Talk:Kuči (tribe)

RfC on origin of the tribe

We have a disagreement on the origin of Kuči tribe. Currently, the article states that the tribe is Albanian in origin, but no citations address the claim directly. Current citations are based on language report 2 centuries after creation of the tribe. I tried dispute resolution but editors mentioned didn't want to participate and just ignored it. Should we change origins to mixed? I will provide more info in a reply to this RfC

02:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Setxkbmap (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit (02.09.2024.): While waiting for neutral responses, three editors started hastily adding sources and modifying the article, without any discussion whether or not they should be added. Some of the sources are very weak, basically being a 5 words citation that confirms their POV. Some of the sources have nothing to do with origin itself, and some of them cite articles wrong, which i gave proof in the talk page, but they were added anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setxkbmap (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources and citations i wanted to implement and to cite instead of the current citations that address the claim directly (none):

1. Bojka Đukanović - Historical Dictionary of Montenegro (Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield, 2023), page 190: According to their ethnic origins, the Kuči tribe is a mixture of Slavic and Albanian population. [1](screenshot of a page section)

2. Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka (1925)- Page 554: K. are an old Serb tribe. It was formed by Serb brotherhoods that moved from Zeta valley, where it was first living, and then spread to territory of K. They found two Vlach tribes Bukumiri and Mataguži, who were pushed away and then partly assimilated. In record from 1455. when Kuči are first mentioned as a tribe, it's said that they are of orthodox faith. Kuči celebrate Nikoljdan. Only the name Kuči is not of Serb origin. It's either obtained from population that here before, or they got it from Albanian label, which in their language means great, unsurpassed. From 15. century, running away from the Turks, many families from surrounding countries arrive, first Serbs and Albanians, and later only Serbs who were running away from Albanians. Out of 22 families who moved between 15th and 17th century to Kuči, only 4 are known to be of Albanian origin.[2](screenshot of a page section)

3. Predrag Petrovic - Vojvoda Radonja Petrović, Guvernadur Brda (Publisher: Fond za razvoj Kuc̆a, 2019), page 30: Kuči, as one of key tribal societies in Brda region, have their own specific traits in comparison to other tribes from the ethnic standpoint. Core of the tribe which is formed around middle of XV century, or maybe even few decades before, are native brotherhoods who are not connected, but are of Slavic-Serb origin, and populate region of castle Medun and a couple of Vlach lineages in mountainous and region around it, who were mixing with each other before arrival of Mrnjavčevići. Later, after Turkish occupation and formation of Kuči nahia, in territorial and administrative region, was included a couple of Albanian, catholic brotherhoods in Trieshi, who joined tribal community of Kuči, and so that created a heterogeneous ethnic composition of Kuči, which was also religiously heterogeneous. [3](screenshot of a page section)

4. Andrey N. Sobolev - Southeastern European Languages and Cultures in Contact (Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton, 2021): Between Separation and Symbiosis (Language Contact and Bilingualism) - Page 96: Compare with the Kuči who had been an Orthodox Serbian tribe until the 15th century. Through the 15th to 17th century several Albanian (Catholic) and Serbian (Orthodox and Catolic) groups from other areas settled in their tribal territory. The population in the region had been a long time bilingual, but shifted to monolingualism due to the gradual Slavicization of Albanians. A bilingual situation now exists only in the small area of Koći/Koje, which is inhabited by Albanians and Albanized Serbs.[4](screenshot of a page section)

5. Rašović Marko - Kuči Tribe: Ethnographic-Historical Overview (Publisher: Stamp. zavod za izradu novcanica NB, 1963)- describing period before 15th century and formation of a tribal society, page 30 And so the Serbs somewhere started living among Vlachs, and in other places pushed them further into the mountains. In todays region of Kuči, we can find proof that it was the second case.[5](screenshot of a page section)

describing period of tribe formation, 15th century, page 35 By the end of XV and during the XVI century begins big change in the composition of the population of Kuči. New brotherhoods and families are moving into Kuči, many of noble blood, running away from Turks. Poem from Petar Petrović Njegoš These newcomers were Serbs and Albanians, brave and energetic people, champions of uncompromised battle against the Turks. Almost all of them came here as well established brotherhoods, who forcibly take their place amongst the old Kuči, and then later, they spread and forced older families to move. Many of those who left Kuči later accepted Islam out of spite or as a revenge to those who exiled them from Kuči. As it was the case with most Serb tribes, the newcomers showed much more life than the old population and they grew bigger and spread even beyond the border of old Kuči territory. They pushed old Kuči into the shade, and pushed themselves as "real Kuči", carrying and defending that name with the same pride as their predecessors, old Kuči. By the mid XVIII century they already spread the territory of Kuči to their current borders, as it can be seen under the title "borders" Image on the other page. That's how new age of Kuči history had two events: New arrivals and spread.

From the first half of XV century to the end of XVII century, 23 brotherhoods moved to Kuči, out of which only one brotherhood, Čigomani, moved out. Out of other 22 brotherhoods, 4 are of Albanian origin: Geg, Koći, Boneći, Nuculovići.[6](screenshot of a page section)

6. Karl Kaser, Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden (Böhlau Wien, 1992)- Bei der Aufspaltung seines umfangreichen Katuns grenzten sich zuerst wahrscheinlich die Sommersiedlungen ab. Es scheint, als ob im Jahr 1455 der Territorialisierungsprozeß der abgespalteten Gemeinschaften abgeschlossen gewesen wäre. Die Gemeinschaft der Mataguži, die zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts noch existiert hatte, ging später unter. Die Hoti-Gemeinschaft hatte zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts bereits einige Katune vereinigt. Im Jahr 1485 wurden in den vereinigten Katunen 8 Dörfer und 134 Häuser gezählt. Der unmittelbare Urahne der Kuči sollte ein Grča Nenadin gewesen sein. Der ursprünglich nicht sehr umfangreiche Katun expandierte durch serbische Zusiedler im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert rasch. Die Zusiedler (unter ihnen die Dobroäani, tigomani, Deljani, Bulatoviei, Miloviei usw.) intergrierten sich rasch und nahmen auch den Namen der Kuči an. Im Jahr 1485 waren die Kuči 8 Dörfer mit 253 Häuser; 1497 waren es bereits um 150 Häuser mehr, und aus den 8 Dörfern waren 9 Katune und 2 Dörferentstanden.

Karl actually confirms same thing, that the tribe is formed in the later part of 15th century, and that not very big katun expended rapidly due to Serbian settlers. He also claims, like some other scholars, that the supposed ancestor of Kuci is Grca Nenadin, who is not written down as part of Nenads family in 1416. and there are no written records of him.

Other editors also selectively quote Matthew Curtis by quoting: On the other hand, there are some areas, particularly in Montenegro, where Albanian-speaking populations have shifted to Slavic-speaking ones, such as the tribes of Piperi and Kuči

Which is true, but they do not quote same article when Matthew states this: it is known that certain clans (e.g. Piperi and Kuči) have switched from having a mixed composition of Albanian and Slavic speakers to being only Slavic

Which still confirms the idea that the tribe was mixed.

Also the article itself says that the tribe was not formed until 15th century, sources shows that it happened in the second part of it, and first data we have on the tribe from that period shows mixed population. It's also quoted in the article itself, search for defters. Setxkbmap (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources cited in the article have been discussed in this very TP, the problem appears to lie with your disapproval of the primary sources which some of the cited academics use. However, as mentioned prior, whether or not you agree with the primary sources used by an academic in coming to their conclusion is largely irrelevant as long as the source is RS. Furthermore, if there are other RS which criticise the use of said primary sources then, by all means, please cite them; otherwise critiques simply become OR.

As for the sources themselves, while Xhufi (2013) does use the 17th century Franciscan report, he also relies on other documents including the defter of 1485:

Relacion i Marin Bolicës, viti 1614: "Del rito romano, n. 490 Chuzzi Albanesi" (I. Zamputi, Relacione, I, f. 272). Në Defterin e Sanxhakut të Shkodrës 1485, përmendet një fshat i madh me emrin Kuç, banorët e të cilit mbajnë në shumicë emra qartësisht shqiptarë, si Gjon, Kol, Pal, Gjergj, Gjin, Dedë, Lek, Marin, Nikollë etj. Shih: S. Pulaha, Defteri sanxhakut të Shkodrës i vitit 1485..., f. 386. Viti 1652: "Ma favellando delle quattro popolationi de Piperi, Brattonisi, Bielopaulouicchi e Cuechi, liquali et il loro gran ualore nell'armi danno segno di esser de sangue Albanese e a tale dalli Albanesi sono tenuti", shih: T. Lewicki, "Un manuscrit iconnu du XVII siècle concernant l'Albanie et l'histoire des missions franciscaines dans ce pays", extrait de la Revue des Études Islamiques, année 1948, Paris (Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner): 1949, f. 57. Një dokument i vitit 1699 dallon midis "Kuçëve të vegjël" katolikë, dhe "Kuçëve të mëdhenj", ortodoksë, të cilët jetonin në një "konfederatë" të përbashkët: "diro de Cucci piccoli overo la populatione detta Triepsci sono da 60 case in crica. Per quanto ho inteso sono cattolici quantunque vi siano poche case de Turchi et sono confederati con li Cucci grandi scismatici", shih: M. Jačov, Le missioni cattoliche... vëll. II, f. 712.

Curtis (2012), on the other hand, does not rely on the 17th century report whatsoever when writing the following:

On the other hand, there are some areas, particularly in Montenegro, where Albanian-speaking populations have shifted to Slavic-speaking ones, such as the tribes of Piperi and Kuči, the Slavic Muslim populations in Plav/Plavë and Gusinje/Gucia, and perhaps with the Mrković.

Instead, it appears that Curtis is basing his opinion on the findings of other academics such as Šufflay (1924) and Omari (1989).

Throughout the article other sources noting an Albanian origin are cited, such as the various works by Pulaha (1974, 1975). Similar opinions are also stated by Đurđev (1984) quoted above in the TP.

In regard to the sources which you have cited, at least 2 appear to not be RS from a quick search. Firstly, much of Stanojević's works were published in the early 1900s with editions of the Great National Encyclopedia of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes being published in 1928. This is not a modern academic source. Secondly, Petrović is not an academic source. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

the problem appears to lie with your disapproval of the primary sources which some of the cited academics use.

Not really, those primary sources are ok, they just say nothing of origin. For example, even in the period of that quote there are others that say stuff like:

Rastislav Petrović - Pleme Kuči 1684-1796 - Marin Bici, the archbishop of Bar and primate of Serbia send a report to Rome in 1610. in which he states that Albanian highlanders are exclusively Catholic and are split into five tribes: Kelmendi, Hoti,Grude,Kastrati and Shkreli, while Kuči are half "schismatics" (orthodox) and half Catholics

In 1660. a report says: bordering with Kelmendi, i will talk about little Kuči (Cucci picoli) or how they are called by the people Triepshi, who are controlled by Turkish city of Podgorica. They are comprised of 60 houses, and as far as i've heard, are all catholic, with a small number of turkish families. They are in union with "big Kuči", who are all schismatics. A. Prop. Fide, SC, Albania, vol. 1, fol. 82--94, and Rastislav Petrović.

Rastislav argues that the fact that there are two types of Kuči (Kuči proper or "Big Kuči" and "Small Kuči" or Triepshi how they call themselves) cause confusion in these reports and claim that whole of Kuči was Catholic was a mistake.

Bartolomeo da Costacaro, a missionary in Grude tribe, send a message to Venetian state in the middle of 17th century, that says: They helped venetian lords during the war. Amongst them, there is one of our missions that counts 300 houses of our religion, but not only that they have thousands of houses under their rule, but many surrounding villages. A. Prop. Fide, Scritture originali riferite nelle Congregazioni generali, vol. 464

Rastislav argues on page 26, that the number of Catholic houses is artificially increased, so that Holy See would help the tribe more. He comes to this conclusion by citing other reports from catholic missionaries that say that in Triepshi there are only 100-150 houses.

he also relies on other documents including the defter of 1485

Does he? I see he talks about some kind of village, not the tribe itself. Pulaha talked about tribe and defters, and came to conclusion that tribe had mixed anthroponyms, which is cited in the article.

Curtis (2012), on the other hand, does not rely on the 17th century report whatsoever when writing the following: On the other hand, there are some areas, particularly in Montenegro, where Albanian-speaking populations have shifted to Slavic-speaking ones, such as the tribes of Piperi and Kuči, the Slavic Muslim populations in Plav/Plavë and Gusinje/Gucia, and perhaps with the Mrković.

And i don't disagree. The tribe was mixed, and there was definitely a process of slavicisation that made this tribe more monolingual, as it is today.

such as Šufflay (1924)

He states:

Old Vlach tribes are assimilated. Amalgamation between Serbs and Albanians continues to this day. Most famous is the example of Kuči tribe, for which in 1610. was said >>Half orthodox, half Albanian<< (questi Dalmatini et Cucci la meta di quali di quali e scismatica e l' altra latina)

Similar opinions are also stated by Đurđev (1984) quoted above in the TP

Đurđev states nothing of origin. The citation you have in this TP is this:

pa se tu nalazi Petar Kuč, starešina roda od kojeg su postali Kuči which is translated to And there lives Petar Kuč, head of clan from which Kuči became

The article itself disagrees with this, and only lists Petar Kuč as a possibility. Tribe formed almost 200 years later, and was not formed by him, nor it was formed only by his descendants if the theory is correct.

In regard to the sources which you have cited, at least 2 appear to not be RS from a quick search. Firstly, much of Stanojević's works were published in the early 1900s with editions of the Great National Encyclopedia of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes being published in 1928.

Article is using even older sources, i see no problem with this. Also, many sources are websites.

For example, we are quoting Jireček, or as i've seen one of your favorite writers, Edith Durham. But, we should let other editors who are new to this come and make their own conclusions. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring primary sourcing on which the consensus of the vast majority of modern western scholarship is based on. I can find 10 times more sources quoting Kuçi as Albanian in origin in passing, but through years of working on this article, such sources were never needed as all primary sourcing and secondary studies of those have been conclusive enough to prove an Albanian origin. Serbian academia have claimed trubes such as Hoti, Kelmendi, Shala and others as being Serbian in origin. We simply can’t rely on them. Alltan (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

How very nationalistic of them. It's a good thing i am quoting only people who don't push their nationalistic views, and see tribe as a mix of cultures. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The nationalist part IS the fact Serbian sources claim it to be a Serb tribe which got Albanized. Or better yet, claiming it to have been some sort of a Slav-Albanian symbiosis originally, which is also just used to negate any Albanian character of Kuçi. This also includes academics who use anachronistic names for Kuçi, using the Slavicised, later version Kuči instead. Including some of those you have posted. It’s simply not productive to perpetuate academia which is essentially based on Albaniphobic authors like Cvijic and Erdeljanovic. Alltan (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, i can't take you seriously or think that you are neutral if you are using Albanian variation of the name, instead of English. I will wait for other editors. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kuçi is just as neutral and valid as Kuči. If the Albanian variation offends you to the point you are unwilling to TAKE ME SERIOUSLY, that says a lot about the nature of this RfC. You don’t have to like the fact Kuçi has been the tribes name for a lot longer than Kuči, neither do I have to like it. But it won’t change what credible sources have said on the matter. Our job is to give due weight to the reliable ones. Alltan (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kuçi is just as neutral and valid as Kuči. If the Albanian variation offends you to the point you are unwilling to TAKE ME SERIOUSLY, that says a lot about the nature of this RfC.

It doesn't offend me, it's same as any Serb nationalist coming here and calling them Кучи. I wouldn't like that, as i prefer name that is in the title of this article. The nature of this RfC is there because of failed dispute resolution which has been ignored by few editors here, one of which is you. Administrators agreed with me that this RfC is needed, so i created one.

There's no reason for frustration or further discussion. We shall wait. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kuçi, Kuči, Кучи are all valid and do not cause me to not take someone seriously.

FYI, an RFC exists when reliable sources have a disagreement on a matter, not if one editor tries to push through fringe theories into an article. But we have plenty of time, that is for sure. Alltan (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i will have to close this then and tell admins they advised me wrong. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors (myself included) have in fact replied to your previous queries and presented the necessary sources, this can be seen in the above discussions. The issue is that you do not appear to be in agreeance with these sources as valid, for which you need to provide academic sources in order to disprove. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that you do not appear to be in agreeance with these sources as valid,

We are not in agreeance

for which you need to provide academic sources in order to disprove.

I provided sources stating otherwise.

For example, my favorite quote from Bojka Djukanovic, Historical Dictionary of Montenegro: According to their ethnic origins, the Kuči tribe is a mixture of Slavic and Albanian population.

That is the newest academic source on this topic. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, although you need to provide scholarly arguments and sources as to why the claims of the aforementioned academics (which, for now, form a consensus) are incorrect and invalid.

I can similarly discredit Đukanović by stating that they only mention the origin of Kuči in passing and do not provide further explanation or sources in support of their claims. The others, however, do provide archival material in support of their assertions. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, although you need to provide scholarly arguments and sources as to why the claims of the aforementioned academics (which, for now, form a consensus) are incorrect and invalid.I can similarly discredit Đukanović by stating that they only mention the origin of Kuči in passing and do not provide further explanation or sources in support of their claims. The others, however, do provide archival material in support of their assertions.

Rastislav actually gives you sources and archival material for his quotes, on which he is basing his opinions.

And i do not try to discredit sources that are currently in the article, i say they are mostly based on a language report 150 years after formation of the tribe. While i can find sources that agree with that report, or disagree, i think that the report itself is way past the time of tribe creation. I still think that the report itself is VALID, it doesn't matter whether or not it was true, and i am completely fine with keeping that in the article, including all the citations and sources for that.

In my opinion, the origin section of the tribe is written in a bad way, as it first talks about Franciscian report in 17th century, while i think it would be better to start with first mentions of the name (village of Kuči near Shkodra) and first mentions of the tribe (Zetski Zbor in 1455.). But, we disagree on these topics, and that's the reason for RfC. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources aren't "mostly based on a language report", Xhufi simply mentions it among other sources. As I showed before, Curtis among others do not make reference to the report.

Discussions of the tribe's origin should begin with the 1330 attestation, as this is the consensus in academia. Personal opinions are irrelevant here. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussions of the tribe's origin should begin with the 1330 attestation, as this is the consensus in academia. Personal opinions are irrelevant here.

I am not stating an opinion of when the discussion should begin, but opinion on the position of those discussion in an article.

That is part of an opinion. There's no book that will tell us in what order we should put our facts.

I just think that chronological order is better than what is currently here. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Bojka Djukanovic is a historical dictionary it appears, aka WP:TERTIARY Alltan (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Now if you read the above copy-paste carefully, you would realise that there are no primary sources that contradict each other, with all the other sources being either not RS and part of Serbian nationalist historiography, or being about language spoken in Kuçi the material of which is already included in the article. Maleschreiber added another western RS on the subject and your response was “really 1 source”.

Well yeah, sometimes 1 good source trumps 5 80 year old nationalist tertiary encyclopedias. Alltan (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Now if you read the above copy-paste carefully, you would realise that there are no primary sources that contradict each other, with all the other sources being either not RS and part of Serbian nationalist historiography, or being about language spoken in Kuçi the material of which is already included in the article.

Sorry, but just because you disagree with something doesn't make it not RS. Rastislav Petrović actively disagrees with what's provided by Bolizza, and gives other reports from that period.

Sobolev talks about origin of Kuči, and talks about mixed population from 15th to 17th century.

And Bojka is there to clarify and more easily merge all the info we have into a neutral POV statement: Kuči are of ethnic mixed origin.

Also, while we are discussing all of this, i still stand by the fact that article itself states that tribe was formed at the end of 15th century, and defters from that period show mixed population. I am not even sure why you are arguing here, when there was dispute resolution open, you showed lack of will to discuss. Setxkbmap (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't treat this as a forum and present our own arguments on whether or not primary sources are valid, that is OR. Your issue is with the primary sources used by the cited academics, as is made clear here as well since you continue your critique. However, if there are academics that have made these critiques, then please cite them.

Xhufi does rely on the 1485 defter in his conclusion, it is cited in p. 40 of his paper where he lists medieval Albanian tribes. As for Đurđev, this is the full quote:

Zar je čudno što su u Dečanskoj hrisovulji katuni vlaha upisani sa međama, a katun Arbanasa bez međa! Katun tamo navedenih vlaha nisu u visokim planinama, kako to pokazuju i sami podači i kako je to. P. Ivanović utvrdno, a katun Arbanasa se nalazio u visokim pljaninama. Ponesen tim što su svi ostali katuni iz Dečanske povelje i dukađinskoj niziji, Ivanović tvrdi da se katun Arbanasa "nalazno u niziji u Dukađinu, u okolini današnjeg sela Greve, koje je, po Hrisovulji, bilo naseljeno Arbanasima". Međutim, taj katun Arbanasa sa starešinom Lješom Tuzom u potvrdi Dečanske povelje upisan je iza Kuševu u Zeti. Neka imena u selu Kuševu su srodna izvesnim imenima u katunu Arbanasa, odnosno za neke ljude u Kuševu može se uzeti da su im braća ili očevi u spomenutom katunu (Pavle Bušat u Kuševa i Đon Bušat u katunu, Pavle Busados u Kuševu, Busados u katunu itd.). Selo Kuševo se graniči sa međom Kupelnika, nalazi se dakle na graniči Zete. Da tu treba staviti katun Arbanasa o kome je peč, vidi se i po tome što je starešina katuna Lješ Tuz, koji pripada rodu od kojeg su postali Tuzi, pa se tu nalazi Petar Kuč, starešina roda od kojeg su postali Kuči, a može se videti da odatle potiču i Bušati, Lazorči, Bitadosi i druga neka bratsva i plemena koja su se kasnije u toj oblasti nalazila, a neka se i spada nalaze. Prva činjeniča da se taj katun nalazi u visokim planinama objašnjava zašto on nije naveden sa međama. Drugo, vlasi u Dečanskoj povelji nisu više etnički drugi elemenat nego ostalo stanovništvo.

This passage discusses the Albanian katun recorded in 1330, and is relevant as he notes that a number of tribes emerged from this Albanian community; Kuči being among them as the quote you presented testifies to. What's relevant here isn't necessarily Petar Kuč, but rather the fact that Đurđev considers the Kuči to have originated from an Albanian pastoralist community. Again, what matters here is academic opinion, not our own opinions.

As for older citations, simply because some are in the articles does not mean that we should use them. I am not opposed to some older sources being removed. It would be ideal if we use modern academic works instead. Also, I don't have great opinions of Durham but that's besides the point. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:AGEMATTERS should not be disregarded. Alltan (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, otherwise we could use sources such as Hassert (1893) which states the following:

The Kuči are divided into two main tribes, the Kuči Drekalovići and the Kuči Krajna, and are Albanians by origin, who have given up their mother tongue and most of their native customs in favour of the Montenegrin language and customs. However, the majority have remained faithful to the Roman Catholic faith and have therefore sometimes been in sharp conflict with the strictly Orthodox Crnogorcs.

However, I have chosen not to use this source in the article due to its age and the fact that modern academic sources should be applied instead. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a great source, but incorrect, as the this article already establishes that the last major conversion to orthodoxy was in 17th century and that from that point on there were no larger conversions back to the Catholicism.

At the end of the 19th century Stevan Ducic, tribesman himself, wrote that there was 1500 families in the tribe, and around 9000 people. Out of 1500 families, 224 were Albanians and he states that those live in a separate part of the tribe, called "Zatrijebac" (Trieshi). Setxkbmap (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. I mentioned this source to prove the point that we shouldn't use older and dated sources despite the fact that they contain statements that some may deem accurate. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a forum, i am just stating a better source that had access to population and direct contact with them.

Older sources can be valid, this one is not. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hassert was also in direct contact with them, however, this is beyond the scope of this discussion. We should discuss the opinions of academics in relation to the relevant subject matter. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Setxkbmap (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

In support of an Albanian origin, Malcolm states the following in Rebels, Believers, Survivors: Studies in the History of the Albanians (2020):

The foundation-stories of some of the Montenegrin Slavophone clans declared that they had common ancestors with Albanian clans, and the case of Kuçi, who were transformed over a long period from Albanian-speakers to Slavophones, is well known. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That source is actually OK and i feel like it addresses the claim directly.

The full quote is:

Since the Ottoman documentary evidence so closely matches the chronology suggested by the oral histories, it may perhaps be worth taking seriously some of the other details given in Bogdani’s account. According to Bogdani, the original Kelmend was the son of a Serbian father and an Albanian mother (from the Kuci clan); his sons wrested control of their area of settlement from ‘the Slavs:' There is nothing inherently improbable about this; for a long time, the northern-most part of the Malési was an area of ethnic interchange and osmosis. The foundationstories of some of the Montenegrin Slavophone clans declared that they had common ancestors with Albanian clans, and the case of the Kuci, who were transformed over a long period from Albanian-speakers to Slavophones, is well known.

His claim is referencing Edith Durham which is currently included in the article Setxkbmap (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The portion regarding Kelmendi is irrelevant to the discussion and this in fact isn't the entire paragraph. The full passage is:

Since the Ottoman documentary evidence so closely matches the chronology suggested by the oral histories, it may perhaps be worth taking seriously some of the other details given in Bogdani’s account. According to Bogdani, the original Kelmend was the son of a Serbian father and an Albanian mother (from the Kuçi clan); his sons wrested control of their area of settlement from 'the Slavs'. There is nothing inherently improbable about this; for a long time, the northern-most part of the Malësi was an area of ethnic interchange and osmosis. The foundation-stories of some of the Montenegrin Slavophone clans declared that they had common ancestors with Albanian clans, and the case of the Kuçi, who were transformed over a long period from Albanian-speakers to Slavophones, is well known. In the case of the Kelmendi, the Ottoman register of 1497 does include a significant number of Slav names, such as Radenko, Radko and Vlad, suggesting at least that this population had long been in contact with Slavs; but the overall pattern of personal names here indicates that these people were definitely Albanian-speaking and Catholic. Albanian-speaking Catholics is what the Kelmendi have remained throughout more than 500 years of their subsequent history (the only exceptions being the small minority who converted to Islam, and the descendants of the emigrants to Srijem, who eventually became Croat-speakers). The attempt by the early-twentieth-century Serbian historian Jovan Tomić to argue that all Kelmendi were 'really' Serbs, simply on the basis of Bogdani's remark about the father of the original Kelmend, was just a peculiarly gross example of ethnic pseudo-classification for political purposes. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's irrelevant. I just quoted from the start until the part you cited came, which is just Edith Durham's claim, as can be seen in the book. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

• Support. Setxkbmap is making a good point here. The current version urgently requires an upgrade and better balance (POV elements and such). — Sadko (words are wind) 13:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  What would you propose?

  I have to ask you now because the RfC is being crowded by comments from editors who are the reason why this RfC is requested. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The RfC is malformed because there is nothing in the OP which can be discussed via Support/Oppose. Bibliography reliability in most cases is not an RfC subject and it's not subject to voting. Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka has never been and will never be included in the article because it's not WP:RS. It's a Yugoslav encyclopedia published in 1928 and reflects the strong Serb nationalist POV of its era. By definition, such sources aren't RS and RS can't be overridden via voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are plenty of sources which describes the tribe as Albanian in the article, hence even the original premise of the OP is false: the article states that the tribe is Albanian in origin, but no citations address the claim directly.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  You were invited to the dispute resolution, you ignored it. I talked to administrators, they advised me to use RfC as they also felt like citations for claim were needed.

  So no, it can be support/oppose. People can support rewrite and implementation of a neutral POV which states that tribe was mixed in origin (even that scary nationalistic POV doesn't state that the tribe was formed by the Serbs, but claims that during 15th century which was period of creation of this tribe, many families and brotherhood moved into the territory of old Kuči and those were both Slavic and Albanian) Setxkbmap (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  • It can't be support/oppose to include sources which don't pass WP:RS criteria and the RfC doesn't even have an actual question to discuss. I've added one more RS - in the long list of sources - Sundhaussen, Holm (1993). "Nationsbildung und Nationalismus im Donau-Balkan-Raum". Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte. 48: 237. Diese Mehrsprachigkeit erklärt uns auch die im ganzen Wanderhirtenbereich so häufige Erscheinung des fließenden Volkstums : Aromunen - Wlachen werden zu Griechen , Serben , Bulgaren , Kroa- ten ; Albaner werden zu Serben ( Kuči ) , Bulgaren , Griechen ; Zinzaren werden zu Griechen , Serben usw. [This multilingualism also explains the phenomenon of fluid ethnicity that is so common throughout the nomadic pastoralist area: Aromanian Vlachs become Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats; Albanians become Serbs (Kuči), Bulgarians, Greeks; Zinzars become Greeks, Serbs, etc.]--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

    It can't be support/oppose to include sources which don't pass WP:RS criteria and the RfC doesn't even have an actual question to discuss.

    Which is why i provided many other sources.

    I've added one more RS - in the long list of sources

    Really only 1 source, not "long list". But thanks for the showcase of how this page is being edited. Without any consensus if it confirms your own POV. If, in fact, someone posts another academic source, it's being denied and editor is forced to infinitely argue until they just stop. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

    • 2,3,5 aren't RS by definition. 1 is RS, but a tertiary source. What the author discusses is already part of the article with more details. 4 is RS and what it discusses is already discussed in the language section. I added the source because it is RS. You can add Sobolev in the language section without any prior discussion. You didn't need any sort of RfC about Sobolev because there's nothing written by Sobolev which is different from what already exists in the article: This is especially apparent in the dialects of Kuči and Bratonožići, largely because of the historic bilingualism that was present in the area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      but a tertiary source

      Still valid by wiki rules, sorry.

      You didn't need any sort of RfC about Sobolev

      Compare with the Kuči who had been an Orthodox Serbian tribe until the 15th century. Through the 15th to 17th century several Albanian (Catholic) and Serbian (Orthodox and Catolic) groups from other areas settled in their tribal territory.

      You would accept this? Not so sure...

      You see, if we are quoting Edith Durham for that same thing, i see no reason we shouldn't quote older sources that claim otherwise as well.

      I also want to cite Rastislav Petrovic, and quotes are in the response to one of other editors. He doesn't directly address the claim, he opposes current citations and opinions based on language report and religion. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Actually in this case the Tertiary source is clearly not valid as 1.) the primary sources do not contradict each other 2.) the secondary RS sources do not contradict each other. Adding a tertiary source which states the opposite or what is in the article is not in accordance with any wiki policy. Alltan (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      the primary sources do not contradict each other, the secondary RS sources do not contradict each other.

      Sobolev contradicts what is being said in the source that Maleschreiber provided, Lazaro Soranzo who is primary source from 16th century still talks about multiethnic society. Rastislav Petrovic disagrees with Bolizza and what was said in the article itself.

      So yeah, not really "clearly not valid". Sorry. Setxkbmap (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      It appears Sobolev is quoting Jovan Erdeljanovic (1907), a fervent anti Albanian. No wonder he claimed the Koja as being Albanised Serbs. I can recognize that quote anywhere, @Maleschreiber the source is WP:FRINGE. That’s the equivalent of me posting quotes the Rovčani are Serbianised Albanians or that the Drobnjaci where mixed Slavic-Albanian. Not going down that route. Alltan (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      No wonder he claimed the Koja as being Albanised Serbs.

      Nope, Sobolev actually calls Koja e Kucit Albanians. Which they are.

      That’s the equivalent of me posting quotes the Rovčani are Serbianised Albanians or that the Drobnjaci where mixed Slavic-Albanian. Not going down that route.

      Sure. Feel free to do so, i don't really care what you do with other articles as long as you are not vandalazing.

      Enjoy it! Setxkbmap (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Really? Can you provide the quote for that? Alltan (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      A bilingual situation now exists only in the small area of Koći/Koje, which is inhabited by Albanians and Albanized Serbs

      So quote it correctly next time, please. Setxkbmap (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Albanised serbs who are bilingual, exactly Erdeljanovics claim. This is completely against any serious research on the Koja, using a source like this to push a POV for an article like Kuçi is… not an improvement to say the least. Alltan (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Albanised serbs who are bilingual, exactly Erdeljanovics claim. This is completely against any serious research on the Koja, using a source like this to push a POV for an article like Kuçi is… not an improvement to say the least.

      Good thing this has nothing to do with Koja.

      Again, none of the sources i provided state anything against Albanians, in fact they all tell a story of Serb and Albanian migrations during 15th century, and explain that those migrations were happening until 17th century.

      Defters confirm that, both first and the second. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      The difference is that if i find a source which calls Dronnjaci, Rovcani, Ozrinici and Kelmendi Albanian, i got the common courtesy to not use that source even for the Kelmendi. Because there is a difference between personal biased and what we would like to see in an article, and that which will actually IMPROVE an article. Alltan (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Defters just show Slavic and Albanian names, which is the case in Kelmendi too. Are they of mixed origins now too? Alltan (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Well, i am not really sure about Kelmendi tribe, but as we've seen there are claims by Bogdani that original Kelmend was of Serb origin. Now, i don't really care about that article, as i am not really that into reading about Albanian tribes, but i do in fact know that the northern Albania had a lot of Slavic influence, and many toponyms even have Slavic names to this day. But, WP:FORUM

      But it's not only defters, as we've seen Rastislav shows other proofs :) Setxkbmap (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Look you really need to find reliable sources on this matter because Pjeter Bogdanis claim has been already debunked in previous discussions of this article. Now if you wanna question the Albanian origins of Kelmendi, find yourself some proper sources. Issue is just like with Kuçi, there are none. Alltan (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Look you really need to find reliable sources on this matter because Pjeter Bogdanis claim has been already debunked in previous discussions of this article. Now if you wanna question the Albanian origins of Kelmendi, find yourself some proper sources.

      I don't, as i've said, i don't really care about Albanian tribes. It's not my cup of tea.

      Issue is just like with Kuçi, there are none

      We'll let RfC decide. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      RFC does not decide anything if you haven't put forth reliable sourcing on your proposal. And even the ones which could theoretically pass as such, are fringe at best. Wikipedia is not a democracy and you can not canvass other editors to force through a change meanwhile accusing a whole bunch of other editors of being nationalist POV pushers. Alltan (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      RFC does not decide anything if you haven't put forth reliable sourcing on your proposal.

      RfC is there to decide whether sources are good enough.

      And even the ones which could theoretically pass as such, are fringe at best.

      Again, not for you to decide.

      Wikipedia is not a democracy and you can not canvass other editors to force through a change meanwhile accusing a whole bunch of other editors of being nationalist POV pushers.

      I agree, it's not a democracy. That's why i don't really care whether you and 3 other editors that are reverting edits claim that origin of tribe is WP:BLUESKY and decline to read any other POV. It's not about the number of people reverting the changes, it's about making sure that reader gets the best possible info.

      Again, i tried with dispute resolution, you didn't respond. I talked to administrators, they agreed that the best course of action would be RfC. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      The issue is that what you are trying to do can not be implemented into the article because unlike the current version, they lack proper sources. Every single source you have put through has flaws in them. RfC is fine, but believe me, if you showed reliable modern sources which support a mixed origin of the tribe which are based on primary sourcing I would be the first one to add them to the article. Issue is that I have searched for such sources for a long time. And so have many other editors. Which is also why all the names you have listed above have been proposed and pretty much immedeatly dropped because it was obvious they don't fulfil the articles standards. And this cycle can continue for many more years until some people WP:DROPTHESTICK. Alltan (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Because there is a difference between personal biased and what we would like to see in an article

      You forced change in Drekalovići article, which is related to this one, claiming that the brotherhood was once tribe. Then, you used that to implement the brotherhood into Albanian tribes. When i asked you for source, you ignored it (because there are none). I fixed that. If i had to guess, i would guess that it was a personal biased wish and info.

      Also, Erdeljanović you claim is nationalistic is quoted few times in this article, but it's in accordance with your POV so it's not an issue i guess. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Ok first of all WP:FORUM, keep your personal opinions of me to yourself.

      And secondly YES Erdeljanovic is blatantly nationalistic and this has been recognized in THIS article itself. It’s literally there. Alltan (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Ok first of all WP:FORUM, keep your personal opinions of me to yourself.

      It's really importnant for us to continue discussion to assume each others good will. If you modify articles without any communication to promote your POV, and you decline to be part of dispute resolutions, it's really hard to do so.

      And secondly YES Erdeljanovic is blatantly nationalistic and this has been recognized in THIS article itself. It’s literally there.

      Erdeljanović thinks that many tribes go back to the pre - Slavic times since their names suggest Wlach or Albanian origins, e.g. Kuči, and perhaps Bratonožići, Sotonići, Paštrovići, and others.

      This is literally in the article. It's been there for years. It's there because Erdeljanović is good if he is enforcing current POV :) Setxkbmap (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Indeed Bratonozici were Albanian in origin, Pastrovici were either Vlach or Albanian however the multiple mentions of Albanians in the area and their usage of kanun, besa, albanian names and likely albanian originating name points to the latter, and Sotonici although they dont have an articlie are also known as Sotoniči Dukađinci because yes they are most likely Albanian.

      However even if Erdeljanovic claimed them to be Serbs, that wouldnt change the fact of the matter at all because we do not need Erdeljanovic to come to a conclusion on these tribes. That does not make him RS. Please research Erdeljanovic a bit before trying to use sourced based off of him in this article. Alltan (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      However even if Erdeljanovic claimed them to be Serbs, that wouldnt change the fact of the matter at all because we do not need Erdeljanovic to come to a conclusion on these tribes.

      He didn't. You should really read before commenting on a book.

      While Erdeljanović does talk about the region of the tribe, after describing fall of Serbian state and end of Skenderbeg's Albania he says:

      great number of these people ran to the mountains and highlands of Albanian Malesia and Serb Brda and Montenegro. That's when Kuči got great number of newcomers, Serbs and Albanians.

      So, even the wildest nationalist doesn't state that the tribe, at the time of formation, was Serb/Slavic.

      It's mixed. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Even if he claimed them to have been Albanian in origin, doesn’t matter. He is not RS. Alltan (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      I've read the discussions on this page, which is why i don't quote him, and none of the quotes are from his books :) Setxkbmap (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      The excerpts you provided from Rastislav Petrović provide nothing of value in regard to the ethno-linguistic origins of the tribe, he simply comments on the religious character which is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter. Similarly, Soranzo (a primary source) does not comment on the ethnic composition of Kuči. Instead, he discusses a broader area ranging from Montenegro and northern Albania, to the border with Kosova. As has been discussed above, despite the many claims that no attempt for resolution has been made.

      To get back on topic, more sources: Hetzer (1978):

      Umgekehrt haben auch jugoslawische Wissenschaftler die Annahme vertreten daß der im 19. Jh. kopfstärkste Stamm der Montenegriner, die Kuči, erst zur Türkenzeit die ethnische Identität gewechselt habe, d.h. von der albanischen zur serbokroatischen Sprache übergegangen sei.

      Hetzer (1995):

      Ähnliche Probleme gibt es am nördlichen Rand des albanischen Siedlungsgebiets, denn die nach Sufflay 'serbisch-albanische Symbiose' im Mittelalter führte zu gentilen Gemeinschaften, die möglicherweise zweisprachig waren. Die Montenegriner meinen, daß ihr größter 'Stamm', die Kuči, ursprünglich albanisch gewesen sei. Der Name wird mit dem alb. Adjektiv i kuq 'rot' in Zusammenhang gebracht. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      The excerpts you provided from Rastislav Petrović provide nothing of value in regard to the ethno-linguistic origins of the tribe, he simply comments on the religious character which is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter.

      It does matter because conclusion he gives is based off the fact that many of those reports that indicate religion or language were contradicting each other.

      For example, Xhufi Pëllumb says:

      Marian Bolizza nga Kotori, person i mirëinformuar e i besuar i Venecianëve, i përcakton Kuçët e maleve të Bardhës si Shqiptarë të besimit katolik, të prirë nga krerët e tyre, Lalë Drekali e Niko Raiku.

      Por, një burim tjetër i atyre viteve njofton se tashmë Kuçët ishin ndarë në “gjysma ortodoksë e gjysma tjetër katolikë” (la metàs cismatica e l’altra latina).

      First report claims that there is a duke called Lale Drekalov, who was leader of Catholic Albanian Kuči (Chuzzi Albanesi) which had 490 households and 1,500 men-in-arms described as very war-like and courageous.

      While the second report states that the tribe itself is half Orthodox, half Catholic.

      Which is also confirmed by Rastislav, who even claims that the number of orthodox people may be larger, because some reports only reported on Trieshi, which while it is in a territory of Kuči, are a separate tribe.

      Also, the only citation we have about linguistic situation in the tribe during 16th century (Franciscan report) is actually mistranslated in the article itself. The report doesn't state that they will "soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians" but that "they rather call themselves Slavs than Albanians" or something in that sense.

      So the earliest record we have on the language is that the tribe uses illyrian language, which was Slavic language often called.

      Umgekehrt haben auch jugoslawische Wissenschaftler die Annahme vertreten daß der im 19. Jh. kopfstärkste Stamm der Montenegriner, die Kuči, erst zur Türkenzeit die ethnische Identität gewechselt habe, d.h. von der albanischen zur serbokroatischen Sprache übergegangen sei.

      Could be.

      Ähnliche Probleme gibt es am nördlichen Rand des albanischen Siedlungsgebiets, denn die nach Sufflay 'serbisch-albanische Symbiose' im Mittelalter führte zu gentilen Gemeinschaften, die möglicherweise zweisprachig waren. Die Montenegriner meinen, daß ihr größter 'Stamm', die Kuči, ursprünglich albanisch gewesen sei. Der Name wird mit dem alb. Adjektiv i kuq 'rot' in Zusammenhang gebracht

      Author is quoting Sufflay who says nothing like this, as we've seen.

      Sufflay states:

      Old Vlach tribes were quickly assimilated. Amalgamation between Serbs and Albanians continues to this day. Most famous is the example of Kuči tribe, for which in 1610. was said >>Half orthodox, half Albanian<< (questi Dalmatini et Cucci la meta di quali di quali e scismatica e l' altra latina) and in 1614. reports say >>Chuzzi Albanesi del rito Romano<<. Today, that is a Serb tribe.[7](page section screenshot)

      Also, would you be kind and share what book you are citing when you say "Hetzner", as i would like to read it too and have it in my personal archive. I've been looking for Xhufi Pellumb for days, since it's a bit hard searching for articles in Albanian if you don't speak it. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      With all due respect, a large amount of this is WP:FORUM and irrelevant as to the ethnic origins of the tribe: the topic of the RfC.

      Per Google Translate the quote from the Franciscan report can be translated as:

      Nonetheless, almost all of them belong to the Servian rite, and of the Illyrian language they can sooner be called Slavs than Albanians.

      Hetzner has been cited in the article, however, for easier access here are the book titles:

      Lehrbuch der vereinheitlichten albanischen Schriftsprache: mit einem deutsch-albanischen Wörterbuch (1978)

      Nominalisierung und verbale Einbettung in Varietäten des Albanischen: eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der albanischen Schriftsprache am Beispiel erweiterter Verbalprädikate auf areallinguistischem Hintergrund (1995).

      Hetzner is citing Sufflay in a part of his argument, not the entirety. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Per Google Translate the quote from the Franciscan report can be translated as: Nonetheless, almost all of them belong to the Servian rite, and of the Illyrian language they can sooner be called Slavs than Albanians.

      Even with google translate, it's not what the article is stating now: soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians.

      Author still implies that the tribe is closer to Slavs than Albanians, not that the tribe itself is Albanian but soon will be called Slavic.

      Hetzner has been cited in the article

      Really? Even if the book is linguistic/historical dictionary? WP:TERTIARY :)

      But i don't mind. I think it's a decent enough source, i just think he misquoted Sufflay.

      Lehrbuch der vereinheitlichten albanischen Schriftsprache: mit einem deutsch-albanischen Wörterbuch (1978)

      Nominalisierung und verbale Einbettung in Varietäten des Albanischen: eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der albanischen Schriftsprache am Beispiel erweiterter Verbalprädikate auf areallinguistischem Hintergrund (1995).

      Thanks! I will try to find them and read them. Both of these give some strength Setxkbmap (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Hetzner (1995) does not appear to be a historical or linguistic dictionary. I have also found a quote from Đurđev (1984) in which he writes the following:

      U našoj nauči je opšte primljeno gledište o postanku plemena Kuča po kojem prve začetke plemena treba tražiti u spomenutom katunu Lješa Tuza gdje je upisan Petar Kuč.

      Thus he writes that the consensus in academia was that the Kuči originated from the Albanian katun. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Thus he writes that the consensus in academia was that the Kuči originated from the Albanian katun.

      He argues that people should look for the origin there, he's not stating it as a fact. Again, if that was a fact, it would also be cited. But, Pulaha is cited as saying "possibly leader of the Kuči brotherhood"

      And even he still calls it a brotherhood. By the time tribe has formed, Kuči were only one of many brotherhoods in that region, and especially with later migrations and expansions of the tribe.

      The only thing left from original Kuči could be the name.

      Also, i've noticed that you modified the article. Why is that? Why not just leave it as it was before? There was nothing wrong with it, i had long discussions with you and nobody really seemed to mind, what changed? Setxkbmap (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      This is the translation of the passage I quoted:

      In our teachings, there is a generally accepted point of view about the origin of the Kuči tribe, according to which the first beginnings of the tribe should be sought in the mentioned katun Lješa Tuza, where Petar Kuč was registered.

      As for Pulaha, he doesn't consider it a possibility but rather a fact:

      Nga materiali që paraqitëm del se i pari i bashkësisë së Kuçëve ishte Pjetër Kuçi, kreu i një barku të katunit shqiptar që përmendet në Zetë qysh më 1330.

      Pulaha considers it to be a fact based on the archival material.

      I added RS material, as I mentioned to you in my previous reply. This RfC concerns sources, thus reliable sources have been added. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Well actually the RfC concerns the particualr sources above the poster has mentioned. It has nothing to do with the sources you added. Simply removing them when he himself literally asked and claimed to search for such sources is... weird I guess. Alltan (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      @Lezhjani1444 You should expand the article based on Pulahas view. His view is already backed by Durdev and the source is already in the article, so I see no issue with giving further details on it. Alltan (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      His view is already backed by Durdev and the source is already in the article,

      Actually no. @Lezhjani1444 is in the wrong when talking about Đurđev. While Đurđev does think that origin of the name Kuči lies within the katun of Ljesh Tuzi, he does seem to state same thing many of sources i cited claim.

      By the 1455. tribe region was not yet formed, because in 1455. agreement with Venetia, there were some brotherhoods that later became part of Kuči (Raćesi and Kupusci). - - - Old Kuči community was formed before 1485. Additions to the tribe in 1497. made community even stronger and included more brotherhoods into it

      And even tho Đurđev takes Petar Kuč as defacto ruler of original brotherhood that moved to current region of the tribe, he still believes that it was only one of three brotherhoods that moved from katun of Ljesh Tuzi, while claiming other families were Vlachs.

      So, still mixed. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      I have shared passages from Đurđev above, he doesn't argue that just the tribal name was inherited from the brotherhood in the Albanian katun, but that the tribe itself stems from this pastoralist community.

      The quote you have shared is discussing tribal territorialisation and consolidation, the point still stands that the Kuči as a brotherhood or community stemmed from the Albanian katun. Furthermore, the article mentions the incorporation of other brotherhoods, some of which were non-Albanian, during the territorialisation/consolidation of the tribe. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      And as the passage i've provided states, even Đurđev who promotes Petar Kuč theory, believes that tribe was mixed.

      Also, Đurđev states that "only Vlachs were Serbicised" so even by him, when first defters were published at the end of 15th century (keep in mind, we all agree that tribe was not formed until 15th century, as the article states), tribe was mixed. Slavs, Slavicised Vlachs and Albanians. Passage i provided is discussed around page 100. Could you share the page where you found your quote? Setxkbmap (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

      Durdev explains his school of thought, in which it is accepted that Petar Kuč is the ancestor of the tribe. Pulaha agrees with this view. Pulahas work where he agrees with it is in the article. Durdev is not. So yeah, he can add the details of this view based on Pulaha. Alltan (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      We know that other people moved into Kuçi who were of mixed origin, i.e Zukorilicis ancestors who are unrelated to the main Kuçi line. Those people may be from Kuçi, but they are not the original Kuçi and are not by bloodline Kuçi, besides the fact most of those Slavic names were recorded in 2 villages of newcomers to the nahiya of Kuçi, which also included Koja, Triesh etc. So using defter names as an argument isn’t getting us anywhere at this point. Alltan (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Pulahas work where he agrees with it is in the article. Durdev is not. So yeah, he can add the details of this view based on Pulaha.

      Nah, now that you told me that Đurđev is a good source, i will definitely use him and cite him :)

      Those people may be from Kuçi, but they are not the original Kuçi and are not by bloodline Kuçi,

      Original brotherhood passed the name, but tribe was formed from many brotherhoods, some of which have nothing to do with Petar Kuč.

      You are mixing Kuč brotherhood and Kuči tribe. Kuči tribe was formed by the end of 15th century, and was mixed, both in origin and anthroponyms those defters.

      Even with Petar Kuč, sources say that tribe was mixed in origin. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      "Nah, now that you told me that Đurđev is a good source, i will definitely use him and cite him :)" Never said that, I was talking about Pulaha.

      The rest of what you wrote is WP:OR and WP:FORUM. Alltan (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Never said that, I was talking about Pulaha.

      Sorry, my bad. Lezhjani quoted Đurđev, not you.

      The rest of what you wrote is WP:OR and WP:FORUM.

      Not really, Đurđev talks about it.

      Rastislav Petrović talks about it.

      Bojka Đukanović talks about mixed origin of tribe.

      Sobolev, which you deemed academic and RS, talks about it.

      Rašović talks about it.

      Actually, most of the sources that talk about 15th century talk about arrivals and mixture of cultures. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      I feel like a badly broken recorded explaing the fact that the sources you put forward are poor. They're either not RS, FRINGE, a century old, tertiary and not applicable or simply dont state what you claim. Alltan (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      There's literally a source approved by you which is based on nothing.

      Gras, Marion (1967). Jugoslawien. Glock und Lutz. die Kuči (heute meist serbis. Albaner).

      It has one single mention of the tribe, and whole topic around it lasts 5 words. Those are the quoted 5 words.

      This again does not address the claim of origin. This just shows that people go around hastily searching google books for any mentions of Kuči tribe as Albanians, and just stack the sources for random readers who will come due to RfC.

      So let's not talk about fringe, or RS. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      The claim of origin has been addressed, you should read WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DROPTHESTICK Alltan (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      I am talking about a book that is being cited.

      It's really bad source. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      You could open another RfC and see what other editors think. Alltan (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Your RFC has nothing to do with the sources @Lezhjani1444 added, if you disagree with those sources, open up an RfC for them instead or just explain what is wrong with them. Alltan (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Why didn't you open RfC when you disagreed with Bojka? Setxkbmap (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Because Bojka is not in the article and I am not the one trying to add them. Alltan (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Hetzner Armin was also not in the article, and you are not the one trying to add him.

      Yet, you keep it in. Why is is different to Bojka? Setxkbmap (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Because he is not Tertiary or Fringe or 100 years old or part of Serbian nationalist historiography or NOTRS.

      And also because you ASKED for a source on the Kuci being of Albanian origin (ignoring the 8 already there) and it felt it very kind of Lezhjani to fulfil your wish. Alltan (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Because he is not Tertiary or Fringe or 100 years old or part of Serbian nationalist historiography or NOTRS.

      There are other 100 years old sources, and i never minded Albanian sources. I can't understand why you are so fixated and angry at Serbs. I also provided sources that are not tertiary. Like Petrović, Rašović, Sobolev, and Bojka as a tertiary source can be used too according to rules.

      And also because you ASKED for a source on the Kuci being of Albanian origin (ignoring the 8 already there) and it felt it very kind of Lezhjani to fulfil your wish.

      I asked days ago, nobody cared. I started dispute resolution, nobody cared (you were invited, it's on your talk page :) ), i talked to admins, they said that they agree that citations are needed and that i should create RfC.

      Now, i've created a RfC, and i am waiting for people to discuss this. I am not adding anything into the article, and i expect others not to do so either.

      Some of the sources he provided were disproven here in the talk page, as they are quoting other editors that never said anything source provided claim, as we've seen. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      I am not angry at anything and I don't have to be. My emotions do not matter on what RS have said, neither do yours. You can fall in love with me for all I care, but the article needs good reliable sources, unpolluted by nationalist historiography. Please keep your personal struggles to yourself or at least not on this article. Alltan (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Yes, scary nationalists promoting ideas of ethnic heterogeneous communities.

      But, WP:FORUM Setxkbmap (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      What? xD Alltan (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Rastislav Petrovic is not WP:RS, hence it shouldn't be used in the article. Most statements already had citations. As such, its addition or removal doesn't add anything to the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  He is. He has a PhD in the field of history, he wasn't self published, his books are from the second part of the 20th century and he was used in the article for years.

  If you think that his book is not RS, feel free to use noticeboard. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The book is not RS because it doesn't cover any RS criteria. I don't have to go to RSN for such a case and this is something which you know because you included this source in your RfC as you already know that it's not RS. The source didn't support any statements which weren't supported by other studies - reliable ones.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No i didn't. The source i included in the RfC is was Predrag Petrovic.

Rastislav wasn't included by me, it was in the article for years, he has a PhD in history, he wrote a book about the tribe itself, he is a recent source, and you removed it just because you don't agree with it. It has nothing to do with WP:RS. The fact that you think that agriculture professor is a RS, because he is a Bosniak, and you remove historians with a PhD is laughable.

Maybe you made a mistake, and thought that this was Predrag Petrovic, who seems problematic in the eyes of other editors, and i wouldn't mind him being removed, as we are still discussing validity of him. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to your questions about wanting to use him as a source for ethno-linguistic issues [8]. I also want to cite Rastislav Petrovic, and quotes are in the response to one of other editors. He doesn't directly address the claim, he opposes current citations and opinions based on language report and religion. You know that there will be many issues with R. Petrovic, which is why you asked.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No, i asked because i don't think people would be OK with me changing the first sentence of the origin section.

I didn't ask because i thought he was problematic. He might be problematic to your POV, but he is ok.

Again, he has PhD in the field of history, and you are citing agriculture professors in parts of the article that has nothing to do with the citation. Also, even though we have Xhufi as a source for Bolizza report, you are trying to use albanianhistory.net as a source, which is self published by Elsie.

Rastislav was used before, nobody had any problems with that, and i assume he is now being removed as i am using him as a citation for claim that tribe wasn't formed until the end of 15th century.

Stop vandalizing the article.

I agree that some other sources should be removed, as they are not used. I wanted to improve the article further, after i reverted it to last stable version (Arberian2444), but you reverted to your changes. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've written the statement that the tribe wasn't formed until the end of the 15th century in 2020 [9], hence you are accusing me that I removed the citation because I don't want a statement which I've written to be part of the article. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Great. Then we agree, as he was not used in any problematic statements, he is recent and secondary source, he has PhD in the field we are discussing, he is ok. And i forgot that sentence was in an article, so the one that i provided was not needed. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Comment. Yeesh. One important function of an RfC, as I understand it, is to get more eyes on the problem; in particular, those of nonspecialist editors not directly involved in the dispute. I suggest the disputants figure out how the essential point of contention can be conveyed to the intelligent layperson in a form that that they (the disputants) can agree on, such that the layperson can understand what the problem is. Stop trying to win the argument for a minute and work together in good faith to explain to us what the argument is. What can you agree on? Regulov (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's kinda hard to agree when you are picky about what you cite.

  For example, article currently cite Matthew Curtis, Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence

  On the other hand, there are some areas, particularly in Montenegro, where Albanian-speaking populations have shifted to Slavic-speaking ones, such as the tribes of Piperi and Kuči

  while in that same work Curtis will also state bilingual and mixed society

  it is known that certain clans (e.g. Piperi and Kuči) have switched from having a mixed composition of Albanian and Slavic speakers to being only Slavic

  Here's what we 100% agree on, there's been a process of Slavicisation. Even i agree with Curtis that there was a shift from Albanian speaking population to Slavic speaking population. What we don't agre, and neither does Curtis it seems, is that tribe was monolingual society, ever.

  The oldest document on tribe population (defters) show mixed population

  The oldest language report (Franciscan) shows illyric language, which was the name for serbo-croatian and it's variations up until 19th century.

  So we do agree that there was process of slavicisation, and i have no problems with that. What we don't agree on is whether that process happened to fully Albanian population, or mixed population that exchanged cultures and language. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. This article has been flawed for many years, to the point that I personally stopped working on it, despite having a certain interest and good knowledge of the subject of Montenegrin tribes in general and the Kuči in particular. Many things are wrong with this article, starting with how the Kuči are presented right from the lead, which does not match the content of the article. Since the 17th century, the Kuči have essentially been a Slavic and Eastern Orthodox tribe, where the Albanian Catholic element, mentioned in 1610 as a separate clan, the Drekalovići, has long been assimilated into the others, in other words, it has itself become Slavic and Orthodox. Of this Catholic Albanian substratum, which was partial anyway, almost nothing remains today, except for the inhabitants of the village of Koći (Koja) and part of those in Fundina. Currently, and for about 200 years now, the Kuči have been a tribe with a strong sense of Panserbianism, a trait they share with their neighbours, the Vasojevići. This characteristic has not been contradicted since then, and although the villages that make up the territory of the Kuči tribe have been depopulating for about thirty years, they are not empty, and the disintegration of Yugoslavia has contributed to the revival of a strong sense of tribal belonging among the Kuči. As such, the Kuči overwhelmingly rejected Montenegro's independence and have consistently voted for pro-Serbian parties, in other words, parties advocating closer ties with Serbia. Yet none of this, which is an important feature of the Kuči's identity, is reflected at all in the lead. And this is a problem because the lead serves as an introduction for a newcomer to the subject. Relying on MOS:LEAD, the article should begin with: the Kuči are a historical tribe of Montenegro, living in a region of the same name located within the area of the Brda. Mentioning an Albanian origin right from the start can only confuse an uninformed reader: "I came to learn more about a Slavic tribe in Montenegro that I was told is very Serbophile. But not only does the introduction not mention this strong Serbian identity of the Kuči, but it also speaks first of an Albanian origin. This is confusing. Conclusion, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information."

The second main problem lies precisely in this supposedly Albanian origin of the tribe. First of all, assuming it is proven, which is not certain at all, it does not need to be brought up right away because it does not explain what the identity of the Kuči has been for centuries. Now, as many people here express a lot of concern about the origin of the tribe, it is established that the Kuči were mentioned for the first time as a community in 1455, but we have no indication of their ethnic composition at that time. The whole part of the article that mentions the Venetian register of 1416 is based only on a primary source. So this falls within WP:OR and should be entirely deleted, because at no point does the translator of the source in question, the Albanian historian Injac Zamputi, mention any connection between the Kuči tribe and the individuals with the surname Kuchi in the Venetian source. When the Kuči are mentioned in 1485, their anthroponymy is mixed, both Slavic and Albanian. It is predominantly Albanian, yes, but the villages mentioned in this defter are mostly villages that are now located within the tribal territory of the Albanian tribe of the Triepshi. This strong mix of names, especially in 1497, has made most Serbian historians and onomasticians very cautious about the origin of the Kuči. Yet Serbian and Montenegrin scholars are the ones who have studied this tribe the most: however, except for Djurdjev, none of them are cited in this article regarding the origins of the tribe. This is a major gap, as Yugoslav historiography in the post-WWII period has addressed this issue several times. The English sources used, while they validate a link between the Kuči and the Albanians, are by no means from specialists on the subject: neither Calic, Malcolm, nor Elsie write extensively about the Kuči. Their writings used in the article are related to other subjects. Malcolm, known for his pro-Albanian bias, therefore writes Kuçi using the Albanian spelling and considers them to be Albanian. Calic simply mentions the Kuči in passing, among tribes she thinks are Albanian, as a non-specialist on this subject. She does not talk at all about the origin of the tribe, and her text, recently introduced as a reference, must clearly be removed. Finally, Elsie's book, which concerns strictly Albanian tribes, only briefly mentions the Kuči, simply sharing the widely held opinion in Albanian historiography that they are descendants of Slavicized Albanians. And for the sake of WP:NPOV, why should we accept Xhufi's conclusion based on an obscure Franciscan report that he analyzes with his strong nationalist bias, and not accept recent sources from a reputable scholar like Djukanovic, who explicitly states that the Kuči are of mixed origin? And honestly, the entire paragraph in the lead regarding the "Slavicization processes" does smell a lot and on top of that, it is not even sourced.

The last major issue (there are others, but I will not mention them all here) is that the Kuči are mentioned as being simultaneously Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, and Bosniaks, citing the (unsourced) example of Muamer Zukorlić. However, there are descendants of the Kuči everywhere, not just in the Sandžak but throughout Serbia, possibly even in Bosnia and Croatia, since it is established that many families from the Herzegovinian and Montenegrin clans migrated to these regions during the Ottoman period. But does this mean that these people are Kuči? Of course not. The sense of tribal affiliation is closely linked to the territory: a member of the Kuči is someone born in the territory of the Kuči to a Kuči family. Possibly, someone whose parents or grandparents were born there is considered related to the Kuči. After a few generations, it no longer makes sense, and these supposed Kuči Bosniaks from Sandžak have not lived in the Kuči territory for generations: they are no longer considered members. Because tribes in Montenegro are characterized both by a strong sense of sharing a common ancestor and by a strong regional attachment. Claiming Bosniaks or Serbs as Kuči but living outside the Kuči territory makes absolutely no sense.

Krisitor (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This article has been flawed for many years, to the point that I personally stopped working on it, despite having a certain interest and good knowledge of the subject of Montenegrin tribes in general and the Kuči in particular. How knowledgeable you personally claim to be is not important to the article.

Many things are wrong with this article, starting with how the Kuči are presented right from the lead, which does not match the content of the article. Since the 17th century, the Kuči have essentially been a Slavic and Eastern Orthodox tribe, where the Albanian Catholic element, mentioned in 1610 as a separate clan, the Drekalovići, has long been assimilated into the others, in other words, it has itself become Slavic and Orthodox. Of this Catholic Albanian substratum, which was partial anyway, almost nothing remains today, except for the inhabitants of the village of Koći (Koja) and part of those in Fundina. Wrong, the Drekalovici were one of the 2 great brotherhoods of Kuçi at that point, but the Albanian element predates the 17th century assimilation of Kuçi into Slavdom. This is mentioned in the article, the defters of 1417 and 1485 being clear examples of Albanian anthroponyms largely predominating Slavic ones, even if you take into account the defter wasn't about the tribe but the nahiyah of Kuçi, which Serbian historiography has made a tendency to conflate to put forward your very same argument above (see article for more, it's there). And Koja is a different tribe, we don't have to act like they are the Albanian component of Kuçi as there are plenty of Albanians who descend from Drekalovici or Starokuci.

Currently, and for about 200 years now, the Kuči have been a tribe with a strong sense of Panserbianism, a trait they share with their neighbours, the Vasojevići. This characteristic has not been contradicted since then, and although the villages that make up the territory of the Kuči tribe have been depopulating for about thirty years, they are not empty, and the disintegration of Yugoslavia has contributed to the revival of a strong sense of tribal belonging among the Kuči. As such, the Kuči overwhelmingly rejected Montenegro's independence and have consistently voted for pro-Serbian parties, in other words, parties advocating closer ties with Serbia. Yet none of this, which is an important feature of the Kuči's identity, is reflected at all in the lead. Relying on MOS:LEAD, the article should begin with: the Kuči are a historical tribe of Montenegro, living in a region of the same name located within the area of the Brda. Mentioning an Albanian origin right from the start can only confuse an uninformed reader: "I came to learn more about a Slavic tribe in Montenegro that I was told is very Serbophile. But not only does the introduction not mention this strong Serbian identity of the Kuči, but it also speaks first of an Albanian origin. This is confusing. Conclusion, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information."

OK first of all why do I have to keep reminding people that this is not a WP:FORUM? You can not mind read what other editors think, the lead is there for people to get factual information on the tribe. We start with their origin, which is that they were an Albanian tribe which slowly became bilingual and Slavicised almost entirely except Fundina. Questions regarding their politics and how much they love Serbia and want to be called Serbs 24/7 have absolutely nothing to do with this RfC. Are you saying we should falsely portray a mixed origin which goes against modern non-Serb historiography because the people there today like Serbia so much? Cause mentioning their politics today and in the 19th centuries as a reference to their origin is... wrong.

The second main problem lies precisely in this supposedly Albanian origin of the tribe. First of all, assuming it is proven, which is not certain at all, it does not need to be brought up right away because it does not explain what the identity of the Kuči has been for centuries. Now, as many people here express a lot of concern about the origin of the tribe, it is established that the Kuči were mentioned for the first time as a community in 1455, but we have no indication of their ethnic composition at that time. The whole part of the article that mentions the Venetian register of 1416 is based only on a primary source. So this falls within WP:OR and should be entirely deleted, because at no point does the translator of the source in question, the Albanian historian Injac Zamputi, mention any connection between the Kuči tribe and the individuals with the surname Kuchi in the Venetian source. When the Kuči are mentioned in 1485, their anthroponymy is mixed, both Slavic and Albanian. It is predominantly Albanian, yes, but the villages mentioned in this defter are mostly villages that are now located within the tribal territory of the Albanian tribe of the Triepshi. This strong mix of names, especially in 1497, has made most Serbian historians and onomasticians very cautious about the origin of the Kuči. Yet Serbian and Montenegrin scholars are the ones who have studied this tribe the most: however, except for Djurdjev, none of them are cited in this article regarding the origins of the tribe. This is a major gap, as Yugoslav historiography in the post-WWII period has addressed this issue several times. Yet again, MOSLEAD tells us we can and should summarize the article in the lead. There is nothing wrong with that. If you find support to include that Kuçi today likes Serbia a lot and want to keep that in the lead that is unrelated to this article. On the 1416 defter, that is actually a good point, I will add a secondary source confirming the 1416 defter and the Kuçi village there.

The English sources used, while they validate a link between the Kuči and the Albanians, are by no means from specialists on the subject: neither Calic, Malcolm, nor Elsie write extensively about the Kuči. Their writings used in the article are related to other subjects. Malcolm, known for his pro-Albanian bias, therefore writes Kuçi using the Albanian spelling and considers them to be Albanian. Calic simply mentions the Kuči in passing, among tribes she thinks are Albanian, as a non-specialist on this subject. She does not talk at all about the origin of the tribe, and her text, recently introduced as a reference, must clearly be removed. Finally, Elsie's book, which concerns strictly Albanian tribes, only briefly mentions the Kuči, simply sharing the widely held opinion in Albanian historiography that they are descendants of Slavicized Albanians. And for the sake of WP:NPOV, why should we accept Xhufi's conclusion based on an obscure Franciscan report that he analyzes with his strong nationalist bias, and not accept recent sources from a reputable scholar like Djukanovic, who explicitly states that the Kuči are of mixed origin? And honestly, the entire paragraph in the lead regarding the "Slavicization processes" does smell a lot and on top of that, it is not even sourced. They do not need to be specialists, not everyone is a specialist on Kuçi, but they show the modern consensus regarding their origin and are included in a list of many many other people who have studied it. Malcolm and Elsies contributions to Albanology are indispensable, but that doesn't make them hate pro Albanian. Even an Albanian like Xhufi, who is RS, is an incredible source of information because of his usage of primary sources. Why are there no primary sources mentioning an Albanisation of the tribe? Because yeah, the part about slavicisation is sourced, you just gotta actually look at the sources.

The last major issue (there are others, but I will not mention them all here) is that the Kuči are mentioned as being simultaneously Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, and Bosniaks, citing the (unsourced) example of Muamer Zukorlić. However, there are descendants of the Kuči everywhere, not just in the Sandžak but throughout Serbia, possibly even in Bosnia and Croatia, since it is established that many families from the Herzegovinian and Montenegrin clans migrated to these regions during the Ottoman period. But does this mean that these people are Kuči? Of course not. The sense of tribal affiliation is closely linked to the territory: a member of the Kuči is someone born in the territory of the Kuči to a Kuči family. Possibly, someone whose parents or grandparents were born there is considered related to the Kuči. After a few generations, it no longer makes sense, and these supposed Kuči Bosniaks from Sandžak have not lived in the Kuči territory for generations: they are no longer considered members. Because tribes in Montenegro are characterized both by a strong sense of sharing a common ancestor and by a strong regional attachment. Claiming Bosniaks or Serbs as Kuči but living outside the Kuči territory makes absolutely no sense. Forum talk aside, the Kuçi do not exist as a tribe. There is no tribal territory where you need to meet a tribal leader or village elder and people generally no longer live in semi pastoral livestyles. All Kuçi today are tribe members because they trace their origins to Kuçi or to people who are Kuçi themselves. This includes Bosniaks and Albanians, because those people have family genealogies and nobody can discredit them and tell them they are not from Kuçi.

Are they really part of the tribe patrilinealy? Not if they have Slavic haplogroups, but that is WP:OR territory, for now at least. My point is yet again that this has nothing to do with the RfC. Alltan (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Great source for Kuci village in Albania.

Too bad that "defter" has nothing to do with tribe that formed in the current area of Trieshi, between 1455. and 1485., and was formed of 8 towns and multiple brotherhoods. It's about Nenad's family and his two sons who are believed to be the carrier of the name of the tribe, as per oral tradition one of Nenads sons, Grca, moved to current tribe of Kuci and brought the name with him. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

According to RS the village in the 1416-17 cadaster is the home of the Kuçi prior to their moving into the Brda. There are many more Kuçi villages in Albania, including one east of Vlore mentioned in 1421, but I simply added the one about the Kuçi we are specifically talking about in this article. Personal opinions are not important when we have sourcing, thankfully. Alltan (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

According to RS, there is a possibility. It's a guess, most probable thing, but nothing really connects those two. There's no proof of that migration.

According to RS, even if you take that theory as a fact, Nenad and his descendents were from village of Kuc and they moved into the region of Trieshi. In 1455. there is a Kuci village in that region, but it's not yet tribe as we can see, but only 1 settlement based on Zetski Zbor agreement. There are two other settlements that are mentioned as a separate entities there, that later together with Kuci formed a tribe, those were Lazorci and Kupusci.

It's not a personal opinion, sorry. It's your personal opinion that you can take a possible origin of a name as a factual claim for ethnic origin of a tribe. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We stick by what RS says, whether you or I consider that WP:TRUTH is not relevant. Alltan (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, we should also include Karl Kaser as a source.

he states:

When his extensive catun was split up, the summer settlements were probably the first to separate. It seems that the process of territorialization of the split-off communities was completed in 1455. The Mataguži community, which had still existed at the beginning of the 15th century, later disappeared. The Hoti community had already united some katunas at the beginning of the 15th century. In 1485, 8 villages and 134 houses were counted in the united katunas. The immediate ancestor of the Kuči was supposed to have been a Grča Nenadin. The originally not very extensive Katun expanded rapidly due to Serbian settlers in the 15th and 16th centuries. The new settlers (including the Dobroäani, tigomani, Deljani, Bulatoviei, Miloviei etc.) quickly integrated and also adopted the name of Kuči. In 1485, the Kuči were 8 villages with 253 houses; in 1497, there were already 150 more houses, and the 8 villages had grown into 9 katunas and 2 villages

He says that supposed ancestor of Kuci is Grca. He also claims that the katun expanded rapidly in 15th century due to influx of Serbian settlers. Which is when tribe was formed which is conclusion that is already in the article now.

Glad you agree. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What do I agree with excuse me? The above has nothing to do with the RfC. Alltan (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It does. RfC is about origin of the tribe, and whether or not it should be changed from the current status, and this is one of the sources that confirms mixed origin of the tribe during the formation period in the later part of the 15th century. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all the source doesn't do that, secondly that is not how an RfC works as already explained to you. Nowhere does Kasser mention a mixed origin. Alltan (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all the source doesn't do that

Sorry, but he is describing a period of time when tribe was formed, and you state that he is not talking about origin? While we have sources currently in the article that when cited talk nothing about origin, or that period at all?

For example, Bernd J. Fischer states:

he tribe of Kuçi/Kuči, for example, was divided into three branches, Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox, and into two languages (Albanian and Slavic), but their members kept the memory of a common ancestry.

How does this address the claim of origin? Author states nothing of origin, he could state Kuci are Greek and it would still be valid.

So yeah, Karl addresses the claim better than all of the citations we have now Setxkbmap (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

He literally agrees with Pulaha as to them being an Albanin katun. Serbs coming in doesn't change the fact it was originally... Albanian. Alltan (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The immediate ancestor of the Kuči was supposed to have been a Grča Nenadin.

Supposed. Serbs coming actually does change the fact, because tribe was not formed until end of 15th century. Tribe was formed by multiple brotherhoods, as other sources confirm even in the article, and tribe was mixed as Pulaha saw in defters. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR Pulahas defters are about the Kuçi nahija first of all, and Slavic names were used all over Albania by both Orthodox and even Catholics in some cases. You need to find sources and stop treating wikipedia as a forum. Alltan (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR, we have defter data, we have Pulaha's info, and we have citation from Pulaha:

In the 253 households, 105 households heads had Albanian names, 53 had mixed Albanian-Slavic names and 91 had Slavic names.

He also talks about influx of Pavlovici and Banjovici, who he claims are Slavs and Orthodox, they also moved to the tribe in the period of formation. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Pulaha considers the tribe to have been Albanian during formation before and after it. So you are either attempting to falsify sources or just haven't read Pulaha. Your personal opinion on the defter names is your personal opinion.

About that, you need to bear in mind not to confuse the Kuci tribe with the Nahiyah of Kuci, the Pavlovici and Banjovici being Slavic is a possibility but wether or not they contributed to the formation of the tribe is not mentioned by Kaser. Alltan (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That source is there to show to users that Kuçi is just as valid as Kuči, and that according to oral tradition they originate from one tribe. Alltan (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

NVM the fact Kaser considers Kuci to have been originally an Albanian katun :

genau das selbe geschah mit den albanischen katunen der Bushati...Kuçi.

from Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden

Ursprünge und Gegenwart des balkanischen Patriarchats page 147.

Karl Kaser · 1992 Alltan (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, i literally said that. Read the quote i posted

The immediate ancestor of the Kuči was supposed to have been a Grča Nenadin.

He does think that the supposed ancestor comes from Albanian katun. And then tribe was formed with expansion and influx of Serbian settlers. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that is your original research, nowhere have you provided such a claim where he mentions the formation of the tribe as being because of Serbs coming in. The brotherhood already existed long before, so did the Katun, both being originally Albanian according to the sources. Alltan (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that is your original research, nowhere have you provided such a claim where he mentions the formation of the tribe as being because of Serbs coming in.

I didn't claim tribe formed because of Serbs coming in, i claimed that the formation of the tribe happened while the influx of other brotherhoods was happening. Time of tribe creation is in the article itself, and other sources confirm it. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not care what you claim, you need to find sources and stop treating this talk page like a WP:FORUM Alltan (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I will check sources with RS noticeboard, and if they confirm they are OK i will implement them into the article. Thanks for the discussion Setxkbmap (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You will need consensus first. I can find RS talking about Moracani and Piva as Albanian, they could be RS, but WP:FRINGE is also a thing. You can not give undue weight to a theory just because it is RS. FYI Alltan (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, give me a process that i need to follow.

There was no consensus for additions of the sources that were added in the last two days, but it's still up. So i assumed that if we tick all the boxes, we can add RS.

Give me the process i need to go through and opinions i need to get so that i could add sources that explain origin of the tribe and address the claim directly. Setxkbmap (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

In your case you should realize the claim is already addressed directly, but the fact of the matter is you don't have to like it. The only process is to bring forward reliable sources which do address the issue. Kaser was good, but he just confirms an Albanian origin as well. And this is the consensus these days, not that it was a mixed tribe, not that it was Serbian in origin, but that it was Albanian originally, and then through assimilation and possibly influx of Slavic speakers it was Slavicised then Serbicised.

Even if we only had one of the sources source in the origins section talking about an Albanian origin, it would trump the ones you have put forward. Find new, reliable, not fringe, works on the matter. Relying on Serbian historiography particularly on this tribe is not doing you any favor. Alltan (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

In your case you should realize the claim is already addressed directly, but the fact of the matter is you don't have to like it.

Sorry, but it's not for me to like it. I never said i don't like current sources, i've stated that they dont talk about origin of the tribe, or they are already disproven here. It's you who don't like the sources and decline to implement them even when they are RS.

For example, i liked Marie-Janine Calic, but she was talking about the value of lineages in tribal societies, not about origin. There are also some other citations that are ok, but should be moved.

Kaser was good, but he just confirms an Albanian origin as well

Nope, he said that Grca Nenadin is a possible ancestor. And yes, Nenad lived in Albanian katun, just like Trieshi live in Montenegro now yet that doesn't change their ethnicity. You don't have ethnographic data on Nenad, other than his Slavic name.

Even with that, Kaser, Rastislav, Sobolev, Rasovic and others still talk about influx and mix of cultures.

And then in the end, you have Bojka, who i know you say is WP:TERTIARY (not that it ever stopped anyone from using other tertiary sources, which the article is full of) who combines all that into a simple statement: Kuci are a tribe of mixed origin.

Even if we only had one of the sources source in the origins section talking about an Albanian origin, it would trump the ones you have put forward. Find new, reliable, not fringe, works on the matter. Relying on Serbian historiography particularly on this tribe is not doing you any favor.

Good. So nothing i can do will change your opinion. Thanks for the info Setxkbmap (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Marie Calic does in fact talk about origin and I will see to adding her full quote into the article.

Yes, Kaser talks about it being an Albanian katun, but nowhere does he mention Grca Nenadin as being confirmed to be an ancestor, but only one who is claimed to be. This is a much weaker claim than Petar Kuč being the ancestor. I go by what sources state.

I am not gonna repeat myself on the other sources you mentioned, you can pretend like you didn’t read that, but its there.

Tertiary sourcing first needs strong secondary and primary sourcing. You have neither. You need higher quality secondary sources.

Well yes you could change my mind but that is not important. I could tell you I believe with all my heart that Kuçi were originally mixed in origin, just like I can tell you that i believe Moračani were monolingual Albanians. But the reliable sources do not support such statements, and therefore there is literally nothing I can do.

There is a reason the consensus in scholarship is that Kuçi were Albanians, and it’s because primary documents tell us that. Consensus is not unanimity, and you will always have authors claiming everything was Serbian or Albanian. But in this case the scholarly academic consensus is happens to support an Albanian origin.

This is what you need to understand as to why the sources you attempt to add only damage the quality of this arti le by infusing it with fringe, unreliable and often times nationalistic undertones. Alltan (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that clear statement of your position. Regulov (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Who are you replying to, because i got notification but it seems like you are replying to someone else :) Setxkbmap (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

As you can see in the edit history of the past 24 hours, even when the source has been in the article for the long time, if you try to use that source to claim something that other users do not agree with personally they remove it and claim it's not RS. (claim supported by a few sources, provided two, both of which were in an article from way before)

My will for consensus and compromise is irrelevant, if they always move goalposts. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all arbitrary introduction of non-RS sources as proposed by Setxbmap, but this isn't an RfC at this point as an RfC can't decide what is RS and what isn't. They need to have a clear proposal, not a "let's rewrite the article" support/oppose article. Anyone can add/remove anything and their edits will either get accepted or rejected by others, but there's no RfC which can end with any agreement to allow someone to change an entire article without any discussion about specific points.Alltan (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal is: "Let's import other sources and clean the ones that have nothing to do with what is claimed, as we've seen by actually reading the book"

  It's pretty valid. If you think that i need to check whether something is RS, i will try those noticeboards too. Thanks for suggestion Setxkbmap (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Alltan, just so you know, RFCs are allowed any time a consensus needs to be determined. That includes questions about whether or not a given source is reliable (regardless of whether the question is about "reliable in general" or "reliable for this specific statement"). Many of the entries in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources were placed there through discussions using RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  No worries, his whole claim that source is not reliable is that it's self published, or non academic.

  None of the sources are self published, and except for Rašović, everyone else is an academic, or was supported by academics.

  For example, he had an issue with Predrag Petrović who wrote 7 books about the tribe, and the one i am citing has been written with a help of 3 academics (prof.) and financed and published with the help of "Fond za razvoj Kuča" (Foundation that supports the tribe and finances projects like books, museums and lectures).

  But, that is not OK by him and other editors. Although, you can check the sources right now and find personal sites such as "albanianhistory.net". Setxkbmap (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a malformed RfC which can't be closed with any actionable result because there is no valid proposal to support or oppose. It can get a 100 support or a 100 oppose and it'll still never be closed because there is nothing concrete to support or oppose.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a malformed RfC

I actually checked whether my RfC is ok, and got confirmation that it is.

Sorry, you will just have to accept that people expect outside opinions on whether the tribe that was recorded as mixed in 15th century, was part of orthodox faith in 1455, spoke Slavic language for at least 5 centuries (Franciscian report), should be called of mixed origin, or Albanian, Vlach, Serb origin. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Support the citstions for Albanian origin is weak. The citation s mention that Kuci have a shared pre-Slavic shared origin. Pre-Slavic Albanians and modern Albanians are not the same people. This page is pushing a nationalist viewpoint that is no neutral. A total redo of the page is needed to make it more neutral and make it clear that there are two ideas, one that it is a Serbian origin tribe and one that it is past Albanian tribe, not modern. 2804:14D:5CE3:4002:8D21:7A00:7CA3:6BB0 (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone has an idea what the support or oppose vote actually means. On top of that, your claim that Pre-Slavic Albanians and modern Albanians are not the same people indicates a serious lack of knowledge on the matter. This IP’s opinion shouldn’t be taken seriously. It’s not in line with the academic reality of the Balkans. Botushali (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

While i don't disagree that user should create an account, as i've told him few days ago, i do think that academic reality of the Balkans is not what 4 editors decide on talk pages of wikipedia.

As we've seen, there are plenty of academics who simply disagree with the POV that is in the article. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The academic reality is not based on 4 editors, but rather the scholarly consensus. If you want to ignore that based on sources which are old, unreliable or against the scholarly consensus, then feel free to continue. Not much anyone can do about that. Botushali (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The academic reality is not based on 4 editors, but rather the scholarly consensus

Scholarly consensus which is decided by 4 editors :)

If you want to ignore that based on sources which are old, unreliable or against the scholarly consensus, then feel free to continue.

Actually, only 1 source is 100 years old, other sources are pretty new. I am checking validity of everything tho, so thanks for your concern. Setxkbmap (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber (and anyone else who is interested), just so you know, RFCs do not require support/oppose questions. The fact that a voting-friendly format is popular does not mean that this is required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

• Comment Some editors here consider that there is a scholarly consensus regarding the origin of the tribe, saying that The article is based on the consensus in bibliography, That Kuči descends from the Albanian katun is the consensus in academia someone even saying that recent sources that opposes the "Albanian origin" theory are against the scholarly consensus. But in fact, that's the main problem here, there is no scholarly consensus. As such, we have to present all points of view, not one that's widespread only in Albanian academic circles, which is the purposedly "scholarly consensus" that these editors are trying to promote above all the others. And apart from Boehm (1983, 1984 and 1986) and Kaser (1992, 2012), I would exclude most Western sources here as they are non-specialists on the Brda tribes. It's easy enough to do a few Google books searches and retrieve any reference that says the Kuči are a Slavicized Albanian tribe, it doesn't make those references valid here, as they don't come from specialists. Now, you and other editors continue to consider that there is a consensus when there clearly isn't. Whereas, in fact, for Djukanovic (2023) and for all post-WWII Yugoslav, Serbian and Montenegrin historiography, it's far less obvious than that. This historiography, which is by far the most accomplished on the Kuči, considers that while they are obviously related to an Albanian community that is mentioned in the early 14th century, this community was not a tribe at the time, which itself only developed at the end of the 15th century following an amalgamation of this Albanian katun and Slavic settlers. It is the phenomenon known as the territorialization of the katuns following the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans, as shown by Djurdjev (1953), that led to the formation of the tribes, and his conclusions on this subject have never since been challenged, even by other historians who did not fully share his point of view on other subjects, such as Hrabak. Moreover, in this particular case, the phenomenon of Slavs and Albanians amalgamating to form the Kuči tribe is perfectly explained by Kaser (1992), who also cites which Slavic brotherhoods were not originally Kuči but became so to form the tribe. Whatever you think of it, this needs to be mentioned in the article. Krisitor (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's easy enough to do a few Google books searches and retrieve any reference that says the Kuči are a Slavicized Albanian tribe

  Actually, few of the sources added in the past few days are literally that. Just a single statement. Books are not about Kuči, they don't talk about Kuči, they just mention it in a sentence that is 4 words long, and it is used as a valid and reliable source. While some of people that support that come here to claim that none of sources i provided are ok, and "even if i got confirmation from noticeboard that they are RS, they would not consider implementing them". They move the goalpost constantly, while i am trying to make sure everything they say is being covered. For example, sources could not be used since they are written by a Serb, and i provided them with sources that are not. They claimed tertiary source is not usable here, while there are plenty of tertiary sources in there now, so they claimed that none of the sources are RS, and after i said that i will try and check using noticeboard, they still decline to accept that sources are RS, that they are ok to be used, and that they are in fact better than many of them currently in the article.

  The fact that one user stated that he will not accept the result of RfC, that he will not consider sources even if they are RS, and the fact that he avoided resolution dispute calls makes me doubt WP:Good faith. One of the administrators told me that i can report such behaviour to admin noticeboard, but i am giving him a benefit of a doubt. Setxkbmap (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think it’s commonplace to report an editor because he disagrees with you. But by all means don’t threaten, do what you gotta do. Its not like you haven’t already tried reporting this discussion to literally 7 other admins. Alltan (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't report anything.

  I didn't even use admin noticeboard, because as i've said, i can give benefit of a doubt. I never stated i have to report you because you disagree with me. Setxkbmap (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  You have written multiple admins accusing editors here of editing in bad faith and have even stated aspersions against some of them here of being friends and telepathically communicating. You have accused the editors disagreeing with you of having an Albanian nationalist POV.

  They are slowly changing article until only the Albanian name is left, and that again makes me think that they have nationalistic POV which hurts the discussion. I asked them to at least not use that in talk page, but they declined

  I will repeat, Kuçi is just as correct to say as Kuči. Historian Oliver Jens Schmitt and Karl Kaser both use Kuçi, are they Albanian nationalists now like you claim some of us are? Alltan (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  You have written multiple admins accusing editors here of editing in bad faith

  Yes, i asked what can be done and whether saying "i dont care if it's RS, i dont care about results of RfC" should be considered a bad faith.

  You have accused the editors disagreeing with you of having an Albanian nationalist POV.

  No, i said that editors disagreeing with me are not accepting any other POV than their own. Which is true.

  I will repeat, Kuçi is just as correct to say as Kuči. Historian Oliver Jens Schmitt and Karl Kaser both use Kuçi, are they Albanian nationalists now like you claim some of us are?

  Oh, no worries. Article is fixed now, almost 99% is Kuči. That is ok now. I never claimed they were nationalists, i never even claimed any of the author are nationalists. That's been your opinion, which you are entitled to.

  But, Wikipedia is there to be neutral and use English names. Tribe is called Kuči, majority of the tribe is now Slavic and they all call it and write it Kuči, same for Serbs, Montenegrins and Bosniaks. Setxkbmap (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  They are slowly changing article until only the Albanian name is left, and that again makes me think that they have nationalistic POV which hurts the discussion. I asked them to at least not use that in talk page, but they declined

  You wrote the above message to an admin. Btw the article has always prefered usage of the term Kuči, because yes that is the common name, but the claim that article is ok now because 99% is Kuči is also wrong because no massive removal of the term Kuçi has taken place.

  So yes, you literally wrote to an administrator asking them for help because you suspected editors you didn't agree with must have a nationalist mindset/POV. But now we should pretend like nothing like that happened? Alltan (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  "i dont care if it's RS, i dont care about results of RfC" never said that. I said Wikipedia doesn't work like that, you can't canvass a bunch of editors (like you did on the Serbian Wikiproject Hеколико албанcких националиcта је заузело чланке везане за бpдcка племена, те гуpају cвоје виђење cтваpи и негиpају било какву измену. translated in english Many Albanian nationalists have taken over the articles related to the Brda tribes, and they keep their view of pages and deny any change.) and expect numbers to overrule general scholarly consensus. As for the RSN you need consensus to add in sourcing even if it is RS. I have RS sources describing Piva as being Albanians, but they are not included in the article because I realise that giving credit to such a theory creates WP:FALSEBALANCE.

  So yeah, this is how Wikipedia works, don't put words in my mouth and don't blame me. Alltan (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am answering to both your replies. Please, try to reply in 1 message, it's easier to read and reply to, thanks!

  You wrote the above message to an admin. Btw the article has always prefered usage of the term Kuči, because yes that is the common name, but the claim that article is ok now because 99% is Kuči is also wrong because no massive removal of the term Kuçi has taken place.

  Yes i did. And now the article is using neutral name Kuči, one that is used by the tribe itself and by majority of publications. So i am glad we're back to neutral names. I also asked you to keep using that name, but you declined.

  So yes, you literally wrote to an administrator asking them for help because you suspected editors you didn't agree with must have a nationalist mindset/POV. But now we should pretend like nothing like that happened?

  I never stated it's nationalistic mindset, but i did say that certain editors have a strong POV. Everyone has a POV, you, me, admins themselves. We should stride to keep it as neutral as possible. Admins never received any reports of nationalists, afaik.

  i dont care if it's RS, i dont care about results of RfC

  You claimed: "Even if it's RS, it's still WP:FRINGE" (which is of course, your opinion, even if it's wrong) and "RFC does not decide anything if you haven't put forth reliable sourcing on your proposal. And even the ones which could theoretically pass as such, are fringe at best. Wikipedia is not a democracy and you can not canvass other editors to force through a change"

  So, if RfC is to say that sources are good enough, and that article should be rewritten, you would accept that?

  But yeah, my bad, i've just checked and it was Maleschreiber who claimed WP:Democracy and that RfC won't change the article itself.

  Many Albanian nationalists have taken over the articles related to the Brda tribes, and they keep their view of pages and deny any change.

  That was never sent to a admin, and it was removed as Serbo-croatian language is not allowed on wiki project. I never reposted it, as i changed my mind, and while calling people nationalists is harsh, and i apologize, i still stand by the quote that 5-6 editors have been editing out Brda articles and keeping their POV because there's a consensus of those 5-6 editors. Setxkbmap (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't state it’s a strong POV, you stated it’s a nationalist POV. Now it’s 6 editor’s instead of 4, it must be a conspiracy right? Telepathic communication?

  No, it’s users who use sources in accordance with Wikipolicy and have policy mandated viewpoints on what sourcing should be used. Alltan (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't state it’s a strong POV, you stated it’s a nationalist POV. Now it’s 6 editor’s instead of 4, it must be a conspiracy right? Telepathic communication?

  I don't know the number of people, i don't keep count.

  No, it’s users who use sources in accordance with Wikipolicy and have policy mandated viewpoints on what sourcing should be used.

  WP:Not a democracy Setxkbmap (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Now you’re casting aspersions, there never was a vote on Kuçi being of Albanian or Serbian origin. The only democracy that took place is the reliable scholarship on the Kuçi, were a consensus exists, and which therefore is reflected in the article. See WP:CONSENSUS. Alltan (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Democracy took place when editors here decided that "reliable scholarship" can't be anything but their POV.

  And that was the consensus, now it's not. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  There still is consensus, I'm quoting the WP:CONSENSUS policy:

  Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.

  As for the latter, no vote has been cast on the origins of the tribe, as you are currently attempting to do through this malformed RfC. This is why it has been explained to you that starting an RfC will not simply override consensus, because said consensus is based on RS which represents the academic consensus.

  And as for the former, it means that an article does not necessarily have to change because certain editor's misunderstand and ignore talk page discussions, repeatedly falling into WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. Consensus needs to be achieved through discussions with regarding reliable sources which reflect scholarly consensus. In certain cases some users however will remain dissatisfied by the result.

  Which is OK. Alltan (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.

  And sometimes that consensus can block other editors and what some consider NPOV. That's why people call RfC.

  There was no need for this, but people invited to resolution dispute last time didn't want to participate, which i assume is because they don't want to get to the consensus.

  As for the latter, no vote has been cast on the origins of the tribe, as you are currently attempting to do through this malformed RfC. This is why it has been explained to you that starting an RfC will not simply override consensus, because said consensus is based on RS which represents the academic consensus.

  The RfC is on whether or not new sources should be implemented and origins part rewritten. If you feel that it's malformed, please form me a question that you would agree with, so that we could use that.

  And as for the former, it means that an article does not necessarily have to change because certain editor's misunderstand and ignore talk page discussions, repeatedly falling into WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. Consensus needs to be achieved through discussions with regarding reliable sources which reflect scholarly consensus. In certain cases some users however will remain dissatisfied by the result.

  I agree, people tend to form an opinion of what is and what is not reliable, and sometimes when their POV is not in according with the sources that actually talk about the topic of the article, they may feel the need to question their reliability or call them fringe theories. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  The sources you have provided either are:

  1.Outdated

  2.Fringe

  3.Self-published

  4.not RS

  How people form an opinion doesn't matter to Wikipedia. You need sources, which are up to par with any academic work not influenced by nationalist historiography. Issue is, even the 1 source you did provide as "proof" of a mixed origin doesn't state what you say it does.

  The scholarly consensus based on primary sources is that the tribe originated from Albanian pastoral community. Immigrants came and left, some of them Serbs, some of them Albanian like Drekalovici. But even if not a single Albanian would settle in Kuçi in 600 years, the tribe was still Albanian origin, as their origin is not influenced by Serbs moving in later. Please provide reliable sources to the contrary of this, as even Kaser is pretty much stating the above. An Albanian Katun, which would later be joined by other immigrants, Albanians like Bitidosi and Lazorci, and some Serbs like Bulatovici. Alltan (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  1.Outdated

  Agreed. I checked with noticeboard, the only problem they had was that Stanojević was way too old. We can ignore him.

  Fringe

  Glad to know your opinion, it's not a scholarly opinion tho.

  3.Self-published

  Not all of them, but the ones that are still usable by the rules. Especially if the author is an expert in the field. And trust me, the books that were written by the historians and members of Kuči are the only books you have on them. Of course, maybe i missed a book that is written about the tribe that is called "Fis Kuçi", which i doubt.

  One author which you deem not worthy, Predrag Petrović is author of a project that has a goal of revitalizing and reconstructing Medun fortress, and was author of a study called City of Medun, which was published by Montenegrin academy of Sciences and Arts.

  Rastislav Petrović has PhD in the field of history, and is also expert in the field of this tribe.

  There are no books other then these few we cite and quote, that are about the tribe itself. Yes, Xhufi will mention it in a sentence, yes Sobolev will also have a paragraph about it, but the only books at are solely written about the tribe itself are the ones written by people from the tribe. Some of which are historians, and have part of Yugoslav academy of sciences and arts, or now Montenegrin academy of sciences and arts.

  4.not RS

  Your opinion which is shared only by editors here, not by others (except for Stanojević), but again, you can't comment on this as the article itself now, especially first few lines about origin, which cite books and articles that only mention Kuči in like 4 words. That's reliable by your standards? Setxkbmap (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please stick to the topic of the RfC and the sources mentioned therein. The reasons why the other sources should not be included in the article have been explained many times here by multiple editors, so I wont waste time on them. I cant keep explaining the same thing 10 times. Alltan (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, they can't be added because it's not RS according to you. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you ignoring what people say to you?

  Predrag Petrović is WP:SELFPUBLISHED

  Rastislav Petrović talks about the religion of the Kuçi. This has already been explained to you by @Lezhjani1444

  The excerpts you provided from Rastislav Petrović provide nothing of value in regard to the ethno-linguistic origins of the tribe, he simply comments on the religious character which is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter. Alltan (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Predrag Petrović is WP:SELFPUBLISHED

  Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

  Rastislav Petrović talks about the religion of the Kuçi. This has already been explained to you

  He also talks about period of tribe formation, and is of opinion that "house of Nenad" was a "Serb medieval family". I don't quote that because, in my opinion, talking about ethnicity of people that MAYBE have connections to the current tribe is irrelevant. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your opinion as well as the above quote is unrelated and irrelevant to this discussion, though at this point this has devolved to the point that I am no longer even surprised at anything. Alltan (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  These are not my opinions. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't quote that because, in my opinion, talking about ethnicity of people that MAYBE have connections to the current tribe is irrelevant. Alltan (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think that we should talk about ethnicity of Nenad?

  Cmon, it's not my opinion that he is not 100% ancestor of the tribe, and that even if he was, he would only be ancestor to a part of the tribe.

  If you wish to discuss his ethnicity, religion and stuff like that, form a page for Nenad family. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:FORUM although I am shocked you think that’s what I want. Alltan (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you cant follow the article, or understand word "possibly", there's no reason to discuss.

  Good night. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed the above I couldn’t understand at all. I have no idea why you want to talk about Nenads ethnicity like this is some kind of forum. Also what article am I not following? Why am I getting instructions on wishes I don’t have? “Can I understand words possibly”?

  What? xD Alltan (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Petrovic is also fringe, as he fails to recognize the fact Kuçi are mentioned much earlier already as Katuns where names are overwhelmingly Albanian in origin. His work on the Kuçi however is self-published, and has not been published by a reliable publisher. Having an article published about the old Illyrian City of Medun, does not by default make him reliable to use for Kuçi. Alltan (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please always state full name of author, because both have surname Petrović.

  And i agree, he doesn't mention village of Kuc because it has no connection to the tribe that formed in XV century.

  He does state that common interests of the Slavo-Serbian and some Albanian and Vlach population, who differed by religion, made them form a strong tribe which survived from XV to XIX century.

  But yeah, him writing around 5 books on Kuči, some of his work being published by Montenegrin Academz of Sciences and Art, kinda makes him an expert in this topic. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Predrag Petrovic, the Self-Published one.

  Kuçi mentioned in Shkodër cadaster of 1416-17 is the ancestral homeland of Kuçi before they moved to Brda, as mentioned by Ajeti in the article.

  I am not interested in what you find him to be, the sources is self-published. Alltan (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Article itself states:

  possibly the leader of the Kuči brotherhood.

  Please read what you are defending.

  Second thing is, it's not my opinion, it's a reason why some self published writers can be used as RS. He's an expert in the field. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  We’re talking about Kuçi village not Pjetër Kuçi. Article states:

  The region on the eastern shore of Lake Shkodra and the parishes of Zeta became the territory where the Kuči along with other communities would eventually descend and settle in.

  In the quote the author is directly talking about the 1416-17 village of Kuçi, and how they moved into Brda later.

  If there existsca consensus the tribe is mixed you wouldn’t need to rely on self-published, and secondly the criteria for possible usage of this sp source are not fulfilled as Petrovic having an article on the Illyrian city of Medun/Meteon doesn’t make him an “expert on Kuçi”. Alltan (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, my bad.

  It was added 2 days ago, so you will have to excuse me, as i didn't see any discussion here about adding it to the article, so i hope you understand my confusion. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Predrag Petrović cannot be considered an expert on the subject, he has no qualifications or academic specialisations in this historical field. He is an engineer. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Some of his work was published by Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts. His book is written with a help of 3 university professors.

  On the other hand, article right now is citing Agriculture professors. Let's not kid ourselves.

  The author is citing Grković, who is a reliable source and has been used in the current article. Also, calling part of tribe "Mrnjavčevići" doesn't mean that author agrees that they are in fact descendants of royal family, but is using an oral tradition to call a certain part of a tribe that is sometimes called Old Kuči, but to make a distinction between families that lived in the region before migrations of Serb and Albanian population, some of the authors split the population into Old Old Kuči, and "Mrnjavčevići" who arrived in 15th century.

  Feel free to use RS Noticeboard, nobody seemed to mind this. I have all these source there, and only one that is causing issues is Stanišić who is just way too old. Setxkbmap (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which sources are by agriculture professors?

  Regardless of who Petrović is citing in his analysis, his source is not RS. I have left a comment on the RS Noticeboard in regard to this. No input was made in regard to Petrović, however, that does not mean he isn't problematic. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which sources are by agriculture professors?

  Mulić Jusuf was a professor of Agriculture, and had a PhD in it.

  Regardless of who Petrović is citing in his analysis, his source is not RS. I have left a comment on the RS Noticeboard in regard to this. No input was made in regard to Petrović, however, that does not mean he isn't problematic.

  We can discuss it further there. Setxkbmap (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  You’re digging a bigger hole for yourself. No matter how civil you pretend to be, there are quite literally receipts of you referring to fellow Wikipedia editors as “Albanian nationalists” - you do know that falls under WP:ASPERSIONS, right? Assuming WP:BADFAITH because a number of editors disagree with you is not really in-line with Wikipedia policy.

  Your sources have shown nothing so far that warrants a change in the article - the real Kuçi, not brotherhoods that were absorbed into the tribe at later dates, are of Albanian origin. That’s even been verified genetically. I can see that your userpage is full of many Serbo-Montenegrin motifs, including things from the Kuçi, so I get that this is a very sensitive topic for you. At some point, you just have to accept that the actual Kuçi are of Albanian origin. I don’t know if you are part of the Kuçi or not, but by all means, that’s what archival documents, modern academic sources and genetic research reveal. Botushali (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  No matter how civil you pretend to be

  I don't pretend to be, i am. This conversation is pretty civil, from my side.

  there are quite literally receipts of you referring to fellow Wikipedia editors as “Albanian nationalists” - you do know that falls under WP:ASPERSIONS,

  casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence

  There was evidence. But that's not the topic.

  Your sources have shown nothing so far that warrants a change in the article - the real Kuçi, not brotherhoods that were absorbed into the tribe at later dates, are of Albanian origin.

  The real Kuči, are the brotherhoods that formed tribe at the end of 15th century.

  People you are talking about, Nenad and his sons, are from the village of Kuç. There is a possibility that some of them moved to current region of Trieshi, according to oral legends person named Grča. There is no data on their ethnic affiliations, only a fact that family of a guy called Nenad lived in Albanian katun of Ljesh Tuzi, which is a fact we all agree on.

  We can discuss the family itself, and talk about them, but they are not the only brotherhood that was part of tribe creation, but they are possibly the ones who gave the name to it.

  What all sources, yours and mine show is this:

  1. First mention of a tribe in current region is in 1455. where it was part of Zetski Zbor. One of the points was that region should be orthodox, and no catholic priests would be allowed. That data shows Kuči as only a small settlement, surrounded by villages and brotherhoods that would later be part of it.

  2. First population census shows mixed anthroponyms. Nearly half-half split with many mixed too.

  3. First report on language (the one translated by Xhufi) shows that at the beginning of 17th century, they were orthodox and spoke Illyric language (which was term for language Slavs used up until 19th century) - Keep in mind, reports from early 17th century are contradicting each other on religion. For example, this report calls tribe orthodox, but at the same times there are reports of Lale Drekalov ruling over "Chuzzi Albanesi", while another report quotes that the tribe is again, a half-half split in terms of religion.

  4. There was an influx of settlers, from 15th to 17th century, as soon as the second defter hit during the 15th century.

  That’s even been verified genetically.

  Let's talk about WP:RS while you are going to get your POV from 7 people doing DNA test, and then use that DNA test to form an opinion on someones ethnicity, because blood == ethnicity i guess.

  I can see that your userpage is full of many Serbo-Montenegrin motifs, including things from the Kuçi, so I get that this is a very sensitive topic for you. At some point, you just have to accept that the actual Kuçi are of Albanian origin. I don’t know if you are part of the Kuçi or not, but by all means, that’s what archival documents, modern academic sources and genetic research reveal.

  This is the same thing as me editing out the article, having few people to revert any changes and tell you "well, you will just have to accept that the actual Kuči are of mixed origin"

  I still don't think we are discussing the same thing. By all means, if you have sources on family of guy called Nenad, who lived in a village called Kuç, create an article and write about them and their origin. I could help with sources.

  This is the article for Kuči tribe. A tribe formed at the end of 15th century, by a mix of brotherhoods. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OR, please stick to RS and provide specific reliable sources for the points you make. Do not treat Wikipedia like a WP:FORUM. Alltan (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Read the article, it's not something i just made up.

  If you think that the article origin section is not reliable, we should probably rewrite it :)

  First mention of a tribe in current region is in 1455. where it was part of Zetski Zbor. One of the points was that region should be orthodox, and no catholic priests would be allowed. That data shows Kuči as only a small settlement, surrounded by villages and brotherhoods that would later be part of it.

  Rastislav Petrović cites it as a first date Kuči were mentioned as part of Zetski Zbor agreement, but clarifies that: still can't be called a tribe. His opinion on tribe creation also lies within the last few decades of the 15th century.

  Do you have any other documents on the Kuči in the current region that predate this?

  First population census shows mixed anthroponyms. Nearly half-half split with many mixed too.

  Pulaha, Selami (1975). "Kontribut për studimin e ngulitjes së katuneve dhe krijimin e fiseve në Shqipe ̈rine ̈ e veriut shekujt XV-XVI' [Contribution to the Study of Village Settlements and the Formation of the Tribes of Northern Albania in the 15th century]". Studime Historike. 12: 94–5.

  A source from the article itself.

  First report on language (the one translated by Xhufi) shows that at the beginning of 17th century, they were orthodox and spoke Illyric language (which was term for language Slavs used up until 19th century) - Keep in mind, reports from early 17th century are contradicting each other on religion. For example, this report calls tribe orthodox, but at the same times there are reports of Lale Drekalov ruling over "Chuzzi Albanesi", while another report quotes that the tribe is again, a half-half split in terms of religion.

  nulla di meno essegno quasi tutti del rito serviano, e di lingua Illrica ponno piu presto dirsi Schiavoni, ch' Albanesi - Xhufi, Pëllumb (2013). "Përkime shqiptaro-malazeze në mesjetë".

  Again, in the article itself, you can read it.

  There was an influx of settlers, from 15th to 17th century, as soon as the second defter hit during the 15th century.

  Karl Kaser, Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden (1992).

  Also, it's in the article itself, feel free to read it again.

  So it's not WP:FORUM Setxkbmap (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Right so you are combining Petrovic because he said the tribe wasnt formed yet, Pulaha because the tribe had Slavic names alongside majority Albanians, and Kaser who said Serbs came later, therefore you got to the conclusion that the tribe is of mixed origin? Alltan (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have all those sources + Bojka who is tertiary source (nothing is wrong with that, there are tertiary sources in the article right now and i don't mind).

  And of course there are other sources like Sobolev who claim same thing, in a few sentences as well.

  As i've been advised by administrators: The synthesis part will be key

  The comment i made up there is actual data we have.

  First religion mentioned: Orthodox

  First language mentioned: Slavic

  First nahiya mentioned: Mixed anthroponyms

  First settlers mentioned: Mixed, except for the second defter which added a few brotherhoods that were Slavic. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  What you are doing is called WP:SYNTH (part of WP:OR but I think you should know that)

  Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

  I repeat from the policy

  Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

  Sobolev directly cites Erdeljanovic, who is not RS, and his view on Koja and Albanised Serbs makes him WP:FRINGE regarding this view.

  Administrators mentioned synth as its something you SHOULD NOT do, they didn't encourage it. Alltan (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am not combining info from those sources, i am just saying that there is a reason why some scholars hold view that the tribe was of mixed origin.

  Those sources also need to be supported by other sources, all of which show some mix of cultures, be it in religion, names or language. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  That’s the equivalent of me asking for Pastrovici to say they’re an Albanian tribe because they used Besa and Kanun and had Albanians among them, and one of their leaders had an Albanian name.

  Why don’t I do that? Because there is no scholarly consensus! And Wikipedia reflects that. In cases where there is an academic consensus, such as Kuçi, Wikipedia will reflect that also, just as it does right now. Alltan (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  That’s the equivalent of me asking for Pastrovici to say they’re an Albanian tribe because they used Besa and Kanun and had Albanians among them, and one of their leaders had an Albanian name.

  Did Paštrovići ever have a defter or any other kind of census that will show population that is split? I mean, current article for Paštrovići still states that some writers think that they are of Albanian origin. That is a fine way of stating stuff.

  Why don’t I do that? Because there is no scholarly consensus! In cases where there is an academic consensus, such as Kuçi, Wikipedia will reflect that also, just as it does right now

  And there's no scholarly consensus here. There are sources that tell one story, and sources that tell another.

  The only reason article reflects that, is because the small majority of 4-5 editors agree on that. But alas, WP:DEMOCRACY. Also, what should scholars base their opinion on, if not on census data, language, religion and current state of the tribe? What are your scholars basing their opinions? Star positions? They all form opinions based on what they read about the tribe itself, none of the opinions are made up based on air quality and star positions, they all form it on data we have on the tribe itself, which is nicely presented in this article as well.Setxkbmap (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  If such a debate in academia existed you wouldn’t bring up unusable sources to back it up. You literally have 2 sources which are too old, 1 which is based off Erdeljanovic and is fringe, 1 which is Kaser which doesn’t mention anything reagrding the formation of the tribe specifically, 1 tertiary source and 1 self published source.

  Yeah, scholarly consensus exists. Wether some of us like it and need to resort to scraping the barrel to find anything contrary to it is… what it is. Alltan (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Pastrovici doesn’t have defters but that is irrelevant since Albanians always carried Slavic names, so a tribe like Rogami, Bytadosi, Mataguzi will appear to have mixed Slavic Albanian names, but consensus is that they were Albanian tribes.

  My honest advice is that WP:SYNTH is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia and that vehemently insisting in resorting to it is… unproductive. Alltan (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  If such a debate in academia existed you wouldn’t bring up unusable sources to back it up. You literally have 2 sources which are too old, 1 which is based off Erdeljanovic and is fringe, 1 which is Kaser which doesn’t mention anything reagrding the formation of the tribe specifically, 1 tertiary source and 1 self published source.

  Current sources that claim Albanian sources are what?

  You can stack up 10 more sources to this, but having a source that is being cited that is 6 words long "die Kuči (heute meist serbis. Albaner)." is laughable.

  Also, i added all the publishers to the sources i wanted to add, none of which are self published. There's always a publisher :) Setxkbmap (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

• Strong oppose adding any sources which do not cover the elementary criteria of WP:RS like Stanojević, Rašović, Petrovic (self-published or outdated). Other edits are part of the normal editing procedure and can not be accepted or rejected by "voting". @Maleschreiber I know this is not an RfC because it does not have a question that can be decided in RfC, but I still want to write my comment in a support or oppose format.

Durraz0 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

adding any sources which do not cover the elementary criteria of WP:RS like Stanojević, Rašović, Petrovic (self-published or outdated).

Agreed about Stanojević, RS noticeboard also said that it's not WP:RS, rest are ok. There are also 3 other sources that are in there, and Rastislav Petrović who was just way too long to cite, but i can add him too.

I know this is not an RfC because it does not have a question that can be decided in RfC

Should the origin be changed to mixed, based on sources

It's a pretty simple question. If you feel like it's not worded properly, i can change it to "Should the origin section of article be rewritten" but i've already asked other editors whether they think my RfC is properly worded and got confirmation that it's ok. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

All Kuçi and Trieshi descend from a single lineage and these clans are patrilineal. There isn't a single Slavic, non-Albanian lineage among the Kuçi. There's never going to be in the future any study which will claim "mixed" Albanian and Slavic origins about Kuçi, because this doesn't correspond to the data we have.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

All Kuçi and Trieshi descend from a single lineage and these clans are patrilineal.

Sorry, but no. Not even all Trieshi are descended from a single lineage, as Triepshi (tribe) article states.

Trieshi is not a fis (tribe) of the same patrilineal ancestry.

There's never going to be in the future any study which will claim "mixed" Albanian and Slavic origins about Kuçi, because this doesn't correspond to the data we have.

Sorry, but there already is, and the data is already there. Setxkbmap (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are either deliberately misinterpreting the sources or are misunderstanding them. The only alright source you have posted is Kaser and he says nothing about Serbs contributing to the formation of the tribe. If he does quote it to me. Just don't sprinkle in original research.

Ohh and please don't mistranslate Xhufi's translation, he has provided an Albanian translation of the document too and both translate the same. If you don't like the way Xhufi translates it, see WP:JDL. Alltan (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are either deliberately misinterpreting the sources or are misunderstanding them. The only alright source you have posted is Kaser and he says nothing about Serbs contributing to the formation of the tribe.

Actually, Kaser talks about katun, not a tribe. He literally states that katun was small, but then expanded due to Serbian settlers who quickly integrated and adopted the name. The source itself goes hand in hand with the info currently in the article, and that is that the tribe didn't exist until later part of 15th century. Pretty nice how some documents and sources can be used in combination, to provide much needed information about the origin of the tribe, through the power of cohesion.

As for you not liking other sources, too bad, check WP:JDL

Ohh and please don't mistranslate Xhufi's translation, he has provided an Albanian translation of the document too and both translate the same.

Sorry, you should verify that translation, try some noticeboard because the current translation is not reliable. For all the trouble i had going through noticeboards, maybe you should help with strenghtening this article by checking out with other neutral editors whether google translate is good enough. Setxkbmap (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove that a well-established academic author is mistranslating documents. You can find another academic and reliable source that states what Xhufi translates is incorrect, which it isn’t. Botushali (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I will. In the end, Xhufi is till kinda ok with that translation, as it is first written document on the language of the tribe (Slavic). I just don't think it's "soon" but "rather".

I will check it! Setxkbmap (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi is RS, RSN have been made on him and he is one of the most qualified authors on the subject.

As for Kaser, I can tell very well what he says, but I also know he doesn't say what you claim he does. Which you have to know, since he is not reffering to any tribes formation, he uses the word Katun, and refers to Kuçi in this way, an Albanian Katun. Alltan (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually no. He talks about the then forming tribe of Kuči in the current region of Trieshi. That's why he uses 1455. in his text (first written records of Kuči in that area, and the first written records of the brotherhood/tribe at that time). And to top it off, he talks about same settlers as all the other sources i have provided talk about, that joined new katun and formed Kuči tribe. Setxkbmap (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to give us the quote by Kaser then where he talks about how the tribe formed. Specifically that is what you are claiming he does, so show it. Alltan (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Xhufi has published a recent academic paper specifically focusing on the Kuči/Kuçi: Xhufi, Pëllumb (2021). "Brda, or Bardha?". Studia Albanica. 2: 25–42. ISSN 0585-5047. There is absolutely no evidence in primary documents of an origin other than Albanian. The original ethnicity is never put in question. On the other hand, the acculturation process that affected Kuči/Kuçi's faith from Catholic to Orthodox is well documented. – Βατο (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, i'm glad you were called.

  And we both agree on the second part. From orthodox, to mixed, to orthodox again, it was never part of this question. The only thing wrong with the quote was the wrong translation. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The first reference we have about the Drekalovici mentions as Catholics. The families which lived in the nahiye of Kuci aren't Kuci by definition while some who are Kuci seem to have been Muslims since a very early era. There is no linear religious shift from any to any religion. If an article which will cover the topic is ever published, it'll probably describe multiple conversions on all directions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The first reference we have about the Drekalovici mentions as Catholics.

First mentions of Kuči themselves show them as an orthodox tribe in the current region of it. First mentions of Drekalovići is a conflicting report from Bolizza who says that Lale Drekalov rules over Albanian Kuči, and that goes against report from Bizzi who even in 1610. states tribe was mixed.

Although, i agree that Lale Drekalov was Catholic himself.

The families which lived in the nahiye of Kuci aren't Kuci by definition while some who are Kuci seem to have been Muslims since a very early era.

Kuči is a tribe of multiple brotherhoods, not all of which have same origin. The brotherhoods that are found in Kuči nahiya didn't dissapear to make room for one brotherhood to form a tribe.

There is no linear religious shift from any to any religion. If an article which will cover the topic is ever published, it'll probably describe multiple conversions on all directions.

There's no article, of course, i am trying my best not to go into WP:OR here but there is a proof of a tribe being orthodox in the 15th century, and then we know that there were many Catholics in the 16th and early 17th century. So there were definitely some shifts.

But i am afraid that the articles and books will not be written about 16th century of this tribe, as we don't have reports from that period, other than the Lazzaro Soranzo who also stated that amongst tribes of current Brda region and Kelmendi, there were many Albanian Catholics. His full quote does include these tribes in the description of "Serb nation", but the last part is crucial to see that religiously even in 16th century tribe was mixed. Setxkbmap (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Petrovic

R. Petrovic (1981), a source which by definition isn't RS was being cited for statements already supported by reliable sources. I have removed it because it wasn't being used and it is questionable.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Petrović is a historian with a PhD in that field. It's not questionable, it's used, and you are removing quotes that are supported both by him, and by Đurđev.

Also, trying to implement citations from agriculture professor who is not an expert in the topic we are discussing, but removing citations from Đurđev and removing Petrović completely is not ok.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't change facts. Sorry. Please refrain from further removals of this kind. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alltan feel free to enter discussion. What's wrong with him?

I mean, he is a historian, he has a PhD, he's not self published, he's not Erdeljanović/Cvijić, so what's the goalpost now?

I do my best to not include ANYTHING you deem not worthy, or not reliable, as i want to compromise, but cmon, trying to remove RS just because you don't like it is not cool at all. Author is clearly reliable, and if you have any complaints use noticeboard as i have. I don't think removal of him is constructive at all, and i do still hold a feeling that it was removed due to sentence "Up until the end of the 15th century, the Kuči had not formed as a tribe.". Maleschreiber will say that he added it 4 years ago, but you still removed it few days ago because you had no source. Now you have 2 for that line. Just because you don't like it anymore, doesn't mean that it should be removed. Nobody brought up any problems with him up until yesterday, and he was in an article for years, and was discussed here too.

Setxkbmap (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Petrovic (1981) is not RS and cannot be used in the article. In your edit you removed Mulic (2005) who is RS and re-instated 19th century and early 20th century publications in the bibliography section. They're not used anywhere in the article and they're not RS, hence don't add them back. Petrovic (1981) is not required anywhere in the article and you added him only as a citation for a single sentence, which I wrote 4 years ago. I wrote this sentence based on the which that existed during that period. In itself, as an opinion, it is already backed up in the article by Djurdjev (1984) and I've rephrased it as According to Djurdjev, up until the end of the second half of the 15th century, the Kuči had not formed as a tribe. The opinion is, however, absolutely false. The ancestor of all Kuçi and Trieshi lived around 1300 CE, if not earlier. In the span of maybe 50 years in the 14th century, Kuçi and Trieshi start to appear a distinct lineages which have the same ancestor who lived around 1300 CE. This occurred in the early 14th century. As such, all Kuçi today descend from brotherhoods which existed in the early 14th century and they certainly didn't form in the late 15th century. They formed at least 100 years earlier.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Petrovic (1981) is not RS and cannot be used in the article. Why? Krisitor (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not an academic publication and as such it can't be used for anything more than secondary statements. There is a difference between someone publishing his work in an academic context and publishing it in a non-academic context. I've used Djurdjev (1984) to include this opinion as a compromise solution but it can't be added in the article as a fact which has academic consensus based on a source like Petrovic (1981). This is a statement which I first wrote but research has shown in the last 4 years that it's absolutely false in all possible ways.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not an academic publication and as such it can't be used for anything more than secondary statements. A monograph written by a historian recognized in his field does not have to be published in an academic context to be accepted. Or else we'd have to remove a large proportion of the references from Wikipedia articles. Krisitor (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The non-academic context in this case is the late Yugoslav, nationalist publications space. All such publications have been removed over the years. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a book published in 1981 by Narodna Knjiga, a respectable publishing house at the time. It's not a book of the 1990s, or even of the late 1980s, which is a indeed a problematic period, but even if it were, that wouldn't make it necessarily a non-RS. Krisitor (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is there is so much insistence to include a book which doesn't have academic credentials? Rastislav Petrovic is the author of books like Zavera Protiv Srba (Conspiracy against the Serbs). This may pass as RS in Serbian Wikipedia, but such authors aren't RS by the standards of this wikipedia.Alltan (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the relibility of Petrović's publication, which seems not to be the case, the article is currently contradicting itself, because it states "up until the end of the second half of the 15th century, the Kuči had not formed as a tribe" but also: "In 1455 the Kuči partook in an assembly alongside 50 other tribes of the Upper Zeta region", which implies that it has been already a tribe at least since the first half of the 15th century. Reliable sources should be consulted to clarify such inconsistency. – Βατο (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no contradiction: the people listed in the 1455 agreement were villages and katuns, nothing more. There were no tribes yet, which were formed as a result of the territorialization process following the disappearance of feudal state structures after the Ottoman conquests. Krisitor (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Βατο

Krisitor is correct, even Đurđev and Petrović state that Kuči were mentioned as a settlement or a village in 1455. still not as a tribe. Villages surrounding Kuči at that time later became parts of Kuči tribe, when it formed between first and second defter according to Đurđev. Setxkbmap (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The book you refer to was published by Petrović during the problematic period of the 1990s (actually, in 1990 to be exact). That doesn't make his 1981 book a bad one, as it contains no nationalist references and, in fact, it contains some very valuable information about Kuči history, some of which should be included in this article. There are other academics, Serbian or otherwise, who have been caught up in the net of nationalism, this does not mean that their work before the Yugoslav wars is not valid. I would conclude this dead-end discussion with this simple observation: you refuse to use Petrović (1981) as a reference while agreeing to use an author as problematic and little recognized as Xhufi. All this added to your edit warring habits. It leaves one wondering. Krisitor (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alltan @Krisitor @Maleschreiber

Ok, info for all of you:

1. Rastislav Petrović is an academic source, as a matter of fact, his book was written from the doctor dissertation that he used to get his PhD, which was on Kuči tribe.

2. Maleschreiber keeps insisting on a year of publishing, there is a newer one from 2001. if you feel like that would make your life easier, i can cite that version.

3. Other books, such as "Conspiracy against Serbs" write about WW1 and WW2, talking most about Ustaše regime (which was supported by a fascist government of Montenegri during WW2, and he wrote a book about that too called "Crnogorske Ustaše" or "Montenegrin Ustaše", talking about Sekula Drljević), and Bulgarian occupations of Serbia. It's not actually a conspiracy, it's a bombastic title, which still doesn't make this one any less relevant or reliable.

4. You saying "A NATIONALIST PUBLICATION SPACE" is as relevant as me saying that Xhufi will always push Albanian nationalistic views, and is not neutrla. Your opinion about it is invalid. Will there be any other author than Đurđev that we can cite? Erdeljanović and Cvijić are too old, but the problem with them were that they were nationalist. Now, we can't use modern historians because they are nationalists in your opinion, because you didn't use any noticeboard. You can't remove sources because you don't like them.

5. Earliest known ancestor is from 14th century, oldest ancestor of every single human is way older than that, it won't matter if ancestor of Kuči was found in 2nd century BC, as the TRIBE wasn't formed until much later. And it's not "according to Đurđev", there's been quite a few people holding that as a fact, so there is some consensus. Đurđev, who you prefer as he is much more neutral in talking about the origin in ethnic terms, and can't be used to propose ideas that you don't like, didn't like Rastislav Petrović one bit, and debated with him on certain points. Đurđev also thought that Erdeljanović was limited. Yet, even in disagreement he came to the same conclusion and that is that the tribe is formed in the latter part of 15th century.

6. Mulić can't be used as the problem with Predrag Petrović (not Rastislav) was that he is an expert in a field of some kind of engineering. I accepted that as a wish of users such as @Lezhjani1444, as i wanted to compromise. Mulić is an agriculture professor. I am sorry, but if he is included, Predrag can be too.

7. You are constantly edit warring and vandalising, while at the same time you move goalpost for something to be an RS. First it was just the age issue, and i can agree on that. Then it was "expert in the field" issue, which i also kinda can agree to (many sources in the article were not experts at all, but still i wanted to compromise). Now, you say that even if he has PhD, even if he is an EXPERT IN THE FIELD because this was Rastislav's PhD dissertation, he still can't be seen as a RS because he doesn't agree with Xhufi? Or Idriz Ajeti? Sorry, but that's not how it works. You claim some big consensus, while there is none. Đurđev and Rastislav agree on this, they disagree on other things. Xhufi and Ajeti can disagree with Đurđev or Rastislav Petrović, and they will still stay RS.

8. If you keep vandalizing and treating this article as your own, i will report vandalism. You can't just say "I REMOVED PER TALK PAGE", as there is NOTHING in the talk page, you didn't do anything other than explain your POV and then revert it to your change. Setxkbmap (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Rastislav Petrović is an academic source, as a matter of fact, his book was written from the doctor dissertation that he used to get his PhD, which was on Kuči tribe. I know. Krisitor (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• In the early 1990s individuals in the SPC also publicly started exhibiting readiness for war. In September 1991 the future bishop of Mileševo, Filaret, had his picture taken with a machine gun in hand, near the Komogovine monastery in Croatia (between Glina and Kostajnica). In the picture that circled the globe, standing beside Father Filaret was one of the Serbian academicians, Rastislav Petrović, proving metaphorically that the Serbian Church and Serbian Academy together set out on the state-building adventure that would cost the Serbs dearly.(Tomanić 2001) This is the image of Bishop Filaret and Rastislav Petrovic [10] in 1991 in Croatia. This author cannot be included in the article as just another source.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Xhufi Pellumb relativized child death camps, also had claims that "national union of Albanians is inevitable", arguing that the Albanians of Albania have a blood, a history and a culture with the Albanians of Kosovo and other Albanians.

  So, even Xhufi can be a nationalist if you look hard enough. Still, he is in the article, as what his opinions about other stuff is irrelevant. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• {f you don't remove the sentence referring to children yourself, your edit will be reported as defamatory material. Your comment is a classic case of WP:WHATABOUT and Xhufi has been discussed in several RSNs and he hasn't been involved in any situation like Rastislav Petrovic.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am not saying "WHAT ABOUT HIM", i am actually saying that opinions outside his scope of work are irrelevant to me. As you can see, i never removed any of his sources. It's not defamatory, as all of that is stated on his wikipedia. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with Xhufi. When RS bibliography exists on the bias and the unreliability of an author - in this case what Tomanić wrote in 2001 - the author in question (Petrovic) shouldn’t be used on Wikipedia. Botushali (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it does. If we are setting rules, we need to follow them.

  And Tomanić talks of no bias, sorry, as we can see there are other historians agreeing with him such as Đurđev.

  Again, book was written before wars, his PhD dissertation even earlier than that (book was based on it). Setxkbmap (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  And which academic author has written a work critiquing Xhufi? It’s non-existent. Xhufi stating that Albanians from Kosovo and Albania proper have the same blood, history, culture etc is not an indication of unreliability - it’s actually a fact. Besides, you keep trying to drag Xhufi into the conversation to distract people from the reality of how problematic Petrovic is as an author, stick to what is being discussed.

  Đurđev is from the same period if I’m not mistaken. It’s not a modern author agreeing with him.

  It’s not typical for Wikipedia articles to cite PhD dissertations, they’re not exactly the strongest sources you can find. Botushali (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  And which academic author has written a work critiquing Xhufi? It’s non-existent. Xhufi stating that Albanians from Kosovo and Albania proper have the same blood, history, culture etc is not an indication of unreliability - it’s actually a fact. Besides, you keep trying to drag Xhufi into the conversation to distract people from the reality of how problematic Petrovic is as an author, stick to what is being discussed.

  Tomanovic didn't write a work critiquing Petrovic, and i don't know if there is someone crituquing Xhufi. Tomanovic wrote a work that critiques church and the support it received from academic community of then Yugoslavia. Tomanovic mentioned Rastislav and it's support of "national union" of Serbs :) Also, the topic of Rastislav supporting Serbs in Croatia has nothing to do with the book itself, which talks about Kuči tribe, nor do the citations currently in the article show any nationalism. Sorry

  Xhufi saying that all Albanians will form "national union" is a bit problematic, just like Rastislavs. But, as i've said, that doesn't affect his work, just like Rastislav siding with his country in the Yugo wars doesn't affect what he wrote much before the war.

  It’s not typical for Wikipedia articles to cite PhD dissertations, they’re not exactly the strongest sources you can find.

  That's why we are not citing PhD dissertation, but the book that is based on it. Setxkbmap (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: After re-reading the discussion, I do not see the point in having Petrovic (1981) in the article as he is a heavily-disputed source, particularly when the same assertions can be cited with other sources. The "compromise version" is fine. Botushali (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I can accept the change and introduction of the statement by Djurdjev as In 1455, the Kuči, although unclear if they had formed a territorial unit or tribe yet,[27] partook in an assembly alongside 50 other tribes of the Upper Zeta region. This phrasing reflects in a better way the original citation: Кучи се 1455. године спомињу као самостална јединица, али Ердељановић има право кад исказује сумњу да су они у то време већ формирано племе [In 1455, Kuchi are mentioned as an independent unit, but Erdeljanović is right to express doubt that they were already a fully formed tribe at that time. I do have to repeat that all such statements are wrong as we know that all Kuçi brotherhoods began to branch around 1300, not in 1450 or 1485. Territorialization is another subject which isn't related to the date of the formation of the tribe itself.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Language

Language in the introduction has been described as Montenegrin and Serbian Cyrillic since 2020. Three editors (Setxbmap/Krisitor/Sadko) have been removing Montenegrin from the introduction and replacing it with "Serbo-Croatian". The version which has been the consensus version for the last 4 years is such in order to include Montenegrin, which is how a significant part of Kuçi/Kuči identify the language they speak. Any further removal of the term "Montenegrin" without any consensus in the introduction will lead to discussions via admin oversight. Maleschreiber (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please avoid using WP:INTIMIDATION here, not only will it not work, as no one is afraid of you, but it is also a blatant violation of Wikipedia guidelines. And bring all the admins you want, so they can notice how you've been edit warring for weeks on this page, please do so. Krisitor (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You're using WP:INTIMIDATION as an argument here, as if this testimony of yours does not exist:

"This is the last warning before you get reported" [1]. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:INTIMIDATION from (Maleschreiber's side that is), but the bigger problem is that you tried to force a major change about language on the lead without any discussion at all. You've edit-warred about it, but until this section, which explains why this has been the long-standing consensus none of you tried to explain why you think that Montenegrin should be removed from the lead. Alltan (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator intervention is needed to confirm if there is tag teaming and stonevalling going on to protect this page and push POV narrative that this is Albanian tribe.. 154.14.61.107 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

makin accusation against others will get you banned for life. I give you my Besa that you will be banned for pushing Serbian POV nationalist Kosovar genocide rhetoric. KustrimiAbdu (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Damn, this is getting reported. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what happens when users treat the talk page like their own personal forum, again and again, even after being told to stop. Alltan (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Fake account. This conversation has devolved entirely. Whoever keeps creating socks, grow up. Botushali (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I already reported it on admin noticeboard, and asked Maleschreiber to create request for sock investigation. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to create an account and report it if you feel like it. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This will got to SPI and we'll see who created this account.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Setxkbmap (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That same guy made a new topic on my talk page titled "k" and said this - "faleminderit vëlla për gjithë ndihmën tuaj". He basically said thank you for all your help. I said no problem but I wasn't sure what he meant by "help" I thought maybe all my contributions to wikipedia but I'm not sure. I also think he used google translate to even write this on my talk page. I don't know if this helps in reporting his account but just bringing it to your guys attention. Arberian2444 (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The new account issue has been solved.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

the biggest problem is that you tried to impose a major change on the language without any discussion That's not what I did, I restored RS content that you, Maleschreiber and others keep deleting day after day through edit wars and WP:STONEWALLING. The language change was included because of the use of twinkle and undo, nothing more, and Maleschreiber knows this perfectly well, hence the WP:INTIMIDATION flag. And unlike you Alltan, I didn't deliberately hide the removal of sourced content (Đurđev) in the few reverts I've made in recent days. Krisitor (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Krisitor: Djurdjev is in the article. He hasn't been removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

But the Montenegrin academy and Zdravko Ivanovic citations were deleted.

It's not "according to Đurđev" there's more sources than that. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No, they are not. [11] Durraz0 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

?

Can't seem to find Zdravko Ivanovic there, nor the Historical institute of University of Montenegro. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed Ivanovic. You misused the source and misrepresented what he was saying - in fact, he was quoting another author, he wasn’t even writing out his own conclusions in the quote you gave. Besides, the quote talked about when the tribal territory was consolidated, not when the tribe actually formed, yet you included it as a source for the latter. Botushali (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I changed that citation to another one.

You have to read stuff before you actually revert it, sorry. Your revert was valid, i updated citation, and then it was reverted for no reason.

Ivanovic clearly states that Kuči nahiya formed a tribe. It's his opinion, conclusion, call it whatever you like. It's not citation of other authors.

So yeah, please read. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the quote from Ivanovic? The one I removed had nothing of the sorts. Botushali (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course.

The Nahija of Kuči eventually grew into a tribe over time. From the process of the formation of the Kuči tribe, we can draw the following conclusion: the fundamental and oldest embryonic core of the gathering of the Kuči population was the town of Medun.

Also, Historical institute of University of Montenegro also states talks about growth period from 15th to 19th century. Which was also removed. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No idea - I didn’t remove these quotes. Botushali (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That why i didn't tag you, but actually talked to Durraz0 Setxkbmap (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So @Durraz0? Setxkbmap (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed some quotes which didn’t actually support the sentence they were cited for. Source precision is crucial - of those three quotes, only Durdev actually says explicitly that he believes the tribe formed in the 15th century. Botushali (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ivanovic is pretty exact. He states that Kuči formed from turkish nahiya, which was created during 15th century. Do we have to have exact word for word to cite people now?

Because if that's so, i think origin section might have a big rewrite soon. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ivanovic could have his own line attributed to him, stating that he believes that the tribe formed from the Nahiya. He doesn’t need to be added to Durdev’s sentence in which they don’t explicitly say the same thing. Botushali (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, use this quote from him then, it's more exact.

U okviru ove turske nahije (1485), na teritoriji koja je predsta - vljala geografsko-privredno jedinstvo, razvila se pleme nska organizacija Kuča.

translated:

Within this Turkish nahiyah (1485), on the territory that represented a geographical and economic unity, the tribal organization of Kuči developed.

This one is better, per your request, as it states exact number. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

btw i don't think he should get his own line, it's a scientific consensus, feel free to reimplement him like before. Thanks! Setxkbmap (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine, i will do it... Setxkbmap (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The so-called "Franciscan Report"

The text where it talks about the Kuči origin doesn't say that they should be soon called Albanians, if you would have translated it right, it would say that the people of Bratonozici are of Serbian rite which talks about they're tradition and religion and by Illyrian language it was referred to the different Slavic dialects, and this report wan not from a franciscan but from Mariano Bolizza. Serviano208 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)