Talk:Balšić noble family

message: Why did you remove the coat of arms giving the strange explanation "no historical value"?? The coat of arms derives from the medieval Fojnica Armorial which as a source is the textbook definition of "historical value". Kj1595 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: Editors should explain why they are removing the description "Albanian noble family" from the lead despite the fact that it is exactly the description that contemporary medieval sources expressly provide for this family and its members, as well as the description provided by present day historians in mainstream scholarship. The speculative opinions about the distant origin of the family's progenitor are irrelevant in this matter. – Βατο (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have seen no valid ground to not include this passage in the lead. The Balšić are viewed as Albanian lords in mainstream sources, why shouldn't Wikipedia do so? I do not want to speculate but I think this is a crystal-clear case of WP:IDL. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

text: The argument based on the existence of different speculative opinions about the distant origin of the progenitor is useless, and even more useless is the 'culturally Serbianized' info provided by one source you selected. What matters for the description of this family in WP:WIKIVOICE is the historical fact that contemporary medieval sources expressly describe the family and its members as "Albanian", a fact that is widely accepted in current mainstream scholarship. You failed to provide a proper explanation. As for WP:RS/AC and WP:CHERRYPICKING, read first bibliography, then comment. – Βατο (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as WP:RS/AC, the only source that explicitly states that "most historians" consider them Albanians is Muhadri, who may well be biased. After all, Tim Judah explicitly states that "both Serbian and Albanian authors claim them, but it is most likely that they were intermarried" . On the other hand, Roberts explicitly contradicts this. The argument that Roberts is "useless" is based on nothing, and the argument  is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Modern secondary sources, such as Elizabeth Roberts take precedence over "contemporary medieval sources", which fall under WP:PRIMARY. Khirurg (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not provided academic statements that contradict Muhadri 2020, your personal opinion about the academic source and your WP:ASPERSIONS against the historian are disruptive and you should avoid it as per WP:BLP. Roberts (2007) does not contradict what Muhadri (2020) reports, because Roberts (2007) deals with the origins and their culture (which btw should not be limited solely to Robert's opinion), and not about their actual description by the contemporary testimonies of Balsha family's time. As for WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, being an experienced editor you should have understood the meaning of the WP policy:  Many historians like Muhadri, Prifti and Ćirković provide them. But it seems you haven't even read bibliography. – Βατο (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Roberts and Judah explicitly contradict Muhadri, and Muhadri is not even close to the level of Roberts and Judah. You are using an obscure source to push ethno-nationalist POV and then have the nerve to accuse of "not reading the bibliography". Khirurg (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Again with the "obscure source" argument? You have already used it in the past and it did not work. Muhadri (2020) is an academic paper entirely focused on the Balsha family. The sources you added (which btw were published a decade and a half ago) just mention the family without analysing all primary material / medieval documents available so far, and they are just two or three of many others, but above all they do not contradict what Muhadri (2020) says: "now more foreign researches describe them as Albanian", which can easly be seen by the multitude of the recent academic sources cited into the article. If you dobut its reliability, take it to the WP:RSN. Regarding your addition at the beginning of the section of selected single opinions that are not accepted by other scholars, it is WP:POV and can't stay. There is a subsection below which includes single opinions not shared by other scholars. – Βατο (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole section you created out of thin air is entirely POV, it just repeats the same thing over and over, using poor quality POV sources. Yes, I consider Muhadri is a poor quality source and I stand by that. He works is affiliated with the "Ali Hadri Institute"  , and he does not have a single English language publication. And that's the only source you have for the "most historians" claim, which you repeat over and over in the article multiple times. It seems that section you created at the top of the "Origin" section is just for the purpose of repeating the same thing over and over. Khirurg (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what Muhadri's work is affiliated with, I cited the source Muhadri (2020) as a paper published in a scientific journal, Studime Historike. Anyway, the statements of that source are not unreliable opinions, because it just reports the evidence provided by contemporary medieval documents, as does Serbian hisorian Sima Ćirković too, who states the same things as Muhadri and provides similar conclusions. I see you now completely blanked content that is based on multiple reliable sources without even giving reasonable arguments. – Βατο (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted Khirurg because content blanking and removal of all sources can't be justified because of disagreement about one source. It's unjustifiable to remove sources all of which are RS - in fact, most of them are published by international academic publishing houses by invoking as an argument that a single source which was published in an Albanian journal for some reason is not RS. Muhadri (2020) is published in Studime Historike which is published by the Academy of Sciences of Albania and no paper from this journal will be removed without RSN. Sima Ćirković does indeed argue for exactly the same statement as Muhadri (2020):  --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Cirkovic does not at all agree with Muhadri's claim that . Muhadri's claim is much stronger, and Cirkovic does not actually endorse the view that they were of Albanian origin, only that they were non-Slavic. I also noticed another problematic source, The Truth on Kosova, published in 1993 during the height of the Yugoslav Wars. There is no way this can be considered a reliable source. The mere fact that it has "Truth" in its title is a red flag (WP:TRUTH), all the more so considering it was published during wartime. We cannot build an encyclopedia using sources like this. Khirurg (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Regarding Muhadri, he apparently recently published a two-page article in a Kosovo newspaper ] in which he claimed that the Serbian Orthodox monuments in Kosovo are not Serbian at all, but rather were "usurped" Albanian churches, clearly a WP:FRINGE position, convincingly refuted here . While this is not directly related to the topic of the article, it does highlight the need to use only high quality sources, especially for disputed claims. Khirurg (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhadri's publications on contested subject should be removed asap. No scholar or editor or a honestly religious person can accept his abuse of history and science in the interest of daily politics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.230.153 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation

message: Hello , thank you for providing the quotes. I added the tag  because the current quotes:  do not mention Balša II, but only Đurađ. If the source also mentions Balša II, add it, please. Also a quote about which Đurađ the source is referring to, would be useful. – Βατο (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time be more specific with your reverts. If it is the specific individuals you are wondering about, that will require you to investigate the source. It is a heavy source (which I haven't had time to read all of myself) which is based on the three brothers: Balsha II, Stracimir and Đurađ I, which is understood by reading the overall context of several pages. For example, "Дуард Балшић је такође следио пример своје старије браће и 27. јануара 1386. године потписао је повељу Дубровчанима" (p. 173) explains Đurađ I following his brothers footsteps by writing a testimony.   --Azor (talk). 17:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Allegedly, all three brothers revolved their testimony about being descendants of the Nemanjic dynasty, among other historical events. Althought in depth, I have only been able to isolate Đurađ I's testimony and Balša II's to lesser degree, and I am yet to find Stracimir's. I expect to improve, and hopefully expand, the content in the following time.  --Azor (talk). 18:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a 1923 encyclopedia added as a source by Azor and I reinstated the qn tag. Azor just has to add the full quote. The cited quote seems to a misrepresentation IMO as this is a formulaic religious statement () which accompanied many documents of this era, but it's clear that none of these people actually claimed to be descended from the Nemanjići. They claimed state continuity to further their claims which is very different from the statement that the Balsha claimed to be real, living descendants of this dynasty.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

text: After some research i think references from Božidar Šekularac are not realiable sources as the author is known for forgery in the past. [] RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a significant accusation. I've removed the source and cn tagged the statement. There must be other more reliable which discuss this subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Request quotation

message: Prof. Ivetic is not mentioning Albanians or Balsics, on page 25. I just checked. Chapter I present general data on contemporary countries and people living in the region, its climate, agriculture, general traditions and the like. On the page 25 he wirtes about the climate and olives, there is no word about Albanian pirates like one editor claimed.
*
178.220.230.153 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was able to verify the statement in the article. AlexBachmann (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed poor quality content added by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus. The unclear origin of the progenitor of the family, despite the fact that his descendants are all described as Albanians in their time, should not be used to push every WP:FRINGE information into the article. Scholarship is divided between an Albanian or Serbian origin, the former being apparently predominant, especially because supported by contemporary medieval documents. Numismatist Baker mentions this family in passing, without even providing evidence or citation for an out of context statement:  The Balsha did not originate from the Komnenos Asen family, that is an ahistorical information. One of the latest members of the family, Ruđina Balšić was factually daughter of the Albanian lord Balsha II, and allegedly daughter of Komnena Asen, the latter being the daughter of John Komnenos Asen. Nevertheless, many present-day reliable sources report that Ruđina's mother was a member of the Muzaka family. – Βατο (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source falsification