Jump to content

Talk:Miloš Obilić

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ensuring neutrality in the lead

[edit]

Hi @Ktrimi991. The final sentence of the lead is neither neutral nor effective. Ending with the narrative, "No evidence for this [Serb or Albanian], but for another theory [Hungarian], we have these scholars who support it," lacks effectiveness and neutrality. The only academic consensus regarding the knight's identity, both in terms of ethnicity and name, is that there is no definitive proof for any of it. Therefore, the lead should reflect this consensus and conclude with neutrality, while the body of the article can present and elaborate on the various theories. I find it hard to understand how someone familiar with this page could disagree with that. Azoral (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My original sentence was "There is no evidence that he was a Serb or Albanian, and it has also been suggested that the legend was based on a Hungarian knight", then someone who apparently does not grasp WP:NPOV modified it. As it is just a sentence I decided to let it go, though if you think my original sentence is better, feel free to readd it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you found it more appropriate to revert my edit, which attempts to keep it neutral, but left the one you believe breaches WP:NPOV? While I agree that yours is better, it still follows the same path. There’s also a lack of neutrality in stating, 'No evidence for this, but these scholars has this to say about this other theory: ,' when, at the end of the day, none of these theories have academic consensus - especially for a lead. Azoral (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the third time you block my posts through edit conflicts. When you finish editing twice or thrice your comment, let me know. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistakes, go on. Azoral (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you found it more appropriate to revert my edit, which attempts to keep it neutral, but left the one you believe breaches WP:NPOV? Your wording is even worse, hence the revert. It is not just the identity that is disputed among scholars, but the ethnicity too. The Hungarian theory is a mainstream one, so it needs to be in the lede. If you want to readd your sentence, consider making an RfC. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is confusing for readers and does not adhere to WP:NPOV. A more neutral phrasing would state that there is no historical confirmation or information regarding this person's ethnicity or identity. This should not be a point of contention. Furthermore, refusing to engage in discussion and responding with "go start your RfC and let's see" is not that good. — Sadko (words are wind) 02:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way AzorzaI's wording will get consensus in this thread; hence either they get consensus through an RfC or the sentence will go. It does not matter how much angry editors like the one below resort to reverting to bypass consensus. Regarding your statement that A more neutral phrasing would state that there is no historical confirmation or information regarding this person's ethnicity or identity, sure, I can agree with sth on the lines of "There is no evidence about the knight's ethnicity; theories that the legend was based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian knight have been put forward". The removal of the Hungarian theory is not acceptable and I can't agree on it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Azor's wording is neutral and far clearer. Privileging Malcolm and Hoare in the lede is WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY. "No changes without consensus" is WP:STONEWALL. Khirurg (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus."
Angry words like There is no way AzorzaI's wording will get consensus in this thread have no place in this discussion and can be seen as a refusal to compromise. The perfect example of WP:STONEWALLING. If nothing is known about the knight's true identity, mentions of specific ethnicities are not necessary. Unless of course the goal is to give equal (and undue) weight to minority views, because let's face it, the overwhelming evidence is Milos was Serbian. Khirurg (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands now, this whole sentence seems out of place to me: However, there is no clear evidence regarding the identity of Murad's killer. In my opinion, it would be better to include it at the beginning of the second paragraph, which would read:: Although his original name was Miloš Kobilić, several variants of this name appear in historical sources. Moreover, it is not even clear whether he really existed, as there is no definitive evidence as to the identity of Murad's killer. Krisitor (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to get consensus to remove the Hungarian theory some months ago; not sure why you are on to it again. And the current wording was written by you, did you forget that?
If you now think your wording is out of place, then something we can agree on is "There is no evidence about the knight's origin; theories that the legend was based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian knight have been put forward". Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly did he fail to do that? We are discussing now, fellow editor. Please refrain from presenting the other editor's opinion or intentions as if they are targeting or seeking to remove any mention of a theory about a specific ethnic group from the lede, as that is not the case nor would I support such moves. Krisitor has offered a neutral formulation that avoids giving undue weight. For example, there are groups in Croatia claiming that Obilić was a Croat. Those are not included. However, the majority of scholarly sources and references associate Obilic, whether as a historical figure or no, with Serbia, Serbs, or the Serbian army and traditions. — Sadko (words are wind) 19:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article's history to see what Krisitor did in the past. It does not matter what some people in Croatia say; we are concerned with what theories reputable academics accept as possible.
the majority of scholarly sources and references associate Obilic, whether as a historical figure or no, with Serbia, Serbs, or the Serbian army and traditions. We are not discussing here whether Milos Obilic was a Serb knight in the legend. He certainly was, hence the article presents him as a "legendary Serbian knight". What we are discussing here are the academic theories on the origin of the legend, i.e. who could be Murad's killer who got later named Milos Obilic. In other words, Milos Obilic is a Serb legendary knight, whose legend is based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian real person. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to get consensus to remove the Hungarian theory some months ago; not sure why you are on to it again. And the current wording was written by you, did you forget that? Please remain WP:CIVIL. As for consensus, I'm not sure you're in a position to give lessons.
If you now think your wording is out of place, then something we can agree on is "There is no evidence about the knight's origin; theories that the legend was based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian knight have been put forward" My proposal goes beyond ethnicity: we do not know who killed Murad, it is as simple as that, and that's what Hoare (who is not a specialist of medieval Serbia, but of modern Serbia) suggests when he relates the Hungarian knight theory. Appart from his ethnic affiliation, Murad's killer could have been a knight, a soldier, a nobleman, a peasant, a slave. We just don't know. Krisitor (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in line with WP:Civil. The Hungarian theory is suggested as posssible by Malcolm who did a lot of elaboration on the matter, plus Hoare, Mock etc. You want to remove the Hungarian origin theory, so the lede only says that he was a legendary Serbian knight, without elaborating that the legend could be based on a non-Serb. Nah, it does not fit with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to remove the "Hungarian theory", but I don't think it should appeart in the lead as it is highly speculative. However, the fact that the identity of Murad's killer is not certain should be mentioned, my only suggestion being that the sentence be placed at the beginning of the second paragraph. As for Malcolm, he is no more a specialist of medieval Serbia than Hoare, and his sometimes very convoluted theories do not constitute a consensus of any kind. Krisitor (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't get what some people are trying to achieve here. Somehow, the no consensus argument is not convenient on certain talkpages. Trying to somehow overshadow Albanian traditions by replacing them with "Others" is simply unacceptable - but at least we agree on that. As of now, the Hungarian theory has been completely removed from the lead. Ktrimi's wording There is no evidence about the knight's origin; theories that the legend was based on a Serb, Albanian or Hungarian knight have been put forward is the best version, even better than the previous one due to the fact that it is in line with the provided sources, while also not violating WP:UNDUE. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's literally a quote in the sources making precisely the claim that you are editing out, namely "In truth, no historical evidence confirms Kopiliq's Albanian origin, but no evidence confirms Obilić's Serbian origin either". It is followed up by another two sources by Malcolm and Hoare which imply the same thing, by suggesting that he might have been Hungarian. What's the point of these weird edits? Uniacademic (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Hoare nor Malcolm support the Hungarian origin theory; they are merely speculating. The lead already establishes that: 1) the person "Milos Obilic" might never have existed, and 2) there is no evidence identifying Murad's killer. This makes it clear to readers that there are significant uncertainties surrounding the historical facts of this legendary knight. I would have understood this attempt to keep "Hungarian" in the lead if the scholars were supporting the theory, but that is not the case. They only thing they're truly claiming is they there is no definite evidence for the knight's identity. Azoral (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They say it is a possibility, so the lede says there are various theories, i.e. Serb, Albanian, Hungarian. Nothing is treated as a fact, and the lack of evidence is noted. Everything about Milos Obilic is "speculation". According to that rationale, we should remove everything from the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 editors against the removal of the Hungarian stuff. It is pointless to continue this discussion. You might seek a new consensus through an RfC, though. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid rushing to conclusions and please allow the debate to unfold openly. There is not a single valid reason for such formulation in the lede. You could add other ethnicities, why stop at only three? There is also a major WP:SYNTH problem here. Hoare has been misinterpreted; it happens. He writes Obilić is also claimed as a hero by the Albanians and only after that information does he mention that there is no proof and that he could of origin X or origin Y. Obilić is not a historical figure with disputed ethnic roots. His identity is clear, but his ethnic origins remain unknown. That's all. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it's undue to mention the Hungarian, Croatian or Albanian theories, which are and always have been non-notable (for lede). — Sadko (words are wind) 23:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not bringing any new argument. If you don't open the RfC, I will, and then you can present your arguments to the wider community, and seek a new consensus through it. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just pointed out that the Hoare source hasn't been properly interpreted. If you have any new or old arguments to contribute, I'm happy to hear them, our goal here is to build an encyclopedia. As a side note, before the current consensus was reached, there was an edit war during the summer of 2024. At that time, the debate involved only a limited number of participants, which is no longer the case. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of the participants in a content dispute does not change the consensus, only a new consensus reached through discussion does. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Speculations and minority views are WP:UNDUE for the lede, especially now that the material has been added to the body text. Nor should the lede repeat the same material verbatim that is in the body text, that is poor form. Khirurg (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article has mentioned both Serb and Albanian origin stories for the past year and the Hungarian entry has been in the lead since July with no counter-editing then. Some sort of consensus can be achieved, but it can't be a zero-sum scenario. The full quote by Hoare doesn't consider more important than others any origin story because these are just later reconstructions: He was a possibly mythical figure first mentioned in a short addition to a 1390 epic poem by the Turkish poet Ahmedi, as an unnamed but cowardly assassin, later by a Bulgarian writing in the period 1413–1421, who presented him as a hero called Miloš, subsequently named Miloš Kobila in 1497 by the Bosnian chronicler Konstantin Mihailović, then living in Poland and writing for the Polish and Hungarian kings, under the influence of renewed conflict between vassal Serbia and the Ottomans in the second half of the fifteenth century, with the aim of making propaganda for an anti-Ottoman crusade. The actual name ‘Miloš Obilić’ was an eighteenth-century innovation. Obilić is also claimed as a hero by the Albanians, who attribute Albanian origin to him under the name of Millosh Kopiliq, and his home as the Albanian village of Kopiliq in Kosovo’s Drenica region. In reality, there is no historical evidence that he was either Serb or Albanian, and the ethnic border between the two peoples in pre-modern times was blurred. The legend may have been based on a Hungarian knight who, some accounts suggest, killed Murat; the legend’s Miloš Obilić was Lazar’s son-in-law, and the historical Lazar had a Hungarian son-in-law who likely contributed a contingent to his army..--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that editors who keep on posting Hoare and Malcolm keep on ignoring that those 2 authors do not represent mainstream historiography, which clearly states that Milos Obilic was a Serbian knight, and what is agreed in modern historiography that he was a Murad assassin, therefore putting opinions in lede is WP:undue, one editor already posted a quite number of those sources which are easily to find. So let me just copy them. ::::*The Serbian knight Milos Obilic (History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe, John Benjamins Publishing, 2019)
Finding sources which mention the terms "Serbian" + "Miloš Obilić" doesn't add anything to the discussion other than what we already know: in the 18th century, the name "Obilić" was created and this figure was added in the emerging Serbian national narrative. This tells us nothing about the historical background of the figure before his national re-invention. The article can be crammed with other sources which focus on Albanian narratives, but the existence of Albanian narratives in Kosovo as non-minor is already accepted as part of the consensus, hence they are mentioned in the lead. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how many times do we need to put Hoare in the lede, like already mentioned before by several editors here, his opinion represents minority view, his claims that Milos was Hungarian or that the Murad assassin was Hungarian are his theories without proper evidence in historiography. Especially if we know that Hungary started raiding and attacking Moravian Serbia directly after Battle of Kosovo. Theonewithreason (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposal is to remove the Hungarian theory, then you shouldn't remove the Albanian theory from the lead as well. They're not equivalent.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That theory is presented in Albanian oral traditions, lead already mentions that he is also part of Albanian poetry. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mainstream historiography, which clearly states that Milos Obilic was a Serbian knight, and what is agreed in modern historiography that he was a Murad assassin Before posting walls of text on the tp, read the prior discussion. Yes, Milos Obilic was a Serb knight, but as part of the legend. In reality it is not known who killed the Sultan; one theory is that he was killed by a Serb knight named Milos Kobilic ("Milos Obilic" was invented later by some Serb nationalists as it looked like a more heroic surname). Other theories by mainstream scholars (yes, Malcolm, Hoare and Mock are mainstream) put into question the identification of the real (not legendary) killer of the Sultan as a Serb knight. That the real killer could be a non-Serb/Hungarian/whatever is mentioned and has to be mentioned in the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, what I see is blindly reverting from your side, where you now posting full quotations on Hoare in 2 places in the lead, which makes overciting of one source, second the real killer in modern historiography is mainly considered to be a Serb in some cases Lazar himself, also it would be advised that you read those walls of texts, which clearly shown that Hoare, Malcolm are minority in their opinions, both of them quite controversial and especially Malcolm heavy criticised, and the last thing, in discussing with other editors use WP:civil, that was repeated to you several times. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In other words for you, the lede has to say that there is no evidence about the identity and ethnicity of the real killer of the Sultan, and several theories have been put forward by historians. If you have an alternate wording along those line, go ahead and propose it here. Otherwise attempts at reverting are to no avail. @Maleschreiber: I wonder whether the wording could be changed to something like "There is no evidence about the identity and ethnicity of the real killer of the Sultan. Several theories have been put forward by historians, and the ethnic lines at the time were blurred". Based on di Lellio's and Hoare's choice of words. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already posted by editor Azor, which quite clearly explains opinions of modern historiography, as for your version it is obvious that you don't have consensus on it. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop flooding this tp with personal, unfounded personal accusations. If you see WP:CIVILITY issues, take them to ANI/I. There is the place to discuss them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the identity of the sultan's killer is not known (something which I think we all agree on), it follows that nothing is known about his ethnicity either, so mentioning it unnecessary. Thus, for the lede it would suffice to say There is no evidence about the identity of the real killer of the Sultan, with several theories having been put forward by historians., and leave it at that. Khirurg (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with editor Khirurg. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you agree with anything that fails to mention that the real killer could be a non-Serb actually. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's very surprising to see Khirurg's stance in this page. What a surprise, I could never have guessed it. Everything about Milos Obilic is vague, mysterious and unclear so we may as well just delete the whole article. This won't progress without an RfC. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, only an RfC is the path forward. I agree that even without the sentence at all, it is already clear in the lede that "Milos Obilic" is a folk tale creation which lacks historical evidence, not some historical Serb "hero" in Kosovo. Apart from deranged Serb nationalists who go bonkers when they see the myth being debunked, there are also some dumb Albanian nationalists with madeup stuff about "Millosh Kopili". Ofc, there are also some non-Serb, non-Albanian nationalists (e.g. Greeks, Croatians) who get involved in this issue as a distraction from their miserable social life. Some people were born to be fools. The lede already deals with these delusions, which is good.
In this context, apart from being more concise in the lede about what theories are put forward about the real killer's identity, the disputed sentence is not a big deal. Since we are at it, I would like to find some RS about the theory that the Sultan was murdered by his own people. I read somewhere about this, but forgot where. It is suspicious that the earliest Ottoman documents did not talk about the killer, and the Sultan's son who did succeed, at roughly the same time also killed the potential rival, his own brother. Then decades later "Milos" was brought up as the killer. Anyways, we better open the RfC for now. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow editors Kstrimi and AlexBachmann, these comments and remarks are unhelpful to everyone involved, really. I recommend offering an apology for them, as that would be an honorable course of action. I'm approaching this with full good faith.
Ottoman documents were, in fact, referring to the killer from the enemy ranks. There is a completely logical reason why this information would not have been disclosed to their people early on. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman documents were, in fact, referring to the killer from the enemy ranks. There was no press freedom back then, so of course the Ottoman documents would blame the other side. Then a few decades later they figured out that the killer was a guy named "Miloš". It is a fun story to research, but I agree that WP:NOTFORUM does not allow us to discuss more here. Lets move on people. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Ktrimi attacked anyone in this discussion? As for my comment, it is in fact very surprising that a user who has absolutely nothing to do with this topic randomly appears on some talk pages. I won't continue and don't want to elaborate, the only thing that is clear is the fact that the proposal won't go through without an RfC. I, however, do apologize if anyone feels attacked by my comment which would be still weird to me. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was talking about the wrong beliefs, already debunked in the lede, and their importance in daily nationalist narratives. Fortunately, our community of editors have cleared them up both in the lede and the body of the article, and we all agree on this. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Kobica

[edit]

The article, in the Oral traditions section, says that In a passage intended to infer a moral lesson about disloyalty from the Serbian defeat at Kosovo, Mihailović identifies Miloš Kobica[33] as the knight who on the fateful last Friday of the battle slew Murad. I do not seem to find this name, Miloš Kobica, in other sources, even in academic ones that elaborate on the early accounts of the story. It would be helpful if someone finds some RS that mention the name Miloš Kobica. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Kobica is the form that appears in the 1865 Serbian translation of the first Czech printing of Mihailović's chronicles, published in 1565. In this oldest printed version, the name is written "Miloskobiza", hence the Serbian rendition as "Miloš Kobica". However, the version of the chronicles that is authoritative in academic circles is the one published by the Polish philologist Jan Łoś in 1912. Now, Łoś first writes the name with the spelling Miloskobyła, mentioning 4 variants in a footnote, including the Czech variant. Then, in the rest of the story, he writes Miłosz Kobilicz, i.e. Miloš Kobilić in the Gaj alphabet. This Wikipedia article should therefore refer to the Łoś edition of 1912 rather than the Serbian version of 1865, and should mention the 2 variants, Kobila and Kobica. I will take the time to correct this at some point. Krisitor (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, makes sense. Thank you, much appreciated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC wording

[edit]

Before the RfC is opened. Apart from the two versions, is any other wording to be proposed? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Khirurg interpretation to be included. Theonewithreason (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would include my suggestion to remove the last sentence of the lead and reintroduce it at the beginning of the second paragraph, with proper sources, something like:
"Although his original name was Miloš Kobilić, several variants of this name appear in historical sources. Moreover, it is not even clear whether he really existed, as there is no definitive evidence as to the identity of Murad's killer." Krisitor (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "the second paragraph"? The second paragraph of the article is in the lede and starts with "Although his original name was Miloš Kobilić, several variants of this name appear in historical sources and it is not certain that he actually existed". Maybe you are referring to the second section of the article, "Literary sources"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the second paragraph of the lead. Krisitor (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, understood. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, people, keep in mind that too many proposals can make the RfC messy. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miloš_Obilić&oldid=1280960730"