Talk:Battle of Kosovo/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Improvements (infobox)

Suggested improvements on the infobox:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the version of the article which includes all confirmed participants[1]. The phrase Allied contingents consisting of Albanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Vlachs and possibly others could be changed to Allied contingents consisting of Albanians (including participants from the Jonima and Gropa families), Bulgarians, Hungarians, Vlachs and possibly others.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd support @AzorzaI version[2], with "Allied contingents" details in a note. Having every alleged participant in the infobox is really confusing to the casual reader. Per Template:Infobox military conflict, "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict", and most sources seem to agree that: "Lazar came to the battle with his two allies, Vuk Brankovic, his son in law and Duke Vlatko Vuković, the commander of King Tvrtko’s Bosnian army."[3] Aeengath (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonima in Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have RSN for that. Alltan (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

The current version is considered the WP:STABLE version. Currently, there are no verifiability of Jonima's participation, yet a certain editor want to put Jonima as a leader of this battle. It will need consensus to change it as a recent discussion on this topic had already happened. None of the previous participants in the discussion argued for the inclusion of Jonima's alleged leadership in this battle. --Azor (talk). 21:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s apparent that you are not aware of what verification of a source means. The sources can be verified, and the new ones I utilised support his inclusion. Consensus is not the be all and end all - a group of editors can agree to something disruptive or simply incorrect, but if RS bibliography is in favour of the opposite, then it outweighs consensus. Unless you have sources that state Jonima was not actually there and wasn’t a leader of the Albanian forces, I suggest you refrain from edit warring. Your continuous lack of use of sources to back up your arguments is quite disruptive. Botushali (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Since when do we include lolcal small-time players side by side to countries

Jonima family or any other small local family or clan from wherever has no place in the infobox besides countries and organisations. If this is to hold water, then we could include tens of local noble Serb families and clans. Jonima group should be mentioned under that little note about allies to Serbia's battle against the Ottomans. 178.220.230.153 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s a political entity. Botushali (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Check the multitude of sources. That’s why. Let’s not go down this route again. Botushali (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC Should Muzaka and Jonima be listed in the infobox?

No: Most reliable sources clearly state that the coalition was led by Lazar Hrebeljanović, Vuk Branković and Vlatko Vuković, that's all. Other allied contingents were indeed involved, some were mercenaries or troops from other neighbouring kingdoms and principalities, including Albanians and Hungarians, but there is no evidence that any Albanian or Hungarian lord headed his troops at the same level as the three Serbian princes. Muzaka and Jonima (if the latter was indeed present, which is not certain) were most likely led by Lazar, as stated in the French book L'Europe et l’Islam: Quinze siècles d’histoire, from Laurens, Tolan and Veinstein (2009), page 134:

Le côté serbe était représenté par trois éléments au moins : le contingent du knez Lazar Hrebeljanović qui régnait alors sur la Serbie centrale et une partie du Kosovo oriental et dont l’armée incluait des éléments hongrois et albanais ; celui de Vuk Branković qui contrôlait la plus grande partie du Kosovo ; enfin, comme à Bileća, les troupes bosniaques de Tvertko étaient commandées par Vlatko Vuković.

This translates to :

The Serbian side was represented by at least three elements: the contingent of the knez Lazar Hrebeljanović, who ruled central Serbia and part of eastern Kosovo at the time, and whose army included Hungarian and Albanian elements; that of Vuk Branković, who controlled most of Kosovo; finally, like in Bileća, Tvertko's Bosnian troops were commanded by Vlatko Vuković. Krisitor (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose ExclusionYou claim no Albanian or Hungarian lord headed the troops on the same level, so you basically acknowledge that the Albanian and Hungarians lords did headed the troops just not on the same level, good they dont need to have the same level the fact that they were military commanders as well is enough. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: The RfC needs to be rewritten in a neutral manner and ask a question which can lead to an edit e.g. Should X be excluded from the infobox? not Should Jonima and Muzaka be considered Commander/leaders.

• • The opening statement of the RfC itself is misleading. A figure is not included in the infobox because he was a "leader" in the battle, but because reliable sources include them in the list of notable figures who commanded troops in the battle. This is the case for Muzaka who is mentioned in many sources. As such, Oppose exclusion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Whether or not all participants, regardless of their role in the battle, should be included in the infobox is an entirely distinct topic for discussion. To the best of my knowledge, I haven't come across any articles related to medieval battles, or battles in general, that feature an infobox listing the names of every single participant. The current list of participants can be found in the "Commanders and leaders" section, hence the wording of the opening question. --Azor (talk). 18:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

They are not just “every single participant”, but leaders of men as stated by RS bibliography. I understand that you are using hyperboles to support your case, but it would be best to stick to the reality of the matter. Nobody is asking to put a regular participants’ name in the infobox. Botushali (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Exclusion: The whole premise of this RfC is built on falsehoods. It is incorrectly claimed that there is no RS bibliography that supports their inclusion. On the contrary, I count 12 sources that especially discuss Albanian leaders and their roles in the battle in the ‘Army Composition’ section; Jonima and Muzaka are variously described as having contributed with leading the Albanian forces in the battle. Perhaps they did not play as prominent of a role as the other commanders did, but a dozen RS texts seem to think they were notable enough in both name and their role to have them mentioned as part of the coalition.

What this RfC is asking people to do is ignore the multitude of sources that support their inclusion. Most of the sources have quotes. Certain sources even mention that the Albanians could have accounted for up to a quarter of the coalition’s forces, primarily under the command of Jonima and Muzaka. They may indeed have been part of Lazar’s formation, but it does not mean they are not notable participants or leaders. RS bibliography describes them as leaders, and they even ruled over their own polities and contributed a significant number of men to the battle. Why exactly we should go against what RS bibliography states and ignore it is beyond me, hence my vote to oppose the exclusion of these two figures from the infobox. Botushali (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed the RfC tag from this discussion as there are concerns, raised both here and at my user talk page, that the opening statement doesn't comply with WP:RFCBRIEF. If you wish to re-open an RfC, the editor who notified me about this at my talk page recommended Should Muzaka and Jonima be listed in the infobox? as a proper RfC prompt, which at a glance seems appropriately brief and neutral. Arguments or summaries of prior discussions should be saved for the body of the discussion itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Main concern is not related to the listing of historical figures in the infobox per se, but rather the practice of including them in the commander/leader section without properly recognizing them as genuine commanders or leaders. If particular editors are in favor of inclusion, the discussion should also emphasize where to properly place them. RfC was reopened. :--Azor (talk). 09:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose exclusion. There have been several attempts in the past to remove those two noble families from the box, but this gets on a new level. It is a simple fact that those families were participants in this battle, whether some users with certain ethnic backgrounds like it or not. Modern politics do not get to determine what is to be written in Wikipedia or if a reliable source (actually 12) is to be dismissed. For this content to leave the box, one must ignore several reliable sources and content that has been established by consensus. This would be a straight violation of the most basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If the impact of those Albanian noble families was so little, we wouln't be discussing on this page today. -AlexBachmann (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE Source

Hi @Krisitor, your reverts keep readding Dejan Djokić's work. The issue with this work is not whether it falls under WP:RS, but that according to what is written on this article, it has a WP:FRINGE viewpoint on the matter. As per WP:FRINGE:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.

Since the general scholarly consensus on the matter (as supported by a wide array of sources) is that other ethnic groups were involved, and this singular source says they were not, then it falls under WP:FRINGE. This particular part of the book should not be used here as it seems to contain a fringe theory that goes against the scholarly consensus.

Also, I would appreciate it if you personally (Krisitor) could provide a full quote on the passage this is sourced from, since by reverting me, it would seem that you have access to the book. I do not. Botushali (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Prof. Dejan Djokic is not only a distinguished historian, his book A concise history of Serbia was published by Cambridge University Press, and in 2023 no less. It is thus a top notch academic source, and more recent than the other sources used in the article. There is nothing more absurd than calling it WP:FRINGE. Per WP:NPOV All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. Djokic is definitely significant enough to include. I do agree with you that a full quote would be helpful and would help clear things up. Khirurg (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I happen to have access to this book;

• "It is unlikely, as is sometimes suggested, that Lazar commanded a broad coalition that, in addition to his and Vuk Branković’s armies and reinforcements from Bosnia, included Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians, Germans and Vlachs." R. Radić, Klio se stidi, Belgrade, 2016, 45–51. --A Concise History of Serbia, Dejan Djokić, page 127, note 69. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Kansas Bear, much appreciated.

  Now, with the full quote in context - it is a quoted footnote, not the words of Djokic himself - what exactly does Radic base this on? Keep in mind it is cited to a certain R. Radic from Belgrade, so Djokic did not pull out archival records or primary sources; rather, he uses the claim from another author in 2016 by the looks of the quote. This same author has therefore ignored primary sources which actually mention the involvement of Albanians in the battle, with figures like Teodor II Muzaka verifiably having fought and died in the battle.

  Kudos to Djokic for his accolades, but it doesn't mean that everything he writes is therefore correct or the general academic consensus. Nonetheless, Djokic didn't even write that, rather, a certain R. Radic did, so discussing Djokic's accolades are quite irrelevant to the matter. It is not absurd to state this source as WP:FRINGE in regards to this topic - it ignores a multitude of primary and secondary sources which support the involvement of other ethnic groups on the side of the Christian coalition. Botushali (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, the good old tactic of nitpicking a source. If it was good enough for Djokic to include it in his book, it's good enough for wikipedia. Cambridge University Press does after all have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy", and such a claim would have been fact checked. We can take this to RSN if you still think Djokic is fringe. Do you agree to abide by whatever is decided there? Khirurg (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't nitpicked anything, I don't know why you try to turn every discussion into a "you vs. me" battleground. If anything, this particular sentence is cherry-picked, because in spite of all the sources that suggest otherwise, Radic (and not Djokic) is stating that other ethnic groups did not participate.

  You are twisting my words and trying to turn it into an RSN of an entire text that would otherwise seem to be quite reliable, and both you and I know Djokic's book passes WP:RS standards. My issue is not with the reliability of the entire book or Djokic's work (even though that is what you are trying to make it out to be), it is simply with the excerpt of the book that was not even written by Djokic himself, but included as a footnote from a certain R. Radic. Radic's statement goes completely against primary and secondary sources, and everyone here knows it because of the abundance of sources that say the opposite to what he claims. It should be removed because it is inaccurate and WP:FRINGE. I do not know why you want to edit-war over a sentence which is blatantly, historically and factually incorrect... Botushali (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have access to the entire book, and the footnote words are Djokic's, not Radic's (to which I also have access). Djokic relies precisely on a passage from Radic's book to support his point, hence the fact that he quotes a set of pages and not an extract. Krisitor (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. In that case, I am surprised that a renowned and respectable historian decided to ignore mounds of primary and secondary sources that go against what he wrote in that line. I don't even know why such claims are made when figures from different ethnicities verifiably fought and died in the battle. Having the statement come from Djokic himself does not change the fact that other ethnicities not being involved in the Christian Coalition is a fringe theory... Botushali (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. As I understand Djokić's statement, the historian claims that Lazar's coalition was mainly a Serbian one, and not a broad coalition of several peoples as some scholars have presumed in the past. This does not mean that Djokić rejects the presence of some troops other than Serbs, only that their proportion was much smaller. Krisitor (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

On what grounds does he make this conclusion? As we can see, this sentence is completely incomprehensible. AlexBachmann (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

See, looking at the quote again - It is unlikely, as is sometimes suggested, that Lazar commanded a broad coalition that, in addition to his and Vuk Branković’s armies and reinforcements from Bosnia, included Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians, Germans and Vlachs. - it would seem as though the wording suggests that the broad coalition does not include Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians, Germans and Vlachs. In fact, he does not talk about the portion of soldiers from other ethnicities at all. He simply states that it is unlikely that Lazar's coalition consisted of more than just Lazar's and Vuk Branković’s armies and reinforcements from Bosnia, which we know is not true. He doesn't imply that other peoples were still involved in lesser numbers; instead, he implies that it is unlikely that they were involved at all. That goes against existing primary and secondary sources and therefore the general scholarly consensus, which makes it a fringe theory. Botushali (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's like on Palasa, the Greek names are evident but the source says otherwise. However, this is the first source that says so and completely differs from the mainstream consensus. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And since when was this "improvement" brought up here? AlexBachmann (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It wasn’t discussed, despite it being along the same lines of previous edits that were not supported on this TP and were opposed.

It’s also apparent that Djokic’s statement should be removed here. It is factually incorrect. Botushali (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Djokić is certainly not alone in assuming that the Christian coalition was predominantly made up of Lazar, Branković and Vuković troops. In fact, contemporary sources on the battle are scarce, hence the composition of both armies has been the subject of various interpretations. And since an encyclopedic article should reflect all conclusions, Djokić's definitely belongs here. Krisitor (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I get that, but the point I’m trying to make is that his “conclusion” is factually incorrect. A lord from the principality of the Muzaka, for example, actually died in this battle, and numerous ethnic groups are described as having taken part in the battle as well. I get that to establish a neutral POV, all plausible views are required, but I don’t see how this is a plausible view when it is simply incorrect and against the scholarly consensus. It is still WP:FRINGE and should be removed. Botushali (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Since when do we ignore a crystal-clear scholary consensus? I have a feeling that this is only going in circles. At first it was a misunderstanding, now it's not. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Djokic's statement doesn't appear to contradict widely held perspectives. The author doesn't deny the existence of foreign support beyond the formal alliance; rather, he suggests that it was unlikely to be of a widespread characteristic. If Djokic were to assert that the troops were solely limited to Moravian Serbia, the District of Brankovic, and Bosnia, it could raise questions about credibility. However, the author's claim doesn't align with that, so there's no need to make assumptions.--Azor (talk). 22:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  That’s not what Djokić says. I’m not sure if you’re completely ignoring what is written in the quote, but Djokić does not even mention the presence of other population groups or groups of soldiers. He doesn’t even say they were limited, he just doesn’t bring them up as being part of the coalition at all.

  He says the following exactly - It is unlikely, as is sometimes suggested, that Lazar commanded a broad coalition that, in addition to his and Vuk Branković’s armies and reinforcements from Bosnia, included Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians, Germans and Vlachs. - what that quote is saying is that it’s unlikely that the Christian coalition consisted of other groups aside from Lazar’s army, Vuk’s army and the Bosnian army. That’s completely wrong. Everyone here who is implying that Djokić confirms the presence of the other groups (but only minimises it) is performing original research or source falsification. Djokić asserts the opposite, and says that it is unlikely that the coalition consisted of Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians, Germans and Vlachs. Those are his words exactly. He is saying it is unlikely they were present at all, and that is not only factually incorrect, but completely against the general scholarly consensus. It is still WP:FRINGE. Botushali (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  "It is unlikely, as is sometimes suggested, that Lazar commanded a broad coalition that, in addition to his and Vuk Branković’s armies and reinforcements from Bosnia, included Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians, Germans and Vlachs." That's the quote. Alone "as is "sometimes" suggested" says it all: he is clearly rejecting consensus and he even acknowledges that. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  These are, again, just assumptions. That said, have there been any notable battles in medieval Balkans where armies did not consist of contingents from various ethnic backgrounds? Studying various historical battles reveals that ethnically homogeneous troops were not a common occurrence in medieval Europe. It's safe to assume that most historians, including someone of Djokic's stature, would acknowledge this fact. It appears that Djokic's suggestion is more about foreign troops not being the significant force compared to those from the alliance, rather than implying the use of entirely ethnic homogeneous troops. --Azor (talk). 10:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is going in circles. On the other hand, we're looking straight at the quote and not paraphrasing words. That's what it is. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, you are making your own abstractions and assumptions, but none of what you said is contained within the quote. Unless you have a quote from Djokić supporting what you have said, it will be removed because as it stands, it is a fringe theory. Botushali (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's also what I tried to explain, it seems pretty clear to me from Djokic's statement that he's only explaining why he doesn't give the allied contingents a weight they don't deserve in view of their importance in Lazar's army. Krisitor (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  It seems clear to you in what way? Because according to the quote, Djokic is stating that it's unlikely that Lazar commanded a coalition that also included Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians, Germans and Vlachs alongside the main three forces that constituted his army.

  He doesn't even talk about those aforementioned groups playing a minor role or a role at all, he simply states that he believes it is unlikely that Lazar's coalition consisted of groups of those people in general. He gives them 0 weight. That's a fringe theory.

  We can keep arguing about how individual editors want to interpret his work beyond what he is actually stating and how they're drawing their own conclusions from the quote, but that's all based on abstract ideas that aren't supported by what Djokic is actually saying in the quote. Unless someone can provide a legitimate quote to support the idea that Djokic believes that allied contingents were still present but not in a large concentration rather than Djokic outright denying the scholarly consensus (as is sometimes suggested) and saying that It is unlikely... that Lazar commanded a broad coalition that, in addition to his and Vuk Branković’s armies and reinforcements from Bosnia, included Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians, Germans and Vlachs, then this excerpt doesn't really have a place on this article. He is outright suggesting that Lazar's coalition did not consist of those people, therefore denying their presence. I am going to go ahead and remove it, because we need to take this quote at face value and not try and interpret what Djokic might or might not think based off of our own ideas. If someone has a quote to prove Djokic accepts their presence but is simply suggesting they had a minimal role, then please add it here and we can add it back into the article promptly. Botushali (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Djokic′s book is published by Cambridge University Press, so he is WP:RS, if someone thinks that he is WP:Fringe then we should clear the article from other claims, like the one from Albanian authors about quarter of Albanians in the army unsupported by mainstream history.Theonewithreason (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  There are definitely some cherry picking among certain editors regarding their opinions on when content requires 'absolute consensus' and when it doesn't. --Azor (talk). 07:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't about consensus, nor is it about Djokic's entire body of work being considered WP:RS or not. It is simply about this particular excerpt from one of his books being a fringe theory. Maybe reading the entire discussion here to refresh people's minds on the arguments and the topics at hand might help clear this up. People are yet to actually provide a quote here to support the notion that Djokic still accepts the presence of other groups in the coalition, so I will be reverting again. Botushali (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  You don't get to cherry pick which parts of a reliable source are reliable or not. If you continue reverting, you will be reported and blocked. Khirurg (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's ok, you can report me for trying to remove a fringe theory from an article. Threatening me with reports and blocks does not paint a great image. Botushali (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a subject matter novice, and saw this from ANI. I spent a few hours searching Brill, Jstor, De Gruyter, Springer, etc, and what I've seen is that almost nobody seems to talk about the composition of forces. I did read one 1997 article on Jstor that mentioned Albanians, and when I followed the footnote it cited three general histories from commercial publishers and one academically published history. (The Humphreys dissertation cited in the article also mentions this.)

  What I'm seeing, as a newcomer to this topic, is not that Djokic is flying in the face of some well-established consensus, but that there's disagreement on this point, and the facts of the composition of Lazar's forces are some intersection of the characteristics 1. not well established 2. unknowable to any secure degree 3. not particularly relevant.

  (OR time. Again as a subject matter novice, but with some background in historiography, I suspect that the claimed surfeit (I didn't see it, but I just got here) of sources alleging a broader ethnic makeup of Lazar's forces is an academic overcorrection reacting to a revitalised Serbian national mythos in the wake of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. There were a whole lot of histories written around then, and I suspect their own sources largely overlap.)

  Again, I didn't see broad support for or against any particular composition of forces, so I don't think it's correct to call Djokic's "it is unlikely" FRINGE. Folly Mox (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Folly Mox, thanks for your impartial comment. From my understanding of the quote, Djokic's statement invalidates the presence of non-Serb figures, such as Teodor II Muzaka who is documented to have fought and died at the battle. In reference to the battle, according to Di Lellio (2016): At the time of the Ottoman invasion of 1389, Greek authors mention, after the Serbs and the Bulgarians, the Northern Albanians, those of Himarë, Epyrus and the coast. The Annales Forolivienses (another primary source) makes reference to groups of crusaders linked to the Knights of Rhodes under a Domine Johanne Bano as fighting in the battle. John Muzaka's Chronicles discuss the presence of Teodor II Muzaka along with other Albanian lords. Secondary sources corroborate these primary sources (among others). If you are having problems finding such sources, no worries, there are many sources available in the 'Army Composition' section of the article.

  It seems to be a rather established fact that non-Serb groups were present, but the extent and numerical statistics surrounding them are a matter of debate for sure. I agree with you on the point that the composition of the Christian coalition is not well-established and not well-documented, but due to the vast array of sources that are on this article, it would seem as though scholarly consensus is pretty clear on the notion that non-Serbs were indeed present. It's not all that surprising for such a huge battle in the Balkans during this time to incorporate a number of different populations. My issue is that Djokic stands alone on this article in considering it unlikely that non-Serb groups were present, whereas I can count 18 sources on the article that support the concept of non-Serbs taking part in the battle on the side of the Christian coalition. Personally, to me, a 1 vs 18 - in which both primary and secondary sources corroborate the presence of non-Serbs - seems to indicate the existence of some scholarly consensus on the matter, hence why Djokic's statement would appear to be fringe. Again, the numbers and exact statistics on the composition of both armies is indeed a matter of debate, but it would seem to be a widespread scholarly agreement that non-Serb groups were indeed present. Botushali (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Since no one could provide me with the whole passage to put the footnote in context, I have had to obtain access to Djokic's work myself. After reading through the passage, it would seem he does not even accept or mention the presence of other population groups in the battle. The attempts at interpretation of his work provided by editors here is not actually backed up by the source, even when the footnote is placed in context. He does not minimise the presence of other population groups - in fact, he outright ignores it. That is a Wp:FRINGE theory. I will be removing his work - none of the editors suggestions here align with what he's actually written in the passage. Botushali (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

What nonsense is this? With "arguments" like this, it is possible to remove any source no matter how reliable. This is a blatant misuse of WP:FRINGE to remove inconvenient material. Cambridge University Press does not publish fringe material, the very suggestion is laughable. This is pure disruption at this point. Khirurg (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Khirurg, I know you don’t have the full source. You are again reverting just for the sake of it - read through this entire TP discussion again and look at the point I’m making. Your argument does not disprove that what is being said by Djokić in this particular passage is a fringe theory. The very notion that non-Serb groups did not participate in the battle on the side of the Christian coalition is a WP:FRINGE theory because it is a historical fact that they did. WP:ONUS is on you to prove why this sentence should be included in the article by proving that it is not a fringe theory. Rather than present your case for inclusion, you have decided to treat my concerns with a condescending, uncivil and dismissive attitude, but that doesn’t change the fact that you have presented zero source-based arguments as to why it is not a fringe theory.

You always try to turn everything into a fight - this spiteful attitude towards your fellow editors suggests that you should take some time off Wikipedia and learn to socialise in a civil manner. You are an experienced editor, but perhaps it would do you well to read up on WP:CIVIL to refresh your mind. Botushali (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. Newer scholarship often contradicts old myths and misconceptions - that is the point of scholarship. That does not in any way make it fringe. If we use such arguments, then most new scholarship would be dismissed as fringe. You are just repeating over and over the claim that Djokic is fringe, without any evidence. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it more true, not matter how much you want it to. The only way you will convince anyone that Djokic is fringe is to get an advisory opinion to that effect from WP:FRINGEN. But of course, you seem extremely reluctant to post there. I wonder why. Khirurg (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned previously, there are 18 sources (both new and old) that I can count on the article which discuss the involvement of non-Serb groups on the side of the Christian coalition. Djokic stands alone on the article in claiming the opposite. A 1 vs 18 clearly indicates a prevailing scholarly view, especially when primary and secondary sources support that non-Serb groups were involved. If non-Serbs groups are documented to have taken part, and the scholarly consensus agrees on this matter, then Djokic’s excerpt here is simply WP:FRINGE. Stop ignoring my points and acting like I am spouting nonsense.

I don’t know what more you want me to say as proof. An abundance of scholarly sources disagree entirely with what he says and the consensus goes completely against the excerpt that was used here. The onus is on you to prove why it’s not fringe and should be included on the article, since I have presented my case here over and over again. Do you have proof that Djokic accepts the participation of non-Serb groups?

By the way, since you don’t actually have access to the book and are arguing blindly on the matter, I’ll tell you right now that Djokic does not provide any proof for his statement. It’s literally just a footnote on the matter and that’s it - no elaboration. In fact, there are sources from recent years that say the opposite to what he writes. It’s not like he made a groundbreaking discovery that invalidates the work of writers from recent years and beyond - the scholarly consensus still seems to be the opposite to what Djokic says. Botushali (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Krisitor, Khirurg, AzorzaI, I apologise for pinging you, but since you contributed to this conversation and since Djokic keeps on being removed, I′ve posted another source next to him. [[4]], maybe it could help. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

What? This quote: "Similar view shares Daniel Waley who concludes that next to nothing can be said with assurance about numbers and multi-ethnic composition of both armies" is literally the exact same thing that Botushali has tried to explain to you several times. Djokic absolutely dismisses other ethnic groups while Daniel Waley acknowledges that it's not sure how the ethnic composition in the battle was. With all due respect, I don't know how this quote benefits anyone here? You don't need to ping other users for reviving this discussion. Users don't need to be pinged to give an opinion. If they have to say something, they absolutely can do it alone. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s exactly the point I was going to make, but AlexBachmann beat me to it. Saying that Djokić and Waley have a similar view is WP:OR and source falsification, because Waley does not say that it was improbable that non-Serb groups participated on the side of the Christian coalition.

Waley can definitely stay on the article, but he does not agree with Djokić and the article must reflect that. Indeed, mentioning people who are on your side of a dispute in order to play a numbers game isn’t great. If you truly think that Djokić‘s excerpt isn’t fringe, then you should be able to find plenty of sources on your own. Botushali (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It is already established that Djokic is a RS, as for Waley you are both wrong. Waley suggests that it is difficult to ascertain the specific ethnic backgrounds or composition of the soldiers in both armies. Meaning you cannot claim who actually was in both armies. What is certain is that real infromations are scarce hence when we attribute the information we give the name of the author who claims something. That is why Djokic is atributed. This is how Wikipedia works, and it is something you did not do with your insertions.Theonewithreason (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox "Result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources explaining the role of Muzaka *in the battle*

@Botushali To avoid bombarding the RfC, I've created this TP section. Regarding my short-term solution, you reverted it, which implies you dismiss the need for additional information and details about these participants. You mentioned there are multiple sources explaining (especially) Muzaka's role in the battle, so please present them in this TP section. It's important to note that nobody are seeking sources confirming his participation, but rather those sources detailing his specific role in the battle. I hope you understand the distinction between those two. --Azor (talk). 08:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not have to hold your hand through every source, you can look at the army composition of the article and see the sources yourself. I am sure you are more than capable of doing that. Many of them have quotes.

Additionally, if you look at both the RfC and previous discussions of which you were most definitely involved in on this very TP, you will see specific quotes and sources I have highlighted. In fact, I distinctly remember having found quotes from sources during previous discussions, placing them on the TP and then placing them on the article as well. I am not obliged to engage in pointless discussions - you are more than capable of looking at the sources yourself. I don’t want to have to send a mass of quotes and sources over and over again, because I have better things to do with my time. Botushali (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are only quotes regarding Muzaka's participation. However, I have not come across any quotes specifically addressing Muzaka's role in the battle. When an editor seeks verification of your statements, provide the necessary citations rather than overlooking the request and only to later revert. --Azor (talk). 10:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, I’ve done exactly that, only for you to act like you cannot hear me. Here is the latest comment which answers what you are requesting - [5]. Perhaps you should pay more attention to our discussions, or refrain from deliberately asking me to repeat myself over and over again. Botushali (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Malcolm states it is likely Muzaka brought men to the battle. Says nothing about his role in the actual battle.
• Genc Myftiu says Muzaka participated. Says nothing about his role in the actual battle.
• Bashkim Iseni states Muzaka participated. Says nothing about his role in the actual battle.
• Veremes, Thanos; Kophos, Euangelos don't even mention Muzaka.
• Robert Elise don't even mention Muzaka.

None of the sources you provided mention Muzaka's role in the battle. Right now, you're deliberately claiming he was a leader on the battlefield on the basis of those sources. That is 100% original research. --Azor (talk). 10:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Theodore II Muzaka's participation as leader of Albanian troops: Rebecchi 1983: Comunque, ci sono immedia-tamente due precisazioni da fare a riguardo di quella battaglia: 1) non si trat-tava di una guerra nazionale serba, bensì di una sorta di crociata, o coalizione, a protezione dai turchi, alla quale parteciparono, al comando di Lazzaro di Serbia, l'insieme dei popoli balcanici e dell'Europa danubiana. Numerosi alba-nesi presero parte alla battaglia sotto la guida dei loro principi Giorgio II Balsha e Teodoro II Muzaka. [However, there are immediately two clarifications to make regarding that battle: 1) it was not a Serbian national war, but rather a sort of crusade, or coalition, for protection against the Turks, in which, at command of Lazarus of Serbia, the whole of the Balkan peoples and Danubian Europe participated. Numerous Albanians took part in the battle under the leadership of their princes George II Balsha and Theodore II Muzaka. Di Lellio 2009: "A more elaborate representation of the Battle , based on Ottoman sources , attributes to the Albanian leaders Balsha , Jonima and Muzaka an organized Albanian contingent as numerous as one-forth of the entire Balkan coalition." Madgearu 2009: ...in the confrontation fought a regional coalition that included, besides the Serbian prince Lazar Hrebel-janović, the Bosnian king Tvrtko and the Albanian rulers George II Balšić (Balsha) and Theodore II Muzaka (the latter lost four thousand men on the battlefield)."

User:AzorzaI should provide reliable sources for his comments, unfounded personal opinions are useless. – Βατο (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The citation from Di Lellio (2009) is purely based on Ottoman sources. Malcolm (1998): The earliest Ottoman accounts, written in the fifteenth century, do refer to Albanians in Lazar's army; they also list many other ethnic components. (..) Ottoman writers were evidently eager to build up the size and significance of Lazar's army, which they described as vastly outnumbering Murat's, in order to add to the glory of the Turkish victory. (..) These Ottoman claims are not to be trusted. Di Lellio is also confidently talking about the Albanians being 1/4 of the Lazar's army, yet there are no reliable sources on how numerous Lazar's army was; not to even mention expressing the ethnic composition numerically.

All three of your sources not only state Balsha participated, but also gives him a prominent position in the army. I advice you to read this paragraph by Malcolm:

There is widespread disagreement about the composition of the armies. Serbian historians, for example, make little or no mention of Albanian forces in Lazar's army, while Albanian historians give them a prominent place. There is one valuable piece of evidence that Albanians did take part: an early-sixteenth-century family history of an Albanian noble family, the Muzaka, records that Teodor Muzaka brought 'a large band of Albanians' to join Lazar's army, together with ‘other Albanian lords’, and that he was killed in the battle. Many of the other details in this memoir are verifiably accurate, so this claim may well be trustworthy too. On the other hand, Albanian history books claim that the Serbo-Albanian Gjergj Balsha, whom they treat as a purely Albanian figure, also took part, and this is almost certainly false. The only basis for this claim is the account of the early Ottoman historian Nesri, whose justification for Murat's campaign of 1389 involved an elaborate story of broken promises and a conspiracy between Balsha, Lazar and Tvrtko. As we have seen, this story is doubtful in Lazar's case, and the known hostility between Tvrtko and Balsha makes it even harder to believe. In any case, it was demonstrated nearly a century ago that Balsha must have been at Ulcinj, on the Montenegrin coast, on the day of the battle.

None of the three sources you've cited are reliable as they can be easily debunked by credible and reliable information. It doesn't require extensive research to identify the lack of credibility in these sources, and it is truly surprising to see an experienced editor choose to cherry pick so blatantly. --Azor (talk). 13:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

They are all reliable sources published by reputable publishing houses. Again I see no reliable source provided to justify the removal of Theodore II Muzaka from the relevant part of the infobox. – Βατο (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a reason why Gjergj Balsha hasn't been included in the article. I don't know why you keep bringing that up, it is not relevant to the participation of Muzaka and Jonima... Botushali (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If a source has been shown to present inaccurate or false information, as it is the case here, it puts in question the accuracy and credibility of its entire content. Aeengath (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Then why is Djokić‘s quote still on this article? Botushali (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Because that newer source material (published in January 2023) It is unlikely, as is sometimes suggested, that Lazar commanded a broad coalition (A Concise History of Serbia, Cambridge University Press) comes from a respected historian and academic, specialised in the History of the Balkans, it may be difficult to find more WP:RELIABLE and WP:REPUTABLE. Aeengath (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not how WP:RS works, those are all arguments based on personal opinions and not Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All the sources presented here are reliable secondary publications, and all can be used for undisputed information. Scholars are divided on whether Balsha participated or not, it is not an "inaccurate or false information", it is information provided by primary sources, accepted by some reliable secondary sources and rejected by others. That's why editors here are not talking about including a disputed figure like Balsha in the infobox, but leading figures whose participation is now widely established in modern scholarship, like Muzaka and Jonima. So far no reliable source has been provided to justify their removal from the infobox. As for Djokić's statement, it is an WP:extraordinary claim of one author that goes against mainstream scholarship. Malcolm, who has been widely cited throughout this discussion, has already commented on such claims: There is widespread disagreement about the composition of the armies. Serbian historians, for example, make little or no mention of Albanian forces in Lazar's army, while Albanian historians give them a prominent place. and Humphreys states: Both armies – and this is a fact that is ignored by the hagiographic telling – contained soldiers of various origins; Bosnians, Albanians, Hungarians, Greeks, Bulgars, perhaps even Catalans (on the Ottoman side). – Βατο (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You support the reliability of sources derived from post-battle Ottoman accounts, even though contemporary scholars have deemed them untrustworthy. The same source you listed claim Albanians constituted a quarter of Lazar's army, a claim far from supported by mainstream scholars. You are in no position to call out other editors for "overlooking" Wikipedia policies. --Azor (talk). 15:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to do with personal opinions Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. that’s from the same Wikipedia guidelines. I do not see the presence of Muzaka and Jonima “widely established in modern scholarship” the only undisputed fact that can be called academic consensus is the presence of Lazar, Brankovic and Vukovic mentioned by every scholarly material. Aeengath (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

the only undisputed fact [...] Is the participation of Muzaka and Jonima disputed now? Could you provide a source that explicitly rejects their participation? AlexBachmann (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Luckily I've noticed that Aeengath has been brought to this discussion via WP:CANVASSING [1]. The user is almost exclusively engaged in Serbian topics [2].. Perhaps the OP knew the opinion that was about to come in. As per WP:CANVASS "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions"

The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. I don't see that anywhere. AlexBachmann (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Everyone who has been following this topic had already participated in this RfC before Aeengath joined. This discussion has attracted considerable attention, so whose participation, in particular, are you missing? Aeengath is an experienced editor who, unlike many others involved in the RfC, has provided detailed and well-rounded opinions based on reliable sources. On the other hand, you are arguing to keep unreliable information (even after proof of unreliability) in the section below. So, whose intentions should we truly question here? --Azor (talk). 09:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors with experience on the topic of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion. I have also participated in previous discussions on this TP, my first contribution here is from Feb 2021. If canvass was intended It would have been much easier to email me anyway since I can be contacted this way. Aeengath (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann “the user is almost exclusively engaged in Serbian topics” what exactly are you trying to say here? you are welcome to come to my TP to have a civil conversation about my record; I have never been accused of bias or pushing a POV in the past, I always had excellent relations with editors of various projects, this is easily verifiable. It's obvious that most editors here have experience editing other articles about the Balkans. Please comment on content, not on the contributor as this constitutes WP:PA. It is in the article’s best interest that we all work together to improve it. Aeengath (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What about Alltan who has been involved here? Why didn't you post a notice on his talk page? Nevertheless, I will see this as a good-faith action. I do not think it was designed to maliciously damage this discussion, hence why we're not at the admin's venue. I'm not accusing Aeengath of anything, by the way. This is a article involving the Balkans, a part of contentious topics. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali Can you provide sources that show that academic consensus exists on their position as leaders or even on their participation to the battle? As a reminder you are the one defending contentious material here. Aeengath (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my evidence is the 18 sources that say so on the article. You can scroll up and find me post about this dozens of times in the TP. Botushali (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)