Talk:Demographic history of Kosovo/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:
 * Serbs
 * Christians 415,300
 * Muslims 236,420


 * Albanians 106,270
 * Turks, Circassians an Yuriks 39,050
 * Roma 12,380
 * Jews 1,750
 * Tzintzars (Aromanians) 1,170
 * Greeks 20

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.129.143 (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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 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)

Survey

 * Should the template be in this article?


 * Add *Yes or *No followed by an optional although highly encouraged one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~ ''

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. --K OCOBO  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)

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)

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[] (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)

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 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: Serbët në Kosovë --Hipi Zhdripi 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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 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)

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.

''

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 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)

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)

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 :))
 * 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)

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): 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)
 * 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 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.


 * 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)

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)

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)

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"

Thanks for this article. If you bothered to read the entire article you would notice that the author also says later on that the kosovo plains, which he calls most of kosmet, were exclusively populated by serbs. He does say that there were some albanians in western metohija. but he clearly says that Kosmet was mainly serbian, the nonmetohija part being almost exclusively - to use the author's words. Read your sources before you post them. Thanks for the article btw, it was a good read. (LAz17 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)).

Inclusion of references to Noel Malcolm's works
I am against inclusion of references to any of Noel Malcom's works. His works are clearly clouded by prejudice, and certainly not having neutral point of view. Additionaly, sentence that I have deleted from the article has little to do with demographics of Kosovo in given time period. Topic of Great migration of Serbs should be at that article, not here. Also, the sentence placement in that particular paragraph was a case of "weasel words", and as far as I know, Wikipedia is against it. RockyMM (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Noel Malcolm's book Kosovo: A short history was a bestseller in NY Times when it was published. It has one of the best  bibliographies on the topic and Noel himself is a well respected historian and certainly unbiased. In this case you know nothing about him or his publications. I am sure you don't know that he has written extensively on the Albanian Myths as well.
 * What you are saying above are academically unacceptable beyond reason and dangerous at the same time. Don't besmirch his name if you don't like his arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhost19 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that you are a new user on Wikipedia, so I suggest that you read this and this. You can not have even a single sentence that is biased in Wikipedia, especialy on highly controversial topic such as this. Also, Noel Malcolm, as far as I know is sole respected historian that has published such unverified claims.
 * On the matter of popularity of a single book, Harry Potter was a bestseller too, but that does not mean that facts are presented in that book. The reason that Kosovo: A short history was so popular was that that book was what people where it was a bestseller wanted to read. Until you can provide another point of view on this matter, this sentence should not be placed there, at least not in this form. Check this guideline Avoid weasel words.
 * Also, in history there are no evidences or facts, you should know that if you are an academic citizen. One can only make comments and claims based on data one has collected.RockyMM (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Harry Potter was a bestseller but it is classified as science fiction whereas Kosovo: A short history was a bestseller and it is classified as NON-FICTION. Your knowledge and/or suspicions about Malcolm's credentials are unproven, unverified and have nothing to do with the topic. I never used the word "facts" but evidence which are quite different from each other. Gathering new information and/or data and putting them together constitutes evidence not facts and yes you can make claims based on them. I'm not using 'weasel words', I'm simply restating what Malcolm's chapter 8 is all about. He is an historian, he demystifies myths. Simple as that. I agree to the last version you edited; it's fine for me. Newhost19 (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.73.141 (talk)

Malcolm is a biased troll whose work is made primarily of sources from only one side. Here's a little reading... (LAz17 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)).
 * http://www.rastko.rs/kosovo/istorija/malkolm/index.html - he gets totally torn apart on how flawed he is
 * http://www.bndlg.de/~wplarre/back203.htm


 * It is funny because both of those links contains massive bias. Emto (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Exclusion of references to Milos Milojevic's works
Miloš Milojević is extremely biased and unreliable source. He is consider "scientist" only among the Serbs, but for Bulgarians and others, he is primarily Greater Serbian ideologist. His works is not recognized by modern world science. He is not cited by serious scientists or historians on Kosovo Demographics subject.

The goal of Wikipedia is not to put into this article all possible claims about Kosovo Demographics. It is better to have several reliable sources then such a confusion. --Mladifilozof (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Immigration of Serbs and Kosovo's colonization after 1912
A good reference book would be from Miranda Vickers, "Between Serbs and Albanians". There was a lot of Serbian propaganda to increase the number of Serbs in Kosovo when Serbs forces invaded Kosovo in 1912. There was a huge wave of Kosovo ALbanians fleeing for Turkey or ALbania just after 1912 (massacres are recorded by Leon Trotsky as well). This was followed by a wave of Serbian and Montenegrin settlers. In 1920's a law was passed that ALbanians could not own more than 0.16 acres of land.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.205.168 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Population statistics
There seems to be some unsupported alteration of these figures going on. When it finally settles down perhaps someone could apply (with references) data from the Kosovo government page at http://esk.rks-gov.net/eng/. Jan 1 naD (talk • contrib) 14:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fake Sources
Does anyone ever check the sources of any of these Kosovo articles??? "Das Fürstenthum Serbien und Türkisch-Serbien, eine militärisch-geographische Skizze von Peter Kukolj, Major im k.k.Generalstabe, Wien 1871" This source is complete made up and fake. The use of biased sources like "Kosta Nikolić, Nikola Žutić, Momčilo Pavlović, Zorica Špadijer: Историја за трећи разред гимназије, Belgrade, 2002, pg. 63", etc. I dont have the time or interest to look thru all these articles and sources but some really needs to do an overhaul on kosovo articles, the quality of these articles is horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.6.84 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Structure of Article
Is it not more usual in Wikipedia articles on demographics to start with the latest census and then give history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

History: 14th century to 1581
I do not disagree with the proposition that the majority of the population of Kosovo at this time were Slavic-speaking (with the caveat that distinct linguistic differences between Slav languages in the Balkans were not codified by the adoption of "standard literary" languages other than Old Church Slavonic, and therefore one dialect tended to merge into the dialect of the next area) and that the majority were members of the Serbian Orthodox Church. But I do not believe that the detailed conclusions of Serbian scholars in analysing households under Decani chrysobulls is at all useful to the article. (They only related to the monastery estates anyway). The Ottoman defters are also not as useful at this time as might be supposed because anyone who was Orthodox will have been subject to the Patriarchate of Pec and recorded as Serbian Orthodox as their "millet". There is a small but significant number of households which included people with both Serbian and Albanian names, and it is impossible to work out whether these should be classified as (in modern terms) "Serbs" or "Albanians", although it does show that there were quite a lot of Albanians around.

I would therefore replace these sections with a simple sentence or two to the effect that most historians who are neither Serbian nor Albanian conclude that most people in Kosovo at this time were Serbs rather than Albanians, in so far as the question was relevant to their sense of identity. (Even ten years ago, you could ask what we class now a Goran what language he spoke, and he'd say "Našinski" ("Our language")). Markd999 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw the final results of the 2011 census were published today so you could start updating the articles.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cute website. Maybe I'm missing something, but... how can you get an absolute population count out from that site? (I'm not really interested in what % of a district is aged 50-60 or what % has a cellphone). Personally, I'm old-fashioned, and feel more at home with a big CSV.
 * I'd like to update a few local/district articles using this source, if I have time... bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They updated the app. Apparently, they realized that most people were looking for simple facts and they shouldn't have to scroll through endless lists of stats pdfs that deal even with the metadata of the medata.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Markd999: Well, monastery estates = whole of Kosovo and Metohija. How could the analysis not be useful as it shows the ethnic (or as you claim, cultural) division in the region. I strongly disagree with you, and I feel like this is yet another attempt to try to erase Serbdom in the history of Kosovo. The term "Našinski" was widespread in the Slavic community and has most likely been used by all Slavic groups. I think a quick look on the Albanian fis system in Kosovo obviously shows Kosovo Albanian origin in Northern Albania (a majority, although there exist fis from the other parts of Albania), and not in Kosovo itself...--Z oupan 14:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling changes
Hi all, Evlekis changed the spelling of lots of towns, citing WP:AT. However, our article title policy has nothing to do with the names of those towns in this article. The title of this article is "Demographics of Kosovo". What's going on? bobrayner (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Serbian uses Priština, Albanian uses Prishtina, article title is Pristina. When you provide a valid reason why we should use of the of the two local forms over the English, we'll talk. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * In a table about the census, it would probably be a good idea to list the same towns that the census did, instead of imposing your own preferred names. Serbian names are not English names; I can't fathom where you got that idea. bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't think where you got that idea either. Nobody suggested Serbian names are English; unfortunately for you English more commonly chooses the names that are consistent with Serbian. I appreciate you have difficulties accepting this, as they say, the truth hurts and for this you have my sincerest sympathies. When in 1999 your marvelous BBC was reporting from Kosovo, we all heard them speak of Uroševac, nobody recalls Ferizaj. Naturally I see why you believe that when a census is taken we should list things the way the census does, after all, it was conducted in Albanian, so hey, stuff common English! Let's all present the Albanian name and say that this is English! And let's pretend that is neutral and that the "Serbian" names mean nothing! Of course, with your reasoning, I guess we can present towns such as Göteborg instead of Gothenburg as I am sure that is how it is listed in the Swedish census. I bet if the next editor proposes moving Gnjilane to Gjilan, you will support the move. So why don't you make a round of proposals. If they succeed, we'll match the items per WP:AT, until then, I see no point in piping just to present people with names they are not familiar with. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 01:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Split?
Perhaps it would be useful to split this article into Demographics of Kosovo, and Demographic History of Kosovo? The article is rather large and hence this would help in better organization of it. (Lilicneiu (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)).
 * No, demographic history of Kosovo is important part of the topic of this article. The size problem should be dealt some other way.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely important but I feel that it should also be its own section. How does this sound - to have a small section on demographic history, and then a much bigger one that shows much of the stuff? Demography is a very big and broad thing, and this demographic history section has too big of a presence here I think - or, a big enough presence to warrant its own page. (Lilicneiu (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)).
 * Well? Lilicneiu (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Demographics is not fixed. As soon as some data is published it is already historical. The majority of the article presents most recent data in more details. There is no problem with the size of the historical data. Only with its formatting. Some of comparable data can be summarized within tables. Some can be presented by collapsible lists. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How does this sound : "Historical Ethnography of Kosovo" Perhaps that's a good way to split it? (Lilicneiu (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)).
 * Did you change your mind? (Lilicneiu (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)).
 * No. I still believe that there is no problem with size. If presented data would be better formatted it would be more obvious.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

2011 census
A census was held in 2011 which rendered pretty much everything written in this "article" irrelevant and simply wrong. It might be wise for someone to correct it, otherwise I'll just start deleting everything that is not supported by the facts that the census established. Kosovo population: 1.73 million, Pristina population some 190 thousand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.226.254 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the majority of Serbs boycotted the 2011 census, which is not understood by the article.--Z oupan 09:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Albanians return to Christianity
"28.'Muslim' Albanians return to Christianity. Published December 4, 2008."

I don't think this reference is legit can someone confirm this resource.
 * Agreed. I removed that bit. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Demographic history of Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217190056/http://www.rastko.org.rs/kosovo/istorija/malkolm/djankovic-facts.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/kosovo/istorija/malkolm/djankovic-facts.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826204755/http://scindeks-clanci.nb.rs/data/pdf/0543-1220/2004/0543-12200403623R.pdf to http://scindeks-clanci.nb.rs/data/pdf/0543-1220/2004/0543-12200403623R.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030301100434/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/28/28ap42.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/28/28ap42.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626234926/http://www.ks-gov.net/esk/esk/pdf/english/population/Kosovo_population.pdf to http://www.ks-gov.net/esk/esk/pdf/english/population/Kosovo_population.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

1455 Vuk-ili defter
It should be removed as it includes only a part of eastern Kosovo as highlighted in The reply by Magdearu has value insofar as it refers to the one specific area of Kosovo which the defter includes, but it seems WP:UNDUE to include a reply to a defter which covered much of central Serbia and even a small part of Montenegro.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

What sources to use
I have removed Bjelacac (2007). The source discusses the official state POV of Serbia and engages in heavy criticism of reliable international bibliography. Sources which discuss and promote specific national POVs are not used in general in this article, hence there is a specific lack of competing claims by official sources of Serbian or Albanian journals about the modern period. They put forward opposed narratives, thus they are avoided in relation to specific subjects. Parts which can be corroborated in international, reliable sources can use other citations. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article in question is not a primary source discussing a POV stance, the article is a secondary source and discusses a number of primary sources (sources that are not Serbian nor Albanian, specifically Vickers) in the context of the migration of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from 1938 to 1950. The additions from Bjelacac (2007) in this article primarily deal with figures, the majority of which have no conflicting addition in this article. You make a valid point that there is a specific lack of competing claims by official sources of Serbian or Albanian journals about the modern period. They put forward opposed narratives, thus they are avoided in relation to specific subjects. However, could you then explain why this section is in the article: According to your argument, this should be removed. However, at this present moment, there is no true narrative of population movement figures given that . Regardless, the additions from Bjelacac (2007) do not relate to this topic. ElderZamzam (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the objection to Bjelacac (2007), the secondary source (Bjelacac) was replaced with primary sources for each addition from Malcom, Vickers and Batakovic. ElderZamzam (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Batakovic is not a reliable source for such matters. He has been described as: -- Bes-ART  Talk  12:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Here is from Noel Malcolm regarding the so called Great Migration 1690 of the Serbs

''Another myth has grown up around the “great migration” of the Serbs in 1690 which, it is alleged, created a demographic vacuum, subsequently filled by a flood of alien Albanians from outside Kosovo. A closer study of the evidence suggests that although there were heavy war losses in 1690, affecting all categories of people, most aspects of the “great migration” story are fanciful.''

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/thebattleofkosovo