Talk:Battle of Kosovo

Inconclusive?

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

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

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

unbiased sources or the crusaders here?

1

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

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

Albanian name on the lead

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

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

An easy, non-confrontational edit request

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

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

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

Adding Albanians to this battle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding Albanians to this battle part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New discussion about Albanians in this battle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:LEAD explains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I repeat, as no one read my message: To be honest, Andrea Gropa and Dhmiter Jonim should be removed because there is stuff like the battle of Leipzig where generals like Miloradovich werent included even though they were in the battle !

"Numerous Albanian rulers and soldiers from the noble Albanian Muzaka family, Gropa family and Jonima family fought on the side of Prince Lazar, including Teodor II Muzaka, who participated and died in the battle." Should be enough. Deus vult fratres! (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Caption text

Source

Text in the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And,

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

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

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

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

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

you said

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

I replied with

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

you acknowledged my reply

Why should they all be mentioned in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New sources

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improvements (infobox)

Suggested improvements on the infobox:

Firstly, the mentions of (every single) region of origins for the Albanian suggested participation seem unnecessary for the infobox. Hence: Excessive length. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body. (H:IB) Should a statement such as "Serbs from Moravian Serbia, Serbs from Bosnia, Serbs from Kosovo etc.." be written too, and for other ethnic groups of the Christian coalition, for the purpose of due weight? This seems like a very unnecessary use of infobox space. I suggest just "Albanians", just like we do with the other ethnic groups, or perhaps "Albanians from various regions". Considering you reverted my edit Ktrimi991, I suppose you have some thoughts on this. Another editor has now found a suitable solution..

Secondly, the section of "Leaders and commanders". The suggested participations in the Serbian side, except for the commander Lazar and leaders of the respective left- and rightwing Branković and Vuković, were not commanders nor leaders of this battle, but rather regular nobles. Out of them, only one (Muzaka) is confirmed to have participated in this battle. Adding a new noble every time a source mentions it seems rather distracting and unprofessional for the infobox. My suggestions are the removal of the names from infobox and rather let the article reflect on it. Title change and/or creating expanded sections could also be a possible solution.

--Azor (talk). 17:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Griboski, will you do me a favor to check my latest edit when you have time? It was an edit in which I changed a lot of the info on the infobox, so I could need a second opinion. My reasons for this edit goes more in depth above, in ways I believed improves it significantly. You're welcome to change, or even revert, if you saw my edit unfitting. Cheers. --Azor (talk). 14:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted AzorzaI's edits. They represent big changes and are not in line with how WP:INFOBOX is used. Infoboxes are designed to contain key information which is already discussed in the article. They include all combatants which are discussed in bibliography. I removed the statement about Kosovo being a Serbian toponym as it is not a Serbian, but a Slavic toponym which probably existed in eastern Kosovo long before the brief Serbian period of this region between the 13th and 15th centuries. In itself, the etymology of the term is redundant in this article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber The infobox currently contain all suggested noble participants by various sources, in which many don't even have consensus among scholars. Do you suggest adding all new suggested participants on the infobox in the future? How do you possibly consider that "key information"? Infobox is supposed to contain a summary, not extended details. You should know this.

H:IB: Concise. Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts.

• What an infobox should not contain: Excessive length. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body.

Section of Belligerents, a noble from a house/kingdom participating does not mean the entire house/kingdom participated. As far as we we know - only Moravian Serbia, District of Brankovic and Kingdom of Bosnia were nations who participated through formal agreements. As for the section of Commanders and leaders, this battle only had 3 individuals with known authority. The commander, Lazar, and the leaders of each wing, Brankovic and Vukovic. In which ways can the other suggested nobles be considered "commanders or leaders" of this battle? --Azor (talk). 15:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the version of the article which includes all confirmed participants[6]. The phrase Allied contingents consisting of Albanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Vlachs and possibly others could be changed to Allied contingents consisting of Albanians (including participants from the Jonima and Gropa families), Bulgarians, Hungarians, Vlachs and possibly others.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber The confirmed participants should have higher priority at the infobox, so that version is less vandalized yes, but the wider issue is that none of them were commanders or leaders of this battle. That version you showed also explains the Houses of participants being belligerents when that is an assumption made simply because the individuals themselves participated. Overall, you will need to be a bit more specific with your issues with my suggested version of the infobox. --Azor (talk). 16:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My version sets a standard. Belligerents are the nations or Houses which are mentioned to have made alliances in this battle. Commanders and leaders are participants with military authority. The coalition should be presented as belligerents, in its current form, with eventual new ethnic groups being added there. That's it. Continuing to add suggested participants on the infobox goes against the purpose of the infobox. It explodes with insignificant information, highlight uncertainties and truly seems unprofessional. --Azor (talk). 17:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the etymology of Kosovo is undue for this article. As far as the infobox, for the belligerents, I don't know if the nobles participating necessarily means the entire principality. Regarding the commanders and leaders, those were only Lazar, Branković and Vuković. The rest seemed to have been regular participants even if they were prominent nobles. --Griboski (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Griboski The article does not in the slightest mention the principalities of the other (suggested) participants, nor does available sources. They were added due to assumptions. That's in heavy contrast to Lazar, Branković and Vuković. Do you agree with this version? The part about the etymology of Kosovo won't be added back. Thank you for sharing your opinion. --Azor (talk). 17:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

For the time being, I would at least support only the inclusion of Lazar, Branković and Vuković under "Commanders and leaders" for the Serbian/Christian side as the rest of the people on the list were not commanders or leaders. --Griboski (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Separating belligerents like it was done for the Battle of Grunwald would help. Aeengath (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aeengath A nice suggestion, but the difference is that the participation of the principalities can't be confirmed in this battle, only those of the commander and leaders Lazar, Branković and Vuković. --Azor (talk). 17:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd support @AzorzaI version[7], with "Allied contingents" details in a note. Having every alleged participant in the infobox is really confusing to the casual reader. Per Template:Infobox military conflict, "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict", and most sources seem to agree that: "Lazar came to the battle with his two allies, Vuk Brankovic, his son in law and Duke Vlatko Vuković, the commander of King Tvrtko’s Bosnian army."[8] Aeengath (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that is the cleanest version. The coalition could also be mentioned in the infobox and then expanded upon in a note. --Griboski (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Griboski@Aeengath Thank you both for participating on this discussion and helping improve this article, and I have now restored it to the version I suggested. I seem to also agree the coalition should be further elaborated on a note. --Azor (talk). 22:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Who is saying the participation of others like muzaka, Jonima and gopa are not confirmed? All the sources are pretty clear on this, I have seen many claims throughout discussions here that it is contested yet no RS or saying so. An Alleged participants would be someone like balsha/balsic, and he is not mentioned in the info box. Durraz0 (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Great point Griboski: The mention of the coalition is the best solution on the infobox. On the other hand providing too many details (including OR participation of volunteers based solely on PRIMARY) falls into wp:POV and should be avoided.Alexikoua (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Griboski and Aeengath, and the version proposed by them. It is unusual to have this many participants listed by name in the infobox, which at this point is extremely cluttered. The body text only mentions these participants in passing, so having them in the infobox is WP:UNDUE. Only the main commanders should be listed in the infobox. Khirurg (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I see this subsection is titled "Improvements", yet the edit Azor has recently made on the article was to simply eradicate all mentioning of Albanians from the infobox. After Maleschreiber's RV, a series of edits has occurred in which there has been a "campaign" to minimise the roles Albanians played in the battle within the infobox. Even though Serbian historiography from recent centuries has falsely tried to paint the Battle of Kosovo as a valiant last stand of Serbs in an attempt to try and increase the legitimacy of their claim to Kosovo itself, Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect historical realities. We are more than welcome to include information on the meaning that certain events and concepts has to different peoples, but we are still required to include what WP:RS bibliography states about these events. A group of editors mutually agreeing under honeyed words to try and hide the role a certain group of people played in this battle won't fly when RS bibliography states otherwise. I will reinstate the mentioning of Albanian forces in the infobox until an actual, impartial agreement is decided on, and I will remove some of the unnecessary tag-bombing. Certain secondary sources make use of John Muzaka's work regarding the participation of Albanian forces. Additionally, if the leader of a principality participated and died in this battle, it warrants more of a mention within the infobox than a note saying "Allied contingents". Botushali (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't deal with the concerns raised in this section. For one, we know the Christian army was led by Lazar and that Branković and Vuković led their respective contingents who were subordinate to them. Those were the leaders and commanders of the battle; positioned at center, right and left wing respectively. Palisna, Muzaka, Gropa and Jonima are listed under commanders and leaders in the infobox, even though we have no RS saying they were.--Griboski (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

We have plenty of RS about Gropa Jonima and muzaka. I agree with Bothushali that this seems to be an attempt to eradicate mention of Albanians rather than trying to improve the article. Durraz0 (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Although Lazar, Branković and Vuković were the commanders of the battle lines, the other figures would have been the leaders of the contingents they brought to the battle. Men from those principalities did not simply grab a weapon and stroll on to Kosovo, they were led there as part of a military force. Those principalities were not under the rule of Lazar, Branković or Vuković, and so soldiers from these areas could not be mustered by the Serbian commanders. There was also nothing in this conversation to warrant the removal of the Albanian principalities as participants from the infobox. Botushali (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding participants on the infobox every time they are suggested are breaches on how an infobox should be presented, and listing them as Commanders and leaders of this battle harms the article even more. It makes it misleading and confusing for readers. As Griboski explained to you, there are no RS that explain Palisna, Muzaka, Gropa and Jonima having a leading role in this battle. And please, leave out unhelpful assumptions. --Azor (talk). 12:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I cant see why the given sources should not be viewed as RS. Maybe an RSN could be in order. Alltan (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Alltan Nobody questions the sources, this discussion is about whether the available sources allows the participants to be in the infobox. Did you even bother reading the discussion? --Azor (talk). 13:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Moravian Serbia, District of Branković and Bosnia is backed by multiple sources, the rest is not. The quote in the article says “Teodor II Muzaka, Andrea Gropa and other Albanian aristocrats have been suggested as participants in the battle” “suggested” is fine for the article or for a note but not enough to be added to the infobox. Even the mention of Knights Hospitaller looks like original research, “most probably” should not appear in the infobox. Better sources are needed in the article first, whatever groups are concerned, Editwarring won’t get this article anywhere. Aeengath (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment:This was the stable version of the article for a long time. Those who want to propose changes, have to gain consensus for them. I strongly disagree with Aeengath's argument that every other participant besides the ones he mentioned look like original research. They are mentioned and cited by numerous sources in the article. @AzorzaI: there are no RS that explain Palisna, Muzaka, Gropa and Jonima having a leading role in this battle Factions and leaders are mentioned in the infobox regardless of their leading or non-leading role. This is not an argument for exclusion of anyone from the infobox. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  For the Commander and leader section, if you want them on the infobox, for whatever reason you got, you will need to add a new section or find another solution. Participants that were not commander nor leaders of this battle can't be presented in that section. It is a common sense that should not even be discussed. As for the Belligerents section, currently there are only sources about the nobles participation, not the entire principalities. RS shows only the commander and the two leaders of this battle having support of their principalities. Entire principalities can't be added simply due to assumptions. This is actually quite logical, @Maleschreiber. --Azor (talk). 22:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  You do not seem to understand the fact that the Albanians cited are still leaders of the forces that they brought to the battle. They brought an army or contingent to the battle which was under their command. As I have already mentioned, men from these principalities did not spontaneously decide to walk to Kosovo for a battle, and the Serbian lords could not muster them as they were outside of Serbian territory. Teodor II fought and even died in the battle, and he was the leader of the Principality of Muzaka. Botushali (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  They were prominent nobles of their own principalities, not leaders/commander of this battle. They participated under command of Branković or Vuković in this battle, which was again under the overall command of Lazar. Stick to the topic, their titles and powers outside the battle is of no relevance to the battle's infobox. --Azor (talk). 23:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  If these figures were noblemen under Lazar or Branković or Vuković, then fair enough, their inclusion is not warranted. However, they came from independent principalities and their involvement in the battle with their Albanian contingents is the reason for their principality's inclusion as a belligerent. When you refuse to listen to and understand editors with opposing viewpoints on a certain matter, it becomes very difficult to reach a logical consensus in-line with Wikipedia policies. Nobody is going WP:OFFTOPIC here. Botushali (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  They will be included, but not in the leaders/commanders section. As proposed and supported by other editors, they will be presented as part of the allied contingents. I do not think anyone in this discussion are aware of RS that explains the principalities involvement in this battle, please precede to show it. --Azor (talk). 00:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Aeengath are you aware of any RS that explain the involvement of those principalities? --Azor (talk). 00:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just a procedural note, there is no "stable version", because there was never a stable consensus. The version with the minor nobles in the infobox was imposed by brute-force edit-warring and hence is not "stable", nor is there any kind of consensus behind it. Invoking "stable version" is a form of WP:STONEWALLING, especially when this occurs after one's preferred version was imposed by force. Khirurg (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  If the sources do not mention the principalities then they should not be added as assuming their involvement is basically Original Research. They could have lead a group of mercenaries for example. It does NOT mean that the presence of those troops should be ignored only that we have to follow content guidelines rules per WP:CITE and WP:RS. Aeengath (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  A good point, Khirurg. By viewing the older edits and discussions at TP, it is quite clear the buildup of those principalities and nobles in the infobox were never once a result of consensus. And I agree with Aeengath, assuming principalities participation can't be prioritized over what RS actually says. Unless anyone can provide RS which suggest principalities participation, and the nobles alleged "leading role" in the battle, it is logical to see how the current version breach multiple guidelines. I will add the new version back, but remove the note from the coalition of contingents. It seems like specific editors on this discussion are motivated by wanting higher representation of the members of the coalition, so I think this could be suitable solution, at least for now. --Azor (talk). 23:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Muzaka has been in the infobox for more than 2 years. If you want that removed, feel free to open an RfC and get consensus from the wider community. Until then, WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop trying to push your changes through edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991, Which RS explains Muzaka as a commander or leader of this battle? --Azor (talk). 00:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Which RS refers to Muzaka as a common foot soldier? Botushali (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali Stop stonewalling. If he is to be labeled a commander/leader of this battle, it has to provided RS that state he was. --Azor (talk). 00:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

He did not command the main battle lines, but that doesn't disqualify him as a leader. You keep falsely accusing people of stonewalling - Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion. I have participated in this discussion, and none of the policies you have tried to use actually qualify for Muzaka's removal. Your repeated misuse of policies is quite disruptive, and we are now getting WP:OFFTOPIC. The point stands, Teodor II was a leader from the Principality of Muzaka who fought and died during this battle. Botushali (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The commander/leaders section of a battle are not for participants who rules a principality, it is for participants who were commander/leader of the battle. As mentioned by @Aeengath: "They could have lead a group of mercenaries for example." And yes, you are stonewalling: Tactics in stonewalling include vague responses, refusing to answer questions. How do you expect us to solve this discussion if you can't even provide a RS for your standpoint, when asked for it? --Azor (talk). 01:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not add these sources, but nonetheless, since you always ask me to hold your hand and take you through the sources that you yourself can access, here are just a few samples:

• Xhufi, Pëllumb (2011). "La Macédoine Occidentale dans l'histoire des Albanais du VIIe au XVe siècle". Studia Albanica (in French) (02): 3–21. ISSN 0585-5047. Cette faiblesse a été cependant passagère, car au XIVe siècle, on mentionne de nouveau comme maître de cette aire Andrea Gropa, qui a participé en 1389 à la bataille de la Plaine du Kosovo, aux côtés de Théodore Muzaka.
• 1515 | John Musachi: Brief Chronicle on the Descendants of our Musachi Dynasty". Albanianhistory.net. Archived from the original on 2010-09-10. Retrieved 2012-02-13. ... and Theodore Musachi, the second-born of our family, and the other Lords of Albania united and set off for battle, which the Christians lost (7).
• Muhadri, Bedrı (2021-03-29). "The Battle of Kosovo 1389 and the Albanians". Tarih Ve Gelecek Dergisi. 7 (1): 436–452. doi:10.21551/jhf.898751. S2CID 233651440. The famous Albanian prince, Teodor Muzaka II, was killed in this battle, as well as many other Albanian comrades.

These are some of the quotes that I can see in the bibliography itself, a few seconds of work you could have carried out yourself. Aside from the fact that these men are sovereign princes who are not subjects of the Serbian figures mentioned in the article (and therefore warrant mention in the infobox), I found some more sources:

• Elsie, Robert (2004). Historical Dictionary of Kosova. Scarecrow Press. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-8108-5309-6. ... Vlach contingents of Voyvode Mircea, the troops of Lazar's son-in-law Vuk Brankovic and Albanian forces under George Balsha and Demeter Jonima.
• Elsie, Robert (1997). Kosovo: In the Heart of the Powder Keg. p. 245. The Battle of Kosovo took place in June 1389... Serbian Prince Lazar , Bosnian King Tvrtko , Romanian Prince Mircea , and the Albanian Counts Balsha and Jonima
• Veremes,Thanos and ‎Kophos, Euangelos (1998). Kosovo: Avoiding Another Balkan War. p. 418. ... is a historical fact that they were on the Serbian side against the Ottoman Empire in that cataclysmic battle of 1389 ( under Albanian counts Balsha and Jonima)
• Myftiu, Genc (2000). Albania, a Patrimony of European Values. Two years later Gjergj Balsha II , Teodor Muzaka and Dhimitër Jonima fought in the battle of Kosovo...
• Petritsch, Wolfgang and Kaser, Karl and Pichler, Robert (1999). Kosovo: Mythen, Daten, Fakten. ... geantwortet haben und sich mit einer Armee von 6.000 Mann nach Kosova aufgemacht haben soll. An der Schlacht auf dem Amselfeld nahmen auch andere mäch- tige albanische Fürsten teil : Demeter Jonima , dessen Reich sich über die... This one is particularly interesting as it seems to go into detail on the numbers they brought but I cannot access the full source.
• Iseni, Bashkim (2008). La question nationale en Europe du Sud-Est genèse, émergence et développement de l'indentité nationale albanaise au Kosovo et en Macédoine. p. 84. Selon elle, sur les sept chefs de guerre de cette coalition, deux étaient albanais, Gjergj Balsha II et Dhimiter Jonima. Auraient aussi participé à cette bataille d'autres féodaux albanais, notamment Gjon Muzaka et Teodor Muzaka II. La participation albanaise aurait atteint un quart de la totalité des troupes de la coalition.
• Kola, Paulin (2003). The best account of the Battle of Kosova is to be found in Malcolm, op. cit., pp. 58-80; Although Serbs have "appropriated the battle', Malcolm has found credible a sixteenth-century history of the Albanian noble family of Muzaka, suggesting that Teodor Muzaka headed a force in Lazar's army and was killed in battle, in addition to Ottoman chronicles which also mention Albanians in Lazar's army, alongside many other ethnic components.

This is more than enough in addition to the sources already on the article. I also have Noel Malcolm's actual book in my position and will no doubt find supporting quotes there. According to these sources, Jonima and Muzaka must be placed as leaders in the infobox , and their Principalities as participants within the infobox also. Problem solved. You cannot argue with RS bibliography. Botushali (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all your research @Botushali. Muzaka’s contribution deserved to be mentioned but in the appropriate section not as an army commander. Malcolm writes (pp 64-65) that Lazar commanded the centre; Vuk Brankovic was on the right and all the foreign contingents were gathered on the left, under the Bosnian general." ie Vlatko Vuković. The source, a sixteenth-century history of the Muzaka family, only claimed that Muzaka brought "a large band of Albanians to join Lazar's army" not that the principality took part in war. Aeengath (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

So a prince brings a large force of men from his principality to fight in a battle, but you’re saying that somehow this doesn’t count as the Principality being involved? You are now denying the sources I have presented. You are more than welcome to present your case at an RfC as to how the principality is still not involved, and how Jonima and Muzaka (despite being cited by a variety of sources as being leaders of the Albanian forces in the battle) should not be included in the info box along with their principalities.

In the meantime, sourced content clearly supports their inclusion in the info box. I have presented to you a number of sources that you have asked for as well as a multitude of new sources, yet you are still denying this. It’s time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Opposing sourced content under WP:JDL doesn’t bode very well for your case on this article. Botushali (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing me with another editor maybe? my message starts with "Thank you for all your research @Botushali. Muzaka’s contribution deserved to be mentioned" nobody is denying anything here we are just having a conversation in order to improve this article and figure out how every participants should appear. Now the quote does not say that he brought a a large force of men from his principality to fight” but "a large band of Albanians” it’s quite different. This is the same quote that everybody uses (sixteenth-century history of the Muzaka family) because it is the only one that exists. It’s all in Kosovo A Short History by Noel Malcolm, the book you have, look it up, page 62. also here Good day, Aeengath (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, a large band of Albanians, then. From where did these Albanians appear? The sky or the Albanian principalities ruled by Muzaka, Jonima etc? Nonetheless, as has been indicated above, Jonima and Muzaka are described by RS bibliography as the leaders of the Albanians. Both of those figures deserve mentioning in the infobox, as do their principalities. Botushali (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting your research, but leave your assumptions out of this. The research still don't confirm:

1. Muzaka having the same leading role as Brankovic or Vukovic. In fact, Muzaka, just like everyone else, were under command of the right/left-wing leaders. Putting Muzaka in the same infobox section as them is misleading and confusing to readers. Even you should understand that.
2. Principality of Muzaka's participation. It was not mentioned once.

--Azor (talk). 13:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@AzorzaI: it's arbitrary in the context of how infoboxes function to ask did Muzaka have the same leading role as Brankovic or Vukovic. It's not pertinent to ask such a question because it's not a factor which determines inclusion or exclusion from the infobox and it's definitely a case of WP:BLUESKY to ask for sources which explicitly mention the Principality of Muzaka and not just Muzaka who was its ruler. These were feudal domains, not modern states with independent institutions. The middle ground proposed by Ktrimi991 works well for me as it reflects the earlier stable version. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber, An entire paragraph, but never argues for why you find him to fit in the section of commander/leaders? That is the root of the discussion, nobody here argues for "entire exclusion from the infobox". --Azor (talk). 15:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

He is mentioned in the infobox, because his participation and death in the battle is considered significant enough to be discussed in bibliography. This is where the debate in terms of what we include/exclude ends in wikipedia. There is no policy which argues for the exclusion of this individual from the infobox. This is the key reason why all editors who have put forward similar narratives about the exclusion of individuals with a specific background have never succeeded.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber I am noticing how you keep shifting the focus away from the commander/leader section to the infobox in general. He can be mentioned in the infobox (in which I agree he can be) without being mentioned in the commander/leader section, you do realize that? --Azor (talk). 19:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aeengath Do you have any ideas to suggest on how Muzaka can be mentioned in the infobox, without that being in the section of the battle's leaders? It seems like nobody is actually arguing for him to stay in that particular section, but rather the infobox in general. --Azor (talk). 19:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting he was just a soldier? Alltan (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

When someone refuses to cooperate despite the mountain of evidence put in front of them, and decides to refrain from dropping the stick by trying to focus on and exaggerate nuances, it becomes very difficult to resolve a content dispute. Sources here are clearly indicating that Jonima and Muzaka - who are both described as leaders of the Albanian forces that they brought to the army in WP:RS bibliography - were functioning in some capacity as leaders, not to mention the fact that they were leaders of their respective Principalities. These Albanians did not drop from the sky, it is safe to say that these Albanian participants came from the very Albanian Principalities ruled by these men. That is in no way WP:OR, it is simply taking what RS sources give us. They do not have to explicitly say “the Principalities of Muzaka and Jonima” when they already state that the leaders of these principalities brought significant forces of Albanian men to the battle.

Both Jonima and Muzaka are therefore eligible for inclusion in the info box under the ‘Leaders’ category, and their Principalities under the ‘Belligerents’ category. I will add these at some point using the mass of RS bibliography I have gathered as references, and any attempt at removing it is clearly a removal of reliably-sourced information and therefore a violation of Wiki policy. Certain editors here are participating in this conversation with the intention of never accepting the role Albanians played in this battle and they refuse to take into consideration what reliable sources are saying - those same editors can go ahead and proceed to a RfC. Botushali (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The ones you call "leaders" were under command of the actual leaders of the battle, as explained by RS. And the worst part is that you know it, yet you keep this false narrative ongoing - even admitting to future edit war to put other alleged "leaders" into the infobox section. Madness. --Azor (talk). 22:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not me who designated them as leaders, it is RS bibliography that does so instead. If you think what is written in RS bibliography is a false narrative, then take it to the RSN. Botushali (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you add the quotes along with the sources so we can see whether authors describe their involvement as a hypothesis or whether they firmly acknowledge it? Alltan (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The non-Serb contigents should not be less visible through a frivolous note. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 "should". Alright, why? --Azor (talk). 20:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The infobox function as a a summary, an overview, of the article. It is supposed to highlight the most important parts of the article, and mentioning every ethnic group of the army, one by one, is not one of the most important parts. You think the Ottoman army consisted of just Turks? It consisted of Albanians, Serbs, Greeks and others too. It doesn't go against due weight to not mention every single detail in the infobox. Find me another article that represents the ethnic composition in an army like it's done in that article. --Azor (talk). 20:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes make a summary, but a summary is not one which omits non-Serb contigents. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What? Why exactly do you think mentioning ethnic composition, one by one, is a smart move for the infobox? You're only saying it "should", but not really any arguments? --Azor (talk). 16:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Because that is how RS refers to this battle. Durraz0 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

A sentence was added that around a quarter of the coalition army was composed of Albanians. The source used for this claim however doesn't say that but rather discusses what Albanian historiography says about the battle. Translated from French, it says Albanian historiography places more emphasis on the Albanian presence in what was a grand coalition of Christian principalities against the Ottomans. According to her, out of the seven warlords of this coalition, two were Albanian, Gjergj Balsha II and Dhimiter Jonima... Albanian participation would have reached a quarter of the total troops of the coalition. Given that it's an Albanian POV, it should be attributed as so and can't be in wikivoice, unless international reliable sources corroborate this. --Griboski (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Two sources (including that one) imply that Albanians formed around a quarter of the army, the German one included also gives a figure of 6,000 (I believe) although I am not entirely sure if it is referring to the Albanians. Nonetheless, I have no qualms saying that "Albanian historiography states that a quarter of the Christian coalition was composed of Albanians or something along those lines. Botushali (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Jonima in Infobox

There is no reason as to why Jonima should be removed from the infobox when a variety of sources very clearly label him and Teodor II as the leaders of the sizeable Albanian forces. We should not have to ask for consensus in the TP on reliably-sourced information that is gathered from a multitude of sources. Botushali (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Read the discussion, nobody agrees with Jonima staying at the infobox, even your friend Ktrimi removed Jonima from the infobox. Further attempts of edit warring might risk being reported. A handful of editors, including me, don't even agree to Muzaka staying at the infobox as "leader", but we dropped the stick - and so should you. --Azor (talk). 11:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

In light of new sources that I have presented - and they are many - Jonima should be readded to the infobox. Go ahead and report me, I would love to see the result of someone being reported for adding well-sourced content. Also, I have no friends on Wiki. I am not and do not want to be associated with anyone on here, thanks. Botushali (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali Most of the sources you provided pair Jonima with Balsha but according to Noel Malcolm, Balsha wasn’t there since: "it was demonstrated nearly a century ago that Balsha must have been at Ulcinj, on the Montenegrin coast, on the day of the battle" (Malcolm p.62) making those references unreliable and the participation of Dhimitër Jonima and his family fail Wikipedia:Verifiability. Aeengath (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

He is not including Balsha. There are plenty of sources which mention Jonima, if sources exist on Balsha not being there for the battle, please bring forth sources which do the same for Jonima. Alltan (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Alltan That factual error makes those sources not WP:RELIABLE to support that content. Aeengath (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the debate is about. Which source is being discussed?--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have issues with reliability, take it to the RSN. It seems you do not understand what verification is, all of the sources added can be verified and accessed and I have also provided quotes. Nonetheless, Ottoman records list a number of figures as having been involved. Although it has now been proven that Balsha was indeed not involved, there are no sources which state Jonima wasn’t involved. You will need to find those sources in order to dispute Jonima’s inclusion. Botushali (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Balsha's presence has been refuted in scholarship, Jonima's hasn’t. If you can not provide RS saying that Jonima was not present, you can not remove him as questionable.Truthseeker2006 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)