Talk:Battle of Tripolje

Anzulovic as a source

Branimir Anzulovic is quoted here and in other historical articles. His book "Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide" is very dubious as a historical source given that Anzulovic himself is far from being an established historian. He had a PhD in comparative literature. Another thing to add is that this is probably his only book. Not to mention that passages selected from his book look like nothing more than a POV, baseless accusations of entire nation, conclusions that are drawn do not look like work of an established historian. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you disputing the information cited, or just the source? 331dot (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I am disputing validity of the source and the information cited. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The text that is being repeatedly removed and reinserted is making the assertion that this battle "contributed to the Ottoman conquest of the Serbs". There is no indication in this article's content, or in the content of related articles, that was actually the case - in fact the side that had Ottoman troops amongst its numbers was the loosing side, and the winning side, the Serbian Despotate, continued to exist for a further 60 years, outlasting the Byzantine Empire. I suspect Anzulovic is manipulating historical events to support his opinions on contemporary events, and has chosen this particular battle because of its chronological closeness to the Battle of Kosovo; he is altering its reality in order to weaken modern-day myths surrounding that better-known battle. Unless more established historians have made similar assertions about this battle, I don't think this content should remain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The book was published by New York University Press which is a credible publishing house specializing in scholarly journals. Anzulovic has been interviewed by reliable media because he is a reliable academic [1]. Anzulovic is a academic whose credentials are well-known and his work has received much positive comments such as that of Ivo Banac: "Modern Serbian nationalism...and its contradictory connections...have been sources of considerable scholarly interest...Branimir Anzulovic's compendium is a good example of the genre, made all the more useful by Anzulovic's excellent command of the literature." Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Who published the book isn't important. There is no indication the claim itself is valid because it goes against the evidence presented in the article. You have partly agreed with my point, the book is part of a genre of works who are writing about the modern era but who reinterpret past events to try and prove their assertions about modern era events or modern-era beliefs and opinions. I think this claim will only be valid for insertion if some actual historians who specialize in the period have written about the battle and made this claim. Extreme claims require more than one source. It is also incorrect to have this claim in an "aftermath" section. Aftermath is for events occurring after the main event as a result of the main event, it is not for interpretations of the main event by modern writers. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In relation to the last point made above, I have removed the content from the "Aftermath" section and placed it in a new section titled "Interpretations". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be right, it is his interpretation, but what credibility Anzulovic or his book have to be mentioned in the first place? I say none. 91.148.93.114 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how Anzulovic would be an expert historian (and hence worthy of inclusion) in this matter. Remove.--Zoupan 14:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your positions are WP:I don't like it. There is not a historian or writer who has confronted Anzulovic's opinion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Zoupan, Tiptoe, et.al. Anzulovic is not an historian and has no specialization in this area of study. Keep the sentence in question, tag it, and find a reliable source for it.
I am assuming this is the sentence in question;

• "The battle was an example of Serb leaders fighting among themselves thus contributing to the Ottoman conquest of the Serbs."
  

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Massive POV

This article is in its core an accumulation of pro Lazarevic POV. Some problematic sentences are:

• "The new political landscape made for closer Byzantine–Serbian cooperation, and in August 1402, at Constantinople, Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos awarded one of the Serbian magnates, Stefan Lazarević, the very high title of Despot". I deleted the bold part because it is a POV.
• "Second only to imperial dignity, the title brought the bearer great honor". The article focuses too much on virtues of Lazarevic who is portrayed as a magnificent ruler.
• "Upon seeing Lazarević's bravery on the battlefield, it is said that many Ottoman soldiers felt like retreating". Who said this?
• The Battle section in itself is a narrative of Lazarevic's bravery, focusing on his heroism instead of the battle itself.
• The rivalry between Durad Brankovic and Stephan Lazarevic can be traced back to the time of Bayezid, who expelled Durad's father from his lands and gave a part of them to Stefan. This part is omitted in article.

Some of the sources of this article are partisan because they tend to show Lazarevic as a brave man who opposed the Ottomans and their allies. They are sources which belong to Milosevic's nationalist and hero centered myth-building era. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Was there a higher non-Imperial title than despot? No. That to me is "very high". It does not describe Lazarević, but the title. The battle section includes accounts of the battle, naturally also the commanders' achievements. Among other things, Orbini says "il turchi quasi di subito si diedero a fuggire". The article is about a military conflict, in which commanders fought, right? Kastritsis wasn't even in the article, so how was it omitted?--Zoupan 20:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Massive POV"? Get a grip.--Zoupan 20:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You have written: "The new political landscape made for closer Byzantine–Serbian cooperation, and in August 1402, at Constantinople, Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos awarded one of the Serbian magnates, Stefan Lazarević, the very high title of Despot.[1] Second only to imperial dignity, the title brought the bearer great honor". Two sentences praise the title given to Lazarevic. This would not be suspicious if the Battle section didn't focus on Lazarevic's heroism and praised him too much. What raises suspicions on the neutrality even more is that most of sources belong to Milosevic's nationalist and myth-building era. Kastritsis is the first result on Google Books (if you claim it isn't then it is among the very first results), a place where you evidently (from your comments in other discussions) search for sources. He does not focus on Lazarevic's heroism and does not see the event just as a battle between a hero and a traitor. You really neglected him and focused instead on Yugoslav sources of nationalist period. I added some stuff to clarify some important details and make the article more neutral. By the way stop deleting stuff based on Anzulovic and seek an agreement as you are very near edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Read what has already been said.--Zoupan 00:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Tripolje/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 11:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Will get to this shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Section 1;
  • Second only to "the" imperial dignity
  • Lazarević ordered Branković "to be" imprisoned
• Section 2;
  • Link Balkans
  • the Lazarević brother's crossing; I think just "Vuk's crossing" is enough
  • Süleyman sent one of his commanders to monitor Branković,^[4] to ensure that he was truly loyal; What was the result? What did the commander report regarding Branković's loyalty?
• Section 3;
  • stay "as" a "good shepherd of the flock"
  • As he was unable to resist Branković's pressure, it was Lazarević who decided the battle; this sentence is a bit vague, I suggest you to reword it
• Section 4; all good
• 2.0% confidence, violation unlikely

:Excellent article, very well written. I am very much impressed with the style and the flow the article is in. Good work.

With a lot of POV and source-related issues, the article is far away from the GA criteria. Request the nominator to first resolve the issues on talk page and renominate the article after the improvements. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References