Talk:Andrea II Muzaka

Serbs conquered all of Albania claim

The User Aleksandarstankov claims that the Book "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II, Volume 2" is mentions that all of Albania came under Serbian rule, the user claims that this claim is found on page 664, which actually doesn't mention any of this. Here is the entire Page 664 of the Book.

at first asked for rents in money, not in kind. It was some time before the condition of the peasants once again became intolerable. And in Bosnia, around Sarajevo, there were mass conversions, due in part to the flourish ing Bogomilian heresy. The situation was even more complicated in Albania. Here the landowners were able to take refuge in the Venetian presidios: Durazzo for example, which remained in Venetian possession until 1501. When these fortresses fell, the Albanian nobility fled to Ttaly, ‘where some of their descendants remain to the present day. The Musachi family did not survive: its last member died in Naples in 1600. It left be- hind however the Historia della Casa Musachi, published in 1510 by Giovanni Musachi, a valuable record of the familly fortunes which tells us much about the country and its ruling caste. The name of this ancient family is preserved in the Muzekie region of Albania, where it once had immense holdings. The story of these exiles and their wanderings is an astonishing one. The same path was not trodden by all nobles and land- ‘owners in the Balkans. But whatever their fate, even when they succeeded in maintaining themselves for a while, by abjuring or otherwise, the general ‘pattern was the same: before the Turkish advance an entire society fell into ruins, partly of its own accord, seeming to confirm yet again Albert Grenier's opinion that ‘to be conquered, a people must have acquiesced. in its own defeat.”

‘Social conditions in the Balkans help to explain the invader's success and the ravages it brought. The Turkish cavalry, ranging rapidly far and wide, blocking roads, ruining crops and disrupting economic Life, went ahead of the main army and prepared the ground for an easy victory. Only the ‘mountainous regions were for a while protected from the relentless in- vasion. Bowing to the geography of the Balkans, the Turks took control first of the principal highways, along the river valieys leading down to the ‘Danube; the Maritsa, the Vardar, the Drin and the Morava, In 1371, they triumphed at Chernomen on the Maritsa; in 1389 they won the bate of Kossovo Pole, ‘the Field of Blackbirds’, from which flow the Vardar, Maritsa and Morava. Tn 1459, this time north of the Iron Gates, the Turk as victorious at Smederevo ‘at the very point where the Morava meets the Danube and which as much as Belgrade commands the approaches to the Hungarian plains’

Conquest was rapid 100 in the wide spaces of the eastern plains.” In 1365, the Turk settled his capital at Adrianopl, by 1386 all Bulgaria had been subdued, to be followed by Thessaly. Victory came more slowly in the mountainous west and was often more apparent than real. Tn Greece, Athens was occupied in 1456, the Morea in 1460, Bosnia in 1462-14663 GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The previous source listed wasn't the correct one, in which a previous editor might have vandalised it. I added the correct source now. I also recommend you to look at the map of Serbian Empire, if you haven't already. Albanian lands being an integrated part of Serbian Empire is a well documented claim, however the exact timeline of the integration of Albanian lands into Serbian rule is the topic with less consensus among scholars. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Writing to you now due to your choice of undoing my edit, and writing:

´´Again you are POV pushing and misciting sources, the source says that dušan took valona and kanina, not that he took control over all of Albania. ´´

I'm quoting the statements I am referring to since I can tell you haven't actually taken the time to read the source I listed:

"Serbs.. did not take any central or southern Albanian towns until 1343-45". (page 291)

"However, by the end of 1345 Serbia had all of Albania, except Durazzo, which was again in Angevin hands" (Page 301)

Note: Durazzo was a part of Angevins - hence not governed by Albanian lords before or during this period. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

New Lead

Hi @Aleksandarstankov, I suggest refraining from making any changes to the new lead I have written.

As per WP:MOSLEAD:

• The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points...
• As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources
• The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

The new lead meets all of these requirements. Everything I included is a basic summary of the most important details regarding Andrea II, and all that I mentioned is discussed in the body of the article with WP:RS bibliography. Unless there is something controversial - of which there is not, there is nothing in the lead which is challenged by reliable bibliography - I see no need to repeat redundant citations from the body. Botushali (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali "according to reliable, published sources" - in which way have you meet this requirement? I don't necessarily have an issue with the content, but this is the second time you have completely changed the lead without publishing one single source and showing the reference from the source. Read WP:WHYCITE, carefully. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's an idea, @Aleksandarstankov - how about you actually read the article and its contents and you will see a multitude of sources that speak on what is in the lead. In order to reference the entire lead, the sources (of which there are many) from the body would need to be brought up. As per MOS:LEADCITE:

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

All the sources covering what is in the lead are within the body of the article. None of it is challenged by any WP:RS bibliography as far as I'm aware. As you would now understand if you read the above, there is no need to pack the lead with citations due to the fact that it is not controversial. If you do not have an issue with the content of the lead, then there is no reason to fill it with sources that are literally lower in the article and describe the concepts in greater detail. Botushali (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali Is this the source you're basing that statement on ? Would you please refer to the direct statement from this source? And does this (albanian) source really seem reliable to you? This independent source from University of Michigan who's digging into the same topic mentions nothing about "imprisonment for months" of the Serb nobility. I understand you wish to potray the Albanian resistance as something "spectacular", but make sure not push too heavy on the POV. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS on what I am trying to do with my edits. The resistance doesn't have to be spectacular, fact of the matter is that Andrea II led a strong resistance against the Serbs and even defeated two of their rulers. It has nothing to do with neutrality, but more with WP:JDL. I do not have full access to Prifti's work as I did not add it in; nonetheless, yes, it seems reliable and will be considered as such unless you have RS bibliography that proves otherwise, or if indeed whoever added it in mistranslated it.

In fact, the following excerpt from this very article is based on Fine's work:

It is uncertain whether the Serb troops were able to capture any towns or exert control over the area of southern Albanian, despite their incursions into the region. Although some historians attribute the acquisition of several towns to this period, others suggest that the Serbs only obtained submission, which may have been nominal, from different Albanian tribes. The Serbs may have gained control of Kanina and Valona by 1337, but it is more probable this was not until 1343-45.

So, it is not even confirmed as to whether or not the Serbs actually took all of the territory controlled by the Muzaka family. Andrea II also continued to lead resistance against the Serbians, eventually conquering Berat in 1350, which probably indicates that he had some sort of power base. Also, I cannot see where in Fine it states "However, by 1343-1345 all lands ruled by Muzaka was fully under Serbian rule.", and aside from the poor English of that sentence, Fine's work seems to state the opposite; can you pinpoint the exact quote which supports this statement you keep adding in? Botushali (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Botushali (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I do still question the reliability of the Albanian source, as this is only mentioned on this particular source out of all sources dedicated to this topic. And on top of that you're saying you have not seen the statement written on the source or the context surrounding it. I'll have to bring a third party into this.

As for the Muzaka's land being under Serbian rule;

• Serbs.. did not take any central or southern Albanian towns until 1343-45.
• However, by the end of 1345 Serbia had all of Albania, except Durazzo, which was again in Angevin hands Aleksandarstankov (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I have not seen the source as I don't have access to it and therefore did not add it in.

So is Fine contradicting himself in that all of the Muzaka territory was in Serbian hands? Nonetheless, I fail to see how it is relevant to the lead as it does not mention Andrea II in the slightest. Botushali (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It is relevant because 25 years of Andrea's adult life was under Serbian rule. It adds to the neutrality of the page since Andrea's campaign against Serbian rule is heavily mentioned on this page. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lezhjani1444 If you have some arguments, contribute to talkpage. Read WP:TALKDONTREVERT carefully. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I never agreed to your version of the lead. There is no consensus. The line However, by 1343-1345 all lands ruled by Muzaka was under Serbian rule. does not belong in the lead. If anything, it should be worded different, and in fact the source you cite actually contradicts itself as I have shown above. For the lack of clarity, I believe it should be removed entirely. Botushali (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Botushali (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali The line However, by 1343-1345 all lands ruled by Muzaka was under Serbian rule. is falsified from:

• Serbs.. did not take any central or southern Albanian towns until 1343-45.
• However, by the end of 1345 Serbia had all of Albania, except Durazzo, which was again in Angevin hands

exactly how? You thinking it should be removed is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You have no issues adding statements supported by sources you haven't even personally seen - as long as it adds light to Muzaka's resistance. But the second I attempt to neutralize the content, you "think it should be removed entirely". That truly is pushing POV and avoiding to reach consensus to an extreme extent. Aleksandarstankov

Do you see any mention of Muzaka in those quotes? There isn't, and therefore the line that you added saying However, by 1343-1345 all lands ruled by Muzaka was under Serbian rule. is WP:OR, especially when Fine actually states otherwise, as I have already stated multiple times above. This isn't about WP:POV issues, this is about you misusing sources in the lead. I have changed the lead to remove the capturing part until it can be confirmed that Marko was indeed captured. Otherwise, the sources are concrete on both Vukashin and Marko having been defeated by Andrea II. Botushali (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali Me changing it to just "Muzaka" from "all Albanian lands" was actually an attempt to reach consensus and neutralize the lead a bit. But yes, you're right - "all Albanian lands" is more accurate. As for the author, I don't get why you think his statements are contradicting, he seem to keep internal view writing about the direct control of towns in that paragraph, while later talking about control of lands in general later (external).

As for the sources regarding content about defeating Vukasin and Marko, would you please refer to the exact statements and the page you're basing your statements on? I'm glad you at least finally saw that the content regarding the capture of the Serb nobility was way too weakly supported. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Either way, the source does not mention Muzaka. It is simply irrelevant to the lead. I re-added the cpature of Vukašin, that is sourced from Bedri Muhadri's work which I added in myself with page numbers in the citations. Feel free to go through the document yourself.Botushali (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course you did. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Vukašin and Marko's role in the coalition with Andrea

@Maleschreiber I see you have contributed with edits on this page, such as on the statement:

During his wars against the Serbian successor states, Andrea II succeeded in defeating both Vukašin of Serbia and his son, Prince Marko, solidifying his family's principality. He was recognized as Despot of Epirus by the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos for these victories against them.

Could you please show the direct citation from the source(s) you have used regarding this statement? I don't doubt the coalition happened, I'm interested in knowing whether or not Vukašin and his son Marko were directly involved, which the statement seem to hint towards. Thanks in advance. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This line is not saying that both Serbian rulers were defeated in one single sweep; rather, it is saying that Muzaka defeated both rulers over the course of his continuous wars against the Serbian successor states, which is established well-sourced in the article. Botushali (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Apparently it is "confirmed" Vukašin participated directly in the battle and got abducted, according to the Albanian-languaged source you used. While none of the other sources even hints towards Vukašin direct participation at Pelister, not to mention any mention of abduction.

@Maleschreiber I could need the opinion of a third party and I trust your judgement on this matter. Do you mind taking a closer look at the participation of Vukašin at Pelister and the reliability of the statement regarding the abduction of the Serb nobility? Aleksandarstankov (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The edit refers to Muzaka fighting against Vukašin (before 1371) and Marko (1371-72). I don't think that sources about Marko refer to direct or indirect involvement, but the article doesn't mention Marko and Muzaka fighting in a specific battle against each other. I have to get a better overview of bibliography to check Vukašin's specific involvement. I know that near Pelister mountain, primary sources do mention a decisive battle which Muzaka won, but for the rest of the narrative I have to compare & contrast several sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

All sources has, without doubt, consensus regarding Muzaka's victory. It seems like the only reason the sources mention coalition against Vukašin is because he were considered de facto ruler of the crumbling Serbian Empire at that time, not because they had any actual direct involvement. If that is the case, it is therefore very easily to misunderstand it as an actual battle where both where directly involved with the current statement on the page (hence WP:GOODFAITH).

As for the "imprisonment of Vukašin", it seems to lack a reliable source. I struggle to find any other sources regarding this specific event, or Vukašin's rule in general, which mention any abduction of any sort of this individual. Azor (talk). 22:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why the source describing the battle and Vukašin’s imprisonment is not RS. Unless someone here has access to sources that discredit this author or their work, then there are no grounds to remove or undervalue it. WP:RS calls it a battle, and so therefore it is a battle. Scholarly work dictates what is written on Wikipedia, not the opinion of editors. Botushali (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The imprisonment of the de facto Serbian Emperor and his son for months is not a "small event". An event like that would most likely be mentioned in other sources which are dedicated to this battle or the ruler itself. As far as we can reflect on right now, we struggle to even confirm if the Serb nobility participated at Pelister. --Azor (talk). 11:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi@ Maleschreiber, have you been able to draw any conclusion? Can we confirm the direct participation of Vukašin or his son at Pelister, or on any other coalition with Muzaka for that matter? --Azor (talk). 21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but I will check sources more closely tomorrow.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. --Azor (talk). 22:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@AzorzaI, unless you have sources that disprove the sources used on this article, you should refrain from removing sourced information. You must have WP:RS bibliography that counters what is being said in order to change it, you cannot remove it on the grounds of WP:JDL. If you have no sources, there will be no removal of unbiased, reliable work (unless you can prove otherwise). Botushali (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali You have had the chance to contribute to this discussion, just like me and Maleschreiber. You never truly contributed, as your only argument literally is "You need to find a source that prove mine is wrong".

And no I do not need to. What I have needed to do is look among multiple sources in order find consensus, or at least another a source, that confirms the Serb nobility's presence at Pelister, which I hoped Maleschreiber could help me with. Your source is the only source who confirms the Serb nobility's presence at Pelister AND apparently an abduction who lasted for month. This very absurd information your source gives, and not being anywhere close to being supported by other sources, makes it lack reliability. --Azor (talk). 00:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali@Durraz0, go on. contribute to the TP since you keep reverting. read the discussion so far - and say what you disagree with. --Azor (talk). 00:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You keep going around in circles. I do not want to spend my time engaging in pointless debate on the TP just because you don't like what a source says.

For the last time, I disagree with your removal of sourced information. Andrea II Muzaka is not widely covered in sources, hence why it is not easy to find much about him let alone a specific event in his life. Nonetheless, there is no reason why the reliable source I have used should be removed or even altered with unless you have sources that prove otherwise. You're the one who keeps talking about a "unit of the Serbian army" etc etc, so the burden of proof is on you. I have brought sources to the table, but you haven't. If you bring WP:RS bibliography that states the opposite to what I have written, then sure. You have not done so, and therefore there will be no removal of sourced information. I suggest you stop making disruptive edits and reverts on articles. Botushali (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 Do you automatically agree with him or do you carry independent opinions on this topic? You know, considering you're the one who reverted my edit. Want to make sure everyone has said what they want to say before I go further into this discussion. --Azor (talk). 13:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@AzorzaIyou can not remove sourced content that is sourced from RS bibliography because your personal opinions. Durraz0 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I still haven't checked the issue in detail. I expect to do so in next couple of days.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Maleschreiber Take your time. Do you agree that the article should be this way 23:18, 15 July 2023 until then? Me and Alex seem to agree it is the most neutral one in terms of both wording and the statements we actually can confirm. I believe the other editors could be WP:STONEWALLING, so your opinion would be valued in this matter. --Azor (talk). 17:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  What, agree to a version of the article with bad English and inaccurate descriptions? No thanks, we will keep it at the stable version it’s at now. Botushali (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's not inaccurate, it's only more neutral in wording. As I have said before, the neutrality in wording is necessarily for the lack of reliability we have on certain statements on this article. We cannot use detailed words for what we don't actually know. Now leave it and let Maleschreiber act as a third party. --Azor (talk). 15:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  It’s not more neutral, your changes to the lead have not made any improvements to the article. Not one change improved grammar, syntax, WP:NPOV etc. Regardless of who you want to give a third opinion, unless you have sources to prove or disprove a fact, then nobody’s opinion is relevant aside from WP:RS bibliography. Botushali (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  agree with @Botushali. Durraz0 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Durraz0 You could have spared yourself that comment, we all knew you were already agreeing with him. --Azor (talk). 23:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unless you are planning on giving some new information and arguments, then you can drop it. You already know I find your arguments heavily POV-pushed. I don't agree with all statements of Maleschreiber either, but unlike you, he can properly argue for his standpoint. Do you mind stating your opinion @Maleschreiber of how the article should stay until we can confirm the statements, so we can finally give this on-going discussion a rest? --Azor (talk). 23:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DROPTHESTICK, for the sake of everyone involved. Botushali (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"Defeat"

WP:PUFF is strong on the lead. The only event that could perhaps be classified as a victory is the event of Pesliter. Vukasin or Marko has not been confirmed to participate on Pelister, or any other event in Andrea's campaign, therefore a "victory" against them can not be classified. --Azor (talk). 14:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Some sources indicate direct participation, and you have brought absolutely zero sources to the table to disprove it. Your personal opinion cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. Retaking lands from your enemy during military conflict is a victory, and he was rewarded by the Byzantines purely because of his victories, not because he simply opposed the Serbians. There is no WP:PUFF, you are misusing that policy, and the misuse of policies in itself is a violation of Wikipedia policy. As I have stated previously, your continuous disruption on this article is a case of WP:JDL as you are trying to eradicate all direct mentions of Albanians having defeated Serbians in military conflict despite it being a historical fact. Additionally, you are misusing Wikipedia policies and are also quite clearly violating WP:DROPTHESTICK. This conversation was over long ago because you have provided a total of zero sources to support any changes, but you are still beating the dead horse. Botushali (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Both me and Maleschreiber attempted to find sources which could indicate direct participation, I did not succeed and Maleschreiber apparently gave up too. So please @Botushali, list all the sources and the citations you have in which direct participation is explained. You choosing to stonewall did not mean the conversation was over. Luckily, you might help find consensus now that you have sources to present. --Azor (talk). 21:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

And as for your comments on edit summary, you cannot have explicit victory against someone who did not even have any participation. Annexing lands can be done without resistance, and right now the Serb nobility has no confirmed participation in any form of resistance against Muzaka's campaign. Judging by other sources, it seems like Serb nobility was focusing more on Ottoman threats rather than internal struggles. I suggest the wording "annex" could be used since it is true that some lands were expanded, not only retaken. At least until you can provide sources which explain participation of the Serb nobility. --Azor (talk). 21:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali I fixed the lead a bit now. It seems more be more effective, but also neutral by staying vague. If you disagree with anything, let me know. I propose it stays this way until we can provide new information that makes it possible to sharpen the words without breaking NPOV. --Azor (talk). 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I do indeed disagree with your edits. If you want to make proposals, you can post them here first for further discussion before initiating a series of edit wars over and over again because you don't like the current content.

Judging by other sources, it seems like Serb nobility was focusing more on Ottoman threats rather than internal struggles, that's OR, you actually make use of zero sources. Some of the Serbian successor states were defeated by Muzaka, it's that simple.

So please @Botushali, list all the sources and the citations you have in which direct participation is explained. You choosing to stonewall did not mean the conversation was over. Go through the article and look at all of the sources that we have already discussed. Nobody is supposed to hold your hand and show you things over and over again because you refuse to accept them. We have already discussed the sources above, I am not going to engage in further pointless discussion about things we have already talked about. Your repeated efforts at going against consensus here falls under WP:FILIBUSTER, and I am not required to continue engaging in fruitless conversations with you simply because you cannot accept certain points.

Additionally, this is not stonewalling. I have provided policies and discussion points above about why your changes are either wrong or pointless, but you continue to beat the dead horse beyond recognition at this point. As I have already stated, you have failed to utilise any sources whatsoever to disprove the sources I used on the article. The only one we removed was one that I did not add and neither of us could access. Apart from that, all of your proposed changes are based on your personal feelings rather than sourced information. Naturally, I am going to oppose your attempts at adding your own thoughts, impressions and interpretations into the article in spite of sourced content.

No sources = no changes. I overhauled this entire article, and subsequently the lead, using only sourced content. It had nothing to do with my personal feelings on Andrea II Muzaka. If you do not have any sources that can disprove what is already written, then it is best if you stop disrupting the article and dragging me into the same conversations over and over again in which you are opposing sourced content because you do not like what it says. Botushali (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali This is exactly why our discussions never lead to any solutions. You stonewall to the very extreme. I do not need sources to disclaim something that has currently no reliable sources to support it. You said you had a couple of sources indicating direct participation. In good faith, I ask you to present the sources and citations to this TP, so me and Maleschreiber can review them. We currently have no reliable ones. Do that instead of commenting nonsense. --Azor (talk). 15:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As we have already discussed before on this very talk page, and as you could easily access yourself if you would simply read the article:

Muhadri, Bedri (2023). "Kosova në kuadrin e Principatës së Balshajve". Studime Historike. 74(1–2): 43–45.

Nothing about the source is unreliable, and unless you have proof that the source is unreliable at the RSN, then you are not allowed to remove it because you do not like it. Also, next time you want to make claims about me “commenting nonsense”, you can take it up with an admin and see what they have to say about it. As far as I am concerned, I no longer have to participate in this endless conversation as per WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:FILIBUSTER. No sources = no change. More personal attacks from you will lead to a report at AE. Botushali (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali Thanks, is the source of Muhadri your only source? You said "some sources", as in plural. Or was that an another example of puffery of your own arguments? And for the record, I do encourage you to report this discussion if you find it fitting. --Azor (talk). 19:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it’s the only source I have used. Lack of sources on a certain topic, however, does not qualify the existing sources as unreliable. The other source was the one we removed, but I do not have access to it, so I can neither confirm nor deny. Any RSN ruling you want to inform me of?

Also, as per WP:PUFFERY: Wikipuffery is the puffing of a subject or the addition of praise-filled adjectives and claims. It is clear you are not familiar with the policy, my participation on this TP is not an example of puffery. It’s best if you stopped misusing policies, there’s multiple cases of you doing so by now. Botushali (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber You seem to have stopped your research on this this topic, that's fine, but if you could at least provide your opinion on this source regarding its reliability that would be very helpful. I doubt Botushali will recognize my opinion whatsoever, so a third opinion is valued. I am especially concerned with its reliability on Mrnjavčević family's role in Andreas campaign.

- Muhadri, Bedri (2023). "Kosova në kuadrin e Principatës së Balshajve". Studime Historike. 74(1–2): 43–45. --Azor (talk). 21:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali The opposite of puffery is facts. You writing "some sources" proved to be the opposite of a fact when you could only provide a single source. Just very ineffective that we needed an entire discussion for you to finally admit it. --Azor (talk). 21:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber, if you do not wish to participate in this discussion anymore, please let me know so I can get the third opinion of someone else. --Azor (talk). 16:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Smaller change to lead

- The article mentions twice the regaining of lands after the fall of the Serbian Empire, once is more than enough. Earlier discussions couldn't confirm Vukasin's or Marko's role in this historical event, althought sources could confirm Marko's loss of lands. Therefore, the referring to the Mrnjavčević family as a whole would be more suitable and wider term.

- No mentions of any alleged "defeat" or "victory" either. Words such as "wars" gives no sense. One battle/incident at Pelister (?) clearly doesn't make this a war. --Azor (talk). 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Your edit does not improve the article. The lead was fine as is. We’ve had multiple discussions here about the same things, and you have already been sanctioned for slow edit-warring. I will be reverting to the version that has stood for a while now, because your proposed changes serve no real purpose. I suggest you refrain from continuing the same behaviours that got you blocked in the first place. Botushali (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"The lead was fine as is" is not an argument. You add content that is not supported by RS, an obvious attempt to fit an agenda into this article. Next time you choose to write here - be constructive. --Azor (talk). 06:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS and Edit-Warring over the exact same things over the course of almost half a year now, sanction-worthy offenses, buddy. I don’t know who you think you are to speak to your fellow editors with such callousness, but I’ll reiterate what I mean.

We have discussed the matter time and time again on the TP. Everything in the lead is backed by sourced material that can be found in the article. I overhauled the article a while back and I have added or reviewed most sources in the article. We removed a source we could not confirm after discussion on the TP. Your edits are not constructive and serve no purpose in improving the article. You’re masking them under honeyed words but it’s really not an improvement. Next time you have a suggestion on how to rework the lead, post in the TP first. Botushali (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing was ever "discussed". Multiple editors have had an issue with the lead due to breach of various Wiki policies, such as WP:PUFF. All you did was resist it without the use of any policy based reasons. You simply writing "not an improvement" is not helpful to anyone. I truly do not see your issue with the new leaad, unless your actual intentions are to throw immense puffery on this historical figure. If you wish to discuss this further, attempt to do it through Wiki policies. --Azor (talk). 09:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The issues with WP:PUFF predated my changing of the lead. How about this - point out exactly what you think is puffery in the lead. Misusing policies is also disruptive. Botushali (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Go back to my first comment in this section and read the second paragraph. --Azor (talk). 13:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have a specific opinion about some of the issues discussed, but the recognition of Muzaka by Palaiologos is directly related to his activity against Vukašin. This makes the previous version more specific as it concerns Vukašin, not Serbian nobility in general.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Comment" and "I don't have a specific opinion ...", yet you literally reverted the entire edit - including the parts that are being currently discussed. Very confusing.

  As for your stance on this; you say that you reverted due to Muzaka's campaign was explicitly towards Vukašin, alright sure, but you chose to revert back to a version that mentions Vukasin's son to also play a role. You're contradicting yourself to the fullest. An unnecessary and careless revert which you should elaborate, @Maleschreiber. --Azor (talk). 21:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Again, let’s reiterate. We’ve been over this same topic before. Whether directly or indirectly involved in the battles, Marko was defeated in conflict by Andrea II Muzaka. It’s like saying that Hitler was not defeated by the Allies during WWII because he did not directly participate in the battles. Marko’s holdings in Kastoria, Ohrid and their surroundings were captured. Botushali (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Retaking of lands has never in history automatically equaled a victory/defeat. For all we know, the Mrnjavčević might have accepted the loss of lands after the Battle of Maritsa had weakened their army. Relying on assumptions is not helping this article. It seems like you and Maleschreiber can't agree on who was involved. Considering your opinion is that Marko was defeated, Maleschreiber would disagree with you considered his stance is that Andrea's campaign was explicitly towards Vukašin. --Azor (talk). 07:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t speak for other editors and I don’t make assumptions. If you would like to know the thoughts of other editors, you can ask them yourself. There’s no source that states Marko willingly gave away his lands to Muzaka, in fact that’s quite ridiculous and is not implied by the source used in the article. That’s you throwing out unsourced assumptions. Botushali (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Maleschreiber argues that Muzaka's activity is only towards Vukasin, while you somehow is whining about battles (?) with his son Marko. I do have an idea which RS Maleschreiber reflect on. I have read it myself and I 100% agree with his comment on Vukasin through the term "acitivity". Maleschreiber's only reason for the revert is so the specific name of Vukasin can be mentioned. I agree Vukasin can be explicitly mentioned, and we generally seem to share the same view. . --Azor (talk). 16:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I do not however think "activity" suits better than "success". He was, after all, awarded. You don't get awarded unless you have some sort of success at something. Moreover, I improved the specificity now. I suggest you read the same source me and Maleschreiber have read, then it might give more sense to you. Let me know if you need me to cite it. Cheers. --Azor (talk). 18:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? I added most of the new sources, and regardless, it doesn’t change anything. None of what you have said here is sufficient enough to change the lead, and you are also changing the part which talks about Marko losing land as well as his depleted forces from Maritsa.

  You RV-ing yet again without us coming to a consensus or solution here is another example of slow edit-warring. It’s what you were sanctioned for. It would be best for you to stop. Also, I am not “whining” about anything, it is you who edits this page over and over again to cope with details you don’t want to be mentioned. You come back here every few months or so and start disruptive edit wars with nonsensical talk page contributions. I’m regards to Marko, we’ve been over this already, and sources support the fact that Andrea took military action against Marko and defeated his forces. See Gloyer (2010), Fine (1994) and I believe that there is one or two more sources that passingly mention this in context to the agreements between the Muzaka and the Balsha. Stop changing cited content. Botushali (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  You did not really mention any specific issues with the new lead? If the issue is Marko not being mentioned, you should discuss it with Maleschreiber who reverted solely for that reason. His third opinion confirmed what I have been telling you multiple times. It is "activity/campaign" not "wars", etc .. Pure puffery that should have never been added in the first place. --Azor (talk). 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  You should read WP:PUFFERY and actually understand what it means. Also, I don’t see Maleschreiber agree with you on that point, you can’t deflect your inability to answer questions on him. At the end of the day, sources talk about Muzaka’s military campaigns against Marko. It would be wise to stop RV-ing sourced information. Botushali (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Fine (1994): It is possible, however, that Gropa was a vassal of Marko. However, Andrew Musachi, who was based in east-central Albania and took Kastoria from Marko, was clearly no vassal of his. Muzaka took Kastoria from Marko, hence he needs to be mentioned in relevant sections - including the lead.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Vukašin of Serbia, captured?

After the recent removal of these sentences;

• "In the late 1360's, Andrea II was engaged in a conflict over the southwestern provinces of Macedonia (including Kastoria) against Vukašin Mrnjavčević, the King of Serbia. Both rulers had claims to inherit these regions after the death of Simeon Uroš; Vukašin had claimed it as the co-ruler of Stefan Uroš V, whereas Andrea II claimed it on the grounds that the border between Albania and Bulgaria lied at the Pelister mountain, specifically the Dobrida spring. Vukašin gathered an army and marched towards Muzaka's territory, prompting Andrea to gather an army of his own and confront the king at Pelister in 1369. The battle at Pelister ended with the victory of Andrea II, and Vukašin himself was taken prisoner. As a result of this battle, the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos presented Andrea II with the imperial emblem, and granted him the title of "despot of Epirus"." --Elsie, Robert (2003). Early Albania: a reader of historical texts ; 11th - 17th centuries. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. p. 41.

I verified the Elsie source, whereas my Albanian is quite lacking. Do the Duka and Muhadri state Vukašin was captured at a battle? If so who do they get their information from? Is it John Musachi?

The The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest, J.V.A. Fine, Volume II, pages 362-364, 374-376, make no mention of Vukašin's capture, but instead, mentions a battle between him and an Uroš, with Uroš being captured.

I have found no other mentions of Vukašin in a battle or being captured. Apologies if someone interested wasn't pinged.

• @Jingiby:
• @Arberian2444:
• @Botushali:
• @Azorzal:
• @Maleschreiber: --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kansas, hope you're well. Indeed, there has been a lot of discussion on this TP regarding a general lack of sources for certain events, but a lack of coverage does not necessarily mean a lack of reliability.

Nonetheless, in regards to the sources; I don't think I put Duka's source on the article as I don't recall having access to it in the past. I believe @Maleschreiber put Duka's work on the article if I'm not mistaken?

I can, however, verify Muhadri's work. I'll post the direct quote surrounding the capture first, but I can also translate the whole passage if need be:

Beteja e Peristerit e vitit 1369 u mbyll me fitoren e Andrea II Muzakës, ushtria e Vukashinit u shpartallua keq dhe vetë mbreti serbo-bullgar u zu rob nga një luftëtar i Muzakës...

Translation: The Battle of Perister (Pelister) in the year 1369 ended with a victory for Andrea II Muzaka, Vukašin's army was shattered and the Serbo-Bulgar king himself was captured by a warrior of Muzaka's...

Muhadri cites p.262 of reputable historian Pellumb Xhufi's work - Nga Paleologët te Muzakajt (From the Palaiologos to the Muzaka). Perhaps that's another work that can be added to the article if someone has access to it.

Fine's work mentions Muzaka's victory at the Battle of Pelister, but he does not refer to any sort of capture; to be fair, he mentions the battle in passing while talking about Tsar Dušan (who preceded the battle by 14 years), so I don't think he researched the battle as much. Could you find and paste the quote where Fine discusses the capture of an Uroš? I cannot seem to locate it, might be interesting to look at.

Botushali (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Could you find and paste the quote where Fine discusses the capture of an Uroš? I cannot seem to locate it, might be interesting to look at."

"Orbini then proceeds to report that the Raskan nobles Lazar, Altomanovic, and Uros clashed with Vukasin in battle at Kosovo in 1369. However, Lazar withdrew from the fighting at the start leaving his allies to oppose Vukasin. Altomanovic suffered a defeat while Uros was captured and briefly imprisoned Vukasin." --"The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest, John V.A. Fine, page 374

• "Fine's work mentions Muzaka's victory at the Battle of Pelister, but he does not refer to any sort of capture;"

Found it on pages 290-291. That, in my mind, further verifies the battle.

• "Muhadri cites p.262 of reputable historian Pellumb Xhufi's work..."

Does Xhufi cite where he finds the information regarding the capture of Vukasin?

Perhaps, we could, in an attempt to alleviate further "historical accuracy" concerns(ie.Serbian1331), by citing Fine for the battle?

• @Serbian1331: --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  It mentions it on p.374 (chapter is called civil war among the Serbs) : "Orisni then proceeds to report that the Rascian nobles Lazar,Altomanovic and (Emperor) Uros clashed with Vukasin in battle at Kosovo in 1369. However, Lazar withdrew from the fighting at start leaving his allies to oppose Vukasin. Altomanovic suffered a defeat while Uros was captured and imprisoned by Vukasin." Serbian1331 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Botushali The battle A. Fine is talking about on page 291 is a battle that happened in 1340. It was a one Serbian unit not entire army, and Vukasin couldnt have lead it since Mrnjavcevici joined Dusan's court in 1350. Half of the section about Andrea's later reign is ahisorical and it shouldnt be reverted. Serbian1331 (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Serbian1331, I would ask you to revert your latest edit and wait for consensus. Also, Fine states, "Except for one battle at about this time...", which doesn't necessarily mean 1340. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Serbian1331, everything you have stated above is WP:OR unless you have sources that prove otherwise. We actually have sources verifying the battle and discussing Vukašin’s capture. Please familiarise yourself with WP:RS - sources are required to support any statement made on Wikipedia articles.

@Kansas Bear, indeed, we can add Fine as a citation for Muzaka’s victory. You raise a great point by mentioning Fine’s lack of specificity on the battle; he only says “at about this time” in a section focusing on Dušan himself, which is kind of confusing.

Unfortunately I don’t have access to that work by Xhufi to see where he cites his work from in regards to Muzaka’s battle at Pelister. Botushali (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Botushali Your sources on the subject are questionable at best. I can list you "Late Medival Balkans" by John A Fine, "History of Serbs" by Vladimir Corovic and "Kingdom of Slavs" by Mauro Orbini that all agree that Vukasin menaged to successfully wage war against the Rascian nobility and even capture Emperor Uros in 1369. If he was defeated so badly that he was even captured by Albanian lord in 1369-70, it would be impossible for him to do that. Only battle of Pelister that is mentioned by Byzanine sources was in 1340. Also Vukasin after 1369. only became more powerful, as he set a camp near Skadar in 1371. , as he was preparing to finish of Nikola Altomanovic (one of the most powerful lords in the empire). This invasion didnt happen because he turned his army towards Adrianople to face the Turks. If you question my statements I wrote here check either of sources I listed above. Serbian1331 (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

None of those sources prove that Vukašin wasn’t defeated and/or captured by Muzaka at Pelister. Unless you have WP:RS sources that state otherwise, everything you are writing is according to your own interpretation and therefore WP:OR. It doesn’t matter what Vukašin did after or before his loss at Pelister, sources quite clearly indicate that he was defeated.

So far we have three sources on the article discussing Vukašin’s defeat and capture, another two sources that can be cited to this end and we even have primary sources (although citing them here is an issue, WP:PRIMARY). For his victory against Vukašin, Andrea was awarded a banner and titles by the Byzantine Empire. These are documented facts. You need sources that say explicitly what you are claiming here to support your case, otherwise the article should stay as it is. Botushali (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So we add Fine source and what would you say to adding "according to John Musachi," ?

• "The battle at Pelister[Fine source] ended with the victory of Andrea II, and, according to chronicler John Musachi, Vukašin himself was taken prisoner.[Elsie source]"

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Except for one battle at about this time, in which Andrew Musashi defeated a Serb unit in Peristeri mountains (for which he received a medal from the Byzantines) we know of no action of Albanians to oust the Serbs and realize the treaty with Angevins..." (The late medieval Balkans : a critical survey from the late twelfth century to the Ottoman Conquest / John V.A. Fine, Jr.)

John A Fine here depicted a one battle happening against the Serbs against a Serb unit at mountain Peristeri.

Yet in this wiki article we have : "Andrea II Muzaka waged war against the Serbian forces around 1340. In an alliance with the Gropa family..." and we also have

None of this indicates a massive victory over King of Serbia, it simply states that Andrea defeated a Serb unit.

Also your sources dont provide anything on how was Vukasin able to wage war in the same year about Rascian nobility which undeniably happened. (I stated my sources for this above). Serbian1331 (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Fine's non-specific work is contrasted by other works that are more descriptive of the matter. Multiple, in fact. You are free to check those sources yourself. Fine says a "unit", without mentioning who the battle was against and what year. The way it is written seems to place it at the time of Dušan's reign, which was not the case.

To your last point, rulers can lead multiple campaigns in a year. Vukašin warring against Rascian nobility does not dismiss the existence of his conflict with Muzaka at Pelister, for which Muzaka was awarded titles by the Byzantine Empire. Botushali (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It does dismiss his capture, if this battle actually happened and Vukasin was involved in it, it couldnt have been a defeat serious enough for him to get captured. City of Kostur was held at the time by Radoslav Hlapen, who was a ally of Vukasin so it could have been a confusion between those two figures.

There is also a very likely possibility of chroniclers overexaggerating Muzaka's victory. If this battle happened before Battle of Kosovo in 1369. then Vukasin wouldn't be able to wage war against rascain nobility, if battle happened afterwards then Vukasin wouldn't be able to become even stronger and even prepare for invasion of the most powerful feudal lord in the northern part of the empire (Nikola Altomanovic). This full scale defeat would be recorded by Byzantine or Ragusan sources, since King of Serbia (who was either still a second man of the Empire or a defacto most powerful man in the Empire, depending on this battle happening either before or after conflict with the rascian nobility) was supposedly defeated and captured.

Also a major problem with this analogy is that Simeon Uros's inharitance had a clear heir. Jovan Uros Nemanjic who ruled southern territories in the Empire until 1373. (Check Late Medieval Balkans p.353) Yet sources that you listed claim that Vukasin (who was possibly still a co-ruler to Uros at the moment) waged war against Andrea Muzaka instead of attacking Jovan Uros.

Vukasin's ally Radolsav Hlapen had possessions close to Jovan's capital Trikala.

(Check Late Medieval Balkans p.349 : "Hlapen took Damasis in nothern Thessaly... Symeon allowed Hlapen to keep Damasis in thessaly and also granted to Hlapen lands Symeon had west of Hlapen's principality")

So why would Vukasin march towards southern Albania instead of Thessaly? Serbian1331 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, everything you have written is speculative. Your reasoning and rationale is based off of your own assumptions and interpretations. Our job as volunteer editors on Wiki is to use sources in order to improve or create articles so that free high-quality information is available for everyone - we are not supposed to comment on Muzaka’s motivations and decisions with our own interpretations, nor are we meant to get into long conversations about what we personally think Vukašin should have done. See WP:NOTFORUM.

According to the sources, Vukašin marched on southern Albania over a dispute over the border between him and the Principality of Muzaka. Muzaka confronted his forces and defeated him, for which the Byzantines granted Muzaka the title ‘Despot of Epirus’. That is what sources state. If your issue lies with the sources, then you are going to have to file discussions at the RSN for each source, which will most likely fail as they fall under WP:RS bibliography.

Until then, any removal or changes of sourced information on the grounds of your personal beliefs is WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour that may require admin intervention. I do not want it to get to that point, so I will kindly ask you to stop engaging in speculative edit wars and refrain from making WP:OR changes without the appropriate sources. Thanks.

I will add the sentence agreed upon through WP:CONSENSUS by Kansas and I. Botushali (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Kansas Bear, I have found another source that discusses the matter:

George Christos Soulis, The Serbs and Byzantium During The Reign of Tsar Stephen Dusan 1331-1355 and His Successors (1984)

p.142: After Dušan's death the Musachis extended their territory southward. We have already seen how Andrew Musachi, with the help of his sons-in-law Balša and Gropa, took the city of Kastoria from Marko Kraljević. The same Andrew also came into conflict with King Vukašin. As a reward for his victory, Andrew received from the Byzantine emperor investiture over Kastoria, the title of the despot of Epirus with the privilege of the golden seal, and a throne embroidered with the imperial emblems in pearls.

The basis for this according to the citations used seem to be Muzaka's Chronicles (taken in this case from Hopf's collection), but another interesting piece of information is shared in the footnotes from Soulis himself: Andrew Musachi possessed the title of "dispotus Albanie" before his victory over Vukašin, according to a document of 30 December 1336 referring to Andrew, in which this title is mentioned. See Acta Albaniae, I, 241-2; of. ibia., 196. This refers to the Angevins recognition of Andrea II Muzaka as Despot of the Kingdom of Albania and Marshal of Albania; the Byzantines gave him yet another title as Despot of Epirus* after defeating Vukašin.

So, in regards to the new structure of the sentence, how exactly do you want to situate it in context with the paragraph it lies in? (i.e. where in the paragraph) Botushali (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, should we add the Fine source for the battle, the Soulis source for Andrea's victory, and the Elsie source for the capture of Vukašin?

• "The battle at Pelister[Fine source] ended with the victory of Andrea II,[Soulis source] and, according to chronicler John Musachi, Vukašin himself was taken prisoner.[Elsie source]"

It would cover everything. What do you think? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So in this form?

After the death of Stefan Dušan in 1355 and the collapse of the short-lived Serbian Empire, Andrea II regained control over parts of south-eastern modern-day Albania and significantly expanded the principality. In the late 1360's, Andrea II was engaged in a conflict over the southwestern provinces of Macedonia (including Kastoria) against Vukašin Mrnjavčević, the King of Serbia. Both rulers had claims to inherit these regions after the death of Simeon Uroš; Vukašin had claimed it as the co-ruler of Stefan Uroš V, whereas Andrea II claimed it on the grounds that the border between Albania and Bulgaria lied at the Pelister mountain, specifically the Dobrida spring. Vukašin gathered an army and marched towards Muzaka's territory, prompting Andrea to gather an army of his own and confront the king at Pelister in 1369. The battle at Pelister[Fine source] ended with the victory of Andrea II,[Soulis source] and, according to chronicler Gjon Muzaka, Vukašin himself was taken prisoner.[Elsie source][Muhadri source] As a result of this battle, the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos presented Andrea II with the imperial emblem, and granted him the title of "despot of Epirus". In this occasion, Andrea II Muzaka adopted as his new coat of arms, the double-headed eagle under a star as a replacement for the traditional coat of arms of the Muzaka, which was a water spring that erupted from the ground and split in two.

All I've done is add Muhadri as a source and correct the usage of Gjon Muzaka's name (especially because his article is titled Gjon Muzaka - we can link this in the sentence). If you're happy, it looks good to me. Thanks for the friendly collaboration, Kansas. Very nice change of pace compared to what I'm used to here on Wiki. Botushali (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

• "Thanks for the friendly collaboration, Kansas. Very nice change of pace compared to what I'm used to here on Wiki."

Honestly, I was looking for a solution that would impede future disruption. I'm hoping the referencing will do just that. Take care Botushali.--Kansas Bear (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)