are Ghegs. The Ghegs, who make up two-thirds of Albanians, are less intermarried with non-Albanians than the Tosks, who throughout history were more often subjected to foreign rule and other foreign influences. In the past, the Ghegs were organized in clans and the Tosks in a semifeudal society. Before World War II the Ghegs dominated Albanian politics, but after the war many Tosks came to power because the new Communist government drew most of its support from Tosks.
During Enver Hoxha’s regime in Albania, the cultural and economic differences between the Ghegs and the Tosks were suppressed. However, Tosk became the official standard dialect under the Communists (1972) and remains so today.
I wonder if this edit by Ilir pz with the comment "(stating real facts, no such state as Serbia and Montenegro exists.)" isn't a bit premature. __meco10:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, no. I have heard there was a referendum in Montenegro, which obviously is a very important element in a secession process, but which hardly could be identified with de facto independence. I could be mistaken as I haven't followed this event very closely. __meco09:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Images
I have some doubts with the images selected 1) the 4 individuals selected are all long dead. At least a living Albanian should be taken, for example Ismail Kadare, one of the greatest Balcanic writers. An image of him should be searched, if possible to take the place of Clement XI, who never put his foot in Albania nor knew the language. Being a distant descendent of an Albanian who settled hiself two centuries earlier in Italy hardly seems enough.--Aldux16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
all ballakan is ALBANIA but someone stole it and gave to us the litle ALbania... this is not fair may god help us and give our land......
Number of Albanians in Turkey
Is it 65 thousand (as said in ethnologue web site) or 5 million as in a BBC news? Both figures are from the article. BBC doesnt give a source for its 5 million estimation, and I doubt if it could be true. Of course, it depends on how you count. I have an Albanian grand-grand mother. None in the family speaks a word of Albanian. Maybe I am one of the 5 million? Filanca14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
If your father Albanian, you are Albanian too...Ottoman parliamentary have 27 Albanian parlimentarian at 1909. %24 of all 120 parliamentarian.Just this figure show us Turkey have got more Albanian from 65.000...
Ehmm, maybe you've forgot that then Kosovo and Albania were still part of the the Ottoman Empire...--Aldux16:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
How does the number 1.3 million relate to the 1.0 million mentioned in footnote 1? What is the source for the 1.3 million?
?
I edited the remaining of the Nazi occupation in Albania to a more exact date.
On including Kosovo separately
Kosovo and METOHIJA are legally part of Serbia. Just like the Serbs saw the end of Nazi occupation, they will see the end of Shiptars' terrorist rule in Kosovo and Metohija. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.133.96 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Could the (presumably Serbian) users trying to amalgamate the entry for Kosovo into that for Serbia please explain why. Yes, Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia however is it not within the control of the Serbian government for the time being, and it carries out its own census. The Albanian population in Kosovo is a very significant factor for the region's future, and most people checking the infobox will most likely be wanting to check that. Listing "Kosovo" next to "Serbia (excluding Kosovo)" does not imply that Kosovo is not part of Serbia. All it does is imply that the region requires special treatment, which it does. //Dirak00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The Province of Kosovo has not had a census since the Socialist Yugoslavia broke up. When Milosevic's Yugoslavia tried to have a census most of the Albanian population boycoted. So the only information that is available is from the Socialist Yugoslavia. They are all estimates. When Kosovo becomes, if it becomes, an independent state then it can be put under Kosovo. For now the population should be counted as being part of the Republic of Serbia. Would the Republic of Albania approve if the Southern Part of its state was called Epirus and the Greek population that lives there were put under Epirus instead of Albania? (Honesty 05:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
Doesn't seem as if he is Albanian, yet his picture is in the Albanian collage. Please read his article for more information. Would someone mind changing the photo? Homagetocatalonia20:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The 2003 census of Serbia (minus Kosovo) counted 61,647 Albanians. The Kosovo government estimated that the total Kosovo population ranges from 1.9 to 2.2 million of which 88% is Albanian or some where between 1,672,000 & 1,936,000. Taking the mid point of that 1,804,000 and adding a rounded figure of 62,000 I came up with a total of 1,866,000. 2,782,000 seemed very much an over estimation. -- Phildav7620:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What a load of crap!
In Kosovo and Metohija there is not more than 200 thousand legally settled ethnic Albanians. All the rest are illegal immigrants from Albania, and why should they be included in the cencus? They will have to leave Serbia's province of Kosovo and Metohija anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.133.96 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The estimate given here for ethnic Albanians living in Albania is exactly the same, down to the person, as the population of the country listed at Albania. This seems unlikely. -- Beland12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Numbers revisited
The percentage of Albanians in Albania is 95%, since the population of Albanian is just a bit over 3,6 million this means there are about 3,4 Albanians in Albania. Also the sources provided for Turkey and Swiktzerland say 60 and 95 thousands respectively. I came here following a trail of vandalism where one user vandalized this and another article by decreasing numbers and I find that there are people here who do exactly the opposite of that. I find the numbers provided for Italy and especially Germany, United Kingdom and Netherlands very doubtful. What is the pleasure in inflating the numbers, I don't get it? --No.1307:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I semi-protected the article (along with Serbs and Croats) because of that anonymous pest. The Turkish number is grossly overestimated, and is sourced from Arnavut.com, organization of Turkish Albanians, and those tend to grossly overestimate. I can't read Turkish, but it probably refers to the number of Turks with Albanian origins—in other words, it would include every Turk with a trace of Albanian blood. Albanian emigration to Turkey was large in history, but I imagine most of those people are integrated and don't even speak Albanian anymore. Similar situation in Bosniaks was resolved by including actual census data and adding a note about past emigration and large estimates. Do you have a census source? I see that Joshua Project estimates the number at 66,000, but I doubt they're a WP:RS either. Duja►09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
History of the term
The outseider term Albanians is meaníng samthing else, als Shqipetare. Beacose of this is more importen to explean the term Shqipetar.
i think the numbers are overinflated. for example in Hellas according to the census there are 438.036 albanians.part of them are greeks of northern ipiros who came to hellas during the last 20 years. an example is Dimas the 3times olympic winner.there are more examples of popular pesons indicating my view.Such as tzelilis, maniani, mitrou,lika.i gave examples of sport champions because they are known to most people.
the majority of albanians in Hellas came after the communist regime collapsed.If you compare the numbers with the those before19991 you will find that there were only a few hundreds albanians in Hellas.
the mysterious thing is that with hundreds of thousands emigrating for italy, hellas and other countries the population of albania did not show any decrease.
i think i am going to burn my phd.these people seems to know other mathematics than the standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.255.231 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I see 500k from the source, although I don't understand Turkish well. Someone is doing vandalism and saying 5M, but that's impossible. I reverted. user:sulmues--Sulmues 22:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
References 1 & 2 say absolutely nothing on the issue of Albanians in Greece. The third, apparently reliable, does indeed say (top of page 6) that "Consequently, the number of documented Albanian immigrants in Greece has rapidly increased to four hundred thousand in 2003, compared to ten thousand in 1997." So, there's a catch: all of those are a recent emigration, thus the figure should be subtracted from the Albanians in Albania. I wonder where the creative editors found 500,036? By adding the Barjarba's 500,000 to the previous 36? Duja►09:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Greece missing from table of Albanians
The main body of text refers to 445,000 to 600,000 refugees but Greece is not shown at all in the table of populations on the right top of page. The table of countries is about 1 million short of total shown. Tiddy03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason is right above. The problem is that it's very arguable if they're permanent residents in Greece; it's all recent 10 years immigration. In any way, they shouldn't be counted twice. Duja►07:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(((((your information are wrong))stop lying about the albanians,in swiss alone we are over 300,000)(in U.S.A we are 1,500,000 you cant see that in the albanian gospel resources)(in germany we are 50,000 thousand albanians from macedonia,300.000 from kosovo,serbien and 20 to 40,000 from albania,make to 380,000-400,000 thousand)(in italy were spoken an old dialect of the albanian by 800,000 thousand the tosc dialect,you can se in the albanian-american civic league)(in grecce we are 650,000 emigrated albanians,and the chameria,Arvanitas,to 2,000,000 millions)(in mazedonia 750,000)(Kosvo 1,900,000 To 2,100,000)(and turkye we are 3,000,000 millions,u can se that on the arnavut.com the albanian turkisch site)(albania 3,400,000)(great brittain 300,000)(the rest of eropa 1 million,france,belgi,spain,sweden,e.t.c...)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.217.52 (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
there is no way there is 27 million albanians
the albanian population is closer to 8 million and most live in the Balkans and Europe and in kosovo there is maybe 1,500,000 and in Albania there is 3,600,000 and in other places yes but turkey there is no way there is 5 million albanians these albanians like to make up numbers to make them look like there is a 100 million of them but from what i heard in kosovo they would go town to town to vote twice so there is not even 1,500,000 albanians in kosovo are any where like Macedonia are Greece they exaggerate the numbers the real figures are in kosovo is 1 million and Greece maybe 400,000 and Macedonia closer to 200,000... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
,,,,,,,,,,, you are liars about albanians,If you already liaer dan not look after or write scheitt not purely what we albaner concerns,We albanians are a proud breed scattered all over the world with other visums,passport, we count as italians, serbs, greccs, macedonians, montenegrins because we with their visums live.we live with theyr passports than we are serbs,greccs,no my friend we are,Albanians.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.217.52 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Without getting into the whole Illyrian debate again, I cannot see why the ancient Illyrian religion is included here. Needless to say, the Albanian-Illyrian link has more evidence against it than for it, yet the authors of the article include the section on Illyrian religion as if it is a matter of fact that Albanians are descended from Illyrians. Hxseek05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
there is not 27 million albanians
there is only around 8 million albanians stop vandilizing the truth you albanians think there is 100 millin of you but reality there is 7 million+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big cok (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Typical Albanian propaganda, always claiming this and that... Albanians number app. 7 million, depending on which figures one uses. Now get over it! Really quite sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
On Albanian claims regarding illyria,pelasgians and others
Dont delete again
Here are some quotes from famous Albanian historians;
Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):
When the Albanians arrive on the Balkan and today's Albania, there is nothing else they can do except to take those toponyms. A large part of Albania is flooded with Serbian toponyms. Just as an example, I wish to mention the towns of Pogradec, Kor?a (Korcha), (Chorovoda), Berat, Bozigrad, Leskovik, Voskopoja, Kuzova, Kelcira, Bels and others.
Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):
After him followed the Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi who in the middle of Tirana openly opposed the hypothesis about the Illyrian origin of the Albanians. With me agreed, via the printed media, several other younger scholars of whom I would especially mention Fatos Lubonja, Prof. Adrian Vebiu and others." Quote: About the Albanians, Wilkes writes "NOT MUCH RELIANCE SHOULD PERHAPS BE PLACED ON ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY AN ILLYRIAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPE AS SHORT AND DARK SKINNED SIMMILAR TO MODERN ALBANIANS."
Wilkes was proven CORRECT by science when the Human Genome Project's Y-chromosome study of European populations, confirmed that the vast majority of contemporary Albanians do not share an Illyrian or any Indo-European lineage. Quote: That's the way it is with our culture, which is mythomaniac, national-communist, romantic, self-glorifying. You can't say anything objective without people getting angry. The Albanians are a people who still dream. That is what they are like in their conversations, their literature...In light of Hoxha and 'pyramid schemes, Albanians are a people who still dream. That's just the way they are..." Fatos Lubojia - Albanian historian Quote: Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi writes: I can say that today appear a group of new Albanian scholars who do not agree with the false myths (About Illyrian & Epirote descent) and courageously accept the scientific truth that they are not whatsoever connected to these ancient peoples. I am proud that I lead this group and that they took up from me the necessary scholarly courage."
Quote: Ardian Vebiu Famous Albanian historian writes:
My personal opinion is that the issue of Albanians descending or not from Illyrians doesn't deserve the interest it has traditionally aroused. There is absolutely NO Illyrian cultural legacy among Albanians today. In a certain sense, Illyrians (with their less fortunate fellows, the Pelasgians) are a pure creation of Albanian romanticismMegistias (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles on Albania and illyrians related history should all mention that names were constructed and added. They were added during the communist era and thats why they are unacceptable by historians.
On the Albanian Claim that they have Illyrian names today
ISBN 960-210-279-9 Miranda Vickers, The Albanians Chapter 9. "Albania Isolates itself" page 196 it is stated
From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan ,supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries.(see also Also Logoreci "the Albanians" page 157.Megistias (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Albanians Descendants of the Illyrians
Albanians Descendants of the Illyrians
1---the earliest attempt to link the modern Albanians to the ancient Illyrians was made in 1774 by the Swedish historian Hans Erich Thunman in his book Untersuchungen
ueber die Geschichte der Oestlichen Europaischen Voelker (Research on the History of
Eastern European Peoples). Using Roman and Byzantine historical sources as well as
linguistic and onomastic evidence, Thunman was able to conclude that the Albanians
were the autochthon descendants of the ancient Illyrian populations who were never
Romanized like the Daco-Thracian populations, forefathers of the Romanians.
2---Austrian linguist, Johannes Georges von Hahn further supported the theory of the Illyrian
origin of Albanians in his work Albanesische Studien (Albanian Studies) in 1854. In the
course of time many other historians, archeologists, and linguists have provided further
arguments supporting the theory that the Albanians and their language are modern day
descendants of the Illyrians.
3---Albanians live in the territories once inhabited historical sources pointing to the movement become settlers of these territories.There are no historical sources pointing to the movement of Albanians from elsewhere to become settlers of these territories
4---Components of Illyrian linguistic elements such as names of objects, tribes,
names of people etc known can be found in the Albanian language.
5---One of the latest attempts in this ongoing effort to establish a link between these
civilizations is a book entitled Ancient Illyria recently published in London.It is a study of unpublished documents and
includes the book Illyrian Letters, written by the renowned archeologist Sir Arthur Evans.
This work sheds light on the society and the culture of these predecessors of Albanians.
6---The relationships of Albanian with ancient Greek and Latin testify that
Albanian was formed and developed alongside these two languages along the
shores of the Adriatic and the Ionian Seas.
7---Even according to the writers of ancient Greece, Illyrians and Epirotes did not differ from each other in any way. they lived and were like the modern Albanians, without any
difference;Toskeri is the southern part of Albania. Its northern counterpart is known as Gegeri.
they spoke the language which we speak today Ibid p. 11
In antiquity,
Herodotus wrote that, Epirus is inhabited by non-Greek peoples who speak a barbarian language Indeed it was this non-Greek language which was later going to be one of the distinguishing elements setting the Albanians apart from other nationalities of the Balkan Peninsula.--Taulant2305:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
They were the most ancient and Greek of all Greeks NorthwestGreeksThey were the there since 2000 bc with the othwer Greeks 1000 years before Illyrians came in.Use new sources.prehistoric lingual GreeceMargalit Finkelberg(Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Gambridge, edition 2007).
Prehistoric Greece 2000 BC
ISBN-13: 9780521852166 | ISBN-10: 0521852161)
Megistias12:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Notes and references
In 1864 Dhimiter Kamarda published his linguistic study Saggio di grammatologia comparata della
lingua Albanese showing its antiquity as well as attempting to demonstrate its close relationship to Greek.
In antiquity, Greeks used this term to refer to foreigners.
Turkalbanians and Turkalbanian language.These were also the names for 500 years because of the Connection of Albanians with islam and their great roles in the Ottoman empire as lords.Source,Sarandos Kargakos-Albanians,Arvanites & Greeks,The studies.ISBN ISBN: 9789600801729Megistias (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Listen you Slavo pseudo-greek!
Islam is islam,who wants can adopt it who who wants doesn't!Religion is not important for albanians like it is for you greeks!Here's the main difference between albanians and greeks:If you insult an orthodox priest to greeks they get offended more then when you insult their sisters!And if you insult in the eyes of an albanian an imam,he starts insulting him to!
In Albania religion is a matter of fun so just shut up!--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Map request
Someone should put a map of modern Albania.The map with the Roman provinces is irrelevant.The only relevant map of illyrians is this.Though no ancient map should be here since no illyrian albanian connection has been established.It is redundant.Megistias (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Misnaming
"Epirotes; old term widely used during the Middle Ages by local and foreign authors".This belongs in the misnaming section as epirotes were Ancient Greeks.NW Greeks.Megistias (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Only 40'000 albanians in Siwtzerland?!...ridiculous!
In Switzerland live about 200'000 ethnic albanians!
While I'm not doubting in any way their acting careers,I'm not sure that the Belushi bros and Eliza Dushku fit into that category.Amenifus (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've put back figures for Kosovo. Kosovo being an autonomous country is definitely POV, but the opposite is POV as well. Given that we must choose between two POV's, I'd say we go with the UN's POV because it is more widely supported. (The UN being larger than Servia and Russia)
Someone deleted the '5,000,000' upper limit figure for Turkey because they said it was 'absurd'...when clearly the BBC reference puts it at 5 million. The number is even used in the article, "According to a Albanian-Turkish website http://www.arnavut.com/turkiyede.php it estimates that there is around 5 million Albanians or Albanian nationals living in Turkey today." Its interesting how the numbers can vary so wildly...I dont know if this changes the total number of Albanians figure or not.
Im not Albanian or Turkish so I wouldnt know if the BBC figure is accurate-I have no reason to believe it's 'absurd'...I was thinking the 65,000 number in Turkey was unusually low, considering the warm relations and cultural and ethnic ties between the the two Muslim countries...I bet the Albanian nation will be half Turk by the next century since they love eachother so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I figured out why there was such a HUGE discrepency between the BBC figure and the Ethnologue figure--its because the Ethnologue figure only includes EUROPEAN Turkey. I have now thrown out the Ethnologue figure since it doesnt represent an accurate figure regarding Albanians in Turkey as A WHOLE in favor of the BBC figure of 5 million. Ive heard that figure other in other sources and it seems accurate.
I have made the appropriate changes and rearranged the data to display the population figures in descending order.
...Also, the new more accurate figure no doubt changes the total Albanians figure...I will leave it to others maybe more knowledgeable to edit that figure. It seems like it would be a pretty straight forward edit, but I dont know what went into the calculation of the original 'approximately 8 million figure.'
Can someone explain where the alleged terms "Arbanios, Arbanitai" appear in Polybius. and then hasn't anyone noticed that Polybius' Arbona is too far North to have any relation to Ptolemy's Albanopolis. The text (2.11) is refering to the islands of the Adriatic (the blockading of Issa) hence the reference to Rhizon (today known as Rizan which is situated in Montenegro) and Pharon (the Adriatic island known as Hvar).. one wouldn't go too far to suggest that his (Polybius') Arbona is the island of Arba mentioned by Pliny (John Bostock and Henry Thomas Riley in their notes suggest that Arba and Crexa were ancient Cherso)
hasn't anyone noticed that the Olbonenses in Pliny (3.21) are too far North to have any connection to the later Albanopolis since he mentions that they belong to the jurisdiction of Scardona, (today Skradin located in Croatia)?
So where's the connection to Albanians, where were they originally settled ??
According to the UN and the majority of the countries of the world, Kosovo is still a province of Serbia. Misplaced Pages does not represent views of the Albanian or United States government, but rather an unbiased POV. Misplaced Pages does not represent views of a minority of countries, but the overall view on a situation. I suggest the following:
"About half of Albanians live in Albania, with other large groups residing in Serbia (mostly the self-declared independent region of Kosovo, recognized by a minority of UN states), Montenegro and the Republic of Macedonia."
and in the infobox, Kosovo can be listed right below Serbia, and written like "Kosovo only:", while the Serbia number remain Kosovo + Central Serbia + Vojvodina.
Also, refrain from Albanian nationalist comments such as "KOSOVA IS ALBANIA, ACCEPT THE REALITY, YOU SERB NATIONALIST".. mainly because I'm not a Serb ;) --GOD OF JUSTICE18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, this is not the page for WP:POV sentences, but there is a difference. We have a WP:NPOV article in Kosovo which states that Kosovo is a de facto independent, partially recognised state, which Serbia claims that is part of it. WP:NPOV is not UN`s position, but a consensus between users. So, for wiki Kosovo is not an independent state, neither a part of Serbia, but a disputed territory. In this case, if we use "Kosovo only" under Serbia, it means that Kosovo is still part of Serbia, which for wiki consensus is not true. If we use Republic of Kosovo means that Kosovo is an independet state, which for wiki consensus is not true. So, we should use just Kosovo neither under Serbia, nor as "Republic of", which does not state neither of states position. When we use Kosovo, every reader may click on it and see that for consensus, Kosovo is neither independent, nor part of Serbia, but an ambigous position. I propose that in the infobox to add after Kosovo an reference, which would explain that Kosovo is is a de facto independent, partially recognised state, which Serbia claims that is part of it.balkanian (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You use the flag of the Republic of Kosovo. Also, nobody writes "Republic of" for any of the other countries. I'm sorry, but your logic is seriously flawed and your views are very pro-Albanian. --GOD OF JUSTICE19:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Your views are nationalistic and not only pro-Serbian but also pro-Milosveic, Mladic and Seselj, all those being war criminals. --NOAH (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha. Such nonsense. I'm not even a Serb. I could make absurd accusations that your views are pro-WWII Croatia, pro-WWII Albania (you know, when they annexed Kosovo to Albania), pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi, but I won't. Besides, what the hell does Mladic have to do with Kosovo? :P --GOD OF JUSTICE16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You are not Serbian? Stop kidding...You can sell this kind of lies to some teenagers but not me. You nick is the title of the Serbian anthem and all your edits smell Serbian revisionism. I hope you don't get offended by this.--NOAH (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I am Serbian in the sense that I'm a citizen of Serbia and have lived in Belgrade for most of my life, but I'm not of Serbian ethnicity. I didn't know edits could smell. --GOD OF JUSTICE19:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
He was being sarcastic, smart one, on the first note. On the second note, you guys are ALL ridiculous. Can you try to be neutral for God's sake?! None of this Serbian and Albanian nationalistic nonsense, please. Kosovo is de-facto independent, just deal with it. That doesn't necessarily mean it is officially independent until Serbia says otherwise. <-- Example of neutrality, no? And yes, Balkanian/Arditbido or whatever you prefer to be called, just using the term "Kosovo" for Kosovo is probably the most neutral you can get with Kosovo. End of discussion. --Prevalis (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S Oh and people, REFRAIN FROM THE PERSONAL ATTACKS! They are cruel, unnecessary and in some cases, if not all, hurtful. Take this as warning, all of you, because if not, I will report you for uncivil behavior and we all now how mean and nasty Misplaced Pages can get for those who are uncivil, now don't we? --Prevalis (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Montenegro, if you're interested in my ethnicity (which you shouldn't be), it's on my user page. I take offense in you calling me ridiculous and if you do that one more time, I'll report you for personal attacks. Also, you can't tell me to deal with Kosovo being "independent", when it really isn't - not according to the majority of the world. Besides, one has to define Kosovo - would you dare to go to North Mitrovica and yell "Kosova Republika"? I doubt it. Seems to me your lil' use of "de facto" can't really work here. But nice try at making yourself look neutral here. Highly doubt that your opinion on Kosovo can have any merit, when you're currently claiming that Montenegrin is a language, even though probably no non-Montenegrin linguists in the world would agree - but rather claim it's a dialect of Serbian or Serbo-Croatian. But thanks for your attempts, you've pretty much proved why my arguments are valid :-) --GOD OF JUSTICE03:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think you cant go to northern Mitrovia and yell that? I'll tel you: there is no freedom of speech or rule of law in north Mitrovica, and why is that? because your beloved country can't deal with reality and gets stuck in history, dreaming for a Greater Serbia, but Yougoslavia (or Greater Serbia) belongs to history, get over it, you dont always get what you want, just do the best with what you have, also, Serbia claims kosovo is theirs because of the monasteries ans stuff, well "Manastir", the place where the Albanian alphabet was decided is located in the Republic of Macedonia, get the point? --CD10:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I never said I speak Montenegrin. You might've gotten that impression for my previous account, which was used in 2007, back when Montenegrin nationalism was still huge. Now, I've given up on all forms of nationalism, I even declare my official language as Serbian because honestly, I've come to the conclusion that the Montenegrin that I, and as many others, called it will not be the official Montenegrin but rather Serbian as it was even before. And mate, you, as well the others, were acting ridiculous, I never meant that you were actually ridiculous. I never said Kosovo was independent, but that doesn't mean it isn't independent, do you follow? And why not, I'd go to Mitrovica and shout "Kosova Republika", and I'd do the same in the middle of Pristina except I'd shout "Kosovo je Srbija!". See, frankly I don't care because I'm not from Kosovo and honestly hate the fact that Serbs and Albanians are fighting over a measly piece of territory that is practically worthless in the economic sense. Religiously speaking, most of it is Serbian by amount of monasteries but these monasteries were defended by Albanians for centuries, so think about that for a second and then you tell me...--Prevalis (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You think it's easy to correct views and actions? Heck, I'm not perfect, but I stick to my views and actions because I think them through. If you don't, that's your problem. If you were a Montenegrin nationalist, and now you decided that it's not who you are, good for you. If you decided that you didn't mean that we were ridiculous when you said "you guys are ALL ridiculous", but really meant that we were acting ridiculous, good for you. That doesn't change history. When you say that "there is no freedom of speech or rule of law in north Mitrovica", think about it first. Or, better yet, explore for yourself. Go to Mitrovica, like I did. Check the destroyed Serbian graveyard in the South Albanian part of town and enjoy the peaceful tranquility of the untouched Muslim graveyard in the North Serbian part. Count the speck of left Serbs living in South Mitrovica and then count the many Albanians living freely in North Mitrovica. Talk about free speach when you do go to Prishtina and yell "Kosovo je Srbija" (I'm very glad you brought that up, thanks for helping my argument :-)). If you hate the fact that this is happening in Kosovo, think about why it's happening. While you're looking at those destroyed houses, churches and monasteries in Kosovo, tell me that you honestly believe that Albanians a hundred years ago, are the same as they are today. I wish the hate wasn't there, but what do you expect when the local Albanian leaders protect people that destroy all that is Serbian, and then there's the Americans who went ahead and promised them independence. Imagine Vladimir Putin promising the Mexicans in Texas independence from the United States. Who funded the KLA? Even world leaders admit to openly supporting terrorists (CIA 1997) and separatists in Kosovo. Why Kosovo isn't independent? It just isn't. Go there and you'll see. It's occupied by NATO. The Albanians didn't get independence. They never will. Kosovo is not economically unimportant, believe me. I won't go into detail, but I sure wish Albanians and Serbs would unite against NATO and really get independence from them. Within Serbia, with wide autonomy, meaning that everyone in Kosovo has the freedom they deserve. Serbia is democratic now, and aspiring to join the EU. Protect international law, protect Kosovo. --GOD OF JUSTICE01:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"During the first and second world wars Albanians were discriminated very harshly by its neighbors modern day Serbia and Greece for reasons still debatable today. Both caused ethnic cleaning among Albanian lands in north east Kosovo and northwest Greece. There was around 250,000 Albanians that were numbered leaving the Greek port of Thessalonika between 1912-1914."
The above is included in this article under the subsection entitled "Turkey". These sentences have nothing to do with Albanians living in Turkey. They are also unsourced, and seemingly biased. For that reason, I will be removing them from that section. If someone feels that they belong there, or elsewhere in the article, please bring it up here first, and be prepared with reliable references.
Xreebnorq (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposed move back
This page was recently moved from Albanians to Albanian people, and Albanians was turned into a disambiguation page. Its only function is to distinguish between the ethnic sense of Albanians (independent of citizenship) and the political sense of "citizen of Albania". I believe this disambiguation is unneeded and counter-intuitive, and I suggest we move the page back where it was, as was done with Germans and other similar pages. Fut.Perf.☼22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree, actually, there is no change between the Albanian People and Albanian Diaspora, which are the tow articles in the disambituation page, the only difference is that "you know, albanians are refered even the minorities in Albania". This can be added as a note in the top of the page.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
1,800,000 Kosovar Alb. Muslim + 2,200,000 Albania Alb. Muslim + 1,300,000 Turkey Albanian Muslim + 509,083 Maceodnian Albanians are Muslim + 80,000 Serbia/Montenegro Alb. muslim = Predominantly.Dont ever forget only 1 000 000 Greek and Italian Albanians are Christian.Secularism isn't ateism.And Albania is a poli-religious a country %65 Muslim % 30 Christian and others Ethnologue_Philologue —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC).
As you all see there is a edit war about calling Kosovo and Metohia an independent state between me and member Angelo De La Paz. It is not allowed in any article to use Albanian POV and refer to Kosovo as a republic and independent country, why is it allowed it this article? This article insults me and every single Serbian, and promotes nothing but Albanian POV, instead of NPOV. To restore NPOV in this article you cannot refer to Kosovo as a country and state independent from Serbia as it is an insult and violates rules of Misplaced Pages. I'm waiting for your responses since I'm not allowed to edit any further. If nothing changes soon I will restore NPOV no matter what. --Forsena (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Not reverting further at this point is a good idea, as is discussing things here (hint hint). If you break WP:3RR you'll get blocked. Ranting about insults me and every single Serbian etc etc does you no good at all and a great deal of harm, so I advise against it. I suggest you take a look at WP:DR for other idea William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
If this doesn't change I have the full right to use Republic of Srpska with it's flag in the article Serbs, if someone even tries to revert that I will remove all the idiotic stuff like Republic of Kosovo, from this article. --Forsena (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
But the POV editor, vandal, and pro-Albanian extremist Angelo De La Paz is trying to call it a republic, independent from Serbia, to promote Albanian POV in this article and no one does anything about him. Since this is not his first time he vandalizes articles, I will remove all of his POV. --Forsena (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
1,3 million Albanians in Turkey
There is only one unreliable and non-English source that supports the claim (I'm not even sure it supports the claim). This claim is absurd, for many reason, first of all it has no other sources, second I couldn't find any other source to support the claim, third the one source we have is unreliable and it's not even in English, fourth does anyone really believe there are more Albanians in Turkey than in FYROM and Greece together? Another thing is that Albanians are not even a recognized minority group in Turkey, which proves the claim is absurd and pathetic. Also the minority group that is recognized - Arabs has 800,000 population in Turkey, I think it is really impossible there are more Albanians than Arabs in Turkey. I'm waiting for response. --Forsena (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I know what you are talking about, that source is not unreliable. Actually it's one of the most reliable source you can find about demographics of Turkey. It's based on researches done by universities. But there are a few issues about it that need to be addressed though. For example, most of those Albanians identify themselves as Turkish. The sources says only around 500,000 (out of 1,300,000) remain unassimilated.
"Another thing is that Albanians are not even a recognized minority group in Turkey, which proves the claim is absurd and pathetic."
The recognized minorities in Turkey are Greeks, Armenians and Jews. The rest of the population are officially Turkish.
Also the minority group that is recognized - Arabs has 800,000 population in Turkey, I think it is really impossible there are more Albanians than Arabs in Turkey.
I think that Turkey is a country in the moon. Does this changes the facts? There is a reference about the Albanians in Turkey, and it is a WP:RS. So if anybody wants to change it, has to find new WP:RS references and not to think that the WP:RS references that are included in this page, are incorrect.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Albanians in Switzerland
There are never 200.000 Albanians in Switzerland!
This source comes from the Statistics Switzerland , which each year capture the resident foreign population. And 2007 live 196,078 citizens of Serbia and Montenegro (including the Albanians) in Switzerland. So it can not be possible, that 200,000 Albanians live in CH. Anyway the bulk of citizens are ethnic Serbs.
Request for change in the infobox. Here is a helpful source : According to the census of 2000, 95,000 people gave the Alabanian language as mother language.
Look,whoever has made Albania's population 7.8-7.9 million people,just shut the hell up and stop destroying this web page with your filthy propaganda!!8 million Albanians are just in Albania,Kosova and the neighbourhooding countries,let alone the whole world!!So if you got any problem,discuss it here,if not shut up!A**holes!--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I know the reason why did you put Muhammad Ali's picture in the most famous Albanian? what has he done for Albania? He has been king of Egypt and has no connection with Albania, it is not mentioned in History of ALbania. You should definitely put there Mother Teresa, Scanderbeg, an Albanian renaissance or modern times, but not portraits of pashas . Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dessy92 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Greece Population: 10,737,428 (July 2009 est.); Ethnic groups: population: Greek 93%, other (foreign citizens) 7% (2001 census), but a figure from another cited source is used.
Macedonia Population: 2,066,718 (July 2009 est.); Ethnic groups: Macedonian 64.2%, Albanian 25.2%, Turkish 3.9%, Roma (Gypsy) 2.7%, Serb 1.8%, other 2.2% (2002 census). Albanian population: 520,813, but a figure from another cited source is used.
Italy Population: 58,126,212 (July 2009 est.); Ethnic groups: Italian (includes small clusters of German-, French-, and Slovene-Italians in the north and Albanian-Italians and Greek-Italians in the south).
Netherlands Population: Ethnic groups: Dutch 80.7%, EU 5%, Indonesian 2.4%, Turkish 2.2%, Surinamese 2%, Moroccan 2%, Netherlands Antilles & Aruba 0.8%, other 4.8% (2008 est.).
Austria Population: 8,210,281 (July 2009 est.); Ethnic groups: Austrians 91.1%, former Yugoslavs 4% (includes Croatians, Slovenes, Serbs, and Bosniaks), Turks 1.6%, German 0.9%, other or unspecified 2.4% (2001 census).
Bosnia and Herzegovina Population: 4,613,414 (July 2009 est.); Ethnic groups: Bosniak 48%, Serb 37.1%, Croat 14.3%, other 0.6% (2000).
Belgium Population: 10,414,336 (July 2009 est.); Ethnic groups: Fleming 58%, Walloon 31%, mixed or other 11%.
Spain Population: 40,525,002 (July 2009 est.); Ethnic groups: composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types.
There can be no doubt on the identity of Polybius' Arbanios with the modern name Albanians, just like there can be no doubt about Greek literary tradition spanning the 2nd century BC to the 12th century AD.
But this is what the Greeks called the Albanians, or rather, what the Greeks called whichever peoples and tribes happened to inhabit Albania, without, of course, any intimate knowledge of the ethnicities involved, to the Greeks this was all just "barbarians". The Albanians themselves, however, have no word for themselves that can be shown to date to antiquity. Shqip may, of course, be of hoary antiquity, but its origins are simply unknown. So, it is not clear what the (undisputed) tracing of the name to Polybius is supposed to prove. --dab(𒁳)11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I had to correct myself, it appears that shqip is verifiably post-Roman, ultimately a word for "to speak" loaned from Latin. --dab(𒁳)11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That was simply the origin of the name. There should be an explanation why they are known as Albanians while they themselves use other words. Actually Albanians used the ethnonym Arbër/n or Arbër/n~eshë for themselves (Arbën->Arvanit in Greek sources, as Pedersen noticed that Albanians should have used that name before b-v change in Greek language see Pedersen 1900) while later especially after XVII century AD it was changed in Shqip-tar from shqiptoj word (speak clear, pronounce, speech etc related to the language) Aigest (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Aigest does have a point here. The Albanians did refer to themselves as Arbër/n or Arbër/n~eshë before referring themselves to Shqipetars, which appears more recent. Whether this is related to Polybius' Arbanios is another question. --Athenean (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
James Belushi
He is an American, born in the US, his family origins are Albanian, but after two generations he can hardly be considered a typical etnic Albanian.Alex Makedon (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The numbers in the infobox need a bit of work. Specifically:
The Albanian National Institute of Statistics gives the current population of Albania as 3,170,048 . I have every reason to believe them. 95% of 3,170,048 is almost exactly 3 million. I am changing this number in the infobox accordingly.
If we add the numbers in the infobox, we get ~6.67 million, which is considerably lower than the current total figure of 10 million, which seems unreasonably high. Because the infobox does not list all countries, I am rounding this up to 7 million.
The Joshua Project is not a particularly good source. This needs to be improved. I will work on this, and it would be nice if others could do so too. Hope these changes are ok. --Athenean (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but who on earth did someone remove other countries from the infobox. And why would anyone do that (and don't give me the crowded gibberish). —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I modified the numbers in the infobox. According to this source , which is a study by Turkish academics (and thus probably the best around), there are 500,000-1,300,000 individuals of Albanian ancestry in Turkey, of whom approximately 500,000 as Albanians. So I put this figure in the infobox as a compromise. Second, the number of 440,000 for Albanians in Greece includes approximately 200,000 Northern Epirotes, which are not ethnic Albanians. We also shouldn't be using sources like the ELIAMEP in here. Similarly, for Germany, the source "experiencefestival" is hardly a reliable source. This is Germany we're talking about, it shouldn't be too hard to find good figures. I will try to find a better source, but am leaving the figure of 100,000 in the infobox for now. I also trimmed all that fine print in the infobox. It was getting too long and these things should be short. --Athenean (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I read the reference, Milet shows there are 1,3 milion Albanians in Turkey (not 500,000-1,300,000). And yes it says that around 500,000 are considered to have "Albanian consciousness". On the other hand, at Albanian minorities in Greece Chams and Arvanites should be added, also the 180,000 co-ethnics (as mentioned on the reference, that you should read before deleting). The current form is improved. You can add that in Turkey, from 1,300,000 only 500,000 are considered to have "Albanian consciousness" - in the footnote. —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Alex, I do not identify myself as Shqiptar either... that does not mean I am no Albanian. Furthermore, Albanians are also not considered an ethnic minority in Greece (as in Turkey), so that is not a fact to be taken into consideration. I will change the number of Chams from 50,000 to 17,000 as that is the correct number. It seems that when I reverted the mix up had occurred. —Anna Comnena (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
@Anna: First, can we agree to use the Albanian census figures rather than the CIA world factbook for the number of Albanians in Albania? The CIA world factbook is a tertiary source and should not be used when a national census is available. All country and ethnic group articles where a detailed national census is available use the census numbers, not the CIA factbook numbers. Take a look at Greece, Greeks and other similar articles. --Athenean (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
For me that would be OK, Athenian. Though the exact number (3,142,239) and not just approx. 3,000,000 would be more suited. I used the CIA numbers, because they were newer (July 2009 est.). But the Albanian Official census sounds OK. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you have to keep in mind that not everyone who lives in Albania is an ethnic Albanian, just like not everyone who lives in Greece is an ethnic Greek. About 95% of Albania's population is ethnic Albanian, the rest are minorities. For example, for Greece the total population is 11.2 million given by the census, but we only use 10.2 million for the infobox figure for Greeks living in Greece for the same reason. You can't count everyone in a country as a member of the dominant ethnic group. It's just not correct.--Athenean (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm, Greek census from 2001 shows 10,934,097 total population in Greece, and this is from the Greeks article 10,166,929 (2001 census), on the other hand CIA 10,737,428 (2009). Albania, however, has a homogeneous population. But that is not important. What is important is that everyone that has an Albanian passport inside Albania can be considered an Albanian. Don't you agree. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This article is about Albanians as an ethnic group', not about "Albanian passport holders". With your statement, you are automatically negating the existence of ethnic minorities in Albania. There is no such thing as a country with a "homogeneous population". The ethnic Greeks who live in Southern Albania are not ethnic Albanians, neither are the Montenegrins who live in the North, or the Slavomacedonians in the west. By your logic, the Muslims of Western Thrace in Greece, who are ethnic Turks and Pomaks, should be counted as "Greeks". I hope you realize the flaw in your argument. --Athenean (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Anna C.: What do you mean when saying 'Albania has an homogenous population'? Official tottalitarian Albanian statistics of 1989 said 95% are Albanians, but this consensus is questioned, the real 'ethnic homogeneity' percentage could be somewhat lower. Since there isn't conducted a census based on ethnicity after 1989, we have only estimations.Alexikoua (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
More on infobox
Well my statement is somehow flawed. I wrote another sentence and deleted few words, so the one you read is stub. Albania is considered a homogeneous country in comparison to other countries in Europe (here is one reference about this, there are more). I apologize for false statement. There are (almost) no immigrants in Albania. The only minorities (Greeks, Vlahs and Macedonian/Serbs) are still not fully recognized as no official or major research is done on the issue (you surely know that). However, Alex, I would really appreciate if you would revert the last edit to the one we both agreed upon. You know there are a lot of references about Arvanites and Chams, here and here for Albanian ancestry (ethnicity) of Arvanites, and this is the final source, it is RS and shows that 200,000 Arvanites live in Greece, also it shows their language is Albanian. We talked about this, reached a consensus, the version I had, was fair for everyone. —Anna Comnena (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
So from you above statement, I take it that you would be be fine with "approx. 3 million" in Albania, since 95% of 3,170,000 is almost exactly 3 million. Since there are no precise figures on the size of the various minorities in Albania I think 95% is an appropriate compromise estimate. I am relieved to see that you agree that there are ethnic minorities in Albania, and that not every Albanian passport holder is an ethnic Albanian. I don't remember taking in any such discussion or reaching any sort of consensus about the Arvanites. While we could include the 15,000 or so Chams remaining in Greece as part of the Albanian nation, the Arvanites are another matter. Even if they speak Albanian (which many of the younger generation do not), they identify as Greeks and as part of the Greek nation. So we shouldn't include them here. --Athenean (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Em, no. Arvanites are considered Albanians as seen here. And 3,142,239 should be the number of Albanians in Albania (the census should be noted though). Also there are about 300,000 illegal Albanian immigrants in Greece not mentioned. I mean, these numbers are tricky, we should really try and make them as realistic as possible. I believe your proposal deforms them slightly, on the other side I am not insisting to put the CIA census and do not insist on putting Arvanites and Chams on the Greek census. Let's try and respect each-other. —Anna Comnena (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
One thing at a time. Why should the number of Albanians in Albania be 3,140,239? I don't understand. The census is 3,170,048. 95% of that is approximately 3 million. Your insistence in including every single Albanian citizen as an ethnic Albanian is wrong. There are thousands of Greeks in southern Albania that are not ethnic Albanian in any way shape or form. This article is about ethnic Albanians, not Albanian passport holders. By your logic, since Arvanites and Chams are Greek passport holders, they should be included in Greeks. Come on, be reasonable. I am getting tired of this. First you say all Albanian passport holders should included, then you backtrack, then you backtrack again. What's going on here? Do you think I'm stupid? Please don't disrespect me with this nonsense about Albania being a homogeneous society and every Albanian passport holder being an ethnic Albanian. They are not. Albania has ethnic minorities like every other country on Earth. --Athenean (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, 3,170,048 is the official number. The census seems to be from 2008, so it is not that old. So, your proposal seems to be valid, however I believe that we both agree that adding illegal immigrants, Arvanites and Chams would complicate the Greek number, so leaving it to 443,000, as it was, seem to be fair, in a way (with the footnote) it will balance the complexity it. Do you agree? —Anna Comnena (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am glad that we settled on approximately 3 million for Albania. The difference between 3,170,000 and approximately 3 million is small anyway. When new figures are available, we can re-open the discussion. The picture from Greece is somewhat more complicated. The figure of 443,000, includes ethnic Greeks from southern Albania who are not ethnic Albanians. However, it does not include illegal immigrants. So I don't know what to do about that. Let me think about it. --Athenean (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Illegal immigrants, mostly season workers, can't be counted, that's sure. They are included in the Albanian census, no need to double count them. About the Arvanites, ghm isn't off course 'rs'. The relevant articles on Arvanites make detailed desciptions on which ethnic group they belong now.Alexikoua (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't count illegal immigrants, since they are included in the Albanian census and would thus be double counted. Having read Arvanites, it is also quite clear to me that they identify exclusively as Greeks and in fact resent being called "Albanians". So I don't think they should be included either. But I think it would be ok to include the 15,000 Chams. --Athenean (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You talk about illegal immigrants with so much confidence: mostly season workers! How do you know that? Illegal immigrants are people that live in Greece and do not have papers, otherwise they would be called seasonal workers. About Arvanites, where are your sources that they are Greek and not Albanian? And how come GHM is "of course" not reliable source? —Anna Comnena (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You should carefully read the article: Arvanites first, and especially the identity sections. Ghm, international helsinki monitor in general is not 'rs', doesn't not fullfil the criteria for 'rs', it's tertiarty anyway. Past discussions among Greeks and Albanians came to that conclusion.
Moreover, you have to be carefull when using the term 'vandalism' in your revert summary ]. The number of Albanian immigrants in Greece is still discussed, so please leave this expression and focus on what is real vandalism when reverting.Alexikoua (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The infobox was vandalised. All the numbers were cut in half. I really do not understand how people can vandalize like that. Leaving that aside, you still are not giving me any information about Arvanites not being ethnic Albanians. That is why I changed that number also. We are discussing it, but considering that you did not provide any fact and answer on my previous questions (read my previous comment), i made that change also. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Anna C.: Suppose you found the opportunity to change the number in Greece too... Moreover, I wonder were you found in this text that Arvanites are Albanians ], even if it was 'rs' this says excactly the opposite(...a term strongly disliked by the other Arvanites, who also resent being called Albanians.). Actually, only these of Epirus and nw Macedonia near the Albanian border are considered part of the Albanian nation (...As for the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia, they are considered to be part of the modern Albanian nation). I disagree putting 15,000 on the box, source is needed for that.Alexikoua (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The source shows that Arvanites speak Albanian, and that only a part of them reject their Albanian ethnicity (though such a rejection might not be considered as a fact that they are not Albanians). And about 17,000 Chams, that was what I got from WP article on Chams, sources that I found showed more, much more Chams in Greece. This one, by Miranda Vickers, shows that 40,000 Chams live in Thesprotia: An estimated 40,000 Christian Orthodox Albanians still live in the Threspotia region. Although the majority are of original Cham decent, a significant minority migrated to the region after the collapse of communism in Albania in 1991. Why do we have do discuss issues that I know you are more than familiar, you know how many Chams live in Greece. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
only a part of them? I'm sorry you confused the entire text, it says that only a part on the Albanian border is part of Albanian nation. As long as you don't bring 'rs' stuff the discussion has no sense.
Let me remind you the Cham article says 'up to 40,000' while research showed that this number is zero ], Vicker doesn't cite any reference or mention any research method at all. There is a 0-40,000 range, that's the picture. Alexikoua (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Off course if a 0-40,000 estimation range should be added in the box in Greece, we have also the Greek minority in Albania with estimations from 58,000 to 400,000, adjusting that way the number of Albanians in Albania respectively.Alexikoua (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
And more on infobox
Well, Alex, I do not know how can we both read the same source and see totally different pictures. I carefully read the source that you presented. It does not show that there are 0 Chams in Albania (that is practically impossible), but it shows however the the total population of South Albania is around 400,000 (577,000 - 2008 reference) - The figure of 400,000 can only be reached if we count as Greeks not only Vlachs, but all Orthodox Albanians, whether they speak Greek, Albanian, Slav or Vlach... My own estimate using this criterion would be that there are about 40,000 Greeks in the area under discussion and about 15,000 Vlachs. I think I will propose to remove the 400,000 number on the Greeks article as well, it is really unrealistic, as this source points out. And I will correct the numbers in the infobox. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right Anna C., actually the 400,000 number was recently added in Greeks, a previous version showed just 200,000 ] which is closer to reality (as stated in Albania article too). Hope this was your only concern about my arguments. Actually the 400,000 estimation is similar in fantasy to the 40,000 estimation of Chams in Thesprotia, a region with total population of ca. 45,000, while a research by Winnifrith showed that there are hardly any Albanian speakings there to find. Vickers on the other hand doesnt mention tha kind of research she conducted...Alexikoua (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My proposal on Albanians would be to use approx. 500,000 Albanian in Greece until we find more reliable references. This would suggest 250,000 immigrants + Arvanites and Chams + illegal immigrants in a relative proportion. It shows a more realistic picture on the problem. Using approximate numbers can make all this more bearable. What do you think? —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you read WP:OR? If you haven't already, please do, because that is what you are proposing. I cannot agree to count the Arvanites (who resent being called Albanians), or undocumented migrants for whom figures don't exist and who are counted in the Albanian census. --Athenean (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that "Have you read WP:OR?" only tries to distance our levels of knowledge, and as consequence not helpful to the discussed issue. My proposal does not include illegal immigrants and Arvanites and Chams, it just reflects their relative presence. We cannot disagree that there are Arvanites (part of whom do not like to consider themselves Albanian though their language is Albanian - these ethnic issues cannot be solved in arbitrary - black/white - ways, there are no strict definitions on ethnicities) and Chams, and illegal immigrants (some of them can be seasonal as mentioned previously). That is why an approximate number would reflect the relative proportion of error, otherwise adding them all together would make up around 770,000. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
We can take into account an additional of 110.000 of Greeks that live in central and north Albania, that were expulsed during the communist regime from their homeland in the countr'y south ]. Not to mention that Albania's 14% ] is of Greek ancestry (that makes 443,000).
However, I believe its better not to count people by far ancestry. The article is named 'Albanians' not 'Albanian geneology' checking the geneologic trees of communities during the latest 500-700 years, in order to include Arvanites, doesn't make sense. Off course without 'rs' the discussion is fruitless, ghm apart from being non-rs says Arvanites are not part of the Albanian nation (except small communities on the Albanian border).Alexikoua (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I admire your debate abilities. Unfortunately the point of our discussion is not to discredit the other guy, as this is no competition, I am not an opponent.
Arvanitas people speak Albanian even today, and the ethnicity definition is far more complex than your view on it - even if someone does not consider himself part of one ethnicity but other facts indicate that he is, there is no clear definition if he should or should not be considered such. But for what is certain, not all Arvanites reject Albanian ethnicity, actually the total number is unknown.
I will ignore the Igenea reference (we both know where it will end if I follow it). As for the other reference, the 120,000 Greeks that were present in Albania, are probably in Greece by now, anyhow the Greeks number is 200,000, still very big. In such cases small exaggerations leave room for errors to get amortized. Like the 200,000 Greeks in Albania (not a realistic number), I believe that Albanians should be considered 500,000 in Greece. You can propose another similar realistic number (maybe 400,000), without a sophistic language. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Anna, please tone down the sarcasm. It is unhelpful will only make things worse. Please read the article on Arvanites. The article is quite clear that they now form part of the Greek nation, not the Albanian nation. That they were Albanian in the 13th-14th century does not mean they are now. As for the language, it is dying out as the younger generation doesn't speak it. Now, regarding not all Arvanites reject Albanian ethnicity, you are going to need an RS for that. We can't just assume things like that and make up figures based on such assumptions. --Athenean (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if my tone seem sarcastic, it was not my intention. In contrary, I was trying to calm the other party. I think discussing this matter with both of you in the same time, I am constantly repeating myself. The question you made is answered more than once on my previous comments. I read the article on Arvanites. WP is not a source that should be used on another WP article, you surely know that. Other sources that I brought forward show that Arvanites speak Albanian, and though in some sources it is said that the language is diminishing, it is still active and alive. That is confirmed by all sources (read the above comments and references). Though they are considered part of the Greek nation (there are no official results on ethnic minorities in Greece), it does not mean that they are not Albanians. Please give suggestions? —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My advice is to check all the relevant bibliography, give quotes and pages when necessary, to support your view. Everyone has his own arguments, but without 'rs' support this isn't enough.Alexikoua (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I know lots of Albanians that speak Greek, for example Ismail Qemali, a number of Albanian poets (Frasheri's) as well as Faik Konica, spoke fluently Greek and were graduates of famous Greek schools (like Zosimaia School). This doesn't mean they were half Greek, language alone isn't enough to define ethnicity, especially if we talk about bilingual communities.Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) You are correct that wikipedia cannot be used as a source. However, Arvanites is itself sourced, and what is says is derived from the sources listed in it, which you can check for yourself. Also, if a group of people is considered part of Nation A, they cannot also be part of Nation B. You cannot be part of two different nations at the same time. Arvanites identify as Greeks. They do not identify as part of the modern Albanian nation. If you want to claim that some of them do so, you are going to have to bring reliable sources that prove this. If you do so, I suppose we could include the portion of them that identify with the modern Albanian nation in this article. However, I personally doubt you will find any such sources, because I know Arvanites, and I know they exclusively identify as Greeks. In fact, they are among the most patriotic segments of Greek society. Their transition from the Albanian to the Greek nation was sealed by their substantial contribution to the Greek War of Independence. --Athenean (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that your personal experience can not be counted as proof. And I also know that Arvanites have the same ancestry as Albanians. They call themselves Arbër, as a part of Albanians do. The WP article on Arvanites, could be subject of WP:OR or WP:TE, but this is not about that article (in any case, WP should not be counted as reference). To claim that Arvanites are part of Green nationality is a serious claim. And you cannot prove or disprove that, there is no (and I am repeating this for the 4th time) strict definition on ethnicity! Arvanites (or at least part of them that identify themselves as Albanian) should be counted in the census. We do not know the exact number, and that is why, together with Chams and part of illegal immigrants (which we also do not know if are counted on 2008 census in Albania) should be gathered and presumed an approximate number (my proposal was around 500,000 - you can give another proposal). —Anna Comnena (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've told it several times, without 'rs' we have just empty arguments. What people called themselves is really irrelevant here. For example, until early 20th century, all Orthodox Albanians were called 'Greeks' -both by themselves and by others, I doubt if a single Albanian agrees with that, or if it is relevant with ethnicity. You can either continue your national wp:or crusade proving nothing or you can provide 'rs' stuff to reach a point. Is it too hard to check the relevant bibliography? Arvanites article is a good start. Moreover, try please to read more carefully the paper of ghm, which is non rs anyway, but contradicts your claims too
.Alexikoua (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is a lack of RS from both sides. You did not brough foreward any RS. That is why my proposal to create an approximate number that would allow marginal errors should be considered seriosly. Your number only shows official emigrants - some co-ethnics. Albanians are not only immigrants in Greece (although they are not considered an ethnic minority either - but if we take that logic into consideration than the number of Greeks in Albania is 0-50,000). —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You are partly right, but forgot that the Albanian census was conducted by a non democratic regime in 1989. So the following sources: Greek government data of 2001 (number of ethnic Albanians in Greece) & Albanian government data of 1989 (Greeks in Albania) are not of equal quality. Off course if Albania would conduct a cencus based on ethnicity as a democratic state, which is after 1991, this data would be welcomed in wiki.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal of 500,000 is pure OR and as such will not be accepted by me, or anyone else. You accuse me of OR, yet here you are saying "Uh, let's go with 500,000 because I think that sounds about right". No way.--Athenean (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not remember accusing you of any OR (or similar). And yes, I believe this is not a B/W matter, we should set an approximate number, my proposal was 500,000... you can propose something else. That is more than 250,000 (the current number). Because the figure that we now have on the article, refers only to immigrants. And surely you must agree at least that there are Arvanites (sources also agree) who still claim their Albanian origins. Also, maybe some illegal immigrant are registered in Albania, but there is a serious doubt that all of them are. The 1989 census shows the same number of Albanians as 2008 census. And we know that Albania has the highest natality in Europe page 814 (after Turkey and Kosovo). So surely there are a lot of immigrants not registered. 400,000 could be another cypher, though not entirely supported by me. But an exact figure is just impossible... —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
What kind of game is this. Not a single source even the non 'rs' ghm agrees with the Arvanites fairytale scenario as part of modern Albanians. I've asked repeatedly to present sources, pages and exact quotes, but no wonder nothing yet apart from wp:or number speculations.Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Anna, what you are doing is called "clutching at straws": at least that there are Arvanites (sources also agree) who still claim their Albanian origins, 'Also, maybe some illegal immigrant are registered in Albania, but there is a serious doubt that all of them are., So surely there are a lot of immigrants not registered.. Do you have any sources about the Arvanites? Do you have any sources about your claims about the illegal immigrants? Until you back up your proposal with reliable sources, don't expect it to be taken seriously by anyone. You just keep endlessly "I want 500,00 because I think that sounds right", but that is just your own guess. Repeating it ad nauseam won't get you anywhere. This discussion is starting to get repetitive and I think I'm about done here. --Athenean (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
What you are doing, is not giving sources, and accusing me of different allegations. I was trying to make a constructive proposal, the current number is not realistic. Also the footnote (that you changed without prior consensus) only shows a Greek perspective. —Anna Comnena (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I remind you that you insert a footnote mentioning 'Arvanites' while the source was ghm, which apart from 'non-rs' is contradicting the Arvanites=modern Albanians scenario. Any 'rs' stuff is welcomed, but with a pov approach you can't reach a point. As far I see you initiated another battleground ], since you are a relatively new editor, I advice you to read the five pillars before you continue discussions.Alexikoua (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, fine. Since your way of having it your way is through intimidation (as you are not giving any sources RS or no RS), and since you are more experienced than me, I will not reply on this matter until another editor backs me up. I would suggest you read five pillars also. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Seeking reinforements for edit-war isn't a sound approach. You brought a non-rs source (ghm) that contradicts your own arguments on Arvanites, that's all. Since you raised this issue you need to support it, it's not me the one that needs to act.Alexikoua (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
albanians bonze age people and their language pre-classical
Reference: Scanderbeg Harry Hodgkinson published in 1999 The center for Albanian studies UK
Albanians never tire of reminding themselves, produced an Alexander to subdue Asia : a Pyrrhus who crossed over Italy to fight the Romans ; a series of emperors ,Diocletian among them . who staved off the collapse of the Roman empire ; finally in Constandine the man who found the second and the more enduing Rome …
The language of Albanians ,which come down from pre –classical days ,is weighty evidence in favors of their claims .
Albanian these man of our times , like those who Scanderbeg led to war ,still carried on taboo against working in iron ,for instance ,which leads the imagination back to the time , tow and half millennia ago , when the new technique of iron smelting broke down the old heroic ,aristocratic bronze age society which Homer has made us familiar … —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.31.51 (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous: Fragment on the Origins of Nations (1000 - 1018)
What is possibly the earliest written reference to the Albanians is that to be found in an old Bulgarian text compiled around the beginning of the eleventh century. It was discovered in a Serbian manuscript dated 1628 and was first published in 1934 by Radoslav Grujic. This fragment of a legend from the time of Tsar Samuel endeavours, in a catechismal 'question and answer' form, to explain the origins of peoples and languages. It divides the world into seventy-two languages and three religious categories: Orthodox, half-believers (i.e. non-Orthodox Christians) and non-believers. Though the Serbs go unmentioned, the Albanians, still a small conglomeration of nomadic mountain tribes at this time, find their place among the nations of half-believers. If we accept the dating of Grujic, which is based primarily upon the contents of the text as a whole, this would be the earliest written document referring to the Albanians as a people or language group.
It can be seen that there are various languages on earth. Of them, there are five Orthodox languages: Bulgarian, Greek, Syrian, Iberian (Georgian) and Russian. Three of these have Orthodox alphabets: Greek, Bulgarian and Iberian. There are twelve languages of half-believers: Alamanians, Franks, Magyars (Hungarians), Indians, Jacobites, Armenians, Saxons, Lechs (Poles), Arbanasi (Albanians), Croatians, Hizi, Germans.
Extract from: Grujic, Radoslav: Legenda iz vremena Cara Samuila o poreklu naroda. in: Glasnik skopskog naucnog drustva, Skopje, 13 (1934), p. 198 200. Translated from the Old Church Slavonic by Robert Elsie. First published in R. Elsie: Early Albania, a Reader of Historical Texts, 11th - 17th Centuries, Wiesbaden 2003, p. 3.
Note:
This article includes the text from the site Albanian History with explicit permission () of the site author, Robert Elsie to use it under GNU FDL.--Guildenrich 19:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to list every type of religion an Albanian adheres to. The current wording works just fine. All you have listed is summed up by the current description. --Local hero21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Self maded Statistics???
80% of albanians do not practice any religion (without source)==> 60-75% according CIA.
85% Muslims (withour source)
75% Sunni + 8% Bektashi = 83% (no source)
and let me think: 16 + 25 + 75 + 8 % = 100%? (math is an optional)
I put Orthodox Albanian according to Operation World, and it's only for the Republic of Albania. And please don't write this statistics of the fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albopedian (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Albanians in Albania
65% of albanian population is Albanian?
Out of 2.1 milions in Kosovo only 1.200.000 are albanians?
Who is joking with this article?--Albopedian (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Figures for Albanians in Albania
For the number of Albanians in Albania, the national census should be used rather than the CIA world factbook. National censi are always preferred to the CIA Factbook for two reasons. One is that a census is a scientific survey that counts individuals one by one, and as such is more accurate and reliable than an estimate by a foreign intelligence agency. Second, the Factbook is a tertiary source, which should only be used as a last resort, i.e. when a national census is not available. In this case there is a national census, which gives a Figure of 3,170,000 or something like that. Given that there are ethnic minorities in Albania, maybe 100,000-200,000 Greeks in the south, "Approximately 3 million" should be more than good enough. --Athenean (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the newest data there are about 3,650,000 people living in Albania, I removed about 100,000 for the minorities, so the 3,550,000 figure is more that good. We obviously will continue to disagree, because we have different perspectives. Is there some board where we can address this matter?--Muzakaj (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The census figures are from January 2008. It's not the most recent, but it is definitely not "old". There is no way the population could have jumped by 500,000 in two years, so clearly one source is more accurate and one less accurate. The census would be the most accurate one. I don't know of any boards where we can take this, best thing might be to request and RfC (request for comment). --Athenean (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy in the 100,000 number in the minorities, which is according to CIA too small and equals to less than 1% of the total populationAlexikoua (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Megistias, don't remove Belgrade maps pls.
Please do not remove maps that show Albanians in the VIth and VIIth century. Albanians did not come from the moon in the XIth century: they were there. sulmues--Sulmues 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems like proper development of this article is being impeded by multiple editors working in tandem, but let's assume good faith for now and try to improve the article through rs first. sulmues--Sulmues 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the Yugoslav map is necessary. No one serious disputes that Albanians "were there", so it is unnecessary to add maps to refute loony nationalist theories by implying "aha! but you once admitted that we were there".--Ptolion (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If no one dispute that Albanians were there then why two ethnic Greek users (Megistias and Alexikoua) are removing map not only from this article, but also from the articles related to demographics of Kosovo and Serbia? Also, I am Serb from Novi Sad and I made good-faith map about Albanians and since I had problems with users Megistias and Alexikoua in other Wiki projects as well, I can tell that they are Greek nationalists who have very negative ethnic attitude towards Albanians and they doing everything to push their POV that Albanians do not have history and that southern Albania (claimed as Greek by Greek nationalists) was "always" Greek and never Albanian. Because of that, they removing from the articles not only this map, but also my map of ancient Illyrian kingdom (and as user Megistias explained, he removing it because present-day southern Albania is located within Illyrian kingdom in that map, which is contrary to his personal view about "eternal Greek character" of that territory). I am open to hear proposals for compromise solution in this case, but a proposal that would be reasonable and rational, not based on nationalistic prejudices. PANONIAN09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why this map isn't deleted yet. There were not Albanians recorded in this period, at all, and every estimation about their existence in a specific region can't be scientifically convincing. No wonder that the source of this map is by far pov: a school atlas of a communist regime of 1970...ignoring the entire bibliography of the western world.Alexikoua (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Maps are not deleted only based on your personal nationalistic opinion. As for map itself, can you understand the simple fact that map does not reflect appearance of Albanians in sources, but opinion of historians about their presence in that time? Please do not tell me that you support pseudo-historical theory that Albanians came from Caucasus in the 11th century. Majority of World historians think that Albanians lived in Albania in that time (6th-8th century) and I really do not see that purpose of Misplaced Pages is to present "scientifically convincing" "proofs" or to "convince" somebody into something - Misplaced Pages is here to collect knowledge and all valid academic opinions (including opposite opinions about varios subjects) and to present all these opinions to readers (not to push certain POV and conduct censorship of any kind). As for Yugoslavia in 1970, SFR Yugoslavia was not a Soviet-type communist country, but a country with its own more liberal form of socialism in which ethnic rights of all ethnic groups were respected and protected and nationalism of any kind was punished by the law. In another words, Yugoslav historians from that time did not had any reason or motive to publish propaganda or false claims about presence of Albanians in the Balkans in the 6th-8th century and they certainly did not ignored bibliography of the western world - Yugoslavia was a kind of buffer zone between Soviet and NATO areas of influence and was a country open to the western World (not to mention open western financial support for Yugoslavia) and Yugoslav libraries always had foreign literature about varios subjects. So, if you think that this map contradict to any book from "western" bibliography, please quote that book and present to us what exactly that book would claim (so far, your claim that Albanians were not there in that time is similar only to claims of Serbian pseudo-historian Jovan Deretić who has no any credibility in academic World or in Serbia itself). PANONIAN09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please elaborate what exactly you claim to be "fringe/minority view" - claim that Albanians were there or that they were not there? Also, if you claim that they were not there, would you please explain to us your view where Albanians lived in the 6th century? In Caucasus I presume? PANONIAN11:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As for "communist era" issue, Yugoslavia was not a communist, but a socialist country and Yugoslav historians from that time were not nationalistic and thus they were more credible than many modern historians who see entire history only through the eyes of their own nation. PANONIAN11:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
If "western bibliography" does state something different from these "fringe theories", I'd be very interested to read it. Most "western" sources I have read on the subject either state Illyrians or Thracians, or "unknown for sure" but also mention Illyrians and Thracians. Saying that there were Albanians in the 6th century is not that far-fetched by western standards. FTW "western" does not mean authoritative. There is such as thing as western propaganda as well.--Ptolion (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
@PANONIAN: I advice you to carefully follow wp:rs, a map is simply considered the result of various historical sources, and it is unacceptable to claim that 'they were somewhere' or 'they didn't came from the moon' so lets try to paint a map at random. Suppose the next step is to see a prehistoric 5th cent. B.C. map of the European nations' estimated positions. Morevoer, this map doesn't meet wp:verify and, if you don't have any arguments please do not insist on adding this historically exaggerated drawing.
@Megistias & @Alexikoua: If you read Origin of the Albanians you will be able to see the following. I'll quote:
In the 6th century AD, Stephanus of Byzantium in his important geographical dictionary entitled Ethnica (Εθνικά) mention a population called abroi from Adria Taulantii and a city in Illyria called Arbon, with its inhabitants called arbonios and arbonites.
I don't understand why one would continue to remove maps written in Serbia that talk about Albanians being present in the 6th century. Kind regards. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Several points: the map is not fringe, it's just unnecessary. True, the map doesn't meet WP:V, but it doesn't need to because it is not being used as a source (pretty much every other old ethnic map of the region - Stanford etc - also don't meet WP:V). However, it needs to be demonstrated that the map is sufficiently relevant in order to include it. What is the point of including it? Misplaced Pages articles shouldn't be used as depositories for any old junk. Unless what's depicted isn't discussed in the text, the assumption is against including it. Moreover, even though a picture paints a thousand words, images shouldn't be used as a substitute for actual encyclopaedic text. There are hundreds of maps on Albanians on the web, we can't and shouldn't include them all.--Ptolion (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
@Megistias: The map is actually a Tertiary source, not even secondary and I'll give you the definition of Tertiary source per Misplaced Pages as it applies to this one:
Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources.
@Ptolion: Thank you for pointing out that the map is not fringe. The map is extraordinarily necessary. And relevant. The article is called Albanians and maps are graphically showing the continuity and the autochtony of the Albanians in the lands they inhabited over time. It graphically shows their settlements and that is of course relevant to the article. I would also add that map in the Origin of the Albanians article where a map (used by Megistias) and which is REALLY fringe because a user has drawn it is appearing there and showing that the Albanians have daco-tracian origins.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sulmues, I think he was referring to Stephanus of Byzantium as a primary source, which it is. About the map, you have just confirmed my suspicions that the motive behind trying to include this map is to "prove" that Albanians are autochthonous. I'm afraid though that this is not how Misplaced Pages works. The origin of the Albanians is uncertain, there are many theories. All we can do is present the various theories together with their credentials. This map is simply not reliable enough to be used as a source for the Illyrian (or whatever) theory. We don't use schoolbooks here.--Ptolion (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess that I should make another citation of what the Tertiary sources are:
Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources
Stephanus of Bysantium is a Tertiary source because he mentions the Albanians in his Encyclopedia.
That the Albanians are autochtonous in their lands I don't need to prove, it's already proven. If you want to be unsure about it, you can continue to do so, but please allow me and other users to bring all the secondary and tertiary sources without recurring to edit-warring. You are not allowing us to bring tertiary sources. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The hypothesis that Albanians are the direct lineal descendants of the Illyrians is just one of many. Just as serious arguments have been put forth that Albanians are primarily descended from Thracians or Dacians. Since this is the article on Albanians, not Illyrians, including such a map in this fashion is trying is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Modern scholarship is not decided on the Origin of the Albanians, so we shouldn't try to influence our readers in this fashion. The one thing modern scholarship has decided on is that the first undisputed mention of the Albanians is in the 11th century, 5 centuries later than this map. Athenean (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I was asked to give my opinion about whether the map in question is a primary or a tertiary source. Ancient manuscripts, in general, are considered to be primary sources since we are not always sure about their sources or how far removed they are from their sources. The whole notion of distinguishing primary, secondary and tertiary sources is really only applicable in relatively modern sources. Ancient sources are almost never considered to be other than primary sources. This includes such respected and distinguished historians as Thucydides, Herodotus, and Plutarch. All are considered primary sources in a Misplaced Pages sense. Let me put it this way--it's a secondary source if you can look at the primary sources it uses. In ancient manuscripts, the primary sources are gone, thus even though they may have used sources, we can't find them and so the ancient secondary source becomes an ancient primary source. Thus, this map is a primary source. (I'm not going to get involved in this discussion other than stating my requested opinion.) (Taivo (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
Thank you for your opinion. I appreciated it! However you did not an answer on the second question that I asked and a vandal removed (Disagreement over whether a map from a secondary school may be used see this version: (). Your last sentence says that the map is a primary source but your overall explanation is about manuscripts. not the maps. You are setting the stage about old historians and draw a conclusion on 1970 maps.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I'm sorry. I was not asked by sulmues to comment on the map, I was asked by Ptolion to comment specifically on whether the 6th century source was primary or tertiary. This discussion is so convoluted that I though the 6th century Stephanus manuscript was the map in question. I see the problem. The 6th century source, whether billed as an "encyclopedia" or not is a primary source for the reasons I stated above--since its primary sources are no longer extant, then it, itself, becomes the primary source. It is not a tertiary or even secondary source--along will almost all other ancient manuscripts, it is primary. As far as the "map" is concerned, it is not well described anywhere in this discussion, so it's very hard to tell what it is or if it is appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
I suggest you remove your last comment by reverting yourself. I have already asked for a third opinion on the use of the map.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:
Reason: Third Opinions are available only in disputes between two editors. Once a third editor is involved, a Third Opinion has already been given. At least five editors (Megistias / Ptolion / sulmues / Taivo / Athenean) have participated in this discussion. If the dispute continues, you might want to consider moving on to an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Needed lots of work. As I explained the change, removed part on Constantine, but Religion in Albania is different from Religion within Albanians. As a matter of fact aren't you are exactly disputing this above? That the origin of the Albanians is uncertain?user:sulmues--Sulmues 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Albanians appear as a people in the historical record in the middle Ages (see Origin of the Albanians. There were no Albanians between the 2nd century BC and the 6th century AD. There was an Illyrian tribe by the name "Albanoi", but that is something completely different from the modern Albanian ethnos. Athenean (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The Illyrian tribe "Albanoi" gave the name to the Albanian nation through various forms of the word but the root is the same, even though we are talking about Greek, Old Greek, Old Albanian, Albanian, and English, however you deleted my explanation. The Romans first were a little tribe in Lazio 26 centuries ago and then they had an empire. 22 centuries ago an Illyrian tribe was called "Albanoi" and we have a continuation of that tribe per various sources from the 2nd century BC to the 21st century AD. I wrote: From the 2nd century BC till the 6th century AD the Albanians were called Arbanios and Arbanitai (Polybius), Albanoi (Ptolemy) and Arbon (Stephanus of Bysantium and you deleted that sentence. I think you should revert yourself. When you say "modern Albanian ethnos" what do you mean exactly? Since when was this "modern Albanian ethnos" formed according to you?sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see Origin of the Albanians. The ethnogenesis of the Albanian people most likely occured sometime between the 7th century AD and the 11th century AD, during the early medieval period. It doesn't make sense to say "From the 2nd century BC till the 6th century AD the Albanians were called Arbanios and Arbanitai (Polybius), Albanoi", simply because there was no group of people that collectively identified as "Albanians" at that time. Athenean (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well Megistias just changed that article with an odd ending, but I took that off. The root is the same. Albanoi or Albanian to me is the same word. I think that the autochtony of the Albanians is not tough to prove. Saying that the Albanians identified themselves in the 7th century (not earlier) is far fetched. There is a continuation of the name, customs, language (origin of Albanian language but you deleted 72 references there) and continuation of settlements. For the religion of the Albanians it is important to mention that these people had Christianity for 15 centuries (at least, because muslim conversion intensified only in 18th and 19th century). sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
RfC: RS use (encyclopedia of 6th century and map from school atlas)
(1)An encyclopedia from the 6th century (the Ethnica (Εθνικά) manuscript of Stephanus of Byzantium): is it a Primary, Secondary, or a Tertiary source and as such may it be properly used.
(2)A map from a secondary school may or may not be used in Misplaced Pages.
A couple of clarification, because sulmues is presenting a confusing picture. Question (1) refers to whether a map made by a wikipedia user that is based on a source from the 6th century AD is appropriate. Question (2) is whether a map from a 1970 Yugoslavian high school textbook should be used. Athenean (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
sulmues' question and Athenean's "clarification" are still not in tune. sulmues' 1) Ancient manuscripts are primary sources because their sources are no longer extant and cannot be checked. Athenean's 1) The hand-made map in this case is appropriate only if it is clearly labelled "Based on X source" and is not presented as uncontroversial accepted fact. 2) The Yugoslavian high school textbook map is copyrighted material and not free use, I suspect, so its use is based on copyright and fair use principles. If the map's conclusion is controversial, however, then it should be very clearly labelled that "This is one view" and another map added. If it is the only map and it is a fringe position, then it should either not be used or seriously balanced. It all depends on how fringe the representation on the map is. (Taivo (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
Thank you! The map is labeled "own work", but based on copyrighted material (even though I am not sure whether those rights have expired yet or not after 40 years). Then we can use the map and properly label it? What about if we can't find a map that has no opposite view? (sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 20:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
@Taivo: The map does indeed represent a fringe position. It flatly contradicts the historical record and every source out there. It shows "Albanians" in the 6-8th century AD, when in fact the Albanians appear in the historical record in the 11th century. WTo my knowledge, this is the first time I see someone claiming there were Albanians so far back in time. The sources are clear: Albanians as a people appear in the 11 century AD. Anything else is against the historical consensus and hnce fringe. Where is the source that claims there were Albanians in the territory of modern Albania in the 6-8 century AD? Presumably the 1970 Yugoslav schoolbook? Title, author, publishing house, page number? None of those are given. Why should we just take the creator's word for it? Better yet, why use a 1970 Yugoslav textbook as a source, when there are far, FAR better, academic sources out there? Athenean (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the statements here need to be carefully tailored. Albanians (and their ancestors) are not new--their language has been an independent branch of Indo-European for as far as we can tell given the evidence. So to say that Albanians just came into existence in the 11th century is not accurate. What is accurate is that they are not uncontroversially mentioned in the historical record until the 11th century. That 6th century encyclopedia could, indeed, be mentioning the ancestors of modern Albanians, but the fact is that it is not a universally accepted position. Albanians as a people did not "appear" in the 11th century. They are recorded for certain for the first time in the 11th century. The Albanian language (and presumably the people who spoke it) dates back about 6000 years to when Proto-Indo-European was breaking up. Maybe they weren't called "Albanians" that far back, but just because they aren't mentioned in the historical record doesn't mean that they weren't around, as either a separate people with a unique Indo-European language or as a part of a small group of languages, of which Albanian is the only survivor and the only one recorded. (Taivo (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
Well, the ethnogenesis of the Albanians occured sometime in the early middle Ages (6-11th centuries AD). Albanians aren't mentioned before the 11th century for a reason. While I suppose it is possible that the Albanians' ancestors lived in what is now Albania in the 6th and 8th centuries AD, the problem with the map is it says categorically "Albanians", not "proto-Albanians (possibly)". And this is based on nothing more than a Yugoslav schoolbook from 1970. As such it is in discord with mainline scholarship on the subject, which follows a much more cautious line on the subject. Athenean (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You cannot say that the "ethnogenesis of the Albanians occurred sometime in the early middle ages". You have no evidence for the ethnogenesis of a people. You only have evidence of when the name "Albanian" was first recorded for an ethnic group by that name. That's my point--you cannot prove when the Albanians came into being. Their language was certainly part of a distinct Indo-European group for 5-6 thousand years. Whether you want to call that group "Albanian" or not is not relevant to the fact that a distinct group of Indo-Europeans have existed for 5-6 millennia and that the descendants of that group were first recorded with the name "Albanian" in the 11th century. That doesn't mean that they didn't exist in the 6th century or in the 2nd century or in the 1st millennium BCE. The only evidence is that the name "Albanian" was first indisputably attached to them in the 11th century. I agree that the map makes a claim that is not backed up by the hard evidence. It is certainly possible or even probable that the people who were later called "Albanian" were already living in the area of Albania/Illyria in the 6th century, but the evidence doesn't conclusively prove that. (Taivo (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
So you see the problem. The map covers the 6-8 centuries AD and says "Albanians", when in fact the ethnonym "Albanians" is first attested in the 11th century AD. If the map covered the 11th century AD and said Albanians, that would be fine, but that is not the case. So if the map makes a claim that is not based on hard evidence, as you say, what does that say about the map, and what business does such a map have in wikipedia? Athenean (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The map is based on evidence of something, just not conclusively on what the mapmaker claims the evidence proves. It's all about how the labelling is done, as you said earlier. If the map implies conclusive proof, then it is wrong. If the map implies one possible theory, then it is appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
The way I see it, the map says "Albanians" quite unequivocally, so it implies conclusive proof. This stems of course, from the source it is based on, a Yugoslav textbook from 1970, rather than mainline scholarship. Since it presents only a hypothesis based on this particular source, including it here in this fashion goes against WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
A note, sulmues: Don't go taking the first (and so far only) comment in a RfC as a definitive answer to your question. It is my comment, but hopefully you will get others. You will not have your answers for a few days, so slow down, take a breath, and let the process play out for the next few days. You and Athenean can go have a cup of coffee with your friends while you wait. (Taivo (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
School book maps cannot be viewed upon as impartial, since they are tailored to suit state policies. Can't you just find some more reliable ethnological map of the region at the said time? GK1973 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course one from a book/study/encyclopedia written by acknowledged impartial academics. I do not think there should be any question as to what reliable sources are... Imagine a map coming from a Greek, Macedonian or Bulgarian schoolbook. Do you think that it could be used here? GK1973 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that per Misplaced Pages definition of rs, school maps are secondary sources, whereas encyclopedias are tertiary.
Right now the following two maps (Lejean and Sax) are disputed by the Greek Editors even though they are coming from Encyclopedias:
Guillaume Lejean's Ethnic map of 1861 of European Turkey and its vassal statesEthnological Map of European Turkey and her Dependencies at the Time of the Beginning of the War of 1877, by Karl Sax, I. and R. Austro-Hungarian
They want instead that the following map (Synvet) be presented:
Ethnic composition map of the Balkans by A. Synvet of 1877, a French professor of the Ottoman Lyceum of Constantinople
A school atlas published by a totalitarian regime, which was Yugoslavia at 1970 makes things more complicated. The map makes estimates that are contradicted by the entire western bibliography today, especially in relation to Albanians as well Aromanians. For example this book ], says that there is not historical evidence of Albanians in Epirus (southern Albanian included), before 1250 AD. (p. 134). In 1337 while migrating southwards, they reached, for the first time the city of Berat and that's historically proved, not just something based on estimations. Quite extraordinary the map shows Albanians in 600 AD in Berat while they first settled there in 1300 AD...
These are pure suppositions. Illyrians-Albanians have been in Berat for 2600 years and I can give you some evidence on that. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
About Aromanians (Vlachs) the situation is similar, they are not recorded before 11th century too, moreover this map claims that they came from the north something that is highly questioned.
These are very poor theories as the Vlachs may not be mentioned until the 11th century but they came during Illyrian wars. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Most probably the map is based on older material, maybe some Yugoslavian book from the Tito-Hohxa friendship period ca. 1945 ], it cannot be explained with a reasonable scientific-academic approach.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Stephanus of Byzantium is a primary source, he is also irrelevant as he does not mention or Albanians and just cites Polybius on an location. Does not claim anything related to this map.
Illyrians have nothing to do with this. The map is a 6-8th century AD map.
Those 3 19th century maps are irrelevant too. The map in question is a 6-8th century AD map.
Secondary school data are not reliable sources nor are they "competent ones". Universities have publications for adults, schools are for children.
The claims of the map are unreal and against all data.Its Fringe, not even minority view and frankly impossible to substantiate. Albanians appear 5 or more centuries later and even then they don't swarm all over the place. Vague mentions of them in 11th and later centuries.
What is the problem exactly? If you want to use one map, then this map should depict current academic consensus on the matter. If a (modern or old) map is negated by current academic theories, then they should only be presented as old theories or not at all. If a map coincides with current academic consensus, then it should be presented no questions asked, as long as the need for its presentation exists. So, you (plural) should check if either of all these maps (proposed by you, the Greeks or the Chinese) properly illustrates its purpose. I guess that these maps are disputed because of some arguments, these are the ones who should be discussed and not the maps themselves. Of course I also have to agree with Megistias on the fact that there is no connection between any of these maps and the one illustrating the situation in the "6th to 8th century". I want to see more arguments, I cannot comment only on whether I like a map or not... Up to now I see no reason for this map to be accepted. You have to give sources claiming that the depicted nations existed in the specific time period in the specific areas. GK1973 (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually there are lots of problems, because current Balkanian academics don't have an academic consensus on the matter.
In regards to the 6th-8th century map: The pro-Albanian consensus (which has a list that doesn't include exclusively Albanian academics) will argue about the existence and the autochtony of the Albanians over time in the region and describe how the Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians. They will cite, among other, that from the 2nd century BC till the 6th century AD the Albanians were called Arbanios and Arbanitai (Polybius), Albanoi (Ptolemy) and Arbon (Stephanus of Bysantium, and they will give examples that the Albanains were there continuously. The Greek academics won't agree with that and will say that Albanoi has nothing to do with Albanian and that Albanoi were not in Epirus anyway, so at least Epirus was not inhabited by the Albanians. The matter is complicate because even though there are some contacts between the two academies of sciences (Albania and Greece) the positions are so remote that the poor wikipedians don't know where to draw the line. History of course is taught differently in the two schools. I don't know if I created more confusion to you or if I were helpful in any way. Please read my comments above in the this part of the talk discussion.
In regards to the 19th century maps I brought above: those are the three maps above. You can see now how remote is the disagreement for the pro-Albanian maps and the pro-Greek maps in the 19th century, so you can multiply that disagreement 1000 fold for the 6-8th century map. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Here, I found an external link with a map very similar to the one that I originally used: http://www.camo.ch/illiricum7.htm (there are some slight differences in comparison to the map from history atlas that I used, but basic info regarding presence of Albanians, Vlachs and Slavs in the 6th century is same). PANONIAN11:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Olbonensis, Pliny mentions Liburnians, not Illyrians. Pliny "communities of the Liburni of which it may not be tedious to name Lacinienses, Stulpini, Burnistae, and OlbonensesMegistias (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Liburnians were an Illyrian tribe, but I see that Misplaced Pages has made sure to bring them out of Illyria. Mission impossible now to fix all this mess. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
18:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Albania
Kosovo
Rep. Macedonia
Greece
Montenegro
Italy
United States
Canada
Sweden
United Kingdom
France
Switzerland
Germany
Netherlands
Russia
Slovenia
Croatia
Romania
Norway
Belgium
Australia
Austria
South Africa
Egypt
Bosnia/Herz.
Luxembourg
Ukraine
Finland
Turkey
Serbia.PNG){kind=small}
22:49, 17. April 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.76.70 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:
Done. Thanks! sulmues--Sulmues 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)