Talk:Battle of Kosovo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Adding Albanians to this battle part 2

Like I said I'm on the phone and can't read the words so if anyone wants to reply me please read the last comment on Bokisa6372. (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Look. We can't remove them from the infobox. If they really fought there they can't be removed even if it has been otherwise for one year. Ранко_Николић has removed "Himariotes and other Albanians from Epirus and the coast" from the box. I'll agree with him on this edit but I don't find it appropriate to remove anything further. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I can do anything about it, but I understand that next year more Albanians will be added to this battle, and in a few years the Serbs will be wiped from this page. Bokisa6372. (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann Could you answer me in the article you posted (adding the Albanian name of the battle) Bokisa6372. (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It was not me to add the Albanian name. But since it includes a large group of Albanian nobles, I'd say it should stay. If the Albanian name is removed, I'll be in support of removing all names on the lead (including the Serbian and Turkish one) so that only "The Battle of Kosovo took [...]" is described there. There is no doubt that Serbs played a major role in this battle, but adding the Albanian rulers that fought there is appropriate. And I can ensure you that Serbians won't be wiped out from this article as long as Wikipedia exists. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I am too. Try reading it lolz Deus vult fratres! (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

you can not remove stuff from a wiki article because you do not like what the WP:RS is saying.Durraz0 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

But you also can't even add stuff to a wiki article because you read 2 books written by a nationalist from Albania Bokisa6372. (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

What books are written by nationalists from Albania? Durraz0 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's say 48. Muhadri Bedrı, an Albanian, most likely from Kosovo, maybe from Albania, I'm not sure and I'm not interested. But if you type his name and go to the first link and scroll a little, you will come across the article The Invasion of Kosovo from the Ottomans in the XIV Century. That man literally calls Đurađ Branković Gjergj Brankoviq. He says about Stefan Uroš IV Dušan Nemanjić that he was a king, not an emperor. What I want to say is that he wrote this "After the death of King Dusan" and when Dusan died he was an emperor not a king. If all this is not enough for you to conclude that he is a nationalist, well then Bokisa6372. (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see the correlation between an author spelling the name of an historical figure in said author’s native script, and nationalism. He is not calling Branković an Albanian just by spelling Branković‘s name in Albanian. None of what you have listed above is proof that this is nationalistic, non-RS work. I suggest perhaps looking at WP:JDL before continuing down this route; Albanians were present in the battle alongside Serbs, as well as multiple other ethnic groups. There is nothing wrong with that particularly when it is cited. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So he could write dusan, he could write Stefan Lazar(ević), but he could not write Djuradj or Durad. Instead, he wrote a completely different name, Gjergj, WHAT IS THAT? Bokisa6372. (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

New discussion about Albanians in this battle

I'm not sure if you're speaking about a specific source or just in general, but if the source is written in English and a name is written in Albanian, who is not actually an Albanian figure, then there might be nationalistic motives as that's quite unusual. However, sources written in Albanian are often known to write names in their own way, no matter where the individual is from. --Azor (talk). 17:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So check the source I sent you and you will see that it is written in English. Here is link if you don't want to search https://independent.academia.edu/BEDRIHADRI Bokisa6372. (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @ Botushali. I can see you're active on this article so I was wondering if you can provide some help. I'm currently studying the sources and cant find source which explicitly suggests Andrea Gropa and Dhimitër Jonima participated in this battle. A direct citation would help improve the reliability of Albanian houses, except Muzaka which is already confirmed, participating significantly. Have you seen personally seen a citation like that, and if so, could you provide it? Thanks in advance. --Azor (talk). 20:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Bedri mentions it. Durraz0 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 Thanks. Do you access to the exact statement by this Albanian author? --Azor (talk). 17:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

yes, "In this battle were present some of the Arber rulers, such as (...) Dhimitër Jonima, (...) Andrea Gropa". Durraz0 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I would advise you to update the citation on the source. Did you find the statement on the same page(s) as listed?

Could this Albanian author be the only author to ever mention their names, as far as you and I can tell? --Azor (talk). 17:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I would advise you to not remove citations as the citations you removed also mention muzaka and other albanian aristocrats. you referring to a source as unreliable because it is written by "this albanian" is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. the note put on their names mentions that the only confirmed is teodor muzaka, this is because we know for a fact he died there I reverted you and I will also add another source about Jonima. Durraz0 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 Nobody is questioning the line "other albanian nobles", but the issue is how the citations are used. Only one of those five sources explicitly mentioned the names "Andrea Gropa and Dhimitër Jonima", yet some previous editor put all five sources next to the statement that suggest they both were a part of the Christian coalition - when four of those sources don't actually mentions the names explicitly. That is simply wrong use of sources, since it gives false support to specific statements. And for next time, be a bit careful with how you attack people with breaches of wikipedia guidelines - I'm trying to collaborate, not start some kind of edit war.

It was good you found another source to support that claim. You should add the direct citation from the new source from Robert Elise so it can be reviewed easier by other editors. --Azor (talk). 19:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources are not you removed were not put there just for Gropa and Jonima, but also for Muzaka and others. you removed those sources here. [1]

this is not my claim, it has been in wikivoice for some years. I propose we add the B note in the lead in regards to Albanians participating in the battle. Durraz0 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 The sources that was in the B note, all had different sayings, about the same topic. 1-2 confirmed only Muzaka participated, some mentioned only "Muzaka and other albanian nobles", only 1 mentioned the specific names of the other Albanian nobles. Therefore, it is not logical nor correct to be put together, right after each other, after the statement. But I have fixed it now, let me know if there is anything you disagree on.

As for the one source I removed, yes I did remove it, for the exact same reason - using sources who don't actually confirm what's being said. That source said nothing about specific names of other Albanian nobles - which the statement wrote about. I thought you were talking about my work on the B note which I did recently.

How exactly is the B note in the lead an improvement? The lead is only supposed to be an introduction, not a place to reflect etc.. The reflection and depth of Albanians participating is perfectly explained in the article's body. --Azor (talk). 20:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

the B note is not a reflection being there alone, if somebody wants to know which other albanian lords participated they could click on it and then see the reflection. Durraz0 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 I understand your point of view, but the lead is not supposed to provide this information. It's supposed to summarize the most important topics of the article. The names of people who are not even confirmed to play a role in the article is for the article's body to reflect on.

WP:LEAD explains:

Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. --Azor (talk). 21:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

adding a note does not violate NPOV at all. Durraz0 (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the source does not say "might" have participated, so if anything it should be written in wikivoice as if they participated unless you have a source claiming they did not. Durraz0 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 The lead already contains a presentation of the Albanians who participated (hence the wording "such as"), in which Muzaka is highlighted for the intro because he's the only confirmed one.

Adding a note on the lead that's already added multiple times in the side bar, and in which it contain information that's already explained in the article's body, does violate NPOV. While the information might be significant to you and your personal interests, it does provide undue attention on a very insignificant part of the article, overall.

I have said what I want to say on this topic. If you won't change your stance, we would have to add an independent third party into this. --Azor (talk). 22:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok so you have removed sourced content, you are the one making changes. Since there are sources saying that this people were there, not that they might have been there, they should be referred to such in wikivoice before you removed it. you are the one who has make consensus for your changes. I will now readd the content which you have removed without seeking consensus. Durraz0 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 Wow, your recent sudden revert was very disappointed. Proved to me that you had no other intentions than staying stubborn and push edit warring from the beginning. Not only did you revert huge amount of content without listing reasons for doing so - you also removed other types of sourced content (also without any listed reason).

You're throwing my time and energy I have spent studying sources, contributing to TP and attempting to improve this article straight to the trash. I will admit, I rarely go for personal attacks, but that was nothing but immature and disrespectful. --Azor (talk). 23:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AzorzaI, uncivil remarks are not appreciated on Wikipedia; I suggest you strike through much of what you wrote above, because such behaviour might be a sign that admin intervention is needed.

In regards to the content dispute, I suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia is not a forum, we are not supposed to go around in circles over the same topics. Unless you have sources that discredit the authors cited or that oppose their information, disruptive removals on the grounds of WP:JDL and your personal opinion are not constructive. Botushali (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. An admin should take a look at this. You gave exactly zero examples of your issue with my behaviour, but thank you regardless. We will let a third party take it from here. --Azor (talk). 00:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, you should perhaps ask an admin to intervene. Botushali (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The concept to present as historical fact something that the citation refers that its mentioned just 'according to some contemporary accounts' is disruptive. Nevertheless no contemporary Greek author presented the population of Himara and Epirus as 'Northern Albanians'.Alexikoua (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you actually talking about? The second part of your post makes no sense. If you're referring to the quote, we've had such a discussion on the TP of Himara, I believe. Most editors seem to understand that they were talking about Albanians via their region (northern, Epirote, Himariote etc), this conversation has already been settled on that TP. Botushali (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I repeat, as no one read my message: 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 !

"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) 19:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Only because other articles do not mention involved rulers doesn't mean that you can surpress the Albanian rulers that have participated here. If you think that something is missing on the other article, find reliable sources and add the content. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What?! I just mentioned a example of this being on Wikipedia, also noting that the Albanian rulers are mentioned on the first part of the page, yet for some reason this has to be an exception.. Deus vult fratres! (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

i have added another source for Gropa [2] Durraz0 (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Botushali: If you're referring to the quote, we've had such a discussion on the TP of Himara, I believe. No, the same problematic issue emerged in Himara and was fixed by me: you cannot present it as a fact since the author of the source doesn't accept it as such. Source reads: "according to contemporary Greek authors" we have no reason to remove that.Alexikoua (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Caption text

Source

Text in the article

Di Lellio, Anna (2006). The Case for Kosova: Passage to Independence. Anthem Press. p. 32. Far from arriving in the 'enemies' trucks' the Albanian population, from the lake of Shkodra to Kosova, were one with the other Christian populations At the time of the Ottoman invasion of 1389, Greek authors mention, after the Serbs and the Bulgarians, the Northern Albanians, those of Himarë, Epyrus and the coast.

that's simply interpreted as Himariotes and other Albanians from Epirus and the coast participated at the Battle of Kosovo (...you understand the differece)

Alexikoua (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Alex, I do not believe that you understand what I am trying to convey to you. The sentence At the time of the Ottoman invasion of 1389, Greek authors mention, after the Serbs and the Bulgarians, the Northern Albanians, those of Himarë, Epyrus and the coast groups all of the Albanians after the mentioning of Serbs and Bulgarians. In context with the line that precedes it, it becomes even more apparent that she is referring to Albanians in Himara and Epirus.

I will also highlight the line again: Greek authors mention, after the Serbs and the Bulgarians, the Northern Albanians, those of Himarë, Epyrus and the coast. the word 'those' refers to Albanians from those regions. The way it was written in this article simply makes it more concise. She is not calling the Albanians of Himara and Epirus "northern Albanian", because they were southern Albanians. I don't know why you think she is calling them northern Albanian. Botushali (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I will highlight the parts that you are ignoring again: Greek authors mention, after the Serbs and the Bulgarians, the Northern Albanians, those of Himarë, Epyrus and the coast. the part: 'Greek authors mention, means that the author does not endorse this claim and we have to state that (if we accept this as fact it falls into wp:OR). Also Himara and Epyrus were never part of North Albania: by saying Northern Albanians the author points to those populations that recently settled in Himara - Epirus from Northern Albania (non-native populations.Alexikoua (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It is apparent you do not understand the part of the topic I was discussing, nonetheless I don't see the issue with having "Greek authors mention..." at the start of the sentence that was on the page prior to the recent edits. Also, Also Himara and Epyrus were never part of North Albania - everybody knows that, I don't have a clue what you're on about. The author is grouping the Albanian populations according to region. She discussed the northern Albanians in the preceding sentence.

Finally, by saying Northern Albanians the author points to those populations that recently settled in Himara - Epirus from Northern Albania (non-native populations. - no idea how you came to that conclusion. That's not what the source says or seems to imply. This is very quickly becoming an unnecessary and pointless discussion. Botushali (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok I consider you agree with the current version which is in agreement to the quote after my correction here: [[3]].Alexikoua (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Rather than damaging the article with a tag you could’ve put the actual citation itself, seeing as you actually edited the part where the citation is located. Botushali (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Then may we put Bulgarians in the infobox along with the Albanians ? Deus vult fratres! (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Deus vult fratres! That's a good suggestion, I agree. I added Bulgarians (+ the other ethnic groups participating in the Christian coalition). --Azor (talk). 17:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali: damaging the article with a tag? it appears you are not serious: by adding a tag an editor kindly asks for the improvement of the quality of that part. I assume you owe a sencere apology by launching that kind of accusation. Since you name it: "damaging" the article constitutes when someone insists to present claims "according to contemporary Greek authors" as historical facts accepted by wp:RS. That's not productive indeed. Alexikoua (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You put a citation tag but literally edited the part where the citation is located… you could have very well put in a citation yourself, and I’m sure you’re aware. No apology is owed. Botushali (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Alexikoua, the Himariotes thing was discussed some months ago. We are not going to discuss the same things every now and then. It is not the first time you reopen discussion months after they ended with no new arguments being provided. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi: Yes it was discussed and it was addressed that the specific source doesn't accept this claim as a widely accepted fact: this statement is supported by "contemporary Greek accounts": the source states that and we also need to respect that and present it per wp:NPOV. Don't use again abstract arguments that it was discussed in the past instead.Alexikoua (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali: Again you are removing the inline citation: [[4]]. You understand that this constitutes persistent disruption. Alexikoua (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

De Lellio doesn't say "According to contemporary Greek authors", rather the way she phrases it, it seems as though she is stating a fact. Botushali (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

De Lellio mentions (the only source that mentions Himariote participation so far) the primary source of the information which you are removing in order to present it as a fact. If you believe that Lellio is conviencing you that its stating a fact so let the readers decide if it's fact or simply possibility without falsifying the source.Alexikoua (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do the Greeks report on it if they did not participate in the battle ? Deus vult fratres! (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a good question: the partitipation of these groups (northern Albanian communities in Himara etc) is based on one citation which is solely based on comtemporary Greek accounts: if specific editors are eager to believe that as universal fact that's their personal judgement. What's disruptive is when they remove this cited part and prohibit the readers to judge on their own.Alexikoua (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense Deus vult fratres! (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

A verification tag was placed on the Angelov (1994) citation. A copy of the book can be found here.[5] I have read page 235 and it does not mention anything specifically about the Albanian Aristocrats. It discusses the troop makeup of Lazar's army, noting that Albanian troops were under the command of Vuk Branković. I have added this reference and information under Troop deployment. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

New sources

This source: was added to support the statement that the battle of Kosovo "ended the Goldern Era of Serbia". This statement seemed out of place as historiography doesn't support it. The Serbian Empire/Kingdom had crumbled since 1371 and in 1389 the Ottomans had to deal with various small fiefdoms. ElderZamzam didn't provide any link which would allow direct verification of the claim and I had to search for it myself. The source does not support these edits. Quote: Instead of a “great victory” as in the case of Kulikovo, the historicalsymbolical “value” of the event in the Serbian tradition is paradoxically based on its representations as a defeat. The contemporary sources concerning the battle are heterogenous and diverse; however, apparently both Lazar and Sultan Murad—the leader of the Ottoman troops—were killed in the battle and both sides suffered remarkable losses.23 While the non-Serbian contemporary sources concentrated on the death of the sultan, in the Serbian context the battle has been seen as the end of the “Golden Age of Serbia,” followed by the dominion of the Ottoman Empire over the Serbs. The complicated political setting forming the background of the battle has also been simplified into a clash of Christianity and Islam. The source discusses modern interpretations in Serbian historiography since the 19th century, it doesn't refer to the historical events themselves.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

References

I removed a statement based on Djokić (2009). He doesn't claim that the folk song itself discusses a sacrifice for the nation, but that the modern narratives reframe it in this manner. The full text of the poem is in the text.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources

@Durraz0 Griboski has been called in as a third party due to our disagreements. Tag him and explain more precisely what your issues with his edits are, so the third party can easier state an opinion. --Azor (talk). 17:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that. A third party opinion should be completely independent and uninvolved in topics such as these. (And you should know that) -AlexBachmann (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I had no other choice than asking for the opinion of a third party because of the continuous WP:STONEWALLING from this editor. On top of that, the same editor has a tendency to use the revert button as an excuse to not elaborate and discuss on TP. Notice how a word wasn't written after I took his attempt to edit war straight to the TP. The same happened when he completely reverted all my work, and the sourced work of others, when we struggled to reach consensus.

I have, personally, huge respect for people taking the time to help solve such disputes. So should you have.

So please @AlexBachmann, elaborate. Why do you mean by this third party not being independent? And should be uninvolved? --Azor (talk). 20:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You can request a third opinion on Wikipedia and receive a statement from a neutral user. You have to explain the situation as neutral as possible on this page and we (hopefully) soon will get a response. Griboski is involved in Balkan-related topics, therefore it would be better to propose a neutral statement. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann There is absolutely nothing that indicates that Griboski can't be a third party. In fact, it is often encouraged that editors with long experience and knowledge in the topic are invited to state their opinion. I often invite credible editors who are often perceived as neutral, precise and straight forward, and now for the first time I asked Griboski.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is your issue? Request a third party into this, if you find so fitting. I'm not stopping you. --Azor (talk). 21:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

i removed a primary source tag because there is a non primary source right next to it. why should a tag like this be required if the non primary source was already there? Durraz0 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 As I have said, tag the editor who edited it. He will explain it or perhaps it was a mistake. My point in all of this was for you to stop using the revert button as an excuse to not discuss. Tag him, and you will get an explanation. --Azor (talk). 21:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

that is not how Wikipedia works. if I see something wrong, I could remove it. the other editor never actually contested me removing it, and I explained why I removed it in the edit summary. if I see something wrong I can remove it [[WP:DIY]. also I did not revert his edit. Durraz0 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 No that's absolutely not how Wikipedia works. Your hit-and-run reverts does nothing but harm on this article. You're expected to contribute to the TP during discussions. Read WP:STONEWALLING, carefully.

Please precede to tag the third party and discuss if you truly want to improve this article in a good faith. --Azor (talk). 22:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

perhaps you should read the guide you referenced. griboski is an involved editor, not a third party. Durraz0 (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

the policy you and I have quoted here both support my argument and not yours. I quoted WP:DIY, which guides users to fix mistakes they see in an article. I saw a request for a non primary source regarding the participation of muzaka, and considering there was a non primary source right next to it, I removed it as the obligation was already fulfilled. WP:PLEASEDISCUSS literally says No, not for articles. Despite the purported existence of these "rules", there is no requirement under Wikipedia policies to discuss edits on the talk page first for articles. Durraz0 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@AzorzaI, you should read WP:NOTFORUM. None of the TP discussions you have generated or heavily contributed to seem to lead anywhere at all, they just go around in endless circles. If you do not have sources to prove or disprove something, then you’ve simply got to accept that and move on. Griboski is an involved Balkan editor, third opinions can be from more neutral people. Nonetheless, regardless of whether you want a third opinion, I frankly do not care. The participation of Albanians is sourced, so an editor’s opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS bibliography, not the personal opinions of the volunteers on Wikipedia. I, among other editors, have engaged in constant conversation with you regarding this topic among others, yet you have dismissed what everyone has to say because you don’t like it. Continuing these conversations with you when you bring absolutely zero sources to the table is pointless. No sources = no changes. Botushali (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You, and Durraz0, have done nothing except WP:STONEWALLING. And you involving yourself into this is doing absolutely nothing. I have asked Durraz0 to stop reverting the same topic constantly and pushing for edit warring. That is completely reasonable request as have had our discussions about it. This time, I did not want to involve myself, because I wanted him to hear the opinion of a third opinion. He never took the choice to tag the third person, but he finds it much more worthy of his time to justify his reverting. Says a lot, doesn't it? --Azor (talk). 23:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

you are stonewalling and reverting me accusing my removal of being disruptive but not providing any reason except claiming that on Wikipedia you need to discuss everything on the talk page with the person who added it. that is the definition of stonewalling. Durraz0 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You have heard my opinion. We have had an entire discussion about me, which led to me distancing myself and wanting you to hear the opinion of a third person. You choosing not to tag the third person is going against attempting to find a consensus between our disagreements. Just like you did with me when you reverted all the work I did, just because you didn't like it.

Why do you find it easier to discuss with me about justifying your revert, than reading others opinion and attempting to find a consensus? --Azor (talk). 23:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a consensus, and that consensus is that Albanians participated. Botushali (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll agree to the fact that this is going in circles and I have not seen any convincing argument to exclude the Albanian lords that have participted. Feel free to add Bulgarians, Vlachs or whatever if there is a source saying so. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to get rid of Albanian lords now? We're talking about the reliability of the sources and how they should be presented. That is not even my work, it's someone elses. --Azor (talk). 23:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is required by Wikipedia policy to get a third opinion if they are sure about the stance they have taken. It says absolutely nothing about them as an editor, do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS. You need to read WP:DROPTHESTICK and learn to accept the reality of historical events. Nobody has to tag anyone, and nobody is required to participate in pointless discussions that solve absolutely nothing. Unless you have sources, I suggest you halt this discussion as per WP:NOTFORUM. Botushali (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0@Botushali Yes this discussions get very pointless when the primary goal is to justify reverting, instead of even attempting to read the opinion of a credible third person editor. If that is too much to ask for, for the sake of reaching a final consensus, then you have absolutely nothing to do in Wikipedia. That's all I have to say to both of you. Have a nice evening. --Azor (talk). 23:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you think proposing a statement from a user that is participating in Serbia-related articles as a neutral 3rd opinion (It's been 4 people or so in this discussion, anyways) is a good idea? AlexBachmann (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Well right now, all of you are participating in a Serbia-related article too. Would you question your neutrality too? --Azor (talk). 23:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:3O. A third opinion is from someone whose neutrality and judgement is trusted by all parties involved in the content disputes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 Of course, except the other part hasn't given any specific reasons to not trust the third party. "He participates in Balkan related articles" has nothing to do with neutrality, not even the slightest.

The other part has totally refused to ask for elaboration from the third party regarding the view on the sources, explaining he "doesn't need to and can revert whatever he wants". This led me into thinking that anyone who disagree with Durraz0 are apparently biased in his eyes, hence not even giving the third party even a chance to explain. --Azor (talk). 10:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion is requested at WP:3O, not on the talk page of an editor you choose without having the agreement of the other part of the dispute. In all these years on Wikipedia, I have never seen such a thing before. You are the first one doing that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have never seen a group of editors supporting each others non-stop in TP and edit warring (not surprisingly all being from the same Wikiproject) either. But here you are.

Unless there are any specific reasons as to what I am doing could be wrong, then you personal opinion is of no value to me. I simply do not care what you have seen or not seen. I have seen it be done before, with huge success, as long as it has been a credible editor. --Azor (talk). 17:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That is canvassing. Anyways, do whatever you want. If you get reported, my post above will serve as evidence that you were warned about that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If I I'm talking to one of you, I know I'm automatically soon talking to all of you. And this discussion is one of the hundreds of evidence on that. Cheers. --Azor (talk). 19:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest leaving out insignificant accusations from this article. Everybody can participate in this discussion as you've may noticed. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You can stop "copy and pasting" support to your peers on the TP by now. This convo is already over, buddy. --Azor (talk). 22:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to restore this useless conversation, I was responding to you. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSIONS. It would be best to refrain from making such repetitive and incorrect claims. Botushali (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't take tips from editors like you. We can precede to end this convo now. --Azor (talk). 00:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rude much? 2600:8801:222:C600:7470:94C0:CB05:7D1C (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@AzorzaI I disagree with the removal of noble family names which are connected to the battle. All noblemen who took part should be mentioned. Durraz0 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Durraz0 The wording of the sentence mentions the other Albanian houses explicitly participated in the battle - that is simply not correct and has no concensus among scholars. Only Andrea has consensus (is confirmed), the rest are suggested. Many others are suggested as well, for example John of Palisna. If all suggested noblemen should be added in your opinion, then why do you seem to only be are focused on the suggested Albanian ones? Perhaps you have something to confess?

I highly recommend you revert your edit. The removal of your edit is necessarily because it violates:

Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. --Azor (talk). 22:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I made it clear that all noblemen who took part should be mentioned. Durraz0 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 Why should they all be mentioned in the lead, and why do you think it doesn't violate the reference on green? I suggest you stop WP:STONEWALLING and start discussing more. That is an ongoing issue with you. --Azor (talk). 22:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Because people who participated in the battle should be. what you are suggesting is conflicting with what you are doing. you claimed that only completely confirmed people should be mentioned in the lead, yet you removed Muzaka who died there and Andrea who you say is confirmed. My argument for opposing your removal of all Albanian nobles from the lead is not stonewalling. Durraz0 (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 "should be" - according to who? yourself?

How can you not have issues with adding non-confirmed participants with no consensus on the lead? ESPECIALLY when the current sentence on the lead explicitly says they participated? --Azor (talk). 22:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all you are the one who removed them. you also removed people who are confirmed to have been there. my opinion is that the people who were suggested to be here should be there. Durraz0 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 The only one I removed from the lead who are confirmed participant is Muzaka, only because the other non-Serbs who participated has had no such specific mentions. While I do not have issues with Muzaka being added to the lead, the rest of the Albanian houses have absolutely no place in the lead - especially not with the current wording which explicitly says they participated. It violates NPOV and adds attention to a controversial and very small portion of the article overall.

My attempt to reach conensus was to let "Albanians" (plural) stay, despite there being no consensus among scholars about more than one Albanian participating.

And your only argument in all of this is - "it should be there". --Azor (talk). 17:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Us there anyone who denies Gropa and Jonima being present? that is not true, the other non serbs are mentioned in this article such as the contingent under vlatko vukovic. my argument is that the commanders who are mentioned as being the the battle should be in the lead because they were there. you removed all mentions of albanain commanders even the ones who you agree were there. Durraz0 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 There is nothing that indicates that a source has to cancel out another in order to classify it as reliable. But having 1-2 sources that imply something 50 other sources don't does go against reliability.

Why do you think that adding those suggested/non-confirmed participants on the lead does not break this guideline?: Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section --Azor (talk). 17:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not what i am saying. I am asking if you have any source claiming that the participation of jonima and gropa is false, if not then all sources we have regarding them and the battle of kosovo claim the participated. an actual non confirmed participant would be gjergj/durad balsha/balsic. the first ottoman sources claim he was a participant of the battle, however this is denied by modern most sources as he was a fierce rival of king tvrtkvo and was most likely in ulcinj at the time of the battle. and as such, he is not included in the lead nor in the infobox. Durraz0 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 Again, I do not need to check for a source to disprove yours. Not one single guideline on reliability on Wikipedia says that is needed. I recommend you start answering my question of why you don't think your edit violates the Wikipedia guideline in NPOV. Because currently, you have avoided to do so. --Azor (talk). 17:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Eh yes, if you claim something, you need a source to back it up. Durraz0 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 You're pushing very hard on stonewalling. I have asked you many times to give specific reasons as to why you disagree it violates the NPOV lead guideline, and your continuous response are "I think it should be there". This is the last time I ask you to give a proper response. --Azor (talk). 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Because you are the one that has to prove it is a less important controversy. you are simply saying it is without showing any bibliography for it even being controversial. you also removed all mentions of albanian lords by name, not just the ones you claim without proof being contested. Durraz0 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Less important: The suggested participation of other Albanians houses, except Muzaka who has consensus among scholars to have participated and fell in battle, is a of low overall importance to the article's topic. This battle is between Serbs (+ a Christian coalition) vs Ottomans. NOT Serbs and Albanians vs Ottomans.
2. Controversy: Suggested means something is unclear of actually happening - hence an example of controversial topic.

Both these two reasons makes it a less important controversy which has no place in the lead. The article's body will and does reflect on that issue. If it is a bit more clear to you now @Durraz0, please precede to answer the question regarding the NPOV guideline. --Azor (talk). 20:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Andrea Muzaka died 7 years before this battle. it is teodor muzaka who fought here. the sources do not state "may have participated" but state explicitly that they did participate. you are coming up with your own personal opinions which you fail to provide any WP:RS evidence for. And the reasons for your removal of Muzaka is still not clear. Durraz0 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 Do you know what consensus means and why that is important for the purpose of reliability? Do you not see that consensus among scholars is the reason why Andrea is considered a participant, while the others which lacks consensus are considered suggested participant? --Azor (talk). 20:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources do not suggest him as a participant, they claim he was one, furthermore the sources do not state it as a battle off Serbs (+ a Christian coalition) vs Ottomans. it says "But in spite of this a large coalition army led by Serbian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Bosnian and Albanian nobles gathered on the wide plain of Kosovo to confront the Ottoman army. Albanian princes were at that time close allies of the Serbs, the result of their shared desire to oppose the Ottomans. In many districts the Slavonic and Albanian elements existed side-by-side, and numerous examples are known of close economic and political ties between Serbs and Albanians during the medieval period". and you once again have not provided a reason for you removal of muzaka. Durraz0 (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The stonewalling and cherry picking of citations makes finding solution impossible, and this TP proves that. This convo is over and it will be further investigated.

And,

What's even more interesting is that you still, after all this, have showed absolutely zero interest in promoting suggested non-Albanian participants in the lead. Maybe it's time you put in the work to fulfill your opinion "that all suggested participants should be mentioned"? Or else you might want to confess that you're:

• Manipulating or cherry picking what sources say for content to promote or spread a certain national or historical narrative(Wikipedia:Nationalist editing)

--Azor (talk). 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not cherry picking neither manipulating sources. I am quoting

What's even more interesting is that you still, after all this, have showed absolutely zero interest in promoting suggested non-Albanian participants in the lead. I literally said I do support it

you said

Many others are suggested as well, for example John of Palisna. If all suggested noblemen should be added in your opinion, then why do you seem to only be are focused on the suggested Albanian ones? Perhaps you have something to confess?

I replied with

I made it clear that all noblemen who took part should be mentioned.

you acknowledged my reply

Why should they all be mentioned in the lead

And again, how does you reasoning explain your removal of muzaka? Durraz0 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 You think they should be explicitly mentioned as participants in the lead. I do not think they should due to various reasons listed above, such as there being no consensus among scholars about their participation and its effect on undue WP:WEIGHT on the lead. I now added "and possibly others" instead. --Azor (talk). 15:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources explicitly say that Jonima, Gropa and Muzaka fought, not that Jonima and Gropa are suggested but we know Muzaka fought. the others who are Albanian aristocrats suggested are people like Balsic/Balsha who were probably not even present. the sources are clear on this, they are not putting Jonima and Gropa as a possibility but explicitly say they partook in the battle. there would have to be scholars who disagree with Jonima and Gropas participation to make a claim that there is no consensus among scholars. Durraz0 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

They are not considered suggested because 1-2 sources calls them "suggested" or not. They are only considered suggested because there are only 1-2 sources which mention them, out of dozens sources on the battle.There are no sources who say "Muzaka did not participate" either. Does that mean there are no consensus that Muzaka did participate? No. There are conensus because many of those dozens sources mention Muzaka. --Azor (talk). 15:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not how wikipedia works. as per WP:VOICE, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.. It is not on my end to find "more sources". your personal opinion about there not being enough sources has no place in the discussion. since sources state it as a fact, it will be treated like such in wiki voice. Durraz0 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 What do you mean by "that's not how Wikipedia works"? That's exactly how Wikipedia works.

If you have a source that says the world will end tomorrow, while no other available sources mention anything about it, it is your job to find more sources which supports the world ending tomorrow. If you don't, it will be considered a controversial opinion. The same goes here.

Besides, adding all suggested participants on the lead would mean adding others than those you just added, including John of Palisna. This adds the controversial aspects of lower importance on the lead, which goes against Wikipedia guidelines. Adding "and possibly others" is a fair proposal, in which the article's body will go in depth to that statement. I think it's time you attempt to become a bit reasonable here. --Azor (talk). 23:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Until you find some source contesting Jonima and Gropa or referring to them as suggested, I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Durraz0 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The importance of the battle of Kosovo to Serb history and national identity

"Even though in most of the 19th century it didn't carry its later importance in Serbian public discourse, as the Principality of Serbia saw the region of Bosnia as its core - not Kosovo"

That statement has no place in this article. One, it is unsourced. Two, what's the relevancy of adding such a controversial statement in the lead of this battle? Three, it seems like a desperate attempt to undermine the value this battle has for the respective ethnic group. --Azor (talk). 17:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not "unsourced", it is well-sourced. And it is not a "controversial" statement, unless you provide a RS that says the Principality of Serbia did not see Bosnia rather than Kosovo as Serbia's core area. The Battle of Kosovo narrative gained its current importance in Serb myth narratives in the 19th century, not before as some fringe nationalists claim. Why should the lede not highlight that? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 If it's well-sourced as you claim it to be, then please precede to provide direct citations so it can be reviewed. --Azor (talk). 19:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not unsourced, but it is definitely WP:UNDUE weight, especially for the lede of the article. Khirurg (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It is as due as the statement that The battle entered Serbian mythology and became a force of historical, political, military and artistic inspiration to date. This sentence has to do with the historicity of the battle in modern narratives. If modern narratives aren't discussed in the introduction, then this sentence might be undue, but if they are discussed then readers need to be informed how and why these narratives came to be. The reality is that the careful reader who examines Serbian folklore will not find any special significance for the Battle of Kosovo until a certain period. It is only after this peculiar era that this event becomes important in Serbian (nationalist) narratives which were disseminated via educational institutions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In modern history, the Serbian Orthodox Church and other Serbian modern political entities has used the Kosovo Myth to form a political agenda in the past, but none of the sources can disclose the importance it had for the Serbian people and culture prior to 19th century. The mythologization of the battle occurred shortly after the event, and many sources will explain the Kosovo myth as a historical and cultural process ever since the battle itself. The period between 14th to 18th century have preserved oral narration of the Kosovo Battle, such as chronicles, genealogies, annals, religious cult texts and travellers tales. One of the earliest records are Narration about Prince Lazar (1390–1396) and Encomium of Prince Lazar (1349–1405). There are dozens of examples of epic poems, stories, miniatures, records and artforms in all age periods since the battle itself to modern ages - both Serbian and non-Serbian ones.

While there is no doubt Kosovo Myth has had a political use in modern times, that is absolutely not a reason to undermine all the historical and cultural value it had prior to those times. The current controversial statement has no place in the lead of the article. It should rather be put in the article's body where it can be discussed. --Azor (talk). 01:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Correct. You have shown that the Battle was important before the 19th century as well. In particular, whether the Principality of Serbia saw Bosnia and not Kosovo as it's core is way out of place in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

AzorzaI wrote that The Battle of Kosovo is particularly important to Serbian history, tradition and national identity but this isn't historically accurate. The Battle of Kosovo was not an important narrative but became a significant collective narrative for the emerging Serbian nation and was standardized in the 19th century. This part of the lead explains how/why/when this occurred. For Serbs who lived in earlier period the battle of Kosovo had a very different meaning and was no more significant than many other events.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"No more significant than many other events", yet no other battle (or possibly any other event for that matter) in Serbian history has had that huge influence in Serb culture. Your opinion that this battle "was not an important narrative" is in contrast to all the various examples of records, epic poems, stories and other artforms created way before 19th century in light of this battle. The modern political concept of this battle is only one part of the narrative - not the entire narrative which your statement on the lead currently falsely seem to portray it as. --Azor (talk). 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add a sentence on pre-19th century folk traditions to the lede. Its absence does not mean the lede should not make it clear that in the 19th century the myth was given another degree of importance. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion of how/why/when the region of Kosovo became important for Serbian cultural history has no place in the lead. Yes, the paragraph does lack reflection, but it is the statement of whether the Principality of Serbia saw Bosnia, and not Kosovo, as it's core which makes it lack relevancy/NPOV to stay in the lead. Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. Which region Principality of Serbia did/did not consider its core does not shape the battle's already-importance to the many hundred of years of cultural history. --Azor (talk). 00:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 Stop stonewalling by refusing to communicate. Your was advise is to further reflect a non-relevant and less important controversy. Instead, precede to explain the relevance of how the opinion of Principality of Serbia shape the importance this battle had for Serbian cultural heritage. --Azor (talk). 20:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, stop accusing people of "stone walling". Especially when they have way more Wiki experience than you have and know things better. Repeatedly accusing in content disputes is considered a breach of WP:NPA. If the lede should mention the importance it has in Serb national narratives, then the lede should make it clear that the narrative was not always as important as it was from the 19th century and later. Otherwise the lede becomes misleading. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 This is a case of post hoc fallacy, in which you argue that the statement of Princiaplity of Serbia on the Kosovo region is connected to its opinion on the Kosovo Myth. The author only argues that the modern version of the Battle of Kosovo began to form in the 17th century. --Azor (talk). 20:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Griboski I see you have previously contributed on this article. If you have time to provide an opinion on this discussion, it would be appreciated. It revolves around a new statement on the lead: Even though in most of the 19th century it didn't carry its later importance in Serbian public discourse, as the Principality of Serbia saw the region of Bosnia as its core - not Kosovo --Azor (talk). 21:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources do talk about how the battle/Kosovo myth gained a different meaning and importance in the 19th century. However, I do tend to agree that what territory the Principality of Serbia saw as its core seems undue for the lead in this article. --Griboski (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now added a (possible) solution. --Azor (talk). 22:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Griboski I agree with a big part of your solution. But I can see you let the statement about which area Principality of Serbia considered its core stay. Not only does the statement itself seem to be of overall low importance for the lead, it also pushes towards another topic of even higher controversy - the alleged importance Kosovo has for Serb history and nation.

"The Kosovo Myth had in 19th century political influence in Serbian expansionism" or something similar would be way more neutral and less conflicting. --Azor (talk). 00:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I only added from the body as there wasn't consensus on that yet. Keep in mind, the lead should be a summary of the body.

I think that something like: "The Kosovo Myth acquired new meanings and importance during the rise of Serbian nationalism in the 19th century as the Serbian state sought to expand. In modern discourse, the battle would come to be seen as integral to Serbian history, tradition and national identity"" would be a good summary (of the second paragraph of the legacy section). --Griboski (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Griboski I do not think anyone explicitly argued to keep the statement about which area Principality of Serbia considered its core, but rather some editors wanting a general introduction to how the modern narrative of Kosovo myth came to be. I propose you add the new suggestion to the lead, it is a good summary of NPOV. Most importantly, it doesn't unnecessary light up controversies of low relevance on the lead. --Azor (talk). 01:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Griboski: I changed it too The mythologization of the battle and writings began shortly after the event, though the legend was not fully formed immediately after the battle but evolved from different originators into various versions. In Serbian folklore, the Kosovo Myth acquired new meanings and importance during the rise of Serbian nationalism in the 19th century as the Serbian state sought to expand towards Kosovo. In modern discourse, the battle would come to be seen as integral to Serbian history, tradition and national identity. It covers all talkpage comments without being too specific.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No real improvement, but it is fine. Only real difference was you making it more specific by mentioning Kosovo, in which a smaller expansion was now needed. --Azor (talk). 18:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 Revert your last edit. This matter has reached consensus. --Azor (talk). 20:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)