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.