Talk:Kosovo Myth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. No other editor supported the proposed renaming, so on the basis of a headcount there is a clear consensus to retain the current title. However, WP:NOTAVOTE, so if the nominator's proposition was overwhelming more solidly based in policy, then that might amount to a consensus in favour of the proposal.
In this case, the nom was based on the core policy of WP:NPOV, which is potentially a very powerful argument. However, that policy is more specific than its headline might imply. It does not mean seeking to balance different sides of an argument; what it does mean is "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". In other words, the balance that Wikipedia seeks is the balance in existing reliable sources. Those opposing this move provided plenty of evidence that "myth" is by far the most widely-used term for this topic, which also demonstrates that it fits Wikipedia's definition of neutrality. In popular usage, the word "myth" may indicate a presumption that a narrative is wholly or partly fictional, but the scholarly use is less judgemental: a myth is a sacred narrative, or a traditional story. That difference between scholarly and popular interpretations could justify an editorial preference for an alternative, but the case for doing so depends on a balance between two factors: a) how partisan is the most popular title? b) how widely used are the alternatives?
In this case editors weighed those factors as not justifying any of the alternatives. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Kosovo Myth → ? – This article should be renamed because its current title "Kosovo Myth" is POV, implying that this religiously-based tradition is false, or not true. This tradition is official belief of the Serbian Orthodox Church, as it is celebrated religiously on Vidovdan and its main characters, Prince Lazar and Milos Obilic, are venerated as Saints in the Serbian church for their deeds in the tradition's story. Thus, the verity of this historical narrative is elevated into religious doctrine and spiritual belief. Using "Myth" to title this, thus, ignores these facts and/or takes sides against them, either way making it a form of POV, and not suitable as part of Wikipedia's core content policies. I propose either "The Kosovo Tradition" or "Kosovo Epic" as possible neutral titles with academic usage. Critikal1 (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems to be called Косовски мит in Serbian, and English sources reflect this in Google Books. What is the alternative? Kosovo Tradition, Kosovo Epic, Kosovo Cult and Kosovo Testament should redirect here, but aren't so common in sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Kosovo Testament gets roughly an equal number of google hits as Kosovo Myth, in Serbian.

Another alternative can be "The Kosovo Legend" which receives just about equal number of hits as Kosovo Myth, and Kosovo Legend implies less falsity than "Kosovo Myth". Critikal1 (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Of course, some people treat it as a factual account; but the most reliable sources don't, so neither should we. That is how we comply with WP:NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That isn't being neutral, that's being partial. Given that the SOC treats it as a factual account and a significant amount of academics treat it with at least a level of neutrality and uncertainty, this article should do the same. Critikal1 (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is about a myth, not epic poetry cycle. The existence of this myth is attested in reliable sources. It is notable topics that deserves an article on it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose At first glance I was convinced I'd be in support but the data speaks quite to the opposite. Contemporary source (I've taken that to mean post-2005) appears to lean towards the current title. Further I don't see that that is on a POV basis. Sources appears to breach a wide variety of areas from the general concept of national myths (ex:De Palerme À Penang) to this particular view's affect in military/social conflicts in this specific region (Ex:Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies: A Scholars' Initiative) to cinema (ex:Narcissism of Minor Differences': Problems of 'Mapping' the Neighbour in Post-Yugoslav Serbian Cinema) and sports history (ex:Yugoslavian Sport and the Challenges of Its Recent Historiography). In all cases the current title is supported by a strong number of scholarly sources and seems to enjoy a wide body of support. Kosovo Testament doesn't appear to be widely used[1], Kosovo epic seams to be entirely associated with "Kosovo epic cycle"[2] and Kosovo Tradition just seems ambiguity and even then is still less common than the current title[3].--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Note also sr:Kosovski mit - nobody seems to mind. That being said, since the word "myth" may indeed seem to imply falsity, the article needs to provide some background. Note that in the current "Background" section, only the first sentence is actual background. GregorB (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Legend" is more neutral than "Myth" in this particular case; Legend: "a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable", Myth: an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true. This belief does not have elements of the supernatural, nor does it explain some type of phenomenon to be neutrally regarded as myth. The fact that the Serbian page currently is not complying with WP:NPOV has little to do with this Critikal1 (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a mythomoteur myth of Serb national identity. Not about Kosovo legend which is different topic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Kosovo myth" and "Kosovo legend" are used interchangeably throughout most texts, just that legend is more neutral and accurate. Critikal1 (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose this. I do understand what the nominator is trying to say but still there is several things that makes the differance in this case. Kosovo legend is simular to the Kosovo myth still it does not need to be thesame. Kosovo epic is more historical what happend those days. Kosovo myth is the ethnologycal belives in what remained and what consequences are from the actions on that day. This article is not about the historical happening but about the myth witch itself is under discussion sence some things have been disputed. What is not in the article itself is for example the part of the myth witch says Serbians won the battle, even if historians as best on a good day could say it was a tie. The myth itself has become something way way bigger than just the fight on the Kosovo field. Its is living on its own and added to different things depending on the person. It is in a way a legend sence its based on a real happening but a legend tells a story this does not only tell a story, but adds things to people and values way far away from a legend. Second and for me the biggest reasson why I oposed is the serbian name for this is Kosovski Mit or english Kosovo Myth. Half of my familly are serbs from Kosmet and for us its simple. Epic is the songs and the story, Legend is the historical battle and Myth thats exactly whats described in this article. On a light note yes when asking the half of my familly they will say we won the battle:) Stepojevac (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kosovo Covenant

I find that the term "Kosovo Covenant" after "Kosovo Myth" gets the most hits on google search and on Google Books. "Kosovo Covenant" directly translates into the serbian "Kosovski Zavet", which is the most frequently used term, receiving 33,100 google search results versus "Kosovski Mit" (Kosovo myth) receiving only 17,200 search results. I suggest that besides "Myth", only "Covenant" should be included in the article, one ("Myth") reflecting the critical perspective of the tradition, while "Covenant" expressing it's religious dimension. Cult & Testament are not used nearly as much, neither in english nor serbian. Critikal1 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits ---> tags

Recent edits followed with clear WP:NOTTHERE lack basic WP:NPOV and are going all over the place; most of these recent additions use second-class sources and are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING sources and make pamphlet-like additions which are afterwards "guarded" and points raised by other editors are ignored. This is not a way to build an Enclyclopedia. The article is tagged until this situation resolves, with, hopefully, cooperation of other editors. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling sources "second-class" is not the same as actually disputing them with bibliography. If you can dispute any of them, add any tag you feel to be relevant.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not how this project functions. Undo yourself as a sign of good faith. This move is really not looking good on several levels. There were several points raised, and yet you decided to focus on just one. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Saying that sources are "second-class" is WP:JDL. A content dispute means that you highlight a particular sentence or section that you consider POV, explain why it is so based on bibliography and then a discussion begins.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's just one way to do it and it's very arrogant to consider it to be the only one and regardless it does NOT give you carte blanche for removing the tags. I have already raised several points in my diffs. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That is the only way to do it because it is the only way that allows a discussion to happen within the context of policy.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You and Ktrimi have added material that is contested. Instead of edit-warring you should try to reach a consensus. In Albanian nationalism (Albania), you and Ktrimi edit-warred quite intensely to suppress material you didn't like [4]. You yourself also habitually tag any article you don't like, often without any talkpage discussion [5]. Do not think this behavior goes by unnoticed. Khirurg (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Sadko:, if you think there are other views supported by reliable sources, feel free to add them. Nobody has prevented you from doing so. If everyone started to follow your rationale, any article that can cause disputes between Balkan editors would be tagged forever. Such as that one for example, since you frequently have disputes with other editors there. Do not misuse tags, it could backfire. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Kosovo Myth is specific narrative (Lazars' sacrifice to gain the Kingdom of Heaven. during the Battle of Kosovo, etc.) and it is important that we stick to it. (WP:COATRACK) This article is not called Serbian myths about Kosovo. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We need to include sources and parts that speak strictly about the Kosovo Myth, the Battle of Kosovo martyrdom, etc. Also, the article focus exclusively on wars (especially in the lead), instead of epic poems, art and other things is WP:UNDUE.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

What the Kosovo Myth is about is decided by reliable sources, not you. Unless you provide arguments based on reliable sources, the tag will be removed. All the material recently added to the article refers to the Kosovo Myth. If you know of another point of view on the matter, always supported by reliable sources, feel free to make use of them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It does so because the Kosovo Myth is treated in bibliography largely as a 19th century creation within a given geopolitical context. I expect you to prepare specific tquotes which you think that should be changed + bibliography that supports those changes. Otherwise, there is no content for any tag placement and they'll be removed per WP:JDL. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• In my last edit I've outlined several problems, that is only a basis and we can take it from here. I will not delete the content yet, as I am willing to show good faith, even though there is clearly no consensus and 3 editors have claimed that the latest edits are introducing serious bias. Fellow editor @Maleschreiber, please do not write messages like "I'm giving you 1 day to present sources", this is not Taken and it's a breach of several policies. ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Your mention of Taken, a movie that has been criticized for depicting Albanians as criminals, here can be very well seen as a personal attack. So do not do that again. You again did not bring amy reliable source, only your personal opinions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Really? I forgot about that as I've seen it 12 years ago. Some line in the movie have led to creation of numerous jokes, which was my point.

Absolutely not true, I'm pretty much always attacking the content or sort of behaviour and not going full Ad hominem. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• @WEBDuB: Do not remove content sourced to RS. Any new content addition is welcome. If you think that somewhere sources disagree, point that out here, and a way to solve that can be figured out. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Many claims are not supported by sources, and many sources do not discuss the Kosovo Myth at all. I will explain in more detail. Furthermore, the lead doesn't adequately summarize key points from the body. (WP:MOSLEAD) Also, the same sentences are mentioned several times in the lead.--WEBDuB (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Back to the stable version. Also, now that we have localized, sentence-specific tags we shouldn't add whole page tags. The reason why I asked from Sadko to provide specific tags in specific sections was so we could then remove the full page tags. As for the parts which he has tagged I think that some of those sections could even be removed entirely from the article like the one about the "elements which constitute the myth".--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A side comment: The part which Sadko has disputed - and I'm 100% in favor of removing it - is the version of the article which other Serbian editors had written when it was created [6].--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispute

The lead

There are many issues with the lead section. It is too long for this article size and it doesn't adequately summarize key points from the body. (MOS:LEAD) Many similar claims are repеated in the section. A lot of sentences can be transferred to the body of the article, which I have already tried. Furthermore, why is this opening paragraph problematic? I really think that it is in line with the MOS:BEGIN and that it is completely NPOV.

The Kosovo myth describes Kosovo as the metaphorical cradle of the Serb nation, and the Serbs as a chosen people.

In the context of the Kosovo myth, Greater Serbian propagandists have produced various slogans regarding Kosovo and the myth was used during the Yugoslavia period to argue for Serbian leadership and a Greater Serbia.

Used during the Yugoslavia period to argue for Serb leadership and a Greater Serbia, it was one of the factors that led to the Kosovo War.

These claims are not supported by sources. (WP:NOR) It is not recommended to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (WP:SYNTHESIS). In accordance with the sources, I have divided them impartially into several sentences. I can't find a quote where Elsie discusses the Kosovo Myth strictly. Malcolm doesn't mention “the Kosovo Myth”, “Greater Serbia” or “propagandists” anywhere. I have also added the only sentence that Sullivan connects with the Myth, besides Vuk Karadžić and Čedomilj Mijatović: The Kosovo Myth was reinforced after the great losses during World War I, which led to confusion among Serbian nationalists between the Serbian and Yugoslav states. Ramet didn't connect Kosovo Myth with Great Serbia on page 181, not even in the entire book.

Knudsen & Laustsen noted: However, the causes of the Kosovo war are complex and cannot be reduced solely to political entrepreneurs' usage of nationalist myth. Also, Radovic didn't state anything similar to: “the myth led to the Kosovo War”, but that it was used to form Milošević's ideology. Consequently, we need to write a more NPOV sentence like: The myth was instrumentalized during the Kosovo War.

The essence and basic elements of the myth

I think this is fine, but we should expand with Djokic's article and Ramet's book.

In Serbia

the Kosovo myth describes Kosovo as the metaphorical cradle of the Serb nation, and the Serbs as a chosen people.

I have already explained above for similar sentences in the lead.

The idea of Kosovo being the cradle of Serbia has been criticized in terms of historical validity, since the first Slav tribes settled outside the territory of Kosovo in the 7th century, and became central, at least economically and geographically, in the 13th century.

This sentence is sourced, but has nothing to do with the main topic.

Since the 19th century

This way, the myth became one of the factors that led to the Kosovo War.[25] In the context of the Kosovo myth, Greater Serbian propagandists have produced various slogans regarding Kosovo,[10] and the myth was used during the Yugoslavia period to argue for Serbian leadership and a Greater Serbia.

I have already explained above for similar sentences in the lead. --WEBDuB (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about what you proposed to change. Could you highlight the changes with tquotes and the current version as italics? --Maleschreiber (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Please be sure to check the cited sources. Everything I suggest is according to the sources, and the current claims so far are SYNTHESIS and OR. Furthermore, I suggest that we fix the body of the article first, and then we should focus on the lead.

The Kosovo myth describes Kosovo as the metaphorical cradle of the Serb nation, and the Serbs as a chosen people. - The myth established the “heavenly Serbia” narrative.

(This claim has already been properly separated and a more precise quote has been added: Since the battle on Kosovo Polje, this hill came to be seen as the “cradle of Serbia” and one of the most Serb nation’s most holy places.)

This way, the myth became one of the factors that led to the Kosovo War. In the context of the Kosovo myth, Greater Serbian propagandists have produced various slogans regarding Kosovo and the myth was used during the Yugoslavia period to argue for Serbian leadership and a Greater Serbia. - The Kosovo Myth was reinforced after the great losses during World War I, which led to confusion among Serbian nationalists between the Serbian and Yugoslav states. And then: The myth was instrumentalized (or used) during the Kosovo War.

The idea of Kosovo being the cradle of Serbia has been criticized in terms of historical validity, since the first Slav tribes settled outside the territory of Kosovo in the 7th century, and became central, at least economically and geographically, in the 13th century. - to be removed. It has nothing to do with the main topic. The myth of the cradle of Serbia is not the same as the Kosovo Myth (martyrdom, Lazars' sacrifice for the Kingdom of heaven, etc.). Every scholar claims that. Neither the author himself connects these two myths, nor does he call “the cradle myth” the Kosovo Myth or Kosovo Cult.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The 1392 poem "Narration about Prince Lazar" formulated the theme of choosing the heavenly kingdom. is not supported by Dujzings (2000), p.207. Dujzings also explains that However, these songs focus on the principle characters of the Kosovo legend...and the downfall of the Serbian kingdom and feudal society rather than the destiny of the Serbs as a nation. This shift in meaning occurred only in the nineteenth century, when the Kosovo theme evolved into a national myth. so a lead that would say The Kosovo myth describes Kosovo as the metaphorical cradle of the Serb nation is not accurate without a context.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• @WD and Sadko, everything is written in sources discussing the Kosovo Myth. Do not make dumb claims about OR or things like that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I am against the inclusion of text based on Noel Malcolm whose works are highly controversial (multiple historians including many members of academies refuted his works), while particularly the above sentences are of polemic nature and contradict to what mainstream of scholarly works say. I am also against the inclusion of "Greater Serbian" conspiracy theories (presented as facts implying that Kosovo is not part of Serbia, but Greater Serbia). I am also against pushing nationalistic POV talking points about Serbs not having their metaphorical cradle in Kosovo. I am against misusing wikipedia to promote Albanian nationalistic mythology. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:,@Ktrimi991: I've pointed out a number of issues here. I've also explained in detail how the sentences were reformulated from the source to get a totally different meaning. Don't ignore the argumentative discussion and just click a undo button. Numerous policies have been violated here. It cannot be the subject of democracy or anything like that. Maleschreiber, I really appreciate your effort to find any solution. If you want us to solve it that way, you need to quote a number of other controversial sentences. Please, start with Elsie, Malcolm and Ramet.

Malcolm discussed three myths:

1. The cradle of Serbian civilization
2. The Kosovo Myth (the Battle of Kosovo, Lazars' sacrifice etc.)
3. The great migrations of the Serbs

The quote refers to the first myth, not the second. From which it can be concluded that this claim has nothing to do with the topic. Moreover, I don’t think that source would even pass the RSN case.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the broad comments about Malcolm are incorrect, as detailed in the article on him. Malcolm's work on Kosovo could be considered controversial (mainly with Serbian historians who disagree with him and subscribe to aspects of the Kosovo Myth themselves), but not fringe or biased. He can certainly be used here, with attribution, in fact he SHOULD be used to show that there are alternative views to those of Serbian historians and mythmakers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Many others have criticized his work and challenged the sources and conclusions (not fringe, but biased), not only Serbian historians. However, I'm not against including his opinion in the article, but the quoted sentence is not from the part of the book that talks about the Kosovo Myth.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is also Tim Judah, who makes it clear much of the detail of the battle is actually unknown, yet the article states these details in Wikipedia's voice. As it stands, this article is highly misleading. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is about a legend, not about the battle itself. Such as the Trojan War and The Exodus. Political (miss)use is only one aspect. The myth was developed through church records and writers or chroniclers who manuscripted oral legends. That was explained by a plenty of sources.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67. In the lead states "is a political and historical narrative". As far as I understand the essence of the Kosovo myth, it should be some fairy tale based on folk tradition and some informations about use of that myth in modern times. It is known that there is not much information about that battle and the article is intoned as if exist some facts which are presented through that myth, that is, as if we are reading some facts. From article: "On the last supper before the battle hosted by Lazar, he told his knights that one of them would betray him", "Deceived by his son-in-law Vuk Branković, he accused Miloš Obilić, which Obilić opposed, claiming that he would kill the Sultan Murаd", etc etc. Whether cited informations are some facts, fairy tale, fabrication, when it is made up, is it made up at all? It is not clear from reading article what this is really about. It's like reading the article about the Battle of Kosovo II, from another angle. Mikola22 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree that the introduction is bad, I will correct that. Do you think we should write a section that compares the Myth with the known facts about the Battle of Kosovo?--WEBDuB (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not researched the article from beginning and its original intention. I have said what I know or guess what should be a Kosovo myth. We can’t go from information to information and write next to each information that it is fiction, from some recent local record, from folklore, it is true, etc. The article must be so intoned that throughout the article we understand that this is Kosovo myth and that all or most informations are based on folklore, fabricated, etc(not all sections are in question). From this article when we read it, it cannot be clarified what is actually a myth and whether something is actually true. That's why I mentioned "Battle of Kosovo II". To summarize, probably the whole or parts of the article should be reconstructed. This is my opinion.

As for the new section, I think if the article would be well reconstructed, this section it would not be needed. By the way, the section you mention says exactly what I said earlier. However, the problem is that we already have one article(Battle of Kosovo). So a broader consensus will be needed on what to do with this article, that is, which reconstructions to make. Mikola22 (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The sections are divided according to most sources about the Myth. Eventually, a short section can be added that compares historical facts and legends. The article is now in much better condition than it was, according to sources and Wikipedia policies. If you think that some policy has been violated, please highlight specific sentences. Of course, everyone is welcome to correct and enrich the article.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the narrative which WEBDuB is trying to put forward is that WEBDuB is trying to argue for a continuity in the Kosovo Myth - but that doesn't exist and that should be clear in the article. The Kosovo Myth exists since the 19th century on the basis of various narratives which were reworked under a very specific political goal. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Which source states that? Also, there is no WP:NOR or something like that. That tagging is not justified. That's more WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is clearly emphasized that the final form was constructed by Vuk Karadžić. Exactly which sentence was quoted incorrectly or misinterpreted? All sources directly cover the Kosovo Myth. We need to read and check everything first before we attach the tags.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

• The article (as written by WEBDuB): One of the earliest records that contributed to the development of the cult of martyrdom and God's special favor for Lazar are the Narration about Prince Lazar by Danilo III, Serbian Patriarch (1390–1396), and the Encomium of Prince Lazar by a nun Jefimija, a widow of the despot Uglješa Mrnjavčević

The reader here is led to think that a nun named Jefimija, a contemporary of the events, wrote one of the earliest records about the battle and that this record is a contribution to its mythologization as used today.

• Emmert, Thomas Allan (1991). "The Battle of Kosovo: Early Reports of Victory and Defeat". In Vucinich, Wayne S.; Emmert, Thomas Allan (eds.). Kosovo: Legacy of a Medieval Battle (PDF). University of Minnesota. ISBN 9789992287552., the main citation: While various writers used different images to establish Lazar's legitimacy, all of them emphasized the importance of God's will and providence in providing a peaceful transference of authority during the troubled years of the post-Dusan era. The anonymous author of Zitije kneza Lazara says that God led Lazar to the Serbian throne after Uros's death because of his "humility, righteousness, many virtues, and gentle habits."[25] Blessed by the archpriests, the entire priesthood, and the Serbian council he became autocrat of the Serbs.[26] In a eulogy for Lazar embroidered on his silk burial shroud, the nun Jefimija (Despot Ugljesa's widow) speaks briefly of God's special favor for Prince Lazar

Two comments: 1. The article largely ommits the social function of these accounts which was the legitimization of Ottoman authority as Emmert (2011) highlights. Instead, they are presented in a way that strips them of their historicity. The Kosovo Myth is a very specific narrative. We can't just lump into it everything that has ever been written about the battle of Kosovo by basically removing the historical function/context in order to put forward a narrative of continuity between early records and national ideology in late 19th century Serbia. @Peacemaker67: when you have the time could you check this?--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, everything is covered by sources. You are welcome to enrich the article with parts that you think are missing. This myth had different interpretations and roles, it has already been explained.

Medieval Serbian writings that constitute the first thematic corpus of texts are the following: (...) “Pohvala knezu Lazaru” [“In Praise of Prince Lazar”] (1402) of the nun Jefimija;(...) Because the specific purpose of these texts is to celebrate and glorify Lazar, they do not deal sufficiently with the Kosovo event itself, and they are considered inadequate and incomplete as historical sources. Some of them, however, are important for a fuller understanding of the development of the legend.

In a eulogy for Lazar embroidered on his silk burial shroud, the nun Jefimija (Despot Ugljesa's widow) speaks briefly of God's special favor for Prince Lazar. --WEBDuB (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The Birth of the Myth: (…) The story of how Prince Lazar opted for the heavenly kingdom in the 1389 battle on the Field of Kosovo seems to have originated with the Narration about Prince Lazar by Serbian Patriarch Danilo III (…), the noblewoman Jefimija’s embroidered Encomium of Prince Lazar and several texts by anonymous authors within thirty years after the battle.

References

@WEBDuB: just to be transparent here, I will remove the tag myself - just like you did, once I finish verifying contextualization with some edits. It will be a much faster process than the POV tag issue.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I assume good faith here. That is not in question. To help, еntire works by Djokić, Humphreys, Pavlović & Atanasovski, Ređep, Trgovčević, Greenawalt, cpahpters from Duijzings (p.176-201), Cohen, Ramet etc. discusses strictly the Kosovo myth, its content, origin and development. These citation cannot be OR. Also, most of Emmert's works discusses Kosovo legends. There is OR and COATRACK in the case of Malcolm's citation. It has nothing to do with the main topic. The Kosovo Myth is a myth or legend (like the Argonautica), created on the basis of various stories and narratives, this is not an article about “Serbian misconceptions about Kosovo”. It attracted the most attention of the Western media during Milošević's reign, but its political use from before, including other South Slavic nations, is well documented.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: I've finished editing and improving the article. Did you check any references and sources? I assure you that everything is supported by sources that are directly related to the topic. There is no place for the OR and COATRACK accusations. Only in the case of Malcolm's quote and others that I didn't add.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Fringe

I had added a general tag for the sources to be checked. It was removed by WEBDuB. Then, I added some specific tags about original research, which again were removed by WEBDuB. Now, the editor has gone so far as claiming that somehow the Kosovo narrative: a)is not a contemporary myth b)has been an "important constitutive myth" of other South Slavic nations. In bibliography, the Kosovo Myth is considered a modern narrative of 19th century nationalism, which became increasingly important in 20th century Serbian politics. I'm adding a WP:FRINGE tag on the whole article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Please, stop with edit war and WP:TAGBOMB. Thearticle has been improved a lot, all references have been checked. I have invited you to the discussion many times. Mark specific sentences, parts and sources that are in dispute. That's how I worked, at your suggestion. I understand what teamwork and exchange of opinions mean. Practically all existing sources on this topic are cited in the article. None of this is fringe The article is about the myth, such as the Trojan War and The Exodus. Political (miss)use is only one aspect. That is covered by a large part of the article, but forcing that it is the only meaning is POV and UNDUE.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The "please stop with edit war" narrative when the other editor is not edit-warring and hasn't even reverted back your multiple reverts is the same as the "please assume good faith" tendentious narrative. The article contradicts itself. Bibliography refers to the Kosovo Myth as a very different product than the various tales that contributed to its formation. You've mixed the modern and the original narratives. The original narratives can't have been both about a "glorious Serbian kingdom"/ "Ottoman slavery" and about the acceptance and legitimization of the Ottoman Empire.--Maleschreiber (talk)

That interpretation, which you added in the lead, appears in a small number of sources. (UNDUE) But the sentence itself is not problematic. Myth is myth, one story. It has not changed as much over the centuries, as sources confirm. It has existed for a long time as a legend in the oral tradition, many chroniclers have noted that. Interpretation and political use have changed.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Undue ha to do with cases in which there are multiple narratives, but that is the only narrative about the original tales. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

How many sources state this difference between narratives? --WEBDuB (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

All sources mention that the narratives are very different. They're not even the same texts.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Everything is supported by sources that are directly related to the Kosovo Myth. That's why I'm telling you to mark specific sentences and sources. Differences may be described in some detail, but for example, there are also a lot of versions of the myths about Heracles. It is clear which legend and which story they are the subject. Sources confirm that.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Petar Lubarda Kosovski boj 1953 Svecana Sala Novi Dvor Beograd.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)