Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo Serbs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Field of blackbirds

Hi, i have a genuine question. If Kosovo has historically been occupied by Albanians, how is it that they do not have their own name for Kosovo?. The Albanian name, Kossova, is derived from Kosovo which in Serbian means "of blackbirds" and was named after the famous Kosovo Polje, or the "field of blackbirds" where the Serbs were defeated by the Turks in 1389. -ASD (October 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.123.88 (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may initiate

This article, as well as Albanians in Kosovo, should have a part, be that in Culture or Religion part attached to it, that the conflicts amongst Albanians and Serbs were never religious. The criminal actions that Milosevic's troops commited over religious sites in Kosovo, or the unrests in march 2004 are not any indication that the people of Kosovo supported them or had religious intolerance towards each other. The source [1] is only amongst some that proves me right. Ilir pz 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I love how Serbs make up facts & history as they go along and as the need arises. Now it's Masses of Albanian Muslims who "immigrated" into Kosovo. Never mind the fact that Illyrians-Dardanians, and later on their descendants the present day Albanians, were there way before the Slavs invaded in the 6-8th century. But then again what can you expect from a nation whose whole history and national psyche is drenched in propaganda. God help them, for they fail to see how miserably they have failed in every single initiative that they ever took. GD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.202.164 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How is there continuation between Ancient Illyrians and modern-day Albanians? You've got a gap of more than 2,000 years. :S --PaxEquilibrium 11:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes; The majority of Illyrians were assimilated by SLAVS. SO ALbanians are NOT illyrians 'successors' as you like to make up. If anything it is slavs. Albanians are a small minority of Illyrians that remained in the albania region that were not assimilated by slavs.

The Albanians converted to Islam during ottoman times. THey then migrated to Kosovo after many serbs were killed and mistreated by Muslims. LAter in the 19th century, this mistreatment continued, and many left yet again. In contrast Albanians had 12 children per family, and grew like rabbits. --Hxseeker 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hagiography?

It’s curious to see that there is no images of persons in this article, just Orthodox Church icons. Where is the Serbian people from Kosovo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.232.230.203 (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Some alteration and addition

Hi,

I changed this sentence:

In total, 156 Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries were destroyed during the unrest in Kosovo.

To this:

In total, 156 Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries have been destroyed since June 1999.

And I added this:

During the unrest in Kosovo, 35 churches and monasteries were destroyed or seriously damaged.

Alan. --84.71.116.44 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Milla Jovovich

Her father was Montenegrin not from kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.72.247 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

section on famous people?

I'm sorry but this article seems to be completely off base. It is an article about SERBS IN KOSOVO, not an article about the history of Kosovo which takes up most of the articles space. There should be sections added about famous Serbs who came from Kosovo and should in general focus much more on the culture and customs of Serbs from Kosovo rather than the simply the history itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugo91aesop (talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting section about attacks on Serbs

User:Kedadi is deleting my edits without any good reason and he is not trying to discuss it first. This is your chance to explain yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanticm (talk • contribs) 01:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • User:ZjarriRrethues What is wrong with you people? why are you deleting my edits...why are you not answer to me on talk page...sources i mentioned like KFOR, Kosovo police force or OSCE are not biased or POV. I think that you can not be without biased. Those things are happening on a daily basis and i think those thing should be mentioned in the article. I know that you do not like those thing to be mentioned but they do happen. Shanticm (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS, point #4. First of all your edits are badly written (they do not match the WP MOS, compare your edits with the rest of article) and are simply daily news from Serbian sources (only one from OSCE). I'm not saying that such things do not happen but it simply is not encyclopedic material, but more like news headlines. Cheers. kedadial 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

point #4 "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is relevant material regarding oppresion of an ethnic group mentioned in the article not trivia not sports not celebrity stuff. If my edits do noy match WP MOS then edit it to be matched do not deleted it because you are deleting it because you do not like the truth that Albanians attacks Serbs because they are Serbs. So what if they are Serbian sources? You are implying they are not worthy because they are Serbian sources? Because of that opinion i strongly think that this edit should stay because your attitude it is in accordance of what Albanians are doing to Serbs in Kosovo and mentioned in my edits. If i could find credible source like Albanian as you suggest it i would inlude it but Albanians do not like to report of things so negative to them like those attacks are. This revertion will go indefinetelly. You can not hide the truth or the facts that Serbs are right now oppresed party in Kosovo. Thing hace changed in last 10 years. Albanians turned from oppresed to oppressors. Shanticm (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish editors would stop trying to er-fight the tragin balkan wars of the 1990s. This is an encylcopaedia not a place for pushing points of view. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Serbian Propoganda

While I understand that this is a very controversial topic, this article, particularly the section on the 1998-1999 war is completely unbalanced and needs to be addressed. I would like to draw attention to the following statements; "After the Dayton Agreement of 1995, the Kosovo Liberation Army started terror against the Serbian civilians and Yugoslav army and police, bombing police stations and government buildings, killing Yugoslav police and innocent people of all nationalities, even Albanians who were not on their side." (Unsourced and opinionated)

"since this was a terror organization it was hard to establish civilians from terrorists" (Opinionated, original research, unsourced and sounds like an attempt to justify ethnic cleansing of Albanians)

"they (the KLA) deliberately wanted civilians to die since this would trigger an international reaction" (Unsourced, Original research, pov)

"When UN-authorities took over administrative power in Kosovo in accordance with UN-Resolution 1244, they later found out that the maximum number of killed in the conflict before NATO bombing was 12,000 people, these were from all of Kosovo's ethnic groups." (Absolutely no mention that the vast majority (around 10,000-11,000) of these were Albanians)

"With the arrival of NATO, a large number of Serbs fled the region, estimated at 100,000 by the UNHCR. Around 120,000 remain in Kosovo and oppose any rule by Albanians." (All unsourced, no mention of the number of Albanians who fled the region due to Serb forces (estimated 863,000 by OSCE, at the very least 500,000)

I hope I do not even have to explain why the "Recent attacks on Serbs in Kosovo" (which should defiantly be mentioned, not in the newspaper-style fashion with which they are reported at the moment), is unencyclopedic. The "2008-present" section is also very dubious, and frankly quite ridiculous, with the only source being a Serbian newspaper. Thannad (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why there's a POV tag although that doesn't automatically remove the responsibility of improving the article from the rest of us.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, will try to make a few changes. Thannad (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian citizenship

Perhaps, someone could elaborate on the news that some of the Kosovo Serbs have requested Russian citizenship? http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/15/c_131246605.htm KNewman (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Map

This map:

...is incorrect. The Gorani do reside in the far south but they are not a majority, Albanians form a majority there in Dragaš. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, they reside in Dragaš but they are not majority. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of refugees

I can understand why some editors want to cite [2], since it appears to say that there were 250k refugees of which a vast majority were Serbs; but that source is only counting a narrow subset of refugees. Other sources, counting all refugees, yield a much larger number; and the majority of those are Kosovo Albanian, which is hardly surprising considering the widespread campaign of ethnic cleansing by Serb forces. bobrayner (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverted again. Sooner or later the article will be accurate, just as soon as Serb nationalists stop (or are stopped from) trying to propagate their preferred version of events. Will that be in a day, a week, a year? bobrayner (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I know it may be difficulty, but you should try to understand what i am saying all this time. Articles will be accurate when both versions of POV are presented, ant not when you remove everything YOUDONTLIKE, despite having sources. You are welcomed to add your sources and your POV, but you are not welcomed to hide facts per IDONTLIKEIT. You are also very rude to say to anyone "Serb nationalist", while only your edits constitute anti-national vandalism, and removal of sourced material. You should read WP:DR, WP:NPOVD and WP:NPA, in order to find out what is content dispute, and how to talk to other editors. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
We're not here to write POV forks. The reality is that a much larger number of refugees fled Kosovo; it is deceptive to deliberately restrict that to a much smaller subset of refugees in order to make it look like Serbs are the victims. You may not agree with reliable sources, but that doesn't mean you can put your own version of reality in the article. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You didnt understand me again. Please, do add content in this article. That is not POV fork, but a neutral approach to the subject. Write down your proposition that will include ALL sources mentioned, and we can agree on the version to use in article! Simple as that, and article will be cleared of edit warring. That is actually a way to solve any dispute on wiki, you know... --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not here to write POV forks. The reality is that a much larger number of refugees fled Kosovo; it is deceptive to deliberately restrict that to a much smaller subset of refugees in order to make it look like Serbs are the victims. You may not agree with reliable sources, but that doesn't mean you can put your own version of reality in the article.

  • This source says "approximately three-quarters of a million" refugees fled Serb aggression.
  • BBC says "Serb military and paramilitary forces swept through Kosovo in the spring of 1999, forcing 800,000 Kosovo Albanians from their homes".
  • NYT says "Since NATO began bombing last week, Serbian atrocities have multiplied and the exodus has increased. One out of three Kosovo Albanians have been chased from their homes, and most of these 600,000 displaced people are headed for the nearest border".
  • ucdavis.edu says "By the end of April 1999, about 600,000 residents of Kosovo had become refugees; another 400,000 were displaced inside Kosovo, meaning that half of the two million residents of Kosovo were refugees or internally displaced people ... As they left Kosovo, Serbs reportedly stripped many Kosovars of passports, property deeds and other records".
  • CNN says "more than 860,000 people, the vast majority of them ethnic Albanians, have left Kosovo since NATO began its air assault March 24. Many of Kosovo's approximately 1.8 million ethnic Albanians were already displaced before the current exodus".

... and so on. There are lots more sources. However, Whitewriter's version of events is completely different: "Out of 250,000 refugees in the aftermath of the 1999 conflict, an overwhelming majority are Kosovo Serbs."
That's because it's highly selective use of one particular source which is just counting refugees who only left a while after the war, at a time when many Serbs in Kosovo were worried about reprisals. You are entitled to your own beliefs but you are not entitled to your own reality. Will you revert the POV that you put into the article? bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You're certainly not stupid, and you've been working on these topics long enough, so you surely know that edit will mislead readers. Will you revert it? bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Until parts of events and sources about those events are used in their entirety there'll be POV issues i.e. mention everything. Btw the stats need to be updated. Also, I'm (finally) vacationing so expect me to take part in the conversation twiceonce per week or so. A final sidenote: not having to deal with nationalist irrationality every day really makes me much more unwilling to accept as legitimate the doublethink practices that are necessary for nationalist rationale to be used in any context.

--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kosovo Serbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kosovo Serbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kosovo Serbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed

Dušan Bataković and Dimitrije Bogdanović are heavily cited within article. They are considered to have written books with a nationalist aim.[1] Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You presented this as back-up for your adition of POV tag to the top of the article. But you actually don't say a single instance which is disputed at the article. The fact that the authors are considred nationalist by one other author, doesn't necessarily mean the information added is wrong or even disputed. Before doing so, as taging the entire article, could you please point out what exactly is disputed at the article and by who. Regards. FkpCascais (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree that perceived disputed factual accuracy needs to be explained by user, not drive-by tagged.--Zoupan 22:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Anscombe 2006, p. 761. "Even if some Serbian historians have not promoted a consciously nationalistic view, history as practised in Serbia has observed the constraints imposed by state-sponsored nationalism. As suggested in Part I, nation-building states in former Ottoman territories have used their influence over education, support for and dissemination of research, and the media to draw implicit, and sometimes explicit, boundaries for acceptable historical interpretation. Minor variations on the established narrative may be allowed, but even less overtly ideological historians remain chroniclers of the nation. As in most other post-Ottoman states, few historians in Serbia are able to read Ottoman texts: the focus of their research is confined to Serbs and Serbian lands under 'the Turks'. In the 1980s and 1990s, overtly nationalist Serbian scholars such as Dušan Bataković received the most generous support for the publication of their work. [2] The focus of much of such nationalist history was Kosovo. Footnote: [2] Bataković wrote a series of nationalist works on Kosovo, of which several (The Kosovo Chronicles [Belgrade, 1992] and Kosovo, la spirals de la haine [Paris, 1993]) have been translated into other languages. Many similar works have not been translated: e.g., Kosovo i Metohija u srpskoj istoriji, ed. R. Samardžic (Belgrade, 1989); D. Bogdanović, Knjiga o Kosovu (Belgrade, 1985); and A. Urošević, Etnički procesi na Kosovu tokom turske vladavine (Belgrade, 1987)."

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: uncontested move. DrKay (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Serbs of Kosovo → Kosovo Serbs – - Per WP:CommonName. 'Kosovo Serbs' is the common English language phrase used to describe the Serb community/ diaspora of Kosovo.

Main stream English language media in the UK, US and Serbia use the term "Kosovo Serbs", here are few examples: BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, B92, [http:// edition.cnn.com/search/?query=%22Kosovo+Serbs%22&x=0&y=0&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=relevance&intl=true CNN] and Fox News. Even the lead to this article describes them as "Kosovo Serbs", not "Serbs of Kosovo". Then we have the article "Kosovo Serb enclaves".

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnic cleaning

Nacionalist media is not reliable source, doesn't mention kosovo with its official name .It has also comments ,so it is just a blog.There are some nacionalist comments that makes it clear that it isn't a serious Source. Rolandi+ (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any nationalist media. Which source are you referring to?--Zoupan 12:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Total number

Some infobox numbers aren't referenced.So population in Serbia practically isn't referenced (the link is broken or invalid) ,also the total population isn't referenced.Can someone provide a reference to the total number.If not ,I have to put the total number as the total sum of populations in Serbia+Kosovo. Rolandi+ (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is that number unreliable? If not, why would you edit it? Your behaviour is disruptive. Why do you insist on the 2011 Census in Kosovo numbers when it is a fact that it was largely boycotted by Serbs? If there are 205,835 Kosovo Serbs living in Serbia, and ca. 100,000 in Kosovo, that number gives ca. 300,000. The numbers for other countries has not been added (Montenegro and Bosnia has a notable number of displaced Kosovo Serbs as well).--Zoupan 19:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

OK,just provide a reference about the numbers in Montenegro+Bosnia. "The numbers for other countries has not been added (Montenegro and Bosnia has a notable number of displaced Kosovo Serbs as well)" ---so the numbers in Bosnia+ Montenegro are decided by you?????? Rolandi+ (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The second source for Montenegro: "Crna Gora je pružila (ili pruža) utočište za 18.047 interno raseljenih osoba s Kosova od kojih je većina izbjegla 1999., a manji broj njih 2000. (Izvještaj o registracijiraseljenih lica..., 2003). Među interno raseljenima trećina su Romi, a najviše ih je smješteno u romskim naseljima, gdje su izmiješani s lokalnim sunarodnjacima ... Ukupan broj raseljenih u Crnoj Gori je približno 26.500" This gives the number of at least 12,000 having left Kosovo as refugees and displaced persons in 1999–2000. The number of those that left later is not included. The number of 8,000 refers those which still have the status of displaced persons; the number of persons which have been given Montenegrin citizenship is unknown. Thus, Kosovo Serbs in Montenegro are at least 12,000. Parliamentary Assembly Documents 2001 Ordinary Session (First part), Volume III. Council of Europe. pp. 169–. ISBN 978-92-871-4630-4. The number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) amounts to 188 000 in Serbia and 31 000 in Montenegro.' The overwhelming majority of them are Serbs.--Zoupan 12:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox profiles

I think that the infobox should only include notable Kosovo Serbs, and not people such as Dačić (born in Kosovo, to parents from central Serbia; he was not brought up in Kosovo) and Novak (only his paternal grandfather was born in Kosovo).--Zoupan 20:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There are more of similar examples in these articles. Novak is a notable Kosovo Serb. His father was born in Kosovo. For example, Mother Teresa is mentioned in articles about Kosovo Albanians and Macedonian Albanians both. --Aca Srbin (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2015 (UCT)
We are talking about this article now. I don't see the addition of Novak and Dačić as realistic. Novak is already at the Serbs' infobox. @Aca Srbin: Do you insist on the addition? I do not support it. --Zoupan 14:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
That is the way to other similar articles, considering bithplace and origin. I gave the example of Maria Theresa. -Aca Srbin (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UCT)

Further reading

"eventually was used to r"

It eventually was used to r[82][83] In modern anthropology, the historical validity of the term has been criticized as well as its use as a tool of nation-building and homogenization policies of the Serbian state.[84]

This is in the section "Albanisation".

Does anyone perhaps know what word "r" was the first letter of, before it ended up in its current state? --Calthinus (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed that and also moved the content of that very small section to the main demographics one. I also have a problem with speaking in absolutes about the demographics of an era in which we don't have any census tools. The sentence is After the Middle Ages, the Serbs continued to be the absolute majority of the population of present-day Kosovo; through the 15th, 16th, and late 17th century, evident from Latin and Venetian travellers, such as Jacob Soranzo (1575), bishop Marin Bizzi (1610), ethnic Albanian bishop Petar Mazarek (1623), and bishop Giorgio Bianchi (1638) by Karapandic (1986), a Serbian historian. I think that should also be removed as POV or rephrased with other bibliography to reflect the much more nuanced view of international scholarship.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus, Maleschreiber. See Frederick F. Anscombe. The Ottoman Empire in Recent International Politics - II: The Case of Kosovo. He takes to task both Albanian and Serb historians. He discusses the medieval period and populations, outside the usual bs. An available copy is here. [3]. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Despite what the wikipedia article might tell some editors, the Dečani chrysobulls weren't a form of census. It doesn't list ethnicities, nations, languages spoken or anything which some editors apparently believe it contains. It's a charter with a list of concessions to the church. Do any of these editors understand how bizarre it is to attribute percentages to a Slavic Orthodox document from the early 14th century?--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo Vilayet is not equivalent to Kosovo

I'm starting a discussion so I don't have to write the same summary every time someone thinks it's ok to add an Austrian report from 1899 which says that "Albanians were 48% and Serb 43%" in the area. The area here refers to the Kosovo Vilayet, an area almost twice the size of Kosovo today. The same information is on Kosovo_Vilayet#1899 from where editors usually copy/paste it. From now on, just don't that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Two things on this. The initial data was based on a source from 1899 from a Austro-Hungarian report. That is WP:PRIMARY and i removed it [4] because its not WP:SECONDARY, and my reason was based on WP:AGEMATTERS. It was recently reinserted by @WEBDuB using a WP:SECONDARY source [5]. Two problems emerge, no page number and no link to the source. I would like to remind all editors here that if your adding something to the article, please provide a page number. Other editors are not going to go looking for page numbers and do the heavy lifting if one can't bothered. Until a page number is provided, etc, that bit can stay out. And as such, one shouldn't even bother with it here, unless something of that nature is provided.Resnjari (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Defters didn't count ethnicity

There's nothing to rephrase here. The Ottoman defters didn't gather information about ethnicity in any way, shape or form. Anyone who cites a defter and claims that the Ottoman scribes have collected information about ethnicity in the document is deeply into WP:FRINGE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Population

Since September, several accounts from sr wiki have tried to change the overall numbers of Kosovo Serbs. We know that about 95,000 Serbs are in Kosovo (Cocozelli, 2016) and that about 6,000 (2015) live in Montenegro. The figures of 2015 can't be replaced with sources which discuss how many Serbs from Kosovo were in Montenegro in 2005. They're WP:OUTDATED. The overall number of Serbs from Kosovo was ~200,000 before the war. Many were displaced in Serbia after the war and over half of them returned in the next years. There aren't 200,000 Kosovo Serb IDPs in Serbia - there were a total of 200,000 IDPs (including Romani people) in the first years after the war, but that is not the case now. I'm not familiar with what media discuss in Serbia and what the general perception about the Kosovo Serbs is, but a figure of 200,000 Kosovo Serb IDPs is not close to an objective situation in any way, shape or form and is not something which bibliography discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Radević (2005) - already discussed in the article - was transferred again to the infobox as: 18,047 Kosovo Serbs in Montenegro (2005) She writes: Crna Gora je pružila (ili pruža) utočište za 18.047 interno raseljenih osoba s Kosova od kojih je većina izbjegla 1999., a manji broj njih 2000. (Izvještaj o registraciji raseljenih lica..., 2003). Među interno raseljenima trećina su Romi, a najviše ih je smješteno u romskim naseljima. [Montenegro has provided (or is providing) asylum to 18,047 IDPs from Kosovo, most of whom fled in 1999, and a smaller number in 2000 (Report on the Registration of IDPs, 2003). One third of the IDPS are Roma, and most of them are located in Roma settlements Radević discusses the total number of IDPs from Kosovo in Montenegro in 2003. 1/3 are Roma, 2/3 Kosovo Serbs. The article discusses that in 2003 Kosovo Serbs in Montenegro were c. 12,000. As of 2015 (infobox figure): Estimates suggest that over 6,600 Kosovo Serbs still live in Montenegro, over 15 years after the conflict ended. The majority of them still live in temporary refugee settlements without personal identity documents.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The specific claims of Serbia are discussed at a specific section. They can't be presented in wikivoice at the infobox. Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Side comment: There were ca. 200,000 Serbs in Kosovo before 1999. There are about 100,000 Serbs in Kosovo today. Serbia's claim - a country whose population every three years drops by 100k - about 200,000 Serbs from Kosovo in Serbia today isn't plausible. We compare and contrast sources and - with the exception of some belief systems - every POV has a place in the article. The POV of the state of Serbia is discussed at a specific section, but it can't be discussed in wikivoice.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
You have provided no sources for your claims and the rest is WP:OR. Also, do not remove the picture from the infobox.
All countries in the Balkans are facing a drop in the population, and Serbia is doing great compared to some of the neighbouring (EU) countries. The population of the disputed territory of Kosovo is getting older, on average, more and more every year, that is a fact which can be easily sourced. The population boom is a relict of the past. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what Serbian media discuss about the demographic development of Serbia, but it's not "great" compared to any EU or Balkan country. The fact that the Serbian public is subjected to a very different narrative than what is actually happening might have something to do with freedom of speech in Serbian media. The same problems are faced by all people in the Balkans who are regularly bombarded with media narratives about how "great" they're doing compared to everyone else. Wikipedia is independent and its bibliography should be RS and NPOV. If it's not NPOV, it cannot be discussed in wikivoice. The specific claims of the government of Serbia are discussed for what they are at a specific section. The infobox puts forward commonly accepted information. There were 215,000 IDPs (Serbs, Roma etc.) in Serbia in 2002. 20 years later, Serbia's population has dropped by 600k and at least a substantial portion of the IDPs has managed to return to their homes - otherwise there wouldn't be 90-100k Serbs in Kosovo. Serbia still claims that there are 200,000 IDPs from Kosovo in Serbia. It's not plausible. Now, the specific position of the Serbian government is discussed in the article, but it will be removed from the inbobox. It wasn't in the WP:STABLE version, so if its inclusion becomes the subject of edit-warring, the article will be tagged to inform the readers that what they're reading in wikivoice is actually the position of the government of Serbia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe. Their medias do discuss the issue and SANU is publishing academic works on the subject, there is even a Ministry and other gov. organisations which are taking care of it, even though that it a wider trend which may be only halted, in my book. The majority of younger population wants to live Serbia (Kosovo*)/BiH/Croatia/NM/Bulgaria etc. I'm not sure about MNE.
Stable has nothing to do with it as the article is expanding and the sources are reliable. Majority of the people did not return to the territory of Kosovo, that claim is the only absurd thing in the whole discussion, the document I provided above is covering that issue as well.
Politika and RTV are as good as it gets for Serbian medias. You may open a topic to prove that's not the case, and no, you obviously have no consensus for any move which aims to remove reliable sources. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
They are reliable sources for what they are. They reliably report the official position of the Serbian government, but they can't be discussed in wikivoice because the official position of the Serbian government is not NPOV. The number of IDPs - regardless of the portion which has returned to Kosovo - cannot have remained the same for 20 years. Allen, Richard. "Support for IDPs in Serbia Summary Report and Proposals" (PDF). UNHCR. writes: Officially, there are 203,140 persons displaced from Kosovo and still living in Serbia. This data comes from the registration of IDPs in 2000 and following subsequent movements of people out of Kosovo. There has been no re-registration exercise, but the total number of registered people is adjusted annually to reflect population movements and demographic changes. While the reliability of registration data can be questioned, it remains the sole source of official data.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
No. The country which is the host of the IDP sure knows their number and is credible for giving the information. Who else?! This information should stay. If you have other info. we can make a range - from the lowest to the highest number. Having no information in the infobox is not acceptable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
We compare and contrast sources. If they're state-sponsored, it doesn't make them more credible if independent sources criticize them. I read more carefully the RTV/Politika article. It's the same article, so I don't know why every revert summary claims that they're two different sources. And they don't discuss the number of Kosovo Serbs, but the total number of IDPs from Kosovo: Prema najnovijim podacima, u Srbiji, ne računajući teritoriju Kosova i Metohije, živi 199.584 interno raseljenih lica sa KiM od čega su 68.514 lica, odnosno 16.644 porodice, u stanju potrebe - nemaju odgovarajuće stambeno rešenje i adekvatne prihode kojim bi mogli sebi takvo rešenje da obezbede. The figure will be removed from the infobox and this time there will be admin oversight if revert only activity follows.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The presented quote directly contradicts this diff. Interesting.
Yes and we do not just remove the reliable sources. Politika, the oldest newspapers still in circulation in the Balkans, is state-sponsored? Ha. Let's see sources for that interesting statement.
And what seems to be the problem with that information in the infobox? Ktrimi made edits to make it more NPOV, which is appreciated.
Of course, please, invite uninvolved editors and admins. and try to explain removal of figure credited to a reliable sources and constant circles of WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (mixed with WP:OR) + insisting to remove any figure of Kosovo Serbs living in Serbia from the infobox, which is mindboggling and unconstructive. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Anyone who wants to make contested changes, should make sure they have consensus here. To avoid any potential edit war, especially on topics that have continous edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Agree. The WP:STABLE is the result of a compromise which involved allowing very dubious information at the infobox on the basis that readers will be informed at the infobox about the validity of these figures. If the context of the figures is removed, then the figures will be removed too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "stable" when these changes were only recently made and this isn't a GA or anything like that. My edit made the country flags, names and population figures aligned like they're supposed to be in an infobox. The revert does the opposite. It's clear which version is better and I can't think of any good reason why anyone would object to such a minor change. --Griboski (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, claims of "stable version" while edit-warring are usually done in bad faith, so as to prevent changes that an editor (or group of editors) finds undesirable from entering an article. Quoting from WP:STABLE It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war. Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive. Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version, and the decision to temporarily preserve the stable version for the purposes of deescalating a dispute may only be made by an uninvolved administrator. I have noticed that there are some editors in this topic area who routinely invoke WP:STABLE to prevent any undesirable changes from entering articles. This occurs frequently enough and has gone on long enough that administrative attention may be long overdue. Khirurg (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
No, that highly reduces the visibilty of info that makes the infobox be in line with NPOV. The other way for you is to remove the figures from the infobox and present them in the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
These are questionable and highly disputed figures. The only way for them to be displayed on the infobox was achieved via a consensus which involved the explanation about their source to be displayed in the same space. Griboski's proposed changes are strongly contested. Now, if some editors want them to be included they can file their proposed edits to WP:RFC and have a wider discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Khirurg Exactly. These tactics are disruptive. And this is all over a rather minor issue. I did not participate in the discussion on whether or not to include the population info from Serbia in the infobox and I don't feel strongly one way or another about it. My only concern was a cosmetic one; so that the infobox layout wasn't wonky. All the information is still there, just some of it is attached as a note.
Anyway, I agree that the 200,000 figure seems improbable. That's the number put forth by the Serbian government and has remained largely unchanged since the end of the war. It doesn't make sense given that around half of Kosovo Serbs have returned to Kosovo since. The number also includes Roma, Ashkali and other minorities, not just Serbs but this article is about Kosovo Serbs. We should use independent/third-party sources. According to the U.N. in 2012 there were 97,286 displaced persons from Kosovo, 88,000 in 2016 and 68,514 in 2019. --Griboski (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The figure of 68,514 total IDPs in Serbia regardless of ethnic origin is what I put forward and was contested in the previous discussion. The explanation was added specifically as a marker for the 200k figure. If we can agree that we'll replace 200k with 68k in total in Serbia and update the Montenegro figures, I think that we can create a less stuffed infobox.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that, except there's still a discrepancy in the figures. The lead states that the Kosovo Serb population in 1999 was 226,000 based on this source. But the source gives a table of displaced persons by ethnic origin of which there were 226,000 Serbs. It's not the total number of Kosovo Serbs since not all of them fled after the war. According to this organization it was closer to 300,000 and as of 2013, 146,000 were in Kosovo. More recently, many RS state that around 120,000 Serbs live in Kosovo. 1 2 3 4 5 This is higher than the 95,962 from Cocozelli in the infobox, which is from 2011. But assuming we take the figure of 226,000 and use the 95,962 from Kosovo, 68,514 IDPs from Serbia and 6,600 from Montenegro, there's still approximately around ~50,000 Serbs of Kosovo origin unaccounted for. The infobox should have the most recent and reliable data, which would be ~120,000 in Kosovo and 68,514 IDPs in Serbia. I'd leave out Montenegro since the 135 IDPs from 2019 are not a significant population. --Griboski (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
~120,000 in Kosovo and ~68,000 in Serbia seems to be reasonable. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The 146,000 figure is about the self-reported total number of registered citizens in municipalities in the ECMI report. The figures Cocozelli uses are from the 2015 registration. In 2011, North Kosovo and a part of Serbs in the rest of Kosovo boycotted the census. The 95k figure is the most recent one we have. Compare Leposavic between 2013 and 2021. The commune reported 22k registered citizens (inhabitants and non-inhabitants) in 2013. In 2015, via a model of registration and self-reported figures, the registered population dropped. In 2021 it had 12 482 eligible voters (excluding minors) in the total of registered citizens. Zubin Potok reported almost 14k registered citizens in 2013, but its total number of eligible voters (excluding minors) was 6321 in 2021. The same revisions exist for Albanian settlements too. Population figures are dropping everywhere in the Balkans. Kosovo will have its census in late 2021 or early 2022 and we'll be able to update the figures.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't have access to the Cocozelli passage (Ramet & Valenta book) but the snippet that I was able to get from p.267 reads: "Nearly 75 percent of the 95,962 Serbs which the OSCE estimated to be in Kosovo as of 2014 lived in the northern municipalities bordering on Serbia." So he's using the OSCE estimate and not from 2015 but 2014. The Minority Rights Group also uses OSCE estimates from 2010 to 2013. Your deductions might very well be correct but it borders on OR. None of these sources specify exactly how they got their data and I'm not sure how we are supposed to tell which one is more reliable. Surely there are newer estimates than from 2014. If a reliable source says there are approximately X number of Kosovo Serbs in Kosovo then we should be able to use them, and I provided several above. The U.S. Congress research branch report from 2021 (p.5) cites Tim Judah and Florian Bieber for its 120,000 figure. --Griboski (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The most recent publication the Congressional Report links to about Kosovo Serb demographics is Kosovo's demographic destiny looks eerily familiar (November 2019). Tim Judah writes: Today the websites for the four predominantly Serb-populated northern municipalities put their total population at 70,430 but if we exclude students, especially from other parts of Serbia, this number may be exaggerated for political reasons. (..) School enrolment and Serbian Orthodox Church figures point to a resident Kosovo Serb population of about 100,000, with about 40 per cent living in the north and the rest in the south. (..) In the aftermath of the war in 1999, when Serbs fled ethnic cleansing, Serbian officials claimed that around 220,000 Serbs had come to Serbia, which would mean more than actually lived there, according to the 1991 census in which Serbs and Montenegrins participated and which recorded 215,346 of them plus 42,806 Roma, many of whom also suffered at that time. In fact, close analysis by the European Stability Initiative think tank found that the true figure of those who had fled was about 65,000. At the time, UN agencies used Serbian figures, giving them credibility. Today, Kosovo’s Serb population is ageing fast and shrinking. There are not enough job opportunities for the general population and hence even fewer for Kosovo Serbs, a large proportion of whom do not speak Albanian. These are the figures I have been putting forward all along.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Judah also writes: "School enrolment and Serbian Orthodox Church figures point to a resident Kosovo Serb population of about 100,000, with about 40 per cent living in the north and the rest in the south." Given that all the sources here essentially provide estimates of around 100K, for the sake of compromise I would be fine with a circa 100,000 in Kosovo and 68,514 IDPs in Serbia for the infobox, if no one objects. The numbers can be updated with the next census. --Griboski (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable to me. Khirurg (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I am still adapting to policies and guidelines. Needless to say that off-topic accusations aren't constructive, though linking to random out-of-context diffs feels cheap. We can all learn and do better. --Griboski (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Khirurg, you have a long history of trying to make changes without any sort of consensus and edit warring for that reason: WP:STABLE does not give you any reason to do what you once in a while do. Hope you agree with me that edit warring is never a solution. @Griboski, if that is off-topic discussion, then do not open it. If you accuse me, I have the right to respond to it and explain myself. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The issue (for me) was with the actions on this article, not what anyone did months ago on other articles. Take care. --Griboski (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ktrimi991, now that you are aware of the limitations of WP:STABLE, the next time you invoke WP:STABLE to edit-war, it will be brought to admin attention. Khirurg (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:Stable has never been used by me as a reason. The reason has always been sth else, "stable" just being a reason to keep the stable version when consensus building failed. You have been trying to make POV changes without consensus for years just to fail to do that. I hope WP:STABLE does not give you the wrong idea that now on you can do what you were not able to do for years. I hope also that you yourself will stop making "stable version" edit summaries. Indeed, you have a long history of doing what you accuse others of doing. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

A Serbian newspaper can't be used for claims related to interethnic issues. It's WP:POV and a tabloid which regularly publishes the official narrative of the Serbian government isn't WP:RS. There are international organizations which monitor human rights issues.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:EXCEPTIONAL says that strong claims need strong sourcing. Furthermore, Serbian and Albanian newspapers should be very carefully used in such issues of the Kosovo-Serbia conflict. They in large parts misinterpret the news, and in some cases even create them. In the past on other articles fake news sourced to "Politika" were reverted by various editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
IMO, many Balkan newspapers are inherently unreliable.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Figures

I have seen that a consensus already exists for infobox figures [14]. WalterII's edit contradicts the newer sources and provides an impossible scenario. We should keep the consensus figures as agreed by many active users already. Uniacademic (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Serbian Jerusalem in lede

The mention of Serbian Jerusalem in the lede needs to be looked at. The lede should be a summary , but this is not discussed anywhere in the article. The execessive level of citation for the statement suggests edit warring in the past on this so I don't want to make a bold change on this, but it seems it should probably be covered in the body properly, or trimmed.Pipsally (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent Reverts on the Article

@User:Pipsally

Please explain your recent Revert here.

Your excuse "Edit-Warring" does not seem to be visible after my research.

Please adjust a Example, which speaks for your Argument, with your explaination.

If anybody wants to add something to this discussion, feel free for it.

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

About 2/3 of the edits since the stable version I restored have be reversions or removal of established sourced content. Make the case for whatever changes you want made, get consensus and there's no problem.Pipsally (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Pipsally

As I said, I checked the revision history. For me it is not visible, that a Edit-Warring is occuring.

Please adjust a Example with your Explaination, so I and possibly other users, can understand the reason of your edit.

Please refrain from using excuses, which can be literally reflected to your own behaviour.

--InNeed95 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have explained above. All I have done is restore the stable version. Establish consensus for whatever changes you wish you be made and they will be done as appropriate. Pipsally (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


@Pipsally:

User:Pipsally, I have explained to you, that I was not able to see your claimed "Edit-Warring". I asked you several times for a Edit-Example. Which you several times did not respond to.

If your cant explain your Edits, than your Edits will be reverted.

I have shown a lot of passion and I thought that we can clarify the problem easily thru a short discussion, but you dont seem to have the will to or your are just not able to.

--InNeed95 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Explain what recent edits you want restored. Provide appropriate sources. Gain consensus for those changes.Pipsally (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


@Pipsally:

As you are unwilling to cooperate, after I several times ask you to do so, I reverted your edit.

Please refrain from Editing the Article again, because this might result in a Edit-War.

If you found a will to cooperate, please do so by writing here in the discussion about the Topic.

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@InNeed95: You need to explain your edits. If you just repeat the phrase "sources are POV, sources are POV", you're not explaining to anyone why they're POV. You carry the responsibility to explain your edits. @Pipsally: isn't obligated to understand something which you haven't explained.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:,

Hi, it seems like there is a misunderstanding. He was the one editing. I was the one asking for a explaination because I did not understand his reason.

So it would be good if you would change the places of our both names. Since at least than, it would make sense.

(Also, where did I use phrases like: "sources are POV, sources are POV"??????????? Is this a mistake of yours?)

--InNeed95 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • If you argue that an edit constitutes POV-pushing, you have to write a talkpage explanation. Pipsally reverted what looked to them like unexplained editing.
  • I think that Kossev and Danas aren't reliable sources for discussing Kosovo topics in wikivoice. They operate under WP:TABLOID rules and represent the Serbian state POV about Kosovo topics. Wikipedia doesn't discuss state POVs in wikivoice and it can't be used to propagate skewed state narratives. We should remove these narratives or reduce them to a version which compares & contrasts the Serbian state narrative with the Kosovan state narrative.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:

What I did was a revert of a unsourced change by a IP-User. (The comment I gave with the Revert was falsely written. Because I didnt check at first what he changed (it stated that a edit of mine from earlier was reverted so I thought he did it) I explained that on the Users Talk-Page (see: User_talk:2A02:587:E23B:7D00:D191:6719:55D6:6D4F). I asked Pipsally for a explaination, which he didnt give!

I did not use any sources for my revert... lol... why should I use sources for a revert, than there are 3 sources already given?

As I said, please review the situation again. Because it seem like, there is a misunderstaning.

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


@Pipsally:

You claimed there was a Removal of the COVID text, while there wasnt. There were only minor changes.

Maybe you misread the text? Is this the case?

If you have another problem, please explain it FIRST here before editing the Article again.

--InNeed95 (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not be disingenuous. You are removing this sourced text in your edits. Please explain why and get consensus for this removal.
In 2021 health workers from North Kosovo protested against arrests of their colleagues who are employed in the hospitals which take care of patients with COVID-19. They described the actions as "inhumane" and sent protesting letters to various international institutions and organisations.[1]

I also restored a number of your good edits after my revert, including most of those around the Covid topic.

The 7% figure is fine to add providing you contribute a source for it. Restore with a source, but not without. Pipsally (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)



@Pipsally:

I asked you to not Edit the Article again until we could agree on the "problem".

Please refrain from editing the Article without a consensus.

Instead of reverting my edit, making several new edits, you could have just told me.

There were 2 parts about COVID in the North of Kosovo which were removed before.

I added the first part (with minor changes). I missed to re-add the second one about the protest.

I have added the missing content now.


Do you have other thoughts on how the Article could be improved?

The number of the percentage was changed by a IP user with a outdated source. The 7% were shown prior to that. As I thought, it might be controversial, I have edited it to "4-7%".
I already restored your Covid edits and readded the bit that was removed.
As I said, provide a source for 7% and we can add it. It's very easy. Currently there are sources for 4% and not for 7% - it doesn't matter if they're added by an IP user.Pipsally (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

--InNeed95 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


@Pipsally:

Minor Edits can be done without reverting the content of others.

--InNeed95 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


@Pipsally:

Did you just make a error while editing? Because your comment is inside mine.

I told you once, that the 7% were given a long time prior. A IP-User changed it to 4% with a outdated source.

There are literally 4 sources about the number of percentages.

Its not "my" edit, but a restoration of the former version.

It does ofcourse matter if a IP-User changed something with a outdated source. I only checked the source given by the IP-User, which claimed 2 different percentages. So I reverted to he prior shown 7%. As a solution for the dispute, I proposed a 4-7% to be shown instead of a single number.

--InNeed95 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I've worked through the article. I've found the source for the 7% and I've added it to the lede.Pipsally (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


@Pipsally:

I told you, that minor edits can be done without reverts. So stop reverting. I asked you to not edit the article without a consensus, since the rules ask for one if there is a dispute!

--InNeed95 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you actually take the time to look at the edits please. You are reverting your own content. The content you wanted included/changed is in there, with the additional bit that about the protest I quoted above readded as you agreed above. I have also included your 7% figure with an apropriate source. You do not need to revert to get your preferred version - it is already there.Pipsally (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


@Pipsally:

As I said, without a consensus you should not edit anything.

You can make minor edits without Reverting the content of others!

Also its not "yours" but the version that was prior shown. Inform yourself better next time.

--InNeed95 (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, the edits you made are included. In that there is consensus.Pipsally (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


@Pipsally:

You dont seem to understand what consensus means.

There was non in this discussion. You acted based on your POV.

A consensus is found, than both parties agree on something. You kept reverting edits.

--InNeed95 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say that we've agreed - your edits have been included. That is consensus. You don't need to revert all my other edits.Pipsally (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


@Pipsally:


How many times do I have to say that we´ve not agreed. You acted based on your POV.

You did not need to revert my edits if they are included either.

--InNeed95 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Serbia, RTS, Radio televizija Srbije, Radio Television of. "Protest zdravstvenih radnika u Kosovskoj Mitrovici". www.rts.rs. Retrieved 2021-01-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Population of Kosovo Serbs living in Kosovo

@Griboski:

The "Concensus" you are talking about, didnt really happen. Well there was a discussion, but there wasnt really something the participants agreed on.

The recent change made by my side ("70.000 - 100.000") fits in with the sources. Most sources claim a number in between those two numbers. While 100.000 is the max. estimate made.

Adding that, the 100.000 is still also shown. So why bother with the info. sources are giving?

--InNeed95 (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not interested in participating in this discussion, as I do not have the time in the first place. But do not say that the current figure does not have consensus. Indeed, it was the conclusion of consensus between several editors. If the interested editors reach a new consensus, I am not against that, though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Check the archives. A consensus of ca. 100.000 was established and reiterated by other editors. 1 2 Cocozelli 2016 is in the Ramet and Valenta book, so it's the same source. On page 267, 95,962 Serbs are cited as living in Kosovo according to the OSCE in 2014. The 2019 BI article cites around 100.000 Kosovo Serb residents. In the prior discussion I had also given a figure of 120.000 from various sources. This was contested as well as a figure drastically lower than 100K, so we came to an agreement of circa 100K. --Griboski (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a consensus about 100k. As population size in the Balkans has decreased in the past 5 years, there are probably fewer Serbs in Kosovo than there were 5 years ago - there are also fewer Albanians than 5 years ago. A new census will take place within a year and we'll update the figures. @InNeed95: In all due honesty, this is not one of those things which are worth having a big dispute about.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ktrimi991: /// @Griboski: /// @Maleschreiber:The editors didnt really agree on one number. Thats what I was talking about. /// Hmm... Alright. Lets leave it as it is. Most sources I saw, claimed numbers between 70,000 - 100,000. Thats why I made the change. Though it may not be accurate, it tells about a rough number of serbs living in Kosovo. /// Its questionable on how the number changed thru out the years. The birth rate is among the Top 5 highest in Europe. But we will see. / I dont see, how this is a "big" dispute though...?--InNeed95 (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Slavs of Kosovo

Torlak dialects

In general, the basic premise of Jingiby's edits is correct.[15] The first Slavs who settled in Kosovo came from east and south of Kosovo and they were east South Slavic/Bulgarian-speakers. Serbo-Croatian dialects form a later group which was introduced from a northern direction. A third Serbo-Croatian-speaking group came in the Ottoman era from Montenegro and was sometimes bilingual (Slavic/Albanian). Under the influence of the Patriarchate of Pec, some of the south Kosovo Slavs began to call themselves Serbs in the Ottoman era. I think that we can reduce some of the Sclaveni parts because they don't refer specifically to Serbs and create a language section about the dialects spoken by this community.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree to reduce the Sclaveni part. Jingiby (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo_Serbs/Archive_1&oldid=1126594908"