Talk:Miloš Obilić

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Copyrighted text on this page used with permission.

I'm wondering about the name of this article. Is Milosh Obilich correct? As the š letter is replaced by sh (is it impossible to incorporate an š in the name of the article?) should not ch become č? (When I changed the text I spelled Miloš Obilic.) --The Phoenix 16:50, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is one of older articles about Serbs. There are two ways to transcribe Cyrillic letters from Serbian to English, one directly and the other through Croatian Latin script, and this article uses the first one; actually, I think that first is more correct, but the other one is more used. I think that š could be used in an article title but don't think it should because of several reasons, and ch should become ć, I'll change it. Nikola 08:31, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
After all those centuries passed after the event, we can't decide if Obilic was a heroic figure of Christianity or a coward who faked the Ottoman Sultan and stabbed him (in many cultures, "stabbing" of this kind is seen as the most un-chivalric way of killing your enemy). The only conclusion that we can reach is that Obilic's move didn't change the outcome of the war for the Serbs. Also, just like Hitler and his generals hopelessly celebrated the death of President Roosevelt back in 1945, the death of Murad Hüdavendigar didn't effect the power balances in the regional politics, which was highly dependent on military campaigns back in the day, because Bayezid the Thunderbolt replaced his father immediately, as it happened in United States when the vice president Truman became the president and Allies decisively defeated the Third Reich. Deliogul (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deliogul, please remember the second Pillar of Wikipedia and keep to it, thank you Jenga3 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of Arms Obilic 1386.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Coat of Arms Obilic 1386.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Dragon of St. George[edit]

If that is going to redirect here, shouldn't you actually write about them? Just a thought. Also, you might want to make allowances for people who spell out Saint, or forget the period, maybe have all of those redirect to St. so that when you get around to actually making it you only need to change one article redirect, and if St. is the major spelling the other two are clearly subordinate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


This article says Obilic married Lazar's daughter Mara. The article on Lazar says Mara married Vuk Brankovic. So who did she actually choose?? (the earth or the skies?) :P K. Lásztocskatalk 05:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zalog[edit]

Dear Zalog / User: / User: Before you're threatening again to report me for edit warring, you can always try but please realise that you've got to back up your claims with reliable sources, which is a concept you do not quite seem to grasp. See WP:RS. Let's take a closer look at what it is you're actually citing:

(1) an unreferenced web page of some pseudo-chivalric order that styles itself Imperial Sovereign Tiberian Dobrynian House of Rome and Russia.
(2) another unreferenced website at, which happens to be based on an old wiki-article. There is a reason why that information is no longer available on wikipedia.
(3) a blog, and not just a blog but a user 'response' by one "Serbian Croat" (also unreferenced of course). You've been warned by someone else (User:MBK004) that blogs are no reliable sources, though you've conveniently blanked your user page right after I reverted your edits.
(4) finally a reliable source! A PDF of a recent academic article by Danijela Gavrilović on Serbian epic poetry, but you've used it to state that "The dragon helmet worn by Miloš Obilić is symbolic of the order he helped found." That suggestion is nowhere to be found in the article! I went on to actually write a couple of sentences based on that article, yet you've reverted my edits twice.

Hope you'll learn from it, Cavila (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

I don't know, the sources provided for that little snipped in the article are as reliable as most sources anywhere in the article. Besides we learned about this in Mediterranean studies and it is actually true. You can discuss the validity of the sources with Zaglo if you wish but for now I'm going to vote that the info stays on the page. I'll find some extra sources at the uni library and see if I can't put this matter to rest. Best regards! (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not about voting. This is about verifiability. If you've got reputable sources, please use them, but otherwise this is a rather hopeless case. Cavila (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Removed. We don't "vote" on article contents, but use reliable sources and scientific consensus to back them up. I don't have anything to add to Cavila's analysis. Bad sourcing elsewhere is not an excuse for using bad sourcing to support fringe teories. No such user (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It isn't an advertisement but a reference improve request. Which is kind of funny because there is already a reference improve request at the top of the article ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the refimprove tag basically says "contents of this article are probably ok but sourcing should be tighter". It is not a blank license to add rumors and hearsays based on internet blogs and websites of a fringe "knight order" organization. Wikipedia articles should not under any circumstances contain text like: "According to someone who calls himself Serbian Croat and has responded to a blog, all the original members...". No such user (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New trustable sources of Miloš's origin[edit]

Anna Di Lellio has a book concerning the disputes over his origin, she says the name Milos Obilic was actually first used by Serbian amateur historians (who were known nationalists) and that earlier records mention something like "Milos Kobilla" or "Millosh Kopiliqi", which could mean he was in fact Albanian, I was surprised to see that not even the word "albanian" is mentioned in this article, while Albanians too claim his origin, the book is names "The Battle of Kosovo 1389: An Albanian Epic" (Amazon) -- CD 13:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the hypothesis which interprets the earliest attestations of the name as somehow revealing an Albanian background deserves to be cited, even if it has not produced consensus. The article by Dragutin Kostić given under "Further reading" looks important here, but I don't have acccess to it. For some further pointers, there's a brief online summary of some of the arguments and conclusions here, footnote 60 (main article by Sophia S Juka here). If I recall correctly, a more recent and probably more controversial view is found in Noel Malcolm's Kosovo: A Short History (it may not meet the standards of academic research though). Cavila (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Anna Di Lellio book is, by authors words, only list of stories, epic's and tales, and far from academic source that we need here. also, did anyone read it? I did, and it did show some different things, but it is far from being a reliable source. Tadija (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
She was a UN advisor, that makes her reliable. --Muzakaj (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who she is in this case, only matters what did she wrote... Tadija (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It does because a UN advisor is certainly reliable. Why don't you consider her a reliable source?--Muzakaj (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you dont understand! I am taking about book, "The Battle of Kosovo 1389: An Albanian Epic", not about her. That book cannot be a source for this information. It is not academic source, it is just low popular culture. Tadija (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I understood what you said. I'm asking WHY do you think it is "just low popular culture"?--Muzakaj (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if it's not "just low popular culture" is doesn't meet the WP:RS standards. The information is not within the author's area of expertise.--Ptolion (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL. WP:RS says that questionable is Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.. The source is fine, your problem is that you don't like it.--Muzakaj (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It also says that reliable sources are "material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". Does her book qualify? I think not. At best, the article could say "according to Anna Di Lellio...".--Ptolion (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Why doesn't it qualify?--Muzakaj (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the information is not within her area of expertise, she's a sociologist not a historian specialising in Balkan history. In any case, if the information is factual, there should be other sources confirming it that shouldn't be too hard to find. We could ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you like.--Ptolion (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Sure, let's ask. But please don't revert for the next 4-5 days, because I won't be able to participate(moving).--Muzakaj (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't revert, but may I suggest changing the wording so that it reads better. Perhaps say "Today, both Serbs and Albanians consider him an important figure in their national histories".--Ptolion (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

FTR Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Anna Di Lellio on Kosovo.--Ptolion (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted that no one replied to the WP:RS opened by Ptolion in 2009. Added di Lellio as she qualifies as RS.--Sulmues (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
If none replayed, that doesnt mean that source is good, it means that is should be asked again. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any basis to think why she isn't reliable? If she is not a historian and no historian can adventure himself into saying anything about his birth, then di Lellio can go down to the legends, but it needs to stay there, because all the rest in the article are as well legends. --Sulmues (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Brought down [1] anyways. --Sulmues (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, then i will add also Skanderbeg origin, also with "Some authors think..." I will remove this, and when someone say something about her on RS, then we will see. Now, this is awful pov. Sorry. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
If you find me an author who says that Skanderbeg was born in Belgrade, I invite you to write it in Wikipedia. There is oral tradition on Kopiliq in Drenica, people don't sing to foreign heroes. --Sulmues (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You dont get it. If some author says that Skanderbeg was born in Belgrade, then he is an idiot, and he doesnt deserve to be in wikipedia. This should be neutral, non nationalistic reliable encyclopedia, and not collection of some minor authors that claim something that is disputed as much as it is possible. But if we have wast number of authors that claim the same, that conversation is over. Do you understand my post and my edits per this? :) --WhiteWriter speaks 22:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Whether di Lellio is minor or not that's not up to you to decide. Wording can be worked upon, but she qualifies as RS unless you obtain otherwise from WP:RS. And please do not edit-war: you brought it to WP:RS after I made my edits, so it is not a good idea to both bring it to WP:RS and decide the outcome by reverting me twice. --Sulmues (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
According to this, Anne di Lellio is a reliable source. Please don't remove the Albanian tradition from the article. Thank you! --Sulmues (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

did any of you even read the book??? she is NOT claiming that MIlos is Albanian she is claiming that folklore(stories,legends,poems,epics) of serbs,montenegrins,macedonians,greeks and albanians are interconnected and that albanians told the stories and sung a songs about Serbian heroes and vice versa that Serbs told stories for example of Skenderbeg relating his bravery and resistance to the Otomans.Your brains and thinking is less to say read an article in a newspaper by a nationalistic driven journalist whos agenda is to divide peoples of Balkans so that they can remain on power and you took that article without even thiking about it and claim that that is reliable and thus humiliate yourself by putting that nonesense on wikipedia.DID YOU EVEN READ THE BOOOK? do you know what book is about? and one thing that i agree on previous posts is that UN advisor does not mean that someone has a credibility in some field of science especially in such subjects as this one where politics is mixed with pseudoscience like in USA where right wing politics claims that there is no global warming or pushing for creationism as a science,and then those pushing their agendas are using and distorting every little world to push for their own opinion.So once more Anne did not claim in her book that MIlos was Albanian only that Albanians told the stories of him.And regarding his Albanian name,our ancestors gave him Albanian name like everything in Kosovo has a Serbian and Albanian name(pec/peje, vucitrn/Vushtrri, podujevo/podujeva, deacni/decan, srbica/skenderaj, urosevac/ferizaj).You are stupid and ignorant and your point of view is characteristic for 19/XIX/nineteen centurie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have read several pages in Amazon's preview (log into, go here, click in the book cover and search "Drenica"). Lellio does not say that "albanians told the stories and sung a songs about Serbian heroes", that's incorrect.
Lellio gives many proofs that Obilic is considered an Albanian hero by the inhabitants of Drenica and by Albanians in general. Some quotes:

On the other hand, current Kosovo textbooks, approved by the Ministry of Education, introduce him as Millosh Kopiliq, a hero of Albanian origin, born in the village Kopiliq. They have Kopiliq as an Albanian hero since the Milošević regime banned Albanian language in Kosovo schools and an Albanian parallel system of schoolng was established in January 1992.

— Lellio, p. 25

Interviews with a range of individuals, from intellectuals to political activists or ordinary people, confirm that Millosh Kopiliq occupies a contested place in Albanian historical consciousness, For some, the issue is a non-starter, a concern that remains confined to naïve nationalist circles. For many other, an Albanian Kopiliq is an undisputed fact: he was always "one of us," just not always publicly.

— Lellio, pp. 27-28

I encountered no doubt on the Albanian origin of Kopiliq in Drenica, where his memory is built on oral tradition.

— Lellio, p. 27
Thus, this and this were removals of accurate information. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If it's relevant and it's properly sourced, shouldn't it be put back in the article? bobrayner (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The "Albanian origin" version is also mentioned in other sources:
  • "(translated from French) In Albanian mythology, Milos Obilic is called Milosh Kopiliq and is presented as an Albanian from Kosovo and not as a Serb. Similarly, the prince Lazar would be an Illyrian, so a non-Slavic" La question nationale en Europe du Sud-Est, Bashkim Iseni, scholar in political science and international relationships, the book describes the Serbian, Albanian and Ottoman versions of the battle and of the death of the Sultan. He has also written about "how national Identity, Islam and politics have evolved historically among Albanians and Bosnians Muslims in Former Yugoslavia." [2]
  • " In Serbian epics, he is a Serb called Milos Obilic and early in the last century and during and after the battles following the dissolution of Yugoslavia he “evoked a medieval past of national greatness.” In Albanian, the hero is named Millosh Kopiliq, an Albanian who was for (...) " "Identities: Who Killed the Sultan?", Transitions Online 2009, Davich, Adrienne "Translations of little-known Albanian oral epics add another dimension to the endless conversation over the Battle of Kosovo." I can't read it, but it cites Lellio's book.
  • "[translated from Norwegian] In the Serbian folk literature and the Kosovo myth, both Vuk Brankovic and Miloš Obilic prepared as Tsar Lazar-law (Ćirković 2004: 85). There are also Albanian folk songs about the Kosovo battle in 1389 where the sultan Murat killer identified as the Albanian hero Millosh Kopiliq (Lellio 2009 4)" Kosovo-myten og serbisk identitet, A thesis for a Master of European and American Studies, Bosnian / Croatian / Serbian culture
  • "Episode epic chronicling the battle between the army of the Balkan coalition and the Ottoman army: the role of the hero Milosh Kopiliq. Comparison of several variants" Le chansonnier albanais sur la guerre de Kosovo 1389, Culture Populaire Albanaise 1985. I can't read it, but it most probably has Albanian epics that claim Kolipiq as an Albanian.
--Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You can read it here. The selected snippet shows part of the folk songs. This one was sung in the Gjirokastër festival of 1988. Given the semi-polyphonic nature of the song, I'd say that this version is from Drenica or Kaçanik.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The Drenica region is the center of the oral tradition of Albanian "Kolipiq" (according to Lellio). According to List of populated places in Kosovo by Municipality there are two villages called Kolopiq (called Obilic in Serbian?), near the Dresnica municipality of Sbrica. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to build on this with the etymological evidence on p73 of Noel Malcolm's "Kosovo". Chrysobulls show that "Miloš" was a common first name in western Kosovo at the time (at least among the class of people who might get named in chrysobulls), and uncommon elsewhere. However, I don't think we can completely rule out the Hungarian option. And for a bit of fun, one of the chinese-whispers variations of his name in folk tales was "Milo Comnene" 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the K was only dropped from his name in the 18th century, so it would not be helpful to look for a settlement (or a manor, lordship, &c) without the K. bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)I wouldn't search for settlements using their more "modern names" as many of them were renamed by the Serbian state after 1912. There are two "Kopiliq" settlements in Drenica (Kopiliq i poshtëm[3] and Kopiliq i sipërm, which according to a paper by Luan Maltezi published on Studime Historike[4] appear on the 1455 Ottoman defter, a view also supported by the translators of the defter A. Hazdibegic, A. Handzic and E. Kovacevic. Maltezi also recorded some folk traditions and tales: the people of lower Kopiliq (Kopiliq i poshtëm) when fighting used to boast that they "descended from that man who killed the sultan", while in both villages it's claimed that some ruins of the area belong to the "estate of Milosh Kopiliqi".--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Albanian revisionists should also bear in mind that historic mentions of "Obilic" are all significantly older than historic mentions of "Kopiliq". Additionally, even the rendition of Kopiliq implies Serbian origin, being that the root is "Kobila" Slavic for Mare, and -iq/-ic is a slavic suffix for progeny. For the record Skanderbeg was sung about in Serbian epic poetry too (he was mentioned in the Mountain Wreath (1847), however Skanderbeg has verifiable Serbian origins. (Slav mother and family buried in Serbian monastery). This does not necessarily make him a Serbian hero, but more Serbian than Milos is Albanian according to factual evidence. Critikal1 (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly my point. Thanks, Critikal1! --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Errrr --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this looks like misinterpretation. That information's are not in the book. Does anyone have some other source about it? I cannot find that in the book referenced. Where it actually is? --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
In the mean time, i added some new trustable sources... --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Enric Naval I will update with a 'Mare-Obilic' reference when I have time. However I strongly believe that the "possible hungarian/vlach/albanian origin" part belongs in a separate "controversial claims" section somewhere towards the bottom. Critikal1 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Also I hope the non-Serbs here keep in mind that during Milos' era Serbs (nor most of Europe) did not have surnames/family names in the modern sense. Obilic/Kobilic/etc is/was a "title" that Milos carried in Serbian fashion à la Marko "Kraljevic" (Young Prince), Strahinja "Banovic" (Young Ban). And thus this title cannot have any real implication on his ethnic origin, nor would it really matter whether it was originally Kobilic or Obilic, "Son of the Mare" or "The Abundant one", since it soley serves as tribute to his legend. Critikal1 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)WW: It was not until 1754 that Vasiliye Petrovic in his History of Montenegro used the name Obilyevic for the first time. In 1765 Pavle Yulinac referred to Milos as Obilic, in a book on Serbian history. by Tanya Popovic who used Dragutin Subotic as one of her primary sources. Sources indicate that Kobilic was merely a designation of his birthplace (the abovementioned cluster of villages in the Drenica area) From an ethnographic perspective it is interesting to note that the memory of the original, unedited version hasn't survived in Serbian folk tradition, which means that before the use of the figure by (proto-)nationalists and its propagation in the 19th century he wasn't such an important part of folk poetry as opposed to Marko Kraljevic for instance.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sources indicate that Kobilic was merely a designation of his birthplace (the abovementioned cluster of villages in the Drenica area)." You seem to forget the source you yourself referenced just now saying : "Kobilic, derived from kobila which means 'mare'. According to popular tradition, the name "Kobilic" comes from Milos having been nursed by a mare." The toponyms you allude to are albanian versions of relatively recent toponyms in Kosovo (past century or so). According to Epic Poems Milos came from Western Serbia (mentioned as ruling a district there), or from Zeta (Montenegro), not from Kosovo. Kobilic/Obilic was simply a popular title meant to describe his person. If it was a geographic designation it would be: "Kobilicanin", and this form was never mentioned in any sources. (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
On Anna Di Lellio, i see nothing that disqualifies her book from being used in here. Just because she is a sociologist does not make her a lesser academic then say a historian as some some in here have inferred. Somedtiros in ere who have inferred that on the matter have had no qualms in using the Albanian identities book for the Albanian nationalism article and that book is edited with chapters being written apart from historians there are chapters by sociologists etc. Do i take it that because some may be sociologists that they get removed ? Sociologists, historians, anthropologists they all belong to the humanities and social sciences and their works meet wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Also especially since the 1960s and 1970s there is overlap in the research that sociologists, historians, anthropologists have undertaken and it shows in their research. A section called Albanian traditions would do nicely in this article based on Di Lellio's work, as Drenica is not a few villages (as some have inferred) but a large ethnographic region in western central Kosovo made up of many villages. Di Lellio states that it is a tradition of the Drenica region, not just a few villages there.Resnjari (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Order of the Dragon[edit]

Dear anonymous user, please re-read the section #Dear Zalog above. In a nutshell: we don't think that the "Order of the Dragon of St. George" is relevant to Miloš Obilić and/or notable enough to be included in this article, and not notable enough to be included in an article of its own. If you think otherwise, please find reliable sources which state otherwise, and return the section in question only after that; preferably, put the sources for consideration here first. The ones included in the text you're trying to reinstate are, as noted above, junk. Please do not reinstate the material in question unilaterally. Please also remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means for promotion, and promotion of little-known or made-up knight orders included in the "not" part. Thanks. No such user (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources[edit]

So, you're going through fairly extensive hoops to "prove" that Obilić founded the original Order, whose aim was to kill Murad at Kosovo field. However, the statement is not contained in any of sources you provided, and I'll go as far to say that you're misrepresenting them on purpose:

  • Even if we accept the reliability, this source depicts only the Sigismund's order, and does not mention Obilić at all.
  • This is a fork (copy) of Wikipedia itself, of the article Order of the Dragon, which you have edited on several occasions [5]
  • You recycle the blog source again, which is specifically forbidden
  • The Mountain Wreath is an epic poem.
  • Federer, J. W. (2009). A History of Islam and the United States. New York: Scribd. (The original Order, called the Sacred Order of the Dragon of Saint George, was created by Milos Obilic, the first Serbian to be dubbed a knight in the feudal tradition. Obilic created his order with twelve other knights and the society had a single purpose at its center: The assassination of the Ottoman Sultan, Murad I.) See the next item:
  • Thomas A. Emmert. Serbian Golgotha, Kosovo, 1389, New York, 1990. The original Order, called the Sacred Order of the Dragon of Saint George, was created by Milos Obilic, the first Serbian to be dubbed a knight in the feudal tradition. Obilic created his order with twelve other knights and the society had a single purpose at its center: The assassination of the Ottoman Sultan, Murad I. The last two sources are not available online, and you don't cite a page or paragraph where you found the dubious statements. ("The dragon helmet worn by Miloš Obilić is symbolic of the order he helped found.") Given your previous history of self-promotion and misrepresentation of sources, I'm not inclined to trust you that the source contains any statement to that effect.

I think that your actions here now deserve the attention of administrators. No such user (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, call the administrators. I'm slowly improving the article, which is what you're supposed to be doing. And I wasn't done yet. (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll keep the actual article clear, but I don't see the difference.... (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Order of the Dragon of St. George[edit]

Miloš Obilić was a founding member of Order of the Dragon of St. George[1][2], not to be confused with The Order of the Dragon, founded later in honor of Obilić by Sigismund. The original Order, called the Sacred Order of the Dragon of Saint George, was created by Milos Obilic, the first Serbian to be dubbed a knight in the feudal tradition. Obilic created his order with twelve other knights and the society had a single purpose at its center: The assassination of the Ottoman Sultan, Murad I[3]. Milos Obilic achieved the aim of his organization during the disastrous battle of Kosovo Polje (June 15, 1389)[4], when he was able to force himself into Murad’s tent and stab the Sultan to death. All the original members of the Dragon Order fell on the field of Kosovo except for one who passed his credentials to Stefan Lazarević and various European draconists (knights of Austria, Naples, Kingdom of Hungary, Spain, etc)[5]. The dragon helmet worn by Miloš Obilić is symbolic of the order he helped found.[6]

In Serbian epic poetry and song (eg. "Radul-bey and Bulgarian King Šišman" and the song "Dušan's Wedding"), Miloš Obilić is often grouped along with other literary creations like Karadjordje, Vuk Karadžić and Njegoš as Serbs of Dinaric origin who distinguished themselves as the great moral and/or intellectual minds of the past in contradistinction to Bulgarian contemporaries, who could claim no such status.[7] In the poem "Obilić Dragon's Son", Miloš is given a mythical ancestry as the son of a dragon to emphasize his superhuman strength on a physical and spiritual level[8]; in this, he joins the ranks of many other heroes of Serbian poetry who fought against Turkish oppression and are claimed to have been descendants of a dragon.[9] The Serbian people have a long history of association with dragons in mythology where unions between dragons and women or fairies and men produced offspring in times of strife to protect the Serbian people.[10][11] [12] [13]

Bad source[edit]

Anna Di Lellio has been rejected. On Reliable source noticeboard. i removed POV section. This cannot be based on one single source, that anyway, even without past rejection, fails WP:IRS. --Tadijaspeaks 15:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It has not been rejected, anyway the book is not directly the source as it is a collection of epics (which are the actual source), certainly you can't argue that epics aren't a reliable source since the whole story is based on them anyway and they have historic importance nevertheless -- CD 17:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
As we dont have good sources about that, we cannot use it. C'mon, who know is that really epic, or just she write that? Anna di Lellio was rejected, as inappropriate source for this kind of encyclopedia. --Tadijaspeaks 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
According to this, Anne di Lellio is a reliable source. Please don't remove the Albanian tradition from the article. Thank you! --Sulmues (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Concentration Camps vs Internment Camps[edit]

There seems to be the fear of pushing POV with the usement of the two terms, which one should be used preferably? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


So what have we here? One non-historian who claims that, based on folk songs, he might be Albanian, and all of a sudden it's "Millosh Kopiliqi" in the lede? First, the number of English language (reliable) sources that refer to him by that name is close to zero, so it shouldn't be in the lede. Second, the way the lede had been changed, it made it seems that Milos Obilic is of equal importance to Serbs and Albanians. Yet that is entirely misleading. Milos Obilic is of vastly greater importance to Serbs than Albanians, who after all, have their own heroes (e.g. Skenderbeg). The changes to the lede were thus WP:UNDUE. Lastly, a question: If Milos Obilic is a hero to the Albanians, why did the RoK government rename the town of "Obilic" in central Kosovo to "Kastriot", rather than "Kopiliq"? Athenean (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please avoid reverts such as this? We can work upon the wording of the lede and weigh less the Albanian side, but a mention of that has to be made. I wish the Serbs (and also the Greeks for that matter) could leave us in peace with Skanderbeg article, but they won't: Look at what Euzen (Gre) and Antidiscriminator (Srb) are doing in the talk page: The whole Albanian team needs to explain them why Skanderbeg isn't a Serb (or Greek). Obiliq is an obscure hero, far from the documented king and leader, so there are really few songs on him. The shift of the Albanians from Christianity to Muslim has estranged them from the hero, but the songs still are there to testify a past. --Sulmues (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Made another change, added "Albanians of the area of Drenica": indeed di Lellio speaks about the love of the locals for the hero and we are close to the sources.--Sulmues (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that Sulmues will respond you. This is POV pushing, and pushing very hard! --WhiteWriter speaks 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. First, the Albanian name has no business in the lede, as virtually no one refers to him as "Milos Kopiliqi". Second, please stop making comments based on people's ethnicity. It seems to me that you are causing problems here because you are mad at what the "Serbs" and "Greeks" have "done" to Skanderbeg. Milos Obilic is not a hero to Albanians, he is a hero to Serbs. A few folk songs in a couple of villages does not warrant such changes to the lede. It is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You yourself have problems with finding sources, because you are spelling it with one l. In Albanian is with two ls, so it is Millosh, like Millosh Gjergj Nikolla. Please respond why you reverted me in the talk page: any particular reasons? I answered to you questions that were based on ethnicity. And all you say that he is a hero to the Serbs and not the Albanians is your own point of view which I don't share. They are not a couple of songs in a couple of villages, I don't have the sources to say that he is a hero for ALL the Albanians, comprised those of Chameria, you know, Albania is a big country and in the 14th century there wasn't internet, so the chams might not have heard of him. Hence he is not a national hero for all the Albanians, but a local hero for the ghegs of the north. Do I make sense to you? The songs are part of the northern Albania tradition, and they don't belong to "a couple of villages". Elsie doesn't waste time with a couple of villages songs. --Sulmues (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Then why did they rename "Obilic" to "Kastriot"? I think that speaks volumes. The songs are only found in the Drenica area. I somehow doubt he is a hero to the Ghegs of nothern Albania, e.g. Lezhe and Kukes. You say that I have problems finding sources, but seems like you are talking about yourself here ("I don't have the sources to say that he is a hero for ALL the Albanians"). On the other, he is a hero to all the Serbs, so equating the two is WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
With this edit I want to emphasize that he is a national hero of all the serbs and that's not the case for the Albanians. I truly appreciate WhiteWriter's self revert and I believe he is behaving in a very mature manner, I can't say the same for Athenean. --Sulmues (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't care less. You would also be very wise to stop commenting on contributors, lest is be used against you in the future. Obilic is not "a major figure" in Albanian epic poetry, and no English language sources refer to him as "Millosh Kopiliqi" [6]. Di Lellio is the only one (surprise!). Per WP:NC, the Albanian spelling of his name has no business in the first line of the lede. Athenean (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You are bringing the wrong policy, that's for the title of the article, which is in Serbian. Might want to look into some other policy. Look, if you really feel strongly about it, I will just bring down the Albanian name. I don't care too much about it.Done. I don't want to offend anybody here. --Sulmues (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You could all ignore the lead, accepting that it isn't especially good and that the article is nowhere near finished. (What struck me as odd is that Kobilić/Kobilović isn't mentioned, which seems off when that's the oldest name recorded, if I am reading the article right.) If need be reduce the lead to something very short that you can all agree on. After that you can spend time on improving the article content, adding any missing material, and referencing everything as well as you can, rather than arguing about the lead. Then, when you think you are done for a bit, find someone who can write clearly and concisely (Guild of Copy Editors?) to write a wonderful, sparkling new lead for you. The lead - according to WP:LEAD - is supposed to summarise the article, give more or less appropriate weight to things, and mention any notable controversies, and it is not necessary to understand the sources to do that if the article is properly written. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are definitely more pressing matters than quibbling over whether or not to include a name in the lead. Note, for instance, that the entire section on "later legends" is unreferenced and gives little idea of the provenance of these traditions. What are these legends, what developments can be traced and how do we know about them? Lofty poems from the time of the Balkan Wars? Oral traditions recorded on aluminium discs in the 1930s? (I just use these fancy examples for the sake of argument) And so on. The Albanian section could also use some expansion and I don't see any problem with using Di Lellio and Elsie as a source for Albanian narratives here. Cavila (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Di Lellio, Noel Malcolm also mentions "Millosh Kopiliqi" in his book "Kosovo: a short history", arguing that Millosh was also a common name for albanians of the region, and that "kopil" means illegitimate child in albanian and "copil" means child in romanian, as well as mentioning possible hungarian nationality. He also says that "Obilic" appears much later and is most likely a false name. --Cradel (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Anne did not claim in her book that MIlos was Albanian only that Albanians told the stories of him.And regarding his Albanian name,our ancestors gave him Albanian name like everything in Kosovo has a Serbian and Albanian name(pec/peje, vucitrn/Vushtrri, podujevo/podujeva, deacni/decan, srbica/skenderaj, urosevac/ferizaj).So this is only a Albanian tranliteration of Serbian surname forexample Petrovic is Petroviq, Tadic is Tadiq tec.Noel Malcolm is not a reliable source he wrote that book for british MI6 for the purposes of the propaganda war during Kosovo war and to reafirm a point of view for Kosovo independance.Every credible expert in Balkans do not consired Malcolm as a credible scientist or historian.he is a pundit popular only in Kosovo and by a few British right wing newspapers,he is not a part of any think tnahk or organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna di Lellio's book, or the epics found in it[edit]

Robert Elsie has posted all of the albanian epics which he translated for Anna di Lellio's book about Millosh/Milos Here, he even gives the names of the collectors of the epics, like Albert Lord, Glisa Elezovis, Anton Çetta and Margaret Hasluck. I will be editing the article soon to include this new information but it is probably a good idea to first discuss the reliability of these sources and the way in which they should be incorporated in the article, any objections? --Cradel (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the basic problem here is WP:UNDUE: Obilić is a national hero/mythical figure for 9 million Serbs, but only for a few Albanians; apart from the several villagers which keep the oral tradition, I seriously doubt that the remaining 2 million of Kosovo Albanians know/care about him. Mentioning of the tradition in Drenica is OK, but not in the lead. As Athenean said above, "A few folk songs in a couple of villages does not warrant such changes to the lede. It is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE.".
Di Lellio's reliability has been questioned above, at #New trustable sources of Miloš's origin. No opinion from me either way. No such user (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
When you find good, reliable neutral international sources for this, that this can be in the lede, but only if we all agree that is should be. But until then, it is just POV pushing, and edit warring. Sentence was removed as unsourced, and per good explanation by No such user above. --WhiteWriter speaks 10:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Let me apologize for choosing the wrong title for this topic. In fact, this isn't about Di Lellio, this is about Robert Elsie and the authors I mentioned above from which he took the original epics and translated them, nowhere has their reliability been questioned. Furthermore, whether it is a few country people or a whole nation who claim him has nothing to do historical facts, and Wikipedia certainly doesn't establish facts or take sides, rather it presents all sides of the story (or all sources, if you like). We cannot argue on which epic is more reliable, especially not from the number of their believers (a billion people believing in a lie won't make it true, not in science a least). Also, we can't agree to not include reliable information or take a side, imagine if there were, say, no Israeli users and all the Palestinians agreed to only write their part of the story, I'm sure that makes Wikipedia the most reliable encyclopedia on the Web. So please let's stop POV pushing, epics are epics, nobody made them up to steal anybody's history, and let's just add all the information that we have to Wikipedia --Cradel (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I really dont understand you thesis about believers and Palestinians, so i really cannot interpret it. Robert only cited di leillo, so it IS about that book, and not about Robert Elsie. It is also interesting that few pro-Albanian editors always use Elsie, highly pro-albanian POV person for up to date citations and links, when nothing else stands. Anyway, this is still only about including that questionable book of di Leillo into this article, and you didnt presented any good source for inclusion. Once again, we need good, reliable neutral international sources, not the citation of di Leilo from other authors. That list of "authors" is also from di leillo book, so... Sources, sources, links, links... None other will be good for this. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I was using an example to point out to you that if good and reliable sources are given, no consensus is necessary to include that information (an answer to your first reply). As for Elsie, he is a highly acclaimed translator, whether he is pro-albanian or not is of no importance when citing his work since it is merely translations, same goes for di Lellio who gathered them in her book. Thet are not the actual sources here, the epics are. The only reason for involving Elsie is that the epics are originally in Albanian and therefore can't be verified by everybody, Elsie made this possible. Now, if it had been any other translator, his credibility would be dubious but since Elsie is a trustworthy translator his translations can be used as sources. --Cradel (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

On Elsie, referring too him as "pro-Albanian" is personal opinion. Unless an assessment of the type has been made in scholarship best to refrain from original research and personal POV. On Anna di Lellio, she is a sociologist (hence of the Humanities and social sciences) and meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary criteria. Her research can easily be catered for in a section titled Albanian traditions for this article without interfering with other parts of the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Strong consensus, and the RfC has not generated a torrent of comments—the most recent dating from four days ago—so I see no problem closing the request now. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Miloš ObilićMiloš Kobilić – His name was Miloš Kobilić. "Obilić is the form used by all modern Serbian writers; strangely, even serious historians and literary scholars continue to use it, although they are well aware that it is a completely spurious emendation". Noel Malcolm: Kosovo, a short history. p. 73.[7] Majuru (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose If all the literature uses "Obilic", that's where the article should stay. "Noel Malcolm says his name was Kobilic" is not a reason to move the article. Athenean (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose All sources says Obilić. Noel Malcolm is hardly neutral source for history of Kosovo, as we understood here several times. This is for speedykeep. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Majuru, c'mon. 8650+6440 vs 417+365. Read the article. And you moved it before discussing it... --Zoupan (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy keep. Even the Malcolm himself says that "even serious historians and literary scholars continue to use it", which is in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia is not the place to right great historical wrongs. No such user (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Malcolm also states: None of the other early Christian sources can match the Catalan account for circumstantial detail. But there is one other text, a Bulgarian chronicle written in the period 1413-21, which not only gives (very briefly) a version of the knightly story, but also adds one important extra element: it names the knight who killed Murat. 'And there was among the warriors a man of great courage, named Miloš, who drove his spear through the unbeliever Murat, just as St Demetrius did...' Towards the end of the fifteenth century one finds the full name given as Miloš Kobilić or Kobilović; and over the next couple of centuries it crops up repeatedly in a Chinese-whispers-style profusion of varieties: Milois, Miloss Kobyla, Milos Cobilith, Milossus Kobyliczh, Milosch Khobilovitz, Milos Comnene and Minkos Koplaki. In the folk-epic tradition it is always Miloš Kobilić - or rather, it always was, until an interfering editor in the eighteenth century decided to 'improve' it by converting it into 'Obilić', in order to suggest the word obilje (meaning 'abundance' or 'riches'). p. 72-73.

Jireček, History of the Serbs, 2: In Ragusa gab es eine Familie Kobilić (einer war 1390 Visconte von Breno), in Trebinje im 14.-15. Jahrh. eine Adelsfamilie Kobiljačić. Erst im 18. Jahrh. fand man den Namen eines "Stutenschnes" unanständig; der serb. Historiker Julinac (1763) änderte ihn zu Obilić, der seitdem in den Büchern zu lesen ist, von obilan reichlich, obilje Fülle, Überfluss. (In Ragusa, there was a family Kobilić (one was in 1390, Viscount Breno), in Trebinje in the 14-15. century an aristocratic family Kobiljačić. Only in the 18th century they found the name of a "mare's son" indecent; the serb historian Julinac (1763) changed it to Obilić, who has since appeared in the books, it comes from obilan plenty of, obilje wealth, abundance.) [8]. Majuru (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Now,
  1. Please read WP:COMMONNAME, particularly the sentences "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.[...] Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."
  2. No one here is claiming that his real surname was not "Kobilić" (nor that it was, for that matter). Even the Serbian historiography does not claim the opposite. [9]; Kostić, D. Miloš Kobilić-Obilić. Revue des etudes byzantines / REB, I, 1, str. 232-254.
    But for the article title, the most famous name is chosen. We have an article at Bob Dylan, not on Robert Zimmerman. You are free to add the sourced info about his original surname to the article, but the article should stay here. No such user (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC:Miloš Obilić vs Kobilić[edit]

Should we stick to Obilić, a spurious emendation, or should we use Kobilić instead? See the above discussion. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources, which is in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Majuru (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the forum shopping. The requested move discussion just above is underway. How many times do you have to receive the same answer? My assumption of good faith on your part runs short. No such user (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
So, no problem to include it in the lede?Majuru (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes problem. Sources for that info are not worth including in the lede. and it is questionalbe should that be in the article anyway. This is just POV pushing, with RfM and RfC still ongoing. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
WW, it is not a fringe theory; quite the opposite, it is reported by a vast body of literature: Google Books, Google Scholar No such user (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Insert Kobilić and when it was mentioned in "Serbian traditions".--Zoupan (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - This RfC has been superseded by the RfM above, and this RfC should be closed. I got invited here by the RfC bot, and the issue was already resolved above. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


The section called "Today" has an explanation of how the historical figure has been used by modern nationalisms as inspiration and justification. An encyclopedic article should cover how historical topics are being used in modern times. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Section "today" has been removed! . This article is a about knight from the Middle Ages which do not have to do with the events of the 19, 20 or 21 century. For this claims there is article modern nationalism!--Свифт (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Свифт. There are no need for this is article about medieval person. This was WP:COATRACK material by far... --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Why? This is sourced content about the subject. It's certainly more relevant, and higher quality, than most "In popular culture..." sections. bobrayner (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I am so sick of you nationalistic jerks . You accuse Serbs of all sorts of evil and the fact is that you are the racist ones . You use every opportunity to smear the culture and character of the Serbs . You are the racists who insisted on breaking up Yugoslavia because you think you are better than the Serbs . In fact , Milosevic pleaded for Brotherhood and Unity at his speech at Gazimestan and contained no nationalistic rhetoric at all . Your propaganda knows no end . Bottom line , this obscure Michael Sells is not a proven authority on the Balkans , from his wiki he appears to be some religious fanatic himself and not unbiased in the situation plus and I see no proofs for his allegations . I am deleting this section . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funationalists (talkcontribs) 20:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Errr, the author is Michael Sells: "currently the John Henry Barrows Professor of Islamic History and Literature at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago". You can see his faculty page. The section also contains a cite from Tim Judah. Both are books from university presses. I'll use {{harvnb}} so people can see the full cite in the bibliography section. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
(references #3, #4 and #5 say "Emmert cites" or "as cited by Emmert". Can someone edit them and clarify if it's Emmert 1991 or Emmert 1996?) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
You have not actually refuted the original position of Funationalists who never claimed that publishers of the cited works are unreliable. Funationalists spoke about authors and insisted Sells "is not a proven authority on the Balkans". I myself noticed that Judah is author of some statements which are probably hate speech aimed against Serbs (link). Removed section is far from being neutral and contains irrelevant statements unrelated to the topic of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to "refute the original position" of somebody who accuses other editors of being racist nationalist jerks &c; it's unfortunate that you take their side. Personally, I'd rather stick with what the sources say. The sources are not on your side. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
You are either an idiot or some balkan nationalist . Look at this statement , "Religious nationalist use of the Miloš/Kosovo legend culminated in attempts to encourage and justify aggression against Bosnian Muslims, notably the Bosnian genocide of the early nineties" . This a sweeping generalization that can't be proven and is pure propaganda . I don't care about Michael Sell's credentials . Joseph Goebbels had a PHD . If you really are a neutral editor of this article , I would be shocked . As the other person said , this is hate speech . I am going to keep deleting this section . If you want a fight , then i will wait until an impartial editor intervenes . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funationalists (talkcontribs) 02:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
There's no need for ad hominems and godwin. There are other reliable sources which take a similar line to Sell - I would happily add more content based on those, if you'd like? bobrayner (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh I am sure you can find more sources paid for by islamic interest groups , american political parties etc. F off piece of s . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funationalists (talkcontribs) 03:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Obviously wikipedia is not interested in FACTS but in the OPINIONS of politically motivated individuals . Interesting . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funationalists (talkcontribs) 03:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source which supports your claims? Sources, rather than angry rants, are the best way forward. bobrayner (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at the content of Milosevic's speech at Gazimestan , . Some excerpts ; Afterwards Milošević spoke about unity and Serbian multi-ethnicity: he emphasised that "unity in Serbia will bring prosperity to the Serbian people in Serbia",[1] and also to "each one of its citizens, irrespective of his national or religious affiliation".[1] Unity and equality to other republics will enable Serbia to "improve its financial and social position and that of all its citizens". Milošević notices that in Serbia, apart from Serbs, "members of other peoples and nationalities also live in it"[1] and that "This is not a disadvantage for Serbia. I am truly convinced that it is its advantage."[1] Milošević went on to speak about divisions among Yugoslav nations and their religions, which "Socialism in particular, being a progressive and just democratic society, should not allow".[1] He devoted a large part of the speech to these divisions, stating that "Yugoslavia is a multinational community and it can survive only under the conditions of full equality for all nations that live in it."[1]
Curiously , the wiki states the following as the MOST CONTROVERSIAL part of his speech , "Our chief battle now concerns implementing the economic, political, cultural, and general social prosperity, finding a quicker and more successful approach to a civilization in which people will live in the 21st century." ????
Now compare all that to the absurd statements in the Today section , "The construction of a national mythology enabled them not only to reinforce a sense of Serb cultural identity but also to represent the contemporary Serb-Muslim conflict in terms of a long-standing enmity with "the Christ-killer" and "the race-traitor".[10] A key event which gave expression to this idea was the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo (Vidovdan) on 28 June 1989, which was held at the Gazimestan plain, near the site of the battle.[11]"
Utter nonsense . There is no mention of the "Christ-killer" or "the race-traitor" at Gazimestan .
Thanks for pointing out the Gazimestan speech article. Clearly it needs some work too. I'll add more sourced content to that one when I get spare time. However, you've dodged the question; do you have any sources which support your position on this article? bobrayner (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Bobrayner, you should stop with your POV pushing and edit warring and instead address the issues pointed at by other editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I have already responded to the issues raised by Funationalists: I warned them for their inappropriate behaviour. Spiteful ad hominems, edit-warring, simple rejection of reliable sources, &c; just another Serbian-history dispute really. Regardless of whether you actually believe that F off piece of s is a worthy argument about content, or you just want to play along with it since Funationalists is on the Right Side, the rest of the community does not accept behaviour like that. There is no other issue which needs to be addressed, since neither you nor Funationalists have brought any kind of source to support your stance. Quite the opposite; you're still removing sourced content. bobrayner (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. Instead to deal with issues pointed at by Funationalists you opted for edit warring. Your comments mainly dealt with him and his behavior mentioning "Serbian-history" dispute as Appeal to fear fallacy. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The issues raised by Funationalists refer to authors of the sources used in this article. Tim Judah and his hate speech I pointed at in my previous comment are clear indication of the neutrality of the sources you insist upon on. This is not the first time your edits are disruptive and aimed to present Serbs as particularly bad. It is clear long-term editing pattern of yours and I am afraid you will continue until some sysop stops you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to discuss these problems with you when you misrepresent them. Three times I restored sourced content; the only editor who agrees with you made five reverts whilst behaving atrociously on the talkpage, and you turn a blind eye to that. And now you're talking about WP:BURDEN whilst removing sourced content. This kind of facetious partisan editing is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
...Let's not get sidetracked. Do you have any sources which support your position on this article? bobrayner (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
If you insist to keep the restored text in Today section then it is you who should address the issue with its sources first. And yes, it is difficult. Probably even impossible. That is why it is better to remove the whole POV section. I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The sources haven't been misrepresented, but they shouldn't be used in quote form (thus I partially agree with your revert). That being said, comment on content, not on other contributors or people.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Since this Michael Sells has clearly been caught making things up on the fly , my recommendation is that he be marked as an unreliable source and that the entire "Today" section be removed . I am going to look into how to lodge a complaint with wikipedia as clearly the people editing this article are not neutral . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milosevic99 (talkcontribs) 17:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added some more sourced content. Can add more, if needed. It must be distressing to find that your opinion does not fit what reliable sources say - hence Antidiskriminator's recent outbursts that Tim Judah's "The Serbs" constitutes hate speech - but this article really should reflect what sources say, not what you believe. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You are just acting dumb . I have already proved that Sell's reference to Gazimestan is a fabrication . This new edit of yours is laughable . Don't worry , i will find a way to deal with you and your nonsense .

(unindent)If you're User:Funationalists it'd be prudent to drop the personal attacks and use just one account.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice edit by ZjarriRrethues. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Btw as regards his use in contemporary and modern propaganda, Ivo Zanic has written in Flag on the mountain: a political anthropology of war in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1990-1995 (p.317): As far as back as the Gazimestan celebrations, a gusle player had sung to this new deity in whom the very heart of the national destiny had been embedded: 'Slobodan his sacred name,/ Milosevic from Milos, / Obilic from Kosovo' (Mastilovic 1989). And this kind of reading of Milosevic's surname is a vivid proof that in the archaic consciousness the name of the hero was never an accident, but always a sign of his overall value, a shop window of the bearer's features and the characteristics of his life, a reflection of his reputation, his feats, battles, duels and meydans. For this reason behind the semantic value of a name - as already shown with the example of the two Alijas, Derzelez and Izetbegovic - there is always or a more or less covert hero story that those in the know will reveal to the uninitiated.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
WTF ? You guys don't even know how sick you sound . What a bunch of gibberish . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milosevic99 (talkcontribs) 22:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Antidiskriminator just restored the POV tag on the "Today" section. Does anybody - other than editors who were indef-blocked for their edits here - have any remaining concerns about the neutrality of the section? If so, what? Let's discuss the details. bobrayner (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i have several concerns, per argument that remained unanswered from above. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless you have a concise issue of sources being misrepresented (provide the quotes, which you consider to have been misinterpreted in that case) or being selectively used (in that case add your own RS that present "the other side"), there's no reason for going through indef blocked users WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:BLP and conspiracy theories and if anyone insists on labeling sources he doesn't like as hate speech or anti-Serb propaganda that should be deleted, you can report EnricNaval, bobrayner and me on ANI etc. for introducing hate speech.
  • Btw Malcolm's quote was easy to find on google books and the sources you added said nothing as regards a "Slavic origin" of the word, but they did offer an additional meaning in Serbian, which in turn had a semi-semantic use in folk poetry.
  • For those interested in the word itself, you can find check some cognates here, which among others include the Greek kopelos.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the question is different. The overall material of that section is in the wrong place in the wrong time. We have several different articles for this, while this one is not the right, per argument exposed above. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm as a linguist[edit]

... Kobilić come from the term kopil/copil of possibly Vlach and Albanian origin which means "child" or "bastard child" (cited Malcolm and Segesten, who actually cites Malkolm for that claim). The term kopile means "bastard" in Serbian and most of South Slavic languages, whatever its ultimate etymology may be. And what does the great and reliable scholar Malcolm mean when he states that the same term means both "child" and "bastard"? Isn't that a bit strange? Vladimir (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Segesten doesn't cite only Malcolm as regards that claim. The word has entered South Slavic languages as a loanword as it originates from the native languages of the region as you can read in the linguistic comparisons.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I know of that etymology. That's not at all a concern of my post above. Vladimir (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
What do you propose to do, Vladimir? --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Btw admin intervention will be asked if sources are deleted and misrepresented. That being said, take any content changes to the talkpage. Personally, I don't understand why the very important fact that the modern Milos Obilic dates to 1754-65 and the original name should be "hidden" in a footnote. Is there a particular reason why you don't want that to be mentioned in the main text?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Please explain why Malcolm's theory (he says "may have arisen") should be treated as the mainstream view by using it in the top of any section? Unbalanced opinion and undue weight is not tolerated. Nothing is hidden, please study the infobox, and the other existing sections (=the whole article). I have organized a name section. Also, does Malcolm ever deny kobila-Kobilić?--Zoupan 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)Malcolm/Segesten/Resic aren't presented as the only or the probable theory but as a possibility, so please stick the sources. What's the meaning of asking a source about the existence of different theories when in fact these theories are expanded in the section? I've added another source and expanded the Hungarian version. Giving undue weight to a theory means that you're taking up a whole section to elaborate on a theory supported by very few sources in comparison to other views, however, the volume of available sources make it a quite mainstream theory. As for Malcolm, like or not, his work is indeed seminal. If he wasn't an important scholar I seriously doubt that the Serbian academy of sciences would "dedicate" a book co-authored by most of the Milosevic-era "top" scholars just to "refute him".--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Medals for genocide?[edit]

"During the atrocities of the time, nationalists supporting the Republika Srpska cited hostile verses from The Mountain Wreath and other epics, and medals with Milos’ name (the Medal of Miloš Obilić) were awarded to soldiers who had taken part in the genocide."

The above mentioned sentence from the article implies that Miloš Obilić medals were awarded for taking part in the atrocities. It is incorrect and shows why the non-specialist POV source used to support the above assertion should not be used in this article. There is no medal with Milos' name in Republika Srpska. There is Order of Miloš Obilić awarded for exceptional personal bravery according to the law which regulates this issue (link). Not for "taking part in genocide".

A couple of editors who edit warred to restore the above sentence although they did not gain consensus for their position could easily find many sources for Obilić being awarded to people who showed exceptional personal bravery in battle or when protecting other peoples' lives, i.e. Diana Budisavljević, or Srđan Aleksić. Presenting such examples would be much more informative than misleading the readers based on cherry picked non-specialist POV sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Take your WP:NPOV issues to RSN. That being said, the source mentions the award in the context of its use during the Yugoslav wars, while it doesn't exclude other uses.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the source indeed mentions the award in the context of its use during the Yugoslav wars. Nobody denied that. The topic of discussion in this section is the misleading assertion which implies that Obilić order of Republika Srpska was awarded for genocide. Use of non-specialist POV sources is subject of the discussion in another section.
Taking in consideration the above explanation and law which is basis for awarding Obilić order the quoted POV and misleading assertion should be removed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It gives that impression because you removed the historic context [10]... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This is classic example of WP:OR. To make matters worse it is based on cherry picked source.
  • People of all nationalities committed atrocities during the Bosnian war → some of them were Serbs who supported Republika Srpska → some of them cited The Mountain Wreath and other epic poems → some of the poems mention Obilić → Obilić shoud be connected with attrocities.
  • The Mountain Wreath mentions Skanderbeg also. That does not mean Skanderbeg should be connected with attrocities during Bosnian war. Unless there are sources which directly and explicitly connect them with atrocities, which is not the case right now with citing poems.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If people of other nationalities idolized historical figures during their own atrocities, then you should go to the articles on those historical figures, and add that fact there.
  • I'm not OK with removing the details from the historical context, but I can live with it. However, don't remove the awarding of the medal. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That info is unrelated to this person, so i taged this article. That is anyway not improvement of coverage about Miloš Obilić... --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Writers can use the term "genocide" more or less as they will, but since this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, we should not forget that genocide is a legal term, and that it is a crime prosecuted by national and international courts. If that claim about the medal is to have any encyclopedic value and reliability, it should be stated exactly who are those recipients of the medal who were sentenced for genocide. Now, there are those who think that all the Serbs who were soldiers of the Army of Republika Srpska during the war are genocidal criminals, but obviously that's not an encyclopedic way. Vladimir (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

First, Sells says they were involved in removing all Muslims from certain towns in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Second, I have added a second city that specifies the town. (by the way, Foča should be described as a town or as a city?) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Sells says, Qureshi says, Omer says... Have any of the recipients of the medal been sentenced for war crimes? As for the medal today, see for example this article. Regarding your btw question, why did you promote that town into a city, when your newly introduced source clearly call it a town? To gain in magnitude? Vladimir (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, it's a town, I corrected my edit. I am not an English native, and the definitions of town and city change in every region and evolve over time. You can see that I was confused, because I used "town" in the edit summary and "city" in the text, and I quoted a text that used "town"[11]. I asked here if it should be described as "town" or "city", because I didn't want to make a mistake. I should have taken more time to check it. Seeing your reply, I assume that "town" is correct, and I have corrected it. Long explanation of why I was confused: In Spain there are no defined categories for village/town/city. And our article Town links to the Spanish Villa (población), which is confusing because a "villa" in Spain is a title that was given by Spanish authorities, and it can be a settlement of any size, like the villa of Madrid with ~7 mil. inhabitants). I was probably confused because Foča is a town and a "municipality". In Greece, apparently, there is no such a thing as a "town", and "municipality" has a different meaning than in my country, I gave up on understanding how Greeks classify their urban cores. For me, 40.000 inhabitants would probably put Foča in the category of city. For example, Soria is a Spanish city with ~39.000 inhabitants, while Alcantarilla is a town despite having ~40.000 inhabitants. I have no idea of the legal definitions of "town" and "city" in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that's why I asked. Sorry for my confusion, I didn't intend to exaggerate the claims. I just wanted to make sure that I was using the correct definition for that country. I hadn't noticed that it was consistently described as a town in sources. Next time I'll try to check before I ask.
Are the sources or our article accusing them of being sentenced war criminals? They only say that the medals were awarded by participating in certain atrocities, which doesn't appear to be disputed. (oh, I just found Foča massacres, those events were ruled as genocide by one court, and as crimes against humanity by a different one) (oh, and I found one case where one soldier was convicted for those events: Gojko Janković, participated in the events of Foča, was awarded the medal, and was later convicted of "Crimes against Humanity" for the Foča events: indictment conviction, both mention the medal. In the conviction, they mention the medal as proof that he was in command during the events) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It says he was awarded the "Milos Obilic" Medal of Honor, which was only given to the most accomplished soldiers. Doesn't link it to any specific actions... Vladimir (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Btw, the town of Foča had 14000 inhabitants in 1991. The Municipality of Foča (40000 inhabitants) includes the town plus rural villages that gravitate to it. Vladimir (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Folk poems[edit]

Indeed, Lord treats the tale of Murat and Milos Kobilic as a mainly Albanian folk expression, tracing its major elements to Albanian oral traditions and noting their absence from the canon elaborated by the famous Serb linguist Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic. Lord argues that two traditions, Slav and Albanian, developed independently but then borrowed from each other, meeting in the Sandzak region. Cultural influences went in both directions with the story of the old woman and her advice to the Turks being considered by Lord as essentially Albanian but appearing as far north as eastern Croatia. Lord argued persuasively that this folk image emerged from ancient Albanian lore associated with the land and the origins of rivers.

from Kosovo: background to a war by Stephen Schwartz.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So, here is the second book of Serbian folk poems collected by the famous Serb linguist Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic. The tale of Murat and Milos is elaborated in song 49, and mentioned in some of the other songs. Obviously, this reference is nonsense that should not be used. Nikola (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
What does that have to do with Lord noting their absence from the canon elaborated by the famous Serb linguist Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic? Btw please read WP:OR as only views of scholars will be discussed.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Is Stephen Suleyman Schwartz scholar or journalist? Is Christopher Hitchens, a coauthor of the work you added, also journalist or scholar? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Here is the actual text written by Lord: Epic Singers and Oral Tradition, page 108. He mentions Obilic once when he stated that Karadzic did not mention Obilic's murder of Murat in songs he published in 19th century. He was obviously wrong. The link provided above shows that Karadzic does mention Obilic sixteen times in several songs. He also describes his attack on Murat more than once: (Милош згуби Турског цар:Мурата....Ја ћу отић' сјутра у Косово, "И заклаћу Турског цар-Мурата,...Још га пита Милош-Обилићу. "Ја Иване, мио побратиме! "Ђе је чадор силног цар-Мурата? "Ја сам ти се кнезу затекао, "Да закољем Турског цар-Мурата, "Да му станем ногом под гръоце.") There are no other mentions of Obilic in Lord's work so I am concerned that two journalist misinterpret him when they stated that figure of Obilic is connected with the Albanian tradition.
  • Some editor's choice of the sources for this article is quite strange. Besides Tim Judah there are two additional journalists whose works are used as sources in this article. Is it really a coincidence, taking in consideration that works of all three journalists are widely criticized for not being neutral toward Serbs (euphemism)? It is very easy to google it. There are probably hundreds scholars who are experts and specialists in the topic of this article. Is there any specific reason to choose controversial journalists instead?
  • Taking above mentioned in consideration I think that added text should be deleted as obvious misinterpretation of obviously incorrect Lord's statement.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Please stick to the sources. Personal evaluation and research can't be used to determine such issues. Btw Schwartz doesn't mention in detail a particular work of Lord's so why did you assume that he's referring to that one or to a particular quote instead of a general account of his views. That being said, take your issue to RSN if you think that Judah or anyone else isn't RS. Btw if you find a source that says "X oral tradition about Kobilic was influenced by Y tradition and not by Z" add it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
@ZjarriRrethues: Taking in consideration your above comment: "only views of scholars will be discussed" please don't ignore my question and please be so kind to explain if Stephen Suleyman Schwartz and Christopher Hitchens are journalists or scholars? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)Generally the one doesn't exclude the other i.e. WP:RS or if you're unsure take it to WP:RSN.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Journalists can be considered reliable for journalistic type questions, scholars for scholarly questions. Journalists are not reliable for scholarly questions. This is a scholarly question, and as Nikola showed, in this case the journalist is WRONG. I thus agree with the users that say that it should be removed. Baglama Bozuk (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree also. Therefor removed. --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not how a consensus is formed, not to mention the apparent WP:MEAT (only mainspace edits of the user) i.e. please stick to the sources or take it to WP:RSN.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
@ZjarriRrethues, I already asked this question but you never replied to it. Is there any specific reason why you insist on using works of journalists in this article instead of hundreds of scholars who are experts and specialists in the topic? Especially taking in consideration that I already explained that works of [underlined text added to clarify what was previously explained] journalists Tim Judah, Stephen Suleyman Schwartz and Christopher Hitchens were widely criticized for not being neutral toward Serbs.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
First, don't edit war against sources. Second, other sources agree that Obilic myth didn't develop originally in Serbian literature: " But whatever the story's origins, the development and transmission of the Obilic narrative among Christians occurred not in Serbia, but to the west, in Venetian and Habsburg territory during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. "[12] Journal Spaces of Identity, and then it explains more reasons for not being of Serbian origin. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator there's no "wide criticism" or any at all by the academic community. You have been labeling scholars as "not being neutral toward Serbs" and their works as "hate speech" . Of course there aren't scholarly reviews that would ever label any such work as "hate speech". That being said, stick to the sources and read WP:BLP carefully.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It is sooo obvious that your only idea here is to push your national agenda, and NOT to actually contribute to this article. This means that your POV pushing can be labeled as rude and bad faith editing, as that info is actually STILL unrelated to this person. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
@ZjarriRrethues, I think you still did not answer my question. My question does not refer to reliability, but to the source selection. For the third time: Is there any specific reason why you insist on using works of journalists in this article instead of hundreds of scholars who are experts and specialists in the topic?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Lord and Popovic were both folklorists and the other scholars are RS. Btw since you still haven't found the "wide criticism" against Judah and what you have labeled as "hate speech", it'd be prudent to retract every comment you've made about him among others as WP:BLP is one of the most important guidelines.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I will clarify that I was referring to their works, thank you for pointing this out.
  • "Much of the literature on the 1990s breakup has perpetuated the notion of the uniqueness of Serbian nationalism – the idea that Serbian nationalism is, in one way or another, an anomaly and exception in its unusual aggressiveness, irrationality, intolerance, aversion to multiculturalism, propensity for violence, expansionist tendency or general “backwardness.” Branimir Anzulović’s Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide isolates the development of Serbian nationalist ideology from those of other South Slavic peoples to attribute a “genocidal” nature to it. Less extreme but somewhat similar approaches are visible in Michael Sells’ A Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Stephen Schwartz’s (and Christopher Hitchens') Kosovo: Background to a War, and even in the standard works of distinguished journalist Tim Judah "(link)
You still did not answer my question.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This quote is not from a reliable source, like a literary critique in a journal. This is from a doctoral thesis original source. If there is really "wide criticism", then it should be easy to find better sources?
Never mind that we were talking about Albert Lord, a guy who got several awards and distinctions. And Lord is not even mentioned in that quote... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator, Dandic's honours thesis is outside the scope of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Otherwise if we are going to use such things, my honours thesis got an A regarding issues about historical stereotyping of Albanians, and part of that could be used for the Albanophobia sentiment article for parts relating to Greece and Serbia. Wikpedia refers to Masters thesis and above, however preferably published academic works by reputable academic institutions. See if Dandic has published that as a journal article, some people over time do that with their honours thesis (or parts of it). Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Resnjari in this discussion I completely refuted the central point of the first comment presented here much before I presented Mandic's quote. That was top of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and I don't think there is a point to continue this discussion. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator, its an honours thesis. Refute with a masters source or above that meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary as it makes a point strong thereafter. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Resnjari I clearly stated that in this discussion I completely refuted the central point of the first comment presented here much before I presented Mandic's quote. To clarify this further, here is diff in which I believe I directly explained major flaws with Lord's hipothesis (diff). Best regards.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of Kobilic[edit]

For claim that surname Kobilic may derive from "term kopil/copil of possibly Vlach and Albanian origin", the article cite three references: Michael Rossi, Noel Malcolm and Anamaria Dutceac Segesten. But Rossi and Segesten cite Malcolm, so their references do not add independent support to the claim. Malcolm claim, however, has been criticized in [13] for obvious reason: the term exists in Serbian as well. Because of this I will mention Malcolm's theory as Malcolm's only Malcolm and reference the criticism. Nikola (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Segesten doesn't cite only Malcolm and we can use them as additional sources since they do accept his definition. Btw polemics by ultra-nationalists like Ekmecic aren't WP:RS and they're also very flimsy. The word in Serbo-Croatian is a loanword[14], that entered the language via Albanian or Aromanian, so there's no value in trying to mention Serbo-Croatian. To understand the issue answer the following question to yourself: How popular is the surname in Kobilic in all south Slavic languages?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There is an issue here which you seem not to comprehend. Maybe an illustration will help. There is a surname, Carter, which no one disputes that it is an English surname. It is explained as coming from "an occupational name given to one who transports goods by cart or wagon". In its root is the English word "cart". For the explanation of the origin of this surname, it is completely irrelevant that "cart" is actually borrowed in a distant past from the Old Norwegian kartr. The same applies to kopile and any hypothetical South Slavic surname derived from it. Vladimir (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Nothing of this is true.
1) Segesten cites Malcolm for Vlach-Albanian origin of the word, and Resic for Serbian origin of the word.
2) There is no reason for a polemic to not be a reliable source.
3) Ekmecic isn't particulary more nationalist than Malcolm.
4) The word is of uncertain origin. You may see Alexandru Ciorănescu's Dicționarul etimologic român here: "Origine necunoscută". It may be that it entered Albanian from Serbian, or that it entered both languages from a third language.
5) Even if the word is of Albanian origin, which remains unproven, the origin is ultimately irrelevant as Vladimir explains above.
6) The phonebook lists two Kobilić's in Belgrade, ten in Sarajevo, there is a village Kobilić in Croatia and so on. Also extant are other animal-based surnames, like Kravić, Konjić, Konjović etc. Nikola (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Malcolm is faaar from neutral source about any even slightly related material to Balkan and Kosovo. His "research" is so often totally out of historical content and facts. Therefor, i agree with Nikola. You are not allowed to remove reliable sources per your own IDONTLIKEIT. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
A common problem, in the Balkans, is that some editors disagree with reliable sources and then get around it by making up silly excuses about how the source is biased. This is happening here. It's no better than antidiskriminator's absurd rants about Judah being hate-speech. bobrayner (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, it is quite clear to confirm with other sources that some "neutral references" are nothing more then national political agenda by paid editor/national writer/propaganda journalist... --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm concerned that some editors have mistaken this polemic for a reliable source. How could that happen? Oh well. If anybody genuinely believes that it's a reliable source, try taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I can understand how some editors might be attracted to conspiracy theories - ie. acclaimed western scholars are actually just puppets of the dark forces seeking to crush Serbia - but we shouldn't build an encyclopædia on that. bobrayner (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Antidiskriminator on this one. Ekmečić is a qualified historian... and a heavily nationalist one, at that. However, he's certainly qualified to refute Malkolm's (who is not a historian either) claims of quite doubtful provenance. Those refutations can be pretty obvious to any native speaker of Serbian; word wikt:kopile also exists in Serbian, although its etymology is likely Albanian or Vlach [15]. When exactly the loan occurred is unknown. I would prefer removing both the claim (which dangerously comes close to folk etymology) and the refutation, but if kept, both should remain in. No such user (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Antid and No such user. The blogs of guys like Noel Malcolm and Marko Attila Hoare are often used as sources on Wiki articles, yet when Ekmečić is used suddenly it's a big problem. 23 editor (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be best to remove both the claim and the refutation. Those little etymological speculations by Malcolm illustrate what kind of "scholar" he is. Vladimir (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's quite odd to see Malcolm's book, a reliable source published by a university press, described as a "blog". But on Balkan topics it's routine for people to make up spurious reasons to get rid of sources they don't like. 23 editor, can you explain? bobrayner (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Calling Malcolm's book "a reliable source" is quite a stretch. Just because it's published by a university press is not a blanket approval. Well, Ekmečić is also published by an Academy of Science -- why you dismiss his views and only accept Malcolm's?
If you take a look at Noel_Malcolm#Critical_reviews_and_debates, you will see quite a lot of criticism, not from nationalists, but quite respected historians (Đilas, Emmert, Miller); the whole concept of devoting a book to debunking (any sort of) 'myths' does not lend itself to good scholarship; whenever one tries to "debunk" something, he necessarily takes a weight of bias on the opposite side. Emmert summarizes that well: "while praising aspects of the book also asserted [...] that Malcolm was 'partisan'".
Just the episode at hand gives an insight into the nature of such scholarship: while speculating (?) on the origin of the surname, he only mentions the Vlach or Albanian origin of the word, omitting the fact that it also exists in Serbian (disclaimer: unless he was only partially quoted). Is it out of ignorance, or out of bad faith? Why should we care, in either case, it does not shed a good light on his work.
I don't mean that Malkolm is necessarily wrong in every aspect, but if almost every statement from his work needs double-checking and balancing, why bother using it as source at all? There are many other scholars whose neutrality on the matter is beyond doubt. Just because Malcolm is popular and his journalistic style is appealing to the general public, does not make him a desirable source. No such user (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
@Bobrayner: I'm talking about the Bosnian Institute and Greater Surbiton for Malcolm and Hoare, respectively. These are blogs and I am making the point that if these individuals publish something there it is considered reliable, while when the historian Ekmečić writes some on a site the reliability of it is questioned. 23 editor (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A Serbian historical or fictional knight[edit]

Does Anastan know what "lede" means? WP:Lead says: " The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Is there any more important thing that the question if Milos Obilic was real or not? The lead can not present him as a real historical person when this folk character's historicity is a matter of debate. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The very first sentence is still misleading. It describes Milos Obilic just like historical figures whose historicity is not disputed are described in their target articles. It is after some sentences that the dispute about Obilic's historicity is mentioned. A possibly fictional person can not be described as a "Serbian knight in the service of Prince Lazar, during the invasion of the Ottoman Empire". The infobox person format is used only for people whose historicity is not disputed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
52 sources about this person are more then enough. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 17:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Milos Obilic's historicity is still disputed by other sources. Those 52 sources do not clarify if they see him as a historical or fictional knight.[14][15] Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I dont see any consensus to remove infobox here? Is it on this page or some other one? also, i must say that you need a SERIOUS consensus to disband 52 sources about this person and to remove infobox. So, that means that majority of participants agree to remove the infobox, with tons of valid sources to beat the 52 other ones that already exist in article. So, again, no consensus to remove infobox from article. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Refusal to take the point is a disruptive behaviour. I explained earlier that "Milos Obilic's historicity is still disputed by other sources. Those 52 sources do not clarify if they see him as a historical or fictional knight". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring is not a way to gain consensus when majority of users dont agree with your propositions. Not a single reason to remove infobox from this article, and again, 52 sources are talking about this person. Yes, most of then do not dispute his existence, and even that they do, that is not the reason to remove infobox, as no guideline about that exist, and that never happens. so Learn more about other ways to dispute resolution, and DO NOT edit war anymore on this, or any other page before agreement, or you may be blocked again for disruptive editing. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)