Jump to content

Talk:Miloš Obilić

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lead sentence

[edit]

Sigh. I really fail to see what's the big deal here. The current lead sentence reads "Miloš Obilić was a legendary Serbian knight who is reputed to have been in the service of Prince Lazar during the Ottoman invasion of Serbia in the late 14th century". Now, being a knight in someone's service does not seem to be much notable, does it?

Per MOS:FIRST, The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. and, particularly For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence. Obilić is first and foremost remembered and celebrated as the Murad's assassin at the Battle of Kosovo, which I expressed in no uncertain terms as Miloš Obilić was a legendary Serbian knight in the service of Prince Lazar purported to be the assassin of the Ottoman Sultan Murad at the 1389 Battle of Kosovo. So everything is there: legend, Murad, 1389 and Kosovo. Now, Spirit Fox99, can you plainly explain what's "more comprehensive" in the original and which "pertinent" information I erased? Per WP:BOLD, I'm not required to seek consensus prior to editing, and basically reshuffling of two sentences hardly constitutes "drastic changes". No such user (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though the overall context is clearer to the first-time reader by adding the 'Ottoman invasion of Serbia in the 14th century'. It gives a more complete picture of the situation which led to his notable action, and it does so through the simple addition of only one sentence. The lead is supposed to give a quick overview, and I feel as though the original version provided that to better degree. It may seem hypercritical, but I'm putting myself in the shoes of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic or subject at hand. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So find a suitable place to restore the link to History of Ottoman Serbia instead of reverting wholesale. WP:STATUSQUO: If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it. Really, reverting causes conflict and friction. In my opinion, "assassination of ... Ottoman Sultan ... in 1389 battle" provides sufficient context, but even if you reasonably disagree, there's plenty of room to establish it. No such user (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respect edits made in good faith, and make honest efforts to accommodate constructive variations. In this case, I feel that the original version did not need changing, and was well suited for the article. It provided the background context of what made his action so notable. He helped in combating against an expansionist power. It's a large part of his notability, and was nicely summarized through the sentence in question. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to argue against "I like it" arguments, so I'll give up. No such user (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox removed

[edit]

The infobox was recently removed completely from the article. In my opinion, it provides a clear and quick summary of important information. I would like to request its reinstatement. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I removed it, but I'll elaborate: the information it purports to carry is trivial and not useful:
  • It fails to explain that the subject (or what we know about thim) is mythical, and treats him like a real person
  • Birth date was listed as "Unknown" so useless
  • Death date was listed as "15 June 1389", which is unsourced and uncertain (since we don't know he even existed)
  • Death place: Nobody knows what District of Branković was, and that Kosovo Polje was there
  • Occupation: knight. Obvious from the first sentence.
  • Known for: Assassination of Murad I. Also obvious from the first sentence (the one you reverted).
As I said, I'm not against infoboxes in principle, but this one looks very unprofessional. I mean, do what you want, I'm tired of writing paragraphs explaining every little change. No such user (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with the removal of the infobox. Such infoboxes are used for real people, not for ones that were more likely products of folk tales. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What cannot be explained in the infobox is done so throughout the article, with supporting sources. The infobox is useful in its ability to provide a quick summary of information from the article and present it clearly and effectively. It's a key reason why an infobox is used.

There are early accounts, that are referenced in the article, that do describe him as being the assassin. There may be other theories provided, or speculations, but Wikipedia is written based on the general consensus from numerable sources, not just a few. What a reader deduces from them becomes their own individual POV, but that does not expel other credible accounts.

If information is present in the lead or body paragraphs it does not make it useless in the infobox. In fact, most articles have information provided in the infobox that has been presented throughout the article itself. It's just a quick-snap.

The date of death is assumed to be the date of the battle, based on accounts which have him dying on that day.

If 'nobody knows' what something is, it does not make it less helpful as a description. The reader is also provided with supporting links in order to do further research if they wish to do so. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The average reader will be confused by reading the article because it has no clear delimitation between historical events and folk legends.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. It fails to explain that the subject (or what we know about thim) is mythical, and treats him like a real person how do you know he's "mythical", so both Serbian and Ottoman sources talking about the same mythical person? There's a clear difference between legend and myth. 2. Birth date was listed as "Unknown" so useless no its not. 3. Death date was listed as "15 June 1389", which is unsourced and uncertain (since we don't know he even existed) that's the date of the battle and of course he died after assassinating Murad I. 4. Nobody knows what District of Branković was, and that Kosovo Polje was there Really? Perhaps your knowledge is not much, but how doesn't nobody know what District of Branković was? 5. Occupation: knight. Obvious from the first sentence. and? extra information. 5. Known for: Assassination of Murad I. Also obvious from the first sentence (the one you reverted). again, that's what the infoboxes stand for. Beshogur (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As seen above

[edit]

Anna di lellio is not a historian as already proven, also for such big changes, there will be consensus needed. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When exactly was Anna Di Lellio rejected as WP:RS? I can not find anything on the WP:RSN that "rejected" her. actually, we find the opposite; Almost 13 years ago, Di Lellio went to WP:RSN. Here it was concluded De Lellio is WP:RS[1]. so as per the consensus on WP:RSN almost 13 years ago, I will readd the content you removed. To respond to the "not a historian as already proven", i will quote directly from the the WP:RSN conclusion. If two published sources disagree, the neutral approach is to add both statements rather than select one based upon an editor's preference, which graduate degrees the source has. Durraz0 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That conversation seemed to have only one uninvolved editor responding, so hardly a consensus and it was 13 years ago. I think the better question is if she is a reliable source for this topic given that she is not a historian but a sociologist and clearly partisan in her views. I think she is OK to use for non-controversial statements, i.e. Albanians remember him too, but not much else.
The consensus in bibliography is that Miloš Obilić was a Serbian knight. Removing that he was Serbian, adding the Albanian name and creating an equivalence between his prominence in Albanian and Serbian epic folk poetry in the lead due to this one source is creating completely undue weight. --Griboski (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Di lellio's book is WP:EXTRAORDINARY as it goes against the mainstream narrative that Milos Obilic was a Serbian knight. Rewriting the infobox and lead based off of this one article is WP:UNDUE as the contentious text subject to an edit war over the past few days implies that the ethnicity of Milos Obilic is debatable. A debate would imply a vast trove of RS articles pushing a case for each ethnicity, something which does not exist in this case. I do not see why Di lellio's work can't sit in the body of the article but pushing a narrative in the lead and infobox based off of this one book distorts NPOV. ElderZamzam (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't push such major changes as replacing "Serbian knight" with "Legendary knight", or putting the Albanian epic poetry on par with the Serbian one on this specific topic, without reaching a consensus here. And as others have said above, the source you use if far from being WP:RS on this subject. Krisitor (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if there's going to be a debate based on a consensus, the first thing that the article has to mention is that such a person most probably' didn't exist. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and that is why he is presented as a legendary Serbian knight. 163.62.112.177 (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction already states that "it is not certain that Obilić really existed", and I think that's enough. Whether there really was a knight of some kind behind this character is not quite the point, since he really emerges with the advent of Serbian epic poetry. If we change this here, we need to do this for all similar characters, such as Đerzelez Alija or Mustay-Bey of Lika, who all have a semi-historical background. Krisitor (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Griboski@,ElderZamzam, and @Krisitor the consensus that was established on WP:RSN was that both sides have to be included in the article and that De Lillo is WP:RS. Albanian epic poetry does cover him and he is a central figure in the Albanian epic poems about the battle of Kosovo. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for removing sourced content. to reach WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV the Albanian version of this mythical figure has to be included. De Lellio is not the only source in the that talks about the fact that there is an Albanian version of this myth, her book is about the Albanian version of it. you can not say her book is WP:EXTRAORDINARY as there are numerous WP:RS talking about the Albanian version of the myth. her book is dedicated to the Albanian myth. here are some additional WP:RS about the Albanian version.
  • Dynamics of Memory and Identity in Contemporary Europe but in the epic oral tradition that celebrates Millosh Kopiliq as the assassin of the Sultan and as an Albanian.[2]
  • War and Religion: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict [3 Volumes] For Albanians, Murat's assassin—Miloš Obilić—was not Serb but Albanian (Millosh Kopiliq). To them the assassin and the battle highlight Albanian heroism, independence, and its Christian past prior to mass conversion to Islam.[3]
  • Kosovo and Serbia ... has its epic songs that memorialize the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, and identify the killer of the Sultan as the Albanian folk hero Millosh Kopiliqi.46 This version of the battle continues to survive in the memory of local communities.47 ...[4]
  • La question nationale en Europe du Sud-Est Dans la mythologie albanaise , Miloš Obilić est appelé Milosh Kopiliq et est présenté comme un Albanais du Ko- sovo et non comme un Serbe.20 De même le prince Lazar serait un illyrien , donc un non - slave.21 Les chroniqueurs ottomans ...[5]
Durraz0 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElderZamzam Di Lellio is far from extraordinary, she has been cited in several academic works about this myth, such as : Narrating Trauma Ironically, in the Albanian legend the same character, called Millosh Kopiliq, is Albanian (Di Lellio 2009).. Durraz0 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Durraz0:

Di Lellio, Anna. "Chapter 9. THE FIELD OF THE BLACKBIRDS AND THE BATTLE FOR EUROPE". Dynamics of Memory and Identity in Contemporary Europe, edited by Eric Langenbacher, Bill Niven and Ruth Wittlinger, New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2013, pp. 149-165

and other publications certainly represent reliable sources. The argument by Di Lellio isn't an answer to the question "Was Obilic Serbian or Albanian?" because the figure never existed. Di Lellio explains that the figure as a folk story trope exists both in Serbian and Albanian folk poetry, but it acquired a different meaning in the 19th century in Serbia because it was included in the official national(ist) discourse, while in Albanian 19th century discourse it never played any such role.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Griboski@,ElderZamzam, and @Krisitor I apologise that I made such a quick note about discussion, what I meant was that this discussion was lead in archived part of this talk page. What you already correctly noticed is that Anna Di Lellio is a sociologist not a historian, that her book caused lot of controversy with this edition, therefore that it cannot be used to make so many changes especially on the lead of the article. As for the book itself, even she mentions on page 4 that there is no evidence that Milos Obilic was an Albanian knight see page 4 about her opinion [[6]], so those kind of changes based on here edits go on WP:OR, other problem is insertion of other parts of the source which are not complete, Editor inserted that: ...In Albanian he is known as Millosh Kopiliq. Albanian epic poetry is the only epic poetry that preserved the name archaic stem Kopil, which is the name all sources gave to the Sultans assassin prior the invention of the name Obilić in the 18th century by Serbian nationalist historians... which as you can see in Di lellio book is not how it is written, first of all the "arhaic" name in her opinion is not just Kopil but Kobila, Kopiliq, Kobilić, also on page 4. but still this edition in lead is false since we have whole section of explanation how the name was developed, so this goes under WP:UNDUE, as for the sources majority of international sources mention the assassin of Sultan to be a Serb, even in this article, starting from Emmert who says:In time the assassination would become the central act in the evolving record of the Battle of Kosovo. And while the Florentine description of the deed is quite different from later accounts which emerge in both Ottoman and Serbian sources, nevertheless, it provides a contemporary historical foundation for the idea that Murad was killed by a daring Serbian assassin... [[7]], or Luraghi [[8]] who mentions that Milos Obilic was a Serbian Knight who allegedly killed Murad, or even Britannica who in it′s description says Milos Obilic Serbian knight [[9]]. etc. a lot more sources can be easily found. Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Durraz0 Like I said, there wasn't a consensus in that over-decade old thread, but regardless, one biased and fringe viewpoint source can't supersede the vast majority. The article can't treat Obilić as if we don't know whether he was Serbian or Albanian and that his significance in both Albanian and Serbian folk poetry is the same, contrary to the bulk of international bibliography.
As for whether he actually existed or not, that is a matter of debate. Like Krisitor and the IP stated, the article lead refers to him as "legendary" and makes it clear that it is uncertain and that is what sources are saying. That's different from saying that he "most probably didn't exist". Griboski (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theonewithreason you claiming her book has caused controversy because you and involved editors do not like it and there it can not be used is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. furthermore it was agreed that her viewpoint is the be included, the consensus to remove her viewpoint has to be established, not vise versa. I have never stated he was an Albanian knight my edits show that he exists in both Albanian and serbian epic poetry. please stop strawmanning me. sure if you want to include Kobila, Kopiliq, Kobilić, then add it. I will rewrite the name section of this article too actually. @Griboski we are not arguing whether or not this myth was albanian or serbian nor did I ever remove him being Serbian, right now you guys are arguing against including the Albanian myth because you deem RS that was concluded years ago to be RS as unreliable. and against the consensus established on RSN. clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Durraz0 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly throwing WP:IDONTLIKEIT at other editors, claiming Di Lellio is RS because one editor in 2010 stated that she was, and ignoring WP:WEIGHT concerns is not constructive. And your edit clearly removed the fact that he was a Serbian knight from both the short description and lead.1 --Griboski (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There way more than 1 editor who have claimed De Lellio is RS. and the ruling is that she must be included, you are the ones who have to establish consensus for her removal or that she is not WP:RS. Removing ethnic labels like Serbian in the short description is the definition of WP:NPOV. the argument that De Lellio is not RS because I do not like what she graduated is the definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Durraz0 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus is on those wanting to include disputed material. And removing Serbian, when reliable sources nearly unanimously refer to him as a Serbian knight/hero/assassin, is about as POV as it gets. --Griboski (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "removing" Serbian, I am asserting that there are two viewpoints of this myth, calling him "a Serbian legendary knight" is POV, therefor I made it "legendary knight". the consensus was already established and the source has already been deemed reliable and both viewpoints must be included as per the ruling on WP:RSN. Durraz0 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other "viewpoint" is the one put forth by Di Lellio; one vs. the bulk of sources who don't dispute that he was Serbian. That part won't be removed. We're not going to keep going in circles and I won't be repeating myself. You need to achieve consensus for your edits. --Griboski (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other "viewpoint" is the one put forth by Di Lellio, She is one of many highly reputable sources which talk about the fact that this myth also exists among Kosovo Albanians. Too only represent the Serbian version of this myth if violates NPOV. Durraz0 (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Durraz0, @Alltan, @Maleschreiber and related: as others have already said, Ana Di Lellio is a journalist with a background in sociology, not a historian, and certainly not a specialist in epic poetry: she's an amateur at best. While she may be accepted as WP:RS in her own field, she is absolutely not in the context of Balkan epic poetry, and therefore cannot be used in this article, as specified on WP:RS:
The reliability of a source depends on context. 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.
And clearly, Ana Di Lellio is not an appropriate source in the context of the legends regarding Miloš Obilić. To show you just how much she is to be avoided in this case, her statement that the name Obilić is an 18th century invention that two Serbian amateur but influential nationalist historians, Vasilije Petrović and Pavle Julinac, introduced contains three major errors. First, there was no such thing as an "amateur" historian before the 19th century, since History as a science, i.e. with its own methodology that can truly be described as scientific, only emerges in the second half of the 19th century in Europe. Therefore, any scholar who wrote any kind of history before that time is not an amateur per se. Secondly, to call an eighteenth-century Serbian scholar a "nationalist" shows both an obvious bias and an anachronism: nationalism as we understand it today also begins in the 19th century. Finally, it has been proven for some time that Petrović and Julinac are not the ones who introduced the name Obilić, which emerged in the early 18th or even late 17th century. So in this case, the amateur is clearly the obviously pro-Albanian Di Lellio, she is by no means a specialist, and a better source is certainly needed.
Regarding the recently introduced statetement from Albert Lord, it would have been better to mention his original work from 1984, rather than a book about the war in Kosovo, which has nothing to do with epic poetry. I'll update the reference later. Krisitor (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ранко Николић: I agree that this should be reverted to WP:STABLE. I would like to remind everyone that WP:ARBEE applies. Most non-Albanian authors would agree that this is a WP:FRINGE theory rooted in Albanian nationalism, but there are even Albanian scholars who dismiss it, like Arshi Pipa: "In its anti-Yugoslav hysteria dating from Albania's break with Yugoslavia, Albanian Stalinism appropriated the nationalistic thesis that South Slavs borrowed the rhapsodies in question from the Albanians, going so far in this direction as to claim as an Albanian Milos Obilic, the Serbian hero of the battle of Kosova." [10] If reliable sources are used, I don't see why a paragraph outlining the Albanian theory can't be mentioned at some point in the article, but adding the Albanian name to the lead and a paragraph propagating this claim that is of equal length to the one describing the Serbian oral and literary tradition is WP:UNDUE and blatant POV-pushing. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources which discuss Albanian traditions and they should be mentioned in the lead as the lead should summarize the article. I started a new section dedicated to Albanian traditions.Alltan (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ранко Николић di Lellio is not WP:EXTRAORDINARY we have already refuted this, she has been cited by major academic works (see me and @Maleschreiber comments) and the fact it was concluded over 10 years ago that her viewpoint must be included in this article as she is WP:RS. furthermore there is not just "One" source attesting the existence of an Albanian myth. @Amanuensis Balkanicus what is blatant POV pushing is removing the Albanian version of the myth despite it being concluded that the source is reliable because you do not like what the academic graduated in. Durraz0 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The work used screams Albanian POV language. The author is a sociologist and UN worker, not a historian. It is not lead worthy. Other Slavs and nations were also singing about Serbian national heroes, it is nothing new nor special. Find better sources. You do not have consensus. This got me thinking, I have an idea, we can add a separate thread about Serbian traditions here. That makes more sense now. Agreed? Ranko Nikolić (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Di Lellio is WP:RS based on the criteria which this specific policy has set. The statement that the work used screams Albanian POV is not one of them and won't be something which will justify any reverts. @Alltan: It is a positive move forwards that more sources have been added. It is important to always approach these debates based on bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded some parts from Di Lellio (2013).--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is still not reliable on this specific topic, as me and other have explained here. Krisitor (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is not decided by you, but by the relevant policy. Di Lellio, Anna (2013). "The field of the blackbirds and the battle for Europe". In Langenbacher, Eric; Niven, Bill; Wittlinger, Ruth (eds.). Dynamics of Memory and Identity in Contemporary Europe. Berghahn Books. pp. 149–165. ISBN 978-0-85745-577-2. is WP:RS. If you want to contest the source's reliability, then you need to use WP:RSN. But you won't get anywhere at WP:RSN because this is WP:RS. The fact that you disagree with the content of the study doesn't make it any less reliable.--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber I've just removed the tag, since we're discussing the source. The problem is that the author is not a historian nor a specialist of epic poetry, so does not fall in WP:RS in this topic because of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Krisitor (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Di Lellio not being a "specialist of epic poetry" doesn't reduce reliability. She is a sociologist and her work discusses the subject as part of political anthropology, which is the field under which most "epic poetry" is discussed today. By definition, this is WP:RS. You need to add back the quotes from Di Lellio (2013).--Maleschreiber (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is a sociologist and her work discusses the subject as part of political anthropology, which is the field under which most "epic poetry" is discussed today. Not quite, the fields in which epic poetry is mostly discussed are phylology, comparative literature and linguistics. I'll add the source back in since it's the only one now, but I still think we need to find better ones, and I'm sure there are plenty out there, so the tag should be put back too. Krisitor (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add again the De Lillio is considered RS on Wikipedia per WP:RSN, the consensus is on you to establish that she is not RS. Durraz0 (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's more a matter of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS that anything else. Anyway, I had already restored it in the article so there was no need to revert my edits. Krisitor (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you do not decide what is RS or not. it was established that she is RS on the WP:RSN regarding this topic. Durraz0 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to this discussion, it's quite old and didn't lead to any definitive conclusion, because at the time the article was at an early stage. Krisitor (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely reached a conclusion and that conclusion and that conclusion was was If two published sources disagree, the neutral approach is to add both statements rather than select one based upon an editor's preference, which graduate degrees the source has., it is on your end to establish a consensus for the source not being WP:RS. Durraz0 (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last stable

[edit]

I reverted to the last WP:STABLE version. AzorzaI Durraz0 discuss all new changes here. There's no need for rushed edits and edit-warring when there's plenty of room for consensus building.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleschreiber: Ok, I will not do any more edits but AzorzaI needs to do the same. Durraz0 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Durraz0 "I will not do any more edits", yet you literally just reverted my edit now instead of discussing. --Azor (talk). 13:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AzorzaI I reverted the edits you had placed since the stable version without agreement, the ones which we agreed upon, the images, stayed. Durraz0 (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Durraz0 I agreed upon it to avoid edit warring. I do not remove absolutely everything I disagree on, so don't interpret this as me agreeing to the picture itself. I reverted the paragraph which you thought should be displayed in the lead, while letting you remove the Serbian painting from the lead.
As for the paragraph in the lead, please state your reasons for disagreeing with my reasons:
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic (..) and summarize the most important points... By viewing the article, the Albanian epic poem is simply explained in order to go more in depth on the "Oral traditions" and is insignificant overall. --Azor (talk). 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agreed upon it to avoid edit warring. I do not remove absolutely everything I disagree on, so don't interpret this as me agreeing to the picture itself. you are literally contradicting yourself saying that you did agree upon it but also saying you did not. you reverted a paragraph that had been in the article since 6/28/2023 the stable version. I reverted you to the stable version kept the pictures which you had agreed upon here [11]. The Albanian version is an important point. Durraz0 (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Durraz0 No, I'm not contradicting myself. I let you keep the edit regarding the picture to avoid edit warring, while I actually do think your edit was a case of WP:GOODFAITH. The whole point of reaching consensus is to find a middle ground.
Going back the arguments of keeping the paragraph in the lead;
You arguments are: The Albanian version is an important point.
  1. You're not going into depth. Just saying "it's important" doesn't provide any room for discussion.
  2. You're not explaining why you disagree with my reasons. I never once said the Albanian version wasn't important. I'm saying it's insignificant compared the overall content of the article. Hence why I believe it can be mentioned within the lead, but very unnecessary to have paragraph about it in the lead when it is very little talked about in the article overall.
As for the arguments regarding the picture by Nakkaş Osman as lead picture;
The reasons why I think it's harmful is:
Images which are used to illustrate later opinions about a person should be carefully placed in the discussion about those views, lest anyone think the image is an accurate image of the person. from WP:PORTRAIT
The story of Obilić was not popular among the Ottomans in the aftermaths of Battle of Kosovo in 1389, hence why they made that illustration of the moment Ottoman army surrounded him and took his life. The current painting of Aleksandar Dobrić keeps a neutral stance and is therefore suitable as the lead picture. If you see it fitting that the illustration by Osman is added - a solution could be that we add it further down in the article. --Azor (talk). 15:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are contradicting yourself by admitting that you agreed to something but then saying actually you disagree with it. this is the definition of a contradiction. This myth is a part of Albanian epic poetry just like it is a part of Serbian epic poetry. There are several heroes shared by Albanians and Serbs in their epic poetry, such as Arnaut Osman, and in this articles lead it is mentioned as being shared by both groups.
The policy per WP:PORTRAIT is that Near-contemporary depictions of events should be used, the image by Aleksander Dobric on the other hand is a 19th century Romantic nationalistic depiction of it, which is literally against WP:PORTRAIT. Durraz0 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Durraz0 The entire article is, for the most part, based on Serbian epic poetry, culture, stories and sources. The only role the Albanian part has it is that it adds to the in depth in the "Oral traditions". If you believe the story about Miloš Obilić plays an equal role in both traditions, I suggest you improve this article by adding more information from the Albanian tradition, if you believe there is any. As the article stands now, Miloš Obilić potrays an overwhelmingly importance to the Serbian culture. However, as mentioned earlier, I agree the Albanian view should be mentioned in the lead.
As for the illustrations, the policy you are referring to is a general rule. It does not over stand over other rule related to use of portraits, such as the guideline I showed you. --Azor (talk). 15:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, the albanian addition to the article is not just in the in the oral traditions section. it is also prominent in the name as albanians did not have nationalist writers invent a new name like serbs had. therefor albanians actually refer to milos obilic by his archaic stem Kopil to this day unlike serbs who use the name obilic. Albanians also have a separate tradition from Serbs about him and its not merely a translation or an Albanian version of a Serbian myth. furthermore the article for Arnaut Osman also has more from the serbocroatian version than the albanian, however the albanian is still included in the lead equally to serbian and bosnian.
the section you are referring to is the general one. however both sections support using the ottoman miniature instead of an 18th century romantic portrait. Images which are used to illustrate later opinions about a person should be carefully placed in the discussion about those views, lest anyone think the image is an accurate image of the person. Dobric is a 19th century painter, the ottoman miniature was made by the ottoman court and is the oldest depiction I could find. you also completely removed it from the article and claimed you reverted it back to the stable version even though the stable version of 6/28 has the ottoman miniature included. Durraz0 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AzorzaI here regarding the picture. The new one you added is rather graphic and it is of poorer quality, whereas the previous one was more neutral. So I don't see how it's an improvement. WP:PORTRAIT is an advisory essay, it isn't a policy or guideline that we have to strictly adhere to.
I've restored the stable version as per Maleschreiber's reasoning above. --Griboski (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ensuring neutrality in the lead

[edit]

Hi @Ktrimi991. The final sentence of the lead is neither neutral nor effective. Ending with the narrative, "No evidence for this [Serb or Albanian], but for another theory [Hungarian], we have these scholars who support it," lacks effectiveness and neutrality. The only academic consensus regarding the knight's identity, both in terms of ethnicity and name, is that there is no definitive proof for any of it. Therefore, the lead should reflect this consensus and conclude with neutrality, while the body of the article can present and elaborate on the various theories. I find it hard to understand how someone familiar with this page could disagree with that. Azoral (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My original sentence was "There is no evidence that he was a Serb or Albanian, and it has also been suggested that the legend was based on a Hungarian knight", then someone who apparently does not grasp WP:NPOV modified it. As it is just a sentence I decided to let it go, though if you think my original sentence is better, feel free to readd it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you found it more appropriate to revert my edit, which attempts to keep it neutral, but left the one you believe breaches WP:NPOV? While I agree that yours is better, it still follows the same path. There’s also a lack of neutrality in stating, 'No evidence for this, but these scholars has this to say about this other theory: ,' when, at the end of the day, none of these theories have academic consensus - especially for a lead. Azoral (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the third time you block my posts through edit conflicts. When you finish editing twice or thrice your comment, let me know. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistakes, go on. Azoral (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you found it more appropriate to revert my edit, which attempts to keep it neutral, but left the one you believe breaches WP:NPOV? Your wording is even worse, hence the revert. It is not just the identity that is disputed among scholars, but the ethnicity too. The Hungarian theory is a mainstream one, so it needs to be in the lede. If you want to readd your sentence, consider making an RfC. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is confusing for readers and does not adhere to WP:NPOV. A more neutral phrasing would state that there is no historical confirmation or information regarding this person's ethnicity or identity. This should not be a point of contention. Furthermore, refusing to engage in discussion and responding with "go start your RfC and let's see" is not that good. — Sadko (words are wind) 02:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way AzorzaI's wording will get consensus in this thread; hence either they get consensus through an RfC or the sentence will go. It does not matter how much angry editors like the one below resort to reverting to bypass consensus. Regarding your statement that A more neutral phrasing would state that there is no historical confirmation or information regarding this person's ethnicity or identity, sure, I can agree with sth on the lines of "There is no evidence about the knight's ethnicity; theories that the legend was based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian knight have been put forward". The removal of the Hungarian theory is not acceptable and I can't agree on it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Azor's wording is neutral and far clearer. Privileging Malcolm and Hoare in the lede is WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY. "No changes without consensus" is WP:STONEWALL. Khirurg (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus."
Angry words like There is no way AzorzaI's wording will get consensus in this thread have no place in this discussion and can be seen as a refusal to compromise. The perfect example of WP:STONEWALLING. If nothing is known about the knight's true identity, mentions of specific ethnicities are not necessary. Unless of course the goal is to give equal (and undue) weight to minority views, because let's face it, the overwhelming evidence is Milos was Serbian. Khirurg (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands now, this whole sentence seems out of place to me: However, there is no clear evidence regarding the identity of Murad's killer. In my opinion, it would be better to include it at the beginning of the second paragraph, which would read:: Although his original name was Miloš Kobilić, several variants of this name appear in historical sources. Moreover, it is not even clear whether he really existed, as there is no definitive evidence as to the identity of Murad's killer. Krisitor (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to get consensus to remove the Hungarian theory some months ago; not sure why you are on to it again. And the current wording was written by you, did you forget that?
If you now think your wording is out of place, then something we can agree on is "There is no evidence about the knight's origin; theories that the legend was based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian knight have been put forward". Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly did he fail to do that? We are discussing now, fellow editor. Please refrain from presenting the other editor's opinion or intentions as if they are targeting or seeking to remove any mention of a theory about a specific ethnic group from the lede, as that is not the case nor would I support such moves. Krisitor has offered a neutral formulation that avoids giving undue weight. For example, there are groups in Croatia claiming that Obilić was a Croat. Those are not included. However, the majority of scholarly sources and references associate Obilic, whether as a historical figure or no, with Serbia, Serbs, or the Serbian army and traditions. — Sadko (words are wind) 19:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article's history to see what Krisitor did in the past. It does not matter what some people in Croatia say; we are concerned with what theories reputable academics accept as possible.
the majority of scholarly sources and references associate Obilic, whether as a historical figure or no, with Serbia, Serbs, or the Serbian army and traditions. We are not discussing here whether Milos Obilic was a Serb knight in the legend. He certainly was, hence the article presents him as a "legendary Serbian knight". What we are discussing here are the academic theories on the origin of the legend, i.e. who could be Murad's killer who got later named Milos Obilic. In other words, Milos Obilic is a Serb legendary knight, whose legend is based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian real person. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to get consensus to remove the Hungarian theory some months ago; not sure why you are on to it again. And the current wording was written by you, did you forget that? Please remain WP:CIVIL. As for consensus, I'm not sure you're in a position to give lessons.
If you now think your wording is out of place, then something we can agree on is "There is no evidence about the knight's origin; theories that the legend was based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian knight have been put forward" My proposal goes beyond ethnicity: we do not know who killed Murad, it is as simple as that, and that's what Hoare (who is not a specialist of medieval Serbia, but of modern Serbia) suggests when he relates the Hungarian knight theory. Appart from his ethnic affiliation, Murad's killer could have been a knight, a soldier, a nobleman, a peasant, a slave. We just don't know. Krisitor (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in line with WP:Civil. The Hungarian theory is suggested as posssible by Malcolm who did a lot of elaboration on the matter, plus Hoare, Mock etc. You want to remove the Hungarian origin theory, so the lede only says that he was a legendary Serbian knight, without elaborating that the legend could be based on a non-Serb. Nah, it does not fit with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to remove the "Hungarian theory", but I don't think it should appeart in the lead as it is highly speculative. However, the fact that the identity of Murad's killer is not certain should be mentioned, my only suggestion being that the sentence be placed at the beginning of the second paragraph. As for Malcolm, he is no more a specialist of medieval Serbia than Hoare, and his sometimes very convoluted theories do not constitute a consensus of any kind. Krisitor (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't get what some people are trying to achieve here. Somehow, the no consensus argument is not convenient on certain talkpages. Trying to somehow overshadow Albanian traditions by replacing them with "Others" is simply unacceptable - but at least we agree on that. As of now, the Hungarian theory has been completely removed from the lead. Ktrimi's wording There is no evidence about the knight's origin; theories that the legend was based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian knight have been put forward is the best version, even better than the previous one due to the fact that it is in line with the provided sources, while also not violating WP:UNDUE. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's literally a quote in the sources making precisely the claim that you are editing out, namely "In truth, no historical evidence confirms Kopiliq's Albanian origin, but no evidence confirms Obilić's Serbian origin either". It is followed up by another two sources by Malcolm and Hoare which imply the same thing, by suggesting that he might have been Hungarian. What's the point of these weird edits? Uniacademic (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Hoare nor Malcolm support the Hungarian origin theory; they are merely speculating. The lead already establishes that: 1) the person "Milos Obilic" might never have existed, and 2) there is no evidence identifying Murad's killer. This makes it clear to readers that there are significant uncertainties surrounding the historical facts of this legendary knight. I would have understood this attempt to keep "Hungarian" in the lead if the scholars were supporting the theory, but that is not the case. They only thing they're truly claiming is they there is no definite evidence for the knight's identity. Azoral (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They say it is a possibility, so the lede says there are various theories, i.e. Serb, Albanian, Hungarian. Nothing is treated as a fact, and the lack of evidence is noted. Everything about Milos Obilic is "speculation". According to that rationale, we should remove everything from the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 editors against the removal of the Hungarian stuff. It is pointless to continue this discussion. You might seek a new consensus through an RfC, though. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid rushing to conclusions and please allow the debate to unfold openly. There is not a single valid reason for such formulation in the lede. You could add other ethnicities, why stop at only three? There is also a major WP:SYNTH problem here. Hoare has been misinterpreted; it happens. He writes Obilić is also claimed as a hero by the Albanians and only after that information does he mention that there is no proof and that he could of origin X or origin Y. Obilić is not a historical figure with disputed ethnic roots. His identity is clear, but his ethnic origins remain unknown. That's all. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it's undue to mention the Hungarian, Croatian or Albanian theories, which are and always have been non-notable (for lede). — Sadko (words are wind) 23:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not bringing any new argument. If you don't open the RfC, I will, and then you can present your arguments to the wider community, and seek a new consensus through it. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just pointed out that the Hoare source hasn't been properly interpreted. If you have any new or old arguments to contribute, I'm happy to hear them, our goal here is to build an encyclopedia. As a side note, before the current consensus was reached, there was an edit war during the summer of 2024. At that time, the debate involved only a limited number of participants, which is no longer the case. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of the participants in a content dispute does not change the consensus, only a new consensus reached through discussion does. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Speculations and minority views are WP:UNDUE for the lede, especially now that the material has been added to the body text. Nor should the lede repeat the same material verbatim that is in the body text, that is poor form. Khirurg (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article has mentioned both Serb and Albanian origin stories for the past year and the Hungarian entry has been in the lead since July with no counter-editing then. Some sort of consensus can be achieved, but it can't be a zero-sum scenario. The full quote by Hoare doesn't consider more important than others any origin story because these are just later reconstructions: He was a possibly mythical figure first mentioned in a short addition to a 1390 epic poem by the Turkish poet Ahmedi, as an unnamed but cowardly assassin, later by a Bulgarian writing in the period 1413–1421, who presented him as a hero called Miloš, subsequently named Miloš Kobila in 1497 by the Bosnian chronicler Konstantin Mihailović, then living in Poland and writing for the Polish and Hungarian kings, under the influence of renewed conflict between vassal Serbia and the Ottomans in the second half of the fifteenth century, with the aim of making propaganda for an anti-Ottoman crusade. The actual name ‘Miloš Obilić’ was an eighteenth-century innovation. Obilić is also claimed as a hero by the Albanians, who attribute Albanian origin to him under the name of Millosh Kopiliq, and his home as the Albanian village of Kopiliq in Kosovo’s Drenica region. In reality, there is no historical evidence that he was either Serb or Albanian, and the ethnic border between the two peoples in pre-modern times was blurred. The legend may have been based on a Hungarian knight who, some accounts suggest, killed Murat; the legend’s Miloš Obilić was Lazar’s son-in-law, and the historical Lazar had a Hungarian son-in-law who likely contributed a contingent to his army..--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that editors who keep on posting Hoare and Malcolm keep on ignoring that those 2 authors do not represent mainstream historiography, which clearly states that Milos Obilic was a Serbian knight, and what is agreed in modern historiography that he was a Murad assassin, therefore putting opinions in lede is WP:undue, one editor already posted a quite number of those sources which are easily to find. So let me just copy them. ::::*The Serbian knight Milos Obilic (History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe, John Benjamins Publishing, 2019)
Finding sources which mention the terms "Serbian" + "Miloš Obilić" doesn't add anything to the discussion other than what we already know: in the 18th century, the name "Obilić" was created and this figure was added in the emerging Serbian national narrative. This tells us nothing about the historical background of the figure before his national re-invention. The article can be crammed with other sources which focus on Albanian narratives, but the existence of Albanian narratives in Kosovo as non-minor is already accepted as part of the consensus, hence they are mentioned in the lead. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how many times do we need to put Hoare in the lede, like already mentioned before by several editors here, his opinion represents minority view, his claims that Milos was Hungarian or that the Murad assassin was Hungarian are his theories without proper evidence in historiography. Especially if we know that Hungary started raiding and attacking Moravian Serbia directly after Battle of Kosovo. Theonewithreason (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposal is to remove the Hungarian theory, then you shouldn't remove the Albanian theory from the lead as well. They're not equivalent.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That theory is presented in Albanian oral traditions, lead already mentions that he is also part of Albanian poetry. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mainstream historiography, which clearly states that Milos Obilic was a Serbian knight, and what is agreed in modern historiography that he was a Murad assassin Before posting walls of text on the tp, read the prior discussion. Yes, Milos Obilic was a Serb knight, but as part of the legend. In reality it is not known who killed the Sultan; one theory is that he was killed by a Serb knight named Milos Kobilic ("Milos Obilic" was invented later by some Serb nationalists as it looked like a more heroic surname). Other theories by mainstream scholars (yes, Malcolm, Hoare and Mock are mainstream) put into question the identification of the real (not legendary) killer of the Sultan as a Serb knight. That the real killer could be a non-Serb/Hungarian/whatever is mentioned and has to be mentioned in the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, what I see is blindly reverting from your side, where you now posting full quotations on Hoare in 2 places in the lead, which makes overciting of one source, second the real killer in modern historiography is mainly considered to be a Serb in some cases Lazar himself, also it would be advised that you read those walls of texts, which clearly shown that Hoare, Malcolm are minority in their opinions, both of them quite controversial and especially Malcolm heavy criticised, and the last thing, in discussing with other editors use WP:civil, that was repeated to you several times. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In other words for you, the lede has to say that there is no evidence about the identity and ethnicity of the real killer of the Sultan, and several theories have been put forward by historians. If you have an alternate wording along those line, go ahead and propose it here. Otherwise attempts at reverting are to no avail. @Maleschreiber: I wonder whether the wording could be changed to something like "There is no evidence about the identity and ethnicity of the real killer of the Sultan. Several theories have been put forward by historians, and the ethnic lines at the time were blurred". Based on di Lellio's and Hoare's choice of words. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already posted by editor Azor, which quite clearly explains opinions of modern historiography, as for your version it is obvious that you don't have consensus on it. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop flooding this tp with personal, unfounded personal accusations. If you see WP:CIVILITY issues, take them to ANI/I. There is the place to discuss them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the identity of the sultan's killer is not known (something which I think we all agree on), it follows that nothing is known about his ethnicity either, so mentioning it unnecessary. Thus, for the lede it would suffice to say There is no evidence about the identity of the real killer of the Sultan, with several theories having been put forward by historians., and leave it at that. Khirurg (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with editor Khirurg. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you agree with anything that fails to mention that the real killer could be a non-Serb actually. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's very surprising to see Khirurg's stance in this page. What a surprise, I could never have guessed it. Everything about Milos Obilic is vague, mysterious and unclear so we may as well just delete the whole article. This won't progress without an RfC. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, only an RfC is the path forward. I agree that even without the sentence at all, it is already clear in the lede that "Milos Obilic" is a folk tale creation which lacks historical evidence, not some historical Serb "hero" in Kosovo. Apart from deranged Serb nationalists who go bonkers when they see the myth being debunked, there are also some dumb Albanian nationalists with madeup stuff about "Millosh Kopili". Ofc, there are also some non-Serb, non-Albanian nationalists (e.g. Greeks, Croatians) who get involved in this issue as a distraction from their miserable social life. Some people were born to be fools. The lede already deals with these delusions, which is good.
In this context, apart from being more concise in the lede about what theories are put forward about the real killer's identity, the disputed sentence is not a big deal. Since we are at it, I would like to find some RS about the theory that the Sultan was murdered by his own people. I read somewhere about this, but forgot where. It is suspicious that the earliest Ottoman documents did not talk about the killer, and the Sultan's son who did succeed, at roughly the same time also killed the potential rival, his own brother. Then decades later "Milos" was brought up as the killer. Anyways, we better open the RfC for now. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow editors Kstrimi and AlexBachmann, these comments and remarks are unhelpful to everyone involved, really. I recommend offering an apology for them, as that would be an honorable course of action. I'm approaching this with full good faith.
Ottoman documents were, in fact, referring to the killer from the enemy ranks. There is a completely logical reason why this information would not have been disclosed to their people early on. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman documents were, in fact, referring to the killer from the enemy ranks. There was no press freedom back then, so of course the Ottoman documents would blame the other side. Then a few decades later they figured out that the killer was a guy named "Miloš". It is a fun story to research, but I agree that WP:NOTFORUM does not allow us to discuss more here. Lets move on people. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Ktrimi attacked anyone in this discussion? As for my comment, it is in fact very surprising that a user who has absolutely nothing to do with this topic randomly appears on some talk pages. I won't continue and don't want to elaborate, the only thing that is clear is the fact that the proposal won't go through without an RfC. I, however, do apologize if anyone feels attacked by my comment which would be still weird to me. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was talking about the wrong beliefs, already debunked in the lede, and their importance in daily nationalist narratives. Fortunately, our community of editors have cleared them up both in the lede and the body of the article, and we all agree on this. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Kobica

[edit]

The article, in the Oral traditions section, says that In a passage intended to infer a moral lesson about disloyalty from the Serbian defeat at Kosovo, Mihailović identifies Miloš Kobica[33] as the knight who on the fateful last Friday of the battle slew Murad. I do not seem to find this name, Miloš Kobica, in other sources, even in academic ones that elaborate on the early accounts of the story. It would be helpful if someone finds some RS that mention the name Miloš Kobica. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Kobica is the form that appears in the 1865 Serbian translation of the first Czech printing of Mihailović's chronicles, published in 1565. In this oldest printed version, the name is written "Miloskobiza", hence the Serbian rendition as "Miloš Kobica". However, the version of the chronicles that is authoritative in academic circles is the one published by the Polish philologist Jan Łoś in 1912. Now, Łoś first writes the name with the spelling Miloskobyła, mentioning 4 variants in a footnote, including the Czech variant. Then, in the rest of the story, he writes Miłosz Kobilicz, i.e. Miloš Kobilić in the Gaj alphabet. This Wikipedia article should therefore refer to the Łoś edition of 1912 rather than the Serbian version of 1865, and should mention the 2 variants, Kobila and Kobica. I will take the time to correct this at some point. Krisitor (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, makes sense. Thank you, much appreciated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC wording

[edit]

Before the RfC is opened. Apart from the two versions, is any other wording to be proposed? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Khirurg interpretation to be included. Theonewithreason (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would include my suggestion to remove the last sentence of the lead and reintroduce it at the beginning of the second paragraph, with proper sources, something like:
"Although his original name was Miloš Kobilić, several variants of this name appear in historical sources. Moreover, it is not even clear whether he really existed, as there is no definitive evidence as to the identity of Murad's killer." Krisitor (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "the second paragraph"? The second paragraph of the article is in the lede and starts with "Although his original name was Miloš Kobilić, several variants of this name appear in historical sources and it is not certain that he actually existed". Maybe you are referring to the second section of the article, "Literary sources"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the second paragraph of the lead. Krisitor (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, understood. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, people, keep in mind that too many proposals can make the RfC messy. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miloš_Obilić&oldid=1264014812"