Talk:Battle of Kosovo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Why are you posting false info !?

Why are notes c nad b posted as credible sources !? They are totaly opposite of credible. Furthere they claim: " By some sources" - what are those so called "some sources" ? I thought that wikipedia only deals with credible references ? And notes c and b for sure are not credible. Also they are twisting facts. Official history of Serbs by Vladimir Corovic don't mention "Christian army". Turkish sources don't mention it either. And i ask you which sources are more credible Serbian and Turkish (sides which participated in Battle of Kosovo) or some quazi-historical facts from nations which were thousands kilometers away from region of Kosmet !? Pure example of twisting facts is mentioning of Albanians Musachi. First of all term "Albania" was not mention until 1912 when Albania was created. Until than Albanians were called Arbanasi and Arnauti, by both Turks and Serbs. Second in 14th century at the time of battle of Kosovo 1389. , region which today is Albania was under Marko Mrnjancevic aka Kraljevic Marko - Serbian nobleman who was Turkish vazal (Turkish ally) and he didn't participant in Kosovo battle. Furthere all teritories south and south -east from Kosmet were under Turks and majority of population was islamised. So there are zero chances that any christian army could be formed from that region. You see pure facts and logic prove that notes c and b are false info. You can see mapes (created by people from West Europe, mainly Venecians) which show Balkans in late 14th century and which prove my point. Also i'm teaching right now how to cite references and i'm going to cite History of Serbs and turkish sources. Also majority of references cited in this article are from online books - which's pages(that were cited) can't be seen. That needs to be fixed.

I'm repeating this again. Notes c and b need to be deleted since they are pure example of twisting historical facts and violating the article. If that action is prevented i'm going to report this article ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danilo018 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the truth, but about verifiability. Anything that can be proven with valid references is the truth on Wikipedia. If you believe that some references are unreliable or false you can start a section at the Reliable sources noticeboard ([1]), although I personally don`t see anything wrong with this sources. Adrian (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also of you have a lot of other sources that states otherwise you can start a new section about that on this talk page, and of course introduce that data into the article in the form: According to xxxxx this happened, according to yyyyy this happened. Adrian (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman Victory

i changed it. it is clear that most of the things here was writen by a serbian nationalist.i dont know what you guys are reading in serbian text books but international sources are clear ,it is an Ottoman victory . after this victory ottomans took over much of the areas at balkans. please do not write here bias comments .this is wikipedia not a fictional storyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.203.241 (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That was the effect in the long-term conflict, not the actual result of the battle. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There are reliable sources claiming it as a long-term Ottoman victory, and differing views on the result of the battle itself.--Zoupan 15:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Facts deleted hidden from this article

It seems that this article has been hijacked by people who want to lead the article towards the results they like. It is a fact which is found in every major western academic book, and also in most Yugoslav history books, that many Albanian princes and Albanian fighters participated in the Battle of Kosovo, fighting alongside Lazar and against the Ottomans. I added just few of the sources you can find on this fact, but they were immediately deleted. It seems that someone doesn't like facts and history, but wants to go on with myths and legends. I cited the book, "The history of Serbia", and the Encyclopedia of World Conflicts. This article is too much WP:POV and WP:PSCI. (Edvin (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please add a primary source. See Battle_of_Kosovo#Notes where it is described: The participation of Teodor Muzaka and other Albanians is suggested by a family history of the Muzaka (Musachi) family,[25] written in Naples in c. 1515 by John Musachi, who stated the following: "Lazar, the Despot of Serbia, [...] and Theodore Musachi, (Theodore Musachi is the younger brother of John Musachi's father, Gjin. According to the chronicle, Theodore died in the Battle of Kosovo, about 125 years before his nephew wrote the chronicle.) and the other Lords of Albania united and set off for battle, which the Christians lost." --Zoupan (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

The sources don't label the participation of Romanians/Albanians etc. as mythological nor has it been dismissed by any of them i.e source misrepresentation. Btw in post-Milosevic era historiography even Serb historians aren't using such labels, but they consider it overemphasized--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Elsie is misrepresented. He says Musachi's source is of no great scholarship; this does not mean that it is not true.
• The note says: Claims about such a coalition of Christian rulers first appeared about eighty years after the battle in a book written by an Ottoman author, Oruç of Edirne, and were repeated by later Turkish historians. Noel Malcolm, in his book Kosovo: A Short History says this: The earliest Ottoman accounts written in the fifteenth century, do refer to Albanians in Lazar's army; they also list many other ethnic components. One refers to mercenaries from Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Hungary; another adds to that list soldiers from Wallachia (part of Romania), and Bulgarians, Czechs, and Franks (western Europeans); Neşri, synthesizing several earlier versions, includes all fo the above. [2]
• As for Musachi, Malcolm says: There is one valuable piece of evidence that Albanians did take part: an early-sixteenth-century family history of an Albanian noble family, the Muzaka (or "Musachi"), records that Teodor Muzaka brought "a large band of Albanians" to join Lazar's army, together with "other Albanian lords", and that he was killed in the battle. Many other details in this memoir are verifiably accurate so this may be trustworthy too. [3]
• Malcolm is a reliable historian with a fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford and received a DPhil from Trinity College, Cambridge. His interpretation should be sound and, from what I can tell, it is not accurately represented in the article.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

*No sources mention Teodor Muzaka, or any Albanian lords, as having participated in the battle, only Musachi, who also calls Prince Marko the King of Bulgaria. Elsie does say that Musachi's source is of no great scholarship.

• Noel Malcolm, on the beginning of the page: "There is widespread disagreement about the composition of the armies. Serbian historians, for example, make little or no mention of Albanian forces in Lazar's army, while Albanian historians give them a prominent place" - he never says that Lazar's army had Albanians in it, only about the Albanian claim/theory, and watch his wording. // He then continues, with saying (Croatian-English translation): "on the other hand, Albanian historical books claim that Serb-Albanian Đerđ Balšić, whom they treat as a pure Albanian person, also participated, which is fully and surely untrue. The only foundation to such a claim is the record of the early Ottoman historiographer Nešri, who, seeking to justify Murat's conquest in 1389, gives a wide elaborate tale of broken promises and trust between the Balšići, Lazar and Tvrtko. As we have seen, this tale is suspicious in the case of Lazar, and the known animosity between Tvrtko and Balšići make it even less possible. In any case, it was proven for nearly hundred years that Balšić most likely was at Ulcinj, on the Montenegrin coast, at the time of the battle."
• Noel Malcolm, after Gaius' "Neşri, synthesizing several earlier versions, includes all fo the above"; "On the other hand, Turkish authors hoped to increase the number and significance of Lazar's army, which, according to them, was far more stronger than Murat's, as to display the Turkish victory even more shining: the earliest of these statements simply say that Lazar composed his army "of all those who lived in the west". According to Nešri, Lazar gathered that great of an army, three times bigger than the Ottoman, so that his people were completely convinced in a victory and so they spent the night prior to the battle drinking themselves into ~coma. These Ottoman claims cannot be trusted. Of course, there may have been people of various countries in Lazar's army; Serbian rulers were always dependent on mercenaries in their military capaigns (The fact of Dušan's numerous personal groups composed of Germans). The participation of Hungarians is the most likely, considering that Lazar had long near relationship with his northern neighbours and that one of his daughters married a Hungarian nobleman. However, the major part of his army was most likely composed of his soldiers, Vuk Branković's and Bosnian military commander Vlatko Vuković's people."
• Željko Fajfrić 1: "Lazar could not count on Wallachian voivode Mirčeta as he was in war with the Hungarians in Poland, nor on Bulgarian Emperor Šišman. Even more ungrounded is the claim that Albanians aided Lazar. All the later mentions, particularly the Turkish, where it is claimed that Lazar managed to gather the Bulgarians, Albanians, Wallachians, and even Germans and Czechs, are the commonest of fabrications which have the intention to exaggerate the size of Lazar's forces."
• Željko Fajfrić 2; quoting from a 15th-century Serbian chronicle Koporinski letopis: "Emperor Murat, took all of Greece and Bulgaria, and crossed [those lands], bringing countless mass with him: sons of Hagarenes (?) with Tatars, Carmeans (?) and Sarchanites (?), Greeks and Bulgars and Albanians". - Albanians in the Ottoman army.

Can we conclude that these statements cannot be seen as true, but at the same time be worthy of adding to annotations-section?--Zoupan (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

References

• I can agree that those multinational forces (ie. Bulgarians, Wallachians, etc.) did not participate but treating them as mythological is not the proper way to deal with them. The fact is that Ottoman historians said that they participated and that should be taken with a grain of salt.
• I have never disputed that Gjergj Balsha (Malcolm's spelling in the English version) did not participate and you are correct to point out that Malcolm does not agree with his participation.
• Malcolm, however, says that Musachi's work is to be trusted (Many of the other details in this memoir are verifiably accurate, so this claim may well be trustworthy too). Elsie never says that Musachi was wrong, but that his work is of no great scholarship. The same could be said of many primary sources which are still used by modern historians. Also, Ottoman historians say that Albanians participated and gives his source as Selami Pulaha's Lufta Shqiptaro-Turke në shekullin XV; burime Osmane. I do not have access to this book so I hope that someone could find this. The fact that Albanians participated is not unlikely considering that Albanians lived in Kosovo and some Albanian nobles had possessions in western Kosovo.
• You also pointed out that Malcolm sees it as especially likely that Hungarians participated (and even conjectures that Milosh Kobilic was an Hungarian knight) but Hungarians are only mentioned once for an event that happened in 1459 in the article.
• Kristo Frashëri in his book on Skanderbeg gives several Ottoman chronicler who mentions participation from Albanian forces or nobles (he also cites Pulaha). Here they are (in Albanian spelling):

1. Shukrullauh (15th century) mentions that Albanian forces participated in the battle.
2. Enver (15th century) mentions that the Serbs fought alongside Albanians, Bosnians, and Romanians along with others.
3. Idris Bitlisi mentions that Balsha had 50,000 soldiers on the field and Neshriu says 90,000. Frashëri of course considers these numbers inflated.
4. In a Turkish chronicle about Dhimitër Jonima (Yund-oglu Dimitriye), he was described as a Herculean figure in the battle.
5. Jorgji says that Balsha played a key role in Lazar's council.

• Frashëri also makes mention of a Greek chronicle written from the Patriarchate of Constantinople by Jeraks (Albanian spelling). In the chronicle, it mentions leaders from Arvanitia (Arbëria), Dardania (Kosovo), Misia, Akrocerauni (Himara), Epirus (including southern Albania) and the Adriatic coast, which Frashëri says is the Balsha. He sources Bibliotheca græca Medii Ævi which seems to compile primary sources.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is a consensus that Jonima did take part in the battle.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Where?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources saying that he did:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@ZjarriRrethues. Will you please be so kind to point to the consensus about Jonima participating in this battle?

@Gaius Claudius Nero. All five sources you presented claim that Jonima and Balsha were together and led forces from Albania in this battle. Let me remind you that Noel Malcolm refuted that claim and emphasized that "it was proven for nearly hundred years that Balšić most likely was at Ulcinj, on the Montenegrin coast, at the time of the battle". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible to know for sure if Jonima participated in the battle or not, so can't we just state that Sources X and Y state that Jonima participated in the battle however sources A and B state that Jonima was else where at the time of the battle? Surely that is a fair way of including this information? IJA (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is basically already done in the note.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Political background

King Llazar troops were in alliance with Murad and participated in the Battle of Konya (1386). After that Llazar denounced his allegiance to Ottomans and tried to form a Balkan coalition. He tried to get help from Holy Roman Empire and declared himself a vassal of Sigismund. A History of the Crusades: The Impact of the Crusades on Europe By Kenneth M. Setton, Harry W. Hazard, Norman P. Zacour p. 246-247

Prince (not king!) Lazar was not a Murad's ally. Please check Battle of Pločnik. Some other Serbian princes, including King Marko were Murad's vassals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Jordan (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Tactically "inconclusive" but strategic Ottoman victory??

Result is "Tactically inconclusive" but its "Strategic Ottoman victory" also. Can anyone explain the meaning of this weird explanation in infobox of article?Is it because a mistake? Or serbian nationalists were here for underastimate and belittle the result of this battle. Then it's really childish,but not surprise it's very typical --Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I will try to explain. The Ottoman conquest of Serbia did not happen at once. Starting in mid 14th century it lasted until mid 15th century. If you imagine it as basketball game, this battle can be seen as the second quarter. The first quarter culminated with Battle of Maritsa which was major victory for OE (i.e. 20:5 points). The second quarter was this battle which ended with result 20:20 (at the beginning Serbia had advantage when Obilić scored 3 but Ottomans managed to settle the score near the end of the quarter probably because Branković, who was one of the best Serb players, left the playground before the end of the quarter). All five players from both starting teams were either injured or too demoralized to continue the game. The Ottomans had many fresh players at their bench while at Serbia's bench there were only widow of the injured captain, his underaged son and Branković who refused to play for national team, saving himself for European league). Therefore Ottoman Empire was victorious in the third and fourth quarter and won the game.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey i didn't ask for Ottoman conquest of serbia,and its not basketball game,that example explains nothing and has no any relation with case and with my question also.I am sorry but this answer is nonsense, but funny at least.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

See Pyrrhic victory, Attrition warfare , and Battle of Jutland, in real life inconclusive engagements happen more often than conclusive ones.--KTo288 (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Location

Here, its been started! Now please discuss your positions (and sources) and come to some sort of consensus, compromise, or agreement before WP:BLOCKs start getting handed out and this article gets full protection. Personally, I'm tired of this article showing up on the Special:PendingChanges list for same idiotic edit. Hvala. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My source that it's Serbian Principality: http://cmes.arizona.edu/sites/cmes.arizona.edu/files/Background%20-Battle%20of%20Kosovo%20poetry.pdf

Or you can use these wiki pages too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_of_Serbia#Prince

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Serbia 212.178.230.159 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing by Thomas Emmert that states the battlefield now lies in "modern day Serbia", per your continued editwarring.[9] Your continued addition of "Principality of Serbia", is questionable. Emmert's use seems to be one more of simplicity than historiographical context, since he does not state "Principality of Serbia", instead using the term "principality" as a reference to Moravian Serbia, not as the name.

As for the other two "sources", Wikipedia can not be used to source Wikipedia." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you having problems, its obvious that location is what is today Kosovo region, as it was in Gazimestan. No matter on politicsal question, location is there. So, just use word Kosovo and add Template:Kosovo-note in infobox. And that is neutral, true and clear. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Or we can just use the word "Serbia", I don't see any problem with that. Why are people bothered if we use word "Serbia"? It is in Serbia after all. 212.178.230.159 (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand you, but even in Serbia people use location Kosovo. So, if you just say Kosovo, that does not mean that it is NOT Serbia, but that it is only Kosovo. If you use kosovo note, everione will see that kosovo is "the subject of a territorial dispute". And it is quite clear that Kosovo is under big political problem, it should not be just used "Serbia" like nothing happened... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's still a part of Serbia, we will change it to Kosovo once it becomes a UN member. 212.178.230.159 (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

According to UNSC Resolution 1244 it is still a Serbia. Namely, province of Kosovo and Metohia , not just Kosovo. 178.221.63.203 (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The "such and such" in the modern state of "....." is only there to give an idea to people as to roughly were the event occurred, its not meant to be a venue for the political status of modern day Kosovo. If no agreement can be reached, I would just stick the geographical co-ordinates in that infobox field.--KTo288 (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Off Topic thread

Why did you remove Saint Vid reference but kept the Muslim part about pilgrimage in your last editing of this page? 212.178.230.159 (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't mean to bite, but the pending edits system is an all or nothing proposition, so if in your edit you made good and valid points, it was mixed in with bad edit warring, I could of either accepted your edit warring or do as I did and reject it, there is no in between option.--KTo288 (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, why would any of you sit and really help in this article, when it's easier to just click "accept button"? Saint Vid's day has been removed, but Muslim pilgrimage of Sultan's internal organs was added. Religious discrimination. 212.178.230.159 (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo or Kosovo and Metohia is not recognized in the UN and global intergovernmental organizations

Kosovo or Kosovo and Metohia is not recognized in the UN and global intergovernmental organizations. Kosovo or Kosovo and Metohia will never become member of the UN, due to Russian and Chinese right of VETO in the UN Security Council. Presently it is part of Serbia.178.221.63.203 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for input from Military History Project

A request for assistance has been made at the Military History Project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo Polje

The correct location of the battle was Kosovo Polje. It is not Gazimestan, which is a monument for the battle situated about 6-7 kilometres north-northeast of the battle location. Khestwol (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

(ping: Kansas Bear, Khestwol, Anupmehra, KTo288, George.Edward.C, Dusti, Ricky81682, Bobrayner, Surtsicna)

Does this edit [10] resolve the matter and treat the subject fairly and accurately? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is more neutral I think. I however also changed "Branković State" to "Branković Serbia" (to clarify it is a Serbian belligerent) and fixed its flag, and changed "Serbian Principality" to "Moravian Serbia" (official name). If there are grammar or other mistakes, please fix. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Can someone with access to the sources please check them. Was the Serbian formation a V formation or an inverted V formation? Both are possible, and both make tactical sense, a v formation would mean that the flanks are thrown forward, and it would have been the horse archers who would have made contact with the Ottomans first, in such a scenario the Serbian horse archers would be in position to enfilade the Ottoman centre, or (it does says in the article that the Serbian line was broader than the Turks) offer the possibility for the Serbian wings to attempt to flank the Ottoman wings. The Serbian heavy cavalry in the centre would have arrived after the wings engaged.

An inverted V, wedge, or arrow formation, was the classic formation of cavalry, designed to smash the enemy line in the centre. It would have required a lot less co-ordination than the V formation, and would have kept the less heavily armoured horse archers out of the fray until after the centres had engaged.--KTo288 (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please post links to the specific sources you are referring to. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Its this one, appears as reference 14:- Slavomir Nastasijevic (1987). Vitezi Kneza Lazara. Narodna Knjiga Beograd. pp. 187–. ISBN 8633100150. Serbian heavy cavalry took V wedge shape charge position breaking through Ottoman infantry and light cavalry., thanks.--KTo288 (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Very good point. This information was added with this edit (diff) by IP editor who changed text referenced with Vojna Enciklopedija. Now this text is referenced by novel of Slavomir Nastasijević, which is not reliable for this assertion. Conclusion, V-shaped formation should be either supported by more reliable source or removed from article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Inconclusive" nonsense

In an open field battle, if an army stands his ground no matter how high casualties it suffers, and the opposition is totally destroyed, then it is a victory. Posting info from a single resource and ignoring many others is simply vandalism.

Please, stop removing sourced content from the article. The facts you keep removing are sourced with works by leading scholars in the field (John V.A. Fine, Thomas A. Emmert). You may have your opinion on the subject, but wikipedia primarily relies on scholarly sources. In this respect, secondary sources should be used rather than the tertiary ones. Vladimir (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly you who should stop adding the same single reference against many many other references including Britannica which state that it was an Ottoman victory. I guess you can't withstand a scholarly resource like Encylopedia Britannica or the works like The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600 by Halil İnalcik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil_%C4%B0nalc%C4%B1k) - http://www.amazon.com/Ottoman-Empire-Classical-Age-1300-1600/dp/1842124420/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390475801&sr=1-1&keywords=1842124420

I can reference many other sources against the single one of yours, but it not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyan Sipahi (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I referenced the facts with secondary sources written by leading experts on this subject, John V.A. Fine and Thomas A. Emmert (it's two of them, not one). You, however, use tertiary sources (Encylopedia Britannica and some reader's companion). Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources (see WP:PSTS). I could also add tertiary sources for the fact that the battle was tactically inconclusive, for example The Oxford Companion to Military History, which says about the battle [11]: "The result, though inconclusive, has been celebrated since in Serbian epic poetry as a defeat of great mystical significance..." The notion that the battle was a Serbian defeat actually comes from the Serbian folk tradition, but experts in the field (both Serbian and Western) conclude that the battle was inconclusive. Of course, it was a long-term Ottoman victory (as it is stated in the infobox), but the immediate result of the battle was inconclusive. Got it? Vladimir (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Encyclopædia Britannica (Latin for "British Encyclopaedia"), published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., is a general knowledge English-language encyclopaedia. It is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, including 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents. It is regarded as one of the most scholarly of English-language encyclopaedias. " taken from Wikipedia. Hundreds of sources state Ottoman victory, and a Serb nationalist comes along with a source or to citing a personal remark that the battle was inconclusive. This is non-sense. Battles are not football matches where both teams can get way with 1 point each. Which experts are you talking about, can you name another one other than the one and only source you're referencing? And one more thing, why are you neglecting the Turkish references? If you want secondary sources, take "Cowley, Robert; Geoffrey Parker. The Reader's Companion to Military History. Houghton Mifflin Books. p. 249. "On June 28, 1389, an Ottoman army of between thirty thousand and forty thousand under the command of Sultan Murad I defeated an army of Balkan allies numbering twenty-five thousand to thirty thousand under the command of Prince Lazar of Serbia at Kosovo Polje (Blackbird's Field) in the central Balkans." or "The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power [Paperback] buy Colin Imber or "The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600 [Paperback]" by Halil Inalcik or Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire Paperback by Caroline Finkel.

Colin Imber (Author)r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.194.104 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

added three more sources which are secondary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.194.104 (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Britannica and The Reader's Companion to Military History are tertiary sources. John V.A. Fine and Thomas A. Emmert are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles primarily rely on material from reliable secondary sources (see WP:PSTS).
  • Beside that, the cited quote from Encylopedia Britannica clearly shows that its author is ignorant of some basic historical facts. It says that the battle ended in "the collapse of Serbia", but that is a sheer nonsense. If "Serbia" should denote the Serbian Empire, that state had already disintegrated by the time of death of the last Nemanjić ruler, Stefan Uros V, in 1371. So, the collapse of the Serbian Empire has nothing to do with the Battle of Kosovo. And if "Serbia" should denote the state of Prince Lazar, called Moravian Serbia, it continued to exist without any interruption after the battle, and it later became the Serbian Despotate. It would be finally conquered by the Ottomans in 1459, which is 70 years after the battle (1459 – 1389 = 70).
• Your claim that battles cannot be inconclusive is nonsensical. See, for example, the articles on these battles: link1, link2, link3, link4, etc.
• Serb nationalist? That's silly. Wouldn't I then claim that the battle was a Serbian victory? I'm just citing sources, which are not even written by Serbs.
• Why did you falsify a source with this edit (repeatedly)? You removed the name "Sedlar" from the reference, and you replaced it with "Imber".
• This is not the only article from which you removed sources and sourced content, in an attempt to promote Turkish nationalism [12]. Vladimir (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If we had to go with either "Serbian victory" or "Ottoman victory", we'd be in trouble - since the victor, if any, simply isn't known. Though if we absolutely had to decide, we'd probably have to go with "Ottoman victory". Fortunately we don't have to do that, and can go with "tactically inconclusive". We could, however, be less ambiguous about the strategic effects and have "Ottoman strategic victory" as the second bullet point. How do you folks stand on that proposal? -- Director (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's OK with me. Vladimir (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the victor is known, Ottomans. I provided at least 4 resources clearly stating that it was an Ottoman victory, whereas VVVladimir references 2 sources with the authors' personal comments ("one can conclude", or "it is not even possible to know with certainty from the extant contemporary material"). An army is almost totally destroyed, opposing one holds the ground no matter how high casualties it suffers, the commander is stabbed by a prisoner of war after the fighting is over. Also, to label a battle as a tactical victory/inconclusive/loss we have to know the participant's tactics, motive, plans, etc. For instance, what was the motive of the Serbian high command? To eliminate the Ottomans totally from Balkans, or to stop them temporarily? And for Ottomans, to conquer whole region, or to advance as far as possible, or maybe just defend the newly conquered soil? Finally, if we go the "tactically/strategically" way, that can be used for almost every battle in history. A decisive victory in a battle for Side A may be seen as as strategic victory for the opposing side B, because maybe Side B just intended to sacrifice an army in an suicidal attempt to slow down the advance of Side A. Is it a decisive victory for Side B then? Probably no.

"Mutual heavy losses—devastating for the less numerous Serbs[3]" that's OK with me, but I am not content with "tactically inconclusive". Maybe we can agree on another statement: "Ottoman victory with mutual heavy losses" and "Ottoman advance halted for decades"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyan Sipahi (talk • contribs) 12:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will look into this in more detail. Sign your comments, pls.

Can you provide some non-Turkish secondary sources that explicitly state this was an Ottoman victory? -- Director (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

See A Military History of the Ottomans: From Osman to Atatürk by Edward J. Erickson and Mesut Uyar. "Both sides declared themselves victor but Ottoman claim is more realistic since they held their ground. This was a Phyrric victory for Ottomans." In military literature a side who held their ground after a battle is simply victor. First hand sources which claim that it was inconclusive are simply did not take this fact into consideration, so they are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.159.39 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there Ottoman or Turkish sources?

There is Serbian,British,Croatian,Bosnian even Albanian historian's or author's sources.But i can't see Turkish or Ottoman's historians sources in References section.If really there isn't so why?Why there is everyone except them?--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This battle was of much more important significance for West Balkans region than for Ottoman Empire. That is probably an explanation why historiography of the West Balkans region was more preoccupied with it. There is extensive explanation how the Ottoman sources viewed this battle in note C. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just saw your comment in the above section. If you think there are modern secondary reliable sources which contain more information about this article, you are free to use them to expand the article. Primary sources or outdated works (of Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Ibn Kemal and Aşıkpaşazade) are not much useful for article's expansion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is what Halil Inalcik says: İnalcık, Halil (2000). Kosovo: six siècles de mémoires croisées. Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales. p. 25. ISBN 978-2-85831-107-1. To conclude, I would like once more to emphasize the point that it is time for Western and Balkan orientalism to abandon its recent perfunctory attitude toward the Turkish sources and to resume the scholarly critical scrutiny of the early Ottoman traditions.

As author of the article on Nesting Orientalisms I of course agree with Mr. Inalcik. It is, of course, important for modern historians to carefully examine early Ottoman chronicles with scholarly critical scrutiny. Until they eventually do it, I think the only thing wikipedia editors can do is to explain Inalcik's concerns with one sentence in the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about the size of the Armies ? I would like to ask where did you find those numbers ? Because according to some sources I˝ve read , the size of a Serbian army was about 77 000 , and the Ottoman army was twice the size , but according to the Turkish historian Ahmedi , the size of the Ottoman army was 100 000 , and the Serbian even bigger , but both sources agree that it was a larger scale battle then it is here described , could you please write something about it ?

"Tactically inconclusive" is doubtful and sided!

"Tactically inconclusive" is just sided and controversial explanation about this battle.It's common and usual work and goal of serbian nationalists. And i wonder why there is anything from real Ottoman history historians? There is nothing from their works. For example why there isn't something from Aşıkpaşazade who is one of the most imposrtant Ottoman historians from 15Th century? Also there is nothing from Ibn Kemal and his "Tevarih-i Al-i Osman (“The Chronicles of the House of Osman”)" work which is one of the most original and important source material,there is no any translation or transcription or even any mention. Also there is nothing form Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall and his very very famous and important work Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches which is 10 volumes! Jean-Paul Roux or Halil İnalcık works also. That people are greatest Ottoman historians and specialists on the topic but there is nothing from their works about this battle, is it a joke? Or what is your main goal,to allow the serbian nationalists to do what they want and to manipulate here with playing with words and sharing controversial works as references? Whatever wikipedia is not an academic source, and this type of things are one of the main reasons --Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't call it "Tactically inconclusive", so we shouldn't. bobrayner (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Lysandros (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Which so called "Reliable" sources did you mean exactly? By the way i didn't said its tactically inconclusive battle.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Then your sources are common and usual work and goal of Turkish nationalists, you cannot attack someone like that and then expect to be taken serious in your explanations , and who says that the sources are written by the Serbian nationalist ? You got some earliest sources like the letter from the Venices court about the battle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.170.70 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Mircea I of Wallachia

Mircea I of Wallachia was not participating in this battle. See Talk:Mircea_I_of_Wallachia#Battle_of_Kosovo.--Zoupan 10:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Mircea was there since some months earlier. You want to remove him, then present sources.Asxetyoeir (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)—Blocked sock of Rolandi+ (talk · contribs)--Zoupan 14:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100910095427/http://www.albanianhistory.net:80/texts16-18/AH1515.html to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts16-18/AH1515.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100910095427/http://www.albanianhistory.net:80/texts16-18/AH1515.html to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts16-18/AH1515.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle 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/20100910095427/http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts16-18/AH1515.html to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts16-18/AH1515.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 03:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle 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/20141104103214/http://www.rastko.org.rs/knjizevnost/usmena/battle_of_kosovo.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/knjizevnost/usmena/battle_of_kosovo.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 01:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Result

I dunno what axe the recent driveby IP edits are grinding, but AFAICT every experienced editor so far favours leaving the result field as is. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—89.110.206.53 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You haven't explained what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article; but I've changed them to match the article's description (about 3 miles northwest of Pristina) and map of the location, and I've reduced their precision. Better now? Deor (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories

@SwedishHistorian1: Categories being added must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. See Subcategorization about subcategories and parent categories. thank you Aeengath (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

POV map of Serbia

Needless to say that adding a map which depicts Kosovo as being entirely part of Serbia in an article about an event that only happened in Kosovo is clearly POV pushing. It should be removed immediately, what an absolute joke. Ahmet Q. (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to keep things neutral then you have to include both maps, including a map of Kosovo and a map of Serbia. This version has been stable for over a year now so I don't know what's wrong with it. If this was, as you said POV, then this would have been fixed a long time ago. Thanks Vacant0 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Vacant0, in order for the map section to be neutral it needs to have the maps of both Kosovo and Serbia. I don't see a reason why we should remove one of the maps as this version has been stable and neutral for a long time. Cheers! Elserbio00 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope not at all, only the map which depicts Kosovo with the hatched borders is acceptable and NPOV. The fact that both of you argue in favor of adding an obvious erroneous map demonstrate your POV pushing. It is POV and that's why i fixed it, but you provided literally no arguments whatsoever for the reverts. Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You've stated when removing that "they are unnecessary" and that "they aren't relevant, rv obvious POV" - you didn't start the discussion before you removed these maps didn't you? If you want these maps to be removed then you have to discuss it first, since some editors might not agree with your opinion. The discussion doesn't imply only to this article, it implies with every controversial article, it simply has to be discussed first so that we can see what's wrong with it. This version has been stable for well over a year now, and just to mention you've edited this page previously, a year ago to be exact. This is simply your opinion about these maps, some others might agree with it, some others might not, and because of that, it has to be discussed before getting changed. Just to clarify, the POV for these maps would be if you either 1) only included a map of Kosovo or 2) only included a map of Serbia. Vacant0 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You have in fact removed content on balkan-related articles as well, and you did not start any discussions for example in the 2021 Montenegrin municipal elections, where is your consistency over there? That being said, you have qualified the removal of the POV map as "vandalism". This is yet again a clear example of your own POV, the fact that the map was here for a long time does not matter since it's a clear violation of neutrality. And no this is not "my" opinion, this is how it is done all over Wikipedia for countries with limited recognition such as Taiwan and Palestine for example. The map of Kosovo that is currently being used has hatched borders to show that it has limited recognition and that's why a map including Kosovo in Serbia is completely POV-pushing. In fact that map should be removed from any single article on Wikipedia and it obviously will be removed. But I'm not surprised that you are unable to identify the problems with your reverts considering that you recently wrote the following about POV-editor Sadko in their current request for arbitration:[13] If you are unable to recognize their obvious POV-editing over several months, I guess it would be foolish of me to await that you recognize your own.Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

1) On the 2021 Montenegrin municipal elections article, the text that was added by Navyworth and another IP editor was mostly uncited, most of the citations weren't even RS, and the text that was added in the first part was simply breaking the NPOV by adding claims that aren't cited, or were cited but weren't reliable because they were biased in every possible way. However, I did a cleanup of the article because I did not want the text to be removed, it was just written in a biased way that it had to be fixed. Navyworth and the other IP editor are known for their POV editing, especially when removing well-cited texts that they personally don't like. Yes, it's true that nothing was discussed because I didn't expect other editors to hop in while I was cleaning up the article. The text was later completely removed by another editor because of edit warring. The first section of the text was completely uncited, the second section was mostly cited but it contained non-reliable sources, the text overall was biased and was poorly written. A discussion wasn't needed in this case. And no, that wasn't a clear example of my POV.

2) "the fact that the map was here for a long time does not matter since it's a clear violation of neutrality" – just to clarify, several administrators and notable contributors have previously edited this page, you've also previously edited this page a year ago, so my question is why didn't you remove the maps back then? No one complained about the maps before you did yesterday.

3) Kosovo is still a disputed area, but however if you personally want we can change the map in this case to a map of Kosovo with full borders so that we can also include a map of Serbia. If this was your initial problem, then I'll agree to change this. Having both maps isn't POV in any way, breaking the POV would be if you either only included a map of Kosovo or if you only included a map of Serbia. However, yes borders matter so I'll agree onto changing Kosovo's borders to full ones for this article.

4) I did comment on Sadko's Arbitration Enforcement page, however, if you've read closely I said "I'm pretty sure that I'm not wrong but if I am you can correct me on this one" because I did follow Sadko's edits for max three months and I might have missed on something, that's why I said that anyone can correct me on that one if I'm wrong.

5) If you have any problems, that's alright because I respect your opinion and we must solve this in any possible way, but in the future just don't be disrespectful, Thanks. Vacant0 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Good day Ladies and Gentlemans,

I have read this conversation and I fully understand the view of Mr. Ahmet. The map of serbia shows Kosovo completly inside serbia without a single markation to show its borders as a disputed nation state. It is partitally recongized (98 UN members as of Wikipedia). The secession of Kosovo should be shown by some kind of line depicting its partital recognition as its own entity. For that I have made a map which show a thin red line around the Kosovan-serbian border and to show that its disputed. Also I have made serbia itself dark grey and Kosovo slightly lighter which also shows that its disputed. I and most of you should agree that this would be a neutral map showing the disputed status of Kosovo as it should instead of adding Kosovo completly without any markation to the territory of serbia.

I will insert the name of the image here:

Neutral_map_of_serbia_of_the_battle_of_Kosovo.png

or

File:Neutral map of serbia of the battle of Kosovo.png|thumb|Location of the battle of Kosovo (1389) in a map of serbia highlighting Kosovos partital recognition. <---(Do not forget the [[ ]] brackets while adding this code).

I hope we can agree on this.

Best regards,

InNeed95 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2021

Removal of the Albanian nobles that fought under the command of Lazar.

Good day,

Some person removed the fact that some Albanian nobles fought under the command of Lazar in the battle of Kosova in 1389. It is clear from ottoman sources that some Albanian nobles fought in the battle.

This fact should be added again due to showing that Albanians and serbs actually fought together once and not against each other like now a days.

The removal seems to be made to show his/her hatred towards Albanians by not accepting the fact that Albanians fought along the serbs in the "holy" battle of Kosova only due to now a days hatred between most of the 2 ethnic groups.

I am requesting that this fact should be added again since hatred should not falsify history.

Best Regards,

InNeed95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by InNeed95 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Good day, the "fact" that "some Albanian nobles fought under the command of Lazar in the battle of Kosovo in 1389" is rubbish, claimed by Albanian propaganda in order to re-invent history of Kosovo, which has been entirely Serbian (In XV century, 98% population of Kosovo and Metohija were christian Serbs, 1% were Albanians, according to Turkish defter). There is no Albanians present in Kosovo, before XVI century, until Ottomans brought Albanians to Kosovo.

That "fact" is a disgrace to wikipedia.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

„strangled his younger brother“ has to be replaced by „strangled his older brother“. 2.206.207.62 (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bayezid I's page suggests that he strangled his younger brother to prevent a possible plot, rather than to move up in the line of succession. TimSmit (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The Battle of Kosovo 1389- An Albanian Epic-Anna Di Lellio

The 1389 Battle of Kosovo holds enormous significance in the formation and development of the modern Balkan states. What has given this single battle such resonance, more than six centuries later, and what does it reveal about the tangled complex of identity in the contemporary Balkans?The enduring power of the Serbian national myth, inspired by the epic of the resistance against the Ottomans on the Kosovan battlefield, is still visible throughout the ruins of Yugoslavia, is widely known and often told. Robert Elsie’s beautiful new translation brings a little-known Albanian account of the Battle brilliantly to life. This is the tale of Sultan Murat I’s campaign in the Balkans and his assassination by the Albanian knight Millosh Kopiliq, Miloš Obilić in the Serbian tradition.Anna Di Lellio’s commentary explores the significance of the Albanian epic for post-war Kosovo, where it reinforces a collective identity built on a myth of resistance against foreign oppressors, and on a strong identification with a European, predominantly Christian, civilization. The Battle of Kosovo 1389 argues for a critical reading of the poem as an alternative narrative, not an alternative true story of the historical battle. It is an important addition to our understanding of the Albanian debate on national and cultural belonging, as well as the more general issues of national memory and identity.

Anna Di Lellio:The Battle of Kosovo 1389An Albanian epicTranslations by Robert ElsieISBN 978-1-84885-094-1I.B. Tauris in association with the Centre for Albanian Studies, London 2009199 pp http://books.elsie.de/2009-2005/b056_battle-of-kosovo.htm

Nice copy of the fantasy book analysis from the author. Yes, we can add this to the other fantasy stories, together with the Books of Narnia. Author is a journalist - not a historian. She wrote the entire piece with a strong Albanian bias, not questioning why there are no records of any Albanian activity in Kosovo before the 15th century. Pixius talk 09:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

87.116.148.86 (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Good day, the "fact" that "some Albanian nobles fought under the command of Lazar in the battle of Kosovo in 1389" is rubbish, claimed by Albanian propaganda in order to re-invent history of Kosovo, which has been entirely Serbian (In XV century, 98% population of Kosovo and Metohija were christian Serbs, 1% were Albanians, according to Turkish defter). There is no Albanians present in Kosovo, before XVI century, until Ottomans brought Albanians to Kosovo.

Due to Albanian propaganda in this article about Kosovo's batle, you have more Albanians mentioned than >Serbs, ridiculous.

In Serbian army of 30 000 soldiers, even if they were a small contingent of Albanian vassals, it was so minor number that no medieval source ever mentioned that. Every medieval source mention only Serbs, from Serbia and some troops of Serbs from Bosnia. But Albanian propaganda obviously has it's own way to re-invent history.

That "fact" is a disgrace to Wikipedia.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Order of Battle

An unverifiable WP:TERTIARY source was used and it supposedly described the order of battle, but it couldn't have done so because there is no information about the order of battle in contemporary or later sources. Emmert: The historian is faced with a difficult problem when he attempts to discover what occurred in the Battle of Kosovo. There are no eyewitness accounts of the battle, and rather significant differences exist among those contemporary sources which do mention the event. (..) The early documents are not particularly concerned with armaments, tactics, size of forces, and the general course of the battle. Surprisingly enough, it is not even possible to know with certainty from the extant contemporary material whether one or the other side was victorious on the field. There is certainly little to indicate that it was a great Serbian defeat; and the earliest reports of the conflict suggest, on the contrary, that the Christian forces had won. I think that the section Battle of Kosovo#Troop deployment should be removed but I've tagged it in case some sources do discuss the order the battle.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

I have reverted an edit by Istinar. It removed Maleschreiber's cleanup and new sources but claims to add "sources back". I see an unverifiable WP:TERTIARY 1972 Yugoslav encyclopedia entry and one that doesn't talk about the battle at all being added back, and many other sources being removed. Durraz0 (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have some problems in relation to ping notifications, so it's better if you leave me a message on my talkpage. I don't know why Istinar is marking their edits as "restore sources". They're removing sources and a thorough cleanup I tried to do of all the contradictory statements in the article. In relation to the Yugoslav encyclopedia, I removed it as a citation but didn't remove most of the content linked to it. I tagged it and started a discussion (see #Order of Battle) about the content. Now, this account is using it as a pretext to remove verifiable and reliable material. They haven't explained why they're removing material which isn't linked to what is discussed in the Yugoslav encyclopedia - a source which shouldn't be used per WP:Verifiability: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You have removed reliable source and you should have started discussion on talk page first before adding that much new content. Istinar (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

They are reverting to the 28 June version, which would appear to be nothing but disruptive. FDW777 (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I had to revert Istinar again because he's adding the same sources again as previously explained by Maleschreiber [14] and their judging via personal assessment which commander belongs in the infobox and which doesn't. Infobox figures need to be added or removed per the sources. Ahmet Q. (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I am restoring sources you deleted without any discussion of consensus. Other user made major changes, used new sources and deleted old ones without any discussion first. If his edits are reverted within two weeks, discussion is in order and no further editing. And if we are going to discuss personal assessment you and other (I can only assume Albanian users) have some explaining to do. Istinar (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Istinar: you are not restoring sources. You are adding the same source - check the Cox citation. I don't like reporting other editors but you have to check your edits before we get to that point for the most needless of reasons. Ahmet Q. The commanders listed on the infobox are the ones which most probably were in the battle in a commanding role.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox/lead

So many problems here, let's start with the biggest one. While the battle ultimately resulted in an Ottoman victory, several scholars posit it was inconclusive is a gigantic failure of NPOV, as is the dismissal of other references in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on outcome of the battle

Hi FDW777. You claim that "I made that edit again", but my two edits hugely differs. I am not "ignoring" what the other sources say, perhaps you didn't read the lead. However, as you can see from the number of sources, the widespread opinion seems to be that the battle resulted in an Ottoman victory. What led me to edit this article, and what should determine what to put in the infobox imo, is (as previously mentioned) the fact that Britannica says that the battle resulted in an Ottoman victory. Because of this, and the greater number of sources that says so, I believe that we should report "Ottoman victory" in the infobox. I look forward to hear whether you agree with me. If not, we'll have wait for a third opinion.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As per section above, While the battle ultimately resulted in an Ottoman victory, several scholars posit it was inconclusive is such blatant POV it has no place in the encyclopedia. You can find plenty of third opinions in the archives where this has been extensively discussed. FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

See also things like this footnote, which reads The historian is faced with a difficult problem when he attempts to discover what occurred in the Battle of Kosovo. There are no eyewitness accounts of the battle, and rather significant differences exist among those contemporary sources which do mention the event. If you have some novel idea as to how this conflict among references should be dealt with I'm all ears, but so far your solution has been to simply discard the ones you don't agree with. FDW777 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Edit conflict, you are publishing here and on my talk page so sorry if I'm late. The reason why I added that sence was to keep the claim that the battle was inconclusive according to some, which I believe isn't what happened based on the sources I provided, first of all Britannica. I agree to delete the sentence, and discuss editing the lead. But my proposal for "Ottoman victory" in the infobox remain. Because it is stated by Britannica and the majority of sources. Do you agree with that? No? Why? If not, we'll wait for other opinions. If you have some novel idea as to how ignore Britannica and what two times more sources say I'm also all ears. If you disagree it's fine, just say it and we'll wait.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't hang your hat on Britannica, since they are a tertiary reference and can be safely ignored. I suggest reading WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and Template:Infobox military conflict regarding the results field in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To the editors joining the discussion, this is the version I propose. Basically, I trust Britannica and the majority of sources as to the result of the battle (Ottoman victory, to be put in infobox). However I also want to make clear in the lead that several scholars hold that the battle was inconclusive, and that mostly all agree there were huge losses on both sides. I want to say that I had also added some interesting, and important, facts that had been disregarded (mercenaries of other nationalities fighting on both sides) and the opinion of a number of scholars, that I deemed reasonable and nice to include, such as that it wasn't a religious or ethnic conflict, and that the legendary battle wasn't the fundamental military event of the campaign, its importance rather lying in Serbian folklore and tradition. However, also these edits have been undone, with no reason.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is one reason for staters, and since the addition is intrinsically tied to the new result you are adding I thought it would be blindly obvious why that part couldn't be left in? FDW777 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The addition is not intrinsically tied to the result. Not all parts of it. There were other, important new information that you destroyed. My proposal here is to edit the article after what I expressed in the lead, which gives a more correct report of the event, following the widespread view. There are only very few edits to be made in the article. I can't and won't make them to avoid edit warring. Editors who want to chime in should assess the version I proposes above. The lead contains all the salient information this article about a half-legendary war should contain. Britannica is one of the majority of sources reporting Ottoman victory. So, do you agree to publish what I proposed, changing the battle's result in the ib?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You seek to exclude, not include. After a quick check on Google Books, I see the "inconclusive" result is supported by many, many references not even cited in the article. Do I really have to provide them? I see you're still failed to say how your change was compliant with WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and Template:Infobox military conflict. FDW777 (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777:@Haldir Marchwarden:I have restored the last pre-dispute version. Haldir's edits about a collapse of Serbia contradict the consensus in bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course, if you google "inconclusive" and that's what you want to see, than it is supported by "many". Also many (possibly most) support an Ottoman victory. I don't know if we should include an infobox in this article about a legendary battle rife with myths. If so, I wouldn't call the result inconclusive, even if some authors say so (and yes, you should definitely provide them. If you do, I would come back with more. At the end of the day, one just has to look at Britannica and see what they say. After reading the article of the English encyclopedia you already know what you are going to find in the English language reliable sources). The reality is the majority of sources speak of an Ottoman victory, and I don't have to, and of course cannot explain why. I will say, tho, that the reality is we known nothing about this, except shortly after the battle Serbia was Ottoman. We should emphasize the legendary aspect of the battle. We should emphasize, or at least mention, that Maritsa was the important one (this is widely believed by scholars, and is also reported by some of the scholars supporting an "inconclusive" outcome. I had included it in my version). I remind you that beside changing the outcome in the ib, I also added more material unrelated to the outcome (for example regarding foreigners fighting on both sides, religious aspect, importance to Serbian culture rather than actual importance in the campaign etc.) which you destroyed. As for the other user: you did all right. I am seeking consensus to reshape the article after the lead I linked above. They contradict now. I wouldn't and won't rewrite the article unless I get consensus, lest it be rejected and Wikipedia's time wasted.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Image Change?

I think it would be good if the image in the Infobox was different, as the current one (Petar Lubarda Kosovski boj 1953 Svecana Sala Novi Dvor Beograd.jpg) is not really truly representative of the battle. Lubarda's work is very modern, neo-realistic, and unclear, and I think a clearer/older image (such as this one: Battle of Kosovo, Adam Stefanović, 1870.jpg which is already in the article in the Kosovo Myth Section) would be better. --Bombadil3019 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Petar Lubarda Kosovski boj 1953 Svecana Sala Novi Dvor Beograd.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

You use totaly false source for sides involved in a battl. It is higly incorect to falsfy history for approving todays agenda. If ther are diffrent opinians then they should be confirmd from trustfull source. So remove Principality of Muzaka. It is ridiculus to have this. Medasmc (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Principality of Muzaka or any significant involvement of Albanians in Kosovo battle (1389) is ridiculous. Since, Turkish defter from XV century, claimed that only 1% of Kosovo population were Albanians, while Serbs consisted 98% of Kosovo population in XV century.

Just Albanian stealing history, and historical revisionism which make this artificial untruth.

Also, forces of Bosnian king Tvrtko, were also Serbs. Not "Bosnians", in ethnic sense. It is geographical term, used for Serbs inhabiting Bosnia. 97% of Serbian forces in Kosovo battle (1389) were Serbs. If 1 Chinese accidentally participated in Kosovo battle, you should name China as one of sides in battle. 178.237.223.116 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2022

Beteja e Kosovës ( Albanian ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:991C:CA00:5CE0:9B0:17E1:4C42 (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2023

This battle is a ottoman victory. Trkmaq edits (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

E Trkmaq edits (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see cited sources Cannolis (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Inconclusive?

You cannot call this war "Inconclusive" just because the sultan was killed. The sultan is killed after taking the victory. After Şehzade Bayezid came to the aid with a speed like a thunderbolt during the war and changed the fate of the war, the fleeing army was chased by Şehzade Yakup. If you do a little research, you will see that this war was an Ottoman victory. 2001:1C02:2C24:3100:E1DA:AFCC:7C38:D3FC (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, all world historiography accepts that this battle ended with the Turkish victory. There are nationalists here. 78.185.43.125 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

unbiased sources call this war "Inconclusive" turk. quit your nonsense. WiecznySilver (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

unbiased sources or the crusaders here?

1

2 Subutay1000 (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

C'est une victoire Ottomane les Serbes ont fuit même si le sultan Murad a était tuer sont fils Bayezid a pris le pouvoir Raziel1975S (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

An easy, non-confrontational edit request

"Regardless of the exact army size, the battle of Kosovo was one of the large battles of late medieval times."

That should read "largest battles", especially with the immediately following comparison to the battle having involved at least 10000 men more than Agincourt. Deliusfan (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Albanian name on the lead

Should the Albanian name for the battle be added since the Muzaka had a impact of the battle and fought for the Serbian side? AlexBachmann (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I honestly think that it should not be written in Albanian, because, for example, in the Battle of Stalingrad, only the German and Russian names of the battle were written, and there were also Hungarians, Italians, and Croats. Also then every battle would have to be written in multiple languages ​​and I think the Battle of Nicopolis has more than 10 or more than 10 languages Bokisa6372. (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding Albanians to this battle

Okay what is this? A year ago, the following names were written: Vuk Branković, Lazar Hrebeljanović, Vlatko Vuković and Teodor II Muzuka. And now Dhimitër Jonima and Andrea Gropa are writing out of nowhere. I think all the sources that have been posted were written after the war in Kosovo in 1999. Also only 1 source was not written by an Albanian.One source says King Marko of Bulgaria, which is absurd because his real name is Marko Mrnjavčević, his father Vukašin Mrnjavčević, on his Wikipedia it says "Vukašin of Serbia". To return to the fact that all the sources were written after 1999, I honestly think that it is Albanian nationalist propaganda for Kosovo and Metohija. Bokisa6372. (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to read the sources. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This is jsut part of Albanian nationalist and euphoria to add Albanians to each historical event on Balkan.

This is historical revisionism, heavily conducted by Croats and Albanians.

In Kosovo battle you had 99% Serbian troops, and you had 1% of all others (surrounding lords of Balkan), and in wikipedia we have 50 mentioning word "Albanian" in battle of Kosovo..... Despite, Albanians were not present at Kosovo at that time.

Albanians are inhabited on Kosovo heavily in 18 century, by Ottoman politics. 134.238.139.240 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

First and foremost, Albanians predate the presence of Slavs in the Balkans. Second of all, the Battle of Kosovo was a Christian coalition versus an Ottoman force. It was not exclusively Serbs, as is highlighted by the article. These sources are not from historical revisionists, rather respected authors. Thanks! Botushali (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

How is it possible for a respected author to write such nonsense that Marko Mrnjavčević is the king of Bulgaria, for example? Bokisa6372. (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you’re referring to or which source you are discussing. Botushali (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Number 46 Bokisa6372. (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That source is actually from medieval nobleman Gjon Muzaka, written in 1515, it is not a modern source - nonetheless, the presence of Albanians is corroborated by a variety of sources. Marko ruled over a small portion of what is today Macedonia, hence why he was called a Bulgarian King by some of his contemporaries; there were no Macedonians at that point, only Bulgars. Botushali (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"1515 | John Musachi: Brief Chronicle on the Descendants of our Musachi Dynasty" sources Bokisa6372. (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about Gjon Muzaka Bokisa6372. (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

John Musachi = John Muzaka. It’s an alternative spelling of his name. Botushali (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And if it was really written by him, he certainly made a mistake 2 times only in that one part, the king of Bulgaria Marko and called Lazar Hrebeljanović a despot. Lazar was not a despot but a duke. Bokisa6372. (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Albanians were not the majority in Kosovo at that time, however, various Albanian rulers have participated in this battle. Additionally, there is no WP:UNDUE issue, as the most mentions of "Albania" occour in the sources section. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

What sources? These were written 700 years after the battle Bokisa6372. (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No, someone said: we have 50 mentioning word "Albanian" in battle of Kosovo. "Albania", however, is mentioned the most in the sources section in the bottom of the article. (which technically does not count) AlexBachmann (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what you're trying to say Bokisa6372. (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Somebody said that Albania is mentioned too much in this article and argued that it is mentioned over 50 times. But the most mentions of "Albania" are in the source section. Go to the normal article here and press Ctrl + F (if you are on a computer) and search for "Albania". You will see that the most "Albania"'s are in the sources section and not in the article. We refer that as WP:UNDUE. When something insignficant is mentioned too often, it is WP:UNDUE. But in this article, it's not. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

So does that mean we should remove Dhimitër Jonim and Andre Grop from the article or not? Bokisa6372. (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No. It is sourced that they were present in the battle, so no. Botushali (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't the brother literally say that those sources are technically not rolled. Bokisa6372. (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry if you were erred by my long text, if the sources say these lords fought in the battle, they should be included. Let's dismiss everything that I've written about WP:UNDUE because it irritates too much. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, didn't you say that those elections technically don't count Bokisa6372. (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I have written a response to "134.238.139.240" who wrote a text at the top of this discussion. There is no WP:UNDUE issue with the sources involving Andrea Gropa and Dhimiter Jonima. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not change the fact that a year ago all the sources existed, but Andrea Gropa and Dhimitër Jonima were not written. And could we make a new question since I'm on my phone and can't read properly, literally 1 word can't fit Bokisa6372. (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, Andrea Gropa and Dhmiter Jonim should be removed because there is stuff like the battle of Leipzig where generals like Miloradovich werent included even though they were in the battle Deus vult fratres! (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Numerous Albanian rulers and soldiers from the noble Albanian Muzaka family, Gropa family and Jonima family fought on the side of Prince Lazar, including Teodor II Muzaka, who participated and died in the battle." Should be enough. Deus vult fratres! (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you write that in part2 please Bokisa6372. (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)