Talk:Vasojevići

why do non of my sources count as reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novodobaski (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Content

@Mikola22: @Sadko: I have removed the same content in every article that I have encountered it and as I have explained to Sadko elsewhere, no letter from that era could "show" nothing at all about a very modern national question. No 18th century document can show whether a Shtokavian-speaking Orthodox from Montenegro was "Montenegrin" (Montenegrin itself meant just "Old Montenegrin" at that point) or "Serb" (in the modern sense) because that division didn't exist yet. The same can be said about speakers of Torlakian. To ask whether they identified in a substantial manner as Bulgarians or Serbs or Macedonians would be incomprehensible in the 18th century.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Letter is WP:PRIMARY, this letter as such must not be used as a historical fact in Wikipedia article. What we have (useful for the article) in the source, is conclusion of historian based on several letters that Montenegrins are Serbs(I don't know if this information is allowed on Wikipedia) and that Vasojevići etc are not Montenegrins. Source does not mention that Vasojevići etc are Serb tribe which means that this term in the sentence is OR. Mikola22 (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise these are big conclusions, for this information "that Banjani, Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, Zećani, Vasojevići, Bratonožići are identified "only as Serb tribes" we need confirmation in a neutral source (english source). From Bjelopavlići article: "According to some sources they are an Albanian tribe". Mikola22 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

These articles are written from the WP:OUTDATED perspective of 19th century Serbian historiography. In light of modern bibliography, they should basically be rewritten. The irrelevancy of this sort of Serbian historiography in the contemporary world becomes glaring when you consider that both Bjelopavlići and Vasojevići samples in genomic studies are consistently not I2 or R1a subclades, but E-V13, which in the case of Bjelopavlići branched out from its paternal subclade very recently.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I am opposed to massive changes/removals performed by Maleschreiber without gaining consensus on the talpkage first. None of the sources used to support removed text belongs to 19th century Serbian historiography. I will revert this massive changes/removals, while editors struggling to perform them should seek consensus first.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Be opposed, but consensus is needed when there actually is a dispute, which the framework that policies provide, allows for. You, asking for the community to accept that an 18th century document can be interpreted in a way that addresses a 20th century discussion is WP:FRINGE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator You are the editor on Wikipedia and you must read the source first. You can't return something into article if is WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. First check in the source and then state your opinion clearly on talk page. You must not hide behind "consensus" when you don't even know what the source says or you don't care. Mikola22 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What Sadko&Ant are trying to put forward is similar to someone finding a document about old Norse people and then asking "does it call X subgroup Norwegian or Dane" as if that question had any meaningful content at that time. We're not going to have another typically essentialist discussion. Identities evolve and change over time.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What is WP:OR? Let's see. There is no "19th century Serbian historiography" here. I want details and explanations and not edit-warring and silly parallels. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Where in the source writes this: "were not identified as Montenegrins "but only as Serb tribes". Mikola22 (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There are quotes provided, some tweaks and new formulation can be introduced. It is properly sourced and important for the CONTEXT. What sort of problem do you really have with this part? Be honest. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: You don't see what information speaks? First, the source does not mention "but only as Serb tribes", and it is OR. Secondly, if this remains part of the article then every article which talk about Montenegrin tribes may have this information, but for such OR claim first we need confirmation in the source itself and then additional neutral confirmations in the sources because this is a big conclusion. When I put information for Albanian tribe Bjelopavlići you edit this article ( I have added the text in accordance with NPOV.) and this: "According to some sources they are an Albanian tribe". But in this article you support OR source(maybe and fringe) and "Serb tribe" fact. This is not right. Mikola22 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is it "OR"? Because you think so? "Big conclusion"? It makes very little sense.

Serb identity of Montenegrin, Brda and other tribes as well as Petrovic dynasty is a historical fact which does not need to be proven. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bjelopavlići are mentioned in the sources and as Albanians, here they are listed as a Serb tribe, "..Bjelopavlići, Zećani, Vasojevići, Bratonožići were not identified as "Montenegrins" but only as Serb tribes." "But only as Serb tribe" is OR because the source does not say so and "only" is big conclusion. If this is not true(big conclusion) you will prove it with other English sources because many or some sources mention these tribes. Just find information where sources say that all these tribes are "only a Serb tribes". And that's it, after you prove it with other sources, this information goes back to the article, until then it has a blockage. Mikola22 (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Serb identity of Montenegrin, Brda and other tribes as well as Petrovic dynasty is a historical fact which does not need to be proven. is the exact opposite of how wikipedia functions and in project which claims for itself to be part of a knowledge-generating process, in an academic or citizen science environment. There has to be reliable bibliography for any particular claim.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Just find information where sources say that all these tribes are "only a Serb tribes". For the quote about the tribes from Sadko, see, for example, where you can find that quote from Ivan Radonjic letters. As we are talking about Vasojevići, they are regarded as Serbian tribe in the literature, both foreign and the ones from Montenegro/Yugoslavia. And if historian even originates from the region and has done a relevant researches of it, then you got the bonus. For that, even the distinguished historians such as Radoslav Vešović and Milisav Lutovac (both of them even originated from the tribe itself), regard the tribe as Serbian. @Maleschreiber: And if you have done even more research from the literature, you will find out that for the members of the Vasojevići tribe in the 18th century, Serbian identity was very important for them as they fought for it and to unite with Serbia at first, but later united with Montenegro as it was closer. So, there is a reliable bibliography about the tribe and the only problem was that you weren't aware of it, which is fine. I recommend you to begin with Radoslav Vešović and his book Vasojevići Tribe, as you will find it quoted in a lot of literature which regards the tribe.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the inputs from @Mikola22: and @Maleschreiber:, and in the respect of what @Sadko: was saying, I brought back, changed that part in the text and added some references. I hope that in the future, this really minor issues will not be the focus of us, and instead to focus on how to improve the article with the regards of, for example, battles for liberation, customs and rich Serb Orthodox traditions of the tribe which I find more interesting.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

According to a memorandum sent on 20 June 1877, by the Austria-Hungary's Consul in Skodra F. Lippich to Vienna: The northern linguistic Albanian frontier runs from west to east, starting from the Adriatic coast somewhat below Antivari, above the mountain ridge and the northwestern corner of the Shkodër lake, following the Sem (Zem) upstream above Fundina through Kuči to Vasojević and Kolašin; the latter two districts, although Serbian-speaking in the majority, still seem to be in part of Albanian origin—perhaps the only instance of a slavization of Albanians. Jingiby (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Since we're going for primary sources with attribution of particular authors, good find @Jingiby:.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary's Consul is irrelevant. Is that person a respected scholar or a scientist? He was a representative of a country with serious political interest in the Balkans and with the goal of squashing the Serbian state and interest all over. I guess the joke was on them. :)

If this material is introduced and edit-warred over in order to push it to the article, which I can not approve as it's breaking several Wiki guidlines, I'll add the writings of Serbian consuls like Branislav Nušić and Milan Rakić about the citizens of the territory of Kosovo etc. It seems fair. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is Radonjic any different in that respect? If you want to be consistent, then you should yourself remove information about his reports too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Radonjic is different, as he is a representative of those people, as opposed for Austro-Hungarian consul who is a foreigner and representative of a foreign power. As for the primary sources, I find more relevant what the members of the tribe themselves have said about them, than Austro-Hungarian consul. For example, papers from that period, such as Montenegrin paper "Orlic": In Lower Vasojevici, there are 1800 houses, all Serbs and real Serbian heros. Or as a hero from that region, Jovan Stefanovic in his article said: We are all Slaveno-Serb people, and among us are: Vasojevici, Bratonozici, Kuci.... I just don't see where are we going with this discussion.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't use WP:OUTDATED or WP:PRIMARY on the basis of whether someone is "foreign" or "native". So, Radonjic can't be used either.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

And we didn't used Radonjic only as WP:OUTDATED or WP:PRIMARY, as the source in question was Nikola Vukcevic as secondary source, not the Radonjic's original letter. And as I said, he is significant as he was representative of them to a historically important person. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

According to a Serbian scientist Gordana Gorunović from the University of Belgrade and his article: "Mihailo Lalić and Serbian Ethnology: Ethnography and Mimesis of Patriarchal Society in Montenegrin Highlands", published in VOL 12 NO 4 (2017): ISSUES IN ETHNOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY, DOI:https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v12i4.10 pp. 1211-1212: Lalić originates from the Vasojević tribe, the largest Montenegrin-Highlands tribe. The Vasojević grouping was first mentioned in historical sources in 1444... At that time the Vasojević grouping has not fully formed a tribe yet, but was most likely a clan or fraternity of the type attributable to the so-called katun organization of Vlach and Albanian stock farmers. Jingiby (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@James Jim Moriarty: So is Lippich, but you removed his report. Wikipedia is built upon following the same standards about every part of bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Look here please, on p. 1212: According to folk sagas, the Vasojevićs were fictively kindred to the Montenegrin tribes of Ozrinići and Piperi and the northern Albanian Krasniçi and Hoti. These tribes were allegedly originating from five brothers, Ozro, Pipo, Vaso,Kraso and Oto (Hot), who came a long time ago from Herzegovina to Kučevo in Old Montenegro, where Ozro stayed and others dispersed to various sides. Eponymic ancestor of the Vasojević tribe, Vaso was an immigrant in Lijeva Rijeka, in an unknown time when the area was desolate, and built a house on the right bank of the Nožica creek. Jingiby (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: I didn't removed his report, I am discussing it's relevance here. As I said, I am talking about relevance of Ivan versus of Lippich - Ivan is a representative of Vasojevici to the Catherine the Great, during the time when local people were seeking help from the Russians. While Lippich is a consul of a foreign power, Austro-Hungarian, who is not sure of the Vasojevici origin. As Lippich himself said, in the quote given above: ..still seem to be in part of Albanian origin—perhaps... - he is not sure. On the other hand, members of the tribe are, for sure, sure about their origin. Historiography and Wikipedia also considers relevance of the source and its study, as you will, as a our new member, see and practice, just as we were and still are in these numerous of years of being the users here. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not how WP:RS, WP:OUTDATED, WP:PRIMARY work. You've reached 3RR, so take a step back and reflect about the policies on which wikipedia is based.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In the first place, the above-mentioned contemporary Serbian academic source in English claims that this tribe was first mentioned in 1444, and not as in the current article about 100 years earlier. The author claims also that at that time the tribe was not fully formed and consisted of Vlachs and Albanians. Later, they mixed with Montenegrin Serbs. Jingiby (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The articles mixes up folk stories with actual history. This sort of thinking was quite popular in 19th century Serbian historiography and persisted until very recently. It's not WP:RS.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source that says that the Vasojevići are Serbs. This is а well-known known fact, it can be also seen from the census. Are Wayne S. Vucinich, Branko Horvat, Vladimir Ćorović and Jean-Arnault Dérens (French historian focused on Balkans) reliable sources? Ćorović and Horvat called them a srpsko pleme (in the case of the territory of Montenegro, that means Serb tribe), while Dérens discussed them in the context of Serbs. Vucinich is already cited, but in the same book he cited that Jovan Erdeljanović claimed that the tribes was “amalgams” of Romanized indigenous elements end Serbs.[p.30] Also, there is one PhD thesis that mentions Vasojević in the part of the Serb uprising etc. Now we have a lot of sources and it's time to end the war, but there has always been WP:COMMON.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Clarification

@James Jim Moriarty: You put as evidence (Đorđević, Tihomir R. (1919), this is old Serbian source and WP:AGE MATTERS, ok next, (The Slavonic and East European Review. Jonathan Cape Limited. 1931) but and this is WP:AGE MATTERS.

• Some informations which I know, 1) "Piperi označavaju kao pleme "srpske" ili "grčke vjere", što i po mišljenju Erdeljanovića tek "daje oslonca" za pretpostavku, ali ne dokazuje srpsku narodnost.... the Pipers are marked as a tribe of the "Serbian" or "Greek faith", which, in Erdeljanovic's opinion, only "provides support" for the assumption, but does not prove Serbian nationality." This is for Piperi tribe. 2) "nahija Zeta - Bjelopavlići, sa četiri džemata Vlaha, koji su, kako je u nauci već pretpostavljeno, najvjerovatnije bili katuni... in 1477, the Zeta-Bjelopavlići nahija is also mentioned, with four Vlach congregations, which, as has already been assumed in science, were most likely katuns." Bijelopavlići tribe in this source are mentioned as Vlachs. 3) "U nahiji Kuči navedena su imena katuna sa slovenskom formacijom, pored albanskih imena katuna: ili selo Radun sa slovensko-vlaškom kombinacijom...In the Kuči nahija, the names of katuns with a Slavic formation are listed, next to them the Albanian names of katuns are listed: village of Radun with a Slavic-Vlach combination." Tribe Kuči with Slavic, Albanianan and Slavic-Vlach combination of names. 4) "Prema tome, i stanovništvo Vasojevića, svojim porijeklom, i po svom etničkom karakteru je crnogorsko, što se posebno ispoljava u nizu karakterističnih običaja. To pokazuje i prvi pisani pomen Vasojevića pored Pipera u jednom dubrovačkom izvoru iz 1444. godine..Therefore, the population of Vasojević, by its origin, and by its ethnic character, is Montenegrin, which is especially evident in a number of characteristic customs. This is shown by the first written mention of Vasojević next to Piper in a Dubrovnik source from 1444". This are informations from the book of Špiro Kulišić (1980) "O Etnogenezi Crnogoraca"[1].
• And some information from the book of Sima Ćirković (2004) "The Serbs". Chapter: "Clans and Clan Society", from page 129, he mentions the Vlachs and Albanians throughout the chapter and mentions them in context of Paštrović clan, Banjani, Drobnjaci, and Ridjani, "Neighboring Montenegro had its own clans (Vasojevići, Bjelopavlići, Piperi, Njeguši, etc.)" etc. Serbian academician although he mentions Serb medieval influence in the area, he does not mention a single word ie that all these tribes are Serbs or Serb tribes.
• Therefore there must be confirmation from a neutral source that all these tribes are Serb tribes. You have exposed some sources and quote what exactly this sources speak to all see what it is about. Mikola22 (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

First, I reacted towards the specific mention of Ivan Radonjić - he was representative of those tribes in the 18th century, he considered his people as Serbs and sources given are modern and not primary. As for other tribes and their origins, it is a very broad talk and completely off the topic. (Đorđević, Tihomir R. (1919)) is not the only source I have put so that argument doesn't stand (if you tag something as WP:AGE MATTERS, then you need elaborate, not just claim old source). Next, regards towards Sima Ćirković, his book The Serbs deals with the topic of history of Serbs in general. The author is a very respectable Serbian medievalist, with a excellent research of Bosnia, but clans and it formations are not his primary area of interest, as you can see from the book or his other works. That's the reason why, in the mentioned book, he doesn't provide more information about the tribes themselves. Nor he specifically mentions them as Serbian (but yet again, the book is about the Serbs), but also not specifically as Vlachs, so I don't see why you mentioned him. What I see that you missed the logical point - when we are talking about tribes, we are talking about clans when they have got their tribal organization (late 16th century) after merge(s) of different brotherhoods etc, not the XV century clans (for which better word is brotherhood in majority of the cases), nor even about the people who formed those clans earlier. If we are talking about the not so short process of the tribal formation from those early clans, you are oversimplifying it in the sense "Vlachs formed the tribe" etc. When literature deals with the origins of the tribe, it deals with the oral tradition of the members from the tribe itself, or, which is far better as you would agree, scientific historiography with precise results or at least, opinions from the historians. When in the literature says Serbian tribe, that means that we are talking about already formed tribe and that these people already had Serbian identity. You mentioned Špiro Kulišić, which is fine argument as he stated that the tribes didn't have Serbian identity, but rather Montenegrin. But numerous other historians (Đurđev, Jovan Vukmanović, Vukčević Nikola...) from his country, during that same period, successfully challenged his views and proved, for examples, that he made mistakes in his methodology, so you can't challenge the whole historiography, based only on him. In contrast, for example, mentioned Branislav Đurđev really masterfully described, based on the sources such as Ottoman surveys in the 15th century, how early mixture of Serbs and Vlachs started development of the tribal organization in Montenegro. And even those Vlach brotherhoods, in that time, were more-or-less, in majority assimilated into Slavs, because of the strong influence of medieval Serbian states and more numerous Slavs around them. But because early katun organization came from them, as proved by Đurđev when he challenged Erdeljanović, for example, and not from the early Serbs (as Vlachs were in majority cattlemen), and as Slavs also started to deal with cattle-breeding, Vlach gradually transformed into a synonym for cattlemen, not other ethnicity, as stated by Branislav. That is, as you can see, far more complex process, and even I went off-topic as I didn't talked about Vasojevići only. When the Vasojevići tribe was formed, you already had Serbian names, Orthodox religion, language, customs and identity, among them. And we see that from the members of the tribe itself, and their representatives, during the centuries after. That's the reason why, for example, excellent historians who really specialized in the topic, such as Radoslav Vešović or Lutovac, who were also from the tribe itself, and concluded without a doubt that the tribe had strong Serbian identity during its existence. And I didn't mentioned even Jovan Vukmanović, Lalević Bogdan, Mirko Vukićević and rest. As I said, instead of wasting the time to discuss did Ivan Radonjić thought of Vasojevići as Serbs, when he said in the letter twice that they are Serbs, it was far better if the article itself was expanded with other topics such as battles against the Ottomans, customs and traditions, etc. That's all from me, as this discussion is going outside of the bounds of historiography and into political topics. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(That's the reason why, in the mentioned book, he doesn't provide more information about the tribes themselves. Nor he specifically mentions them as Serbian (but yet again, the book is about the Serbs), but also not specifically as Vlachs, so I don't see why you mentioned him.) I mentioned Ćirković because he mentions all these Montenegrin tribes and he does not mention them as Serbs. Ћирковић Сима. Црна Гора од досељавања Словена до пада под Турке(Sima Ćirković - Montenegro from the arrival of Slavs to the fall under the Turks) Therefore he knows history of Montenegro very well. (When in the literature says Serbian tribe, that means that we are talking about already formed tribe and that these people already had Serbian identity.) Yes, but the source does not say that ie (Serb tribe). Where it is written in the source show me. [2] (But numerous other historians (Đurđev, Jovan Vukmanović, Vukčević Nikola...) from his country, during that same period, successfully challenged his views") Then and Đurđev, Jovan Vukmanović, state or claim that all these tribes are Serb tribes, show sources and quotes which say so, but from his Yugoslavian time. (mentioned Branislav Đurđev really masterfully described, based on the sources such as Ottoman surveys in the 15th century, how early mixture of Serbs and Vlachs started development of the tribal organization in Montenegro.) Sima Ćirković mentione Albanians and Vlachs, and Vlachs as different from Serbs: "Segregation policies were included in royal charters from the fourteenth century declaring that “a Serb shall not marry a Vlach,". (When the Vasojevići tribe was formed, you already had Serbian names, Orthodox religion, language, customs and identity, among them.) And still in the source is not mentioned "Serb tribe" and this is OR ("Radoslav Vešović or Lutovac, who were also from the tribe itself, and concluded without a doubt that the tribe had strong Serbian identity during its existence. And I didn't mentioned even Jovan Vukmanović, Lalević Bogdan, Mirko Vukićević and rest.) That is why we need an independent foreign source , which all these tribes mention as Serb tribes, Sima Ćirković for them says that they are Montenegrin tribes. Mikola22 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

From here, I see that you probably didn't understood or read well what I explained you there for Sima Ćirković. But for the sake of the answers, I will again answer your points. As for the quotes, I prefer reading the whole books in order to get a better context from the author, but if you need quotes, I will provide you with some of them. I mentioned Ćirković because he mentions all these Montenegrin tribes and he does not mention them as Serbs. Ћирковић Сима. Црна Гора од досељавања Словена до пада под Турке(Sima Ćirković - Montenegro from the arrival of Slavs to the fall under the Turks) Therefore he knows history of Montenegro very well. Again, the book The Serbs he is about giving an overview of the Serbs, not a specifically oriented towards the topic of tribal formation and its deeper details. To clarify, I am not saying he is irrelevant, but I say that if somebody specialized in some specific area than the second, then he is more relevant. Also, again, Sima didn't mentioned them as anyone else either, but putted them to the book about Serbs where he wraps also Montenegro and its history in his discussion of Serbs. Sima Ćirković mentions Vasojevići geographical/regional belonging, not the ethnical one. I don't see whats your point there. In contrast, authors and the books I mentioned deals specifically with the topics of Vasojevići tribe and formation of the tribal organization and how some elements were got from Vlachs. Sima Ćirković mentione Albanians and Vlachs, and Vlachs as different from Serbs: "Segregation policies were included in royal charters from the fourteenth century declaring that “a Serb shall not marry a Vlach,". Again, you made no further point here. Read what I wrote - there is difference between Vlachs from XIV century and the term Vlachs from XVI century. And also in XIV century clans didn't event got proper tribal organizations. Where it is written in the source show me. Again, I am pointing you to the books, such as the ones from Radoslav Vešović The Vasojevići tribe. It is not a good idea to seek only for references, as, for example, German author will in majority of the cases, not mention the word German [castle] if he is writing in German language about the castle in Germany. But, if you like those quotations, in the mentioned book, for example in the chapter About the origin and development of the tribe of Vasojevići, in which he mentions them multiple times as Serbian tribe. You can see it for historical events, such as the one from 1737., where he concludes that Serbian element was represented in a Brda tribes for which Vasojevići belonged, and continues with: ...Brđani went to the Novi Pazar and taken it from the Turks. So, Serbian element was that strong, as Vasojevići aligned in their movements together other Brda tribes. He even elaborates their Serbian identity and discuss about the major stories from the tribe itself, such as From Tomice Vukov and others in Lijeva Rijeka, it is recorded the story that Vaso Vasojević (founder of the tribe) was from old Serbian roots and nobility (pp. 89) and after that discusses why these origin stories and alleged connections with Serb nobility were so strong in Vasojevići. And these are just some of the mentions. I recommend you to find the book online and read it. As for the others, dr Milisav Lutovac (Bihor and Korita and other books or, as you like quotes, you have his quotes in his other works, such as Serbs [Vasojevići in Berane]] burned Šabanagića tower, when they liberated Berane (Geographical Bulletin, Berane, pp. 197)), you have mentioned Vukmanović, Cvijić (in his book Psychological attributes of Dynaric tribes he written: ...That's why they [Vasojevići] consider themselves as most pure Serbs), Bataković and others. That is why we need an independent foreign source , which all these tribes mention as Serb tribes, Sima Ćirković for them says that they are Montenegrin tribes. As explained above, Sima is not in a conflict with the rest. As for the foreign source, if historians give relevant and proper sources, then that reason for an independent foreign source is not a proper one, because that kind of source segregation is a political, not a historiographical one. If you said, for example, Momčilo Lutovac (relative of Milisav who wrote a book "Vasojevići, the old Serbian tribe") is not a strong source then I will agree, because he isn't by his professional career, and we need some other. But saying that because, for example, Vešović was born in Kolašin, we can then ignore that he is an excellent historian specialized in the topic and who has advantage that his family originated from the tribe, then that is not a proper reason. We can then eliminate 90% of the sources not just of this topic, but also, for example, topics about Croats in Krk and their culture, etc, because sources are in majority Croatian. There is a not a big interest in foreign historiography about Vasojevići tribe in particular, so it is logical why there are so many Yugoslav and Montenegrin sources about them, and why almost all of the foreign sources are based on those Mne/Yugoslav sources or on the sources from neighbour countries. But, I have put up there one foreign source in which you have: The Vasojevici pride themselves for being particulary pure Serbs. which was tried to be labeled as WP:AGE MATTERS for some unknown reason as it is not updated and for sure not for the particular matter. Also, if Vasojevići themselves, even today, say that they are Serbs, who are we to deny that to them? To the end, as I said, I warmly recommend you to read the books from mentioned historians, especially Vešović. I hope that this will help you to expand more your knowledge about Vasojevići tribe and thanks for mentioning Sima Ćirković whose books I read couple of years ago, but its a good idea to read them again. As I don't have too much time in these days, that's all from me. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying he is irrelevant, but I say that if somebody specialized in some specific area than the second, then he is more relevant. Anyone can be relevant or not, but you have a quote from source and show me where the historian mentions that they are Serb tribe. Read what I wrote - there is difference between Vlachs from XIV century and the term Vlachs from XVI century. And also in XIV century clans didn't event got proper tribal organizations. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with the source and "Serb tribe". First you have to show me where it is stated.So, Serbian element was that strong, as Vasojevići aligned in their movements together other Brda tribes...That's why they [Vasojevići] consider themselves as most pure Serbs), Source and "Serb tribe" fact, show me where it says that. There is a not a big interest in foreign historiography about Vasojevići tribe in particular, so it is logical why there are so many Yugoslav and Montenegrin sources about them Good part of the Montenegrin tribes are listed here as Serb tribe not only Vasojevići tribe. For this we need confirmation in independent source because Bjelopavlići etc. are listed and as Albanians.which was tried to be labeled as WP:AGE MATTERS for some unknown reason as it is not updated and for sure not for the particular matter. We cannot use some old sources because we have new knowledge. Information from article is about a good part of the Montenegrin tribes ie Serb tribes. I hear that for the first time and I read many books. To summarize, I am editor and I cant enter information from the source to the article about Serb tribes because I don't see where is this written in the source, it only says that they are not Montenegrins. How then I can put information to the article that they are all Serb tribe? This is WP:OR or my personal conclusion, I am not a historian to enter personal conclusions into the article. By the way, you are talking about everything, but you haven't shown me yet where it says in the source that Vasojević and the others are Serb tribe. Mikola22 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, you are talking about everything, but you haven't shown me yet where it says in the source that Vasojević and the others are Serb tribe. I gave you sources and quotes, where they are stated and described as a Serb tribes. I won't repeat them again. As you said that main the problem is that Ćirković doesn't mention them as Serbs and that why we need a foreign source (which I even gave you), I opened the book and let us see. And yes, this is off-the-topic, but let us see. You quoted him for: "Segregation policies were included in royal charters from the fourteenth century declaring that “a Serb shall not marry a Vlach,". Very interesting, why didn't you quoted his full sentence as he has written: It was shown that politics of segregation, represented by the requests of the royal charters from 14th century - "Serb shall not marry a Vlach" - was without results. Population has mixed and assimilated with unequal result. Somewhere, Slavic attributes came dominant, somewhere attributes became Romanic. So you tried to respond with this, but as you see, this actually confirms what I was talking above. And as seen, segregation policy was between Serbs and Vlachs - and when he mentions tribes as tribes in which Slavic attributes became dominant, it is very clear what he means. And in the later paragraph, he further elaborates: [Because assimilation]] There a gradual transition from "katun" to "pleme" is seen... In old Serbian language, word pleme (tribe) didn't meant huge population, part of the people, but a big family. ... Change of the terms tagged the phase of slavicization of the remains of old Balkan people.... And then continues with the almost exactly the same stuff I wrote in my former responses. And in the same chapter, you quoted that he doesn't mention them as Serb tribes. If you were literal and seeking for the words Serb tribe, then yes, you are right about Sima as he didn't wrote Serb tribe. But if you read his book, then you are not right. As I said, German castle. And specifically for that what you mentioned, he is talking about this, to quote: An important source about the light of the tribes from the end of 16th century was seen in the form of the letter for the Pope, from two Mileseva monks, Damjan and Pavle, who are explaining what is Serbia. They counted territories from Adriatic sea up to Lim... Except old famous katuns of Banjani, Drobnjaci, Ridjani, there are... And in Montenegro, it also has its tribes (Vasojevici...)... and Dukadjin, with Albanian tribes. Behind that belt of the tribes, in interior there are monasteries and mines, which all represent former state core, while northern Serbia was left out of sight. As he stated above that for Slavs and before, he clearly thinks of the Serbs (as even seen from the heading of the book), as for state, he talks that the letter shows medieval Serbia from Adriatic sea to the Lim (a little geography shows that this area obviously includes Montenegro, and it is also clear why he discusses history of Montenegro in a book about Serbs), and as only Albanian tribes are mentioned with the ethnic category Albanian, it is clear that he thinks of the rest of the tribes as Serb tribes who were formed by assimilation of old Balkan populations like Vlachs. And about the tribes, as he is talking about the formation, he talks about what I said you - transition from the clans to the 17th century tribal organization, which you failed to distinguish, which is alright, as the same terms is used in a two different contexts. As I said, if you are just seeking the quotes, and you can easily lose the context, as you did with Sima Ćirković. To summarize, I am editor and I cant enter information from the source to the article about Serb tribes because I don't see where is this written in the source, it only says that they are not Montenegrins. To summarize, I you have whole books like Tribe of Vasojevici and even some quotes from that where you have Serbs or Serb tribe when author talks about Vasojevići, I gave you the editors who specialized into that topic (Radoslav, Đurđev etc) so that's what you asked. It's upon to you if you will decide to read it or not. That's all from me, as I won't have time for further discussion in this period. Kind regards, James Jim Moriarty (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I gave you sources and quotes, where they are stated and described as a Serb tribes. I won't repeat them again. From this source (from article) where it says that all these tribes are "Serb tribes". I am an editor and have the same information and source as you and I cannot put this information into the article because it is not written in the source. I say this as if I have to put this information into an article. Where you see this(Serb tribe) information in the source? Source and information are here.[3] We just need to clarify that and nothing more. Editor Sadko doesn't want to say where that information is, you also don't want to, so everything is clear, it's OR. Mikola22 (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source that says that the Vasojevići are Serbs. This is а well-known known fact, it can be also seen from the census. Are Wayne S. Vucinich, Branko Horvat, Vladimir Ćorović and Jean-Arnault Dérens (French historian focused on Balkans) reliable sources? Ćorović and Horvat called them a srpsko pleme (in the case of the territory of Montenegro, that means Serb tribe), while Dérens discussed them in the context of Serbs. Vucinich is already cited, but in the same book he cited that Jovan Erdeljanović claimed that the tribes was “amalgams” of Romanized indigenous elements end Serbs.[p.30] Also, there is one PhD thesis that mentions Vasojević in the part of the Serb uprising etc. Now we have a lot of sources and it's time to end the war, but there has always been WP:COMMON.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC) (removed)--WEBDuB (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Then put this informations from those sources(which you have) in the corresponding section, this section is for 18th century. All this informations or sources which you presented does not mention all these tribes as Serb tribes. If they mention Vasojeviće as Serbian tribe it is not a confirmation for other source(Nikola-Vukcevic) that all other Montenegrin tribes are Serb tribes. You may add information to the article that the Vasojevići are a Serbian tribe and use yours new sources and old source(Nikola-Vukcevic) as an additional source(but even then this source does not mention the Serb tribes, he mentions that they are not Montenegrins), and find a place for this information in the article. But this information "and that the Banjani, Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, Zećani, Vasojevići, Bratonožići were not identified as "Montenegrins" but only as Serb tribes." you cannot put because there is no confirmation that source(Nikola-Vukcevic, or some other) for all these tribes states that they are Serb tribes. You know where is the information from the source(Nikola-Vukcevic, Original research,[4]) and show where it says that. Until then information added from this source(Nikola-Vukcevic) is WP:OR or you instead Serb tribe enter that they are not Montenegrin tribes and this is per source and not OR. Mikola22 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

References

(Largely replying to Moriarty) We're not going to have a discussion about a community organized under a tribal mode in a way that makes the discussion a collection of of who said what. It's an issue of methodology to use bibliography that specializes in historical anthropology and related fields and not to just look around google randomly until you find the words you're looking for in a given document. In specialized bibliography as of 2020, Vasojevići is treated as a non-Slavic group that became Slavicized and over time for various historical and cultural reasons, it identified as Serb, Montenegrin and Bosniak. We're not getting into WP:FRINGE theories about "pure Serb tribes". Also - now largely replying to WEBDuB - familiarize yourself more with WP:OUTDATED so we don't have to discuss again about Ćorović or anyone else from Serbian pre-WWII bibliography - or anyone from pre-WWII bibliography - unless their research has had a historical impact that should be mentioned as part of the development of research into the subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We can say the same for all the peoples of the Balkans, they were all created by mixing and accepting different cultures over time. No one mentions any fringe theories about "pure Serb tribes" (something like that does not exist). The fact is that the Vasojevići, as well as other tribes from Brda, are generally considered Serbs due to cultural and political aspirations, etc.. Most importantly, we also have Petersen and many other sources.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Genetic genealogy

In addition to edit war, genetic studies are a big issue here. Such content that must accurately summarize recent, high quality, published secondary sources, where experts in the field have already gathered up and defined current knowledge, more precisely peer-reviewed journal articles. It is most often mistaken when these researches are cited in the context of proving the origin and whether someone came there sooner or later. Nations and ethnic groups are a social construct, biological sciences cannot be used to prove such things.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nations that formed in the era of nation-states are indeed socially constructed - within certain cultural boundaries. I also agree that we shouldn't cite poreklo's blog posts or yfull directly because the results need a context which can only be provided by genomic studies. Thus, Y-DNA origins can tell us a lot about the historical journey of a people but by themselves they can't be used - outside of an interdisciplinary approach - in a way that directly says "X group is actually an Y-ized Z population". I cited a newspaper article (not poreklo's blog posts or yfull directly) and just kept the simplest of details: "Paleo-Balkan E-V13". I think we can all work with that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We should not cite a newspaper article, only recent peer-reviewed journal articles where experts have already suggested certain conclusions. What does "Paleo-Balkan E-V13" mean? Thus, Y-DNA origins can tell us a lot about the historical journey of a people - Yes, but mostly for early human migrations more than 10-50 000 years ago. Certainly not a few centuries ago. If a subclass of a haplotype is most frequent in a region, is it due to genetic drift, gene flow or founder effect? All nations today are great mixtures. E-V13 originated many thousands of years ago and not in the Balkans. Misunderstanding of the topic often leads to over-simplistic genetic interpretations in newspapers, but unfortunately also on Wikipedia. Therefore, we should leave it to the experts in the field and write their conclusions that have already passed the expert review.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but mostly for early human migrations more than 10-50 000 years ago. With the high level level of Y-DNA research as of 2020 and the sampling size that is on the rise every day (literally!) we're moving towards an unprecedented level of mapping accuracy about our past. For example, just from the available sample size and the way that it presents itself uniformly throughout all Balkan DNA Projects (check the same information from the Bosniak DNA Project about the Bosniak Vasojevići, we know when the particular E-V13 branch of Vasojevići was formed. I'm not arguing to use DNA Projects as sources directly but many issues that they have brought up are now common knowledge and articles its members write in the media can be cited for basic purposes. Also, haplogroup E in general didn't originate in the Balkans - its E-V13 variant emerged in the Balkans (The Y-DNA marker E-V13 originated in the Balkans where it is to be found at its highest frequency). We don't have to discuss about it in this article since it would be WP:COATRACK, a simpler version of what is now present in the article will be enough.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? We cannot use such websites on this topic. It is a field that I understand for professional reasons, but this is no place to explain it here. Many scientists warn of misinterpretation, exactly because of the increasing testing of people. Such studies cannot be used to prove the origin or race, ethnic group... There have been many RSN cases of Y-haplogroups studies (for example 1, 2). To conclude, we should use only recent peer-reviewed journal articles.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We cannot use primary Y-DNA research sources directly, but we can mention the primary results if they are published in the media without the necessary historical-anthropological approach which is the work of an interdisciplinary approach of genealogical genetics and anthropology. (I too understand the field because of professional reasons)--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

we can mention the primary results if they are published in the media without the necessary historical-anthropological approach - No, for this topic we should only use recent high-quality peer-reviewed journal articles. There was already a discussion on RSN. Most importantly, what were reliable media? koreni.rs and bosnjackidnk.com?--WEBDuB (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Should Radonjic letter be part of the article

I saw the talk page and didn't see any reached consensus that the letter should be removed from the article, it has reference from 1900. which makes it WP:Secondary, mentioning of the tribe is important since we can trace it's history from that period , there is no reason to delete it only WP:IDONTLIKEIT . User:Cobalton (talk) 20.September 2020 (UTC)

I posted the question on RsN User:Cobalton (talk) 15:22, 20.September 2020 (UTC)

What is so valuable from that letter? Information from the article: "In July 1788, Ivan Radonjić sends letter to Queen Catherine II in which he asks to send Sofronije Marković (self-styled Jugović), who was promised by Jovan the throne of Montenegro; Jovan sought to bring him to the land and replace Petrović, then get rid of him too, securing the rule for himself". What does this information have to do with Vasojevići? Information from the article: "He sent another letter in 1789. in which he mentions Vasojevic tribe among others and says that "All Serbs from Montenegro, Herzegovina, Banjani, Drobnjaci, Kuči, Piperi, Bijelopavlići, Zete, Klimenti, Vasojevići, Bratonozići, Peći, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, we belong to your majesty". Some private person mentions Serbs from Montenegro, Albania, Vasojevići etc. Why would any personal information from some letter be relevant for this article if only incidentally Vasojevići are mentioned (otherwise it is not mentioned Vasojevići tribe but Vasojevići and this Vasojevići tribe is WP:OR). After all this is personal opinion of some person in the letter and it is WP:PRIMARY, if that letter is relevant then it must become part of 10 other articles. Since there are probably other letters or personal records in other sources, then we will start entering personal informations from letters etc in this and other 10 articles where they are mentioned Montenegrins, Albanians, Serbs etc. Mikola22 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the Vasojevici were mentioned in that period (1788. and 1789.) even to Russian Queen (I doubt that a private person can send a letter to a Queen, must be diplomatic), Wikipedia should be collection of informations and the fact that there are not that many letters especially from that Region should be a valuable source. It is interesting to see political influence from that period, the letter must have some importance since it was mentioned by historians in 1900. not many private letters receive that level of recognition User:Cobalton (talk) 15:37, 20.September 2020 (UTC)

Age matters. We don't assign the same reliability to older sources. There's also Balancing aspects. Aspects of a topic that have received very little coverage in reliable sources usually aren't worth reporting. TFD (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That would mean that Claude Fauchet (historian) belongs to Age matters category despite his influence on world history,not sure. User:Cobalton (talk) 21.September 2020 (UTC)

It's a WP:PRIMARY document. To use it on wikipedia involves some kind of interpretation about its historical context. In lack of a WP:SECONDARY source which would provide the context, the interpretatio vacancy is filled by an anonymous wikipedia editor but wikipedia doesn't function as a place for its editors' original research. @Mikola22: you can remove the edit and the editor will be reported if they come to introduce again material without support in policy or a consensus - WP:BRD.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Why should I be reported, WP:SECONDARY shows cited document that is represented in 1900. WP:Primary is the letter itself from 1789. I don't see consensus to be removed either, what you are doing now is WP:BLUDGEON since your only reason to remove it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a threat against me without any constructive discussion and since you are not an administrator here you are suppose to use WP:CIVILITY discussion . User:Cobalton (talk) 25.September 2020 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC... @@Cobalton:, if I am understanding the reason for including this letter properly: it is for the purpose of showing that this tribe existed at least as far back as that year, and in that general region? If so, I see no reason why that should not be acceptable. If it's not being used to prove reliability, or to draw some conjecture that is not present in the text, it is not original research. @@The Four Deuces:, you may want to take a closer look at WP:AGEMATTERS. This is not a science or medicine topic, and the portion of AGEMATTERS that is relevent to the case here largely says the opposite of what you implied that it does.

The assumptions I made are based on the scope of the arguments above (i.e., since the arguments were mostly all involving reliability and original research, rather than general notability and weight). Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

AGEMATTERS applies to history too, because historians continually learn more about the past, correct earlier misconceptions and develop different interpretations. That's why schools don't use the same history textbooks that were used 200 years ago. You could say that history doesn't change, but then neither does science. E equaled MC2 230 years ago, it's just that scientists didn't know it yet. But the other problem is that you are using primary sources to report a conclusion, which is prohibited as synthesis. TFD (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree and my point exactly Firejuggler86, there are scarce information about the tribe and the Region particular from that period and since WP:AGE MATTERS doesn't specifically describes from what year information is too old to be included into article it shouldn't be a factor here, I personally wish to put the content from the first letter too to give a context and explanation why did Radonjic send the letters in first place, regarding WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY that is also explained ,there is a cited document from 1900. that gives reliability to the letters from 1788. and 1789. there have been some political turmoil in Region which pushed Radonjic to send a letter to Russian Queen and Vasojevici were included confirming their existence. User:Cobalton (talk), 01.October 2020 (UTC)

Vasojevici are not an Albanian tribe neither of Albanian origin

Can anyone explain how is it possible that such an obvious POV about Albanian origin of Vasojevici has been forced on this artitcle? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmiko (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Drmiko,

I can't explain it either. The last time I checked these pages was some time ago, they were very poorly sourced and all Montenegrin tribes were then referenced as "Serbian tribes", which is no more true than their supposed "Albanian origin". However, reading the change history, it seems that the Albanian POV was imposed in 2020 and is fiercely defended by some users around there. 88.139.117.4 (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Being that this was extensively discussed @Alltan: I ask you to read the talk page first, you will see that there are different sources provided saying that the tribe has even a Serb origin (sources provided by editors above) but nevertheless this tribe belongs to category of Tribes of Montenegro, posting them under Albanian tribe is incorrect specifically if the sources are based on oral tradition I am also pinging admin @El C: and @Vanjagenije: for oversight, for neutral point of view and ultimate decision. User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC)

This issue was discussed by various POV pushers like Sadko and Webdub, who are now banned because of how severe their pov pushing was getting. So I dont see why we should leave it as they did.Their edits have been striken as you can see. But lets see the sources you gave.

Also, the Vasojevici are not an Albanian tribe and I never claimed so. However it is most likely that they were one originally. We are talking past tense here. Vasojevici nowadays identify about 75-80% as serbs, but that can tell us nothing about what their origin was.

Source 1:Resistance and Rebellion: Lessons from Eastern Europe -Petersen Roger

• He says nothing about whether or not they are of Serb origin. That's the big thing here. And the Hasani were not a tribe, its more likely to be a deformed version of the word Anas (indigenous in alb) so I dont what the author means by that. He does however make a distinction and calls them serb, but that disctinction is directed at 'Montenegrins'. Not Albanians.

Source 2: Cattaruzza, Amaël (2005). Le Monténégro entre union et indépendance : essai sur une géographie du nationalisme (PhD)

• Same thing as the above, either you haven't read it or idk. He actually claims the opposite and calls them Montenegrin

Marko Miljanov Popovič, célèbre gouverneur et écrivain monténégrin (1833-1901), dans son étude consacrée à « La vie et les coutumes des Albanais » écrite à la fin du XIXème siècle, rapprochait le mode de vie et les structures sociales des tribus albanaises des clans monténégrins du nord du Monténégro, en particulier, les Vasojevići, les Kući, les Lješnjani, les Ceklinjani et les Crmnićani.

Source 3:"Monténégro, pièce majeure du puzzle balkanique". Confluences Méditerranée Same thing as the above 2, He just says they were whites as opposed to greens, but the Vasojevici didnt form in the 1912 century (they formed before 1444) so this source cant be used for that. This source wasn't even trying to show whether or not they were of Serb origin.

And to quote WEBDUB for the last sources: Ćorović and Horvat called them a srpsko pleme (in the case of the territory of Montenegro, that means Serb tribe), while Dérens discussed them in the context of Serb. Yes, historically they were more often than not fighting for the serb cause and considered themselves Serbs, but this is the case with Kuci, Piperi, Bratonozici, Bjelopavlici etc. These two do not negate each other.

So there are actually zero sources (at least from what youve presented me) that call them of Serb origin.

IDK what you think adminship means but El C or Vanja or whoever will only step in if we break rules ourselves. BRD afaics is being respected. They are not arbitrators of the truth when it comes to external sources.

So yeah, we need sources that talk about the origins of the tribe. Not what they choose to identify as right now. That would be like calling Serbs in 12th century Bosnia Bosniaks because you find a source that says "here live the Bosniaks", even while that source is saying that about the region 800 years later. Alltan (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I didn't put the sources which call them Alb because of oral tradition together with the others. I only put the sources which call them Alb without the context of say von Hahn.

And yes it belongs to the category Tribes of Montenegro too, just like say Hoti or Gruda Alltan (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I have pinged admins on TP, therefore until they reach a decision this is per WP:ONUS contested material, also see TP Are you saying you expect the admins to discuss this on your behalf? Also ONUS? Where have you presented me with 1, just one source that makes the claim they are of Serb origin? Alltan (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well the same POV banned pusher is Mikola22 too (banned from Balkan related topics) but that does not mean that the discussion should not be read and considered, the point is you posted them under Albanian tribe origin based on oral tradition, different traditions say otherwise }} also your claim that there are 0 sources provided are just wrong since you also have confirmed that Corovic and Horvat say that, also Tihomir Djedjevic is mentioned too, therefore your claim that "User has shown that there is not enough sources" is bad faith at least and obvious ignore of neutrality, by the way Liphich is also contested see above, so until you reach consensus and being that this is Balkan related topic, this goes under WP:ONUS that is why I am calling admins to decide. User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I want that admins decide this because it is obvious that you are ignoring sources. If they are saying that they are Montenegrins or Serbs and you claim that they are Albanians then decision must be made by someone neutral. User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC)

Mikola22 was too much of a hothead imo, I think it is less toxic without those editors here.I have not excluded the Serb traditions (even though they are likely made up) because I think local traditions of the tribe should be respected. But Lippich studied the area. He an outsiders POV which is exactly what you need for a good source.A local would have a hard time going against his clans tradition. Kuci still says there existed a Gojko Mranjavcevic even though thats just made up, but they are still of Albanian origin and those two do not negate each other. Besides he was contested by a single purpose account whose arguments are very weak. "he wouldnt have known" like what? There are probably a 100 sources calling the Kuci a Serb tribe, but that is because they havent been albanian for close to 250 years. Same thing with vasojevici. Horvat, Corovic say nothing on their origin they just state what they are at that point in time.(in context ofc) And I agree with them, the vasojevici have likely been Slavic for at least 400 years .So you have zero sources, but since the Vasojevici are E-V13 (paleobalkanic) and have a common ancestor with Kelmendi and Bjelopavlci, it will be unlikely imo that you will find sources that point to a Slavic origin of the tribe. While there are performative clues which point to an Albanian origin, such as their chief in 1614 (!) bearing the name "Lale Bojov" aka Lala.

Well in that case I think you wont need admin intevention because I am not claiming they are Albanian. (as Ive already stated)Any sane person can look at them and see that. But the same goes with all assimilated people, they were one thing in the past and now are something else. Local myths made up cant be blindly accepted a fact. A Piperi tribesmen will tell you all day how he descend from some Noble Slav from the Kosovo battle but that is simply not true. They are to be treated as local traditions, not be used to push a narrative. Do you see what I mean? Alltan (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Tihomir Djurdjevic is 102 years old. see AGEMATTERS please, we are beyond those times, he didnt even have the translated defters for goodness sake! He couldnt have known! And when you say must reach consensus. Yes but that means YOU in this case, not the admins Alltan (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I am calling for admin intervention since you are ignoring 5 different sources claiming otherwise, you are also posting sources that are claiming they are "likely an Albanian tribe" seriously? Vasojevici are part of Tribes of Montenegro not an Albanian tribe, as it xan been seen by the sources posted in article, this needs an admin intervention since it is obvious you are not willing to cooperate and to edit an article in a more neutral way, therefore I am pinging @El C: and @Vanjagenije:, admins who are usually in Balkan areas for decision User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC)

And how can you claim that Hahn is reliable source if he is saying " that origin of a tribe commes from oral tradition" and these to are not. }}. User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC)

Why are you twisting my words? I wrote "likely that they were" Past tense, meaning they are not anymore. They are NOT an Albanian tribe nowadays and everybody agrees on this. Same as Kuci, Bratonozici, Piperi, Bjelopavlici etc.They are largelly Serb. But the discussion is about the origin of the tribe not the current identity/culture. The sources provided by the above editors sadly do not say anything about origin, and even if they did do that, I have provided sources which show clear performative ethnicity markers in Vasojevici (Kanun,Besa,Albanian clothes and Albanian names) so you will need pretty strong sources to present a differing opinion. I do not know how to explain this to you any differently, since you somehow miss/skip reading my responses. Oh well Alltan (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Look closely. I haven't used him in the "likely of Albanian origin" section, only down below with all the other traditions including the Serb ones from the locals. And Hahn didnt present a theory, he jsut recorded a local myth/tradition, (which is wrong btw because it has been proven by genetic analysis that these tribes are unrelated to each other). I don't use sources like this to directly claim they are of Alb origin. Its just cool folklore which has been maintained for a long time (usually) I think would be fun to see for the reader Alltan (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Also could you not use sources that are 12 decades old? (). Alltan (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So they are largely Serbs but are part of Albanian tribes and were Albanians but decided to be Serbs? And I did provide strong sources disproving your edits which you were unable to disprove. My suggestion that you reedit this a little bit more neutral, meaning that you include the fact that most of Tribes of Montenegro underwent migrations from different parts of Region and that different Clans formed broterhoods which later became tribes, and that those clans were of different ethnic origin and don't post them under Albanian tribe part of series, they are Tribe of Montenegro, because this is misleading they did not suddenly decided to be Serbs, as provided by sources, you also twisted Vucinich part where is says that the tribe did not had common ancestor [[5]], also you should read what I wrote, it can been seen in your edits that you posted "that they are likely of Albanian origin" obviously with sources that are uncertain on this, you are dismissing Lalovic but posting Hahn who's claims based on same "oral tradition claim". I will wait on admins to decide, possibly to reedit this more neutrally because sorry but your edits are misleading.User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC)

you said the following: And I did provide strong sources disproving your edits which you were unable to disprove.

OK go ahead and quote them then. The sources which you already gave said nothing about Serb origin. Or am I wrong? Show me, I'll wait.

Tribes of Montenegor just means they existed in the territory of present day MN. In it are also Hoti Grud Triepshi Koja etc because they are from MN.

I used Hahn through a younger source and in very specific way (to show local folklore, not push an albanian origin). Lalovic is just way too old so AGEMATTERS applies. I didnt twist Vucinics words, I just paraphrased. The Vasojevici incorporated many different ethnic elements as it grew including Slavic(Sbrljaci).

The assimilation of Vasojevici took at least 400 years from what we can see. They actually were one of the first Brdani to start being assimilated (excluding Rovca who is of Serb origin). The biggest reasons for this is because they were closest to Pec and Decan monasteries and so Arbanaška vera naturally reached them first. And I said sudden because there might be more original documents linked to them that we dont know about yet, but the same goes for all tribes that havent been researched too much. Some Serb authors call literally everybody vlach just to present albs as being a minor factor, but when you dig deeper into them you find they were Albanians for ex:Burmazi or Mataruge. Ive seen them claim Kelmendi as Vlasi Klimenti which is absurd.

Sudden? bro I said gradual: Likely of Albanian origin, the Vasojevići (Albanian: Vasoviqi, Vasojeviqi) underwent a process of gradual cultural integration into the neighboring Slavic population. https://wikidiff.com/gradual/sudden: Sudden is an antonym of gradual. Gradual is an antonym of sudden. Literal opposites.

What else do you want me to clarify? I feel like a broken record reanswering the same questions of yours over and over and over again. Alltan (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You did not just paraphrased Vuchinich you removed very important part that they were united from more tribes, which contest your edit that they are of Albanian origin. You obviously do not understand that putting Vasojevici as part of Albanian tribe series is misleading because a) they were Tribe of Montenegro and b) they are not ethnic Albanians, the statement even you recognised multiple times therefore it is misleading. Even if they had an Albanian origin (which is questionable), through migrations and assimilation with more numerous Slavs and what is important through settlement of other Clans and brotherhoods they genetic origin changed, and culturally they were always part of Hill tribes and Montenegro. Not an Albanian tribe. As for quotes you can scroll up and see that editors already posted them i.e. editor James Jim Moriarty (editor as far I can see is not banned or POV accused) Here is just one example Brđani went to the Novi Pazar and taken it from the Turks. So, Serbian element was that strong, as Vasojevići aligned in their movements together other Brda tribes. He even elaborates their Serbian identity and discuss about the major stories from the tribe itself, such as From Tomice Vukov and others in Lijeva Rijeka, it is recorded the story that Vaso Vasojević (founder of the tribe) was from old Serbian roots and nobility (pp. 89) and after that discusses why these origin stories and alleged connections with Serb nobility were so strong in Vasojevići. And these are just some of the mentions. I recommend you to find the book online and read it. As for the others, dr Milisav Lutovac (Bihor and Korita and other books or, as you like quotes, you have his quotes in his other works, such as Serbs [Vasojevići in Berane]] burned Šabanagića tower, when they liberated Berane (Geographical Bulletin, Berane, pp. 197)), you have mentioned Vukmanović, Cvijić (in his book Psychological attributes of Dynaric tribes he written: ...That's why they [Vasojevići] consider themselves as most pure Serbs), Bataković[14].

What I am saying that since we have different and opposing sources, Vasojevici tribe should be part of Tribe of Montenegro series and not of Albanian series, it is misleading being that almost all of Montenegrin tribes had different ethnic origin via migrations which can been seen even today since Montenegro today is quite multi-ethnic User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC)

honestly I suggest you look up WP:DROPTHESTICK. Go ahead and restore the way Vucinic wrote it becaude it changes nothing. Just like the Piperi and Kuci coming from different brotherhoods changes nothing. The tribe proper was Albanian, and not about to explain why for the umteenth time. Its not a good use of time.

Also see FALSEBALANCE while your at it Alltan (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

the Vaso Vasojevci source only tells about what the locals believe their leader was. He does not agree with the source. This isn not how you use bibliography. Alltan (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

And please don't mention the Albanophobe Jovan Cvijic. The thing is he is right here, the vasojevici do consider themsleves as serbs, but that doesnt mean that the original tribe originating from recia/lijeva rijeka in 1444 did so too. You are using sources which use their modern appellation and not sources which talk about their origin.

The sidebar should stay because the article about tribes in montenegro is not ethnic related. It is only listing tribes which exist/ed in modern day Crna Gora, they can be Japanese for all we care. But the Vasojevici as far as the sources are concerned seem to have had an Albanian origin, meaning they at some point shifted from being an Albanian to a Serbian tribe. When you think of these alb vasojevici, don't imagine their modern territory which is wayy bigger than their original one here Lijeva Rijeka. See what I mean? Any group of people can switch identities anytime they feel like it. It is our duty as editors to reflect that those changes have taken place.Alltan (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Look I do not have nothing to add, I already agreed I will not remove your edits, I am asking you to remove the sidebar based on historical facts and sources that went through centuries and presented sources, if you are not willing to do that minor edit from your side, then I don't see that you are willing to cooperate, you cannot post the sidebar based on few sources that are claiming that they are "likely of Albanian origin" even if they were, they were part of Montenegro tribes and went through ethnic changes. User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, the sources themselves were variable in how sure they were that Vasojevici were Albs. Most seemed quite convicing but some took a more careful approach. I chose the latter because of the fact the Vasojevici were Slavicised so early in their history. I mean consider this: by the time the Bjelopavlici were bilingual in the 17th century, the Vasojevici likely didnt speak a lick of Albanian. And trust me I've had this convo wih other people, basically saying that you cant compare a Tribe like Piperi who have been Slavic for 250 years to a tribe like Berisha or Shala. But the thing is this: ALL these tribes are historical, they no longer exist in their tribal structure form. The only thing that remains is the remembrance of that come from the tribe. This is different from extinct tribes like Mataruga who have no known lineage that has kept the memories of the tribe alive to an extent. So let me try something real quick.Alltan (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey see what I did? By adding the historical notenobody can claim that Vasojevici are still an Albanian tribe. Were in the past yes, but not anymore. Alltan (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A large amount of information supported by many reliable sources was removed by an editor who has not been active for years. In my opinion, this is quite strange and unacceptable. Tresnjevo, please restore this information in the article and discuss to gain a prevailing consensus before removing it again. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have restored it, it is wp:or and misuse of bibliography along with removals of rs. selami is simply a translation of an ottoman defter, it never states that these people were Serbs or that it supported origin from Herzegovina. Durraz0 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No reliable information was removed. As I stated in my update: "Removed banner about Albanian tribes since Vasojevići are not and never have been Albanian tribe. False claim that Vasojevići are "Likely of Albanian origin" has been removed as well since census data from 15th century proves that it is false." Look at the Turkish census from 15th century that I referenced (census was translated by Albanian and published in Tirana, btw) and you will see that almost all names in Vasojevići tribe were Serbian at that time with zero Albanian-only names.Tresnjevo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tresnjevo: The Vasojevici were Serbian Orthodox and this isn't disputed. The article doesn't call them Albanian. It discusses their non-Slavic origin which is likely Albanian according to many sources. In the 18th century when the Vasojevici expelled the Serbs of Goraždevac they mocked them as Srbljaci. A century later the Vasojevici presented themselves as the best Serbs. Today, there are Vasojevici which call themselves Serbs or Montenegrins and Muslim Vasojevici call themselves Bosniaks. Identities change. That's what the article is saying because it is what has been documented in bibliography and what happens in real life. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Side comment: I think that the Karađorđe connection should be removed. His family moved from the area around Berane to western Serbia before it became Vasojevići territory. The connection is purely geographical.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There are theories that Earth is flat, supported by many, but that doesn't mean that we should put on Wikipedia that "Earth is very likely flat". You could say "there are theories that Earth is flat" or that "Vasojevići are of Albanian origin", but what was written in this article was FALSE and I rightfully removed it. I provided the evidence (census data) from 15th century that proves that Vasojevići were Serbs. And Vasojevići are mentioned in 15th century for 1st time, so it is impossible that they are of Albanian origin. But you still not only restored that false information, but also removed completely valid information that I added. And now I see that your nationalist friend User:Durraz0 added photo of Muslim Vasojevići on the top of the article, even though Muslim Vasojevići are less than few percent of all Vasojevići. What two of you are doing is pure vandalism.Tresnjevo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You removed cited content and replaced it with original research. Selmani does not claim that these names prove it was of Serbian origin or that they were from Herzegovina, it is simply just a translation of an ottoman document to albanian. please dont accuse me of being a nationalist. Durraz0 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is responsible for their own edits. I'm not even one of the authors of the article, but I need you to understand what we do on wikipedia. And I'm writing everything to actually help you navigate the discussion without getting unnecessary admin oversight. Wikipedia doesn't invent theories or give undue weight to them. It discusses what bibliography discusses. It says "likely of Albanian origin" because reliable sources discuss them as of Albanian origin. You can remove all sources published in Albanian but many other publications will call them of Albanian origin. It's not that somebody is trying to make anyone Albanian, it's that reliable sources consistently discuss them of such origins.

Now, about the arguments themselves:

• The Vasojevići are mentioned for the first time in the defter of Shkodra. Defters don't discuss ethnicity.
• The Nemanjić folk story is already discussed in the article. I don't think that anybody removed it.
• I think that the image of the Muslim Vasojevići could be moved to another section of the article. If you moved it to another section, I don't think that anyone would object it. But you didn't do that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Sources

Hello, @Ktrimi991, Who are these well known authors that I asked you in the edit? There are many of sources here and on other Montenegrin Tribal pages which claim them to be of Albanian origin even though DNA does not prove this. Surix321 (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Surix321, do not ask me which are the sources. You can check them in the article - I can see 9 sources backing the possible Albanian origin. On DNA research, unless a reliable peer-reviewed academic study says the tribe was not "genetically Albanian", it is just your own original research. We go by reliable sources, not our own opinions. If later some serious academic does a large-scale genetic study on such tribes, that will be reflected in scholarship and on Wikipedia too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Also be aware that "Albanian", "Serb" and "Montenegrin" are ethnicities, not genetic data. Do not mistake genetics for ethnicity or ethnic origin (the ethnic identity of a person or population before the current one). Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

True but ydna still stays regardless of assimilation or others. Surix321 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

So is it possible to try to add 9-10 sources that claim otherwise or no, just wondering? Surix321 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that have a different view, ofc you can add that view next to the Albanian origin view. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Surix321: You can add whatever you want if it's supported by reliable sources. The one thing which I wouldn't add is folk story about origins from Bosnia, it's a 150-year-old folk story which is discussed in the article. In my experience, instead of addressing ethnicity debates it's better to first write about any community about its history.

--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

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[6], 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)

Recent edits

I read Krisifor's new edits and I don't see what is the relevance of these edits and why he's changing the lead and the structure of the article. I didn't remove all of his edits, because some are new content but the change of the stable shouldn't be changed without consensus. Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ahmet,

Before reverting, the courtesy would have been to open a discussion here to explain why you disagree with the changes. But even after reverting my edits, you did not provide any explanation, although I guess the main reason is that my first edits (as an IP) added perfectly valid theories about the origin of the tribe next to the usual Albanian historiographic theory. And as I told Maleschreiber, my first edits (the problematic ones) were accepted by Jingiby who regularly patrols here, judging by the page history.

Now, not only have you removed those edits, but you have also removed almost all my other edits, where I have:

- rewritten many incorrectly written sentences,

- provided new valid content,

- corrected many invalid references.

And this page needs a lot of attention like that because there are still some missing references (which I plan to correct), badly written content, and missing information. Now, where are your contributions to this page? I couldn't find any, so I guess you are here to protect a point of view. And finally, the argument that a Wikipedia page should not be edited because it is "stable" is not valid, it is in fact the opposite of Wikipedia's policy. Quote from WP:STABLE:

It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war. Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is a form of disruptive editing. Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version, and the decision to temporarily preserve the stable version for the purposes of deescalating a dispute may only be made by an uninvolved administrator.

Editors who attempt to enforce a stable version may be blocked from editing without warning. Krisitor (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid that you will need consensus before making controversial edits on this article again. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Since I suppose the only one of my edits that you consider "controversial" is the one about the origin of the tribe, as I said, a consensus has already been reached with user Jingiby who, unlike you, has been controlling this page for some time. This user slightly modified my first edits (the ones made as an IP), to put Western authors at the top of the paragraph. And although I don't agree with this change, because it gives too much importance to non-specialized Western authors, I accepted it: that's consensus.

Now, what you are doing is simply deleting my additions regarding the Yugoslav (Serbian and Montenegrin) hypothesis. It is quite obvious that your only motivation is to present the Albanian theory as the only valid one. However, judging from the discussions and numerous attempts to edit the paragraph on origins by other contributors, it is undeniable that this view is not neutral and deserved to be amended using other valid sources. Krisitor (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Boki/Krisitor, stuff like "Finally, the Albanian school of historiography consider that the Vasojevići (in Albanian Vasaj, Vasoviqi or Vasojeviq) are of Albanian origin, and underwent a process of gradual cultural integration into the neighboring Slavic population" is against WP:NPOV. You are making it look like it is a national view rather than one supported by non-Albanian academics. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ktrimi,

If you don't like this sentence, then feel free to rewrite it in a way that is making it less problematic to you. That does not give you the right to remove all my edits, which are always sourced and explained. Now, you, Ahmet and possibly Maleschreiber obiously don't want to discuss, hence I reported you to an administrator, Vanjagenije. Krisitor (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That is just one example of problematic changes you have made. I need to carefully look at the massive and messy changes to see what is good and what not. You can "report" us how much you want, you still need consensus here to make changes. And consensus is reached only through discussion. I could not care less about such a frivolous "report". Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It's easy to check all the other changes, use the history, you're an experienced Wikipedia user and you should have done so before reverting all my edits. As I said to Ahmet Q., not only are you trying to protect a point of view, but you have also removed edits where I have rewritten many incorrect sentences, provided new sourced content and corrected many invalid references. The way you're acting is blatantly against Wikipedia rules. Where did you ever tried to discuss any of the valid changes that others have tried to push before me on this page? I don't see your name anywhere here. You can qualify the report as "frivolous", but you wrong behavior there is obvious. Krisitor (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

To move forward, I propose to restore all my recent edits except those concerning the origins of the tribe, since these are the edits that caused problems to Ktrimi991, Ahmet Q. and Maleschreiber. All the other edits were just the addition of some sourced content regarding the history of the tribe and the correction of a few sentences and references, so there is no reason for these to be undone. I also propose to revert Serbo-Croatian to Serbian in the heading, as Serbian is an official language in all municipalities of the Vasojevići region, and it is the largely dominant answer in the last two censuses regarding the language spoken by the inhabitants of the municipalities in question.

As for my edits on the origin of the tribe, I would explain them further in another dedicated post so that we can decide how best to present all the theories. Is that OK? Krisitor (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have re-instated your edits in the geography section without the sentence at the expense of the Ottomans as most villages which were pushed out by the Vasojevici were Orthodox Slavs/Serbs like the ancestors of the people of Goraždevac, who were expelled by the Vasojevici and ended up in Kosovo. Which other parts do you want to reinstate? Can you post here the exact paragraphs?--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the geography part, and I agree with your change as keeping at the expanse of the Ottomans could be confusing. I've just re-instated some of my other changes:

• Re-instated the language as Serbian according to what I said above (this was modified by Ahmet Q. after my first edits as Krisitor but there was no good reason to change the language).
• Rewrote part of the early history to take into account the fact that Dašić corrected himself in the second edition of his book (from 2011): Jireček mistook Rječica with Rikavac (near Medun) in the Ragusan report from 1444 and this mistake was repeated by generations of historians, until it was pointed out by Ćirković in 1987, so Dašić had to make this clear in the second edition of his book.
• Put some conditional (feel free to discuss/tweak this if you don't agree, the goal is to reach consensus) on the fact that some Vasojevići branches might have migrated to Kosovo (Mirdita is the only source talking about this AFAIK), and replaced "slavicized" with "serbianized", as this is exactly what Mirdita said (he speaks about serbianization and not slavicization).
• Moved a sentence from Morrison saying that the Vasojevići have strong ties with Belgrade from the "18th and 19th century" subsection to the "21th century" subsection because this is a much more appropriate context and this is related to what Morrison says about the "Serb feeling" of the the Vasojevići in his book.
• Added a sourced sentence explaining that the Vasojevići area (the upper part) was incorporated into Montenegro in 1858 after the Battle of Grahovac.
• The rest of my changes are essentially tweaks, fixes and moving some general references to the bibliography section.

As I said above, I didn't re-instated my changes regarding the origin of the tribe, as I'll discuss this later when I'll get more time to do so. For the rest, I don't see any POV change there, but again, feel free to discuss or tweak this so we can reach consensus. Krisitor (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• The Cyrillic tag without a specific national designation has been used for a long time for most of these articles as a means to avoid WP:NPOV and disputes. There are many Vasojevići in Kosovo, in particular they settled in the northern parts in the 18th century. If information isn't disputed by another source, attribution isn't used. For Vasojevići settlement in Kosovo see Petar Petrović (1984) Raška: ЕТUDES ANТНRОРОGЕОGRАРНIQUES, University of Belgrade.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I guess using the Cyrillic tag is the least worse solution, though Cyrillic is not a language and there is a specific Serbian letter here.

  And thanks for your source, I wasn't aware about it, indeed it says that some Vasojevići were settled around Rogozna, I'll update the article to reflect that. Krisitor (talk) 08:59, 5 January 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

There's a statement that the origin of the Vasojević tribe is most likely Albanian, that's definitely not true and it's a statement written to provoke the Serbian Vasojević tribe. The founder, Vaso, were born in Prizren Serbia, Kosovo and Metohije and moved to the highlands of Montenegro after the Kosovo battle. 85.81.56.61 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)