Talk:Kuči (tribe)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Prevalis

Some info you might be interested in: in 1694 the Kucs were together with the Albanian Hots in an alliance against the Turks. Throughout the 18th century the Kucs fight together with the Serb Vasojevics and the Albanians Hots and Kliments in resistance against the Ottoman Empire.

You could include the folk telling of the Kuci's common origin (probably falsified to attain "brotherhood" of clans, based of half-truth), told by Marko Miljanov Popovic in his book: that Kuci, Kastrati and Saljani descend from three brothers: Grča, Krsto and Šako.

You could add that the Albanian clans Kastratis, Berishas (though today these are largely Roma, lol) and Kliments most probably descend from the Kuci (according to their home tellings).

The Kuci're not Montenegrin, they're Highlander. --PaxEquilibrium 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not proper to simply call the Kuci an Albanian clan (or Marko Miljanov an ethnic Albanian), it's one clan but of dual Slavic (Serbian) and Albanian origins. The Old Kuci are largely of Serb and the New Kuci of Albanian. According to "Predanja o zajedničnom poreklu nekih crnogorskih i nekih arbanaških plemena" of Mirko Barjaktarevic: Na koncu, potreba zajedničke odbrane i sigurnijeg ekonomskog življenja tera i nesrodnike da se udružuju u istu zajednicu ili pleme. Tako su Srbi i, delom, Arbanasi obrazovali pleme Kuče. I to Srbi pravoslavne a Arbanasi katoličke i islamske religije. Otuda Kuči kao pleme čine zajednicu od Srba i Arbanasa to jest od življa pravoslavne, katoličke i islamske religije. Ni etnička ni religiozna razlika nisu bile tolika prepreka da se stvori jedinstvena plemenska zajednica. The same is claimed in Jovan Erdeljanovic's "Kuci Tribe". --PaxEquilibrium 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature changes

In accordance to the Serb clans article, I have replaced most of the 'clan' terms with 'tribe', as 'clan' denotes 'bratstvo' and Kuči is a 'pleme' (tribe). I haven't changed the term 'clan' referring to 'Starokuči' (Old Kuči), because it, IMHO, denotes a 'group of clans' (skup bratstava), rather then more territorial 'tribe'.

I have also changed the term 'family' with 'clan' (bratstvo). --VeselinM (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Vuk Lalev Drekalović and his descendants

I am quite aware that Vuk had crossed over to Islam, however, Pax mentioned that Vuk's descendants are the forefathers of the Turkovići. However, I recently found that the same Vuk's descendants are the forefathers of the Omerbožovići, another clan located near the city of Podgorica. I am not sure whether they were both or not and will look into it. Pax, I am asking you to provide a source for your claim while I look more deeper in this situation.

Never mind. Quick fact: Never trust forums... --Prevalis (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please...

Please, I'm begging all members... Please, don't put that Kuči are Serb tribe. Kuči are not Serb tribe - Starokuči are Serbs, Drekalovići are mixed Albanians/Montenegrins/Serbs and there are Albanians in Kuči, in villages like Zatrijebač, Koći, Fundina... Please, be tolerant and respect other side of Kuči. I'm orthodox from Kuči but our tribe is not Serbian or any other tribe. And, if I know history - tribes exitsts only in Scotland, Albania and Montenegro, so that phrase 'Serbian tribe' is false and fake. Please, be tolerant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.42.878.39 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Even starokuči are not serbs. Starokuči is only a made name old kuči. Everything connected with Kuči (Kuçi) is Albanian, deriving from Albanians and only Albanians. In Albania and Kosova even wider you can find surnames "Kuçi". It is well known that Montenegrians derive from Albanians you can see it through their culture and these organisation of their society "TRIBES". .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeau (talk • contribs) 08:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Genetics don’t lie. There are certainly Slavic tribes amongst the Kuč, and recent analysis from the Bošnjački DNA project for the residents of Sandžak, clearly show that the common Albanian Y-DNA halogroup accounts for only 30% of the population.

Even the Zukorlić family, who trace their heritage back to the Kuč sub-region are of a Celtic background, belonging to a subclade of the Western European R1b halogroup. (Emir Kuč) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmirKuc (talk • contribs)

The founder of the Kuci tribe is said to be the albanian Drekali Kastrioti, Gjergj Kastrioti´s grandson.

This is what is stated in the article below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastrioti

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Mate, this was stated in the article. --Prevalis (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I note the criticism is that this article reads like a personal reflection with little or no references. Perhaps there are no references and the fact that most of the history is carried from on generation to the other through the repetition of song and the gusla. Although there may be have been church or other documentation most history is passed on through the many songs. A fierce and proud family this is how their history is and was recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.146.27 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Old Kuči, Saint Demetrius, R1a1a (R-M198) haplogroup

My family is from Old Kuči clan with Saint Demetrius slava and our Y-DNA haplogroup is R1a1a (R-M198), which is a Slavic haplogroup (we did an extensive analysis and have a document done by a PhD researcher in the field of medical genetics and cell biology on precise origins of our haplogroup but it is too long document to be pasted here). A family member hired a historian some time ago who came to a conclusion that our family is directly descended from Mrnjavčevićs but I never personally saw the research document, although the research was done long before I noticed the entry regarding Kuči here on Wikipedia. It would be interesting if Y-DNA test could be performed one day on any known remains (if there are any) of Mrnjavčevićs so we could see what haplogroup they had which should be R1a1a if the historian did his research properly. Anyway, example of our family clearly shows that Kuči clan is not entirely Albanian. It could be that Slavic part (R1a1a) is a small minority and that they populated an area that was predominately Albanian before their arrival, which is in line with the narrative that Mrnjavčevićs came to this area fleeing from Ottoman invaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.107.54 (talk) 01:50 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Kuci is not a slavic name

please I beg you, it just looks horrible to read an article about and "eastern tribe which was located near the albanian border " what else do you want as prove? I'm by myself a member of the Kuqi clan ...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.154.251 (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your statement about the Kuqi is presumptuous and is not backed by viable evidence.

What about the Kuc tribe in Southern Poland?

If anything, the fact that my genetic subclade is prevalent amongst Southern Slavs, and exists as an old family from the Kuč subregion; indicates just-how far reaching Slavic influence stretches - spanning from Poland to Montenegro.

Albanian tribes, did not have the political, financial and logistical support to establish anything.

They were mostly poor farmers and simple foke (pre-Ottoman period). Even today, Albania is but a holiday resort for poor Western Europeans, struggling to recover from an area of darkness overshadowed by Communism.

(Emir Kuč) Emirkuc (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Old Kuči originally from Medun, with haplogroup R1a-M198 (Z280 > Y2613 > Y2609 > Y2608)

Detailed analysis of my Ancestry.com SNP meta-data shows that I (most likely) belong to halogroup R1a1a1b1a2b3*, an STR sub-clade based on the R1a-CTS3402 cluster, which is common in Poland but not exclusive to Poland.

I did not think that the Kuc clan in Poland was at all related to the Kuč clan of Montenegro, but it may very well be!

Whatever the truth; the Kuči tribe seems to have a longer reach than originally anticipated.

Further samples have been submitted to FamilyTreeDNA for Y-DNA testing. Results expected by end of October 2019.

————- END ——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmirKuc (talk • contribs)

I have received my Y37 tests results from FamilyTreeDNA.com and the results ascribed my Y-DNA profile to the R1a-M198 haplogroup. After signing up to the Bošnjački DNA portal on the FTDNA website, the administrators assigned my test results to the R1a-Z282>CTS1211>Y35>CTS3402>Y2613 subclade of the R1a-M198 haplogroup. [Updated 06 November 2019]

———- END ———- — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmirKuc (talk • contribs)

I signed up to the Serbian DNA portal on the FYDNA website and after analysing my Y37 test results assigned my results to the the R1a-Z280>Y2613>Y2609>Y2608 subclade of the R1a-M198 haplogroup.

Since then I have ordered a supplementary Y67 test via FTDNA to see if the subclade can be further narrowed-down into a more specific origin.

There is a discussion between myself and the admins of the Bošnjački DNA project about the publishing of a website which states that the majority of Kuč belong to the E-V13 haplogroup. Not in as far as the fact that the majority (today) may very well belong to the E-V13 haplogroup; rather, who the Staro-Kuč (or old Kuči) belong too.

The evidence presented was some-what ambiguous and presumptuous based on the status quo, ignoring historical migration of Albanian tribes into the area long after the Slavs had established a presence, which according to fringe theory suggest were not in actual fact migrants from the East, but original settlers.

There is also the unanswered question about the Kuc tribe from Poland and the prominent distribution of their haplogroup in Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro? [Updated 1 December 2019]

———- END ——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmirKuc (talk • contribs)

Further evidence from the Serbian genetic testing website Poreklo.rs shows that residents near the town of Medun, mostly belong to the R1a halogroup and subclade that’s similar to mine. The town is situated 13km from the capital city of Montenegro in Podgorica and is where the Kuč originated from. After speaking to my father, he tells me that his father and uncles would often say that we originated from Medun.

According to the Bošnhački article about the Kuč clan, in the 17th century inter tribal conflict broke out in Medun which housed over 70 Muslim families, that were forced to leave. They settled in the Pešter region of Southern Serbia, Raška region. That’s where my great grand parents lived, going back 8-10 generations as far as we can trace.

In addition, the same article mentions that prominent Kuč families, began migrating to the Pešter and Roźaje regions of modern-day Sandžak at the earliest establishment of Ottoman rule in the Balkans. Once again, these are my ancestors.

So I guess it’s settled with respect to my own heritage; however, the Bošnjački DNA project is insistent to ignore the fact that many of the original Kuči were Slavs and belonged to the R1a halogroup. This is based on the status quo showing several sub regions with the R1a haplogroup. They refuse to acknowledge mass migration of Albanian tribes into the region, that had been Slavicised.

I will continue my discussion with them. It’s difficult though, because I am a Bošnjak; and any such conversation often suggests that I am somehow over eager or sympathetic toward their Serb counterparts. Which from my point of view is not the case. The truth is somewhere in the middle, between all of the extreme political influences from amongst the Serbs, Bošnjaks and Albanians. Sadly, there’s allot of Albanian influence in that part of the world; which is borderline excessive.

Further updates on my Y67 tests coming soon.

Note : Genetic map of prominent haplogorups indicating the location of Medun may be accessed via this URL:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7uwd3iuuxj28xi/3D5DA6A1-5681-4378-8CB4-C42E8DFB53FF.jpeg?dl=0

Original map may be accessed via this URL:

https://www.poreklo.rs/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Crna_Gora_-_Genetsko_poreklo_stanovnistva_1913_1-768x1011.png

[Updated December 12, 2019]

———- END ——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmirKuc (talk • contribs)

I revived my Y67 results, which remain the same according to the various FTDNA projects and nevgen.org predictions.

I have since ordered a BigY-700 test, and will post the findings when the results are made available.

[Updates January 18, 2019]

————- END ———— — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmirKuc (talk • contribs)

Kuci - one genome mapping

My family is Kuci from Montenegro. I had my DNA mapped, and my paternal genetic haplogroup is E-V13, which is haplogroup common to Peloponnesian Greeks and Balkans in general. E-V13 is the authentic Balkan haplogroup (for example, it is common in Albania, too). E-V13 origin is in Africa. Fourteen thousand years ago in northeastern Africa. The percentage of E-V13 among Slavs is small, E-V13 among Slavs outside of Balkans is negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4801:5090:86a:b63b:c0bf:aa05 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Montenegrin people are not slavic by genetics and as like our oral history tradition we are geneticaly Albanians-brdjani-Morlak-Vlach

Im Montenegrin Orthodox Kuc from Medun, and i have to tell you that there is no slavic genetics in Kuci tribe. I see you mention poreklo.rs but u really dont tell the true story because they also claim who is not ev13 they are not really Kuc. There are plenty historical evidence that Kuci are originaly albanians. All of three brotherhoods came from Albania and it is proven by dna test that they have same ancestor who is most likely Petar Kuc who arrived from south Albania. Most of us Kuci knows that we are of Albanian heritage and whole Kuci tribe was totaly Albanian until late 19th century and early 20th century. Kuci is still mostly Albanian if u consider the full tribe all kuci who live in Italy, Romania, Albania, Kosovo are Albanians. In Montenegro they are still divided in 4 nations-albanian,montenegrin,bosniak and serbian. Most of Kuci are Muslims today in Montenegro. There are some r1b familiea in Kuc but there is no R1a which is slavic gene. Im sorry to tell u mate but the story you ate told is false, your ancestors are not from Kuci tribe. I have got my dna test as i know many of my relatives have done that too, even those who consider them serbians are ev13. For me this wasnt a shocker because my grandpa always told us that we are originaly from Skadar-Albania. I dont know if u understand Serbian because poreklo.rs also says those who are not of haplogroup ev-13 are not Kuci. Montenegrin people are not slavic by genetics and as like our oral history tradition we are geneticaly Albanians-brdjani-highlanders tribes as Kuci, PIperi, Vasojevici Bjeloplavsici and so on. All of these tribes are proven ev13 haplo carriers. Historical sources all say that Kuci are Albanians exept those of some Serbian historians which were written in 20th century, and not all because many serbian historians claimed they were originaly Albanian which is also proven by genetics. I cant speak Albanian and i am Montenegrin and proud but the truth is some 600yrs ago our ancestors came from Albania, but we have done a lot for Christianity and Montenegro and we were the fiercest enemies of Turks. Again you should read the history better and u should not neglect all the real facts and claim onto minor false stories by some serbian historians which are completely lie. Even by the logics what would slavic people do in those high hills inbetween Montenegro and Albania. Marko Miljanov which was claimed by Serbians as a Serb has explained it well in his books who he is and his books were hidden. Now when people know about them they try to make it false but dna has proven again that Marko indeed knew the truth. You should really not bother into searching more about Kuci tribe mate you definitely dont belong to that tribe, maybe by your moms side but not by your dads. Again there is no R1a in Kuci or any other highlander tribe. Just go and type Kuci on poreklo.rs they write that those that carry any other haplogroup then ev13 are not Kuci — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.95.167.111 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way i am from Mrnjavcevici and we are also ev13, there is no R1a in Kuci tribe. There are some people who belive they are from Kuci tribe but they are really not. As for Mrnjavcevici too and Drekalovici and all Kuci share exactly the same genetics. Mrnjavcevici were Roman Catholics to begin with, all that is written on poreklo.rs and i repeat again there is no R1a in Kuci tribe, there might have settled some slavic people near Podgorica and Medun who belive they are Kuci but they are really not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.95.167.111 (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a bad essay

This whole article is bad essay that was formed by layers and layers of all kinds of frankly, bizarre stuff. From the connection to Poland to its "ancient" genetics section, it's a horrible mess and readers should be warned. It should act as a reminder also that this needs a major rewrite and cleanup. Hoti might be a good example in terms of "how to start the cleanup".--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Another point I was thinking about the revision that added Triepshi as part of Kuči. Triepshi was in the same unit for administrative purposes for a time in 1485 by the Ottomans, but these two regions are divided by high mountains, it made no sense and had no impact to either for as long it lasted. Even today the road network is very bad and traveling from Triepsh to Kuči is difficult. The person who made this revision and mixed up Triepshi with Koja was probably looking the areas on a google map with no elevation settings. My advice, to anyone who reads this comment upon deciding to write articles about tribes in Montenegro, Albania and the Balkans: check the geography, friend. It'll make things much simpler.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber indeed. Actually we have no need to tolerate such huge additions of OR and synth, especially as the SYN is almost exclusively using non reliable sources : 1935 works from authoritarian Yugoslavia, Wikipedia itself, and internet commenters from "Bosniak DNA project". --Calthinus (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've done an extensive cleanup but much more is necessary. I think the best might be rolling the page back to before the editorializing wave began, based on the article history. Thoughts?--Calthinus (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I would go section by section to have a better view of the whole editing process. At which revision were you considering a rollback? For example, does an article about a social formation of the Middle Ages need a "Roman Era" section? --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that some parts from a modern Muslim/Bosniak perspective deserve to be included in a different framework. When looking for bibliography for these areas I usually find articles and books written by Catholic/Muslim Albanians about the Catholic/Muslim Albanian population or by Orthodox Montenegrins about Orthodox Montenegrins. But there's usually nothing about the Muslims of these areas. Emirkuc's writting needed a total overhaul, but I get where he's coming from. The Muslim branches of Orthodox tribes were made historically invisible by the dominant narrative of state-formation in Montenegro and he's protesting that. This is a very interesting process and one that opens up questions beyond petty essentialism and oral traditions about semi-mythical "noble" ancestors.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber I actually agree with all of the above but if we allow sources of that sort it is a slippery slide to allowing their contemporaries where "authoritative" sources informed French, German, and English speakers that Albanians were in fact not completely evolved from apes and still had tails... among other things. That was the scholarly standard then. Anyhow, the version before Emir had plenty of discussion of Bosniaks and Muslims in the area [[1]]. I do actually find the genetics discussion very interesting, but it is fitting for a blog, not wikipedia. --Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you're saying about double standards, bibliography and genetics. I was making a general comment about the scope of the article. That looks like a proper version to start in. My only change would be to replace Triepshi with Koja e Kuçit in the geography and anthropology sections.--16:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleschreiber (talk • contribs)

I'd be down for that. Also I'd add that defending marginalized Bosniak POV doesn't itself make a user constructive. Emir above dismissed Albanian viewpoints by redirecting the convo to Albania being nothing more than a holiday resort for poor Western Europeans. That sort of bigoted chauvinism does not signal to me someone who is interested in collegial collaboration.--Calthinus (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Would that work in a single revert or is it a manual revert thing?--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll perform the revert in a sec, you can handle Triepshi since it's more your domain.--Calthinus (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Gjon II Kastrioti, ancestor of Drekalovici?

He was just twelve when he left from Albania. Not everything found online deserves to be put out to the public as a plausible story. Not all theories are equal. Some are facts, some are just that: stories.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is BS. Everyone wants to claim relation to Skanderbeg. In most cases its BS or at best speculative.--Calthinus (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Cal, I was thinking of adding the WikiProject Albania tag in the article. I mean, there are stuff here that are related to it, so I don't think it's controversial.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes.--Calthinus (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sanjak of Scutari in 1416?

Shkodra/Scutari wasn't under Ottoman control in 1416. What is meant here is the Venetian cadaster of 1416-17. It also doesn't mention any sort of ehtnicity about its inhabitants nor does so the later Venetian document of 1455 (I have that too), so Erdeljanovic (1907) in pure WP:AGEMATTERS is just putting forward his own stuff. Archival data needs to be framed in their original intention.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Erdeljanovic is still very much RS and a respectable scholar - for most of his work. I do not see why would this not be the case. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have written a "clean" Origins section, where every wave of settlement is explained and archival data are added as they were recorded. Now I ask you: how exactly do you think that a sentence by Erdeljanovic that says Kuci was Serbian Orthodox in 1455 can fit into the article? I can't describe the way he read the archival data in his disposal as even plausible. He tried to put forward a monoethnic narrative that really makes no sense in light of archival data. Modern historiography doesn't put forward a monoethnic narrative Albanian, Serbian or Montenegrin. It didn't exist as people were constantly on the move and didn't have a social framework which prohibited them from forming communities with people that weren't of the same ancestry. I have tried to reflect that in the article. Best.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not comment on your other work. Exactly, you can't. Nobody can claim that there was any sort of agenda by Eredljanović or that he is a partisan source. It should find its place within the article per NPOV. For example - Serbian and Yugoslav ethnologist. Jovan Erdeljanović considered that Kuči was Serbian Orthodox tribe since at least 1455. Or something like it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

When Erdeljanović was writing his PhD in 1907 he was unaware of archival records that are used by all historians and anthropologists today. These are: 1) the cadaster of Scutari 1416-17 (Catasto veneto di Scutari). It was published by Fulvio Cordignano in 1942 and translated in Albanian in 1977 by Injac Zamputi. It was already known to Serbian historiography but after the 1977 translation it became part of the "mainstream" academic discussion. 2)the defter of the sanjak of Scutari 1485. It was translated from Ottoman Turkish by Selami Pulaha and published in 1974. The defter and its translator is cited by all modern Serbian historiography, regardless of their interpretation. Something else that I find interesting is that when Erdeljanović was writing his PhD on Kuči in Prague, he doesn't seem to have studied the Dečani chrysobulls (published in 1880 by Miloš Milojević) because if he did, he would have known that they are mentioned as a semi-nomadic pastoral group in 1330, so he wouldn't have put forward as factual a story that connects them to the Mrnjavčević feudal family. See what I mean by WP:AGEMATTERS? Scholarship evolves and theories put forward can't be maintained in light of newer bibliography. In saying that, I do think that some of his first-hand observations could be part of the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Its place in the article can be a thing if and only if we can find later work that is actually RS discussing it.--Calthinus (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

For example, Erdeljanovic refers to Mrnjavcevici brotherhood in Kuci, but there isn't such a brotherhood there. The article of Kuci in Serbian wikipedia is much more representative of the complex historical reality of the area than its equivalent in English was just a week ago. No Mrnjavcevici tales there either.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Page move

I disagree with the page move by @InNeed95: but I'm not able to undo it. I have rewritten a significant part of the article which discusses the Albanian origin (patrilineally) of all people who descend from this community. But I never wrote that they identify as Albanians today. A small part of them do still identify as Albanians. The few who still live in the region identify as Montenegrins or Serbs and the majority of people from Kuči/Kuçi consider themselves to be Bosniaks or ethnic Muslims. To use the Albanian name as the title is not justified in any way, shape or form in terms of modern identity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Good day @Maleschreiber,

Did you even read my comment on the change?

"But I never wrote that they identify as Albanians" You are not a source.You are someone who is supposed to write about the information found in actual sources.

Nobody accused you either to have written that.

There are articles about the Albanian people in Montenegro, telling about the story, about how Albanians and montenegrins lived together. About topics like assimilation and many more.

I wrote in my comment that the Kuci tribe probably has slavic admixure, and shares some similarities with them. Nobody can deny that.

Tho most sources refer to the Kuci tribe as Albanian. As the Article says itself, that even in the early 14th century, the Kuci tribe was refered to as a Albanian tribe.

The Name Move is based on actual origin of the people. While the name before, showed their name in a foreign language due to them living in Montenegro after their lands were occupied by Montenegro since the end of the 1st Balkan War.

I actually only wanted to change the "č" to a "ç", but that didnt work.

I would highly suggest a Voting on the Name if possible. Wouldnt you agree with that?

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Origin

As someone from Kuči, I have to ask myself am I seeing this well? And the people who keep changing the page, do you have any sources to back your false theory or are you just doing it as part of an agenda? P.S. perfectly aware that there is a part of Kuči that is of Albanian origin. This however doesn't change the fact that all I see here is that someone doesn't know how to read DNA test results. Kuči are, and most of them have fully been Serbian, part since the 9th century and entirely since the late 18th century, that is in their character, which is today undisputable. The fact that there are a lot of Muslims(identity) and Bosniaks who have their origin from Kuči doesn't also make it a Bosniak or a Muslim tribe, as most of them do not affiliate themselves with it just as part of Kuci doesn't affiliate with their Albanian or Catholic origin(Myself included). Also a very important note would be the arrival of Slavs to the area from 7th to 9th century they were initially living apart from the local population that were in fact Vlachs(Romans, both themselves and the Slavs saw them as such). To summarize, Kuči are a group of people that identify themselves mostly as Serbs and or Montenegrins, part of them are of Albanian origin which we do acknowledge, though saying we are a Albanian tribe is the same as saying Hoti and Klimendi are Serbian tribe because they also had Serbs in their tribes and spoke both languages just like Kuči did. Who ever made the change is not approaching it well, and shouldn't be in the position to alter such things.

P.S. anyone who writes here and claims to be from Kuči, please provided evidence in terms of pasovi(they know what it is), anyone claiming to be outta know. 178.220.223.9 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @178.220.223.9. Regarding your comment, if you have any relevant material supported by credible sources, please feel free to quote and include it. The Kuči tribe did not exist in the ninth century, and nowhere in the scholarly literature is this even regarded feasible. It is during the 15th century, that the Kuči begin to make its way to what we know as modern day Montenegro and soon after coalesce as a tribe. Indeed, identities are a complex issue, but sources have previously proven that Kuči's ancestry is ultimately connected patrilineally to Albanians. Excine (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed tied to north Albania for a part of the population of the clan itself. Though that in itself doesn't disprove of what I said here, considering that the population in the region was mixed, as I mentioned Serbian and Gheg were spoken by most people as they lived in a bilingual environment, across many tribes in northern Albania as well. The character of the people of the region has been shifting at times, Albanian identity was not as it is today, it was very loose, the language of the ancestors of today's Albanians wasn't unified or codified yet. That region was also for a long time part of the Serbian kingdoms which lead to some people who are not of Serbian descent to identify with it later on. Also a long time of tribal mixing lead to the shif in what we would talk of as DNA today. I am of the stock of Vujoš Lalev from Lale Drekalov of Voevoda Drekale, which is while a very renowned branch also the latest one to embrace Orthodox Christianity, from previously being Roman Catholics. That's a branch that's indisputably of Albanian origin. Though there are branches of families that arrived there before the new Kuči, that came from present day North Macedonia, Kingdom of Prilep, lead by Mrnjavčevići who originate from today's Bosnia and Hercegovina, Hercegovina region. As of sources I own a book: Племе Кучи Етнографско-историјски преглед (Kuči tribe Ethnographic-historical analysis) By Marko B. Rašović published in 1963. Though it was written decades before, the author was killed during WWII contributors as well as the writer were all from Kuči, it's basically oral tradition compared to historical studies. My general point being that Albanian origin as a factor on the page is greatly exaggerated and while it is a relevant fact, should be placed within the context of who Kuči are, much like one wouldn't describe Klimendi clan as a clan of Serbian origin, based on the fact there is part if the oral tradition describing their founder as a Serb. The first reference to it's character is only depicted as Albanian, which is not right, based on the reasons mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.223.9 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the identity of medieval Albanians, I will refrain from speculating. Nevertheless, it is certain that the Ghegs maintained their language, therefore there was a distinct stratum of Albanians and Slavs throughout the Middle Ages. Not to add the overwhelming number of Albanian anthroponymy in Northern Albanian areas also demonstrates this. Regarding the identity problem, we are truly navigating muddy waters. As far as I am aware, the Mrnjavcevic folk legend is an oral tradition with no verifiable documentation of a settlement. The dates do not correspond in any way. Currently, all Kuci brotherhoods have the same patrilineal heritage; genetics should not be mentioned in the article, but it nonetheless serves as evidence to what I'm saying. You may want to scroll up on the talk page and read more about the Mrnjavcevic narrative, because it does not make sense. What do you make of the Kuci villages in 1485, whose toponyms and people, with the exception of two, were largely Albanian in character? Excine (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been a while I've been away, I will first answer to your final question because I have the answer at the top of my head, those are very well described in the sources I mentioned as toponyms of Vlach origin, we could say that modern-day population of the region also has part of that ancestry be they Albanian, Serbian and or Montenegrin or Bosniak. The same question I could ask about the Slavic toponyny in Northern Albania, and the answer is the same, since this region was populated by a mixture of peoples. But again the Identity of Kuci even if 100% genetically is to be none Slavic(which it isn't), that's not reflected with our identity. What little I remember of notable migrations mentioned mention 3 groups of people settling there since the Kuci character was formed, they are Serbs, Albanians and Albanised Serbs. As far as Mrnjavcevici go I will take a look at the topics above but to bring up what I remember from reading on it, their arrival was notable due to their retinue killing people from the village of Orahovo(Native settlement of my family) if I'm not mistaken I'll have to check that again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.220.27 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 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) 15:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Since when is a origin, which most Kuchi don't follow, integral to their existence? Surix321 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, it is "integral" to the existence of a bunch of Wikipedia editors around there. I spent much time to discuss on this topic on the Piperi article, so Botushali my arguments are the same here. And even if Kuči were probably the most closer to be an Albanian tribe, they were never purely of Albanian origin. Check Pešikan and Curtis. Boki (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Boki: All Kuci men belong to a very specific Albanian lineage. To this day, there hasn't been found a single person from Kuci who has a Slavic patrilineal origin. Just like there hasn't been found a single person from Niksici who has Albanian origin - all of them are of Slavic origin. What genetic anthropology has shown in Montenegro is that there's a very rigid patrilineal division in pleme which reflects their distant origins. The article may discuss the Albanian origin of Kuci directly at the first paragraph, but it has to be rephrased in a way which makes sense for the readers.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that Maleschreiber. Regarding genetic studies though, we have to rely on academic articles, because there are many so-called studies on haplogroups that look quite dubious. Boki (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, only credible academic sources are relevant for use in the article itself, however, the Y-DNA analyses that has been conducted on the Albanian and Montenegrin tribes is far from dubious - the results are concrete and can be accessed publicly. The core of the Kuči (both Old Kuči and Drekalovići) belong to Y-DNA haplogroup E-BY165837 which is a branch under Y174869, itself downstream of BY168279. The most recent common ancestor for this patrilineage lived in ca. 1472 CE, although recently Albanians from the Trieshi and Koja e Kuçit have tested positive for this branch and will likely push the date back by a bit. What is interesting is that there is a parallel lineage under Y174869 (a brother clade to BY165837 so to speak) that is currently represented by an Albanian from Kurbin, the common ancestor shared between him and BY165837 lived in ca. 1222 CE. This is interesting since we know that during the 13th century there were many major socio-political changes and upheavals in the Principality of Arbanon, possibly facilitating a northward migration. Y174869 having originated somewhere around north-central Albania is further indicated by a couple samples further upstream at BY168279>Y187415 from around Ishëm and Fushë-Krujë, although it must be noted that the relation between this lineage and Y174869 goes back to ca. 772 CE.

That the core of the Kuči was of Albanian origin is further supported by historical sources - their earliest mention (1330 CE) is as a part of an Albanian katun alongside communities such as the Tuzi, Bushati and others. From the 15th century onwards, however, I agree that there were changes and shifts in ethno-linguistic character; with the arrival of different communities into the region, both Albanian and Slavic-speaking. I personally feel as if this is addressed in the article as well. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

How can it be integral to our existence since we are Serbs and or Montenegrins and Bosniaks even? There is literally no affiliation towards Albanian identity even by those who are of the families that are of known Albanian origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.220.27 (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

New edits

@Durraz0: The new series of edits by @Krisitor: do not represent edits which just change the flow in minor ways. It's not an issue of which WP:MOS version is better. Krisitor's edits are changing the basic narrative of the article as it is established in bibliography. Edits which do not have consensus and are not based on bibliography shouldn't persist.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: my only goal here is to make the flow clearer. The Origins section is a mess with some paragraphs that clearly belong in the History section, others in a new Anthropology section that I added (as was added ages ago some articles of the other Montenegrin tribes). I started to edit the article to improve this, nothing more. Krisitor (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You said: "Edits which do not have consensus and are not based on bibliography shouldn't persist.": I only moved content... You clearly didn't read my edits, didn't you? Krisitor (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I read your edits and you know that you're actively changing the basic narrative of the article, you weren't just moving content around. I'm always open to discussion, but things must be discussed for what they are. If you want to propose content changes, you have to do it in an open and explicit manner.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem, we can enter the WP:BRD process here. So :

• My first edit was to delete a sentence that is already repeated twice in the article (about the Albanian katun of 1330). I simply deleted the last sentence, the one that had no reference (and it was out of place, clearly).
• My second edit was to move paragraphs from the Origins section to the History section: the paragraphs about the Albanian katun, and then the paragraphs about the early Ottoman defters. This is because there is absolutely no reason to start the History section in 1583, but also because the Origins section should reflect the debates and/or historiographical certainties about the Origin of the Kuči, without going into historical details.
• With the exception of the last one, my other edits were simply WP:BOLD edits to reword some sentences, adjust some things here and there, nothing more.
• My last change, after @Durraz0 revert and my subsequent one, was to move the oral traditions from the Origins section to a new Anthropology section, as has been done before me by others and in other similar articles on Montenegrin tribes.

Krisitor (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I've just reinstated those of my edits which consisting mostly of rewording, removing duplicate information, using of a template for the Albanian language in the lead, moving a ref out of the lead, etc. These changes should not be a problem. @Maleschreiber feel free to edit this as you see fit until we reach a consensus. I will then reinstate some of my other edits because as I said above, some parts of the Origins section belong in the History section, while other parts should be placed in a new Anthropology section with subsections related to oral traditions and language, as with most pages dedicated to other Montenegrin tribes. Krisitor (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've now reinstated those of my edits that involved moving parts of the page to a new section dedicated to the anthropology of the tribe. Again, feel free to make any changes you wish until we reach consensus Krisitor (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

History section of the article

I think that both raids/ravaging of Kuči region should be mentioned in the history part of the article.

First one is importnant as it shows the battle between Kuči tribe and Ottomans and Albanians against it, second one is importnant as it shows the will to be free and not pay taxes to Montenegrin state, as we didn't pay them to the Ottomans either.

Both are very tragic moments for Kuči tribe, second one especially as it was "brother on brother" type of "war" as Marko Miljanov said NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliably sourced information is always welcome to any article. Botushali (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, i didn't want to add anything without prior notice here, i will wait for a bit to see if anyone has anything against it, but i am sure that there will be no problems as it's well documented and known NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

@Botushali, you're accusing me of edit warring when that is clearly not the case: I'm not questioning the Albanian origin of the tribe, although I may do so in the future. Now, the problem with the current main section is that most of the time, people who discover an article through Wikipedia read the first sentence of the article, maybe the second, and that's it. That's why I moved the "of Albanian origin" part of the first sentence into the second paragraph, because honestly, the first sentence is so unclear that people who discover the Kuči might think they are an Albanian tribe, which they are not, apart from the small community of Koja (and whether or not they belong to the Kuči is disputed by many Albanians). As for my other recent edits, although at first I disagreed with @Maleschreiber who partially reverted my first one, on reflection I decided that it was indeed preferable to refer to the tribe as what it still is, i.e. a Brda tribe, rather than a Montenegrin tribe, which it was not until the mid-19th century. So I expect better arguments from you than an obvious POV assertion such as "an integral part of their existence", before I eventually push back my legitimate edits. Krisitor (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Information about origin in such article is usually included in the first sentence of the article. The Albanian origin of Kuçi is not even a matter of discussion any longer. There's not going to be any Kuçi of non-Albanian origin and there are even today Kuçi who are even in terms of cultural identity Albanians. If there even is found an Albanian fis of Slavic origin, I definitely wouldn't mind this part of their history to be mentioned in the introduction.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is not to discuss the origin of the tribe at the moment, but only to move the mention of this "Albanian origin" into the paragraph of the lead section dedicated to the history of the tribe. This information was forced into the introduction last year, even though it was debated on the TP without any clear consensus, see above on this same TP. Now, as I said above, reading the first sentence, a person who knows nothing about the Kuči might think that they are Albanian, while they are not. Furthermore, per MOS:FIRST:

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English.

Try not to overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

That's exactly what I've done: I've moved the mention of the Albanian origin to the second paragraph of the introduction, devoted to the history of the tribe, which avoids any confusion for non-specialists. Krisitor (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Krisitor, I see that a major contention of yours with the former lead section was the potential lack of clarity - possibly misinforming readers that the majority of the Kuči today are Albanians. As such, I think it would possibly be best to agree on a compromise as opposed to a complete change of the section. For example, it could be noted that while the core of the tribe itself was of Albanian origin, the vast majority of modern descendants do not identify as Albanians and that ethno-linguistic and identity shifts have occurred within the community since the Ottoman era. What do you think? Personally I do think it is important to note in the section that the tribe was of Albanian origin, especially since a small portion of those claiming descent from the tribe still self-identify as Albanians, and in light of recent genetic research which corroborates RS material. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lezhjani1444, no problem with that, feel free to tweak the lead to reflect what you propose. The history part of the lead also lacks somes important dates such as when the tribe became part of Montenegro. But I personnaly don't have time to improve it at the moment. Krisitor (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Great, I have been busy recently and so haven't been able to edit the lead yet but I will try to do so soon. Also, how do you propose we edit the lead in light of the proposal/compromise I suggested? Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I think your proposal could come right after the first sentence, something like:

The Kuči (Cyrillic: Кучи, Albanian: Kuçi; pronounced [kût͡ʃi]) are one of the seven historical tribes (Montenegrin and Serbian: pleme) of the Brda, and a region in central and eastern Montenegro, north-east of Podgorica, extending along the border with Albania. The tribe originated in the late Middle Ages from an Albanian community, which was gradually Slavized as it became territorialized in its current area. Today, the tribe is essentially Slavic, with its members identifying mostly as Montenegrins or Serbs, and a few as Albanians.

I wrote this very quickly, so don't hesitate to adjust/tweak it.

Eventually, the content relating to Marko Miljanov and Jakup Ferri could be moved to just after this part, but I would then remove the mention of Muamer Zukorlić, as it is unsourced content, including in his own Wikipedia page. Similarly, I would remove the sentence The history of the people of Kuči represents the diversity of the area and its location at the crossroads between different cultures and religions which is more of a POV than anything else. Krisitor (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had time to respond to this, hence why I haven't posted. Anyways, the article's first sentence wasn't very unclear at all. They are a tribe of Albanian origin, but I agree with @Lezhjani1444 that it should mention that they nowadays identify as Montenegrins, Bosniaks and Serbs as well as Albanians, because that is very important to the overall topic. Quoting your (@Krisitor) selected sentence from MOS:FIRST - The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is... The Kuçi tribe is of Albanian origin. Seems to fit the criteria, that's who they are, and the addition of their modern identities will also satisfy this point. I don't believe it's that confusing at all, and your line "I'm not questioning the Albanian origin of the tribe, although I may do so in the future" seems to indicate that you want to push a certain narrative regarding the tribe that does not fall within established WP:RS material. It is not a POV assertion that their origin is integral to their existence; without an origin, you simply do not exist.

Nonetheless, I will revert back to the stable version until a sentence for the opening is decided on. @Lezhjani1444, feel free to make the change you are thinking of when time permits, and we can discuss from there if need be. Botushali (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks at least for answering. Putting of Albanian origin in the first sentence is problematic, as it could leave the impression to non-specialists that the tribe is Albanian as of today, which it is not, so it does not quite fit with MOS:FIRST.

Regarding my other assertion, I'm not going to push anything else at the moment, but regardless, I always use WP:RS material. Krisitor (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Krisitor: A "tribe" per se doesn't exist today and it never existed in the way that modern South Slavic writers tend to think. A fis as an institution is not defined just by patrilinea relations but it truly exists only when the social life of its members is defined by patrilineal relations and common ownership over resources. Such a thing doesn't exist today. Nobody who is from Kuçi has any obligation to anyone else who is from Kuçi besides his immediate family members. A number of people from Kuçi do still identify as Albanians today. They are of course a minority compared to Kuçi Bosniaks or Montenegrin Kuçi, who nevertheless in most cases don't have any issue with calling themselves of Albanian origin. This is part of history, hence it's not determined by what modern people believe but it should be noted that in itself the Albanian origin of Kuçi isn't something which most people of Kuçi origin deny.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So Albanian authors have a better understanding of what a tribe is than South Slavic authors, is that it? Well, either you're not aware of it, or you're deliberately overlooking it, but Yugoslav anthropologists and historians from the 1950s to the 1980s did a great deal of work on this subject, which far surpassed that of their Albanian colleagues of the time, who were heavily imbued with nationalism linked to their own country's inward-looking identity. Not that the work of the Yugoslav academics was perfect - after all, it inevitably reflected the Marxist paradigm of the time - but most of it, whether by Filipović on the ethnology of tribes or by Đurđev on their late medieval origins, has not been fundamentally challenged today.

To return to the current issue, the first sentence remains particularly problematic insofar as, as I've already said twice, it suggests that the Kuči are now an Albanian tribe, which they are not. It's almost amusing in that this tribe is one of the most ardent supporters of strengthening Montenegro's ties with Serbia, a trait it shares with its north-eastern neighbour, the Vasojevići. And believe me, because I know something about it, the way in which the English Wikipedia describes some Brda tribes is at best laughed at, and at worst encourages those with a little more academic background to turn away from the encyclopedia even more. Krisitor (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence literally states the tribe is of Albanian origin, because they are indeed of Albanian origin. What part of that is unclear to you? Our personal feelings on the state of the Brda tribes’ articles do not matter - what RS bibliography states is the only thing that matters. Botushali (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali, I've said it above, thrice now, I'm not going to repeat myself to someone who clearly doesn't want to understand. Krisitor (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You can say the same illogical sentence over and over again, but it does not make your case any more legitimate. It is not the fault of the article that you cannot seem to comprehend that “of Albanian origin” means “of Albanian origin”, especially when everybody else seems to understand it just fine. They are to an extent an Albanian tribe; members of the tribe identify as Albanians today and their origin is indeed Albanian, as has been shown through genetic tests and the like. This is seemingly a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Botushali (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

What's the extent of that "of Albanian origin"? How far are we willing to go, since the oldest document talking about the region "Dečani chrysobulls" are describing the villages of the region and 90% of the population had Slavic names, while only 10% were of Albanian origin.

And using haplogroups to define an origin is a bad way of doing things, as the haplogroup E-BY165837 you are all using is the one that migrated during 9th century BCE to the region of Montenegro/Albania, and many members of the tribe are even not that haplogroup at all. The identity of the Kuchi tribe is almost completely Slavic/Montenegrin, while minority is Albanian currently.

There's also a problem in the article where the reader can be mislead to think that the tribe is muslim, as most of the famous people listed are Bosniak politicians and Albanian local leaders. While those names are certainly good to have (I doubt that Zukorlic is part of the tribe tho, as all the family trees i have that were written by Kuchi tribe members are missing him), i think that there are much, much famous people that should be listed. For example, Ana Ivanovic, a retired tennis player who was at one point No.1 ranked WTA tennis player or Dusko Vujosevic who is a retired basketball coach. While everyone is important, i think that including more famous people than Muamer Zukorlic and Jakup Ferri would be nice, as there are some really famous people that are known in the whole world, other than just Albania, Montenegro and Serbia. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that the calculated time of most recent common ancestor of the main Kuči lineage of which most Kuči brotherhoods belong to including the Albanian speaking Trieshi is ~650 ybp, upstream match is with an Albanian from Kurbin, Lezhë sharing a common ancestor with the Triesh-Kuči at ~850 ybp. This does not suggest at all that E-BY165837 migrated to Montenegro/Albania during the 9th century BCE as this contradicts the formation date of the clade itself calculated at ~850ybp. -Excine (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we can theorize all you want about that, but the point still stands. Using haplogroups to talk about the origin of the tribe will lead to nothing. Sure, there is Albanian part of the tribe and there were through the history, but oldest documents talking about the tribe gives us the numbers that i gave before. 90% of the population had Slavic names, and were mostly orthodox.

And why is that even importnant? Why does it have to be in the beginning of the article? Were nations that well defined during 14th century when we got first info on the region?

The culture of the tribe is Slavic/Serbian, the names are mostly Slavic, the tribe itself identifies as that. You can say that the founder migrated from Northern Albania (still not enough info on that), but when the tribe formed and when it started it's rule over the current region of Kuchi, the tribe was part of Slavs.

The same logic that we use here is the one that we use on Northern Albania, as many of the towns there use Slavic names, and many, many people have Slavic roots, yet nobody will say that some Albanian tribes are "Serbian" because some of Albanians have different haplogroups lol

On the other hand, the fact that the origin is mentioned in the first sentence yet there is not a single mention of it currently being a Serb/Montenegrin tribe. The whole article is written in a way that you might actually think that this is 100% Albanian tribe and that we are talking about Albania and not Montenegro, and while you are reading it you can ask yourself: "How did the tribe so well connected with Albanians, that fought among them got slavicized in such a short time?"

Was it the orthodox church? Cuz it didn't stop northern Albania from staying Albanian.

The nation of the tribe is Montenegrin/Serbian and was like that ever since the birth of nationalism, the names were Slavic since the Dečani chrysobulls was written (in the article the document is quoted like this "The Kuči first appear in historical records in 1330 as a brotherhood from an Albanian katun under the jurisdiction of the Dečani Monastery."), and is part of history of Montenegro and Brda region, and not northern Albania. The article is so heavily bombarded by nationalists that you can find Kuçi written in the article instead of Kuči in some places.

The article was much better written before, much more neutral and then it got bombarded by pseudo-history. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

1) The Dečani chrysobulls recorded a wide area ranging from eastern Montenegro to Kosovo, as such, it is irrelevant that the vast majority of names recorded across this expanse were Slavic in origin as here we are specifically discussing the Kuči. The Kuči in this document are explicitly recorded as being a part of an Albanian pastoral community, that's it.

2) E-BY165837 did not migrate to Montenegro or Albania during the 9th century BCE, that is not what the data shows, rather it branched from its ancestor clade in ca. 1173 CE (note that this is an estimation). Since all parallel clades are found in northern and central Albania where they share a medieval TMRCA with the Kuči, it can be inferred that the forefathers of the core of the tribe migrated from northern Albania during the 12th century CE. Also, the vast majority of those descending from the tribe are indeed E-BY165837, the brotherhoods who are not under this clade quite clearly joined the tribe at a later point. The Zukorlići are most likely such a case since they belong to a different haplogroup but are recorded by some (e.g., Mušović) as having come from Kuči, specifically from the Albanians of the tribe.

3) It is quite clear that identities shift over time and are not static, during the Ottoman era there was a larger presence of Albanian-speakers in the tribe than there is today for example. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

1) Yeah but the document is giving you info on the settlements of the region. Those people didn't dissapear.

2) Again, we can talk about the haplogroups but using them is stupid. Are haplogroups nationalistic? Is E-BY165837 only Albanian? Are all Albanians that haplogroup? Is that what defines you and your origin? How far are you willing to go back? I mean, we can just say that we are E-V13?

By the time of creation, the tribe was Slavic, old records show that the tribe was mixed, but the majority was Slavic.

3) Yes, people changed religion a lot and the culture shifted, but the oldest document we have that is basically a census on that region tells us that while tribe was forming most of the people there were of Slavic culture. While i agree that many of the people changed religion and language, it's not that much as the tribe survived and the region basically stayed orthodox as it was in 1330.

Again, i have no problem with saying that the origin can be disputed, but the whole article is written like we are talking about just another north Albanian tribe, which is not the case here.

Lead section, as well as the whole article should be rewritten and more documents should be added, like Decani chrysobulls, the 1485. census done by the Ottomans, and even some Italian authors like Lazaro Soranzo wrote about the region in 1599. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

1) I think you are misinterpreting the document itself. The settlements of Kuči are not, as far as I am aware, recorded in the source. The only reference to them is that a certain Petar Kuč (Pjetër Kuçi) and his immediate relatives were a part of the Albanian katun(d). He was the only member of the brotherhood mentioned by name. And since we are specifically discussing the Kuči here, names recorded in, for example, Kosovo are completely irrelevant. What matters is that they were a part of the aforementioned Albanian pastoral community.

2) Their Y-DNA haplogroup isn't a part of the article and so isn't a key focus as of yet, however, it is of undoubted value as it corroborates what the historical documents state; that the core of the Kuči descends from a community of medieval Albanians. Also, primary source material from the 15th century onwards does not support the claim that the tribe was Slavic upon its creation and later, there was a very clear Albanian character with, as is to be expected, Slavic influences. In 1485 the Albanian onomastic element was more prevalent, albeit slightly (bearing in mind that 2/3 of the Slavic anthroponymy was concentrated in two settlements, Radona and Stani, 1/5 in the former bore mixed names). This is itself mentioned in the article. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

1) I am not misinterpreting the document, as i am not saying that the tribe itself is described in it. What IS in that document is the settlements in the region where tribe currently is. So while the tribe itself is not mentioned, the region of it is and it's mostly slavic. The document itself is not only describing Kosovo and Metohija, but the whole region of northern Albania and Brda. The theory of Peter KuĆ (refer to him by his proper surname, as it was Kuq in Albanian which when translated to serbo-croatian is Kuć) is just that, a theory. Just like Mrnjavčević theory or the worst of them all in my opinion, the Kastriot theory.

2) It's not? It's the sole reason the document itself is stating that the tribe is of Albanian origin. Again, you have to read the whole article to get the idea that the tribe itself is currently Montenegrin/Serbian, otherwise just by glancing over it you could get the idea that the tribe itself is Albanian.

If there is no proof, there's no reason to have it in the lead section. Kuči MIGHT have descended from the Peter Kuć, they MIGHT have descended from Mrnjavčević, they MIGHT have descended from a no-name villager in the region from all we know. The haplogroups are not nations, and just like nations, they can change. Many of the tribesmen have different haplogroup, just like in any other tribe. They didn't know their haplogroup 600 years ago, and what held them together was religion and culture. I have documents from the 15th and 16th centuries that talk about the Slavic majority in the region, and of course there was an Albanian minority there too, but saying that the whole tribe is Albanian or of that origin would be the same as me saying that any albanian tribe is slavic of origin because of slavic migrations to the region. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@NekSeOvajVijekGordi, Lezhjani is right, it is Petar Kuč (Pjetër Kuç in Albanian), and by the way it has nothing to do with the Albanian kuq, which is an outdated theory. The Albanian katun was not located in the bulk of the largely Slavic settlements listed in the 3 chrysobulls, most of which were in western present-day Kosovo and north-eastern Albania, around present-day Tropojë, as well as further north in the Plav-Gusinje area up to Vermosh, a region which was also at that time entirely Slavic. However, both the Albanian katun and the village of Kuševo were located in Zeta, with Kuševo identified as the current village of Kushë, in what is now the Hoti region, while the Albanian katun is thought to have been located not far from Kuševo, but a little further south. And as the antroponymy of these two settlements and that of the Venetian cadastre produced a century later in the same region attest, this part of Zeta, located to the south-east of Podgorica, was already predominantly Albanian.

But I agree that the way the article is presented remains problematic, hence my suggestion to change the introduction in the first place. @Lezhjani1444, I'm still waiting patiently for you to reply to my proposal above. Krisitor (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Theory is still theory. Using that as the fact is only gonna do you good if you are pushing your propaganda. Sure, have them all in the origin sections, include other theories proposed by the tribe itself, and i have no problem with that. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Krisitor: The Albanian katun was not located in the bulk of the largely Slavic settlements listed in the 3 chrysobulls, most of which were in western present-day Kosovo and north-eastern Albania, around present-day Tropojë, as well as further north in the Plav-Gusinje area up to Vermosh, a region which was also at that time entirely Slavic the problem with this statement is that the chrysobulls were not a census of all settlements in the region, but of areas which paid taxes to the Serbian Orthodox Church. Hence, most settlements which are mentioned in the 3 chrysobulls are Slavic Orthodox but this doesn't necessarily reflect the demographics of the region as most Albanians were Catholics.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure by not talking about chrysobulls we can use next oldest document we have, and that is Ottoman census of 1485. for the 15th century and the book L'Ottomano by Lazaro Soranzo for the 16th century.

Again, i am not against talking about all the theories you want, but including it in the lead section is criminal. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The Albanian origin of Kuçi isn't a theory, but something which has been documented via many different fields. There is not a single Kuçi brotherhood of Slavic origin and this isn't under debate. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The haplogroup isn't a theory. The tribe itself doens't create identity based on the haplogroup. Again, haplogroups are not nations, not every clansmen is E-V13 and that's fine, just like not every Albanian is E-V13.

The theory is just that, a theory. The oral traditions and church documents of family history will show you that people had Slavic names as far as the records go which is 14th/15th century.

While the religion was certainly changing, and there were families and periods where catholic culture of North Albania was welcomed by the tribe, by the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th century most of the tribe was orthodox again. Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church visited the region 1614.

Also, many of the sources used in the article have: "Chuzzi Albanesi" so the question is, if there are albanian "Chuzzi", there must be a Slavic counterpart. And most of the info you get from these books will show you that by then, orthodoxy == serbian culture, catholics == albanians.

Stop counting blood cells, and accept the fact that Petar Kuć theory is just that, a theory. That's why we are debating this whole thing, as if it was clear where Kuči came from, you wouldn't even need a talk page for this article.

What's 100% clear is that the tribe itself has nothing to do with Albania now, that minority is of Albanian culture and rite, and that not a single man from Kuči will find Petar Kuć in his family tree, or pasovi as we call them in Montenegro. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The Kuči (Kuçi) are recorded in the Venetian cadastre of 1416-7, they appear as a brotherhood spread across nine settlements across northern Albania: Kuç, Shën Auraç, Bardhë, Sordani (possibly Shurdhah), Ndreshkije, Rrepisht, Sakoli (Sakuli, Shakulli), Egreshi (Egçi), and Bolcë. Here they, again, appear alongside other Albanian communities and tribes. The anthroponymy recorded is primarily Albanian.

As for the Ottoman register of 1485-97, it is explicitly stated in the article that 105/253 of household heads bore Albanian names, 91/253 bore Slavic names, and 53/253 had mixed names. It is further detailed that 2/3 (59/253) of those bearing Slavic anthroponymy were from two specific settlements, Radona and Stani. In Radona itself, 1/5 household heads had mixed names. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that, but because of the mix of cultures in the region, and the prevalent orthodox culture then and now, you cant say that the tribe itself was Albanian. Nobody will deny the fact that there were, and there are still Albanians in the tribe.

And existence of the Albanians in the tribe currently shows you that the idea of the tribe is above the nationalism. As my tribesman is more importnant to me than my nation, no matter what nation and religion that tribesman is.

I have read and quoted already the L'Ottomano, where it can be seen that by the end of 16th century majority of the population was Slavic. So there was most definitely a proces of slavicization of the Albanian population to some degree. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that the tribe is Albanian today, it is simply being claimed that the core of the tribe descends from medieval Albanians who (in majority) gradually shifted to Slavic speech and identity during the Ottoman era.

No consensus whatsoever was reached for you to remove the edit, If you read the discussions I have had with Krisitor, you will see that he has agreed to keep it - albeit with some clarification in the lead. You cannot remove without consensus. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My bad, we shall continue to discuss it then.

As far as for the claim, i wouldn't mind it being in the history part of the article, not the lead section itself.

Just as i wouldn't want to have the claim that Kuči are descendents from Mrnjavčević dynasty in the lead section. Theories and myths are nice, but they have their place. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Comparing oral traditions to historical documents which depict the community as 1) having been a part of an explicitly Albanian pastoral community, and 2) bearing predominantly Albanian names (not even taking into consideration kinship ties) is very problematic and erroneous. These historical sources don't depict 'theories and myths', but historical realities instead. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not comparing oral traditions to the written documents, i am comparing myth of Mrnjavčević family to the myth of Peter Kuč.

There's not enough evidence for those claims.

If you want to use haplogroups as the claim for the lead section, great, i guess we are now equaling nation and culture with Y-DNA. Let's create a new nation, called Northerners, because the E-V13 is mostly present in the North Albania, Montenegro and Kosovo. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no myth surrounding Petar Kuč, he was a real member of the tribe and the head of the Kuči, themselves part of the Albanian katund, in 1330. Since he appears to have been the head of the brotherhood, it can be inferred that much of the tribe descends from him, however, this is just supposition and is not even mentioned in the article itself.

You are misunderstanding and misinterpreting the use of Y-DNA haplogroups in these contexts. Certain subclades or branches are associated with specific groups and communities, this is a basic understanding of the argument. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So it's just based on the haplogroups then? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber, my point was not to enter into a debate about the "ethnicity" of the areas covered by the chrysobulls, but to emphasize that the original Kuči community was located in a region of Zeta that was already largely Albanian at that time, before the said community migrated northwards to settle in its current location, where it effectively became a tribe. Krisitor (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response, I have been very busy recently. The proposal seems fair, although perhaps it would be best to specifically note that the majority of the tribe was Slavicised since a small Albanian community still exists. Shouldn't it also be mentioned that a large percentage of those stemming from Kuči identify as Bosniaks? It would be good if there were some stats. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I dont think there's a inner tribe census, so exact numbers are hard to get. While there are more Bosniaks than Albanians in the tribe, i do still think that the vast majority are Orthodox Serbs/Montenegrins. The Bosniaks should also be mentioned, as they are now. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did you undo the change? Krisitor is literally talking about the problematic lead section. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@NekSeOvajVijekGordi: More than 35% of Kuçi descendants today consider themselves to be Sandžak Bosniaks. This high percentage of Sandžak Bosniaks involves all tribes who moved to Sandžak after 1700. For example, more than 25% of Shkreli today are Sandžak Bosniaks. The argument is not one about haplogroups. There is no argument which states that Kuçi=E-V13=Albanian. The Kuçi belong to a specific subclade of E-V13 which expanded with Albanian movements since the Middle Ages (E-BY168279), but this isn't explicitly discussed in the article because no papers have been published yet. It is certain that this subclade didn't exist in medieval Montenegro and it moved there only in the late Middle Ages from Albania. The same sub-branch (E-BY165837) as Kuçi includes Koja e Kuçit and the major Trieshi lineage and all of their upstream "cousins" are other Albanian lineages from further south in central Albania.---Maleschreiber (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Krisitor I have added onto the lead, let me know what you think. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've refined it to include some of my proposal from the other day, but I think references concerning the Bosniaks should be included, not necessarily in the lead though. Krisitor (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead section itself is much better now. Thank you and @Lezhjani1444 NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that @Alltan didn't agree with the use of the term "community", so I've replaced it with katun. Krisitor (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lezhjani1444, no problem, I'm pretty busy too, and in any case it's a process of refining to reach consensus. I'm OK with mentioning the fact that some descendants of the Kuči identify themselves as Bosniaks, but it has to be sourced in the core of the article before going into the lead, and it's not at the moment. Krisitor (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No one agreed to your proposal or your changes, @Krisitor. No consensus for any further change to the lede. Botushali (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@NekSeOvajVijekGordi agreed and I'm sure @Lezhjani1444, who understood my point, will refine it if needed. Krisitor (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Botushali that it is preferable to maintain the previously included, more stable version (with some potential adjustments related to Bosniaks) until a proper consensus is reached through discussion. This approach aims to prevent any ongoing editing conflicts.

One concern regarding the statement While the tribe originated in the Late Middle Ages from an Albanian katun, processes of Slavicisation during the Ottoman era facilitated ethno-linguistic shifts within much of the tribe is that it might give the impression to readers that the ethno-linguistic transformation among the Kuči occurred immediately after their transition from a pastoralist group to a territorialized tribe following the Ottoman conquests. The previous version is clearer, allowing readers to grasp the specific details elaborated upon later in the article, if necessary. Durraz0 (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood that sentence. As the first impression i have is that the tribe existed and that process of slavicization was happening within the tribe.

There's no "sudden" or "immediate" change, but a gradual mixing with Slavic people and culture.

I still think that the lead section needs more famous people than Muamer Zukorlic and Jakup Ferri, as this is an english Wiki and people would probably like to hear which famous people were/are part of the tribe, and there are few people that are known all over the world. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I too agree with this and I have tweaked it in the part regarding modern descendants. This appears to me to be the more stable and simplistic version for readers, also we should aim to come to a proper consensus first since we should prevent an edit war from happening, something which seems already at risk. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no edit war, as the only man that edited was @Krisitor as he misunderstood that the concensus was made. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@NekSeOvajVijekGordi, there is no consensus, unfortunately. The current POV introduction was force pushed last year by one of the editors around there, and has since been protected by a tag team whose members include, among others, almost all of the editors involved in the current discussion, excluding the two of us. There's not much we can do in the current context, as the admins don't care much about these topics. Krisitor (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not that pessimistic. I think that, while maybe you can't change the things you deem bad, we can add more context and documents that will inform people that there are different perspectives from that period of time. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, despite what I said just above, I don't really care about their hundred of reverts. They're tough, but so am I.

Now, as for adding WP:NPOV sourced content, that's precisely why I'm here and why I'm trying so hard to improve this page, and many others. Krisitor (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Krisitor, please refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. If you continue to incorrectly claim that editors on this article are "tag-teaming", then admin intervention may be required. It is not my fault, nor the fault of other involved editors here, that you simply refuse to accept that the Kuçi are of Albanian origin and that WP:RS bibliography agrees. I'm afraid your personal opinion on the origin of the Kuçi tribe does not matter in the slightest, as all that matters on Wikipedia is what RS bibliography states. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, call the admins then. By the way, I did not contradict the fact that the Kuçi are of Albanian origin, just that this is of relative minor importance considering what the tribe has been for centuries, and therefore, should not be mentioned in the first sentence. And you're perfectly aware of that, as you're the one who force pushed this last year, if I remember correctly. Krisitor (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not "force push" it, I added a sourced piece of vital information on the tribe that, according to WP:RS bibliography, is important enough to bring up when discussing the tribe in detail.

Also, WP:BATTLE. Botushali (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That's why i said that while maybe you cant remove, i dont think there will be any issues adding reliable sources and documents from that period of time.

That way, everyone is happy and you will be able to keep the NPOV NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, and a quick glance at the history confirms it, it wasn't you who fleshed out the section of the article on the tribe's Albanian origin with sourced content. But it was you who pushed it into the first sentence. Whether it was absolutely necessary to mention it in the first sentence, however, is a matter of opinion, it's purely WP:POV, it does not respect MOS:FIRST as it gives any unaware reader the impression, at first glance, that the tribe is still Albanian today. Krisitor (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Last thing is correct and that is the main reason why i became active here, as some of the people talked to me about the tribe with the wrong impression that the tribe is Albanian. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In a sense, they are an Albanian tribe. Sorry fellas, that’s just the reality of the situation. “of Albanian origin” clearly denotes that their origin is Albanian, however, so an explanation of the tribe variously self-identifying as Montenegrins, Bosniaks and Albanians indicates that members of the tribe are not all self-identifying Albanians. Botushali (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This clearly can't remain in the first sentence, we've given you arguments, based on Wikipedia rules, but you insist by answering with WP:POV statements such as In a sense, they are an Albanian tribe. We won't get far with this approach, for sure. Krisitor (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In what sense?

Not in a common one that's for sure, as neither tribe itself, nor any historian will call it an Albanian tribe today.

There's a clear difference between Berishe and Kuci, and that difference is what defines the national identity of the tribe.

Sorry, but while it's fine saying that albanian tribes in the north and Kuci share common ancestor, it's not correct of calling them Albanian. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Guys, just read the article. They are of Albanian origin (as in, spoke Albanian when they were founded), were slowly Slavicised during the Ottoman era (although some of them remained Albanian) and branches of the tribe did not assimilate into a Slavic identity. This is all covered by reliably sourced information in the article. This conversation is headed nowhere, you simply cannot accept what RS bibliography states and therefore have no policy-based arguments to change the lede. Botushali (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the @Krisitor is not disagreeing with that, so that's not a thing of debate.

While i would debate it, i think the point here is actually just the lead section of the article and the information that could mislead the reader.

You still have the origin part of the article, and i see no problem with that NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@NekSeOvajVijekGordi: You are going in circles over something which isn't controversial for over 2/3 of people who are partially from Kuçi - there are almost no people who are fully from Kuçi today. Many of them will simply say "Yes, I know that once the Kuçi were "Malisori Albanians" and now they are Montenegrins. That's life." It is a perfectly fine response which reflects how identities change. It is what it is.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, "he said/she said" argumentation and random percentages... NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) Since the vast majority of the Kuči identify as Serb/Montengrin, shouldn't the tribe be described in the first sentence as a "Serb/Montenegrin" tribe? Khirurg (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the same case as the Arvanites. To call the Arvanites Greek in a sense of ethnicity is misleading, hence why we state that the vast majority of them now self-identify as Greeks, yet the first sentence of the lede still says “of Albanian origin”. The Kuçi tribe is the same concept, they are of Albanian origin, and in their cases branches of the Kuçi tribe (such as the Ferri, Koja etc) still identify as Albanians. Nonetheless, I have said that the only reasonable change here would be to add that “Nowadays, members of the Kuçi tribe variously self-identify as Serbs, Montenegrins and Bosniaks as well as Albanian.” Botushali (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Aren't Arvanites actually bilingual and speak a variant of Albanian?

So the origin must be explained in the beginning, as they are still keeping the language of their ancestors and the origin story is known, well documented and factual, not based on haplogroups and myths right? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The people would get the wrong impression.

You see, when the 15th century began, and when the tribe was forming there were already Slavs there. By the 16th century, vast majority if not all of them were Orhodox because of the influence of the serbian orthodox church. During the 19th century the myths of Mrnjavcevic family was written, the escape from Kosovo and all of that. In the present day, vast majority is still considering themselves Serbian/Montenegrin, while minorities such as Koći and Triepshi are Albanians. So the reader would get the wrong impression, that despite the haplogroups that are nationalised i guess, tribe is not Albanian... NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The article should go straight with how the tribe is identified/classified. By beginning that X is of Y origin etc. the main point is missing. Origins may stay at the end of the lead paragraph but only if this can be linked to the tribes' history but so far I fail to see it. Alexikoua (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, see Arvanites, please. The Kuçi are an Albanian tribe, what their members self-identify as is not relevant to statements from RS bibliography. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Not relevant? You literally choose your nation, it's a matter of your own self identification.

Haplogroups are not nations, there's no Albanian haplogroup, as there's no Montenegrin, Serb, German, Russian haplogroups. Those nations are not made out of one haplogroup, but many just like Albania.

If you are to say that they are Albanian because of the origin, again you have to use the same argument there as again it doesn't matter what you were 700 years ago, but also because you will not find anything reliable on the origin of the tribe. Sure, Peter Kuč is a nice theory, but it's not confirmed and even the article just says: possibly. Possibly is not conclusive enough for you to state anything. The majority of the tribe is orthodox, majority are Serbs/Montenegrin.

Based on a theory of their origin that happened 700 years ago, you are basing your argument. Imagine if i said that Albania is a Christian nation even though 60% of the nation currently is Muslim, and only 15% is Christian (both Catholic and Orthodox), just because it was the Christian nation before the arrival of the Ottomans. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I edited the old comment to add two missing words. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali, thanks for finally exposing your POV consideration, but the Kuči are not today an Albanian tribe and have not been such for at least 4 centuries, and there's not even proof that, as a tribe, they ever existed as an Albanian one. This, because when they are first mentioned as part of the Katun Arbanasa (katun of the Albanians) of the Dečani chrysobulls, they were not a tribe but a brotherhood or a community. And when they are mentioned in the defters of Scutari 150 years later, they were only in the process of territorializing as a tribe, but in the next defter of 1497, they were already slavicized to a large extent, and intermingled with the neighoubouring Slavic tribes very quickly. So, the comparison with the Arvanites, whose name even means "Albanians", makes no sense at all. Krisitor (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Read the article, buddy. Up until the 17th century, authors have considered them Albanians, and branches that are not even part of the Koja group also consider themselves Albanian today. You’re going around in circles and posting walls of text without actually saying anything of value, as it does not refute RS bibliography that states they were an Albanian tribe. Botushali (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This is correct. Whatever their origin, the Kuci today are Serbs/Montenegrins, period. And this should be reflected in the first sentence of the article. Khirurg (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh please, Khirurg. You have never positively contributed to any articles about tribes in Montenegro and North Albania. RS bibliography states widely that they were initially an Albanian tribe before being divided amongst multiple identities. Today, there are branches of Kuçi who do not descend from the Koja that still identify as Albanians (Ferri, Bardhi etc), and there are branches of Kuçi who consider themselves Bosniak. Most nowadays self-identify as Serbs/Montenegrins. Doesn’t change the fact that the tribe was Albanian. It would be best for you to refrain from inserting illogical comments on topics you have no knowledge about. At least Krisitor is somewhat familiar with the tribes, you and Alexikoua have no relevance to these topics whatsoever and it is obvious in the comments you make here. I will refrain from casting aspersions, but your presence here is not productive to this article. Botushali (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Most nowadays self-identify as Serbs/Montenegrins. So then the tribe should be described as "Serb/Montenegrin". I will refrain form casting aspersions, yet that is exactly what you are doing. Khirurg (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it should be described as it currently is described. a tribe which was originally fully Albanian, however after assimilation most of its descendants identify as Serbs, Montenegrins and Bosnians but still some identify as Albanian. Durraz0 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"a tribe which was originally fully Albanian"

Source?

The oldest info on the tribe and the region you have is the defters, and names there are still mixed. So i would like for you to show me the Albanian tribe of Kuchi NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources about how this tribe is albanian originally in the article which we are currently discussing here. Durraz0 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

How so? I see no sources given, other then a few that talk about 17th century that was given by Botushali.

Defters, which are the oldest documents that mention the tribe, show mixed names.

I gave you a source that said that Kelmendi in 16th century talked about serbian origin, and you dont see me changing their wiki page lol NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Historical Nenad, a Mrnjavčević?

Village of Kuç, Shkodër, Albania in 1416-7

I have the cadastre of Shkodra of 1416-17. Kuç, Shkodër of the article is the historical settled location from where Old Kuci moved northwards and formed Kuçi with other tribes that settled in that general area in Montenegro. I also added the exact register of the village in the article. How is it possible that Gojko Mrnjavčević allegedly born in 1355 and dead by 1371 (aged 16!) had a son, Nenad who in turn had another son, Grca who according to folklore was the progenitor of Kuçi? A historical Nenad existed and by 1416 he was definitely dead. His firstborn son was the head of the village, Jon Nada. He also had 2 other sons a Gjergj (Giergi in the Venetian original) and a Lazër and probably a daughter Nesa (short form of Nenada). She was the widow of a Jon Progani who married into this village's kin. Their son, also the head of household, was a Gjin Progani. For the Mrnjavčević connection via Gojko to be correct: Gojko had to have been married at least by the age of 16 in 1371, the latest date Nenad could have been born. Nenad in turn at the latest was born in 1371 and at the earliest died at the age of 43 in 1415 (one year before the publishing of the cadaster). At 43, he must have had a son named Grca, who isn't mentioned in the cadastre, nor is his widow mentioned if he had died by then. Nenad must also have had 3 other sons, Jon, Gjergj, Lazër who all headed households and probably a daughter who was a widow by 1416 and her son, Gjin Progani was also the head of household. So, Nenad's probable grandson whose earliest date of death must have been in 1416 was already a household head in 1416.

This is was a very small village that paid taxes to the Venetian governor of Shkodra. What on earth would make anyone think that their progenitor who lived just a generation ago and was probably the founder of the village, had any relation to the Mrnjavčević family of Macedonia. Gojko's existence is also disputed (see Mrnjava).

None of this makes sense in historical record. The Nenad relation must be framed as a story and actual historical records be used in a comparative way with it.

--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let's revisit this.

In 1455. tribe still wasn't formed, as we can see in the Zetski Zbor/Agreement with Venetian republic. The tribe formed between 1455. and 1485. when the first turkish defter was written (Probably a lot closer to the 1455. as the first ruler of the tribe was not in the defter 1485. as he was dead)

The first ruler of the tribe was Đurađ Pantov. Panto was the son of Grča/Greča.

Grča was whe one who moved from the village of Kuč to the current region of Kuči to the now gone village of Bardhanje/Barlani which is mentioned in the 1485. defter, this village doesn't exist today and yet the tribe kept the name of the village and Grča in memory as it is very importnant to Kuči to know their "pasovi" (male line). His son Panto, had 5 sons. The name of the sons were: Lješa (Which was probably of Albanian origin, because in Serbian the name would be Aleksa), Petar, Đurađ, Marin and Tiho. His family was probably called "Kuči" by the locals that lived there before the arrival of Grča, hence the name of the region and the tribe. Even now, there's katun north from the Hotska korita called Katun Greča (which i think is shared between Montenegro and Albania). So there was most definitely a Grča. As for the period when he moved to the Kuči region, the date is not known.

What we do know, is that 5 sons of Panto Grčin, are written in 1485. defter. You can find them by their children in the village Pantaljesh (Which was named after Panta and his oldest son Ljes/Aleksa).

The numbers they appear at are: 1. Vuksan Marinov, 2. Gojko Đurđev , 43. Nikač Petrov and 64. Gojko Lješev

The only son missing is Tiho, but in one of the defters there is a village in Hoti region named Tihomir, so while it's not confirmed, it's possible that he moved before the defter.

So now we go back to Gojko. What could be the possible reason for the connection of Nenad, the father of Lazar, Đurađ and Grča to the Gojko Mrnjavčević? Well, possibly the fact that in the same document where Lazar and Đurađ appear, they are mentioned as a royalty according to Acta Albania Veneta, pars secunda, tomus octavus

So the combination of that, the serbian folklore songs that speak of Mrnjavcevic family that was "building Skadar" (thinking of Rozafa fortress), and the importnance of father line to Kuči with the stories of "escape from Turks" probably gives you the idea that Nenad's family had to run due to connection with Mrnjavčević name.

Last part is of course purely a speculation, as Gojko's existence is debatable. Even the death year that you gave (1371) is laughable, as we literally don't know anything about him based on reality, but only on Serbian poetry and stories from Kuči tribe.

So the last 100% known ancestor of Kuči tribe is Nenad, some kind of royalty from village of Kuč under Skhoder. He probably had three sons, Đurađ, Lazar and Grča, who moved to the Kuči region and then the name of tribe is created by the locals and it's much easier to follow the story as there are documents that prove existence of the tribe members. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)