Talk:Kosovo Serbs

Recent Dispute

@Sadko, you re-added content that’s been tagged as missing a citation since March 2012 - that’s disruptive and I’d suggest a self RV there. You’re supposed to be a very experienced editor, so you should know better than that.

In terms of the cited content you re-added and your suggestion for me to add different opinions, I would recommend referring to my edit summary. This article is about Kosovo Serbs, not the historical demographics of Kosovo. Personally, I think that including lines of content discussing the debate on the ethnic structure of Kosovo from pre-Ottoman to post-Ottoman times would not be under the WP:SCOPE of the article, which is why I opted to just delete that line as it’s WP:UNDUE. I don’t want to bombard the article with content that doesn’t focus on Kosovo Serbs. Botushali (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Good day. By the end of the 19th century, Albanians replaced the Serbs as the dominating nation of Kosovo. This is a vital piece of information regarding the Kosovo Serbs and there is no doubt about that. As far as I can see, it is sourced from Robert Elsie's book, which is per WP:RS. To be honest, I’m not sure what there is to debate here. More sources can be added, but we already have 1 strong RS. Of course, no one is suggesting that we should start bombarding this or any other article with new content unnecessarily. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The statement is based on from the late 19th century onward, the Albanians constituted the majority population group in Kosovo (p.256) but the quote doesn't mention that Albanians had replaced Serbs and most Serbs of Kosovo aren't descended from medieval Serbs as mentioned in p. 255 Scholar Jovan Cvijić (1865–1927) reported that, in 1911, there were no more than 200–300 families of native Serbs in Kosovo for them to be replaced.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

As per Maleschreiber’s comment above, the content is not even discussed by the author in the way in which it was written on the article. Clearly, that line was up for debate.

I see that there is still no answer as to why Sadko decided to re-add un-cited content that has been tagged since 2012. I’ve gone ahead and removed it for them. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

1) I wanted to hear your reasoning and check if there are any sources available online to confirm the claim, hoping you would do the same. I have no problem with removing something that is unsourced.

2) I have reworded the content and have no interest in determining who is “native” or engaging in other frivolities that reveal much, but nothing of merit. The context of the article and the complicated relationship between the two nations clearly justify mentioning this highly relevant piece of reliably sourced information. WP:FACTS comes to mind. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn’t need to hear reasoning as to why something that’s been tagged as un-cited for over a decade should be removed.

It’s not about nativity or who was here first, it’s about ensuring a neutral POV in which sources and scholarly opinions are accurately represented. I will also make some additions from Malcolm and the like when time permits to help flesh out the article and ensure that all scholarly opinions are evenly included. Botushali (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course. That’s why I’m absolutely fine with its removal. My original point was simply to try and find sources, as always. That’s not an issue. I’ll keep an eye on it and continue working on this and other articles. Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 15:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Issue of article title (Kosovo Serbs or Serbs of Kosovo)

@StephenMacky1 just moved page Serbs of Kosovo to Kosovo Serbs. His rationale was that Ngram reveals that "Kosovo Serbs" is more common?! I find Ngram claim a classic case of cherry-picking flashy metric while ignoring wiki guidelines.

Wikipedia:Article titles doesnt prioritize raw commonality for descriptive articles like ethnic groups. The "common name" criteria is just one factor, but there is also consistency in article titles. Ngram argument can't override this, wiki guidelines don't favor Ngram title counts over recognizable structures whatsoever. Take a look at Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles. For example, Bosnian Serbs or Croatian Serbs are more common as per Ngram but yet articles from the onset have been titled Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Croatia. In my opinion, consistency in article titles should matter more, especially for related topics like ethnic groups within a shared cultural or regional context (Balkans). For articles on Serb populations in Balkan countries, the established format is "Serbs of (Country)" (Serbs of Croatia, Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbs of Montenegro). Adopting "Kosovo Serbs" would break this pattern, creating inconsistency across the whole series of articles.

In addition, "Serbs of Kosovo" works better for disputed territories such as Kosovo since it is more neutral and treats Kosovo as a location while "Kosovo Serbs" subtly endorse Kosovo's sovereignty and statehood by using it adjectively.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

"Kosovo Serbs" is also the name of the category. It has been the name of the article for over a decade without any issue. Kosovo Albanians is also the title of another article, so I do not think consistency is a valid argument here. When a common name exists, there is no need for a descriptive title. The other titles you mentioned are probably used because there is room for ambiguity there. Bosnia is also the name of a region, which is probably why a descriptive title is better there. Anyway, those other titles might not be suitable either. However, there is no room for ambiguity here since Kosovo is the common name of the country. If you still disagree, you can always ask for inputs from other editors through WP:RM. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Categories and article titles serve different purposes: categories organize content hierarchically, while titles must prioritize precision and neutrality for the main article. The existence of Kosovo Serbs category doesn't dictate the article title because many categories use adjectival forms for brevity.

As for Kosovo Albanians title, you are chery-picking again, taking one example against a dozen examples I provided (whole series of related articles on Serb communities in Balkan countries). Not to mention that consistency isn't about mirroring every ethnic group but maintaining it within related articles for reader navigation, and related articles are those of Serb communities across the Balkans.

You're right that Kosovo is a common name for a country/disputed territory, but this article is about people not the territory. Ambiguity arises precisely because Kosovo status is contested and "Serbs of Kosovo" ensures the title works regardless of political views. If "no ambiguity" as you claim, why does the lead use both Serbs of Kosovo and Kosovo Serbs? Also, common names apply primarily to proper nouns or singular entities (people, events), not descriptive topics like ethnic minorities and communities.

Your argument that all those article titles I mentioned previously are used because there is room for ambiguity there since Bosnia is also the name of a region isn't valid. For Kosovo specifically, the ambiguity is heightened due to its disputed status. "Serbs of Kosovo" keeps it geographic ignoring political debates that "Kosovo Serbs" title evokes. Klačko (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned the category because your name change caused an inconsistency with it. Categories usually use the same names as the main articles. The title is precise and neutral, whether you like it or not. As for the lead, you introduced those terms in the article recently and in good faith, I retained those terms until they can be verified and since alternative names can still exist. This article is about an ethnic group in the country Kosovo. I think your real issue is with the country Kosovo here and not the title. Personal nationalist issues that editors have with articles is not a problem of Wikipedia though, nor mine. I do not think your claim that common name does not apply to such articles is valid. The claim that there is ambiguity here is clearly only a nationalist POV. Use those arguments in a move discussion and you'll see how long it will last because they are clearly not policy-based arguments. Plus, you have been deciding the titles of some of those other articles unilaterally recently, so discussing about them here is moot. Their talk pages are the proper venues for such discussions. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Accusing editors of "nationalism" simply for invoking WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:PRECISION, WP:NPOV is not an argument; it is a personal attack.

Kosovo’s political status remains disputed. International and supranational organizations (such as UN, OSCE, EU, Council of Europe) overwhelmingly use the neutral phrasing "Serbs of Kosovo" or "the Serb community in Kosovo" precisely to avoid any implication about sovereignty. Using the adjectival form "Kosovo Serbs" as the primary title is the formulation more often found in news media. Choosing the adjectival form as the title therefore moves the article toward one side of the political dispute, which violates NPOV.

@Sadko, @Vanjagenije maybe you should take part in discussion. Klačko (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You have any sources to back those claims? Considering that all those names are descriptive. The claim that "Kosovo Serbs" is more common in news media is false, since it is common in academic sources too. Even a source edited by Dušan T. Bataković used the term. You can see for yourself here. I do not think your technical request will be successful since the name has not been contested for over a decade and thus there is silent consensus. Your best bet would be a move request like I told you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The designation Serbs of Kosovo is perfectly acceptable. Thanks for the ping. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)