![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
di Lellio was already subject on this page, as it can be seen, and it was declined over and over again. Do you have any NEW source that can actually bring something new and offer the reason to include this in article? Thank you for peaceful communication. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 08:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
So Ottoman miniature has no place here but 19th century fictional paintings has? What's your reason for your revert? Please explain. Beshogur ( talk) 20:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
killed himself shortly afterwardsand
The Sultan's men cut Miloš into pieces with swords and axes. For the miniature, check this. Beshogur ( talk) 21:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. I really fail to see what's the big deal here. The current lead sentence reads "Miloš Obilić was a legendary Serbian knight who is reputed to have been in the service of Prince Lazar during the Ottoman invasion of Serbia in the late 14th century". Now, being a knight in someone's service does not seem to be much notable, does it?
Per
MOS:FIRST, The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
and, particularly For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence.
Obilić is first and foremost remembered and celebrated as the Murad's assassin at the Battle of Kosovo, which I expressed in no uncertain terms as Miloš Obilić was a legendary Serbian knight in the service of
Prince Lazar purported to be the assassin of the Ottoman Sultan
Murad at the 1389
Battle of Kosovo.
So everything is there: legend, Murad, 1389 and Kosovo. Now,
Spirit Fox99, can you plainly explain what's "more comprehensive" in the original and which "pertinent" information I erased? Per
WP:BOLD, I'm not required to seek consensus prior to editing, and basically reshuffling of two sentences hardly constitutes "drastic changes".
No such user (
talk)
12:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.Really, reverting causes conflict and friction. In my opinion, "assassination of ... Ottoman Sultan ... in 1389 battle" provides sufficient context, but even if you reasonably disagree, there's plenty of room to establish it. No such user ( talk) 13:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I respect edits made in good faith, and make honest efforts to accommodate constructive variations. In this case, I feel that the original version did not need changing, and was well suited for the article. It provided the background context of what made his action so notable. He helped in combating against an expansionist power. It's a large part of his notability, and was nicely summarized through the sentence in question. Spirit Fox99 ( talk) 14:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The infobox was recently removed completely from the article. In my opinion, it provides a clear and quick summary of important information. I would like to request its reinstatement. Spirit Fox99 ( talk) 12:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
What cannot be explained in the infobox is done so throughout the article, with supporting sources. The infobox is useful in its ability to provide a quick summary of information from the article and present it clearly and effectively. It's a key reason why an infobox is used.
There are early accounts, that are referenced in the article, that do describe him as being the assassin. There may be other theories provided, or speculations, but Wikipedia is written based on the general consensus from numerable sources, not just a few. What a reader deduces from them becomes their own individual POV, but that does not expel other credible accounts.
If information is present in the lead or body paragraphs it does not make it useless in the infobox. In fact, most articles have information provided in the infobox that has been presented throughout the article itself. It's just a quick-snap.
The date of death is assumed to be the date of the battle, based on accounts which have him dying on that day.
If 'nobody knows' what something is, it does not make it less helpful as a description. The reader is also provided with supporting links in order to do further research if they wish to do so. Spirit Fox99 ( talk) 20:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
1. It fails to explain that the subject (or what we know about thim) is mythical, and treats him like a real person
how do you know he's "mythical", so both Serbian and Ottoman sources talking about the same mythical person? There's a clear difference between legend and myth. 2. Birth date was listed as "Unknown" so useless
no its not. 3. Death date was listed as "15 June 1389", which is unsourced and uncertain (since we don't know he even existed)
that's the date of the battle and of course he died after assassinating Murad I. 4. Nobody knows what
District of Branković was, and that
Kosovo Polje was there
Really? Perhaps your knowledge is not much, but how doesn't nobody know what District of Branković was? 5. Occupation:
knight. Obvious from the first sentence.
and? extra information. 5. Known for: Assassination of Murad I. Also obvious from the first sentence (the one you reverted).
again, that's what the infoboxes stand for.
Beshogur (
talk)
18:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Anna di lellio is not a historian as already proven, also for such big changes, there will be consensus needed. Theonewithreason ( talk) 06:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
If two published sources disagree, the neutral approach is to add both statements rather than select one based upon an editor's preference, which graduate degrees the source has. Durraz0 ( talk) 09:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
but in the epic oral tradition that celebrates Millosh Kopiliq as the assassin of the Sultan and as an Albanian.[2]
For Albanians, Murat's assassin—Miloš Obilić—was not Serb but Albanian (Millosh Kopiliq). To them the assassin and the battle highlight Albanian heroism, independence, and its Christian past prior to mass conversion to Islam.[3]
... has its epic songs that memorialize the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, and identify the killer of the Sultan as the Albanian folk hero Millosh Kopiliqi.46 This version of the battle continues to survive in the memory of local communities.47 ...[4]
Dans la mythologie albanaise , Miloš Obilić est appelé Milosh Kopiliq et est présenté comme un Albanais du Ko- sovo et non comme un Serbe.20 De même le prince Lazar serait un illyrien , donc un non - slave.21 Les chroniqueurs ottomans ...[5]
Ironically, in the Albanian legend the same character, called Millosh Kopiliq, is Albanian (Di Lellio 2009).. Durraz0 ( talk) 13:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
and other publications certainly represent reliable sources. The argument by Di Lellio isn't an answer to the question "Was Obilic Serbian or Albanian?" because the figure never existed. Di Lellio explains that the figure as a folk story trope exists both in Serbian and Albanian folk poetry, but it acquired a different meaning in the 19th century in Serbia because it was included in the official national(ist) discourse, while in Albanian 19th century discourse it never played any such role.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 14:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Di Lellio, Anna. "Chapter 9. THE FIELD OF THE BLACKBIRDS AND THE BATTLE FOR EUROPE". Dynamics of Memory and Identity in Contemporary Europe, edited by Eric Langenbacher, Bill Niven and Ruth Wittlinger, New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2013, pp. 149-165
...In Albanian he is known as Millosh Kopiliq. Albanian epic poetry is the only epic poetry that preserved the name archaic stem Kopil, which is the name all sources gave to the Sultans assassin prior the invention of the name Obilić in the 18th century by Serbian nationalist historians...which as you can see in Di lellio book is not how it is written, first of all the "arhaic" name in her opinion is not just Kopil but Kobila, Kopiliq, Kobilić, also on page 4. but still this edition in lead is false since we have whole section of explanation how the name was developed, so this goes under WP:UNDUE, as for the sources majority of international sources mention the assassin of Sultan to be a Serb, even in this article, starting from Emmert who says:
In time the assassination would become the central act in the evolving record of the Battle of Kosovo. And while the Florentine description of the deed is quite different from later accounts which emerge in both Ottoman and Serbian sources, nevertheless, it provides a contemporary historical foundation for the idea that Murad was killed by a daring Serbian assassin...[ [7]], or Luraghi [ [8]] who mentions that Milos Obilic was a Serbian Knight who allegedly killed Murad, or even Britannica who in it′s description says Milos Obilic Serbian knight [ [9]]. etc. a lot more sources can be easily found. Thank you. Theonewithreason ( talk) 14:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The other "viewpoint" is the one put forth by Di Lellio, She is one of many highly reputable sources which talk about the fact that this myth also exists among Kosovo Albanians. Too only represent the Serbian version of this myth if violates NPOV. Durraz0 ( talk) 14:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
is an 18th century invention that two Serbian amateur but influential nationalist historians, Vasilije Petrović and Pavle Julinac, introducedcontains three major errors. First, there was no such thing as an "amateur" historian before the 19th century, since History as a science, i.e. with its own methodology that can truly be described as scientific, only emerges in the second half of the 19th century in Europe. Therefore, any scholar who wrote any kind of history before that time is not an amateur per se. Secondly, to call an eighteenth-century Serbian scholar a "nationalist" shows both an obvious bias and an anachronism: nationalism as we understand it today also begins in the 19th century. Finally, it has been proven for some time that Petrović and Julinac are not the ones who introduced the name Obilić, which emerged in the early 18th or even late 17th century. So in this case, the amateur is clearly the obviously pro-Albanian Di Lellio, she is by no means a specialist, and a better source is certainly needed.
the work used screams Albanian POVis not one of them and won't be something which will justify any reverts. @ Alltan: It is a positive move forwards that more sources have been added. It is important to always approach these debates based on bibliography.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 21:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
She is a sociologist and her work discusses the subject as part of political anthropology, which is the field under which most "epic poetry" is discussed today.Not quite, the fields in which epic poetry is mostly discussed are phylology, comparative literature and linguistics. I'll add the source back in since it's the only one now, but I still think we need to find better ones, and I'm sure there are plenty out there, so the tag should be put back too. Krisitor ( talk) 09:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
If two published sources disagree, the neutral approach is to add both statements rather than select one based upon an editor's preference, which graduate degrees the source has., it is on your end to establish a consensus for the source not being WP:RS. Durraz0 ( talk) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I reverted to the last WP:STABLE version. AzorzaI Durraz0 discuss all new changes here. There's no need for rushed edits and edit-warring when there's plenty of room for consensus building.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic (..) and summarize the most important points...By viewing the article, the Albanian epic poem is simply explained in order to go more in depth on the "Oral traditions" and is insignificant overall. --Azor ( talk). 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
agreed upon it to avoid edit warring. I do not remove absolutely everything I disagree on, so don't interpret this as me agreeing to the picture itself.you are literally contradicting yourself saying that you did agree upon it but also saying you did not. you reverted a paragraph that had been in the article since 6/28/2023 the stable version. I reverted you to the stable version kept the pictures which you had agreed upon here [11]. The Albanian version is an important point. Durraz0 ( talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The Albanian version is an important point.
Images which are used to illustrate later opinions about a person should be carefully placed in the discussion about those views, lest anyone think the image is an accurate image of the person.from WP:PORTRAIT
Images which are used to illustrate later opinions about a person should be carefully placed in the discussion about those views, lest anyone think the image is an accurate image of the person.Dobric is a 19th century painter, the ottoman miniature was made by the ottoman court and is the oldest depiction I could find. you also completely removed it from the article and claimed you reverted it back to the stable version even though the stable version of 6/28 has the ottoman miniature included. Durraz0 ( talk) 16:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
di Lellio was already subject on this page, as it can be seen, and it was declined over and over again. Do you have any NEW source that can actually bring something new and offer the reason to include this in article? Thank you for peaceful communication. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 08:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
So Ottoman miniature has no place here but 19th century fictional paintings has? What's your reason for your revert? Please explain. Beshogur ( talk) 20:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
killed himself shortly afterwardsand
The Sultan's men cut Miloš into pieces with swords and axes. For the miniature, check this. Beshogur ( talk) 21:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. I really fail to see what's the big deal here. The current lead sentence reads "Miloš Obilić was a legendary Serbian knight who is reputed to have been in the service of Prince Lazar during the Ottoman invasion of Serbia in the late 14th century". Now, being a knight in someone's service does not seem to be much notable, does it?
Per
MOS:FIRST, The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
and, particularly For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence.
Obilić is first and foremost remembered and celebrated as the Murad's assassin at the Battle of Kosovo, which I expressed in no uncertain terms as Miloš Obilić was a legendary Serbian knight in the service of
Prince Lazar purported to be the assassin of the Ottoman Sultan
Murad at the 1389
Battle of Kosovo.
So everything is there: legend, Murad, 1389 and Kosovo. Now,
Spirit Fox99, can you plainly explain what's "more comprehensive" in the original and which "pertinent" information I erased? Per
WP:BOLD, I'm not required to seek consensus prior to editing, and basically reshuffling of two sentences hardly constitutes "drastic changes".
No such user (
talk)
12:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.Really, reverting causes conflict and friction. In my opinion, "assassination of ... Ottoman Sultan ... in 1389 battle" provides sufficient context, but even if you reasonably disagree, there's plenty of room to establish it. No such user ( talk) 13:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I respect edits made in good faith, and make honest efforts to accommodate constructive variations. In this case, I feel that the original version did not need changing, and was well suited for the article. It provided the background context of what made his action so notable. He helped in combating against an expansionist power. It's a large part of his notability, and was nicely summarized through the sentence in question. Spirit Fox99 ( talk) 14:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The infobox was recently removed completely from the article. In my opinion, it provides a clear and quick summary of important information. I would like to request its reinstatement. Spirit Fox99 ( talk) 12:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
What cannot be explained in the infobox is done so throughout the article, with supporting sources. The infobox is useful in its ability to provide a quick summary of information from the article and present it clearly and effectively. It's a key reason why an infobox is used.
There are early accounts, that are referenced in the article, that do describe him as being the assassin. There may be other theories provided, or speculations, but Wikipedia is written based on the general consensus from numerable sources, not just a few. What a reader deduces from them becomes their own individual POV, but that does not expel other credible accounts.
If information is present in the lead or body paragraphs it does not make it useless in the infobox. In fact, most articles have information provided in the infobox that has been presented throughout the article itself. It's just a quick-snap.
The date of death is assumed to be the date of the battle, based on accounts which have him dying on that day.
If 'nobody knows' what something is, it does not make it less helpful as a description. The reader is also provided with supporting links in order to do further research if they wish to do so. Spirit Fox99 ( talk) 20:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
1. It fails to explain that the subject (or what we know about thim) is mythical, and treats him like a real person
how do you know he's "mythical", so both Serbian and Ottoman sources talking about the same mythical person? There's a clear difference between legend and myth. 2. Birth date was listed as "Unknown" so useless
no its not. 3. Death date was listed as "15 June 1389", which is unsourced and uncertain (since we don't know he even existed)
that's the date of the battle and of course he died after assassinating Murad I. 4. Nobody knows what
District of Branković was, and that
Kosovo Polje was there
Really? Perhaps your knowledge is not much, but how doesn't nobody know what District of Branković was? 5. Occupation:
knight. Obvious from the first sentence.
and? extra information. 5. Known for: Assassination of Murad I. Also obvious from the first sentence (the one you reverted).
again, that's what the infoboxes stand for.
Beshogur (
talk)
18:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Anna di lellio is not a historian as already proven, also for such big changes, there will be consensus needed. Theonewithreason ( talk) 06:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
If two published sources disagree, the neutral approach is to add both statements rather than select one based upon an editor's preference, which graduate degrees the source has. Durraz0 ( talk) 09:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
but in the epic oral tradition that celebrates Millosh Kopiliq as the assassin of the Sultan and as an Albanian.[2]
For Albanians, Murat's assassin—Miloš Obilić—was not Serb but Albanian (Millosh Kopiliq). To them the assassin and the battle highlight Albanian heroism, independence, and its Christian past prior to mass conversion to Islam.[3]
... has its epic songs that memorialize the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, and identify the killer of the Sultan as the Albanian folk hero Millosh Kopiliqi.46 This version of the battle continues to survive in the memory of local communities.47 ...[4]
Dans la mythologie albanaise , Miloš Obilić est appelé Milosh Kopiliq et est présenté comme un Albanais du Ko- sovo et non comme un Serbe.20 De même le prince Lazar serait un illyrien , donc un non - slave.21 Les chroniqueurs ottomans ...[5]
Ironically, in the Albanian legend the same character, called Millosh Kopiliq, is Albanian (Di Lellio 2009).. Durraz0 ( talk) 13:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
and other publications certainly represent reliable sources. The argument by Di Lellio isn't an answer to the question "Was Obilic Serbian or Albanian?" because the figure never existed. Di Lellio explains that the figure as a folk story trope exists both in Serbian and Albanian folk poetry, but it acquired a different meaning in the 19th century in Serbia because it was included in the official national(ist) discourse, while in Albanian 19th century discourse it never played any such role.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 14:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Di Lellio, Anna. "Chapter 9. THE FIELD OF THE BLACKBIRDS AND THE BATTLE FOR EUROPE". Dynamics of Memory and Identity in Contemporary Europe, edited by Eric Langenbacher, Bill Niven and Ruth Wittlinger, New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2013, pp. 149-165
...In Albanian he is known as Millosh Kopiliq. Albanian epic poetry is the only epic poetry that preserved the name archaic stem Kopil, which is the name all sources gave to the Sultans assassin prior the invention of the name Obilić in the 18th century by Serbian nationalist historians...which as you can see in Di lellio book is not how it is written, first of all the "arhaic" name in her opinion is not just Kopil but Kobila, Kopiliq, Kobilić, also on page 4. but still this edition in lead is false since we have whole section of explanation how the name was developed, so this goes under WP:UNDUE, as for the sources majority of international sources mention the assassin of Sultan to be a Serb, even in this article, starting from Emmert who says:
In time the assassination would become the central act in the evolving record of the Battle of Kosovo. And while the Florentine description of the deed is quite different from later accounts which emerge in both Ottoman and Serbian sources, nevertheless, it provides a contemporary historical foundation for the idea that Murad was killed by a daring Serbian assassin...[ [7]], or Luraghi [ [8]] who mentions that Milos Obilic was a Serbian Knight who allegedly killed Murad, or even Britannica who in it′s description says Milos Obilic Serbian knight [ [9]]. etc. a lot more sources can be easily found. Thank you. Theonewithreason ( talk) 14:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The other "viewpoint" is the one put forth by Di Lellio, She is one of many highly reputable sources which talk about the fact that this myth also exists among Kosovo Albanians. Too only represent the Serbian version of this myth if violates NPOV. Durraz0 ( talk) 14:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
is an 18th century invention that two Serbian amateur but influential nationalist historians, Vasilije Petrović and Pavle Julinac, introducedcontains three major errors. First, there was no such thing as an "amateur" historian before the 19th century, since History as a science, i.e. with its own methodology that can truly be described as scientific, only emerges in the second half of the 19th century in Europe. Therefore, any scholar who wrote any kind of history before that time is not an amateur per se. Secondly, to call an eighteenth-century Serbian scholar a "nationalist" shows both an obvious bias and an anachronism: nationalism as we understand it today also begins in the 19th century. Finally, it has been proven for some time that Petrović and Julinac are not the ones who introduced the name Obilić, which emerged in the early 18th or even late 17th century. So in this case, the amateur is clearly the obviously pro-Albanian Di Lellio, she is by no means a specialist, and a better source is certainly needed.
the work used screams Albanian POVis not one of them and won't be something which will justify any reverts. @ Alltan: It is a positive move forwards that more sources have been added. It is important to always approach these debates based on bibliography.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 21:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
She is a sociologist and her work discusses the subject as part of political anthropology, which is the field under which most "epic poetry" is discussed today.Not quite, the fields in which epic poetry is mostly discussed are phylology, comparative literature and linguistics. I'll add the source back in since it's the only one now, but I still think we need to find better ones, and I'm sure there are plenty out there, so the tag should be put back too. Krisitor ( talk) 09:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
If two published sources disagree, the neutral approach is to add both statements rather than select one based upon an editor's preference, which graduate degrees the source has., it is on your end to establish a consensus for the source not being WP:RS. Durraz0 ( talk) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I reverted to the last WP:STABLE version. AzorzaI Durraz0 discuss all new changes here. There's no need for rushed edits and edit-warring when there's plenty of room for consensus building.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic (..) and summarize the most important points...By viewing the article, the Albanian epic poem is simply explained in order to go more in depth on the "Oral traditions" and is insignificant overall. --Azor ( talk). 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
agreed upon it to avoid edit warring. I do not remove absolutely everything I disagree on, so don't interpret this as me agreeing to the picture itself.you are literally contradicting yourself saying that you did agree upon it but also saying you did not. you reverted a paragraph that had been in the article since 6/28/2023 the stable version. I reverted you to the stable version kept the pictures which you had agreed upon here [11]. The Albanian version is an important point. Durraz0 ( talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The Albanian version is an important point.
Images which are used to illustrate later opinions about a person should be carefully placed in the discussion about those views, lest anyone think the image is an accurate image of the person.from WP:PORTRAIT
Images which are used to illustrate later opinions about a person should be carefully placed in the discussion about those views, lest anyone think the image is an accurate image of the person.Dobric is a 19th century painter, the ottoman miniature was made by the ottoman court and is the oldest depiction I could find. you also completely removed it from the article and claimed you reverted it back to the stable version even though the stable version of 6/28 has the ottoman miniature included. Durraz0 ( talk) 16:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)