Talk:Vasojevići/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Albanian Origin

@Boki As per MOS:LEAD, the fact that the tribe is of Albanian origin (which is very clearly explained and described in the article) is integral to their existence and an important contextual fact. As such, it should be included within the first line of the lead. Botushali (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No primary source mentions Vasojevići as being of Albanian origin. The name Vasaj is a pure invention from Albanians scholars from the Hoxhaist era, which has unfortunately persisted since then. Vasojevići stems from Vasoje which, like every name in "-oje", is of Vlach origin. Check Petar Skok (a Croatian linguist). Now, does this mean than Vasojevići are Vlachs? Well, certainly, they were at least in part Vlachs, but when Ottomans arrived, they were already entirely slavicized. Check Pulaha's defter:

Fshati Reçica, emri tjetër Vasojeviq, varet nga Pipërët, timar i të sipërpërmendurit.

Radla, i biri i Kojçës

Danja, i biri i Vukashinit

Stepan Vladisaliqi

Nikolla, i biri i Bozhidarit

Vukosavi i madh

Popi, i biri i Stojës

Pavl Gërbasi

Petri, i biri i Stojës

Sladoja, i biri i Stoviqit

Nikaç Maço

Branko, i biri i Melkut

Radosav Hërçegoviq

Duka, i biri i Miloshit

Vukani, i biri i Gjorgjit

Tomjan Radona

Miomani, i biri i Stojës

Vuçiqi, i biri i Tinos

Vladisavi, i biri i Dimitrashinit

Well, absolutely no Albanian name around there, and a few Vlachs one (Danja and Tomjan, for example). And, more interestingly, two purely Serbian patronyms: Vladisalić and Hercegović. The last one which is a VERY rare patronym which originates from the Hercegović noble family. So, a newcomer from Bosnia. Finally, for Vasojevići, check a RS: Miomir Dašić, Vasojevići od pomena do 1860. godine. This is the latest (though alread a little dated) serious history on Vasojevići. And Ćirković has identified since then that Pulaha's Reçica was in fact Lijeva Rijeka, Vasojevići's homeland, based an a Ragusan archive (formerly, Dašić tought it was near Medun, he admitted his mistake after Ćirković's find). That was in the 2000s or 2010s, I don't remember exactly.

So, clearly, no Albanian origins there. Boki (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Boki here, but there is very few modern sources that say that the Vasojevići are of Slavic or Serbian origin, while some claim them to be of Albanian origin and Wikipedia relies on sources. Surix321 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have an opinion per se about the lead, but the change in the main section Due to similarities with Albanian tribes, some Albanian scholars consider that the Vasojevići are of Albanian origin is a major edit which requires consensus. For what it's worth, it's rather self-evident as of 2022 that the Vasojevici patrilineally aren't of Slavic origin, since their lineage was already present in the western Balkans much earlier than the medieval period.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Saying that "it's rather self-evident as of 2022" is a point of view, which is not based on sources. First, since Vasojevići are not of the same patrilineal ancestry, which is stated in the article, they come from several patrilineal lineages. Secondly, one if this ancestry is of that of the Hercegović noble family (as mentioned in Pulaha's defter translation), which was Slavic. Finally, recent genetical research has shown that a lot of other Vasojevići lineages do come, in fact, from Herzegovina, as was already known from the oral accounts (https://www.poreklo.rs/2018/04/07/rod-vasojevica/). One of these lineages may come from the Bobani, which was a slavicized Vlach clan from the Middle Ages, supporting the idea that the Vasojevići have a Vlach origin, at least in part. But since this genetical research is not academic but comes from Vasojevići members themselves, it can't be put in the WP article.

  Regarding the supposed Albanian origin, nothing indicates that it might be true, even in part, since there is no primary source which supports it. So, it can remain in the article, but then it is important to emphasize that this theory was issued by Albanian scholars and has very few supporters outside the Albanian academic circle. That's why I rewrote the paragraph, which is not that a major change, in my opinion. Boki (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: Boki, regarding the Wikipedia rules how to identify reliable sources in history, your opinion above is absolutely baseless. Keep in mind that generally any primary source is historical scholarship. Jingiby (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  A primary source is required in any historical scholarship of quality. Such primary sources, for the Middle Ages, can be textual (a defter, a charter, a biography, an inscription...), archelogical, artistic (a paint, a sculpture...) or numismatical (coins). However, all Albanian references asserting that Vasojevići are of Albanian origin do not rely on such sources, they just say "Vasojevići were Albanians" and invented the name Vasaj from nowhere. So, to keep these secondary sources in the article, we have to say that the so-called Albanian origins of Vasojevići are purely hypothetical and originate from Albanian scolarship, with vey few support outside. And that's precisely what I did, without removing any of the reference. Boki (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  " So, to keep these secondary sources in the article, we have to say that the so-called Albanian origins of Vasojevići are purely hypothetical and originate from Albanian scolarship, with vey few support outside." That's not how Wikipedia works I'm afraid. If there are no sources (be they primary, secondary or tertiary) that state the opposite on a subject, it stays in Wikivoice, which states:

  Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

  You have to either bring forward actual sources or you have to cease reverting further. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and it most certainly is not a forum. Alltan (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  As the page states, "Vasojevići is not a tribe (pleme) of common patrilineal ancestry, but was formed under the rule of a central tribe that extended its name to many other brotherhoods as it expanded in new territory." How can they be of albanian origin. How do we know that this tribe's brotherhoods were all of albanian origin which merged. From the defter Boki stated, it seems that the families are either Slavs or Vlachs, I do not see any albanian traces there. Except from YDNA being paleo balkanic (which can also mean they are vlachs). Surix321 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Катарина.1, there are only a few modern sources that claim the Vasojevići were of Slavic origin, while a lot of sources claim them to be of Albanian origin and Wikipedia relies on sources. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Rearranging or even deletion of sources and undervaluing the neutral at the expense of those that are biased is not an neutral point of view. Jingiby (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jingiby, I was only surprised to discover that the Albanian historiographical view, which is not the most specialized one regarding Montenegrin tribes, was the one that prevailed here. That is why I moved it down. I see that you put non-Albanian authors on top, but then Vucinich should also be put there since he'es a Western academic (he's a renowed American scholar) and he agrees with the ethnological school of the former Yugoslav historiography, which is one of the most widespread one in Western countries. 88.139.117.4 (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The article tries to rely on more recent sources which directly discuss the Vasojevici. The origins of the katund system are WP:OFFTOPIC. In fact, while this isn't discussed directly in the article as older sources are used (Vuchinich), the Vasojevici have a single origin as DNA research by the Serbian Geneaological Society has shown. There aren't different Vasojevici lineages - just one and it's definitely not Slavic.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is not about the origin of the katun social structure but of the Montenegrin (and Herzegovinian) tribal system, and as such about the Vasojevici tribe. The katun origin is only one of the theory coming from Yugoslav historiography. The sources I quoted speak about that, check what Zlatar says for example. Regarding genetic studies, they does mean a lot, are you really serious about that? Studying one's Y-DNA does not prevent their mother or grandmother from coming from somewhere else. Please, it's an encyclopaedia. Krisitor (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent their matrilineal ancestry to be something else and it probably will be something else, but these communities were organized patrilineally and in fact, most ethnic groups are organized patrilineally not matrilineally. In your edit about Avdo, you highlighted that he came from Rovčani and this is a statement which identified him with his direct patrilineal ancestry.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this post, hence my late reply. Whether Montenegrin tribes were originally organised patrilineally (by kinship, or by referring to a legendary common ancestor) or geographically is still a matter of debate among modern scholars who write on the subject (the different point of views were perfecly summarized by Zlatar in his 2007 book). The fact that the Vlach katun might be at the origin of Montenegrin and Herzgovinian tribes comes from Đurđev's 1952 thesis and this aspect of his demonstration has not been questioned by most historians to this day (check Šekular's articles, for example, but he's far from being the only one to refer to Đurđev). On the contrary, most anthropologists, following the initial works of Cvijić and his student Erdeljanović, consider that the tribes were already in place, i.e. geographically, when the Slavs settled in the Balkans. But even they do not claim that the Montenegrin tribes are of Albanian origin, they generally assume a partial Illyrian, Albanian or Vlach origin of some tribes, but with the clear mixture of a Slavic element. As Fine said, ethnicity didn't matter in those days and people mixed a lot. It is a known fact, for example, that Orthodox men from some Brda tribes used to marry Albanian catholic women until the 19th, or even 20th, century. Another example, this time in medieval Serbia: it has been proven for ages that during the Middle Ages, Serbs who wanted to avoid the harsh conditions of a farmer life fled to Vlach katuns where they mingled with the Vlach population, which further accelerated the process of Slavicization of these katuns. The same happened in northern Albania, where Vlach katuns were Albanized (the most obvious example are the Kelmendi, but one can guess that a large part of Albanian tribes from northern Albania originated from a mixture of Albanians and Vlachs, with a Slavic element, as Šufflay already said ages ago). These examples only serve to show you that attributing a single origin to a group of people, especially in the Balkans, is meaningless.

Like many Balkaners, you seem to be fond of genetic studies, but you should know that these studies are usually not academic and as such, prove nothing. Even an Albanian website dedicated to genetic studies that you're certainly aware of, Rrënjët[1], don't go so far as to claim that if some Brda tribes have paleo-Balkan ancestry, this means that they must be of Albanian origin:

The haplogroup composition suggests the Brda clans patrilineal descend mostly from the paleo-Balkan peoples that the Slavs encountered when they settled the area in the 6th-7th centuries. In fact, none of the six main lineages is of Slavic origin. Albanians are also primarily of the paleo-Balkan stock, however, not all pre-Slavic Balkan peoples evolved into Albanians (or proto-Albanians), so a subclade-level comparison is required to determine if the Brda tribes have Albanian or other paleo-Balkan ancestry.

Finally, since Wikipedia relies on sources, regarding the specific case of the Vasojevići, none of the eminent specialists of the tribe, such as Dašić or Oštojić, ever claimed that they were of Albanian origin, even "likely" as stated in the current Wikipedia article. Futhermore, it has been acknowledged that the Vasojevići were already Slavic-speaking when they are first mentioned in historical records. And on the dozens of names that appear in the defters of 1485 and 1497, Dašić showed that only few were Albanian, and they appear only in 1497. What does this prove about the origin of the tribe? Nothing at all. Thus, since the current paragraph on the origin of the tribe is flawed, since it presents only an Albanian POV without even mentioning any of the other theories, it is almost natural that this article, and in particular its Origin section, suffers from regular vandalism by people who do not understand why such an obvious POV has even been forced into the lead section. The issue is even more problematic when sourced content such as my edits are reverted, because what I had added comes from eminent academic studies from the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century. So, moving forward, I will propose my changes to the Origins section at some point, taking into account any comments you or others may have, and in the more distant future, I will do the same for all the other Brda tribes, whose articles suffer from the same defects. Krisitor (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Krisitor here. Surix321 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

False Claims

Vasojevići is not of Albanian origin, neither Albania existed before formation of tribe. Low educated people should know that Haplogroup E-V13 is not albanian origin. By that logic, Wright Brothers, who carried E-V13 by eupedia are also albanians? NOT! Baltazarvs (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single mention of E-V13 in any of the references in this article, the first person to mention it was you. the origins of vasojevici being stated as Albanian in this article is not determined by them being e-v13, but by the fact that WP:RS bibliography states so. Durraz0 (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Vasojevići having common relatives in Herzegovina and carrying much older and uncommon branch of E-V13 is not Albanian. That's on genetics side. Also, cloth of Vasojevići is not Albanian, but tipical dinaric cloth found through Dinaric mountains. And last, Vasojevici all carry Slavic names and were speaking Serbian way before your country existed. So neither is Vasojevići albanian, nor is God albanian. Baltazarvs (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources, not on personal opinions. Jingiby (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Only Albanian sources. I see no Serbian books stating albanian origin of tribe. :) Baltazarvs (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)