Talk:Vasojevići

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

message: You put as evidence (Đorđević, Tihomir R. (1919), this is old Serbian source and  WP:AGE MATTERS, ok next,  (The Slavonic and East European Review. Jonathan Cape Limited. 1931) but and this is WP:AGE MATTERS. 
*Some informations which I know, 1) "Piperi označavaju kao pleme "srpske" ili "grčke vjere", što i po mišljenju Erdeljanovića tek "daje oslonca" za pretpostavku, ali ne dokazuje srpsku narodnost.... the Pipers are marked as a tribe of the "Serbian" or "Greek faith", which, in Erdeljanovic's opinion, only "provides support" for the assumption, but does not prove Serbian nationality." This is for Piperi tribe. 2) "nahija Zeta - Bjelopavlići, sa četiri džemata Vlaha, koji su, kako je u nauci već pretpostavljeno, najvjerovatnije bili katuni... in 1477, the Zeta-Bjelopavlići nahija is also mentioned, with four Vlach congregations, which, as has already been assumed in science, were most likely katuns." Bijelopavlići tribe in this source are mentioned as Vlachs. 3) "U nahiji Kuči navedena su imena katuna sa slovenskom formacijom, pored albanskih imena katuna: ili selo Radun sa slovensko-vlaškom kombinacijom...In the Kuči nahija, the names of katuns with a Slavic formation are listed,  next to them  the Albanian names of katuns are listed: village of Radun with a Slavic-Vlach combination." Tribe Kuči with Slavic, Albanianan and Slavic-Vlach combination of names. 4) "Prema tome, i stanovništvo Vasojevića, svojim porijeklom, i po svom etničkom karakteru je crnogorsko, što se posebno ispoljava u nizu karakterističnih običaja. To pokazuje i prvi pisani pomen Vasojevića pored Pipera u jednom dubrovačkom izvoru iz 1444. godine..Therefore, the population of Vasojević, by its origin, and by its ethnic character, is Montenegrin, which is especially evident in a number of characteristic customs. This is shown by the first written mention of Vasojević next to Piper in a Dubrovnik source from 1444". This are informations from the book of Špiro Kulišić (1980) "O Etnogenezi Crnogoraca".
* And some information from the book of Sima Ćirković (2004) "The Serbs". Chapter: "Clans and Clan Society", from page 129, he mentions the Vlachs and Albanians throughout the chapter and mentions them in context of Paštrović clan, Banjani, Drobnjaci, and Ridjani, "Neighboring Montenegro had its own clans (Vasojevići, Bjelopavlići, Piperi, Njeguši, etc.)" etc. Serbian academician although he mentions Serb medieval influence in the area, he does not mention a single word ie that all these tribes are Serbs or Serb tribes. 
*Therefore there must be confirmation  from a neutral source that all these tribes are Serb tribes. You have exposed some sources and quote what exactly this sources speak  to all see what it is about. Mikola22 (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I reacted towards the specific mention of Ivan Radonjić - he was representative of those tribes in the 18th century, he considered his people as Serbs and sources given are modern and not primary. As for other tribes and their origins, it is a very broad talk and completely off the topic. (Đorđević, Tihomir R. (1919)) is not the only source I have put so that argument doesn't stand (if you tag something as WP:AGE MATTERS, then you need elaborate, not just claim old source). Next, regards towards Sima Ćirković, his book The Serbs deals with the topic of history of Serbs in general. The author is a very respectable Serbian medievalist, with a excellent research of Bosnia, but clans and it formations are not his primary area of interest, as you can see from the book or his other works. That's the reason why, in the mentioned book, he doesn't provide more information about the tribes themselves. Nor he specifically mentions them as Serbian (but yet again, the book is about the Serbs), but also not specifically as Vlachs, so I don't see why you mentioned him. What I see that you missed the logical point - when we are talking about tribes, we are talking about clans when they have got their tribal organization (late 16th century) after merge(s) of different brotherhoods etc, not the XV century clans (for which better word is brotherhood in majority of the cases), nor even about the people who formed those clans earlier. If we are talking about the not so short process of the tribal formation from those early clans, you are oversimplifying it in the sense "Vlachs formed the tribe" etc. When literature deals with the origins of the tribe, it deals with the oral tradition of the members from the tribe itself, or, which is far better as you would agree, scientific historiography with precise results or at least, opinions from the historians. When in the literature says Serbian tribe, that means that we are talking about already formed tribe and that these people already had Serbian identity. You mentioned Špiro Kulišić, which is fine argument as he stated that the tribes didn't have Serbian identity, but rather Montenegrin. But numerous other historians (Đurđev, Jovan Vukmanović, Vukčević Nikola...) from his country, during that same period, successfully challenged his views and proved, for examples, that he made mistakes in his methodology, so you can't challenge the whole historiography, based only on him. In contrast, for example, mentioned Branislav Đurđev really masterfully described, based on the sources such as Ottoman surveys in the 15th century, how early mixture of Serbs and Vlachs started development of the tribal organization in Montenegro. And even those Vlach brotherhoods, in that time, were more-or-less, in majority assimilated into Slavs, because of the strong influence of medieval Serbian states and more numerous Slavs around them. But because early katun organization came from them, as proved by Đurđev when he challenged Erdeljanović, for example, and not from the early Serbs (as Vlachs were in majority cattlemen), and as Slavs also started to deal with cattle-breeding,  Vlach gradually transformed into a synonym for cattlemen, not other ethnicity, as stated by Branislav. That is, as you can see, far more complex process, and even I went off-topic as I didn't talked about Vasojevići only. When the Vasojevići tribe was formed, you already had Serbian names, Orthodox religion, language, customs and identity, among them. And we see that from the members of the tribe itself, and their representatives, during the centuries after. That's the reason why, for example, excellent historians who really specialized in the topic, such as Radoslav Vešović or Lutovac, who were also from the tribe itself, and concluded without a doubt that the tribe had strong Serbian identity during its existence. And I didn't mentioned even Jovan Vukmanović, Lalević Bogdan, Mirko Vukićević and rest. As I said, instead of wasting the time to discuss did Ivan Radonjić thought of Vasojevići as Serbs, when he said in the letter twice that they are Serbs, it was far better if the article itself was expanded with other topics such as battles against the Ottomans, customs and traditions, etc. That's all from me, as this discussion is going outside of the bounds of historiography and into political topics. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mentioned Ćirković because he mentions all these Montenegrin tribes and he does not mention them as Serbs. Ћирковић Сима. Црна Гора од досељавања Словена до пада под Турке(Sima Ćirković - Montenegro from the arrival of Slavs to the fall under the Turks) Therefore he knows history of Montenegro very well.   Where it is written in the source show me.    Then and  Đurđev, Jovan Vukmanović, state or claim that all these tribes are Serb tribes,  show sources and quotes which say so, but from his Yugoslavian time.  Sima Ćirković mentione Albanians and Vlachs, and Vlachs as different from Serbs: "Segregation policies were included in royal charters from the fourteenth century declaring that “a Serb shall not marry a Vlach,".  And still in the source is not mentioned "Serb tribe" and this is OR   That is why we need an independent foreign source , which all these tribes mention as Serb tribes, Sima Ćirković for them says that they are Montenegrin tribes. Mikola22 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

text:  Anyone can be relevant or not, but you have a quote from source and show me where the historian mentions that they are Serb tribe.  Unfortunately it has nothing to do with the source and "Serb tribe". First you have to show me  where it is stated. Source and "Serb tribe" fact, show me where it says that.  Good part of the Montenegrin tribes are listed here as Serb tribe not only Vasojevići tribe. For this we need confirmation in independent source because Bjelopavlići etc. are listed and as Albanians. We cannot use some old sources because we have new knowledge. Information from article is about a good part of the Montenegrin tribes ie Serb tribes. I hear that for the first time and I read many books. To summarize, I am editor and  I cant enter information from the source to the article about Serb tribes because I don't see where is this written in the source, it only says that they are not Montenegrins. How then I can put information to the article that they are all Serb tribe? This is WP:OR or my personal conclusion, I am not a historian to enter personal conclusions into the article. By the way, you are talking about everything, but you haven't shown me yet where it says in the source that Vasojević and the others are Serb tribe. Mikola22 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gave you sources and quotes, where they are stated and described as a Serb tribes. I won't repeat them again. As you said that main the problem is that Ćirković doesn't mention them as Serbs and that why we need a foreign source (which I even gave you), I opened the book and let us see. And yes, this is off-the-topic, but let us see. You quoted him for:  Very interesting, why didn't you quoted his full sentence as he has written: It was shown that politics of segregation, represented by the requests of the royal charters from 14th century - "Serb shall not marry a Vlach" - was without results. Population has mixed and assimilated with unequal result. Somewhere, Slavic attributes came dominant, somewhere attributes became Romanic. So you tried to respond with this, but as you see, this actually confirms what I was talking above. And as seen, segregation policy was between Serbs and Vlachs - and when he mentions tribes as tribes in which Slavic attributes became dominant, it is very clear what he means. And in the later paragraph, he further elaborates: [Because assimilation]] There a gradual transition from "katun" to "pleme" is seen... In old Serbian language, word pleme (tribe) didn't meant huge population, part of the people, but a big family. ... Change of the terms tagged the phase of slavicization of the remains of old Balkan people.... And then continues with the almost exactly the same stuff I wrote in my former responses. And in the same chapter, you quoted that he doesn't mention them as Serb tribes. If you were literal and seeking for the words Serb tribe, then yes, you are right about Sima as he didn't wrote Serb tribe. But if you read his book, then you are not right. As I said, German castle. And specifically for that what you mentioned, he is talking about this, to quote: An important source about the light of the tribes from the end of 16th century was seen in the form of the letter for the Pope, from two Mileseva monks, Damjan and Pavle, who are explaining what is Serbia. They counted territories from Adriatic sea up to Lim... Except old famous katuns of Banjani, Drobnjaci, Ridjani, there are... And in Montenegro, it also has its tribes (Vasojevici...)... and Dukadjin, with Albanian tribes. Behind that belt of the tribes, in interior there are monasteries and mines, which all represent former state core, while northern Serbia was left out of sight. As he stated above that for Slavs and before, he clearly thinks of the Serbs (as even seen from the heading of the book), as for state, he talks that the letter shows medieval Serbia from Adriatic sea to the Lim (a little geography shows that this area obviously includes Montenegro, and it is also clear why he discusses history of Montenegro in a book about Serbs), and as only Albanian tribes are mentioned with the ethnic category Albanian, it is clear that he thinks of the rest of the tribes as Serb tribes who were formed by assimilation of old Balkan populations like Vlachs. And about the tribes, as he is talking about the formation, he talks about what I said you - transition from the clans to the 17th century tribal organization, which you failed to distinguish, which is alright, as the same terms is used in a two different contexts. As I said, if you are just seeking the quotes, and you can easily lose the context, as you did with Sima Ćirković.  To summarize, I you have whole books like Tribe of Vasojevici and even some quotes from that where you have Serbs or Serb tribe when author talks about Vasojevići, I gave you the editors who specialized into that topic (Radoslav, Đurđev etc) so that's what you asked. It's upon to you if you will decide to read it or not. That's all from me, as I won't have time for further discussion in this period. Kind regards, James Jim Moriarty (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gave you sources and quotes, where they are stated and described as a Serb tribes. I won't repeat them again. From this source (from article) where it says that all these tribes are "Serb tribes". I am an editor and have the same information and source as you and I cannot put this information into the article because it is not written in the source. I say this as if I have to put this information into an article. Where you see this(Serb tribe) information in the source? Source and information are here. We just need to clarify that and nothing more. Editor Sadko doesn't want to say where that information is, you also don't want to, so everything is clear, it's OR. Mikola22 (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Then put this informations from those sources(which you have) in the corresponding section, this section is for 18th century. All this informations or sources which you presented does not mention all these tribes as Serb tribes. If they mention Vasojeviće as Serbian tribe it is not a confirmation for other source(Nikola-Vukcevic) that all other Montenegrin tribes are Serb tribes. You may add information to the article that the Vasojevići are a Serbian tribe and use yours new sources and old source(Nikola-Vukcevic) as an additional source(but even then this source does not mention the Serb tribes, he mentions that they are not Montenegrins), and find a place for this information in the article. But this information "and that the Banjani, Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, Zećani, Vasojevići, Bratonožići were not identified as "Montenegrins" but only as Serb tribes." you cannot put because there is no confirmation that source(Nikola-Vukcevic, or some other) for all these tribes states that they are Serb tribes. You know where is the information from the source(Nikola-Vukcevic, Original research,) and show where it says that. Until then information added from this source(Nikola-Vukcevic) is WP:OR or you  instead Serb tribe enter that they are not Montenegrin tribes and this is per source and not OR. Mikola22 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (Largely replying to Moriarty) We're not going to have a discussion about a community organized under a tribal mode in a way that makes the discussion a collection of of who said what. It's an issue of methodology to use bibliography that specializes in historical anthropology and related fields and not to just look around google randomly until you find the words you're looking for in a given document. In specialized bibliography as of 2020, Vasojevići is treated as a non-Slavic group that became Slavicized and over time for various historical and cultural reasons, it identified as Serb, Montenegrin and Bosniak. We're not getting into WP:FRINGE theories about "pure Serb tribes". Also - now largely replying to WEBDuB - familiarize yourself more with WP:OUTDATED so we don't have to discuss again about Ćorović or anyone else from Serbian pre-WWII bibliography - or anyone from pre-WWII bibliography - unless their research has had a historical impact that should be mentioned as part of the development of research into the subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We can say the same for all the peoples of the Balkans, they were all created by mixing and accepting different cultures over time. No one mentions any fringe theories about "pure Serb tribes" (something like that does not exist). The fact is that the Vasojevići, as well as other tribes from Brda, are generally considered Serbs due to cultural and political aspirations, etc.. Most importantly, we also have Petersen and many other sources.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: In addition to edit war, genetic studies are a big issue here. Such content that must accurately summarize recent, high quality, published secondary sources, where experts in the field have already gathered up and defined current knowledge, more precisely peer-reviewed journal articles. It is most often mistaken when these researches are cited in the context of proving the origin and whether someone came there sooner or later. Nations and ethnic groups are a social construct, biological sciences cannot be used to prove such things.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nations that formed in the era of nation-states are indeed socially constructed - within certain cultural boundaries. I also agree that we shouldn't cite poreklo's blog posts or yfull directly because the results need a context which can only be provided by genomic studies. Thus, Y-DNA origins can tell us a lot about the historical journey of a people but by themselves they can't be used - outside of an interdisciplinary approach - in a way that directly says "X group is actually an Y-ized Z population". I cited a newspaper article (not poreklo's blog posts or yfull directly) and just kept the simplest of details: "Paleo-Balkan E-V13". I think we can all work with that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not cite a newspaper article, only recent peer-reviewed journal articles where experts have already suggested certain conclusions. What does "Paleo-Balkan E-V13" mean?  Thus, Y-DNA origins can tell us a lot about the historical journey of a people - Yes, but mostly for early human migrations more than 10-50 000 years ago. Certainly not a few centuries ago. If a subclass of a haplotype is most frequent in a region, is it due to genetic drift, gene flow or founder effect? All nations today are great mixtures. E-V13 originated many thousands of years ago and not in the Balkans. Misunderstanding of the topic often leads to over-simplistic genetic interpretations in newspapers, but unfortunately also on Wikipedia. Therefore, we should leave it to the experts in the field and write their conclusions that have already passed the expert review.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  With the high level level of Y-DNA research as of 2020 and the sampling size that is on the rise every day (literally!) we're moving towards an unprecedented level of mapping accuracy about our past. For example, just from the available sample size and the way that it presents itself uniformly throughout all Balkan DNA Projects (check the same information from the Bosniak DNA Project about the Bosniak Vasojevići, we know when the particular E-V13 branch of Vasojevići was formed. I'm not arguing to use DNA Projects as sources directly but many issues that they have brought up are now common knowledge and articles its members write in the media can be cited for basic purposes. Also, haplogroup E in general didn't originate in the Balkans - its E-V13 variant emerged in the Balkans (The Y-DNA marker E-V13 originated in the Balkans where it is to be found at its highest frequency). We don't have to discuss about it in this article since it would be WP:COATRACK, a simpler version of what is now present in the article will be enough.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? We cannot use such websites on this topic. It is a field that I understand for professional reasons, but this is no place to explain it here. Many scientists warn of misinterpretation, exactly because of the increasing testing of people. Such studies cannot be used to prove the origin or race, ethnic group... There have been many RSN cases of Y-haplogroups studies (for example 1, 2). To conclude, we should use only recent peer-reviewed journal articles.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot use primary Y-DNA research sources directly, but we can mention the primary results if they are published in the media without the necessary historical-anthropological approach which is the work of an interdisciplinary approach of genealogical genetics and anthropology. (I too understand the field because of professional reasons)--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: we can mention the primary results if they are published in the media without the necessary historical-anthropological approach - No, for this topic we should only use recent high-quality peer-reviewed journal articles. There was already a discussion on RSN. Most importantly, what were reliable media? koreni.rs and bosnjackidnk.com?--WEBDuB (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic genealogy 

message: Hello, @Ktrimi991, Who are these well known authors that I asked you in the edit? There are many of sources here and on other Montenegrin Tribal pages which claim them to be of Albanian origin even though DNA does not prove this. Surix321 (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Surix321, do not ask me which are the sources. You can check them in the article - I can see 9 sources backing the possible Albanian origin. On DNA research, unless a reliable peer-reviewed academic study says the tribe was not "genetically Albanian", it is just your own original research. We go by reliable sources, not our own opinions. If later some serious academic does a large-scale genetic study on such tribes, that will be reflected in scholarship and on Wikipedia too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also be aware that "Albanian", "Serb" and "Montenegrin" are ethnicities, not genetic data. Do not mistake genetics for ethnicity or ethnic origin (the ethnic identity of a person or population before the current one). Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

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

text: So is it possible to try to add 9-10 sources that claim otherwise or no, just wondering? Surix321 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have reliable sources that have a different view, ofc you can add that view next to the Albanian origin view. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can add whatever you want if it's supported by reliable sources. The one thing which I wouldn't add is folk story about origins from Bosnia, it's a 150-year-old folk story which is discussed in the article. In my experience, instead of addressing ethnicity debates it's better to first write about any community about its history.
--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Vasojevići is not of Albanian origin, neither Albania existed before formation of tribe. Low educated people should know that Haplogroup E-V13 is not albanian origin. By that logic, Wright Brothers, who carried E-V13 by eupedia are also albanians? NOT! Baltazarvs (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not a single mention of E-V13 in any of the references in this article, the first person to mention it was you. the origins of vasojevici being stated as Albanian in this article is not determined by them being e-v13, but by the fact that WP:RS bibliography states so. Durraz0 (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Vasojevići having common relatives in Herzegovina and carrying much older and uncommon branch of E-V13 is not Albanian. That's on genetics side. Also, cloth of Vasojevići is not Albanian, but tipical dinaric cloth found through Dinaric mountains. And last, Vasojevici all carry Slavic names and were speaking Serbian way before your country existed. So neither is Vasojevići albanian, nor is God albanian. Baltazarvs (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based on sources, not on personal opinions. Jingiby (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Only Albanian sources. I see no Serbian books stating albanian origin of tribe. :) Baltazarvs (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Claims 

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