Talk:Drekalovići

Tribe

@Alltan Please provide source that Drekalovići was a tribe.

Sources we have now are:

Durham, Edith (1928). Some tribal origins, laws and customs of the Balkans pp. 30, 52..

Which doesn't state Drekalovići was a tribe. Page 30 which doesn't even mention brotherhood at all, Page 52 which never calls it a tribe, and even states incorrect fact that Drekalovići converted into orthodoxy in 19th century, when we know Lale Drekalov converted in 17th

Second source doesn't even mention Drekalovići

Please, provide sources. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Anything? Current sources do not confirm at all that this brotherhood was ever a tribe.

I will just propose this for deletion if nothing is provided. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Drekalovići are not a tribe but a brotherhood of the Kuči. This article should clearly be deleted without merging anything, as it adds nothing to what is already mentioned in the Kuči article. Krisitor (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As i have said, the only purpose of this is to stack up Albanian tribes sidebar, which currently includes many, many that are not Albanian, and many that are not tribes at all, including this one. Setxkbmap (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

albanianhistory.net

@Botushali I'm not gonna revert, but the source is not Boliza, the source is albanianhistory.net

When i source stuff that is deemed unacademic on articles related to Kuci, i am getting reverted. Albanianhistory.net is not an academic source. I have nothing against the quote, but you or your friend will have to give a better source. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's quite bold of you to assume that me and other editors are "friends". I don't know anyone on this site, and I don't want to.

With that aside, you really need to learn the difference between a source and a site where a source can be found and accessed. Albanianhistory.net posted Mariano Bolizza's 1614 'Report and Description of the Sanjak of Shkodra'- by doing so, they've allowed the public to actually access the document, which would probably be very difficult to obtain otherwise. Anyways, that doesn't matter, the point is that the actual source is entirely Bolizza's report, it's just been made available for free on the site that is linked. If you still have an issue with this source, you need to take it to the WP:RSN, where it will most certainly pass as RS.

What you're saying here is that any source that can be accessed on a website in which it's been posted for free (e.g. the access link or URL parameter when you cite things on Wikipedia), is therefore unreliable. That's not how it works. Botushali (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's quite bold of you to assume that me and other editors are "friends". I don't know anyone on this site, and I don't want to.

I meant no harm, i just assumed because you guys edit without any discussion, like ever. No talk page history, nothing. It's just weird. Because, even when i agree with someone, like Krisitor on this page, i discuss stuff with him before changing or doing anything.

With that aside, you really need to learn the difference between a source and a site where a source can be found and accessed. Albanianhistory.net posted Mariano Bolizza's 1614 'Report and Description of the Sanjak of Shkodra'- by doing so, they've allowed the public to actually access the document, which would probably be very difficult to obtain otherwise. Anyways, that doesn't matter, the point is that the actual source is entirely Bolizza's report, it's just been made available for free on the site that is linked. If you still have an issue with this source, you need to take it to the WP:RSN, where it will most certainly pass as RS.

In the talk page history of Kuci tribe article, i've seen that Loranzo Sorano was denied as a source because it's from 16th century. Would it be accepted if i put it on my website? Just an idea, as it will be easily accessible to everyone.

What you're saying here is that any source that can be accessed on a website in which it's been posted for free (e.g. the access link or URL parameter when you cite things on Wikipedia), is therefore unreliable. That's not how it works.

Nope, i am not saying anything like that. When i used sources that are not academic, they were denied even if they quoted old documents. So, this source is not academic, it's not been published by anyone, it's a website. Quote is also fine, i have no problem with it, as it's a great proof of mixed culture and origins of the tribe itself. As you will see that Boliza has Chuzzi Albanesi, and not just Chuzzi, unlike other tribes. Implying that there are some other Chuzzi.

So, my point is, we either do academic sources, or we can source whatever we deem fit. I will try WP:RSN but not now, as i dont think that quote is an issue Setxkbmap (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant no harm, i just assumed because you guys edit without any discussion, like ever. I’m pretty certain you can find TP discussions between me and many other editors, or even editing conflicts. Is there something you’re trying to say, or do you just enjoy stalking my editing habits and then commenting on it when it’s really not relevant?

Anyways, the rest of your comment is a trauma dump of what happened to you on another article. I don’t know what happened to you on that article, and I don’t want to know because I quite frankly do not care. The issues you encounter on one article shouldn’t be dispersed onto other articles, especially in TP discussions which are solely meant to be for the improvement of the article in question, not some other article.

Again, as it's a great proof of mixed culture and origins of the tribe itself…, according to you as a Wikipedia editor. That has no bearing on the article, especially this one considering that the Drekali are considered as Albanians in this source. Botushali (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m pretty certain you can find TP discussions between me and many other editors, or even editing conflicts. Is there something you’re trying to say, or do you just enjoy stalking my editing habits and then commenting on it when it’s really not relevant?

I really don't see any. Sorry.

Anyways, the rest of your comment is a trauma dump of what happened to you on another article. I don’t know what happened to you on that article, and I don’t want to know because I quite frankly do not care.

Yeah, we shouldn't bring up other articles here. I agree, my bad. BUT, you do know what happend on that article, as you are also active there.

The issues you encounter on one article shouldn’t be dispersed onto other articles, especially in TP discussions which are solely meant to be for the improvement of the article in question, not some other article.

Good! Thanks for the info, it will come in handy :)

Again, as it's a great proof of mixed culture and origins of the tribe itself…, according to you as a Wikipedia editor.

According to Bojka Djukanovic, Jovan Erdeljanovic, Marko Rasovic, Rastislav Petrovic (it's been a while, but i think he also talks about origin directly) and if we go back even Loranzo Sorano.

Sorry, it's not according to me, it's according to books and sources of various periods of time, that address the claim directly, and leave no space for our interpretation.

That has no bearing on the article, especially this one considering that the Drekali are considered as Albanians in this source.

Does it? I think quote just states that Lale Drekalov rules over Albanian part of Kuči. Maybe i missed something, i will try to read again. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, Lale Drekali the “Slav” 🤦🏻‍♂️ Botushali (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM Setxkbmap (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)