Talk:Yugoslav colonization of Kosovo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

This is pointless. 50.000 people is nothing compared to entire nationhood. This is bias, which didn't included all historical facts, and it should be or merged or deleted. For now, i propose merge. --Tadija (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

www.kosova was earlier rejected at WP:RS, Svetozar Pribićević was a politician, far from any reliable historian, Milovan Obradović published "Agrarna reforma i kolonizacija na Kosovu 1918-1941" in Kosovo, so that cannot be internationally RS. You can ask for opinion at Noticeboard. --Tadija (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge as is99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge, this happend both ways (Albanians also colonised Kosovo in various hisotorical moments), so the title and the subject don´t match. FkpCascais (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the into to reflect it. I still think it should be made into a section of Demographics. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

tag abuse

I have notices that some users abuse merge tag against discrete historical articles they personally oppose. Such behavior is unacceptable because our task on Wikipedia is to write articles and make them better.

Wikipedia:Merging should not be considered if:

• The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles.
• The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short.

This article topic are discrete subjects and this article clearly could be expanded into longer standalone article. Anyone who wants to help to make this article better is welcome. --Mladifilozof (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mustafa Merlika-Kruja citation

The ref used for the citation of Mustafa Merlika-Kruja is from Boris Malagurski, the guy that created Kosovo: Can You Imagine?. Do you think that it classifies as WP:RS? Thank you. kedadial 18:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, read the source. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Which source? kedadial 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Could it perhaps be the source we are talking about? This isn't rocket science Kedadi, get your head in the game. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mr.Anon for your lecture, but I don't get you at all. That ref is not WP:RS. kedadial 19:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source for Mustafa Kruja speech, exept this Serbian one? --Mladifilozof (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be, unless you consider all Serbian sources wrong by default. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a WP:RS for such allegation (Prime minister of Albania, orders to kill all Serbs in Kosovo). kedadial 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Albanians are indigenous, the Serbs are there are resettled parties with a homeland elsehwere. As Noel Malcolm once commended, the Serb state began outside of Kosovo so Kosovo is not it's cradle. Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Human Rights Believer

Pdfs written by unknown directors of semi-propagandist films aren't RS.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

University of British Columbia is not RS? I reverted your deletion of data. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A research paper isn't a thesis and his source about that sentence is not RS:

• Bogdanovic, Dimitrije. The Book on Kosovo. 1990. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1985. page 2428.

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you accidentally forgot to mention other source for same exeption.

Genfer, Der Kosovo-Konflikt, Munich: Wieser, 2000. page 158.

If first one is not reliable, other one is. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Genfer, Der Kosovo-Konflikt, Munich: Wieser, 2000. page 158." This book doesnt even exist. There are no books named Der Kosovo-Konflikt by Genfer. Its a fake book made up to support the quote. Can anyone give me any evidence that this book exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.234.170 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonization of Kosovo

The title is not "Colonization of Kosovo 1918-1939" but "Colonization of Kosovo", as in, during it's entire history. The current link with the definition doesn't actually reflect the definition anywhere. I am reverting all the changes which clash with the title. You can re-add them after you change the title to fit the text or you can leave the title as is, but without the offending text. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done Maldifilozof and congratulations on such an excellent and revealing page which should finally shut the mouths of all the Serbo-nationalists who never knew before about these things but thought that Kosovo one time was "owned" by Serbs. We know that Serbs never had a true existence there before 1918. Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Vandal and sockpuppet of Human Rights Believer

Not exactly as the area of Kosovo is certainly of historic importance from long before 1918. Polargeo (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Extually, there was minority of domestic Serbs on Kosovo before Colonisation.--Mladifilozof (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean, Serbs were a minority before ~50,000 moved there? That's not even that far above the average immigration for a province that size/population density.

Article was BS from the start, I just wanted to see how far your bias would take it. It's very hilarious, keep going. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Very bad and bias article. Terrible POV. Awful sources, highly problematic view of the subject. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WW please don't quote national advocacy sites like kosovo.net and don't add WP:IDONTLIKEIT tags without arguments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That is just a link, not their work. Also, if kosova.com is good, this is also. Double standards are not welcome here. Arguments for POV's are up, stop blind reverts, that is violation of wiki rules. And expert tag is very much needed, as this item have political and historical background that need to be presented here. One sided article needs more work. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, i fixed it. Now it's your turn. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dimitrije Bogdanovic's work isn't rs(Despite its relative backwardness and isolation, Kosovo’s status as a focus for Serbian nationalism and flash point for armed conflict has generated a large literature describing the region’s history. The Kosovo problem is evoked from a Serbian perspective in Dimitrije Bogdanović, Knijga o Kosovu. and The author of a very influential study called Knjiga o Kosovu, which was published among the numerous revisionist writings of 1985 was Dimitrije Bogdanovic) and I'll remove kosova.com, although that won't change the content of the article at all.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The above links do not "prove" that Bogdanovic's work in not RS. It may be POV, but that does not mean it is not RS. All authors have a certain POV, but the criteria as to whether a source is RS are different. A work can be POV, but still be considered RS as long as the work isn't self-published, and includes a bibliography. Who is Craig Nation? What are his credentials? To me, this seems like a clear case of labeling a source as non-RS because just because one doesn't like it. If you think the source is unreliable, post at WP:RSN instead of edit-warring. Athenean (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the second link provided calls Bogdanovic "a respected scholar". Case closed. Athenean (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make blind reverts(why do you consider the article pov?). As for Bogdanovic please stick to the sources, since Serbian revisionist works aren't rs.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is just your own POV. You really need to get over this view that a source is not RS simply because it is Serbian. Bogdanovic is a respected scholar, so if anyone should "Stick to the sources", it's you. If you ask at WP:RSN, they will tell you the same thing. The article is in terrible shape (full of grammatical errors, for one), so the "expert attention tag" is fully warranted. Athenean (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Book about Kosovo wanted to portray the Serbs as the sole victims of historical persecution, it thus sought to counter the claims of Albanian victimization during the interwar period.. Case closed, so please don't add it again.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw the reason of Bogdanovic even wrote the book is in his words is to defend Yugoslavia's territorial integrity threatened and undermined by Albanian nationalism and at the same time he urged the government to act quickly(the results of that policy are known). Per RS(Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.) please don't add it again.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What was that? Unrelated, POV sentence, just to feed disputed POV. PLease, be serious. If you question something, ask on RS Notice. All best. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)That was the source and btw adding sources that don't say what you're trying to source is disruptive. However, the most disruptive part is that after misusing sources, adding back non-rs ones you even labeled the Colonisation of Kosovo by the Serbs as a persecution against the Serbs. For future reference WhiteWriter should not use sources like Jovan Cvijić's work of the 1910s and 1920s, which was one of the main ideological tools of Yugoslavia in all its colonization programs[1] and Jovan Jovanović Zmaj. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Some working together should get this article to C status. There are several references for now, it shouldn't be tough to ameliorate the article. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WWII Kosovo and removal of Serbs

I amended the text which stated that "Serb colonists could not return". The point is that Albanian authorities in WWII Kosovo expelled Serbs (and other nations) on account of the ethnicity itself and not on the grounds that they had addresses outside of Kosovo before 1918. Likewise, the ban on ethnic Serbs returning to Kosovo implemented by the Yugoslav communist authorities applied to all persons to have lived there before World War II, there was no concession for those who were among the pre-1918 residents. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Colonisation

If anyone have any objections on the sources about Albanian colonisation, present them here, please. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? No, your revisionist approach and apologetic attempt about the colonization is unacceptable both by WP:NPOV and the sources that don't say anything about the colonization of Kosovo happening because they Serbs were trying to "restore" any balance. The way you're using them is called revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.33.1 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Most biased article I have ever read

Does anyone check any of these sources. I literally spent 4 minutes and I found some pretty bad biased. The "Murray, 1999", http://books.google.com/books?id=TSxud2zjVEgC&pg=PA15&dq=%22who+had+arrived+in+the+1920s+and+1930s%22&sig=ACfU3U04OfpXJr58lXmCAit4aLsSOLOXOg#v=onepage&q=%22who%20had%20arrived%20in%20the%201920s%20and%201930s%22&f=false , is mentioned as a source to support the sentence "There ensued mass killings of Serbs and an exodus of tens of thousands of Serbs." Yet in the SAME paragraph of the book it talks about the "hideous massacre of thousands of Albanians." This article doesn't mention this at all. Im sure if someone spend the time dissecting this article and looking at all the sources, they could find a mistake in almost every sentence. For example, "Eventually the ethnic balance of the population increased from 75 percent Albanian to 90 percent." has absolutely no source. And "In the 1930's, Yugoslavia signed treaties with Turkey, which were never implemented, providing that Turkey, a Muslim nation, would accept expellees (Albanians are overwhelmingly Muslim)." mentions islam as a way to excuse a treaty that would expel Albanians. "Former soldiers and chetniks were offered incentives to settle in Kosovo, although this phase of the colonization is considered unsuccessful because only 60 to 70 thousand people showed a willingness become settlers, of whom many failed to follow through." I checked the source and it mentions nothing about chetniks. I dont have the time or the interest in going thru every source and dissecting the amount of bull shit in the article. The article in its current state is completely useless and should just be deleted. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.6.84 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article looks like Albanian propaganda. "During the rise of Serbian nationalism in Yugoslavia in the 1980s and 1990s, revisionist books were published promoting the opinion that Serbs had been the sole victimised ethnicity in Kosovo during the existence of Yugoslavia." This is funny as the article uses as "references" that support the supposed colonization by Serbs sources which were ALL published AFTER the Kosovo War and they can easily qualify as revisionist. Many of the references also lack sufficient information (only a surname and a year, no fullname, no book or paper title) so noone can actually check the reliability of the resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.186.105 (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yugoslav colonisation 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110826204541/http://scindeks-clanci.nb.rs/data/pdf/0353-9008/2008/0353-90080824231P.pdf to http://scindeks-clanci.nb.rs/data/pdf/0353-9008/2008/0353-90080824231P.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Modifications

Some recent modifications made by @WEBDuB: have been opposed by @Resnjari:. Discussing for consensus is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I opposed the edits (as outlined in my edit summaries) because overall most of them have nothing to do with this topic. I came to that view after i consulted those sources, whether in English or Serbian. @WEBDuB is adding content that is WP:UNDUE at best and POV at worst. Not to mention that referencing is a bit of an issue by the editor. If a sentence appears contentious, at the very least provide a weblink and especially a page number that would be a courtesy to other editors who may want to consult the source/text themselves.Resnjari (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

1. I think it is necessary to explain the political and historical context of every event. This is not the first civilization event, unrelated to other periods. Why are some events relevant to the topic? If you want to write about the colonisation of Liberia, you have to mention history of slavery. If you want to write about Bricha, you have to mention the Holocaust. If you want to write about the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, you have to mention crimes committed by Slobodan Milošević regime etc. It was not mentioned anywhere how Serbia lost Kosovo (and ethnic majority) after the Ottoman invasion, how Kosovo was incorporated in Yugoslavia, nor the entire political situation in Yugoslavia. More importantly, I didn't write: ”Colonization corrected the historical injustice”, but:„ According to Serbian sources, the colonization was an attempt to correct “the historical injustice” ...” Did I say something wrong? I have cited reliable sources that even criticize colonization. Nobody can say that is Serbian propaganda. This is an article on colonization. It is necessary to explain the statements, motives and excuses of those who carried it out. Even Vasa Šaletić, the head f the Alliance of Agrarian Cooperatives of Southern Serbia who were in charge of of the colonization process, stated: “This is a logical sequel to the liberation war”.

2. I thought it was useful to mention the events important for the development of the Serbian-Albanian conflict (unfortunately) such as Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78), Expulsion of the Albanians 1877–1878, 1901 massacres of Serbs, Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars, but I understand that you think that is unnecessary. I'm just afraid that this is part of the Albanian POV of absolute Albanian victimization. The whole article is in this narrative. Sources and quotations are selectively collected. Those who read the article will not understand the course of the Serbian-Albanian conflict and the role of this event.

3. Kosovo Myth is important for the political platform of Serbian nationalist. Myth was often used to create a Serbian victimization narrative and to represent the Turks and other islamized nations as someone who stole Kosovo (and ethnic majority) away from the Serbs. This aspect is not mentioned in any single place, but it is crucial. Even the Western media (mostly inclined towards the Albanian side) sometimes mention claims of Serbian political elite. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are always true, but the arguments of all parties should be mentioned.

4. During the World War II, many other Serbs were expelled from Kosovo, not just settlers. This claim is serious POV issue. It needs to be either corrected or excluded from the introduction.

I sincerely hope that no one is offended by any edit. We need to work together to improve the article together, because it is currently of very poor quality. --WEBDuB (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Its starting to appear that this is more about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with the addition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT then anything else. Your approach has a few issues. Yes, context and background are important, however if they are relevant to the article. Most of the sources you got discusses other events and things outside this topic. The wiki articles you cite cover topics and the background of their subject matter with sources that discuss both, hence their use in a article. Otherwise anyone can just add whatever on background and frankly that is WP:UNDUE. What you added with most of those sources here did not discuss this event. Also unless the sources state something about previous events, ideas etc influencing or impacting this event, i fail to see why other events should be cited in the article. In the end, is this article about this topic or about others? If its about others then it becomes WP:CFORK. Another thing, as this article is contentious and can spark passions, using academic sources with footnotes/references is preferable. With the Jovanović article, ok, but can you please reference it properly. Previously you had both his name and surname appear in the footnote. Only his surname. Other editors are not going to clean up after you. After your additions from Jovanović, i will add content that deals with the topic.Resnjari (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Milošević government

Is there a scientific consensus that the term “colonisation” is used for the crimes of the Milošević regime? The terms “stripped autonomy” and “ethnic cleansing” are predominantly used. ”Colonisation” is mostly referred to a post-WWI program, as part of the Serbian-Albanian conflict, there is a consensus that Tito suspended the colonization process. There are no sources that talk about the connection of all these events. In contrast, there is no explanation of the political and historical context of event post-WWI program, which is important part of the topic.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@WEBDuB:, we are not talking about the crimes of the Milošević regime. That's a different topic. For here Milosevic and his government passed laws for the colonisation of Kosovo. He was the head of a government of Yugoslavia (thats the name the state continued to have under him) Anyway i am in the process of going through the content you just added. Only one so far has to do with this topic, the rest appear to be WP:SYNTHESIS. On other things regarding the context, find RS that refers to these events and context. I looked and looked for material that cited colonisation etc and included it.Resnjari (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Bellamy (p.115 [2]) cites even the legislation Decree for Colonisation of Kosovo of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the Milosevic government enacted into law in 1995. It has the word colonisation in it. The rest of the section talks about colonisation and Milosevic.Resnjari (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I added two sources that use words like "colonize" and "re-colonisation" and content based on them. Out of curiosity, do you WEBDuB have sources that say Milosevic did not have anything to do with colonisation attempts? If you have, provide them and a solution can be worked out. If you do not have, do not waste time with a response. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There is still a big problem with the article. (WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK) The settlements during the interwar period is the only event / process known as the Colonisation of Kosovo. Most sources do not describe colonization at all, especially this one from the interwar Yugoslavia. What sources explained the colonization in these four phases? (WP:NOR)

Again, the Milošević period is particularly controversial. No one questions the suppression of autonomy, crimes and the settlement of Serb refugees, but why is it all included in this article? (COATRACK) Why are the statements of individuals such as Šešelj, Drašković and Čubrilović included, who were not even in power in the mentioned periods? What is the Decree for Colonisation of Kosovo of the FRY? Is there any link to the primary source? I can't find any details about that, and nothing similar is mentioned in Serbo-Croatian sources. I think the author misrepresented the February 1995 Reuters report explaining the government's initiative to settle Serb refugees offering them benefits. [3] [4] [5] Also, the Human Rights Watch noted that: “the Serbian government constructed settlements for relocated Serbs throughout Kosovo. Ethnic Albanians referred to the newcomers as "colonizers"”. Furthermore, the so-called first phase is also not described in the sources as colonisation. (COATRACK)

Furthermore, the article is example of strongly WP:POV. It doesn't mention the background of the events and the motives of the people who ordered the colonisation.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Šešelj, Drašković and Čubrilović are mentioned because they were influential people who works influenced the conversation in the country at the time regarding this issue. There were 4 phases of colonisation, as stated by Elsie. On the 4th phase, i'e by Milosevic, his government enacted the he legislation Decree for Colonisation of Kosovo of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1995. It can't be more clearer then that(Bellamy p.115 [6]).Resnjari (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That is only one source, while Elsie is, as a linguist, questioned as a relevant source. All other sources don't describe colonisation in four phases, but only the interwar Yugoslavia. (WP:UNDUE) Mentioning that decree is very controversial. There is not much information about that, and there is no such document in the Serbian language in the search, any of the archives of the parliament, etc. The 1920s colonisation is well known in Serbian literature as well. Šešelj, Drašković and Čubrilović were not as significant as is emphasized here and especially the sources do not connect them with the alleged process of colonization.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Elsie. He is an academic and expert in his field in Balkan related content. If your position is that he is not fit for use as a source on Wikipedia you are welcome to make your case on the RS noticeboards related to determining reliable sources. Also are you saying that Šešelj, Drašković and Čubrilović were not influential? Šešelj, a politician in the Milosevic era who had a large following in Serbia during the 1990s and advocated for Great Serbia, of which this colonisation business was part for him. Drašković, a opposition politician to Milosevic was also influential among circles wanting change. And Čubrilović who penned his treatise on Albanians and colonisation in the interwar period and whose works became popular during the Milosevic era. This is outlined and the sources are there. The whole process did not come out of the blue from nowhere. Your comment about mentioning the "decree" (actually it was legislation passed by the parliament) is controversial why? Bellamy cites this. Present something that states it never happened or is not true at the very least.Resnjari (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, we can start a case on the RS noticeboard. Most importantly, that source is not enough to construct the entire structure of the article. (WP:STRUCTURE) One shorter section, similar to the See also, can be added and it can explain that some authors connect some other events with colonisation. But for the whole article, we have to follow the proportion in the sources. (WP:UNDUE)

Šešelj, Drašković and Čubrilović were not influential, that is a fact. Certainly, they did not create state policies in that period and the sources don't connect them directly with the colonisation process. (WP:NOR) There is not enough evidence for that legislation (“decree”). Please find the primary source or anything about that in the Serbo-Croatian languages sources. There is an archive of all legislation adopted in the Serbian and Yugoslav parliaments after 1990. --WEBDuB (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You can start a thread, as i am not the one challenging Elsie's credentials (ping me when you have done so). For me Elsie is ok. On Šešelj, Drašković and Čubrilović i stated my position. As for the decree etc, its cited in RS. Unless you can prove Bellamy is wrong, i also stand by the source. Again RS noticeboards. By the way he cited it from the International Crisis Group ([7], p.5), who in the 1990s compiled a report. One could cite this report directly, but Bellmay is RS, so hence used in the article instead. About Serbo-Croatian languages sources, i didn't look there (not incumbent upon me to do so), i went with English RS sources, as its English language wiki. Since you placed that link, i went to it. A few things. It does not have a generic catch all search option for any words (like typing in Kosovo and colonisation) or just dates (11/01/1995). If it had that option then it would make the process of finding it possible. The site asks for very detailed specifics and it has all legislation etc catalogued under many categories, but it does not give me acess to them when I click. Also I don't know under what category this would fall under as well and i am not going to spend my days reading through endless Serbian legislation for days on end till i hit the jackpot if its somehow possible to get through even on that front. Point out where on the site page, where there is a generic search option where i don't have to fill out details of which i do not have apart from the name and date. I am willing to go through all legislation for the month of January 1995 if that is a possible option and link to a page, as i can read Serbian. However to avoid all that there is RS Bellmay.Resnjari (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with WEBDuB here; only folks with shallow knowledge of Serbian politics (theoretical knowledge/collected information from the news and other sources) might think that those 3 had some real power. Šešelj had some influence, but it was limited and directly under control of the regime. Drašković and Čubrilović are/were mascots, and they surely were not the figures who pulled strings or made any real decisions about colonisation, which is the primary topic. Calling Čubrilović important on any level is just plain wrong and his proposals should be removed from the article as it's all very trivial and his "theory" and personal views which did not hold water on any serious level, and therefore it should have place only on his article. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't said they had power. They had influence among parts of the population, which is different. They produced works especially in the case of Čubrilović which made the rounds in the population at the time. The whole removing the Alb population and colonisation discourses in the country did not come from nowhere. It was a process and some of the political and intellectual elite elites advanced it in their own way.Resnjari (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with the main topic of the article? Speaking of legislation, here you need to choose the 1. СЛУЖБЕНИ ГЛАСНИК РЕПУБЛИКЕ СРБИЈЕ, and then page 132 and finally Бр./год. (цело изд.): 01/95 (11.01.1995). After download, pages 9 and 10. As I thought, there is no so-called Decree for Colonisation, but “Advertisement for renting apartments”. It is true that the introduction says that the announcement is made "with the aim of stopping the emigration, of return and immigration of Serbs and Montenegrins to Kosovo and Metohija". These are 15 apartments in Vučitrn and 5 in Kosovska Mitrovica. There is no such as coloniсation. The authors misinterpreted something. Unfortunately, some things get spread from author to author even when one is wrong. This is a well-known feature of anti-Serbian bias in the Western media during the Yugoslav wars. It is called the illusion of multiple sources. We should definitely remove that part. Perhaps these authors are otherwise relevant in general, but what specifically they claim on this topic has been proven incorrect.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Resnjari: add what is supported in bibliography. If some editors think that there is an "anti-Serbian" bias in "Western media", they can choose another, non-Western website that is more welcome to such tenets. In wikipedia, bibliography is assessed by the WP:RS policy. If they think that "Western" bibliography is not RS, they are welcome to use WP:RSN. But the talkpage is not a WP:FORUM.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:, i agree. Still i am going to have a proper in depth read of it later today. I skimmed it over for now, it appears to be a decree and its linked as a continuation to some decree from 1992 referring to emigration of Serbs/Montenegrins etc. It wouldn't make Bellmay obsolete, just that the article sentance might have to be brought more into line with Mertus who states its a series of decrees on this kind of thing, as opposed to Bellamy citing only one. I want to make sure. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I really don’t see a reason why we would include a source that we have proven to cite a non-existent situation? Even if the author is relevant in other situations. Relevance doesn't mean that they must be included in every article. Maleschreiber, it’s not ok to label other editors (WP:AVOIDABUSE, WP:CIVIL), and previous messages look like WP:PASSIVE at best. Everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia. I think we really need to work together in a synergistic manner to improve the articles. I tried very hard to resolve this disputed situation.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Stick to the topic, not an editor who may not be to your liking. Regarding the source, actually no, its not non existent. There is much more to is and that decree links itself to another one from 1992. Even Vladan Jovanovic who has written much on Kosovo colonisation said of Milosevic in an article on Kosovo colonisation "Even Slobodan Milosevic toyed with the possibility of settling the refuges from Croatia (following the operation Storm) in Kosovo. However, that mission was completely naïve and unrealistic." [8].Resnjari (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

He is 100% right to call out the obvious uncivil behaviour which is being repeated over and over.

So what? This article is not about empty theory and propositions which never took place, you can write RL academic works about that, but such cases are not needed nor welcome on Wikipedia where there is history/real events to be covered. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

After a comment by @Maleschreiber: on another page, WEBuB response was followed with a canvassing claim [9]. In relation to me, a statement or sorts was made about 'harassment' [10]. Trivialities in the end. What Males wrote was nothing untoward the editor.Resnjari (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Even Slobodan Milosevic toyed with the possibility of settling the refuges from Croatia (following the operation Storm) in Kosovo. However, that mission was completely naïve and unrealistic." That is not disputable, but it has nothing to do with the topic. Crimes of the Milošević regime, settlement of refugees, suppression of autonomy, etc. have already been well described in other articles. This is about WP:CFORK and WP:COATRACK.--WEBDuB (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Resnjari: these comments carry no weight and there's no need to get distracted by them. Add what is supported by bibliography and if they dispute the source, they are advised to seek oversight in RSN.If the source is not reliable, then a community discussion in RSN will confirm this. If they don't want to seek oversight, further discussion is just a form of WP:FORUM.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

When several reliable sources conflict, some of those sources can sometimes be demonstrated to be factually erroneous. WP:CONFLICTING We have proved here that there is no such decree on colonization, especially not on February 11, 1995. Quite simply, most of the events listed in the article are not known as colonisation. Most of the sources do not connect the mentioned people and events with the alleged process of colonisation. It is very strange that so many policies are ignored here.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Repopulation not Colonization

I think most people on this planet is aware what process of colonization means and who used that and for what and first tough when word "colonization" is used. It is incorrectly used here as it does not describes actual events in right contest as it is mostly understood by English speaking population. Yugoslavia and Serbia or Montenegro where not states to held any colonies. Kosovo is not colonies of Yugoslavia or Serbia. And Serbs prior trying to repopulate kosovo where largely expelled or escaped during ottoman rule - before Serbia and Yugoslavia took control of Kosovo again from occupying force. Because of such events ethnic composition of geographical area of Kosovo and Metohia has largely changed. Similar events where during communist Yugoslavia when Serb population that escaped during Nazi regime in WWII was prevented to return on Kosovo afterwards WWII. And during communist regime rule in Yugoslavia Serbs again escaped Kosovo thus reducing their population even further. All this is easy to check just following historical sources for census to see great decline of population during some times and other sources regarding why Serb population in Kosovo was reduced from almost 100% to about 10% now. Modern words for this is ethnic cleansing of Serbs and even today Serbs who try to return on their homes in Kosovo are prevented to do so by force and any other means. So talking that there was some colonization process of Kosovo in sense it is understood by English speakers as was done in America or Australia by Serbs in 20 century on their home territory is in a way disgusting. Thus it need to be changed to more appropriate term that is not identified in same way as colonization in America for example. While word "kolonizacija" serb. lat. is used in many articles to describe actual events including official documents since it has no meanings as generally used term colonization by English speakers right translation of such term from Serbian to English in this should be "repopulation" - word that better describe actual process in English language. Repopulation is used in many articles to describe actual events similar to this Wikipedia article. Loesorion (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FORUM and WP:RS. We use the term colonization not just because it was exactly that (Kosovo was not an "unpopulated" area in need of "repopulation" from Vojvodina), but because reliable bibliography consistently calls it so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an ideological statement/opinion which is heavily breaching WP:NPOV; Loesorion made a valid point and the article should be renamed. Not all of the literature supports the term or uses it.

Nothing is wrong with "Yugoslav repopulation of Kosovo" as the main idea was to bring more Slavic people, mostly Serbs and Montenegrins, and they sure can not colonize a place in which they have dwelled for ~1500 years. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography clearly describes it as being colonization and not "repopulation". N.Hoxha (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a de facto repopulation (that context needs to be explained, liberation from the Ottoman invasion, etc.), but the event is known as colonization by most sources. Another name can be added, but the main one should remain like this.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Citizen science groups like wikipedia are great, but they suffer from a particular problem that without oversight they begin to not function as intended by their framework. The framework in this case is the WP:RS policy, which you haven't used for anything that you've put forward to the point of going into WP:FRINGE territory. Nobody has stopped you from writing anything as long as it is supported by bibliography. Now, you're saying that the article is POV because it doesn't call the events a "repopulation" which followed "liberation from the Ottoman invasion". You have until tomorrow to find just one reliable source that uses the term "repopulation" in that context or even a related context. You have edit-warred to rename and tag the article, so the very least you should be able to do is to produce a single, peer-reviewed work that supports any of it. In a peer-review process if you were required to provide bibliography and you failed to do so, your paper would get rejected. In wikipedia, the tags will be removed and you can write about the "repopulation of Kosovo" somwhere else.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There are many sources that describe settlements as repopulation. Of course, the name of colonisation should remain as the main title, since it is known even in Serbian sources. But it is important to explain that it is de facto not process that comes to mind when the term colonisation is mentioned. It is a repopulation after the return of control over the medieval territory with numerous cultural heritage, where the population was exposed to persecution, forced conversion, slavery, etc. It is widely known and well documented.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In order to talk about "bibliography consistently" we should first know how to accurately translate from Serbian to English language and not give inappropriate meaning during such translation - so this is first about correct use of English language and translation. While in Serbian use of word "koloniozacija" was done in many sources (word "kolonizacija" as foreign words was introduced in some period of time from foreign language into Serbian) in same time it has not meaning as word "colonization" in English language special given a context here. So we are not talking here about colonization of Moon where there is not single living person but repopulating areas with people areas in which same people lived in past. How is that similar to colonization of eastern America by British Empire for example. Inappropriately using of English language is easy - how it would feel to create for example articles about Albanian colonization of every single area they come to live. So if for example some Albanians come to live in London would not that amount for Albanian colonization of London? Think first before answered. Again Serbian word "kolonizacija" cannot be directly translated to English language while they sound a same. Using otherwise it is just wrong translation so if you do not know to translate from Serbian to English do not try to do so.

• Some cites about word "colonization" meaning from different dictionaries and uses in English speaking areas:

• "Colonization is the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area"
• "Colonization is the act of setting up a colony away from one's place of origin."
• "Colonialism is defined as “control by one power over a dependent area or people.”
• "Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is hard to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms. Like colonialism, imperialism also involves political and economic control over a dependent territory."
• "Definition of colonialism

1 : the quality or state of being colonial 2 : something characteristic of a colony 3a : control by one power over a dependent area or people the colonialism of the British Empire b : a policy advocating or based on such control Colonialism was brought to an end in the country."

• "Colonialism is the practice by which a powerful country directly controls less powerful countries and uses their resources to increase its own power and wealth. " - Example in practice - Italia trying to colonize Albania

• Definition of repopulation

"the action or process of repopulating - example - The data revealed some quantitative repopulation of this community, especially along the littoral."

• "to populate (something) again - example - In modern times it was depopulated when distant city jobs attracted its people, then repopulated by city people."

So will you claim all English dictionaries are bad?

As in this article we do not have dependent territory or dependent area, territory with some indigenous people or subjugation of one people to another or one powerful country directly controls less powerful countries, it is clear that in a process of "kolonizacija" serb. lat. re-population was practically done. So again do not use word "colonization" out of context when there is a English word repopulation that clearly better describes actual events this article is about. In same time using word "colonization" is obviously out of context and inappropriate. In different languages similarly spoken word could have another meaning. Introducing word "repopulation" in headline of article and text of article would give it appropriate meaning. Loesorion (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition of colonisation definitely doesn't fit this event. We can change the opening sentence to: The colonization of Kosovo (also known as the repopulation of Kosovo) was a programme...--WEBDuB (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber regarding to your claim that I have read it now:"You have until tomorrow to find just one reliable source that uses the term "repopulation" in that context or even a related context." here it comes some of many article talking about repopulation of Kosovo Regarding all possible sources about what happened during Ottoman rules I will cite encyclopedia Britannica:"The Habsburg forces, unable to sustain their advance, retreated back across the Sava, leaving the native population seriously exposed to Turkish reprisals. In 1691 Archbishop Arsenije III Crnojević of Peć led a migration of 30,000–40,000 Serbs from “Old Serbia” and southern Bosnia across the Danube and Sava. There they were settled and became the basis of the Austrian Militärgrenze, or Military Frontier. (The South Slav translation, Vojna Krajina, was used 300 years later in the name given to the areas of Croatia that local Serb majorities attempted to disconnect from Croatia following its secession from Yugoslavia.) Also dating from the time of the great migration of 1691 was the gradual conversion of Kosovo-Metohija into a predominantly Albanian region as Albanians filled the space left by the displaced Serbs."

I do not have until tomorrow but I was able to find in one second many sources - so you could do it if you wanted yourself - do not impose ultimatums on others but try to educate as we all are here to learn something not to impose some ultimatums. Loesorion (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If i might add something to this discussion. The concerns with the term "repopulation" I got are that it describes more an increasing of the numerical size of a population in an area were the originated from after they decreased before. Like repopulation of regions with the people that left it. The number of Serbs didn't really decrease in absolute numbers but more in the share of the total population of Kosovo due to severall factors. Based on the bibliography presented so far a repopulation seems to be covered in a lesser proportion. The bigger share represents a redistribution of a population to an area where they were not originally from. Like Serbs from all parts of Yugoslavia were settled to Kosovo. The term "redistribution" is better represented in the term colonization like represented in most reliable sources so far. Crazydude1912 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• See [11] So far, we have 2 renaming ideas - repopulation and redistribution. Let's take it from here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

WeBDuB's bibliography is not RS, just two Serbian authors with a very strong POV that has been documented in bibliography(Dušan T. Bataković: In 2006, a study by Frederick Anscombe looked at issues surrounding scholarship on Kosovo which noted that in the 1980s and 1990s Dušan Bataković from a nationalistic perspective published nationalist works on Kosovo that gained generous support. You can't argue about an issue with Serbian POV bibliography loaded with terminology that has been established in international bibliography as 19th century propaganda. The Cato Institute is a political organization, not WP:RS. The rest of the discussion is WP:FORUM. As a side comment: Sadko, should do some reading before arguing about Serbs being in Kosovo 1500 years ago. There were no Slavs in general in the Balkans 1500 years ago. Serbs in particular weren't established firmly even in Arsa (north of Kosovo) in the 12th century: The Serbian conquest of Ras is confi rmed at a later date, during the reign of John II Komnenos (1118–1143). John Kinnamos relates the Serbian conquest and burning down of the Byzantine Ras (circa 1127–1129), which prompted the Emperor to punish Kritoplos, the commander of the fortress.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Very strange. In that case, is Anscombe a reliable source? This is just one criticism, I'm not sure if it's enough to declare it an unreliable source.Furthermore, there are many other authors I have quoted. You can't argue about an issue with Serbian POV bibliography loaded with terminology.. - Discrimination based on origin is not allowed on Wikipedia.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't discriminated any author based on their origin and I have used as bibliography many Serbian authors with valuable contributions to their respective fields. This particular author's work has seen much criticism and that makes it unreliable. Unfortunately, many Serbian historians of that generation and the previous one (Milorad Ekmečić etc.) had a very particular ideological function in the Yugoslav Wars and thus their work has seen much criticism. I don't think that they are that much more unreliable than other similar authors from the Balkans, it's just that the Yugoslav Wars also functioned as a spotlight on Serbian academia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree and I always try to avoid those academics, but I'm not sure if Bataković should be included here. Should the RSN case be initiated? Certainly, none of that discredits Pond, Jovanović, Dempsey, Kokan, Kienzler, Duijzings, and the Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB you claim unreliable source - what part - is it all and why, you cannot just claim author is unreadable, give me parts of source that I used and that are not reliable and explain why, do not generalize, article was btw using "reliable" source that supported claims Yugoslavia after WII continued colonization despite official communist government decision (provided source) that colonization and even return of refugees is to be stopped. And what is unreliable about history that predeceases decision of "kolonizacija". Decisions of repopulating has not just fall from clear sky there, there where causes and such causes should be explained. And "kolonist" escaping from Kosovo to Vojvodina because of "peaceful" Albanian Kachacs should also be explained including rapes, murder - beheading of Serbian civilians - not just one side of stories as it makes current article biased and propaganda article, article do not provide understanding what colonization in Serbian means and why was done, article in past form distorts story completely and makes Serbia and Yugoslavia colonization force as British Empire was. If Serbian authors had POV (you had not proved that single source they mention contradicts their work in sources I used and is backed by facts) what about Albanian authors used as sources in this article that even had ridiculous claims about someone hear about something and such nonsense used to support editors claims in this article? So explain what part of my edits was non-accurate before you delete and remove them completely for sake of discussion here because I could done the same every time on any article in Wikipedia. I am not one whose edits should be removed because here because my edits are backed with sources not some hearsay propaganda. If you wanted to wait for result of discussion here why remove my edits, why not wait discussion to end I opened discussion in first place. Loesorion (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. Nobody called Albanian kachaks "peaceful", this is a strawman argument, unless you are seriously going to dispute the reality that Slavs wielded systemic and structural advantages over the Albanian population (the reverse was the case in the Ottoman period as it is also today -- Albanians now wield systemic power over Serbs once again -- but that is out of scope). The reality is that no matter how much Albanians might have wanted to behead or rape whoever, they systemically lacked the power to do so outside of isolated cases which were generally prosecuted. "Colonization" can mean many things; obviously, no one accuses Roman coloniae of being anything like British colonialism -- which was itself multifaceted and actually not so different if we are talking about Ireland. The talk page should be for intelligent discussion on how to improve the page. The above is not that. Cheers all, --Calthinus (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

For comparison -- literature attributes "colonization" to both the (German and Hungarian) Hapsburg authorities and the later Yugoslav rule : Already in 1689 K.u.k.Impopulations-Patent foresaw the importance of organizing the colonisation the newly conquered territories, and stimulated a small wave of German colonists until 1692. . This is not the word being used to persecute Serbia or anything like that. It is used in analogous cases around the region. [12] --Calthinus (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Loesorion: I assume good faith, but we should not use other articles from Wikipedia as sources. (WP:CIRC) The Culture Trip and Večernje Novosti are definitely not reliable sources for historical events. Instead of the Odbrana, journal of the Serbian Ministry of Defense, you can use this or this link for the same paper in peer-reviewed journal.--WEBDuB (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus my writing was aimed to fellow editor WEBDuB regarding to series of events before and during so called colonization, all other events not just regarding use of word of "colonization" that I edited in article and supported with sources, so I do not understand what you write here when I was not talking to you, except that you give your personal generalized view about events that is not theme here and it was not my intention to bring that up until it was removed. If you have something more concrete about use of term "colonization" in English language because this is Wikipedia in English not Latin language and correct translation and use of Serbian word "kolonizacija" lets talk about. I opened this section of talk about use of word "colonization" as English language term - misappropriate use in this article, but all my edits in this article are not just about term "kolonizacija" where removed by fellow editor WEBDuB. So I was clearly talking to him and his reverts and his editorial of other parts of article that have nothing to do with using term "kolonizacija". So if you want discussion about "power", Kachaks and "seriously going to dispute the reality that Slavs wielded systemic and structural advantages" open appropriate section here in talk and support your claims there. Loesorion (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB Why The Culture Trip and Večernje Novosti are not reliable source, why content from not journal "Odbrana" but book published by "Odbrana" is not reliable source, what other article from Wikipedia I used for source and you deleted Britannica as source also. And please do so in other appropriate talk by opening new section about edits that have nothing to do with use of word "kolonizacija" because this is not place for that. Again this is section for use of word "kolonizacija" and correct translation to English language so lets keep here discussion only regarding that subject. Loesorion (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I suggest the title "Planed repopulation"

or to be more precise "Planed repopulation of Kosovo during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" It avoids the misinterpretation of the word "colonization" yet retains the state backed and political nature of this action.

This is in my view the most neutral way to describe these events. ValterUdarnik (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

This page is literally one of the most ridiculous I have seen on Wikipedia. "Yugoslav colonisation of Kosovo" - wow! Reading that, at first instance, one would think that the "colonisation" was at the same level of the British colonising Australia or India.

Kosovo was always a part of Serbia, up until the Ottoman invasion, and Ottoman occupation. During the occupation, Islam spread to the Balkans, which is why Albania is majority Muslim and Bosnia is 50% Muslim, etc. During the occupation, there was anti-Serb, anti-christian sentiment. Therefore, Serbs who lived in Kosovo migrated northwards, to parts of Serbia which were occupied by Austria-Hungary, where it was a bit more acceptable to be a Serb and Christian. This left Kosovo to be settled by Muslims, mostly Albanians. When the political state of the world was changing and empires were crumbling in WWII, such as the Ottoman Empire, Serbia, now a part of the newly formed Yugoslavia, had the chance to reclaim it's lost land, and it did. As most things are in history; tit for tat, Serbs, or rather, Yugoslavs, exiled the Albanians, and resettled the Serb population in their bid to reclaim the land. How is that colonisation? Simply put, it's not. 49.193.137.40 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2023

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

---

Yugoslav colonization of Kosovo → ? – Colonisation of Kosovo – 1) Primary and the only topic of "Colonisation of Kosovo". 2) WP:COMMONNAME if JSTOR searches are to tell from (10 for the proposed name vs. 0 for the current name) + sources in the article. 3) Colonization started long before Yugoslavia was even founded. 4) The phase of colonization during Yugoslav period was still limited just to Serbs and Montenegrins, not Yugoslavia and Yugoslavs as a whole. 5) Colonization programme was discontinued and return of previous colonists was largely suppressed for the better, later part of Yugoslavia. 6) The entire article uses British spelling, as is the case for many if not most Kosovo and Europe-related articles, hence "Colonisation". –Vipz (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Alternatives proposed below: Serbian colonization of Kosovo / 20th-century colonisation of Kosovo –Vipz (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Tend to oppose as too vague – who the colonizers were? Even those familiar with the history of the region are left to guess if it was Slavic, Albanian, Ottoman or something prehistorian. 10 mentions in JSTOR a common name maketh not. Serbian colonization would make somewhat precise title, although Montenegro played a significant part and it would not be fair to exclude it. No such user (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

First: this article is kind of a mess. I oppose both the new proposed title and the status quo. I support 20th-century colonisation of Kosovo. I have to say that the ENGVAR arguments used by the nominator are bad; just because other Kosovo articles use British English, we do not have to follow that here (color, Amazon (color), Amber (color), Apricot (color), Aqua (color)... but then you have orange (colour)). However, I checked the history, and while the ENGVAR has been inconsistent since the beginning, it's been the "s" form more often than not. Red Slash 17:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I can see why @Vipz: would want to change the title and remove the term Yugoslav which has different connotations depending on the era. I do agree with @No such user: that a more restrictive title would be better. The fact that some Montenegrins who viewed themselves at the time as part of a wider Serb ethnicity did take part wouldn't make it less Serbian IMO. I would support a move to Serbian colonization of Kosovo if Vipz is willing to change the RM accordingly.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: To not disregard @Red Slash's suggestion, I've added both to the original post. I initially did think of going with Serbian colonization of Kosovo but thought the label-less version would be better; apparently it's not. So, about ENGVAR, if it's already gravitating towards the British spelling, why do we not bring the title in line? –Vipz (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz: Yes, we should definitely change the title per ENGVAR. I understand the argument by @Red Slash: but I would say that use of time-qualifiers in titles either have to be very specific or not used at all. 20th century colonisation is too broad as this process included two specific decades (1920-1940).--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closure discussion

@Paine Ellsworth: why wasn't it relisted? –Vipz (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Because this request was two weeks old (as if it had already been relisted) and had no new posts for 1½ weeks. Since discussion had halted and there was no agreement, it was closed as "no consensus". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)