Talk:Demographics of Kosovo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Temporary injunction This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to a temporary injunction in the Kosovo arbitration case. Parties named in the case may be banned from editing it by any uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits. This does not curtail normal administrator powers to deal with disruption. This notice may be removed by any editor when the case is closed.
Kosovo Portal
Demographics of Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Disagreement about the data

Any questions regarding the data can be addressed here. --Igor

100,000 Albanians settled from Albania? It's simply not true. I can make up a fact and link to some book, hoping no one would check.
The point of view is clearly tilted toward the Serb POV, which says that Albanians are turks or came from Albania with no proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
What's up with you guys using Kosovo.net as a source???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.80.127 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the data. They're from Serbian sources only. Do not remove the disputed message unless you put it there yourself. Dori | Talk 04:09, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
You say that 360,000 non-Albanians left after the war and 200,000 Albanians moved in. But when I compare the numbers between the last two censuses I see about 150,000 less non-Albanians and 100,000 less Albanians. Where are the 300,000 missing Albanians then? I don't believe your 300,000 and 200,000 number can be correct. Rmhermen 04:13, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
The UNHCR says 220,000 Serbs fled so I will change that part to that figure. Rmhermen 14:21, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Dori, what facts do you find inaccurate? The fact that Turkish census says this, the fact that Austrian colonel says that, the fact that Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom Parliament says yet another thing, the fact that Yugoslav censa say what they do, or the fact that UNMIK census presented these numbers? If you can't point out which facts are inaccurate, I will remove your notice. If you think that the article as a whole is not neutral, well, that is another thing and deserves another notice. Nikola

08:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I seriously doubt any of the sources are accurate. They're all from sides that Albanians are unlikely to have cooperated with. This should be noted. The language is also way beyond NPOV.
You are wrong. There were no reasons for Albanians not to cooperate with Turkish or Communist (or their own!) officials, and Austrian and Serbian estimates are clearly marked as estimates. Nikola
I mean "Creation of a fascist-nazi puppet state Greater Albania, massacres of some 10,000 Serbs, ethnic cleansing of about 100,000, settling of 70,000 of Albanians from Albania;" -- are you seriously saying that that is NPOV??? In 1999 NATO occupies Serbian province.
It accurately describes what happened, noone disputes it, so no source is needed. So, yes, it's NPOV. Nikola
I dispute that "220,000 non-Albanians are ethnically cleansed, an estimated 160,000 Albanians move in from Albania according to Serb sources."
So, you are disputing that there are Serb sources which say that 220,000 non-Albanians are ethnically cleansed and 160,1000 Albanians moved in from Albania? I can assure you that there are a lot of sources which say exactly that. Nikola
There is a ton of crap in this article for me to mention it all, and you should not remove the notice, as it is indeed biased toward the Serbian POV and you are a Serb. I'd be OK if a neutral side tried to reword the "article" but if you removed it it would be against policy. Dori | Talk 13:29, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Again, if you don't point which facts are inaccurate, I will remove the notice. So far you have questioned validity of sources, but not the fact that sources say what they say. Nikola
20:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There are no links that go with some of the sources, how could I even question them?
SFRY censa are apparently not to be found online. That is not reason for questioning them. If you don't believe that these are numbers from them, go to your library and read them. Nikola
As for the numbers I mentioned above, I do dispute them, and they have no source to go with.
I take that this refers to WW2 numbers. I have managed to find that in this edit by G-Man deleted the source: actually, it's source is1. I am puting it back in, and, for the record: I HAVE NO INTENTION IN FINDING THE SOURCES WHILE YOU ARE DELETING THEM AND LATER CLAIMING THAT THERE ARE NO SOURCES. This is not the first time that it happened. By the way, 1 also supports some of Yugoslav censa results. Nikola
Just for that alone, the notice should stand. Again, you removing them would not be NPOV. Actually, this page need another notice. Dori | Talk 23:57, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't remove the sources. Also, you didn't answer about the numbers I said. "an estimated 160,000 Albanians move in from Albania according to Serb sources" -- is utter crap, and there is no source to go with it. You can pollute and POV the article all you want, but you cannot remvove the disputed notice. Dori | Talk 14:38, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
No, your friend G-Man did, and you are complaining about that. Same happened in article on Prishtina. Same will happen in article on Kosovo, where it was ChrisO who removed the soruces. I can remove the notice, and I just did it.
Our media don't have that old archives, but I've managed to dig out this article which quotes Kostunica's interview with Koha Ditore: "Napomenuo je da su se gotovo svi Albanci vratili svojim ku?ama, a da su na Kosovo stigli ?ak i neki Albanci iz Albanije koji tu nikada prije nisu ?ivjeli." - "He pointed out that almost all Albanians have returned to their homes, and that on Kosovo arrived even some Albanians from Albania who have never lived there before." Ask XJam if you don't believe me. Nikola
07:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You're partly responsible for the alleged inaccuracies, so you can't be the one to judge that they're accurate. Also your quote doesn't mention any numbers, so it's worthless. If even 2 people from Albania came in, the quote would be true, but it wouldn't make the data accurate. Also, the numbers should be carefully attributed, or else I might think Igor or whoever put them in just made them up. Dori | Talk 14:35, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
[1]: "One of reasons for the government of FRY to decide [not to allow entrance to FRY to persons who have passports with UNMIK stamp] were informations that on on Blace border crossing a larga number of Albanians from Albania entered Kosovo".
[2][3] (an interview with an Albanian who fled Kosovo after the war): "On Kosmet there are today a lot of Albanians from Albania."
[4]: "Coming of Kfor and Unmik to Kosovo and Metohia in June of 1999, and entrance of several tens of thousands of Albanians from Albania ... caused egzodus of Serbs."
[5]: "Serbs have decided to boycott local elections ... while in Southern Serbian province there is a large number of Albanians from Albania and Macedonia."
[6]: "Citing Bulgarian police unit on Kosovo, [Bulgarian] magazine "24 sata" claims that in the souther Serbian province ... since June to first daysof December have illegaly settled 200,000 foreignets - Albanians from Albania."
And so on, and so forth. Will you remove the notice now? And which inaccuracies am I responsible for? Nikola
08:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
All these are hearsay. You are only mentioning one source with numbers, and that's not even much of a source (not an authority). I suggest you have a read at: Wikipedia:Verifiability. This data is not verifiable, and it should not be in an encyclopedia until it is. Dori | Talk 19:26, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
The fact that a large number of Albanians from Albania entered Kosovo may or may not be verifiable, but the fact that numerouse Serbian sources claim that a large number of Albanians from Albania entered Kosovo is, apparently, verifiable. I suggest you have a read at: Wikipedia:NPOV.
Since you haven't answered me which inaccuracies I am responsible for, I presume that I am not responsible for any inaccuracies, so I will remove the notice. Nikola
07:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Title

This article starts some five centuries before the creation of the modern province; as such, it talks about demographic histories of both Kosovo and Metohia. Nikola 13:25, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

... which is now internationally known as Kosovo, and the article doesnt even mention metohia except for the external link. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
It does now, added particular info from Müller about Metohija. --Igor 07:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Which is now internationally known as Kosovo???? What is now internationally known as Kosovo?? Please, give more substantial reply. Nikola 07:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
umm.... Kosovo is known as Kosovo. See Talk:Kosovo for details. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
The fact that Kosovo is internationally known as Kosovo is undeniable, but not very helpful. Kosovo i Metohija is internationally known as Kosovo and Metohia. Nikola 06:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

This is Terrible! and somehow funny too when you see this kind of data! its very sad to see serbs leading such a nasty politics towards albanians still, Data that is given in this page are completley manipulated by serbs in the very rude way! But when you go deep in this issue somehow you understend Serbs concerns about Albanians, KOSOVA!! Yes they see that time and everything slips form their hand! Albanian are much more vital nations and its logical that serbs are trying to invent things to prevent them becoming what they will, the lord's of balkans. With Second State(Kosova) to come in the while, Macedonia with over the 30% Albanians and albanians in montenegro serbia and greece things are pretty much clear!!! Its a simple theory that NUMBER COUNTS :), and manipulations wont help any longer! Love you All! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.212.1 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Growth of Albanian population

According to the graph on this page, the Albanian population of Kosovo grew by 1,5 millions (almost seven-fold) in a few decades in the 20th century. Wouldn't it better to say from where all these Albanians came ? For sure not from Albania. Bogdan | Talk 10:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Surely not all of them came from Albania. What are you aiming at? Nikola 07:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think that's an important fact in this context. Where are they from and why this large-scale immigration started. Bogdan | Talk 09:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Albania was poorer and politically more oppressive than YU and Kosovo leadership simply allowed this, while YU leadership didn't mind. It is hotly disputed how many Albanians are actually from Albania and how many are descendants of Albanians actually living on Kosovo. Nikola 05:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nikola, you should read about Enver Hoxha: The border was SEALED. Shoot on sight and intern the extended family. Even if Serbs let us in, no you would get more than a dozen or so a year and those few people would have gone to US or West Europe in political asylum so let's be honest here. It's a nice lie but a lie nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No it was Rankovic. hahahahahah??????--Hipi Zhdripi 03:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1911 Turkish statistics

1871: According to Austrian colonel Peter Kukulj in a study done for the internal use of the Austro-Hungarian army.
According to Turkish statistics, 912,902 inhabitants lived in the Vilayet of Kosova, out of whom 743,040 were Albanians, 53,396 Bulgarians, 106,209 Serbs, 20,009 Jews and 5,043 Romanies.
Source: ASHRSH, fund MKK. D-7, doc. 707936. Turkish statistics of 1911. [7]

Why does this article relies on the statistics made up by an Austrian colonel but not using the data from the Turkish census ?

Anyway, on the census data, the vilayet included part of Serbia, Muntenegro, Macedonia and Albania [8], but the ethnic proportions are quite clear. Bogdan | Talk 18:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well Bogdan, the next time you make up bogus Turkish census results at least try to have them add up correctly :). 743,040 + 53,396 + 106,209 + 20,009 + 5,043 = 927,697 not 912,902. Besides, another way of telling that your figures are bogus is the fact that the Turkish censa did not go by ethnicity but rather by religion. Muslims all together, Jews separate, Orthodox and Catholics. Later on, with the creation of the Bulgarian exarchate you had separate columns for exarchists (the Bulgarian Orthodox Church) and Patriarchists (other Orthodox under the jurisdiction of Constantinople i.e. Serbs, Greeks, Orthodox Albanians and your precious Macedo-Vlachs). So any Turkish census which has numbers that A) Do not add up and B) include Albanians is most certainly bogus. Besides, the page you quotes is propaganda central of the former 'Kosovo INformation Site'. Formerly on www.kosova.com when it was still Ibrahim Rugova's LDK party site. --Igor 3:40, OCt 2, 2004 (UTC)
Probably because noone saw it until now. I would include it if it isn't completely bogus--for example, there are no Turks. Nikola 15:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's because the document is probably not quoted completely, because the number of turks was both insignifiant (probably somewhere close to 2.000, as the Austrian colonel said) and irelevant. Bogdan | Talk 16:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, OK. Why not, though I have found other sources about the same period having totally different numbers. Nikola 22:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
End of discussion, '1911 Turkish statistics' are bogus and I expect this part of the discussion to be archived so that we can adress some SERIOUS issues. --Igor 3:40, OCt 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1923 ethnic map

Also interesting, this 1923 ethnic map [9] seems to contradict the 1929 statistics of the article. Bogdan | Talk 20:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is probably based on the aforementioned Turkish statistics, which is disputed. However, as I said, I have no problems about mentioning the statistic, as long as the dispute is noted. My guess is that Turkey overinflated number of Albanians so that portions of the vilayet wouldn't be given to Serbia and Montenegro in then already predictable First Balkan War (can't find a source which claims so, just a possible explanation by me).
Unrelated to this, Bogdan, if I can ask you, why do you have such strong anti-Serbian sentiment?
I don't have anti-Serbian sentiment. I have an anti-Nationalist sentiment.
Yeah, that's especially visible in your contributions, such as Moldovan language, Image:Map-balkans-vlachs.png, or any map of a Romanian historical region (such as Image:Bucovina.png). Nikola
Why, for example, you don't try searching for sources which would confirm those already in this article, or sources which explain why so rapid population shifts?
I searched new sources that would explain the rapid population shifts and I found the Turkish census. This source explains it. However, I would try looking for more neutral sources.

When March violence happened on Kosovo you were very quick to write an article about 17th century Bajrakli mosque and moreover wrote that it was destroyed when it was only lightly damaged, not to mention that you wrote that it was "one out of the 80 that had existed in Belgrade", a complete FUD,but you haven't bothered to wrote an article on any of the churches which were completely destroyed on Kosovo, many of which are much older and have much more significance than the mosque. I mean, despite that I will discuss this article with you, or anyone else, but would just like to know. Nikola 14:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many Kosovo and Serbia-related articles are taking the side of Serbs. Obviously this happens because in Wikipedia the presence of Serbs is stronger than the one of Albanians. Bogdan | Talk 18:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, right. All Kosovo-related articles (save ones which talk about completely neutral topics, such as Metohija or Sar Mountain) are heavily anti-Serb, as are many other. With Dori as sysop, I can't say how can anyone claim that in Wikipedia the presence of Serbs is stronger than the one of Albanians.
Even if not, this however doesn't explain why would you think that burning of a 17th century mosque is more important than burning of a 12th century church. Nikola 08:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you have any proof showing that I have abused my administrator priviledges in any way, let alone in some way that favors the Albanian POV, or are you throwing that out there just to spice up the discussion?
I was talking to Bogdan, not you. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that I am the only long time Albanian contributor, whereas there are at least two Serbian long time contributors. Additionally, there are no long term Kosovar-Albanian contributors. Dori | Talk 07:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
You might be the only but you're a sysop. You can outweight two other contributors. As for Kosovo Albanian contributors, there are also no Kosovo Serb contributors, so that fact is unimportant. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian claims and Albanian reality

I am neither Serb, nor Albanian but I have spent enough time reading old ethnographic sources to know that the data given here is completely wrong. The Albanians have constituted the majority of the population of Kosovo since the period between 1690-1740 and the mass flight/expulsions of Serbians to Banat.

Which is pure nonsense and I unlike you, will prove what I am stating by quoting travelers who visited the area. -- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

According to Weigand, Albanians constituted around 2/3s of the population of Kosovo (68%) before the Balkan Wars, which is almost identical to the percentage of Albanians in the censuses after 1948, before the Albanian demographic explosion in the 1970s.

Gustav Weigand was paid by Bulgaria to carry out his research. He not only Bulgaricized all Macedonia but Kosovo as well. Funny how you misquote him, Weigand actually 'found' Albanians and Slavs in Prizren. He actually refrains from calling Prizren Serbs as such, just calls them 'Slavs that speak a mixed Serbo-Bulgarian dialect'. And according to him all of the Presevo valley (Bujanvac, Presevo) is also Bulgarian-Albanian, not one Serb. No surprise that Bulgarians have a Bulgarian translation of Weigand online on (About Albanians, Whole book). Thus you might have an issue with my nationality, yes I am Serbian, but you cannot accuse me of propaganda as I always attempt to use as neutral a source as I can and will continues to do so in the future. -- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
If you think that the sources are credible, add them to the article. Nikola 15:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It needs to be taken into account that until that time the birth rate of Serbs and Albanians was, if not identical, at least comparable.

There was certainly ethnic cleansning of Serbs in Kosovo, no one doubts that, what, however, bothers me is that the Serb who has written this article has forgotten (very conveniently) to mention the large scale ethnic cleansning of Albanians in 1912/1913, nor the Albanian emigration to Turkey in the late 1940s and the 1950s.

Had there been ethnic cleansing of Albanians in 1912-3 we would not be at odds with such articles. For one thing there would be no Albanians in Kosovo (who at that time numbered 300,000 according to some, maybe less maybe more, would have all been expulsed in a flash) and there would be no need for the "Kosovo Information Center" to make up bogus data about a 1911 Turkish census with more Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Jews than there were inhabitants in the Vilayet to begin with. -- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
I'll skip over "Serb who has written this article" part. I don't know that there was ethnic cleansing of Albanians in 1912/13, quite to the opposite. And, AFAIK, 20th century emigrations to Turkey were comprised mostly of Turks and Slavic Muslims. Nikola 15:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know that there was ethnic cleansing of Albanians in 1912/13*

VMORO The report of the Carnegie Commission on the causes and the Conduct of the Balkan Wars, it is actually available on the net

I have easily found what seems to be official page of the Commission (http://www.ccpdc.org) but it doesn't seem to mention Kosovo at all[10]. Nikola

--Response VMORO-- These are excerpts from the report, may be next time you should read better.

'thus the Albanian petitioners, who on September 21 addressed themselves to the Great Powers in the name of the populations of Djakova, Ipek, Plava, Goussinie and the ex-vilayet of Kossovo, did not exaggerate when they stated, as regards this other theater of the revolt, that "the Servian and Montenegrin regular troops undertook and did everything, from the first day on which they invaded the Albanian territory, either to compel the inhabitants to lose their nationality, or brutally to suppress the Shkiptar race." '

Djakovica (Djakova), Pec (Ipek), Plav (Plava), Gusinje (Goussinie) are all part of the ex-vilayet of Kosovo. The Albanians in those regions resisted the Serbs who fought back. Naturally, when they lost the battle they complained to observers from foreign lands about the injustices of the victor as they had supported the ruined Ottoman Empire. -- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

'As to the Servians, we possess authentic evidence in the shape of a letter from a member of the Servian army, published in the Servian Socialist paper Radnitchke Novine, of October 9/22.

"Radnicke novine" was the mouthpiece of the Social-Democrats. The Serbian Social-Democrats were the only SD in Europe not to support Serbia's wartime budget in WW I. It is not surprise that they slandered Serbia's liberation of Kosovo, that was their hole platform, attacking the establishment and the Kingdom of Serbia which at the time was the only parliamentary democracy in the region (more democratic than Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary at least). These were the predecessors to the Communists who carried out a wholescale slaughter of Serbian intellectuals in 1941-5 for the purpose of the national revolution. Nothing suprising here in their letter. -- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

The contents of this letter resemble only too closely the letters of the Greek soldiers. True, the reference here is to an expedition made to repress a revolt. "My dear Friend," writes the soldier, "I have no time to write to you at length, but I can tell you that appalling things are going on here. I am terrified by them, and constantly ask myself how men can be so barbarous as to commit such cruelties. It is horrible. I dare not (even if I had time, which I have not) tell you more, but I may say that Liouma (an Albanian region along the river of the same name), no longer exists. There is nothing but corpses, dust and ashes. There are villages of 100, 150, 200 houses, where there is no longer a single man, literally not one. We collect them in bodies of forty to fifty, and then we pierce them with our bayonets to the last man. Pillage is going on everywhere. The officers told the soldiers to go to Prisrend and sell the things they had stolen." The paper which published this letter adds: "Our friend tells us of things even more appalling than this (!); but they are so horrible and so heartrending that we prefer not to publish them." '



And it is not only the map which Bogdan quotes above that gives ethnic preponderance to the Albanians, nearly ALL ETHNOGRAPHIC maps from the late 19th and the early 20th century do that. This article should be either fully re-written, or it should be erased as it is highly biased and incorrect and serves to justify Serb aspirations to Kosovo, not to inform. VMORO

Is that what you would like, for the page to be erased? Should have said it earlier, not to waste my time answering your witty remarks. -- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

': This article is perhaps one of the most unbiased of all articles on Wikipedia.'

VMORO> You are the last user who can give an opinion on that, esp. considering that it's you who've written most of the article. This is for the other readers to decide and judging by the opinions in the Talk section, pretty much everyone who's read it, is VERY dissatisfied with its contents.

This is not true either way. I have only organised it and found sources for some parts of the article without them. Even if I have written it from scratch, though, I don't see why couldn't I give an opinion on its neutrality, especially if that opinion is supported by some evidence. Nikola

--Response VMORO-- You cannot give an opinion about the neutrality of smth you have written yourself. Half your statements are based on only Serbian sources - and we all know how reliable they are.

Just by missing the pieces that do not fit in the picture make it biased. Bogdan | Talk 18:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It does not state anything; it just points to the sources. It may not be true that between the two wars Serbs were majority population in Kosovo; but the article does no claim it to be so. Everything that the article states is that Serbs were majority population in Kosovo according to source #1, and that is absolutely true. Everyone can see the source and have opinion on its validity. Nikola 15:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Response VMORO-- I'll add the sources 2morrow or the day after 2morrow - as soon as I have the time. BTW, how would you explain this sentence: 'Numerous, mostly Serbian, sources estimate that a large number (usually rounded as 200,000) of Albanians move in'

Who are these sources? Why have I never heard them? Do you may be mean only Serbian sources (because no international source would ever say smth as silly as that)? Why will 200,000 Albanians move to poor, war-devastated Kosovo instead of emigrating to Greece or Italy? Where have these 200,000 Albanians gone if the total number of Albanians in Kosovo in 1991 is almost equal to their number in 2002? And this is even if we don't consider their birth rate, everyone knows how HIGH it is. Sentences like this one are exactly the reason why this article is and will be considered a non-NPOV one.



VMORO> What bothers me is NOT the validity of your sources BUT the SELECTION of those sources - only the ones which you consider "convenient" and nothing else.

Exactly, VMORO. You could write an article on Hitler and write that he successfully reformed the German economy in the 30s, that he was a vegetarian, that he was a quite talented artist and that he married Eva Braun in 1945. Although these are all true, it would not make it a fair and unbiased article. Bogdan | Talk 11:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A slight difference is that, while it would be hard to find a biography of Hitler which doesn't mention some other interesting aspects of his life, not even the ones most adamantly opposed to this article have managed to find any other sources about Kosovo population until recently. Nikola 08:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Response VMORO-- Until recently - that's a very good remark. And I'll find even more.

Let's see. Dori, who is Albanian, didn't found any sources in more than five months. Nikola 11:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I spent 5 month doing nothing but researching these statistics, as evidenced by my lack of any editing for more than two months. I try to steer clear of any articles where you and Igor are involved. I just don't have the nerve to deal with your editing. Dori | Talk 07:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
OK, you spent just 3 months. Or one week. Irrelevant. In this article at least, you have to admit that I haven't removed any sources, as long as they were verifiable. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VMORO> You're absolutely right, Bogdan, and the comparison is even quite amusing-:). I made the necessary editions to insure a more broad perspective of opinions on the population of Kosovo, though certainly this article needs a lot of work to get really neutral. Take for example expressions like "Ottoman occupation" (corrected) and "fascist-nazi puppet state". The whole article is seething with hatred of anything that's Muslim or Albanian.

Uh, independent ethnographers... but it's fine mostly. I'd ask to put the sources at the bottom (links if youhave them, literature if you don't) so that people wouldn't complain about them missing. I also don't understand how the note about Vardar Macedonia relates to the article. Would you also remove disputed factual accuracy message now that you've edited the article to your liking?

--Response VMORO-- As I said, I'll put the names of the books soon, I don't have them at hand and here. No, I won't remove the disputed factual accuracy message, this article needs a lot more work than this to be able to call itself neutral. Fx, why do u fail to mention the ethnic cleansning of 600,000 Albanians in 1999?

Ethnic cleansing or not all of those Albanians returned to Kosovo and are living in it as we speak. -- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
It didn't have long-lasting influence on demographics of the area.
And if you don't want to remove the notices, I will remove them then. See below for lenghty explanation. Nikola 11:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How did u calculate the number of 'etnically cleansed' Albanians at 242,381? What are your sources? Why doesn't this number correspond to the difference betweeen the non-Albanian population in 1991 and 2002? Because a simple subtraction operation yields around 130,000-140,000 refugees.

The 1991 figures are estimates based on false premises (see comments on 1971 and 1981 censa carried out by Kosovo-Albanians if they haven't been removed so far?)-- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

As for Vardar Macedonia: The Serbian government counted the Slavic population of VM as Serb between WW1 and WW2 although this population was usually considered Bulgarian before WW1 and has always been considered Macedonian after WW2. This is an obvious act of falsification of the censuses between WW1 anbd WW2.

Yugoslavia (not Serbia) did no such thing, the census in Serbia was carried out according to two objective criteria, mother tongue and religion. Nationality or nationaln conscioussness was not even an issue. -- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

If u want to remove the note, do so, but in that case the Ottoman statistics about Kosovo (which gives Serbs 10 to 15% of the population) should be placed in the previous section without any comment to it.



About the terms: in Serbian the period is usually called "Ottoman enslaving". Occupation surely is more neutral term. Nikola 08:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Response VMORO-- I believe the term in Serbian should be "Ottoman yoke", not "Ottoman enslaving". Anyhow, the term in English is 'Ottoman rule' or 'Ottoman domination'. This is an English-language website, not a Serbian one.

Occupation is most accurate. -- Igor 4:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

As for 'occupation': The Ottoman Empire ruled over Kosovo for ca. 450 years. The Serbs (the medieval kingdoms + modern Yugoslavia) dominated Kosovo for ca. 350 years. It is really a matter of personal opinion which rule should be called 'occupation'. For any Albanian the last 90 years will be certainly an 'Occupation'.

Well for starters we know, from the Turkish census in 1455 that Turks were not in the majority at the time whereas we do know that Serbs lived in Kosovo (with very few members of other nationalities) during the medieval kingdoms. That could be a telltale sign of the fact that the Serbian medieval rule of Kosovo was not an occupation as opposed to the Turkish rule over it. How's that? -- Igor 4:46, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy and neutrality dispute

1) Factual accuracy. Noone has managed to point a single fact in this article which is not accurate. As for Bogdan's example, an article which would consist of the following:

Adolf Hitler was a quite talented artist and vegetarian, who, in 1930, rose to the position of the cancelar of Germany and successfully reformed the German economy. He was married to Eva Braun in 1945.

is completely factually accurate - there is not a single wrong fact in it and it would not deserve factual accuracy notice. It is not neutral, in that it ommits many important facts from Hitler's life, and could have NPOV notice - it is another thing alltogether. Even Bogdan says that "Although these are all true, it would not make it a fair and unbiased article." (emphasis mine). It would make accurate article tough. So, I am removing disputed notice.

2) Neutrality. Dori, VMORO and Bogdan claim that article is referenced "only from Serbian sources".

The sources are here:

  • 1 Annexe I: British
Completely untrue, this is a Serbian memorandum by á Serbian organisation, it has nothing to do it with éither impartiality or neutrality VMORO
How do you know that? If it is something that a committee of the UK parliament considered plausible enough to include it in its report, I say it's good enough for Wikipedia. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 2 The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia: International
  • 3 (this source is not used in the article)
  • 4 UNMIK Fact Sheet on Kosovo: International
  • 5 Yugoslav censa: Yugoslav
Have I ever expressed any disagreements with the facts from these sources? No. Then don't mention them VMORO
No, but Dori claimed that most sources are Serbian. They aren't. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 6 Center for Contemporary Journalism: Serbian
  • 7 Coordination Centre: Serbian
  • 8 Peter Kukolj: Austrian
Have I experssed any disagreement with the facts by Kukolj? Have I erased them? Then don't mention that source VMORO
You didn't, bogdan did. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 9 Kova?evi? Mr. E?ref, Hand?i? A., Had?ibegovi? H. Oblast Brankovi?a: Yugoslav
  • 10 Joseph Müller: Austrian

So, of 9 used sources, only TWO are Serbian.

Yap and they are nationalist Serbian. But the problem is that YOU have CHOSEN only international sources which support a pro-Serbian view. That's all right ONLY if pro-Albanian sources are quoted, as well.
For example, of all 19-th century major Balkan ethnographers, it is only Muller, this Kukolj (which I have never heard of anywhere else) and to some extent Boue, which quote a Serbian predominance in Kosovo, all others portray Old Serbia as predominantly Albanian. And what do we get in the article? Muller and Kukolj. And no one else VMORO
As I have to say again, I haven't written the article. That's all nice and well, and I've never removed a pro-Albanian source from the article, but it was YOU who was removing some arguably pro-Serbian paragraphs without any justification. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even if you count Yugoslav sources as Serbian (and I have counted FRY source as Serbian and SFRY as Yugoslav), it is only four Serbian sources of nine. Even if you would somehow count the Annexe I as, say half Serbian half British, it is still 4.5-4.5. Noone can say that non-Serbian sources are not used in the article, and I will add an UNHCR source about the refugees. So, I will remove NPOV notice as well.

Nikola 23:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Last round of reversions

Nikola, 04:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC): VMORO is reverting the article to a version by a new user, JayO. Here are the differences:

  • NPOV tag. Fine with me either way
  • Roman Catholic Albanians: no reason to delete this given. I don't have a solid source but in 17th century there were more Catholic Albanians than today, so it seems credible.
That's something you say. The vast majority of Albanians who adopted Islam did that in the 15th and 16th century. VMORO
That's something you say. Anyway, even if that is true, and there were, say, only 10% of Catholic Albanians this is still credible.
  • A "Province of Kosovo" does not exist. When it existed, however, its western part was known as Metohija, as it still is today. It is linked, if someone doesn't know what it is they could click and see.
  • "Müller also gives an interesting perspective..." Reason given for removing this was "delete unnecessary and emotional passages which can't be confirmed elsewhere". Source for this is, of course, #10, Dr. Joseph Müller, Albanien, Rumelien und die Österreichisch-montenegrinische Gränze, Prag, 1844, so it can be confirmed; it isn't unneccessary as it provides more detailed mentions of certain towns and it is not emotional.
Have Muller's approximations been erased? No. i
The rest of the article is mostly numbers and some explanations to those numbers. But in the case of Muller, we get a lengthy and wordy explanation (which is there only because it's pro-Serbian, of course). VMORO
That is soewhat true, but for example Weigand's numbers are given by districts. I don't see why Muller's observations about the districts wouldn't also be given, they could be stripped down, but no reason for their removal. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • had/there was - irrelevant
then why mentuion it? VMORO
To note that it is irrelevant. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "British journalist H. Brailsford..." This could stay but I have no intention of inserting it while other paragraphs are deleted.
Yap, but I don't see the numbers of Muller erased. So what gives you the right to erase the numbers of Brailsford? VMORO
What gives you the right to erase observations of Muller? Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Most major/Other - Who counted them? And who says that they're major? Simply "other" is NPOV.
I have quoted 7 or 8 names. Are 7 to 8 ethnographers more than the two pro-Serbian ones you have quoted? Yes. The major ethnographers/cartographers of the Balkans before 1878 are several: Boue, Lejean, Muller, Mackenzie and Irby, Sax, Kiepert, Griesebach, Safarik, Hahn. Can you quote someone else who says Old Serbia had more Serbs than ALbanians? If you can, do so, if you can't, don't complain. VMORO
Those 7 or 8 names could be all there is, and for that matter they all might have been transcribing numbers from each other. Again I don't see why would these ethnographers be considered major and others not. Who says that they are major? And, as I said, I didn't wrote the article, but Igor will probably be able to provide more sources. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Occupation/Retaking - This is funny :)
450 years of Ottoman rule and 350 of Serbian. Why is the first one occupation and why is the second the "natural state"? No, it is not funny VMORO
Yes it is very funny. Any reference to retaking of Kosovo as "occupation" is completely unacceptable and you as a Bulgarian should know why. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Kosovo/teritorry of today's province. The province is formed after WWII, Kosovo is ambiguous
  • "Serbian sources, which have not been confirmed by any other international source or institution" - This is stupid. Most sources here aren't confirmed by any other international source or institution. Are we going to say "journalist H. Brailsford, who has not been confirmed by any other international source or institution..."? Besides, I'm quite certain that these data are confirmed.
The difference being that Brailsford delivers an opinion (and that's how it is frased in the article) whereas the statement of those "unnamable sources" is referred to as a fact.
The difference being that Brailsford is an impartial observer (he is actually very sympathetic to the Serbs and quite negative to the Albanians), whereas the Memorandum is Serbian (i.e. it is a party in the dispute) VMORO
Otherwise, I certainly agree that it can be refrased. VMORO,
Sorry, that doesn't cut it. British politics and sentiment of Brits are for a long time anti-Serbian and pro-Albanian. The fact that someone is neither doesn't mean that they are neutral. Again, practically all sources used in the article have not be confirmed by any international institution (and what an "international source" might be?). Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "After the province gained autonomy..." - This is well known, perhaps a source should be found but I see no reason for deletion.
The reason for deletion is the style: pro-Serbian, anti-Albanian, certainly not suiting Wikipedia VMORO
That is not true. It is pro-Serbian, don't see how it's anti-Albanian, but certainly is suitable for Wikipedia. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NATO airstrikes/Kosovo War, Refugee Agency - whatever
  • "driven by the Serbian army and paramilitaries ... in the worst campaign of ethnic cleansing in Europe since World War II" - this is not universally accepted and this article is no place to detail
This is universally accepted by everyone else except Serbia
That is not true. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And the only ethnic cleansning camppaign which can compete for being the worst is the one in Bosnia (also committed to a large extent by the Serbs). VMORO
You probably wanted to say upon the Serbs. However, a recent campaign of ethnic cleansing which can compete is one of Serbs from Croatia, and noone disputes that. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "according to Serbian sources, a number, which is apparently overexaggerated as the non-Albanian population of the province has decreased by only 130,000 people between 1991 and 2002." - First,

the number is given by UNHCR, which is hardly a Serbian source. Second, as has been explained before, both the 1991 and 2002 numbers are estimates, while refugees are registered individually. The fact that the numbers don't add up means that the estimates are wrong, not that the number of refugees is wrong.

The last number that I saw quoted was 65,000 people. The statement (I'll check whether it is indeed from the UNHCR) is either outdated or wrong but even if it is right, I don't see the reason as to why only it should be in the article and nothing else. VMORO,
This is discussed extensively on Talk:Kosovo. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "The claim that the 1991 census..." - perhaps could be toned down but I see no reason for removing it.
Again extremely bad style which would suit Slobodan Milosevic very well but has no place here VMORO
Nope
How valuable an argument this is! Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • And, Nikola, you have MANIPULATED the data for the Albanian population of Kosovo between WWI and WWII. You have placed information coming from that Serbian nationalist memorandum (and which is FALSE) among the official information from Yugoslav censuses. There were 440,000 Albanians in Yugoslavia in 1921 and at least 240,000 of them lived in Kosovo constituting A CLEAR MAJORITY OF BETWEEN 60% AND 70%. All this can be very easily proven by comparing statistical data for the number of Albanians in Yugoslavia in 1921 and 1948, and making an approximation using the number of Albanians in Serbia proper, Macedonia, Kosovo and Montenegro in 1948. This is a gross violation of any ETHICAL principles and clashes with pretty much everything that Wikipedia is about. VMORO
First, I have not written the article. I have only found sources for some of the disputed numbers.
Second, even if I have, there is no information from "that Serbian nationalist memorandum" (what Serbian nationalist memorandum?) in the article.
Third, all sources in the article are clearly marked and if one of them is a Serbian nationalist memorandum, everyone who reads it can just say "whew, these numbers are fake, they come from a Serbian nationalist memorandum".
Fourth, the numbers you are talking about might be possible, but so might be other numbers. I have no problem with you, or anyone, stating that in year X, there have been Y Albanians in Kosovo, according to source Z. But apparently you have problem with the article stating that in 1929 there were 61% of Serbs in Kosovo, according to source 1.
Let me add that your approximations based on subsequent cense have proven very fake regarding Kosovo refugees.
Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As for the rest of your version of the article: it is strongly pro-Serbian, strongly anti-Albanian. It is written to justify Serbian claims to Kosovo, not to inform VMORO
Maybe the facts are strongly pro-Serbian, strongly anti-Albanian? Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the anon is me. I have no time to login just to revert a single page.

By the way, I changed my opinion regarding NPOV notice. Practically no Serbian sources are used. Nikola 07:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't changed my opinion: you either use Serbian sources or only sources which support a pro-Serbian view. VMORO,
That is not true, as you yourself said above. Nikola 12:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, might I mention the Wikipedia:Three revert rule policy to both you and VMORO?

Dori | Talk 07:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Dori, might I mention to you that you are dealing here with Nikola Smolenski and also with a gross manipulation and distortion of facts? VMORO

I have returned 1929 and 1941 lines; as I said, if it is something that a committee of the UK parliament considered plausible enough to include it in its report, it's good enough for Wikipedia. In addition, some of other numbers mentioned in the text are confirmed by indepentent sources.

This is a Serbian memorandum and the data in it are falsified and corrupt. Albanians constituted the majority of the population in Kosovo in the interwar years, which can be easily seen on the map of the Yugoslav census of 1924, as published in Wilkinson's "Maps and Poltics. Review of the poltical cartography of Macedonia." This can be easily proved also by comparing the number of the Albanians in Yugoslavia according to the 1948 census and according to the 1924 census. The Albanians in Kosovo in 1924 were at least 250,000, which leaves them with some 60% majority in the region. Stop trying to falsify data and mislead readers. VMORO
I see no reason why would I consider this document less accurate than a map published in "Maps and Politics". Nikola 19:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because it is published by the Serbian Information Centre in London, which IS A SIDE in the conflict between Serbs and Albanians over Kosovo.
First, it is published by a committee of the UK parliament. It has been submitted to it by the Serbian Information Centre, reviewed, and found worthy of publication. UK parliament is of course a side in conflict, but heavily pro-Albanian. Also, as you have been explained to above, Weigand's writings are drastically pro-Bulgarian, which was a side in conflict back then. Nikola 10:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nikola, please note that because it's been published by parliament doesn't mean to say that it's been endorsed by parliament. It wasn't "reviewed and found worthy of publication". The SIC provided evidence to parliament and its contribution was published as a record of its evidence - that's as far as it goes. Its worth or otherwise wasn't an issue. -- ChrisO 19:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It isn't endorsed, but it surely wasn't blindly accepted, it must have had some sort of review prior to the publication. The SIC provided it as an evidence, but it was accepted as an evidence too, by the committee. At the very least, it is clear that the committee trusted the SIC as the source of information. Nikola 07:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What has Weigand's pro-Bulgarian views have to do with Kosovo and the Albanians if I may ask?:-)) Muller is pro-Serbian, may be you should explain that, as well. And the UK parliament is certainly not a side in that conflict - unless, of course, we are not talking about a conflict of Serbia with the rest of the world.

VMORO

Now don't tell that you don't know about a few tiny wars between Bulgaria and Serbia around the time of that study...
Muller is not pro-Serbian. What makes his study exceedingly valuable is that it is made for internal use of Austrian army, so it had to contain real numbers, unlike studies which were made for general public and which could be shaped to their creators' liking. Nikola 07:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As for the map: it is a REDRAWING OF THE OFFICIAL ETHNOGRAPHIC MAP OF YUGOSLAVIA FOR 1924 PUBLISHED BY THE YUGOSLAV government in 1926, not by me or anyone else in 2004. VMORO
If a map shows Albanian majority, it could be 90% majority pr 50.01% majority. Please, give a source with numbers and I have no trouble in leaving it aside of 1.
It shows quite clearly an Albanian majority in all areas of Kosovo where Yugoslav maps after 1948 have shown an Albanian majority. But that's not the question - the map (which is based on a map published by the Yugoslav government) is yet another proof that the data in that memorandum of yours is clearly cooked. VMORO

It is not true that number of refugees is estimated; refugees are registered. I have returned the previous sentence and added one more source.

There are different estimates - by the Serbian government, by the UNHCR, by the European stability pact. The Serban ones are, certainly, the most inflated ones. VMORO
Actually, it almost the opposite. UNHCR gives 220,000, Serbian government 242,381, and USCR (United States Comittee for Refugees) 277,000. Nikola 19:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And the European Stability Pact gives 65,000.
First, it not European Stabiliy Pact, but European Stability Initiative. Second, it doesn't uses information about refugee registration, but presents its own estimates based on subsequent censa, which are themselves estimates. Third, the organisation is funded by NATO (see Talk:Kosovo). Fourth, organisations which claim higher numbers are larger, older, more known, more respected, and come from all sides of conflict; ESI's report is a fringe view. Nikola 10:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A fringe report as defined only by you - it is a source as any other and its estimates have just as much place in the article as any other. Or should it be used only sources which suit you? And on top of it, if I use your logic, we should exclude the numbers given by the Serbian government as it is a direct side in the conflict. VMORO
My definition is correct. It is not a source as any other - it is a highly biased source made for the purpose of political propaganda. Other sources give no estimates of numbers but number themselves - total number of all people who have registered as refugees. Numbers given by the Serbian government are similar to numbers not given by Serbian government, so they could be considered correct. Nikola 07:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And correction: the USCR gives 243,000 refugees from

Kosovo in Serbia proper and Montenegro. VMORO

No, that is not true. Linked page ([11]) says "At the end of 2001, Yugoslavia hosted more than 400,000 refugees and about 277,000 internally displaced persons." All IDPs in Yu are from Kosovo. Number "243" is mentioned nowhere at that page. Nikola 10:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, that is true: you go to the home page of the USCR, click on Yugoslavia and find that currently there are 243,000 internally displaced persons from Kosovo into Serbia and Montenegro. VMORO
OK, it seems that there are two different pages.
One, at http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/yugoslavia.htm, says "At the end of 2001, Yugoslavia hosted more than 400,000 refugees and about 277,000 internally displaced persons." That one is linked in the article.
The other one, at http://www.refugees.org/world/countryindex/yugoslavia.cfm, says "At year's [2002's] end, there were 262,000 internally displaced persons in Yugoslavia, including 234,000 displaced from Kosovo into Serbia and Montenegro and 27,500 displaced within Kosovo itself.
Either way, it is around 250,000. Nikola 07:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At the end of 2002, Yugoslavia hosted about 353,000 refugees, a 12 percent decrease from 2001. Nearly all are ethnic Serbs, the largest numbers from Croatia (228,000) and Bosnia (121,000). Around 3,500 Macedonian refugees, mainly Albanians, lived in Kosovo at the end of 2002, while 100 refugees from Macedonia also resided in Yugoslavia-proper. Yugoslavia continues to host the largest number of refugees in Europe.


And it is not true that there are only Serbian sources which claim that a number of Albanians enter Kosovo following the war. See above, coincidentally one of them happens to be Bulgarian.

By the way, I am thinking about moving from numerical to named references. It's silly to read the article when references don't show in the text in an ordered way. Nikola 14:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)'

[edit] Arithmetics and manipulation

And again about the false data in that memorandum: The 1921 Yugoslav census quotes 440,000 Albanians in the whole of Yugoslavia (out of 11,984,000 people). In 1948 the Albanians had grown to 750,000 (out of 15,841,000 people). The 1924 census does not list the population according to the regions such as we know them today (Serbia proper, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, etc.). The 1948 one, however, does that and according to it the Albanians in Yugoslavia had the following distribution:

  • Kosovo: 498,000
  • Serbia proper: 33,000
  • Montenegro: 19,000
  • Macedonia: 197,000

Between 1921 and 1948 the Albanian population increased by 70%, whereas the population of Yugoslavia generally increased by only 31%. If we assume that the Albanian population in the whole of Yugoslavia had the same growth rates, then we get the following distribution of the Albanian pop. of Yugoslavia in 1921:

  • Kosovo: 292,000
  • Serbia proper: 19,000
  • Montenegro: 11,000
  • Macedonia: 115,000

These numbers are only an approximation but should be rather close to reality. But even if we assume, contrary to all logic, that there were as many Albanians in Serbia proper, Macedonia and Montenegro in 1921 as they were in 1948, we'll still get some 200,000 Albanians in Kosovo in 1921, which corresponds to 45% of the population. And your memorandum, Nikola, which has nothing else to do with the House of Commons, except that it was sent to it by some Serbian information centre, quotes 39% Albanians, or some 170,000... So, there were more Albanians in Macedonia, Serbia proper and Montenegro in 1921 than in 1948?-:))) Stop trying to manipulate the text and the readers, Nikola, we are not that stupid.VMORO

I never manipulated anything. The article didn't claim that the figures are true - only that they are mentioned at a certain URL. (Which has a lot to do with the House, as it is part of their report.) What you claim sound plausible and might be true - if you find a respectable source with similar claims, add it to the article. Nikola 10:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you did manipulate the whole section. You placed the data from the referendum which is NOT valid among the data from the official Yugoslav censuses which IS.
No, I have not. The data was there before, I have only found that it is referenced at that URL. Noone has offered any other source of information about this period, and I invited anyone to do so several times. Nikola
The memorandum has nothing to do with the House of Commons except that it has accepted it and has given green light for its publishing.
Now that's a good one. The memorandum has nothing to do with them... except that they've published it. We actually agree to this one :) Nikola
Which does not mean that the House of Commons agrees with what is written inside, nor that any data inside is correct.
No it doesn't. It however means that the committee of the House found it plausible. Nikola
And I don't have to look for "another respectable source" as your source IS NOT respectable. The memorandum is written by the Serbian Information Centre in London, which is as respectable a source with regard to the ethnic distributions in Kosovo in 1924, as any of the speeches of Slobodan Milosevic. I (and pretty much everyone else) can publish a memorandum which stakes any kind of claims: that the population of Kosovo in 1924 was predominantly Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Chinese or Eskimo, and send it to the House of Commons or any other parliament in the world, it is gonna have the same validity. VMORO
Why not try to prove this with an experiment? Write such a memorandum, send it to the House, and see whether they'll publish it as a part of their report :))) Nikola 00:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] note on link fixes

I didn't notice I was editing in the middle of a completely unrelated edit war... anyhow, the term "Ottoman-Habsburg war" should not be used because that doesn't exist in singular, there were many, and this particular 1683-1699 one is prefixed with "Great" usually. The term Krajina should not be used because it's ambiguous, the meaning is Military Frontier. The link Serbian should be disambiguated to Serbs and the term Ottoman should be linked to the Ottoman Empire as it is the first instance. (I'm not watching this page so if someone leaves comments, please notify me separately.) --Joy [shallot] 11:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "19th and 20th century ethnographers"

I am googling for people on VMORO's nice list - I of course don't believe that Google is the sum of all knowledge, but it can be nicely used to compare how often a knowledge is mentioned, that is, how trusted it is today.

When searching for "G. Lejean", google gives 81 hits[12], and the first one is relevant. Similar cases are with some of other mentioned persons.

On the other hand, G. M. Mackenzie seems to be a frequent name[13], but searching it in combination with "kosovo" gives 11 hits[14]. To quote aeronautics.ru, "The two ladies, Mackenzie and Irby, traveled through the Balkans to show the essentially Slavic nature of the peninsula." At another page, they are listed as "missionares". I don't think that this translates to "ethnographers" so I will remove them from the list. Nikola 12:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • And I will put them back on the list and I'll add to "ethnographers" the word "travellers". And if you google again something in the near future, bear in mind that pretty much no one in the 19th century called Kosovo "Kosovo". The whole region together with the sandzhak of Novi Pazar was referred to as Old Serbia.
  • Please stop placing Weigand after WWI. The data in the book is based on the pre-war situation in Kosovo in 1912 and is collected before the Balkan Wars and during WWI.
  • Also, stop erasing Brailsford. Or should I erase also Muller and Kukolj next time I revert your edits?
  • Speaking of them: I'll order the books by the two from the library and I'll check carefully the data you have quoted. I have reasonable suspicions that you have cooked them, as well.
Actually it was Igor who introduced these sources. I believe he may even provide page scans if needed. Nikola 01:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It is a bit "odd" you haven't used the mother tongue data from the Yugoslav censuses between 1918 and 1941 whereas you have quoted the total number of the population of Kosovo from those censuses. Was that because the data didn't really suit the way you wanted this article to look like? Anyway, you cannot use the falsified data from a Serbian memorandum in the absence of the official data from the censuses. And I can only promise you that I am gonna find the data from the 1924 census - sooner or later, municipality by municipality. VMORO
Again, I haven't quoted it, it was there before. And I'll give it a try, too. Nikola 01:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Any luck so far? Nikola 07:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About 17th and 18th century, Weigand nicely says "В края на ХVII век, заедно с преселването на австрийците и следващите ги славяни (1691), големи групи албански преселници тръгват на изток по посока към Враня, където постепенно заселват големи ивици земя, населявана преди това от сърби, които обаче побягнали към Банат, за да избегнат турския гнет. И в ХVIII век (1740) продължава изселването на сърбите към Унгария. Така Метохия и голяма част от Овче поле стават албански." Nikola 01:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and what is your point? Weigand (and pretty much all the ethnographers I have quoted) is quite sympathetic towards the plight of the Serbs in Kosovo. VMORO
You haven't quoted a lot of ethnographers, anyway my point is that you were deleting this. Nikola 03:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm looking now at these famed maps and have to say that they do not work as advertised. In all of them Serbs are prevalent in northern Kosovo and all of them show Serbian blob which covers southern Kosovo, Drenica and Metohija though it varies by size. Albanian blob to the east actually extends outside of the province (nicely visible at Lejean's map at [15]) and includes today's Presevo-Bujanovac-Medvedja areas, and in addition it seems that Albanian-populated areas are mountainous and thus more sparsely inhabited.

Yes, and I don't see anything contradicting to my statement in the text - that the Serbs predominated in northern Kosovo and Kosovo Polje. As for the Albanians in the Presevo-Bujanovac-Medvedja, aren't they still there or have you "relocated" them "peacefully", as well? VMORO
Except that your statement is that they have "identified the teritorry as predominantly Albanian". The maps hardly show that.
Yes, they are still there. Nikola 03:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Googling for the names, Barbarich could well be added to two ladies above, as it seems that he didn't do anything in his life except for making that map.

By the way, what happened to those Turks recorded in northeastern Bulgaria? Nikola 07:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are still there, Nikola. Anything you wanna know about them? VMORO
Image:Kosovo Lejean 1.png
Image:Kosovo Lejean 2.png
Image:LEJEAN-MACKENZI.JPG

I have managed to find some time to take a better look at these famed maps, and as I said, they don't work as advertised. On Lejean's map, which I've downloaded from [16] I have superimposed modern borders from [17]. The first image shows the result and on the second I have painted the nationalities.

It turns out that, according to Lejean's map, Serbs lived on 870 pixels, or 39%, Macedonians on 99 pixels, or 4%, and Albanians on 1288 pixels, or 57%. That is not "predominance", that is simply a majority. Further, Serbs were majority in Mitrovica, Pec, Djakovica, Prizren and Pristina (and Kukes), while Albanians were majority in Urosevac and Gnjilane. Living in majority of towns and almost 50% of the terrirory, I'd say that this means that they were majority overall, but not wishing to guess I will write that the numbers were similar.

As the third image show, map of two ladies is so similar to Lejean's that it is tempting to believe that they might have redrawn it from his. However, where they differ, they show even less Albanians than in Lejean's map.

While searching for Lejean's map, I've also found a map by H. N. Brailsford, which, published as late as 1906, shows population of Kosovo to be 50-50% divided between Serbs and Albanians (he used lined pattern to show this). So I'll be adding it to the article. Nikola 01:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What was the whole exercise for, if I may ask? You have yourself proved that the Albanians (according to the map of Lejean) dominated 57% of the territory of Kosovo - this is called ethnic majority.
No it isn't. It isperfectly possible for an ethnicity to be present on 57% of territorial majority. Anyway, the point was to prove that the maps don't show "Albanian predominance", as the article was stating. Nikola 23:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The maps clearly show Albanian predominance in most of Kosovo with Serbian enclaves in the regions which have been enumerated. You yourself admit that according to Lejean, the ALbanians were the majority in 57% of Kosovo. And this is quite close to the percentage of Albanians (60-65%) before the demographic boom starting in the late 1960s. VMORO 12:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~
I have nothing to admit - I simply state what I see. Yes, the Albanians were the majority in 57% of Kosovo. No, they were most likely not majority in Kosovo because most cities were inhabited by Serbs and the teritorry which Albanians inhabit is more mountainous.
Because of the "most likely" part, I will change this to "around 57% of the territory". Nikola 09:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is not, as you say that "Serbs were the majority in Mitrovica, Pec, Djakovica, Prizren and Pristina (and Kukes)". The superimposed map clearly shows the majority in Pec, Djakovica and Prizren was formed of ethnic Albanians - and in Pristina (in Kosoco Polje) and Mitrovica of Serbs.
No it doesn't. As Turkish Empire wasn't measured with then modern methods, geographers couldn't draw cities precisely as could be seen by Nis and Skoplje, or by difference in position of Nis on Lejean's and M&I's maps. However enclaves surrounding the cities are clearly visible on the maps, and are inhabited by Serbs. Nikola 23:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the map clearly shows the regions of Prizren, Djakovica and Pec to be predominantly Albanian with a Serbian minority VMORO 12:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~
Yes, and it also clearly shows that Serbs actually live in those cities, which had greater population concentrations than regions around them. Nikola 09:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is precisely what the text says, read carefully next time. Last but not least, you have taken only the map of Lejean which is indeed clearly the most beneficial to the Serbs. Can I ask why you have erased the other names?
No it isn't. The text was saying that they "have identified the teritorry as predominantly Albanian". That is not true. Albanians were slight majority at best, or minority at worst, that is not predominance.
Albanians are cleary a majority as demonstrated by the maps. If you put a different meaning in "predominance" and "majority", then we are disputing the term, not the fact, and that can be easily solved. VMORO 12:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~
Of course the terms have different meanings, and of course the maps don't show that Albanians were clearly a majority. Nikola 09:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Map of Lejean is not the most beneficial, Map of Mackenzie and Irby is. Either way, these were the first maps on the list. Nikola 23:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About Brailsford: he clearly says that 2/3s of the population of Kosovo was Albanian, compared to 1/3 Albanian. Can I ask for an explanation as to why you have erased that?
Because there is his map, for example at [18], which doesn't say so. Nikola 23:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Brailford´s book is about Macedonia and he is not a cartographer like Lejean, Kiepert or Sax. His map of Kosovo shows only that the region has a mixed population, it is not representative for ethnic distributions. He clearly stated that 2/3s of the population of Kosovo was Albanian. So, I am asking again: why have you erased that? VMORO 12:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~
How funny :)) If we are to include on this page only maps drawn by cartographers, then there would be noone left. Lejean was an ethnographer. He travelled extensively Northern Africa and wrote several books about his travels, but from what I can see he never visited The Balkans. The map is likely published in his "Ethnographie de la Turquie d'Europe" which is only an appendix to Petermann's "Geographischen Mittheilungen". Sax has at least visited the Balkans but he was Austrian consul, not cartographer, not geographer, not scientist at all. At last Kiepert was a cartographer, and the only one of all persons mentioned. Nikola 09:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I found very nice sweet maps of the religious distribution in Kosovo in the 1920s (on top of it in a Serbian source, which are accordingly added.
Religious distribution doesn't really say anything. Back then a lot of Serbs were Muslim and more Albanians Christian than today.
This is claptrap, there was no Muslim Slavs in Kosovo except for the Gorani. The source is Serbian, are you gonna tell me it is biased again? Yeah, it is indeed biased, it is so pro-Yugoslavian that it reeks. I want to have an explanation as to why you have erased the information from "Maps of our dividings"? VMORO 12:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~
Of course there were, Serbs.
Ask yourself, why do you expect that I have to give any explanation to you? However, I will: I have deleted it because you have added it while reverting all of my work. If you have added it on top of it, it would be fine. If you revert, don't expect that I won't. Nikola 09:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If I might ask, why do you consider these maps "nice" and "sweet"? What could be so nice and sweet about some maps? Nikola 23:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that you refrain from making reverts, the more you try, the worse it will get for you. VMORO 14:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Take your advice yourself. You reverted everything I wrote, then added one dubious thing. I can't approve that edit. Nikola 23:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTCt
Since you want it this way, you'll get it this way. VMORO 12:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~
I want it this way? I did my homework, clearly stated the results on this talk page, and edited the article while clearly pointing to the talk page in the edit summary. Then I made other edits, each of which had corresponding summary. You have then reverted that, without stating any reason to do so. It is you who wants it that way. Nikola 09:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something else: I would suggest that you go to the link [19]. Can you see among the sources the entry "Miranda Vickers, Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998)."?

Well, I just ordered the book from the library. And I expect to find there information about the population of Kosovo in the interwar period - also with a relevant source list where I can check and confirm the population data. Enjoy. VMORO 14:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I will add the book to the sources. Not. From reviews I have seen, the book is quite biased. Next thing you'll be proposing is Noel Malcolm... Nikola 23:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is for me to decide whether it is biased or not. But it surely contains population data about Kosovo with a detailed bibliography. I have not forgotten my promise. Have a good day. VMORO 12:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~
Since we both already know what your decision will be, there is no reason for you to make it. Nikola 09:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


So:

  • 1) The situation with the 19th century cartographers is clear now.
    • Yes, there are one (1) of them mentioned in the article. Nikola 17:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 2) If you insist so much - add the info about Brailsford's map. The info in the book about

the population of the region, however, stays.

    • I'll try to find the famed book and see what is in it by myself. Nikola 17:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 3) I haven't seen any argument from you against the census in 1921, as well as Maps of our dividings, so you might as well stop erasing them.
    • It is violation of Wikipedia's policies to edit articles with misleading edit comments. Nikola 17:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 4) I'll get the book on Tuesday next week, so we are gonna talk again. Hopefully, this article ís facing a brave new future:-))))
    • Go ahead. Personally, I don't think you'll find in it any propaganda you haven't already heard of before. However, don't hope that you will succeed in rewriting an article based on 20 various sources with a single biased book. Nikola 17:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 5) Please, list your comments below, not in between, it gets really hard to follow who said what and what is an answer to what.
    • I disagree. Nikola 17:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bye-bye VMORO 17:07, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)~

[edit] Ethnic Map of a Part of Ancient Serbia

Image:Ethnic Map of a Part of Ancient Serbia.jpg
400px

Strolling down the street, in a bookstore window I saw a very detailed ethnic map of Old Serbia, so knowing what love people who work on this article have for ethnic maps, I didn't hesitate to take a photo of it.

As one can see, the map shows that in 1870s, Serbs were majority population on the territory in question. However, it shows one even more interesting thing: that all major cities were inhabited by Serbs, while Albanians lived primarily in villages. Now I understand why there are those numerous Albanian nationalist sites proudly displaying "historical maps of kosova", which subtly show Albanian majority, and which have managed to find their way even to Wikipedia: if one is to draw an ethnic map without regard to population size, it would appear to show Albanian majority. For example, Djakovica, inhabited mostly by Serbs, was completely surrounded by Albanian villages, but itself had a population which dwarfs all surrounding Albanian villages taken together. However, on maps which don't show regard for population size, Djakovica would be appear to be a tiny Serbian island dot in Albanian sea.

Because of this, I will change all entries based on maps to clearly state that maps show that "Albanians live on most of the territory", and not that they are a majority.

I'm adding the map as source #22. Nikola 10:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

- Well I would not agree with this. Albanians were always majority in Gjakova/Djakovica. All facts exist.

- Kosovo never belonged to Serbia - for sure will not belong in the future - people just have to understand that Serbia lost Kosovo forever.

If Kosovo never belongedto it; how could've Serbia lost it?

I heard that the 114,000 Muslims on Kosovo from the 19th century (User:Emir_Arven's edit) were actually Bosniaks; and not Moslem Serbs and Albanians. Could anyone put a source about this? HolyRomanEmperor 12:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that there is a place in Kosovo called Bosnjacka Mahala (Bosniak Street), not a "Moslem Mahala". Can anyone explain this?--Emir Arven 23:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
To corroborate what Emir just said, here's a quick link to a simple google search of the term that shows numerous mentions of it from various sources[20]. Bosnjacka mahala isn't just a random street in Kosovska mitrovica, its a whole quarter of the city. Its one of many testaments to the historical presence of Bosniaks in Kosovo. If you want further proof that the Muslim Slavs in Kosovo long considered themselves to be part of the same general ethnos as those in Bosnia, you can also look at the campaigns of Husein-kapetan Gradascevic on the territory of Kosovo and his relation to the locals. Asim Led 00:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. Based on the name of the main street of a city you think that 58% of Kosovo's population were Bosniaks (namely, all Kosovar Moslem Serbs and all Albanians (not regarding the little Catholic Albanian population))? HolyRomanEmperor 18:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There is only a legend on how it got its name Bosnjacka Mihala. It's about a wealthy family that was forced to flee to Bosnia under Ottoman invasions, where they regained a lot of their lost wealth, and after generations finally returned to their home. It's supposed to be a symbol of sacrifice of the local population (Serbs) for (Christian) Europe and its suffers from the all-conquering fundamentalist Ottoman regime. HolyRomanEmperor 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Mahala; sorry. HolyRomanEmperor 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Who said anything about Albanians? Me and Emir are merely saying that the non-Gorani Muslim Slavs in Kosovo considered themselves to be part of the same general ethnos as the Muslim Slavs in Bosnia: Bosniaks. This isn't any extraordinary proposition - you'll find the situation is the same with cities such as Cetingrad, Sabac, Uzice, etc. Many of these Muslim Slavs in Kosovo, just like in Sandzak, actually came from places such as Herzegovina or Bosnia (proper). Albanians, of course, are a completely different people, with different language and customs. As for the legend, it seems highly implausible that a family could have moved to Bosnia and regained an immense wealth considering the conditions in Bosnia following the fall of Kosovo. Either way I'd like some source on this. Asim Led 20:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"Same general ethnos"? That doesn't seem likely, since "Bosniaks" themselves did not consider themselves a seperate ethnic group until WWII. Edrigu 19:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
As someone from Mitrovica told me, the name started to be used for that part of the city only recently.
Lie, probably. --Emir Arven 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
He had no reason to lie me, while you, on the other hand, did so several times. Nikola 12:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What are disputes about neutrality and factual accuracy of the article? Nikola 07:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me there are any specific ones. I suggest that notice be removed. Edrigu 19:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
People that live in Bosnjacka Mahala declare themselves as Bosniaks. --Emir Arven 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that it is inhabited mostly by Albanians. Nikola 12:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To User:Asim_Led. No, I agree with thee (take a look at my contributions in the next two weeks; that's for you :) I meant these edits made by Emir Arven: [21] and if you go to history, many other claiming that the population of Kosovo was 58% Bosniak (deleted the fact that most are Albanians - 39%). HolyRomanEmperor 18:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted incorrect information that Muslims in Kosovo in 15th century were Serbs. First of all they were Slavs and Albanians. And most of the Slavs nowdays declare themselves as Bosniaks. You could add Albanians, I wouldnt mind. But that was not an important edit. There was a compromise related to statistics in 1991. and after that, but that was removed? Why? --Emir Arven 22:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry; I didn't know anything about that 1991 dispute (as you know, I only deal with long-ago history). I only noticed that you deleted the Albanians and incorporated them into Bosniaks. However, it is not of subject if they are Serbs or Slavs there; since there is pointed what Müller says (19% Moslem Serbs and 39% Moslem Albanians). Maybe if you have a different source? HolyRomanEmperor 13:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is tag about neutrality and factual accuracy disputed at the top of the article. What is disputed, actually? Nikola 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see that when I asked the same question three weeks ago Emir responded that "People that live in Bosnjacka Mahala declare themselves as Bosniaks." There are neither sources which confirm this nor the article mentions Bosnjacka Mahala, and it does state that there are Bosniaks who live on Kosovo today. So, I'm removing the tag, as Edrigu suggested. Nikola 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Here you can find information about Bosniaks in Kosovo. This is their magazine in Bosnian language. --Emir Arven 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so what? Nikola 09:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
So, read smth before you write smth.--Emir Arven 10:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
What should I read and why? How does that magazine in any way relate to this article? Why would the fact that that magazine exists in any way mean that neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed? Nikola 10:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

The name of the congress was "Svebosnjacki sabor" (All-Bosniak parlament). --Emir Arven 10:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Will correct that. Nikola 10:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo - 58% Bosniak?

I still don't get why did User:Emir_Arven when he [22]. He claimed that 58% (the majority) of Kosovo's population were Bosniaks. Could this be correct and is it sourced? --HolyRomanEmperor 23:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you dont have to lie behind someone's back, it is a bad habit. It was about population of three counties in Kosovo (Pec, Dragas and Djakovica). The point was that the term Slav is not equivalent to Serb.--Emir Arven 20:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Nije mi jasno da se moras toliko hinjski ponasati i lagati nekome iza ledja, nakon svih onih lazi koje si do sada rekao ne samo o meni licno, nego generalno u diskusijama na odredjenim temama ukljucujici i rasisticke komentare na bosanskoj Wikipediji, kada si dolazio da pricas o tome kako su "Osmanlije" krive za ratove izmedju nacija i kako su Bosnjaci jadni sto su "prisiljeni od Turaka presli na islam". Ako imas nesto reci, reci to direktno, niko ne voli ljude slabog karaktera koji se kao misevi skrivaju iza raznih nikova.--Emir Arven 20:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emir

Please, read what you did: It stood before:

  • 114,000 Muslims (58%), of which:
    • c. 38,000 are Serbs (19%)
    • c. 76,000 are Albanians (39%)

and you changed it to: * 114,000 Muslims (58%), of which nowdays most of them declared themselves as Bosniaks.

That would mean that all Albanians on were Bosniaks. How could that be? Why did you place that edit? Additionally - the article deals with what Joseph Müller said - you cannot change what he said! --HolyRomanEmperor 22:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You didnt read the first part of it. It was about population of Dragas, not Kosovo as whole. --Emir Arven 13:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a source that talks about population of Bosniaks in Kosovo: Alemnet magazine in Bosnian language--Emir Arven 13:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Bosniaks lives mostly in Dragas, Prizren and Pec. They are Muslims by religion.--Emir Arven 13:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well, thanks for that source: But what does that have to do with what Joseph Muller wrote - or how could Albanians be Bosniaks? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope that you are not a stupid man, although capable of not telling the truth which you showed many times. I never said that Bosniaks were Albanians. Probably the sentece was not written pricesely, but the point was that majority of Muslims in Dragas declare nowdays as Bosniaks, according to Bosniak sources that I provided. Also, Slavs were presented as Serbs, which is not true. There were many Slav tribes. On the other hand can you give me the source where Joseph Muller said that. I would like to read it, because I cannot believe you, I am sorry, but it is not the first time the you dont tell the truth.--Emir Arven 16:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures on population growth

Why not return these pictures: Image:Image:Kosovo and Metohia population.png and Image:Image:Kosovo and Metohia population structure.png ? --147.91.1.45 01:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emir, Emir, Emir

Here, if you need a source: Dr. Joseph Müller, Albanien, Rumelien und die Österreichisch-montenegrinische Gränze, Prague, 1844

My point is that you cannot change the contense in that context - since it's not what Joseph Muller stated. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that you give me an on-line source, so I can read it.--Emir Arven 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You also said the same thing for Vladimir Corovic book. You said that you found your info there, but when I read it I found nothing there.--Emir Arven 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
How can I believe you?--Emir Arven 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Well - I suggest that you go to the library. I only pointed out from the section on "sources" - this article isn't mine. If you need more info on that source - skim through the history and see who added that and don't bother me. I just opposed your edits because you altered what someone said. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Albanians in the 20th Century

When playing with the turkish and serbian statistics of the time one should have in mind the orchestrated expulsion of Albanians carried out during the 20th century. It is sad to hear that it was the Academy of Sciences and Art (Oh my god what artists) that compiled a document named "Iseljavanje Arnauta" ("Expulsion of Albanians") Manuscript in the Institute of Military History of the Yugoslav People's Army (Vojno Istorijski Institut JNA). Archives of the former Yugoslav Army (Arhiv Bivše Jugoslovenske Vojske), Belgrade, 7 March 1937, No. 2, Fasc. 4, Box 69, 19 pp. Retranslated from the Serbo-Croatian by Robert Elsie, on the basis of an existing English version. First published in R. Elsie, Gathering Clouds: the Roots of Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo and Macedonia. [23]

 "Iseljavanje Arnauta" ("Expulsion of Albanians")
  this translates into "Migration of Albanians"
  how can this be turned into 'Expulsion'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.255.101 (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Significance and neutrality of this section

Demographic characteristics of Kosovo Albanians
I really believe that this section is not significant for the article, and further more it's not really neutral. I would remove it, but let's have some feedback first. Comments? --RockyMM 12:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

After thinkig this through, I have removed this section. It was irrelevant and unbiased. If it belonged somwhere, it would be something like "Demographic characteristics of Kosovo Albanians", not this article. --RockyMM 13:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Good decision. Litany

[edit] Do not add speculations with numbers

Saying that 250,000 Albanians entered and took residence in Kosovo after war, due to the liberalization of crossings, is more than a speculation. It is true that some Albanians from Albania came to Kosovo, but exclusively to work for the internationals or locals, and have not been issued local documents, but are treated as foreigners just as any other person who has a valid passport. Do not push toward any specific claim that now serbs are cleansed, and Albanians from Albania are changing the population balance. Even for current ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, there were claims (by the previous Serbian regimes) that they came from Albania during history. We (Albanians in Kosovo) do have relatives in Albania, as we are Albanians, and intermarriages existed always among Albanians, no matter where they hail from. Hope the clarification helps those who wonder why that paragraph does not fit there. Ilir pz 23:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

   "Do not push toward any specific claim that now serbs are cleansed"
    I'm sorry, but this is exactly what is happening.

   "there were claims (by the previous Serbian regimes) that they came from Albania during history."
    Again, exactly what is fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.255.101 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy of citations

Can anyone (neutral) tell me how relevant are these references, and how much they help the neutrality of the article:

  • (some Serbian traveller's impressions explained, not a good source at all) # ^ ISBN 86-80029-29-7: Mirčeta Vemić: Ethnic Map of a Part of Ancient Serbia: According to the travel-record of Miloš S. Milojević 1871-1877, Belgrade, 2005
  • (irrelevant source, a high school history book) # ^ ISBN 86-17-09287-4: Kosta Nikolić, Nikola Žutić, Momčilo Pavlović, Zorica Špadijer: Историја за трећи разред гимназије природно-математичког смера и четврти разред гимназије општег и друштвено-језичког смера, Belgrade, 2002, pg. 63
  • (irrelevant (terrible) source, a hard-core extreme nationalisitic magazine) ^ a b c d Politika: Шта се догађало на Косову, Belgrade 1981, pg. 159
  • (horrible source, a high school history book)^ a b c ISBN 86-17-09287-4: Kosta Nikolić, Nikola Žutić, Momčilo Pavlović, Zorica Špadijer: Историја за трећи разред гимназије природно-математичког смера и четврти разред гимназије општег и друштвено-језичког смера, Belgrade, 2002, pg. 182
  • (a dis-coordination centre of back-then Covic, and now Sandra's, hatred gathering centre) # ^ Coordination Centre of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Republic of Serbia for Kosovo and Metohija

Please, if the purpose of this article is to give neutral estimations, do not cite links like the ones above. Just too biased. Ilir pz 23:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Dr. Joseph Müller seems like was a physician, how relevant could his data be? we need statitsticians here, not physicians and travellers point of view. And also a verifiablesource should be added here, not only a source with "high school book" label, which cannot be trusted in and cannot be verified. Ilir pz 10:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Le këtë artikull ashtu si është mos humb kohë me këtë. Ashtu si është, është argumenti më i mirë që mund të gjeshë. --Ejte 10:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No comment (Argument i vizatuar)

No comment...
No comment...

--Ejte 11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Owing to the efforts of the committee headed by A. Frasheri,7 80 delegates representing all four provinces convened at the city of Prizren, in the Vilayet of Shkup (Kosova) in June 1878, three days prior to the opening of the Congress of Berlin, whose purpose was to reconsider the decision reached by San Stefano's preliminary Peace Treaty. The assembly of these delegates was henceforth called The League of Prizren. Its task was to defend Albania's rights.

Kosova became thus for the Albanians the center of their resistance and they have ever since regarded this territory as a symbol of their struggle for independence.

7. An Albanian patriot of broad culture (1839-1894). His younger brother, Sami, wrote in Turkish as well as in Albanian. Greatly admired for his Universal Dictionary of History and Geography (a six-volume encyclopedia) and for other writings, he is considered in Turkey as one of its most prominent poets. Having fought for Albania’s rights, he spent five years in prison. The sec.ond of the three brothers, Naim, is the most popular South Albanian poet.

As soon as the Serbs occupied the ceded territories, the Albanians were asked to evacuate them. With respect to the Albanians inhabiting those areas, Mr. Gould, Consul of Great Britain in Belgrade, wrote to the Marquis of Salisbury, Secretary of the Foreign Office of Great Britain, on Nov. 26, 1878:

I hear that the Servian Government has behaved with great and unnecessary harshness, not to say cruelty, toward the Albanians in the recently ceded districts. If my information is correct, and I have every reason to believe it to be so, the peaceful and industrious inhabitants of over 100 Albanian villages in the Toplitza and Vranja Valley were ruthlessly driven forth from their homesteads by the Servians in the early part of this year. These wretched people have ever since been wandering about in a starving condition in the wild country beyond the Servian frontier. They have not been allowed to gather in their crops on their own lands, which were reaped by the Servian soldiery... I ... casually stated to his Excellency (Ristic) that these facts had come to my knowledge, and that should they be confirmed I felt certain Her Majesty's Government and the majority of the Great Powers would call the Servian Government to account, and insist upon strict justice being done to these unfortunate people, whose only crime was their belonging to an alien race and another creed...10

10. EM., Accounts and Papers (38); 1878-9; LXXIX 79, 574-575. Letter reproduced by Rizaj in op. cit. pp. 24 1-242.

As to the number of the Albanians inhabiting those territories, various statistics and extant documents give contradictory figures. According to a note of the administrative divisions dating from 1873, the district of the Sandjak of Niš had about 100 000 Albanians. As regards the number of refugees, the figures given by Prof. J. Cvijic for those who settled in Kosova is 30 000, that furnished by English documents, 100 000. According to Turkish sources, the number of the Albanians who were forced to leave the region amounted to 300 000.

On June 3, 1978, Rilindja (p.7), published a letter addressed by these miserable people (who were deprived of all means and many of whom were sick) to the European Powers requesting that at least a commission be set up to look into their serious problem.11

Leaving these helpless refugees to their sad fate, the Serbs colonized the region with astounding rapidity. Referring to the colonization of the area by the Serbs, V. Cubrilovic stated in his "Memorandum" (about which more will be told later) that "Toplica and Kosanica, once Albanian regions of ill-repute, gave Serbia the finest regiment in the wars of 1912-1918".

11. For the data concerning the Albanians of these territories, see E. PlIana, "Les raisons et Ia maniere de Ia migration des refugies albanais du territoire du Sandjak de Nish a Kosova (1877-1878)," Gjurmime Albanologjike IX 1979, Prishtine, 1980, pp. 129-156. Cf. also R. MarmullakuAlbania and the Albanians , London, 1975, p. 24 (does not contain details).

[edit] Comments

The map shows mainly only the majority of people in the Balkans and Minor Asia. When was any major area in Balkan history populated by one majority of humans? Nobody knows how many Albanians who moved to Kosovo since the war started but even the Swedish group in UNMIK dosent deny a large immegration of Albanians. It should be put in the article. And also the part of Goranis should not be removed. Thanks for understanding, Litany 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like majorities of population do exist, Litany. How can you say that there was never a majority of a population in one Balkan area? Why are the Balkan states created then if the countries were as you claim? Weak comment.
Immigrations happened always. What immigration of Albanians are you talking about? which war. There have been plenty around here. I don't like playing with numbers about numbers of population. So I cannot help you in clarifying that. Ilir pz 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course but there is always large number of minorities. There has not to be no total majority to me a majority. No numbers should be revealed. Litany 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

what was your point then? I think we agree. Ilir pz 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It should still be mentioned right? But due to the lack of information about the acctual number in the issue I think it's best not to play with numbers like you say. Litany 18:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC) You dident answear this one either. I'm gonna add this again. I'm also going to add the part about Goranis again since I provided you with sources (but you dident give any comment). Litany 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why...

...was the migration of Albanians to Kosovo during the Kosovo War removed? I mean, it is logical - how could the Albanian population drasticly increase in numbers after numerious ethnic cleansing (nearly or even more than 10,000 dead Albanians). Accordingly over 60% of Kosovar Albanian population was expelled (700,000?) I have no idea according to which logic would the Kosovar Albanian population increase after all that... --HolyRomanEmperor 20:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Migration of Albanians to Kosovo during the Kosovo war? can you clarify a bit more what you mean by that? as far as I know Albanians left Kosovo during the war, not migrated to. If I understand correctly.
If I understand right your claim, that Albanians from Albania came to Kosovo after the war, then I encourage you to not believe Sandra's discoordination centre's claims. There is no claim whatsoever that that was the case. It is true that many who were forced to live outside Kosovo, in Europe and all over the world, returned...and they were quite many. But none from Albania could just come and take Kosovo documents. Besides when population is registered, you should have credible proof to be able to get registered. So those claims, even if true, they cannot affect the number of Albanians in Kosovo. Furthermore, all population figures mentioned lately are just speculations, as the populaiton census is yet to be held properly. None has been done for more than a decade or two now. Ño need to fuel up tensions adding such speculations to this sensitive article. Ilir pz 10:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, Ilir, I know that you're trying to NPOV-ise it - but you simply removed numerious sources (like in the World War II-1968). Additionally, the cleansing of Christians in 1876-1912 in the Ottoman Empire is a well known thing. Serbs lived peacefully due to the Patriarchate of Pec, but after its abolition of 1766, thier position was drasticly decreased. After the Ottoman Empire faced terrifying losses on all fronts, they just decided to draw a line - after the Congress of Berlin, when the they planned of creating an Islamic Christian-free state - millions were ethnicly cleansed then. It is the time that the last Greeks in Asia Minor disappear, etc... --HolyRomanEmperor 20:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing unreliable sources, and biased ones such as those compiled by Balkans people, for their Balkans nationalistic ideals is something that irritates me a lot. Therefore I decided to remove them. Tell me one Albanian-sided source, and I will remove it. All I added here until now were international sources. And international is possible non-Balkans sources. We know each other too much in the Balkans to be really neutral when judging each other's history.
Just please give me credible sources. Ilir pz 10:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

? Who the heck is Sandra? --HolyRomanEmperor 11:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The head of Kosovo discoordination centre, SANDA RAŠKOVIĆ-IVIĆ, sorry for the misspelling. Ilir pz 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
But Ilir, isent it always good to have sources that back up your own teories/opinions/wishes? From the beginning you have been more easy on denying sources that is more friendly to the Albanian side, right? You have always supported Hipi for example, and I am not talking about his knowledge in English now. I dont think you would have given a Serb the same amount of pacient.
Litany 16:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is ALWAYS good to have sources to back your theories/opinions/wishes. But not any source is a source. There are some extreme Albanians in Kosovo which have some sources which if I cite all Serbs will seem beasts. I am not citing them, instead I am looking for the neutral ones only. Actually I do not think I have cited ANY Albanian whatsoever, just to preserve the neutrality of articles I add, and not be pointed at pro-Albanian. I supported Hipi when he found good materials, and criticized him when he went too far. I think I have given credits to non-Albanians as well, when they deserved it. Look aroundIlir pz 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think so, that's only up to your own conscience.
But giving Hipi your own Barnstar? Isn't that stating his right and marking his good work? You did dedicate him with something like that, right?
I also saw that you still pushing your user page to new levels with your personal opinions. It's gettign harder and harder to talk with you since you are showing so clear. I still advise you to stop spreading you propaganda here and instead going to a natinalistic forum. Wikipedia is still a encyclopedia. Thanks for your understanding. - Litany 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
HRE, what you claim about the Greeks expulsion in Minor Asia during the late 19th century is not the biggest expulsion. According to my sources the Greeks (and Turks) were expelled from both countrys after the Greek-Turkish War in the 1920's. When the Greeks had to retreat the large population of Greeks had to flee to Greece, while the Greeks responded by sending out a large part of their Turskish population.
Litany 16:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The main issue ihere s that there aren't any Albanian sources for Kosovo, while there are thousands of Serbian - both good and bad. --HolyRomanEmperor 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder why there are not so many Albanian sources? Not because Albanians were more illiterate, I am sure. ilir_pz 10:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is there not more Albanian sources, except for the more modern works trying to deal with older history? Litany 10:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I repeat my question to your question: Do you ever wonder why that is the case? ilir_pz 12:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... yes, I guess so. Do you have the answear? Litany 12:43, 19 may 2006 (UTC)

A mild version of what happened to documents written in Albanian is this link that Hipi showed to me the other day. I say mild, because in the past I assume that various Serbian and Ottoman regimes over Kosovo were not more democratic than this one that carried these action. Getting a hint? ilir_pz 12:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppression of Goranis

HRE, with all due respect, why do you think that source is credible? In my opinion, (and think I live closer to Goranis than most of you writing here), none of them is going through oppression as described in that article. Just to give you a hint, there are movements in Macedonia which claim that Goranis are Macedonian in origin. Hence, citing an article from the country, in which such a movement is suspected may not be the best source. Why don't you refer to Intl HUman Rights Organizations, OSCE, and UN which are numerous in Kosovo. Credibility of that source is simply ... doubtful. ilir_pz 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But you, Ilir, are also very affected by your own pionts of view. Your personal opinions about Goranis and the oppression of the minority groups in Kosovo is not the most important fact here. With all respect Litany 21:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no greater cultural database of the Gorans on Internet - or the world - than Rastko. I may add (although reluctantly) that the guy that sells popcorns outside my home is a Goran. Sadly, he said that he came here because he was expelled by the Kosovo Liberation Army - he mostly lives off my folks' and other peoples' charity to buy his... ugh, rather untasty popcorns. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly I found a source which says that Goranis are mistreated in my town, Prizren but more interestingly, I will quote the citation for you "3.5. Goranis According to the Serbian Intelligence Service, in Prizren, Goranis were

attacked, " and the same was denied by UNHCR, saying "No incidents reported in the Dragas region" (Dragas is a region neighbouring Prizren. But there is an HRW report about Goranis (and other minorities) being abused in Serbia. I like to cite credible sources, as you can notice. ilir_pz 22:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV nationalist pushing

A bunch of Serbian editors are adding a "politics of Serbia" template in this article. I would encourage them to refrain from NPOV nationalist pushing, and try to contribute with meaningful sources instead. Wikipedia is not a place for achieving your political goals, hence it should not be used to spread your government's propaganda. ilir_pz 13:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
InShaneee as you can see I am trying to call someone for discussion of that part, that people tend to revert. But none is discussing. So I do not think I should be considered the one who is not discussing and simply reverting. Thanks, ilir_pz 10:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified data

I'm placing the unverified statistics until verification - although this is 99% fake - all Ottoman census results have ALWAYS been based on religion and have never mentioned ethnicity/nationality. So I guess it is a fabrication of the user who placed the statistics on the page.


The Ottomans conducted a population census in the Viyalet of Kosovo, just before its fall[citation needed]:

[edit] Unexplained removal of wikilinks

Someone is removing legitimate links to the article Serbians. Please note that this is totally relevant, as all citizens of Kosovo are citizens of Serbia (i.e. Serbians). E Asterion u talking to me? 22:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some thought that the wiki link on Serbs in Kosovo was sufficient. That is why I kept removing it, but now I left it since you insist. As far as the "Serbia topics" that is very very nationalist POV pushing. No need for you to get in that group. ~Regards, ilir_pz 11:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Ferick, please stop removing the infobox from this page. The Serbian infobox unites all major topics about the regions formally under the control of the Republic of Serbia. It does not make sense to leave the infobox in some but not others. As for adding the infobox to the Kosovo article, we could do that, but there is no separate link to the regions of Serbia in that infobox, so its use there is not as justified as it is here. What is it exactly that you do not like about it? TSO1D 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

With all do respect, your argument about keeping that info doesn't have a leg to stand on. All you can offer is:” It does not make sense to leave the infobox" out.I say your argument doesn’t make sense. This page does not have to conform to the Vojvodina page because Vijvodina doesn't have the same legal status as Kosovo. We are going around in circles here, but it comes down how you view the current legal status of Kosovo: You think it is an integral part of Serbia, and I beg to differ.Ferick 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's an inegral part of Serbia is a matter of debate, but whether it is currently de jure part of Serbia cannot be contested. Thus is makes perfect sense to have the infobox in there. I mean look at the first sentence in the Kosovo article page: "Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of two provinces in Serbia (the other being Vojvodina, in northern Serbia)." It is not a political statement to leave the infobox in there but leaving it out seems like one. TSO1D 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just found out tha the Serbia[24] page has a similar info box and yet that box is not in the Kosovo page. Regardless of what you think about the status, your info box need not be in this page.Ferick 00:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your own POV, Kosovo will always be an integrigal part of Serbian history regardless of it's current status. That is something you cant erase. Kosovo is still do de jure part of Serbia. With all respect Litany 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The Kosovo history article does not have the link either, because both of those have specific history templates, and I assume the editors thought that two infoboxes would make the page too cramped. That is not the issue here, though. Adding the box here makes perfect sense as it is present in the other two articles in the Demographic history of... section of Serbia. TSO1D 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what's the logic behind your argument.You will not be allowed to push your pro Serbian propaganda here.Open your own website for that.Ferick 21:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean you don't know what the logic behind my argument is? As I said before, Kosovo is a part of Serbia and it has various articles written in the same format as those about other regions of the state which are linked by the template. Thus it makes sense to place the template on this page to allow users to navigate from article to another. Once again, I am not a Serb, so why would I push the Serbian agenda? TSO1D 21:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Being pushy in adding that infobox makes one suspect a LOT that you are not one serb-nationalist-hidden-behind-some-I-am-not-a-serb shield. Show with actions that you are not one, and do not start a revert war instead. Call your reason, buddy. ilir_pz 10:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Come this is ridiculous. I am not a Serb. I do not have any Serb relatives. I have never even been to Serbia. If you look at my past edit history you'll see that I did not even start editing this article until very recently. And I certainly did not start the edit conflict, the only reason I became involved was that Ferick kept reverting Litany's edits (he btw is not Serb either) regarding the box with no explanation. TSO1D 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

There seems to have been a rather unreasonable edit war over something relatively trivial and literally unnoticeable to a non-nationalistic Serb or Kosovar Albanian. As neutrality or factual accuracy of the article of the article is clearly not affected by the presence or absence of the {{Serbia topics}} template, it is purely a matter of taste. Please explain your opinions thoroughly, and I encourage everyone participating to read everyone's reasons carefully. Thank you. --Tēlex 22:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Should the {{Serbia topics}} template be in this article?
Add *Yes or *No followed by an optional although highly encouraged one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

[edit] Support

  1. Yes I do not see why the template should not be present. The other two articles in the series, namely Demographic history of Vojvodina and Demographic history of Serbia also have the template as do other articles about Serbia and its regions. The infobox is a useful tool to link these articles. TSO1D 22:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia. The history of Kosovo is part the history of Serbia. Please dont push your own political POV on this site. This an encyclopedia, and this template has no political use, it is a helpful link to related articles. Litany 18:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, as per general agreement on Kosovo article. (In any case, there are better ways to spend your wikitime than edit warring over this...) Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. STRONG YES - As Litany has stated, Kosovo is de jure a part of Serbia. The population of Serbia includes the population of Kosovo, as stated in the Serbia article. And the fact that Kosovo had much stronger ties to Serbia in the past, altogether gives reason to put the Serbia template on the history of demographics article concerning Kosovo. --KOCOBO 20:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - Per above. Also, the demographics and demographic history is a part of Serbian history. There shouldn't be a reason not to include it, since a lot of Serbian history is tied with Kosovo. By removing it, you are only denying that it is a Serbian topic. -- Krytan  T  C  20:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. I can't argue with the points raised above. If (or more likely when) Kosovo becomes independent then we will need to change the template, until then it should be included. -- ChrisO 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. I have to agree with all of the above comments, you really make a good point. Kosovo is part of Serbia, and we can't give into pressures from the Albanian POV on this issue. Not a single source in the universe can prove that Kosovo is independant, why should Wikipedia be the only one? --Svetislav Jovanović 04:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Again echoing the comments, this article should follow the set precident for other articles in the series. --Lowg 05:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - Kosovo is a region of Serbia, and so Kosovo topics are Serbia topics. Until (if) any secession occurs, the template should stay. --Joffeloff 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. STRONG No This template is just an attempt to deviate from the topic, and is a nationalistic attempt to make any Kosovo-related topic be considered a sub-topic of Serbia, thus unacceptable. Refrain from these unexplainable nationalistic approaches. Thank you, ilir_pz 10:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. HUGE NO The proponent of this suggestion has been unable to make a reasonable and logical argument for keeping the box. In his attempt to make it sound as if Kosovo has the same legal status as Vojvodina, the user is attempting to infect all Kosovo related articles with his unfounded views.Ferick 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. No. There is no rule that any template should be included in all articles listed in it, and since the question of this template is so disputed then we should wait the final solution for Kosovo to see which template should be included here. PANONIAN (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Kosova is region under UNMIK administration and UNMIK is UN Mission, that means Serbia have nothing in kosovo becouse UN is who accepts serbia to what it is and UN controles Kosova too, so that logicaly means that they are in the same level! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.212.1 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Please drop the nationalist line and actually present some arguments if you believe the box should not stay. TSO1D 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop infecting Kosovo related articles with your twisted logic. You have yet to provide a logical argument for your point of view.Ferick 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

At least look at the arguments that I have presented above. If you disagree with them please explain why. TSO1D 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote shopping has paid off. I must say good job! Ferick 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You know that's not true. And as I said before you never presented a strong argument against leaving the box out. I at least presented my rationale for keeping the infobox, but you and Ilir simply accused me of being a Serb, which in is obviously not true, but even if it had been, that's not an argument. TSO1D 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Never accused you of being a Serb, but yes, I did accuse of vote shopping[[25]] (despite you explenation, with good reason)!In any case, It’s what you argue, not who you are. I have no problem with Serbs in general, but with their politics and well known propaganda against all other ethnic groups in Former Yougoslavia Ferick 06:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Accused you of being Serb? this sounds like accusations directed toward Ahtisari these days :)) "Who is mentioning weapons? Not all Serbs are responsible for war in Kosovo, only Milosevic is" blla blla... :)) ilir_pz 10:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This infobox is inflammatory, period. And we all know whom it serves! Even with the cost of being blocked for violating 3RR I will remove it. Can't stand obeying the wishes of Seselj-like editors here, who wanna spread their propaganda 24/7. Only one fair editor, Panonian, who happens to be a serb as well, showed how the rest of his compatriots should behave (READ: calling your senses!). Best regards, ilir_pz 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The chances of demografi during the so callit "agrana reforma"

The book from Dr. Milovan Obradovic, Agrarna reforma i kolonizacija Kosova (1918-1941), Prishtinë, 1981 from seit 306 to 339 is given as same importen data of the demografy. From this book we have:

The serbs in Kosovo
Year Total Serbs %
1948 728,436 171,911 23.6
1953 804,530 189,869 23.6
1961 966,026 227,016 23.5
1971 1,247,344 228,264 18.3
1981 1,585,333 209,498 13.2
1991 1,961,515 194,190 9.9
Source: Marina Blagojevic, “Kosovo Invisible Civil War” në Thanos Veremis dhe Evangelos

Kofos, Kosovo: Avoiding Another Balkan War, ELIAMEP, Universiteti i Athinës, 1998

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The full list of the kolonists and the plaes in witch they have taket land I have maked at Sq:Wiki you can taket. In the book there are more data about the capital witch was gived to this peopel (land, beefs, pork , homes, ect.) See: sq:Serbët në Kosovë#Ardhacakët serbë --Hipi Zhdripi 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

Many of the sources in this article are unreliable and unverified, especially those of Serbian writers and Ottoman censuses. In 19. century it is widely known that Albanians had majority in most of the cities in Kosovo. Here are presented many sources saying the opposite and this is POV. Besides we many sentences in this article with no source. Therefore I want to have unreliable template for some weeks so we can make research. --Noah30 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No they aren't. Sources of Serbian writers aren't any less reliable than sources of non-Serbian writers. Not to mention the fact that such sources are a minority of sources. Ottoman censuses are the most reliable method which exist for that period.
That is maybe widely known to you alone. To me, and to authors of these books, exactly the opposite is known.
Points in the article which have no sources should of course be sourced, and it would be helpful if you would mark them with {{fact}} tag. Nikola 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We all know that Ottoman censuses did not mention nationality but only religion. In 17.Century only 10 % of the Albanian in Balkans were Muslms. I don't agree with you about Serbian sources. Serbian and Albanian I think are less reliable than other sources because most of the writers especially the Serbian are politicized and are not neutral in their interpretation of historical documents. --Noah30 05:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Different Ottoman censa from different periods reported different things. In this case, I think that analysis of names was used to determine nationality. In any case, we don't use censa directly, but only their analyses which do determine nationality, through whatever means. Serbian sources are equaly likely to be neutral as any other and are not prevalent in the article anyway. Nikola 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been told by foreign historians that we do not have reliable data about the population of Kosovo in 19. century or before that. --Noah30 05:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Next time when you meet with them, tell them that they are wrong. Nikola 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting how only Serbia historians are having "reliable" cenzus data for old history. Similar to that is fact how in this data Serbs are always majority in Serbia and provinces close to Serbia. Example for that are Kosovo, Vojvodina and Slavonia. I really do not understand why Albanians, Hungarians, Croatians and others do not accept this reliable data but say that they are lies. I really do not understand why Britannica and others non Serbs Encyclopædias do not accept this truth. In the end when I think very hard I know why ? They are all writen from POV people which are having problems with Serbia. Why I write this comments ? Because last time when I have similar discussion with one "neutral" user from Serbia answer which I have recieved have been that UN resolution which is speaking about Serbia agreesion on Bosnia is POV, but his thinking that Serbia has not attacked is neutral and right :)) --Rjecina 23:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you think that people like Kovačević Mr. Ešref, Handžić A. or Hadžibegović H. from the Oriental Institute in Sarajevo are Serbian historians. Nikola 08:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Kosovo Statistical Office figures

The following figures seem unlikely to me:

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates the population at 2.0 to 2.2 million people, extrapolating from voter registration data recorded by the UNMIK Department of Local Administration in 2000. [26]

First of all the link is no good, I guess the SOK did not pay its domain registration and the page is instead some sort of internet spam advertisement for rent-a-cars, cheap flights and real estate agents. And furthermore, so far the best turnout in Kosovo was 800,000 votes in 2001 ([27]) including several tens of thousands of absentee ballots cast. Seeing how 25-30% of the population in Kosovo-Metohija is under the age of 18 I fail to see how anyone, let alone a no longer existant SOK (on the internet, is there a difference in 2007?) can project some 2.0 to 2.2 million population?

Some estimates by Albanian demographers estimate a population of 2.4 million Albanians living in Kosovo today. This is regarded by most independent observers as an overestimate as it would imply a total population of some 2.5-2.6 million people in Kosovo, much higher than other estimates.[citation needed] Calculation shows that by 2005, Kosovo should have had 2,502,000 inhabitants.

Missing sitation, quite empty statement some estimates by Albanian demographers who have been conveniently left unnamed. Which calculation, whose calculation if Kosovo only had some 30,000 births in 2004 and about 7,000 deaths (meaning a natural increase of 23,000)

The Statistical Office of Kosovo published its 2007 estimate, accounting about 2,100,000 inhabitants, of whom:
* 92% Albanians
* 5.3% Serbs
* 2.7% others

Again, assesment of a no-longer existant entity without any citation whatsoever... --Igor82 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1968-1989: Autonomy

"Allegations of census rigging (for the 1971 and 1981) by Turk, Muslim and Roma minorities who claim forceful Albanization. Serb claims Albanians drastically overincreased their own numbers."

Can anyone explain me how can a minority force other people for assimilation?

"the Kosovo Statistical offices were under exclusive Albanian control which was against the national norm at the time"

It is very hard to believe, and sounds as Milošević's propaganda during the '90s.

"one Albanian and one Serb not both Albanian as was the case in the two following censa"

How do you mean this? At a census there are several enumerators, not only one pair. It is very hard to believe that at the on the entire territory of Kosovo every enumerator was ethnic Albanian, even in Kosovska Mitrovica! On a territory where 90+% of the population are ethnic Albanian I think it is normal that the enumerators are ethnic Albanians. (Currently the Serb authorities don't care if there is let's say ethnic Hungarian enumerator in Vojvodina in every single cases, and this is normal where the population of Hungarians are low.)

"Albanians take ever-increasing control of Autonomous province with the introduction of the 1974 Constitution of SFRY."

This also sounds as propaganda why Albanians have to be extruded from the public life, and this politics lead to the current situation.

Fcsaba 07:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Statements writen in this part (World War II-1968) of article are in conflict with statement from other part of article (Balkan Wars and World War I-World War II). Data for census of 1939 are speaking that in Kosovo there is 422828 non-Slavs and 211414 Slavs Data for census of 1948 are speaking that in Kosovo there is 199961 Serbs and Montenegrins. Can somebody please explain how is possible that after killing and ethnic cleansing of 100,000 Serbs number is fallen for "only" 12,000 ? --Rjecina 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no data for 1939. The supposed census failed and was never fully computed. And those are all sourced statements - I don't see the contradiction. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
If there is no data for 1939 then this numbers need to be deleted. If not they are or misleading or false because when we look data from 1948 together with statement about killings and ethnic cleansing we are having problem. This is number problem:
422828 (Non Slavs are 2/3 of population in 1939) /2 = 211414 x3 =634242 (total population of Kosovo)
634242 (total)-422828 (non Slavs)=211414 (Slav population in 1939)
171911 (Serbs) + 28050 (Montenegrins)= 199961 (Slavs in 1948)
If we look statements between 1941 and 1945 around 100 000 Serbs has left Kosovo.
211414 (Slavs in 1939) - 100000 (Serbs which has left Kosovo) = 111414
Problem is that difference between census data from 1948 and data from 1939 minus victims is ulmost 90 000 or around 45 % of Slav population on Kosovo. Simple speaking data writen in article are false !!! --Rjecina 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not. There are sources for them, and you're objectively observing everything, as if no one ever dies, ever migrates, or is born. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
We are not speaking about 5 or 10 % but about 45 % !!! Because of that and because of this other reasons POV will be restored.
Source which you have added in article is clearly POV. I will give you 1 example which is speaking everything:
" In the summer of 1914, the Serbian government helped Essad-Pasha Topfani, a supporter of the Balkan cooperation and the Entente powers, to assume power in Albania"
"Owing to a dispute over supremacy along the Adriatic littoral, Italy set up a puppet regime in Albania"
Let as see ? When Serbia help somebody take power we are having friendly independent state, but when Italy help somebody take power we are having puppet regime !! Really neutral source :)) [28]
Other funny statement from this neutral source is this:
"After the war (1998-99), despite the international presence, KLA organized persecutions of Serb population and more than 200.000 Serbs fled Kosovo and Metohija. Only 90.000 Serbs remained living in total isolation, dispersed in several KFOR protected Serb enclaves"
If we believe this total Serb population of Kosovo in 1998 is 290 000. Funny in that statement is fact that Federal Secretariat of Information has declared in 1998 that in Kosovo there is only 221 000 Serbs. This source is really liking to write nationalistic propaganda. --Rjecina (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you failed to see that I don't really understand what we're talking about in the first place. ;) You're not quite clear.
Neither did I add that source into the article, nor does it have anything to do with the section at which you put a POV tag? I really don't understand what you're talking about.
What precisely is wrong with the disputed section? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graph

I think the graph would be better if the lines showed the actual population totals rather than percentages. -- Phildav76 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems with that approach (actual population data):

  1. For the first census on graph there is no total population number.
  2. Ratio between 1921st and situation today would be 5:1, so graph on the left side would be too small.

I would love to hear others' opinions regarding charting data from 14th up to 21st century? --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that for 20th century having actual populations on this map would be informative. In addition, having absolute numbers of Serbs in Serbia as a reference of (normal) population increase could also be informative. [29]
In whole Serbia it went from 4.8M to 6.2M (between '48 and '91), which is a 37% increase.
In Kosovo it went from 172K to 194K (in same time period), which is a 12% increase, or 3 times less.
In Kosovo, Albanian population went from .5M to 1.5M, which is a 300% increase.
I think that this information would be very helpful for readers who never heard of Kosovo before recent conflict(s), and would like to get comprehensive information by reading Wikipedia.
Lakinekaki (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there nothing of earlier times?

There just MUST be a bias there! The Slavic peoples didn't even left the vicinity of the Pripjat swamps until 400-700 A.D.. Where did the Albanians come from? The answer is that they, actually their ancestors, were already there among other peoples. The Slavic peoples were the colonists at that time, and claiming that Sebs were the majority later is just begging the question. Not that the Serbs weren't a majority at some point or another. -- Youarenotright (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether the Serbs were a majority, it is where were Serbs a majority. Does anyone know exactly when and why present-day Kosovo was demarcated as such? Was Kosovo not an Ottoman Province until 1912, and something larger with Skopje as its capital? Was it not collective Slavs if not exclusively Serbs who formed a majority in the entire region? (eg. Novi Pazar included), and where the heck are any such sources????? I'm puzzled that the statistics on the whole page concentrate only on parts of todays Kosovo and at certain times... not considering that Kosovo's own name is of dubious descent - Albanians claim it it to be theirs, and Serbs from Slavic; and to make matters worse, the two sets of nationalists have separate maps as to what it constitues anyhow. Do Serbs not place Raška in traditional Kosovo? Do Albanians not place Preševo and Bujanovac into Eastern Kosovo, their own rendition? It seems the only thing both groups agree upon is that today's breakaway republic is entirely within a perceived Kosovan entity, whatever it should be. Evlekis (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1899: Austrian statistics

There is something wrong with this. Austrian statistics I read about concluded with 47% catholic and muslim Albanians, and 44% muslim and orthodox Serbs. The data here seems to be sum of muslim Serbs and muslim Albanians, hence is clear manipulation. Please clarify this. Szopen (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Austrian statistics do seem to have manipulated the data. I’m also in need of some clarification.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I already did this. According to Serbian website I read, Austrian data did divided people into categories: Muslim Serbs, orthodox Serbs, muslim Albanians etc. However, the confusion seem to be from works of British historian Malcomlm, who wrote that majority of population was muslim (but he has NOT mentioned that those mulsims were part Serbs and part Albanians), and from the rest probably most were Serbs. This statement was of course true, but nevertheless was clear manipulation and it led to confusion, as it was clearly seen on this page. However, there is another interesting thing: when muslim Serbs started to consider themselves "Gorancy", Bosniak etc? Seems to me that today number of muslim Serbs is miniscule... Szopen (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EARLY Kosovo

I added some nice sources from:

Jugoslav Kosmet: The Evolution of a Frontier Province and Its Landscape Author(s): H. R. Wilkinson Source: Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), No. 21, (1955), pp. 171-193 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/621279

If anyone can adjust the links fine, if nto they link to a google search. These are mostly from the Dusan code and how he mentions the Albanians in two artilces, even though supposedly they barely make 2%. In light of the land being owned by the King, Albanians for the most part were kept to the mountains.

Among some interesting observations:

"It overlooked the Danubian plains to the east and the plain of Kosovo to the south. As long, however, as the Byzantine Empire and its successor, the Empire of Constantinople, maintained its frontier in Kosovo Metohija a union of Zeta and Raska was not practicable. From the middle of the twelfth century, however, Serbian expansion into the Kosovo-Metohija region became possible under the strong Nemanja dynasty. Venetian and Norman successes against the Byzantine Empire, the revolt of the Vlakoi (Vlachs), and the formation of the Vlacho-Bulgar Empire, 'Blacorum et Bugaronum', weakened Byzantine military power to such a degree that in the troubled period that followed the powerful Serb Zupans took the opportunity, not only of incorporating Kosovo-Metohija, but of opening up the Zetan Way and achieving a union with Zeta. For close on two hundred years the Serbs retained their hold on Kosovo-Metohija and during that period considerably changed its landscape"

and this (which makes sense)

Its privileges and exemptions were many. 'Churches situated in the lands of my Empire', decreed Dusan, 'my majesty releases from all services (rabota) both great and small' (Article 26). In the plain of Metohija churches and monasteries were carefully sited both for the dissemination of the Orthodox faith into the mountains and for the full and proper exploitation of the natural resources of the uplands. Pec Cathedral, for example, is at the entrance to the Caka Pass on the way to the richest pasturelands in the whole of the Balkans, those of Rusulija. The monastery at Decani stands on a terrace commanding passes into High Albania. When Stefan Uros III founded it in 1330, he gave it many villages in the plain and catuns of Vlachs and Albanians between the Lim and the Beli Drim. Vlachs and Albanians had to carry salt for the monastery and provide it with serf labour. A large number of churches were sited strategically at Prizren and in 1348 Dusan is recorded as giving Albanian catuns to a monastery there. Metohija in fact was a great monastic estate.18 Article 34 in Dusan's codes reads ' . . . and whoso shall be found to have driven men of the metohija (i.e. church estate) into an imperial estate and disobeyed the law of my majesty... shall be punished'. Metohija seems to have been derived from the Greek, ET-roXwosh, ich means 'settlement' or ErTo6X'ei,s tate'. The pioneer role of the monasteries in the establishment of settled agricultural communities must have been another good reason for their favoured position in the Empire"