Talk:Battle of Kosovo/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ottoman sources (post-battle)

Modern scholars have found early Ottoman sources regarding this battle to be unreliable. See: Malcolm (1998): "The earliest Ottoman accounts, written in the fifteenth century, do refer to Albanians in Lazar's army; they also list many other ethnic components. (..) Ottoman writers were evidently eager to build up the size and significance of Lazar's army, which they described as vastly outnumbering Murat's, in order to add to the glory of the Turkish victory. (..) These Ottoman claims are not to be trusted". So far, the use of post-battle Ottoman sources are currently found in Di Lellio, Anna (2009), Myftiu, Genc (2000) and Iseni, Bashkim (2008); "Based on Ottoman sources, attributes to the Albanian leaders Balsha, Jonima and Muzaka an organized Albanian contingent as numerous as one-forth of the entire Balkan coalition". The quote has thus been removed. --Azor (talk). 23:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You're using Malcolm's 1998 view to contradict sources from 2009, 2000, and 2008? Those all are opinions and every single one should be represented and not removed. Unbelievable. [1] This also was not brought up anywhere here but let's focus on this issue right now. AlexBachmann (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

We cite reliable information on Wikipedia. The information relying on early Ottoman claims, which aimed to highlight their victory, is not considered reliable. --Azor (talk). 08:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you give me the page regarding Malcolm 1998? AlexBachmann (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What Azor has done here is take an entire passage and cut out swathes of text to put certain lines together in a quote so that they may support their interpretation. All of the lines should be included here to provide context. Malcom (1998) talks about certain sources, but the particular sources he discusses are not listed. This removal should be undone, it is a removal of cited information from recent years based on a source in 1998 which alludes to certain Ottoman sources, but which sources in particular we don’t know. Botushali (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are listed. Early Ottoman sources detailing the composition of Lazar's army draw from two primary accounts; ".. one that 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)." The first one is the relevant one to this particular discussion and is the one used among these few scholars. Regardless, both of the early Ottoman accounts unevenly emphasize up the Serbian army in favor of the Ottoman victory, rendering them both unreliable. As far as I can tell, Malcolm don't seem to question the reliability of the Ottoman accounts related to strategy, troop deployment etc.. though. --Azor (talk). 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

How exactly do you know which source the authors of the other works are using and how do you know it pertains to the same one that Malcolm is discussing? With all due respect, these are all just your personal assumptions and WP:OR as to who is using what, and unless it can be proven that all of these authors are discussing the same exact sources then this discussion here cannot go anywhere. Botushali (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Ottoman sources that exist are, according to Malcolm, those of the two primary accounts (as I explained) and earlier versions written by Ottoman historican Nesri. The earliest Ottoman accounts, written in the fifteenth century, do refer to Albanians in Lazar's army; they also list many other ethnic components (..) Nesri, synthesizing several earlier versions, includes all of the above. It means that all the early Ottoman claims are really just related to the same content and unreliability. For example when Nesri claim Balsha participated, Malcolm wirtes "the only basis for this claim is the account of the early Ottoman historian Nesri" and later calls it unreliable. When these few scholars wrote Balsha participated and, at the same time, wrote a quarter of Lazar's army was Albanian, they really just used the same Ottoman sources (that being either the two accounts and/or Nesri's work); "Based on Ottoman sources, attributes to the Albanian leaders Balsha, Jonima and Muzaka an organized Albanian contingent as numerous as one-forth of the entire Balkan coalition". Hope that cleared it up. --Azor (talk). 00:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you don’t understand what I mean - how do you know which particular sources are used by the other scholars? Furthermore, a source from the 90’s cannot refute sources from recent years, especially in regards to how many Albanians there were in the army. Malcolm doesn’t mention anything as unreliable regarding this matter. He talks about the size of the army being inflated, not how much of the army was Albanian being unreliable or something along those lines.

Either way, if all credible scholarly views are meant to be represented to the point that even Djokić‘s fringe claim is still on the article, then these should stay. If these are to be removed, then so should Djokić, as plenty of scholarly sources preceding him have been very clear about the recorded presence of non-Serbs in the Christian coalition. Otherwise, the passage in question should remain. Botushali (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Read the source by Malcolm more carefully, Botushali. Upon examining the Ottoman sources discussed by Malcolm, it becomes evident that these scholars draw from Nesri's work, as proven by references to Balsha and to one of the Ottoman accounts (though not both, as the second primarily extends to other European ethnic groups). Additionally, the sole evidence of Albanian participation comes from the Muzaka chronicle, not any Ottoman work. It's essential to note that Ottoman writers had motives, and much of their work has already been discredited.They are per WP:QUESTIONABLE a breach of RS. --Azor (talk). 08:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Buddy, this is all WP:OR. You have yet to prove which source uses which contemporary Ottoman author. You can’t make assumptions and guesses based on Malcolm’s discussions of a select few sources. Even then, Malcolm does not comment on the troop composition, he comments on the size of the armies. Your grounds for removal don’t really make sense here - why you can selectively support the inclusion of a fringe excerpt whilst advocating for the removal of multiple sources discussing the same thing makes no sense, particularly when Malcolm does not refute those sources and you are trying to use him as evidence. Botushali (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Malcolm refute the two Ottoman accounts based on Neşri's work. The claims are solely found in Nesri's work, as explained by Malcolm. While it's not necessary to cast doubt on the overall reliability of those specific sources, overloading this article with a bunch of Ottoman claims written with clear motives of exaggerating their success in the Balkans is a clear breach of WP:QUESTIONABLE.

And for God's sake, don't drag the discussion of Djokic's source over here, there are a handful of editors disagreeing with its alleged breach of WP:FRINGE. --Azor (talk). 10:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If that really is Malcolm's view, why should other sources be excluded? If there is a large scholarly census, we could talk about that (WP:UNDUE), but this is going nowhere with one source that is older than all of those mentioned above. Perhaps one could argue on grounds of WP:AGEMATTERS if that were so, but it's time to face reality.

As I said, every opinion will be represented. If there is a large consensus challenging the authenticity, you can add that to the article. Otherwise, this isn't going anywhere. Apart from that the original quote was "It has been claimed". The wording is perfectly appropriate. AlexBachmann (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand what I am saying. Malcolm does not refute the sources from recent years that you removed earlier, nor does he refute their content. If you think they are unreliable, then I’ll direct you to RSN, just as I have been directed to an RSN for Djokić.

It is indeed necessary to bring up Djokić because of your inconsistency in the way you argue and what you argue for on this TP. It indicates non-neutral editing. Botushali (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't cite unreliable citations on Wikipedia for the purpose of "presenting different opinions". These sources don't even have an opinion on the Ottoman sources, they simply just refer to them. Noel Malcolm is one of the more acknowledged scholars on this topic, so opening up a RSN for this would be ridiculous. I highly doubt any neutral and experienced editor would disagree with Malcolm's standpoint on these overall early Ottoman accounts. These Ottoman accounts exaggerate Lazar's army with many different claims, so should we explode the article with those other claims too? Editors should try to improve an article by looking for the most reliable sources on the topic, not spend their time arguing to keep the most unreliable citations of them all. Get a grip on yourself, both of you. --Azor (talk). 20:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Before I continue, I want to remind you of WP:CIVIL, comments like Get a grip on yourself... are extremely unnecessary and unwarranted and worthy of admin attention if they continue.

Noel Malcolm says absolutely nothing about the reliability of the claims on how much of the coalition was Albanian. I have the book. To say Malcolm is countering sources that were made in the following two decades after he published his book is just incorrect. You aren't even aware of which particular contemporary Ottoman sources are actually used by the 21st century sources you removed. Malcolm makes no comment on how many Albanians were present in regards to quantitative figures. Your issue is with source reliability, so then open up an RSN for each of the sources you seek to remove.

You are using your own personal interpretations of Malcolm's work and then deriving abstract opinions on all sources based on the work of one author which may or may not even comment on the content of the aforementioned sources. Botushali (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The quotes I have showed should be more than enough evidence to comprehend the unreliability of these Ottoman accounts and the claims made by them. We don't gamble with unreliability on Wikipedia. If content has showed signs of being unreliable, you remove them and find reliable ones. You refusing to listen is not a reason to open up a RSN. --Azor (talk). 07:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Excellent points made by Botushali, you removed the section and you, evidently, did not convince us. The only possibility for this to be excluded is to start a RSN, as suggested by Botushali. Botushali's behavior absolutely does not go into WP:HUH?, he is responding to your arguments with counter-arguments. Since when was that prohibited here? Also, Maleschreiber has made an additional point at the bottom. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ottoman accounts unevenly emphasize up the Serbian army in favor of the Ottoman victory: In what way does a higher percentage of Albanians in the army "emphasize [...] in favor of the Ottoman victory?" AlexBachmann (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems like presenting the battle as "Europe vs Ottomans" rather than "Serbs vs Ottomans" could enhance the perception of Ottoman success in the Balkans. These early Ottoman accounts also elevate the roles of various ethnic groups within Lazar's army. But that's a good question, I do advise you to read the source more closely, doing so might provide you with a clearer perspective. --Azor (talk). 23:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I will strongly advise you to read WP:CIVIL more closely, otherwise this discussion will proceed at the WP:ANI. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you on about? Why should I read that? --Azor (talk). 00:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Di Lellio is RS and can't be removed based on arguments about politics or statements that her work is "the most unreliable work in the entire bibliography". Her work can be compared and contrasted with other sources but in terms of WP:RS, Di Lellio is a far more reliable than most of Balkan authors who have written about this subject. If Azor disputes Di Lellio's reliability, they should file a discussion at RSN.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  The "work" I was referring to at the edit summary is not Di Lellio's work, but the Ottoman accounts (as explained by the author Malcolm). As I have earlier stated, I don't see any issue that Di Lellio's work in general is being used in this article. However, the specific quote that she explicitly says is based on Ottoman accounts is 100% debunked by modern scholars. Di Lellio's work is being used in other parts of this article, I have never once removed those or implied they should be. --Azor (talk). 09:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CONTEXTMATTERS "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content". The statement drawn from the Ottoman accounts are not reliable, as explained by other modern scholars, whether or not you consider the author to be overall reliable. Issue lies in the statement, not the author. --Azor (talk). 09:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Modern scholars from 1998 who may or may not be referring to the same sources used by later scholars? Not a valid reason whatsoever, you have done WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH as Malcolm does not discuss Di Lellio or any of the other sources you have tried to remove. He refers to Ottoman sources, but you don’t even know which sources Di Lellio or the other authors are referring to in their statements, nor are you able to claim that Di Lellio and the other authors actually reviewed the sources and took only what they thought is reliable. There is no reason for their removal. You can proceed with an RSN.

  Issue lies in the statement, not the author… and However, the specific quote that she explicitly says… is 100% debunked by modern scholars… are the exact same arguments I brought up for Djokic, only for you to ignore or dismiss them in this very TP. You cannot selectively choose your arguments based on the content you prefer, you should be consistent, neutral and unbiased throughout. If Djokic remains on this article, then so should these sources, especially since the case for these lines being debunked is much weaker than the case for Djokic being debunked. If you want to remove them, take it to an RSN, just as I was advised to do for Djokic. Botushali (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the use of Ottoman sources in this article, the current version will ensure WP:CONTEXTMATTER is respected until a possible RSN is submitted. --Azor (talk). 17:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Azor. Issue is, Malcolm does not refer to the Ottoman sources exclusively in the context of the Albanian troop composition - he refers to it in the context of the Christian Coalition’s composition in general. If you want to ensure that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is followed, then we should keep it at the top of Army composition. Botushali (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point. There is no reason why the criticism of Ottoman sources should only be exclusively applied to certain Ottoman-influenced content. A bigger part of the section is derived from Ottoman authors than I first anticipated, so I have opened up a new subtitle. --Azor (talk). 19:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Army composition

There has been some discussion revolving where the criticism of those Ottoman sources should be applied. By judging the section, it is quite clear that a significant part of the section is directly or indirectly derived from Mehmed Neşri's work, supported by the quote "Ottoman historian Mehmed Neşri who authored the first detailed report in Ottoman historiography about the battle would become the major resource for subsequent descriptions of the battle, not only in the Ottoman world but in Western Europe as well" (Emmanuel, 1991). I have put in some time to separate the content it concerns and refer to the criticism by modern scholars, per WP:CONTEXTMATTER. I have not removed any citations and some of the changes includes:

• A big portion of Nesri's work includes the exaggeration of Lazar's support from European people; ".. the broader of these (Ottoman) accounts simply says that Lazar drew his forces from ‘all those that live in the West'. The scholars view of the broader European participation in Lazar's army is therefore linked to the criticism of the claims derived from Ottoman work.

• The quote: " Based on Ottomans sources, it is also claimed that the Albanians accounted for around a quarter of the total number of troops in Lazar's coalition, primarily under the command of Dhimitër Jonima, Đurađ II Balšić and Teodor II " and the further mentions of Jonima and Balsić has been put in the new subtitle. That has not been done explicitly for Teodor II per Malcolms elaboration: There is one valuable piece of evidence that Albanians did take part: an early-16th-century family history of an Albanian noble family, the Muzaka, 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 of the other details in this memoir are verifiably accurate, so this claim may well be trustworthy too. Malcolm descriptive work on the only evidence of Albanian participation clearly separates Teodor's participation from the Ottoman sources.

--Azor (talk). 19:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Why did you remove Dhimiter Jonima; solely relying on Malcolm? Nobody's desputing that he is an excellent RS, you can't just remove WP:STABLE sourced content and replacing all sources with Malcolm? In what world are we living in? Since when does one source justify the removal of, wait, let me count, 8 sources? That's a new record. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Jonima's role, as well as Balšić, is explained under the Ottoman accounts subtitle. The sources you are worried about are still there. --Azor (talk). 21:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I did not notice that. I would add "together with 'other Albanian lords' (as Malcolm states) to Malcolm's quote. Then, it would be fine for me personally. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn't notice, I added it now. --Azor (talk). 14:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Recent changes includes:

• Change of infobox style by creating lineups. It serves to hopefully help the readers get a better overview of the Ottoman and Serbian leaders role in the battle, thus why I added the "right- and leftwing" part.
• ''Upgraded'' the Belligerent section from "Supporters" of Moravian Serbia/Ottoman Empire to "Formal alliances" with Moravian Serbia/Ottoman Empire. The issue with "Supporters" is that it creates the room to include every single state of alleged origins of participants, which only serves to bombard the reader with tons of information. The content has been expanded on the "Allied contingents".

--Azor (talk). 20:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Azor, I had previously decided to just let it go and didn’t contest your recent changes, but what you’re doing now is trying to mask your removal of those states from the infobox under “Upgrading the Belligerents section”. I am going to revert you, because I do not agree with that change and do not think it clears anything up. You have removed the explicit mentioning of certain states without consensus being fully aware that you’ve encountered much resistance in doing so in the past.

Furthermore, in regards to the change of infobox style you have put I place, I am pretty certain it’s not protocol according to Template:INFOBOX. Botushali (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are truly editing in good faith, which I would assume you are, please precede to answer this question:

- If the state of origins of ethnic groups in Lazar's army automatically means the entire state participated, would that mean so for all proposed lords from various ethnic groups in Lazars army?:

• Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526)
• Tsardom of Vidin
• Croatian union with Hungary
• Wallachia
• Kingdom of Germany
• .... and so on

Should we include all those medieval European states in 'Belligerents'? And do you not see how your revert is, in fact, extremely disrupting for this article by including cherry picked belligerents? --Azor (talk). 09:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright Azor, WP:BLUESKY is relevant here.

First off, what you are doing here is mis-representing my arguments. I am not saying that the state of origins of ethnic groups in Lazar's army automatically means the entire state participated - in fact, I think that is ridiculous and a gross mischaracterisation of what I am trying to discuss. Don't put words in my mouth to try and make your arguments valid, because they're not.

The reality is that the Albanian participants in the battle were not all regular foot soldiers - Muzaka and Jonima were both leaders of their respective principalities (Principality of Muzaka and Principality of Jonima) and were also the leaders of the Albanian forces in the battle (as discussed by the extensive amount of WP:RS bibliography on the article). If the leader of a medieval state participated in a battle and brought units of his countrymen to fight alongside him, then the sky is blue; his principality (which he rules and leads) is clearly a belligerent. What you are trying to do here is similar to insinuating that even though Lazar led the Christian coalition in the battle, Moravian Serbia was not actually a belligerent. There is no sense in that. Botushali (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly the same case for Hungarians, Croatian etc. Certain sources mention lords from these areas who brought men with them, which were under overall command of Vukovic (just like with the Albanian lords). What you are trying to do now is look for the smallest details in order to justify cherry picking and its very little convincing.

And you cannot compare it to Moravian Serbia. All RS actually explains the alliance formed among the three Moravian Serbia, District of Brankovic and Kingdom of Bosnia. That is not the case of any other belligerent. --Azor (talk). 09:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot cherry-pick over a dozen sources. That’s not how WP:CHERRYPICK works. None of those ethnicities you mentioned consisted of a unit led by a figure who was genuinely the ruler of a certain political state or entity, it’s really not the same thing. We’ve had this same conversation over and over again. Stop beating the dead horse, there is no consensus and no legitimate reason for your changes. Reliable sources disagree with your points (over a dozen of them, actually). Botushali (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You are not serious, are you? Since when did you have to be a leader of a state to be included in the infobox? Vukovic was not a leader of Kingdom of Bosnia either, he was simply a commander. These are all details which do not provide excuses for inclusion/exclusion of belligerents in the infobox. --Azor (talk). 10:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Azor shouldn't move ahead with changes which didn't win a consensus via RfC. The changes which are a matter of dispute right now are quite inconsequential and most readers will not even notice them. If there is no consensus for something it's best for all sides to just let it go either way. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Avoid using the on-going RfC as an excuse to revert other changes to this article. The creation of a subtitle for the Ottoman accounts is not dependent on the result of the RfC nor does it have anything to do with it, it was done to uphold WP:CONTEXTMATTER. If you have an issue with an edit, comment on the edit itself. Simply categorizing it as a "disputable change" to further excuse a revert is not helpful. --Azor (talk). 09:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your edits did not uphold WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; instead, it suggests that the context of Ottoman sources matters only in relation to the participation of the Albanians. That's simply incorrect, and your edits were an underhanded attempt to dismiss all mentioning of Albanian participation as unreliable. No consensus and no plausible reason for any of the changes. Botushali (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your choice to cherry pick the Ottoman sources exaggeration of Albanian participation does not mean the modern scholars solely discredit Albanian participation. The context of the Ottoman sources is related to all European ethnic groups in Lazar's army. Read the paragraph. --Azor (talk). 09:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  You cannot claim that over a dozen sources stating the same thing is cherry-picking. The claim that modern scholars solely discredit Albanian participation is completely false, as indicated by recent sources on the article.

  The context of the Ottoman sources is related to all European ethnic groups in Lazar's army. Read the paragraph. Great, then don’t try to place it solely in context of non-Serb groups. That’s you dictating your own POV on the article. Stop beating the dead horse and maybe back away from this cyclical set of discussions; I am not obliged to keep responding to you if you keep ignoring factual information and whatever points I bring up even though they’ve been brought up over and over again. Read up on WP:CANTHEARYOU and WP:DISRUPTION. I really don’t feel like engaging in the same conversations again. Botushali (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Read the paragraph again, Botushali. The Ottoman accounts are exaggerating, exactly, non-Serbs in Lazar's army. They also exaggerate the number of Lazar's men, which is exactly explained in the paragraph. --Azor (talk). 11:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• The version of the section has been added back. I have failed to see how the version is contractionary or even dependent to the on-going RfC. As no content has been removed, the subtitle of Ottoman accounts is solely adopted per WP:CONTEXTMATTER. --Azor (talk). 15:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  No consensus to add something that realistically serves no purpose, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is applicable to the whole army, not just non-Serb components. You should refrain from making disruptive edits to the article which have already been contested and opposed. Botushali (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  • "WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is applicable to the whole army, not just non-Serb components."

  Answer: Read the content of the subtitle. The content includes: As an Ottoman Sultan had died in the battle, the size of the Christian army is presented as significantly larger in Ottoman sources. Neşri placed it at around 500,000, double the size of the Ottoman army. That is the entire army.

  • "Realistically serves no purpose".

  Answer: The use of Ottoman accounts is weighted on this article. The subtitle ensures the readers are aware of its context. That is, in fact, something we have to do as editors on Wikipedia. Moreover, has the edit removed any content? No. Removed any sources? No. Is the edit contradicting to the rest of the article? No. Take a look at WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and next time, give policy based reasons for reversion. --Azor (talk). 16:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is no need for the subtitle. The article already makes it clear that Ottoman sources exaggerated certain elements in the first paragraph of the Army Composition section:

  According to historian Noel Malcolm, Ottoman writers were most likely eager to build up the size and significance of Lazar's army, which they described as vastly outnumbering Murat's, in order to add to the glory of the "Turkish victory". Moreover, Malcolm claims that the Ottoman sources lack reliability.

  You really do not need to create a whole new unnecessary subsection that overcomplicates the article. You haven't removed any sources or lines of content, you have strategically placed them and phrased them in certain ways that you see fit according to your own POV, but nobody else does. This is WP:CPP. No consensus, no necessity, no purpose for that subtitle. It is very structured and readable as is. Botushali (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Instances like this make it apparent how limited your knowledge of the sources in this article is, or perhaps how unwilling you are to comprehend them. I have invested a significant amount of time delving into these sources, leading me to the realization of the extent of Ottoman influence present in European works related to this event. The scholars' explanation in the subtitle I added sheds light on the profound Ottoman impact on European work:

  Ottoman historian Mehmed Neşri who authored the first detailed report in Ottoman historiography about the battle would become the major resource for subsequent descriptions of the battle, not only in the Ottoman world but in Western Europe as well

  This influence is undeniably evident in multiple sources within this article. So what is your proposed solution? To label a topic as Ottoman exaggerated, just to consequently utilize these same Ottoman-influenced works elsewhere in the article without later acknowledging the reader? --Azor (talk). 17:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also, your continous argument "it is good as it is" needs more elaboration. Think about that when you write here next time. And if you are to revert, you should provide a solution for the utilization of these same Ottoman-influenced works elsewhere in the article (because for some reason you have an issue with the creation of a subtitle?). --Azor (talk). 17:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Cut the WP:CPP - you know very well that you are changing more of the article than simply adding a new subsection. Re-writing things and crediting them to a single author such as Muzaka's participation (which is stated by multiple sources and not just Malcolm - so who here is actually limited in their knowledge of the sources on this article?), adding the word 'might' when that is not the case etc etc. Stop masking your edits by claiming that you are simply creating a subsection - it is very dishonest.

  To label a topic as Ottoman exaggerated, just to consequently utilize these same Ottoman-influenced works elsewhere in the article without later acknowledging the reader? Yeah - the reader knows to take heed whenever Ottoman sources are mentioned, as they could very well be exaggerated (or in certain cases they are not).

  This influence is undeniably evident in multiple sources within this article. So what is your proposed solution? You do not need a solution to a problem which is non-existent. The article already states how Ottoman accounts may have exaggerated certain figures and elements in the very first paragraph of the Army Composition subsection.

  Stop edit-warring over the same things. I'll remind you that WP:ONUS states The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have not been able to present a solid argument which has convinced a number of editors as to why this subsection should be included, among other points of dispute. Stop engaging in an edit war when the onus is on you to convince your fellow editors (which you have failed to do time and time again) - it is fruitless, unnecessary and counter-productive. Botushali (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  You write extensively, Botushali. However, you don't actually state specific reasons for disagreeing with the implementation of a subtitle. You mention that the subtitle shouldn't be added because you find it unnecessary, but it appears to be solely based on your personal opinion. You're not actively hindering contributions to this article based on any guidelines violations, but rather because it aligns with what you believe is right.

  What aspect of implementing a subtitle do you believe is worth engaging in an edit war over? On a side note, the word 'might' was added because Malcolm doesn't explicitly confirm that Muzaka brought men with him; he suggests it is likely. Familiarizing yourself with the sources would clarify this point. If your concern is specifically about how Muzaka is presented, it would be helpful to express that rather than engaging in an edit war over the creation of a subtitle. I genuinely don't comprehend your reasons for participating in this edit war, and being more specific would help in finding a resolution to the issue. --Azor (talk). 19:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  By examining Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:N and MOS:LAYOUT, the inclusion of the subtitle meets various notability criteria. The content within the subtitle is directly relevant to the corresponding topic and significantly relevant to the article, encompassing two substantial paragraphs that discuss the largest and most influential early sources of information regarding this battle. Consequently, there are no logical reasons to disallow the creation of a subtitle related to this topic. If there are any issues among editors related to the content of the subtitle, that is a separate matter that could be discussed below. Importantly, such issues do not justify the complete removal of any old or new subtitles. --Azor (talk). 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)