Talk:Kuči (tribe)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Origin section

I dont think that the article itself is "Part of a series on Albanian tribes" as it's stated in the article, as we are talking about montenegrin tribe, and the article itself should be part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_Montenegro

Any opinions? It can be stated that the tribe was part of Albanian katun, but the tribe is Montenegrin so i think it should be changed. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is completely unnecessary to remove it. The box/tag itself is included in the 'Origins' section and there are still Albanians who identify as being from Kuçi, still living in the villages which were historically a part of the tribe. The inclusion of both boxes maintains neutrality and accuracy. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no neutrality here, the tribe is Montenegrin, not Albanian. We are talking about Montenegrin tribe and the reader should be transferred to article talking about other Montenegrin tribes instead of Albanian. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course there is, both boxes are included for a tribe that is even to this day ethno-linguistically mixed. The 'Tribes of Montenegro' box is linked at the beginning of the article, as such there is a much higher chance that readers will be redirected to the article on Montenegrin tribes than the one on Albanian tribes. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to dissapoint, but while ethno-lingustically mixed is correct, the percentage of that mixtures are not enough for you to call this part of Albanian tribes.

There's more Bosniaks than Albanians in the tribe, yet it would be comical to call this a "Bosniak tribe"... NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @NekSeOvajVijekGordi, it's imperative that you understand how Wikipedia works. You cannot personally judge whether the Kuçi qualify as an Albanian or Montenegrin tribe, since Wikipedia relies on what WP:RS bibliography states about the tribe. Either both templates stay up there for WP:NPOV or none at all. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, let's say that it's neutral to call the ethnic montenegrin/serb tribe part of Albanian tribes.

Not a single bibliography will tell you that, but it's fine, let it be for now. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali, the reliable sources are quite self-speaking, just check the 2011 census of all the settlements of the Kuči region: most of them declared as Serbs, a minority as Montenegrins, no Bosniaks AFAIK and the Albanians were, as usual, only located in the villages of Fundina and Koći. Finally, please take a look at how your so-called "Albanian" tribe considers itself: [1]. Krisitor (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why people cannot simply read the article and find a mound of sources that describe the Albanian origins of the tribe.

A Franciscan report of the 17th century illustrates the final stages of their acculturation. Its author writes that the Bratonožići, Piperi, Bjelopavlići and Kuči: nulla di meno essegno quasi tutti del rito serviano, e di lingua Illrica ponno piu presto dirsi Schiavoni, ch' Albanesi (since almost all of them use the Serbian rite and the Illyric language, soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians).

Even in the 17th century, they were considered an Albanian tribe. The more that this drags along, the more it seems to be a case of you disliking the facts that are supported by actual bibliography. I have more valuable things to do with my life than argue with multiple brick walls on a site I am volunteering on. Please stop wasting my time because you don’t like what RS bibliography says about the tribe. Botushali (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless on whether or not we can ascribe titles to communities of quite diverse and complex linguistic and cultural identity, I do wish to clarify that nowhere in the article does it say something akin to "Kuci is an ethnic Albanian tribe" or "Kuci are Slavicised Albanians". It simply tells the reader the fact that they are of Albanian origin, but that through acculturation processes shifted from being Albanian speaking and Catholic to Serbian speaking and Orthodox. And this is perfectly in line with reliable sources. Alltan (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

As the article itself said: possibly.

Article tells you that Peter Kuč is possibly the ancestor. He's most definitely not a leader of the tribe, as the tribe was formed in the 15th century and Peter Kuč was first mentioned in 1330. Dečani chrysobulls.

In general, article is full of myths presented as facts even though you don't agree with that. For example, here we all agreed that Novo Kuči/Drekalovići and Staro Kuči (Serbian for new Kuči and Old Kuči) are of the same origin. Yet the article will tell you that Drekalovići trace their origin to Berisha tribe. It's either one, or the other, and as we agreed that the first theory is the one generally accepted as Drekalovići and Old Kuči share the same haplogroup, keeping the myth as a fact in the article is wrong. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You are misconstruing what the article notes about Petar Kuč. This is what it says:

There, they appear in the surname of Petar Kuč (Albanian: Pjetër Kuçi), an individual from the Albanian katun (Serbian: Katun Arbanasa), possibly the leader of the Kuči brotherhood. The same Petar Kuč is mentioned again as the head of a household of the Albanian katun in the third charter of the Dečani monastery, which dates from 1343-1345.

It is pretty clear that Petar Kuč is not noted as a potential ancestor, only that he was the head of the tribe during this period - itself a historical fact. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Now you are misquoting the article. Tribe has not been formed until the 15th century. So by the time tribe was created, people were already mostly orthodox (as has been said in the article itself) and they spoke illyrian language which was a common misconception about slavic languages of the period. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What does this have to do with my reply about Petar Kuč? In 1485 over half of the tribe still bore Albanian names by the way. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It has to, because if haplogroups are not the argument, and Petar Kuč is not the argument, we come to this, names.

It's not really "over the half" as we have the defters. I don't even wanna argue about the number of Slavic and Albanian names as most of the families had both. If you read the defters as i have, you would see that names such as Pal and Žarko who are brothers. I agree that the slavenization of the Albanians in the Kuči tribe was happening over the centuries, but it's not that the Albanians themselves just said one day "we are going to be Slavs!"

The population was mixed, saying that Kuči are of one origin or of another would be wrong as people were clearly mixed back then.

So by the 1485. you had mixture of names and the orthodox church. Tribe formed then. Over the time, catholic believers changed to orthodoxy, and there are even some cases where there was Orthodoxy-Catholicism-return to Orthodoxy kind of deal like it was with Nikeza Marinov, his son Andrej Nikezin (Drekale), and then his son Lale Drekalov NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, use the same 17th century and read a different author like Lazaro Soranzo and you will see that he is writing of a region full of Serbs with Albanians in between. He was describing all of the highlander tribes.

Just because you have the author that said one thing, that doesn't change the fact that there are other who say other things.

Fact is, you are claiming that Kuči is an albanian tribe in this talk page, which is clearly lunacy. Albanians are minority in the tribe, even if you can name people identifying as Albanians outside of Koja e Kucit NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There are still people who identify as Albanians within the tribe yes, although they are the minority. I have never said that Kuci is an Albanian tribe, but Kuci is of Albanian origin, and that part will stay in the lede. Alltan (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

>but Kuci is of Albanian origin

There, they appear in the surname of Petar Kuč (Albanian: Pjetër Kuçi), an individual from the Albanian katun (Serbian: Katun Arbanasa), possibly the leader of the Kuči brotherhood. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to tell me. Alltan (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's what i am trying to say.

Two reasons for the inclusion of Albanian origin are:

1. Peter Kuč theory, a possibility that an albanian man from the 14th century and his descendents formed the tribe by the end of the 15th century.

2. Haplogroups, as we all know that one every nation is only one haplogroup. (We might have to rewrite the borders for the whole Europe though, because right now that's not the case for any other group of people, just Kuči)

First one is only a possibility, there's no proof for that, it's something we just agreed could be a story of origin. It's fine as a myth, just as i am not against the myth of George Kastriot. It's fun, it's folklore and it's ok. (only the second story is part of the folklore of Kuči tribe. I think Peter Kuč migth have been mentioned by the Marko Miljanov in one of his books, but it was never part of the folklore) But using the Mrnjavčević story, or Kastriot story, or any other theory as a fact is just plain wrong.

Most of the oral traditions and church documents will probably lead you back to the 15th century, before that it's all just stories and myths. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

None of those reasons included in the origins section of the article. Haplogroups aren't even mentioned in the article as far as I can tell. If you wish to present different opinions regarding the origin of the Kuci, you must back it up with a modern, reliable source. Alltan (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Haplogroups are not mentioned in the article, but it's the main argument used here for the Albanian origin, just read the discussion here if you have enough time.

I will most likely link some documents in the talk page, so we could discuss and talk about them. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

please stop wasting my time because you don't like what RS's bibliography says about the tribe Please stay WP:CIVIL. You and your friends have failed to produce a convincing reason for keeping the mention of the tribe's Albanian origin in the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST, that's one thing. Now that I've shown you how the Kuči really see themselves today, and it's been that way for centuries, and that's the most important thing, also still by MOS:FIRST, you're losing your nerve. It was you who imposed the mention of the tribe's Albanian origin in the first sentence last year, assume the consequences of your WP:POV edits. Furthermore, you're accusing Khirurg of never having contributed to this page, but have you? I've never seen a single one of your writings that was even remotely constructive on this page, or on those of the other Montenegrin tribes, only WP:POV pushing. Krisitor (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Even when it's sourced it's sourced badly.

For example, in the origin section they have a quote: "Since almost all of them use the Serbian rite and the Illyric language, soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians" and the sources for that are:

1. Albanian historian, i am fine with that.

2. Second book is interesting, as there is no talk about the origin at all, the book itself just has this line: "The approximately thirty Albanian tribes were not all structured alike, although they were usually composed of clans, which in turn were composed of extended families. They traced their lineage back to a common ancestor, whose name they assumed—for example, the Hoti, Kuči, and Berisha"

So the origin is not at all discussed, the writer just said: Kuči, the Albanian tribe, and we can see that there's a theory that Hoti, Kuči and Berisha share the same ancestor but that's the first time i am hearing about it, and even this article is not talking about it...

3. Dead link, cant read.

So i might actually go through all the sources and see where the people were like: "Meh, this is fine".

They dont seem to understand, that just because the document said one thing that it's fact. For example, if we were to look up old sources, we could look at the Kelmendi tribe which are Albanian, they identify as such and they were throughout the history, they survived slavicization and probably just albanized the slav population in the region. But, in Vescovato Mondunense, the archbishop records the origin of the tribe with the help of Kelmendi tribal elders. The name of the section is: ORIGINE DELLI CLEMENTINI NEL VESCOVATO MODUNENSE SECONDO LA LORO TRADITIONE.

And the line is: Clemente primo Stipite du di Padre Serviano da Moraccia fiume che scaturisce da Montenegro sopra Cattaro, e di Madre detta Bubesha figlia di Vuijabegna da Cucci.

The translation is: the Kelmendi trace their origin to Stijepo, a Serb from Montenegro, and Bubeša, the daughter of Vujo-beg, a chieftain in the bordering Kuč tribe.

And you won't see me run around Kelmendi talk page and lead section. I might as well cite it and say: "Kelmendi is a historical tribe of Serbian origin"

Same logic as here. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I am being civi by even entertaining this pointless conversation any longer. You need to read WP:DROPTHESTICK. You have provided no RS bibliography based reasoning to deny or remove the Albanian origin of the tribe. Consensus stands. Botushali (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for the beef between you and Krisitor, but i will provide some documents in the next few days, probably in a separate section for more visibility.

Stay civil and let's keep discussing! NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @NekSeOvajVijekGordi that it should be removed, because the Kuči are not an Albanian tribe. And the part of the tribe who identifies as such is Koja, which is already listed as a specific tribe in the box. Krisitor (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a historically Albanian tribe and part of it still identifies as Albanian. By default, this reality means that the article has to reflect that a part of Kuçi is still Albanian. The Montenegrin identity is related to the inclusion of the territory in modern Montenegro, but Kuçi has no historical links to any Montenegrin tribe as in contrast to the tribes of the Brda region, Montenegrin tribes are historically Slavic. The current consensus reflects the idea that idea that identities are non-exclusionary historical constructs, hence both infoboxes are included.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Maleschreiber that it should not be removed, because the Kuči is part Albanian to this day and because they are of Albanian origin. Durraz0 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

>because the Kuči is part Albanian

And that is why you have Koja e Kucit page, and there you have "Part of Albanian tribes" in that article. That's completely fine NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There is almost nothing in scholarship related to Kuči as an Albanian tribe. Yes, they appear as a community from an Albanian katun in the Late Middle Ages, so that part of their origin is not disputed, then their present territory is mentioned as a nahija in the late 15th and during the 16th century, with an already mixed Albanian and Slavic anthroponymy, yet almost nothing is said about the tribe as an Albanian one in historical sources.

However, when it comes to primary sources starting with the 17th century onwards, the Kuči are largely mentioned as a Slavic Orthodox tribe. And your statement that the Kuçi has no historical links to any Montenegrin tribe as in contrast to the tribes of the Brda region is wrong, in fact they are known for their close ties with other Brda tribes as well as Malisor tribes, with whom they often allied during the centuries of struggle against Ottoman rule.

With these considerations in mind, I maintain that the box should be removed. Krisitor (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Your statement doesn't contradict the statement Kuçi has no historical links to any Montenegrin tribe as in contrast to the tribes of the Brda region, Montenegrin tribes are historically Slavic? --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I remember now that you don't consider the tribes of the Brda as Montenegrin tribes, as if they were closer to Albanian ones, but in fact, that's not the case. Anyway, apart from the Koja villages, Kuči are not Albanians, they even mostly identified as Serbs in the 2011 census. So the presence of the box and the introduction remain problematic and need to be fixed. Krisitor (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The Albanian tribes sidebar is relevant for inclusion in the section Origins as per article's content. There is no reasonable argument to remove it. How the members of the tribe identify today is not relevant to this issue. – Βατο (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll sustain Bato's argument. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Βατο Durraz0 (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Two things i see in the origin section. The first one is the connection between Kuči Drekalovići and Berishe, while we already established that every Kuči member is of a certain haplogroup that leads to Vlachs in the North Albania.

Second thing is, why is Ottoman defter from 1485. quoted in the text, yet the image that was there in 2020. is removed? I think we should reinstate the image as it's of interest since it shows first recorded names of now formed Kuči tribe. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No, nothing about the Kuçi leads to any Vlachs in Albania. The lineage of Kuçi is a typical Albanian lineage and Vlachs in Albania, Greece, N. Macedonia and most other areas in the Balkans are not fundamentally related to any haplogroup. There is no Vlach haplogroup in general as they have many different origins while the broader haplogroup which the Kuçi carry is represented by 15-20% fewer lineages among Vlachs compared to Albanians. More importantly, the Kuçi are not mentioned in archival sources as Vlachs, hence there's nothing which connects them to Vlachs. There are tribes of Vlach origin in Montenegro like the Drobnjaci who are indeed mentioned as Vlachs in archival sources and the lineage they carry has no close relation to Albanians and it wasn't present in the region during the Paleo-Balkan era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I wanted to say native people of the region, you know, before modern nations were created. That's not the point, and i would not like to argue about that. The point is that if all Kuči share the common ancestor, it's not possible for Drekalovići to originate from Berishe tribe. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The claim or insinuation that the native medieval population of northern Albania was Vlach is not only erroneous but also completely irrelevant and unproductive to the discussion. Please, for future reference, refrain from making such claims in order to avoid potential arguments which are of no value to the topic at hand. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's fine, what about the other thing we were talking about.

Is there anyone against removing the Berishe from the origin section, as we all agree that Old Kuči and Drekalovići share the common ancestry NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

To begin with, there was no consensus to remove the sidebar. Secondly, at a closer translation and inspection of Soranzo's passage linked by @NekSeOvajVijekGordi, the claim that the aforementioned writer described 'the tribes in the region, including Kuči, as mostly Serbian with some Albanian presence' is incorrect. From Soranzo's excerpt it can only be gathered that these tribes inhabited an area which was perceived by the writer as 'Serbia', with Seruiani here not bearing clear ethnic connotations. This is further suggested by the fact that Soranzo further notes that among these tribes of Serbia, Albanian Catholics formed a large group (trà quali vi sono molti Albanesi, che viuono alla Romana). Thirdly, since Soranzo doesn't specifically mention the ethnic composition of the tribes themselves, most importantly the Kuči, using it as evidence of the abovementioned claim is without justification. This also highlights an issue with the use of primary sources which can be interpreted differently, and potentially erroneously, by different readers. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Soranzo was literally describing Serbs. In the document itself, and the quotation from the different sources i gave you, he is talking about Serb Uprising in the 16th century, and is describing Serbs that live near the mountains of Albania as some of the most fearsome.

The text states: "Out of all things, Serbs want this the most (implying freedom from the Turks). The nation that lives from Danube to the mountains of Albania, and those in Dardania, the ones that live near those mountains, are best able to make the greatest stirres: And those are Piperi, Kuci, Clementi, Bjelopavlici and others in the region of Plav, and among them there are many Albanians of Roman rite".

The fact that he mentions Albanians, actually gives you the idea that he was in fact thinking of these tribes as Serbs, and that among them there are some Albanians of Catholic rite.

The inner tribe composition is not stated, but the Soranzo is clear in his opinion of the ethnic composition of the whole region, including Kuci.

That's not the only thing you removed, but let's focus on this one for now. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You cannot draw such a conclusion from a primary argument because the historical context of the terms used has to be interpreted by modern and reliable secondary sources. If under the Serbs 'many Albanians' are included, then the term 'Serbs' itself is not an ethnic term, but a geographical one. Based on this quote, you cannot draw any conclusion about the Kuči themselves or any other tribe because the author doesn't directly mention the origins of any of them and you can't then suppose anything about mixed origins. As a consequence, it would be an example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to deduce such an argument from this specific quote. Soranzo's report as a primary source doesn't disagree with another report which is presented in the article 'A Franciscan report of the 17th century illustrates the final stages of their acculturation. Its author writes that the Bratonožići, Piperi, Bjelopavlići and Kuči: nulla di meno essegno quasi tutti del rito serviano, e di lingua Illrica ponno piu presto dirsi Schiavoni, ch' Albanesi (since almost all of them use the Serbian rite and the Illyric language, soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians)' via a proper modern source. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

>You cannot draw such a conclusion from a primary argument because the historical context of the terms used has to be interpreted by modern and reliable secondary sources.

So it is interpreted by the second source that actually talks about the Serb uprising and states all the Serb tribes that fought in it, based on L'Ottomano.

> If under the Serbs 'many Albanians' are included, then the term 'Serbs' itself is not an ethnic term, but a geographical one.

I disagree, i think you misunderstood what was written. As the matter of fact in the quote that is in the article right now there is "rito serviano" which means that Serbian didn't mean the territory, but the people. Especially that the Soranzo itself doesn't call the region "Serbia", but "Dardania" and "Mountains of Albania".

> you cannot draw any conclusion about the Kuči themselves or any other tribe because the author doesn't directly mention the origins of any of them and you can't then suppose anything about mixed origins.

I am not using the Soranzo to say that the origin is mixed, i am using Marko Rašović. Soranzo is just an importnant detail of how some people of that period interpreted the ethographic situation of the region. Same as the Franscian report that is literally quoted word by word, which is a document from 17th century.

As for the WP:SYNTH, the article itself has it again. While quoting Franciscan report, only ONE source is actually talking about it, and that is Xhufi, Pëllumb (2013). "Përkime shqiptaro-malazeze në mesjetë". Other two sources are not even talking about it, both of which are just calling Kuči an Albanian tribe, and those are used by people as a source. Those sources are terrible, as you can probably find hundreds of books that say "Kuči, a Serb tribe" without actually providing any sources or evidence.

>Soranzo's report as a primary source doesn't disagree with another report which is presented in the article

It doesn't, but it does disagree with overwhelming opinion on this talk page pushed by few users on this talk page. And that is, that even before the Franciscan report there were people saying that Kuči is a tribe of Serbs. Which would tell you that origin of the tribe, even back in 16th and 15th century is not as clear as you want to present it. And the sources for the quote are wrong, except one. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Should we remove two wrong sources that have nothing to do with that quote? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I can revise your edit and add more sources, probably a newer ones NaBesmrtnomVisu (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you did a well enough job.

@Ktrimi991 Can you explain how a historian and lingvist is not a good enough source, but a professor of agriculture from a university of Sarajevo is? I think Bojka is good enough source as was agreed by the rest of the users here when we used her as the newest source for the "Zetski zbor".

I would love to hear your opinion on that NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

New sources

@Maleschreiber There was already discussion, the sources were too iffy, so the new ones are added. There has been no edit war, i actually talked about adding some info a month ago. If you want to discuss it, i am willing to talk with you! NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There's not a single brotherhood in Kuçi which is of Slavic origin and most in fact are directly descended from Lale Drekalov. It is inaccurate to claim that Kuçi is of mixed origins because it isn't and it really doesn't view itself as such. The reference to Soranzo is inaccurate because Soranzo doesn't write that In the 16th century, the Italian traveler Lazaro Soranzo while writing about Serb uprising of 1596–1597 described the tribes in the region, including Kuči, as mostly Serbian with some Albanian presence while the conversion of Kuçi from Catholicism is already discussed in the article. The editor who wrote that In 1675. a Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Rufim Boljević, an active protester against Catholic propaganda, converted vojvoda Lale Drekalov from Catholicism to Orthodoxy needs to read about WP:NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't describe any religion as "propaganda".--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  >There's not a single brotherhood in Kuçi which is of Slavic origin and most in fact are directly descended from Lale Drekalov.

  Sorry, but while all of Drekalovići are descended from Lale, there are many other in the Kuči tribe who are not. Your other implication and opinion of his origin is irrelevant.

  >The reference to Soranzo is inaccurate because Soranzo doesn't write that In the 16th century, the Italian traveler Lazaro Soranzo while writing about Serb uprising of 1596–1597 described the tribes in the region, including Kuči, as mostly Serbian with some Albanian presence while the conversion of Kuçi from Catholicism is already discussed in the article.

  Out of all things, Serbs want this the most (implying freedom from the Turks). The nation that lives from Danube to the mountains of Albania, and those in Dardania, the ones that live near those mountains, are best able to make the greatest stirres: And those are Piperi, Kuci, Clementi, Bjelopavlici and others in the region of Plav, and among them there are many Albanians of Roman rite.

  >Wikipedia doesn't describe any religion as "propaganda

  Catholicism isn't propaganda, but the spreading of any religion was used to call just that. The original author didn't imply that the catholicism is wrong, just that Rufim was against spread of Catholicism in the territory of the Patriarchate of Peć (Serbian Orthodox Church). If you think that the line itself should be changed a bit to better fit the context, i could agree with that. I was trying to be as truthful to the original as i could, as i was attacked earlier for not doing that. As i was attacked for using the original documents, and for not using modern sources etc etc

  Now that we have all of that, i don't see the problem. I assume many of the sources given are much better than what some professor of agriculture wrote on some dead website that is given as a ref NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Compare the statement which was written and what Soranzo actually writes and you'll see the contradiction.

Rašović writes that Ови дошљаци бјеху Срби и Арбанаси, људи храбри и енергични, претставници непомирљиве борбе са Турцима. Готово сви су овамо дошли као јака братства, која себи и силом заузимаху сједишта међу старим Кучима, па се и доцније, на њихову штету, ширише и натјераше тиме многе старе породице, да се раселе. I'm not certain to whom he refers because the phrasing is ambiguous but there is no relation to Kuçi in this statement, nor is there anything in the recorded genealogy of Kuçi about such events. Based on our modern knowledge which relies on genetic genealogy, there is also no Old vs. "New" Kuçi (Drekalovići) division. Both of them have the same ancestor. When Drekale settled in Kuçi, he was in fact settling among his cousins and nobody was pushed out. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

>Compare the statement which was written and what Soranzo actually writes and you'll see the contradiction.

We can change that. Soranzo wrote about the uprising of Serbs. The original quote is:

Serbs out of all wants this the most. Nation that lives from mountains of Albania to Danube, and those who are in Dardania and closer to these mountains are uprising a lot. And those are: Piperi, Kuči, Klimenti, Bjelopavlići and tribes from the region of Plav: among whom there are many Albanians of Catholic faith.

If you want to rephrase it, i am all up for that. I just wanted to give some context for the writing of Soranzo, and that context is the Serb Uprising at the end of 16th century.

>Rašović writes that Ови дошљаци бјеху Срби и Арбанаси, људи храбри и енергични, претставници непомирљиве борбе са Турцима. Готово сви су овамо дошли као јака братства, која себи и силом заузимаху сједишта међу старим Кучима, па се и доцније, на њихову штету, ширише и натјераше тиме многе старе породице, да се раселе. I'm not certain to whom he refers because the phrasing is ambiguous but there is no relation to Kuçi in this statement

The book itself is about Kuči. Rašović started a bit earlier, and talked about people who lived in the tribe before the formation of the tribe, and before all of the migrations (before Old Kuči). So his "Old Kuči" are not Mrnjavčević, but the people who lived there in the 13th century and before. "New Kuči" in this context are both Mrnjavčevići and Drekalovići.

So for him, migrations that were happening during the 14th and 15th century consisted of Catholics and Orthodox people, both Slavs and Albanians.

I also agree with you that Drekalovići are of same origin as Mrnjavčevići, and i support the idea that Drekale was son of Nikeza. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lezhjani1444 your opinions on this? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber Let's not let this discussion die out. I hope you have an idea on how to rewrite the article so that we could include new sources NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Other than that, i would also love to add: SLAVIC-ALBANIAN INTERACTION IN VELJA GORANA: PAST AND PRESENT OF A BALANCED LANGUAGE CONTACT SITUATION as a source, which is a scientific paper done by Maria S. Morozova and Alexander Yu. Rusakov, (Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg State University) that was presented at “Multiculturalism and Language Contact” event organized by the Scientific Institute “Max van der Stoel” and Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts‘ research Center for Areal Linguistics. Editors of the publication: Prof. Dr. Veton Latifi Prof. Dr. Victor A. Friedman Prof. Dr. Marjan Markovikj.

Quote itself is:

The best-known example is the case of the Kuči, which had been an Orthodox Serbian tribe until the fifteenth century. From the beginning of the fifteenth to the end of the seventeenth century several Albanian (Catholic) and Serbian (Orthodox and Catholic) groups from other regions settled in the territory occupied by the Kuči. The population in the area had been (partially) bilingual in Albanian and Slavic for a long time, but after the gradual Slavicization of Albanians, most of the tribe became Slavic-speaking. The only exception is the small area of Koći / Kojë, which is inhabited by Albanians and Albanized Serbs.

Also, there's an interesting article by Adnan Čergić, the professor of Montenegrin language that is disagreeing with Erdeljanović, on the "Serbian" part of the tribe, exclusively calling it Slavic based on the name that Albanians around the tribe called Slavs in the Kuči tribe, and that word is "Škja". Čergić insinuates that before the arrival of Serbs there was a different layer of Slavic people living there, and Albanians called like that. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, thanks to @Jingiby and his new sources, while we have 2 new stating Kuči were of Albanian origin (based on the Franscian report from the 17th century), the Cambridge one actually states there was a mixture of population. Based on that, and the defters, Lazzaro Soranzo and his reports from the 16th century, we should rewrite the article together NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@NekSeOvajVijekGordi: You posted a quote based on Erdeljanović (1907) which directly contradicts what we know today. Kuçi, the main part of Trieshi and the main part of Koja all have the same patrilineal ancestor - all of them. There is not a single brotherhood of Slavic origin in Kuçi, just as there is not a single brotherhood of Albanian origin among the Drobnjaci. Hence the article cannot include information which directly contradicts reality based on sources which are either outdated or discuss the topic superficially. Research is beyond the point where we just compare & contrast how many sources use the term "Albanian" and how many use the term "Slavic".The key points which you have raised have been answered but we cannot discuss Erdeljanović (1907) again because his works are not reliable sources. I think that there's not much to discuss any longer because you're trying to gain consensus for changes which truly contradict everything we know today.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Back in early 2020, when I had little knowledge of the advances in genetic genealogy I wrote that Kuči is not a tribe (pleme) of the same patrilineal ancestry. Rather, as many other tribes in the region, it formed as consecutive waves of groups settled in the area and formed the Kuči community. This statement which I wrote was wrong in all possible ways. There were never several groups of different patrilineal origins in Kuči. The statement which I then wrote does find support in reliable bibliography, but it's an absolutely wrong statement. If editors like NekSeOvajVijekGordi want to actually engage with such topics they have to learn how to approach reality as it is. --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but when you have nothing else to say you go back to genealogy. Did you know that Yugoslav people are not Slavic? I mean, their genealogy says it like that.

Did you know that only 30-35% of Albanians have E-V13 haplogroup?

We focus on the primary palaeo-Balkan lineages of modern Albanians – haplogroups E-V13 (27-35%), J2b-Z600 (15%), and R1b-BY611>Z2705 (12-14%)

What are the rest of them? Greeks? Serbs? Is your nationality defined like that?

I dont want to go into this as haplogroups != nations, and if we would to draw a line based on them you would get a very, very different map than you have right now.

As for the sources:

1. We need a way to implement Lazzaro's statements into the article, that's why i wanted your help.

2. I agree that " In 1675. a Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Rufim Boljević, an active protester against Catholic propaganda, converted vojvoda Lale Drekalov from Catholicism to Orthodoxy" quote should be changed not to include the word propaganda, as it can be misinterpreted.

3. Bojka and Rasovic have the same idea of origin, Bojka is of course much newer source, and nobody had problem with her, so i assume there's no problem with using them as a source?

4. We established that the tribe was orthodox in the 15th century as the tribe itself was a part of Zetski Zbor and requested no catholic priests to be present at their territory, and that there was process of albanization during the 16th century and then slow return to orthodoxy based on Franciscan report and the quote i gave you about vojvoda Lale and his conversion to Orthodoxy. We established that by the end of 15th century, based on the defters that are quoted in the aritcle, the villages in Kuci were 35% Albanian, 35% Slavic and 30% mixed. So during the creation of a tribe, and the time of the first Vojvoda of Kuci, tribe was most definitely mixed.

I agree that most of Kuci share same paternal ancestor (still not all, as there are many of those who are neither Old Kuci or Drekalovici, but families that actually moved to the region of Kuci tribe and stayed there. Even in the article itself you have one such person, and that is Muamer Zukorlic), but we are not sure who that one ancestor is and you are not including the maternal line which is also impornant to the history of the tribe (one of the reason Lale converted to Orhodoxy was that his wife was an Orthodox Serb). In my opinion, last known ancestor is known as Nenad (which tells you that even the oldest known ancestor had a Slavic/Serbian name).

I love to discuss this with you, and i am willing to as this is really cool, but i would like to first solve first three issues that i mentioned NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The point isn't that E-V13 = Albanian, of course it doesn't, the point is that E-BY165837 is an Albanian subclade of E-V13. Based on phylogeny, diversity, TMRCA, and other factors we are able to tie certain subclades to specific ethno-linguistic groups, just like how there are Serbian clades as well as Albanian ones. In light of this genetic research, I have also had to change some of my opinions. It now appears that the Bankeqi of Trieshi and the core of Koja e Kuçit stem from the same tribal community as the Kuči, sharing an ancestor who lived in ca. 1373 CE. This, surprisingly, corroborates some of the oral traditions of the Bankeqi which do in fact point to common ancestry with the Kuči. In these traditions, for example, the Nikezići are depicted as descended from a certain Mara Ponti who appears to have been a historical figure. This is based on the fact that sons of Mara are recorded in 1485 in the village of Pantalesh. The patronym Nikezići is also interesting since it appears to be derived from the personal name Nika, with the addition of the Albanian diminutive suffix -(ë)za.

Aside from Soranzo's ambiguity regarding ethnic and geographic descriptions (of which are open to different interpretations), another issue is that he doesn't specifically describe the ethnic composition of the Kuči - contrary to what was claimed in the previous edit. As such it can be argued to be irrelevant to the article.

Regarding the Zetski zbor, things aren't as clear cut as is being presented. The Kuči didn't make these requests independently, they were only a single tribe out of 51. There are also economic aspects that must be considered which influenced the majority decision of this assembly, taxes under the Zeta bishopric being different from if the tribes were directly subordinate to the Venetians. Furthermore, a number of Albanian tribes and communities partook in the assembly (e.g., Hoti, Gruda, Tuzi, Matagushi, Kryethi, etc), some of which would've still been Catholic Christians at this point. As such, the participation of the Kuči in this assembly does not rule out an Albanian character during this period in time.

There is no evidence 'that there was a process of albanization during the 16th century', let's also not neglect the fact that the Kuči are first attested in an ethnic Albanian community. In 1485, ~41.5% of household heads bore typical Albanian names, while ~35.9% bore Slavic names (2/3 of these being restricted to two settlements). The remainder bore mixed anthroponymy. It is an established fact that medieval Albanians adopted Slavic personal names as a result of the political and religious influence of the South Slavic polities, thus this still doesn't refute an Albanian origin or character. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This falls under WP:OR, as there are no genetic studies on the Kuči. Of course, you can find information on amateur websites such as the Serbian DNA Project where people submit the results of their own genetic tests. However, not only is this an amateur website, but if you look at the results in question, you will find that there are too few members of "clans" or "families" who have been tested to draw any conclusions. And even if it turned out that all Kuči people have the same common ancestor who lived 800 years ago or whenever, genetics doesn't have nationality, whatever the case may be: you can't know if when the tribe was formed, it wasn't already largely slavicized. After all, what does it mean to be Slavic or Albanian? It's not a matter of genes; it's primarily a set of cultural and linguistic traits shared by a group of individuals. You can't know if when the Kuči tribe emerged as an Orthodox Slavic tribe during the early modern period, it hadn't already largely adopted a Slavic character, both linguistically, of course, but also culturally, such as the adoption of the typical South Slavic family organization, the zadruga, or the adoption of the Slava as a family tradition. Krisitor (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but this information isn't included in the article itself and so WP:OR isn't really relevant. It is only being brought up in this TP since it corroborates the sources and claims of an Albanian origin.

And no, a sizeable number of the core brotherhoods have been tested, enough to determine the genetic genealogy of the core population of the tribe. Genetics itself doesn't have a nationality true, but if a subclade and it's parallel branches are all represented by a specific ethnic group; we can assume that the haplogroup originated in that population. Nobody is arguing that genes determine ethnicity, only that certain haplogroups are characterised by certain groups - as is understood in population genetics. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in the article, but you and others often use this WP:OR "genetic evidence" as an argument on this talk page. It would be best if you avoided doing so as Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM, you are not on Poreklo or Anthrogenica here and must rely on WP:RS, nothing more. I would, however, gladly continue this amateur discussion of genetics "genealogy" outside Wikipedia. Krisitor (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

>the point is that E-BY165837 is an Albanian subclade

Again, based on what? The only thing you get by using geneology here is just that many members of Kuči tribe share the same ancestor (again, not all of them. Many in the tribe are not E-V13). I'll have to agree with @Krisitor here, and say that this is only used when there's nothing else to be said. Haplogroups, even subclades are not nationalities. And not every member of this tribe is E-V13

>>In these traditions, for example, the Nikezići are depicted as descended from a certain Mara Ponti who appears to have been a historical figure. This is based on the fact that sons of Mara are recorded in 1485 in the village of Pantalesh. The patronym Nikezići is also interesting since it appears to be derived from the personal name Nika, with the addition of the Albanian diminutive suffix -(ë)za.

I think the personal name is Niko, as it's short for Nikola. Both Albanians and Serbians use Niko and rarely Nika (at least for a male, Nika is used in Montenegro as a female name)

Mara/Marin Pantov (Not Ponti, as it comes from the name "Panto") is a historical figure that was one of the 5 sons of Panto: Petar, Djuradj/Gjerg, Tiho, Mara and Lesh (as this is an Albanian name that is not used in Montenegro, i am not really sure how to write it so sorry). In fact it was the combination of the names Panto and Lesh that gave name to the village.

>Aside from Soranzo's ambiguity regarding ethnic and geographic descriptions (of which are open to different interpretations), another issue is that he doesn't specifically describe the ethnic composition of the Kuči - contrary to what was claimed in the previous edit. As such it can be argued to be irrelevant to the article.

There's really not many different interpretations. Soranzo is describing a Serb uprising, and stating that the most fearsome fighters and those who want freedom the most are Serbs from the region of Brda and Plav. He then lists the tribes, and states that among them also live Albanians of Catholic rite.

I think it's pretty importnant to have this in the article, and not irrelevant at all. It gives you an insight to what a third party that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox priest thought of the region, basically a "neutral pov".

>There is no evidence 'that there was a process of albanization during the 16th century', let's also not neglect the fact that the Kuči are first attested in an ethnic Albanian community. In 1485, ~41.5% of household heads bore typical Albanian names, while ~35.9% bore Slavic names (2/3 of these being restricted to two settlements). The remainder bore mixed anthroponymy. It is an established fact that medieval Albanians adopted Slavic personal names as a result of the political and religious influence of the South Slavic polities, thus this still doesn't refute an Albanian origin or character.

But you really don't know what happend, as even the Mrnjavčević moved from the Skadar region north to the Kuči region today so you have no idea of the original population of the region. What you do know is that in 1485 the split was basically 50%-50%. So when the tribe was created, you can definitely state that it was already mixed.

There was most definitely a process of albanization, oldest known ancestor that we can find with 100% proof of existence is Nenad. Nenad had three sons. Lazar, Đurađ/Gjerg and Grča. Grča was the one that moved to village called Bardhanje which can be found in the defters. Grča had son called Panto and then you have three generations of either Albanian names or in a case of Nikeza, a name that has a deminutive from Albanian language in it. Mainly Nikeza, his son Drekale, and then his son Lala (I am not sure about origin of this name, as it is still used in Serbia, even though it's a bit strange, but we 100% know that he was originally catholic, but then changed his religion and that it was the last big change in the tribe). And the fact that the tribe itself was part of the Zetski Zbor tells you that for at least half a century there was no catholic priest in the region. So if there was a statement in 17th century that Kuči is becoming orthodox, it tells you that during 16th century something happend, as in the 15th century there was no presence of Catholic church in the tribe.

But we go back to this:

1) We need a way to implement Lazzaro's statements into the article

2) In 1675. a Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Rufim Boljević, an active protester against Catholic propaganda, converted vojvoda Lale Drekalov from Catholicism to Orthodoxy" quote should be changed not to include the word propaganda, as it can be misinterpreted.

3) Even you use the defter of 1485. So if you know that 50% of the tribe was Slavic during the creation of the tribe, how can you state anything else other than that the tribe was mixed during it's nascent stages of development? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll avoid discussing the genetic evidence here to avoid WP:NOTAFORUM as suggested by @Krisitor, and will instead tackle the issues which are relevant to the article itself and could potentially be implemented.

Taking oral traditions at face value is problematic as they do tend to be inaccurate. It is certain that the tradition of origin from the Mrnjavčevići has no historical basis and is a later fabrication, and we cannot say for certain that the Nenad who was deceased by 1416-7 is the same as the one in the oral traditions. Even if he was (certainly a possibility), he did not father Grča - a figure that doesn't appear to be historical. His sons were Gjergj (Giergi), Lazër (Lazzaro), and Jon (quite possibly a Venetian corruption of Gjon). He also appears to have fathered a daughter named Nesa who was the widow of a certain Jon Progani. That their father was named Nenad is not evidence that they were Serbs, as has been noted earlier, it was not uncommon for Albanians to adopt Slavic anthroponyms during this period and the names given to his sons were typical of Albanians.

Judging by the historical evidence, if this Nenad was truly the ancestor of the tribe, Panta would rather have been the son of a certain Llesh (hence the village of Pantalesh), not Grča. Regarding Panto Lleshi, Pulaha (1975) writes (my translation):

On the other hand the names of Panta's sons, Pjetri and Lesh, correspond to the katunds and villages of Petrovići and Leshevići recorded in the years 1497, 1570, and 1582. We will also add that in the register of 1485 the head of the village of Pantalesh is recorded as Vuksan son of Mara, and that other inhabitants of the settlement bore the surname Mara or are noted as sons of Lleshi and Gjergji, corresponding to the names of Panta's sons: Mar, Llesh, and Gjergj... this indicates that Panta Lleshi lived during the first half of the fifteenth century.

This information could be of value in the article.

Soranzo doesn't specifically write about the Kuči and his 'demography' is very vague. If you want you can propose an example here, although I personally think we should avoid using this source for the reasons argued here and above. As for the defter of 1485, it by no means suggests that 50% of the tribe was Serbian. Simply put, there is no way to figure out the exact ethnic composition or character of the community. However, judging by the fact that, due to political and religious reasons, it was more common for Albanians to adopt Slavic anthroponymy than vice versa; it is highly likely that the Albanian element was way higher than can be interpreted solely by Albanian anthroponymy. As is suggested by RS scholars such as Pulaha.

As for Rufim Boljević, it could just be said that he actively worked against the Catholic Church's influence and authority in the region. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

>It is certain that the tradition of origin from the Mrnjavčevići has no historical basis and is a later fabrication

Of course, and that is why i am only calling them Mrnjavčević as they call themselves like that. You can find my opinion about it in the comment above yours where i stated that the oldest known ancestor is definitely Nenad. And not Mrnja. Oral traditions say that Nenad was son of Gojko, and that Gojko was son of Mrnja. While Gojko was pretty popular name in the Kuči region during the 15th century, i really doubt there ever was a Gojko Mrnjavčević as he is only mentioned in the Serbian poetry. We could discuss the age of the myth tho, i think it really might have been from the 15th/16th century, but that's not something we will ever know.

>Even if he was (certainly a possibility), he did not father Grča - a figure that doesn't appear to be historical.

While Grča is not mentioned in the defters, there's enough time from the Venetian documents to the first defters for him to move and settle in the region of Kuči. There's actually a katun in Kuči, north of the Hotska Korita, called Grča, named after him.

>That their father was named Nenad is not evidence that they were Serbs, as has been noted earlier, it was not uncommon for Albanians to adopt Slavic anthroponyms during this period and the names given to his sons were typical of Albanians.

It's not a proof that they were Serbs, but that they actually were Slavic just like many others in the region. Slavs are a ethnolinguistic group. But in the Balkans, it's more linguistic than anything else. As you love to mention haplogroups, you would probably know that Hungarians are more Slavic than Yugoslavs. If you already know that people were already mixing cultures and taking names during 14th century, how can you say that the tribe itself is Albanian at the end of 15th?

>Judging by the historical evidence, if this Nenad was truly the ancestor of the tribe, Panta would rather have been the son of a certain Llesh (hence the village of Pantalesh), not Grča. Regarding Panto Lleshi, Pulaha (1975) writes (my translation):

You misunderstood me, i never stated that Grča was the father of Llesh. Grča was father of Panto, and the rest is pretty much confirmed. Panto had 5 sons, as i stated above: Petar, Đurađ/Gjerg, Tiho, Mara and Llesh.

We know about them, because you can find them in the 1485. defter as you stated. You can find them by their children in the village Pantaljesh.

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 nobody is questioning the existence of Panto, or that Panto was a father of Llesh. I literally stated in one of earlier comments that the village got the name by combining the names of Panto and his oldest son Llesh.

Soranzo doesn't specifically write about the Kuči and his 'demography' is very vague. If you want you can propose an example here, although I personally think we should avoid using this source for the reasons argued here and above.

I agree that the document is not specifically about Kuči, but in my opinion it's integral to the article so that the reader could know that even then the ethnic composition of the tribe was complicated. It pretty much depended on who you met from that region.

As for Rufim Boljević, it could just be said that he actively worked against the Catholic Church's influence and authority in the region.

What do you think about this:

In 1675. a Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Rufim Boljević, an active protester against spread of Catholicism in the region, converted vojvoda Lale Drekalov from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. This event marked the end of major religious changes within the Kuči tribe. From then on, the Kuči predominantly identified as a Serbian Orthodox tribe.

There are two or three sources that i can provide for the statement. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The presence of Slavic names does not suggest whatsoever that they were Slavs or necessarily mixed with Slavs (albeit some intermixing in this region should be expected). Pulaha (1974) and other scholars have covered this issue in detail and their arguments can be found online.

My point was precisely that Grča was not the father of Panta, but rather a figure named Llesh was Panta's father. Judging by similar toponyms found in the region in medieval documents and present times, such settlements inherited their founder's name, both first and second - of which the majority were patronyms. This being especially true for settlements founded by Albanians. Examples include Vuksanlekaj, Gjon Branka, Mensabardh/Melshabardh and others. I doubt that Pantalesh took its name from Panta and his son Llesh, especially since the Leshoviqi developed later from the community.

Which sources do you want to cite? Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The presence of Slavic names does not suggest whatsoever that they were Slavs or necessarily mixed with Slavs (albeit some intermixing in this region should be expected).

Well the Slavic names and culture didn't fall out of a sky, it had to come from somewhere. So there was definitely some mixing. But this begs the question, when did Kuči stop "being an Albanian tribe" and why? Where do you draw the line? Because the article itself doesn't state that the tribe is currently Albanian. So i am interested in what period did the tribe stop being Albanian and why is that? Where do you personally draw the line? Religion? Culture?

Because from what we can see, even back to the 14th century you can find slavic names, and even back to the 14th and 15th century you can find orthodoxy in the pre-tribe population, so while i agree that E-V13 is not a Slavic haplogroup, neither is I2 which is the most common in Yugoslavs, and haplogroup can't be used as an argument against slavic identity.

>My point was precisely that Grča was not the father of Panta, but rather a figure named Llesh was Panta's father. Judging by similar toponyms found in the region in medieval documents and present times, such settlements inherited their founder's name, both first and second - of which the majority were patronyms. This being especially true for settlements founded by Albanians. Examples include Vuksanlekaj, Gjon Branka, Mensabardh/Melshabardh and others. I doubt that Pantalesh took its name from Panta and his son Llesh, especially since the Leshoviqi developed later from the community.

That could be debatable, as we have no proof of Panto's father, but what we definitely know is that he had son names Llesh. I still prefer the Grča theory, as the name Grča is not really common in the ex-Yugoslav co

Btw, i am interested in the Albanian surname traditions, this has nothing to do with text, but in Montenegro and Serbia there was a long tradition of people using fathers name as the surname which can also be seen in the example of village of Kuč where there's a "Gjergj Nenada" where Nenada is genitive case which in serbo-croatian can either be Nenada or Nenadov. I am interested in the linguistic building of surnames in Albania during that period of time, if you have any sources on that that i could read i would really appreciate it.

>Which sources do you want to cite?

Институт славяноведения и балканистики (Российская академия наук) - Османская Империя и страны Централной, Восточной и Юго-Восточной Европы в 17 в.. 2(2001) and Павле Ровински - Етнографија Црне Горе, том I (1998) NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • Gjergj Nenada = Gjergj, son of Nenad similar to Lazër Nenada = Lazar son of Nenad. Symbiosis of Slavic and Albanian names is not uncommon in these areas, even among tribes which in general are not considered of Albanian origin like the Drobnjaks hence anthroponymy needs to be taken into consideration within its specific historical context.
  • It is WP:FORUM that this is still being discussed, but there seems to be a need to repeat some topics. The argument is not one about haplogroups. There is no argument which states 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.
  • The proposed statement From then on, the Kuči predominantly identified as a Serbian Orthodox tribe. cannot be further inferred from the sources, nor can we assume that because Lale switched to Serbian Orthodox, all of Kuçi became immediately Serbian Orthodox, nor is this an argument for linguistic identity. Just a few years earlier, Bolizza in his report recorded them all as Of Roman rite are: 490 houses - Chuzzi Albanesi (Albanian Kuçi), commanded by Lale Drecalou (Lale Drekalov) and Nico Raizcou (Niko Rajckov) When some Kuçi brotherhoods settled in Plav-Gucia/Plav-Gusinje around 1700, they were certainly Albanian-speaking or bilingual, but not monolingual Slavic-speakers. This occurred about 80 years after Lale's conversion. Slavicization among the Orthodox Kuçi didn't happen in a single moment but probably lasted several centuries.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Gjergj Nenada - Gjergj, son of Nenad similar to Lazër Nenada - Lazar son of Nenad. Symbiosis of Slavic and Albanian names is not uncommon in these areas, even among tribes which in general are not considered of Albanian origin like the Drobnjaks hence anthroponymy needs to be taken into consideration within its specific historical context

  Didn't say anything against the symbiosis, just that the symbiosis itself is much, much older than the 15th/16th century.

  It is WP:FORUM that this is still being discussed, but there seems to be a need to repeat some topics. The argument is not one about haplogroups. There is no argument which states 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.

  It's fine to discuss it. You can say E-BY1628279 is an illyrian or tracian or whatever the tribe was called that the haplogroup originates from, i couldn't care less. What's not for debate is that haplogroup, even when it's shared by others is not what defines your identity. Sure, you can say that it's shared with Koja e Kucit, or some North Albanian tribes, but the fact remains, identities are not built around haplogroups and that is definitely not for discussion.

  The proposed statement From then on, the Kuči predominantly identified as a Serbian Orthodox tribe. cannot be further inferred from the sources, nor can we assume that because Lale switched to Serbian Orthodox, all of Kuçi became immediately Serbian Orthodox, nor is this an argument for linguistic identity.

  Of course not, but that's the last written "large" change of religion in the tribe. Not a single Vojvoda after Lale changed religion, he is the last and probably the largest one that influenced tribe the most.

  Just a few years earlier, Bolizza in his report recorded them all as Of Roman rite are: 490 houses - Chuzzi Albanesi (Albanian Kuçi), commanded by Lale Drecalou (Lale Drekalov) and Nico Raizcou (Niko Rajckov)

  I would assume that's the Catholic part of the tribe. It's hard to know exactly how impactful Lale's change of religion was to that part of the tribe, but again, that's definitely the last time any big figure in the tribe had a change of religion.

  Just half a century later Antonio Vladagni writes to Vatican that in the tribe itself, other than in the region of Trieshi, Kuči are all schismatics and that there are 500 houses strongly opposed to the holy rite of the Vatican.

  So i assume that Lale had some impact on the tribe itself.

  As for the rest of the statement, i agree that the slavicization of the tribe lasted a long, long time, even before the tribe formed in the late 15th century, and i agree that many of the tribesman were bilingual, as the tribe itself was mixed. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  ALBANIANS CAN YOU PLEASE STOP STEALING OUR HISTORY 110.175.35.134 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is Nikola Jurisic not included in notable people originating from Kuči ?

Jurišić is a family originating from Kuči, as such Nikola Jurišić Should be added to notable people from the tribe 98.96.69.168 (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Intro section

User:Alltan Could you explain why you think that origin is more important than the current state of the tribe? Don't you think that it's more important for someone reading on google to see that the tribe is Montenegrin, at least more important than the disputed origin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setxkbmap (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What Google does is not really Wikipedias concern. What does "current state" even mean? They are still of Albanian origin, as in, their current state is that of being Albanian in origin. They didn't just stop being of Albanian origin because the Kuci have not yet invented time travel. Alltan (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Current state means what tribe is right now, not how it was formed 700 years ago. Right now, tribe is Montenegrin, part of Montenegro and their tribes, it's much more important for a reader to get that fact first.

There is origin section in the article, so you shouldn't be concerned since the reader could easily go through introduction and get to origin section. Setxkbmap (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The current state of the tribe is that they are of Albanian origin, because they will always be as long as they exist. They literally can't NOT be of Albanian origin if they are from a clan of Kuci. Alltan (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

And that is why you have origin section. Fact is, they are a montenegrin tribe, and just as Krasniqi tribe has "Albanian tribe" in the introduction which you can check Krasniqi, there should be Montenegrin tribe in the intro section of this article.

Origin is irrelevant in that, whole tribe could be Indian in origin, it wouldn't matter, as it's Montenegrin tribe and part of Montenegrin nation and culture. Setxkbmap (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Durraz0 care to explain how Drekalovići are the "Chuzzi Albanesi" when all of Lale's sons were orthodox, as well as Lale later in his life?

There were no "Drekalovići" when Lale was one of two voivode of Kuči. The article already states that the tribe had mixed religious affiliations. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

it was @GermanManFromFrankfurt who added it, but i assume this is why; Christian Orthodox residents used to be split into two distinct groups: Old Kuči ("Starokuči") and Drekalovići/New Kuči. Mariano Bolizza in his voyage in the area in 1614 recorded that Lale Drekalov and Niko Raičkov held 490 houses of the Chuzzi Albanesi ("Albanian Kuči", a village of predominantly Roman Catholic religion), with 1,500 soldiers, described as "very war-like and courageous". Durraz0 (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and i am telling you, not all Old Kuči were orthodox, and by the time Bolizza recorded his info there were no Drekalovići.

Info on religion is already given in the article and is correct (Kuči with Trieshi had both Catholic and Orthodox population), but there were no 490 houses of Drekalovići in 1614., as there were no "Drekalovići" in the form of brotherhood yet. Setxkbmap (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It quiet clearly states that his family is the drekalovici and he was the leader of the kuçi Durraz0 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It states that he is Lale Drekalov and that he is Vojvoda of 490 houses of Chuzzi Albanesi. It talks nothing of religion of Drekalovići and talks nothing of Drekalovići themselves.

Drekale had 2 sons, one of which died with him. Only child left, Lale Drekalov, had 5 sons which became Drekalovići. There are no 490 houses of Drekalovići, Bolizza talked about whole tribe, and rightfully so, as Lale was vojvoda of the whole tribe.

Bolizza is contradictory to earlier and later sources, which claim mix of religions, but that is already in the article.

I see no reason to include this, as the lead section already states that the tribe was religiously mixed. Setxkbmap (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Jingiby Same question for you, as you state that it's "not an improvement", and want to discuss it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setxkbmap (talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the current state of the tribe is explained carefully into the intro as follows: Processes of Slavicisation during the Ottoman era and onwards facilitated ethno-linguistic shifts within much of the community. As such, people from the Kuči today largely identify themselves as Montenegrins and Serbs, with a minority still identifying as Albanians. In other areas such as the Sandžak, many Muslim descendants of the Kuči today identify as Bosniaks. Jingiby (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and there is a link to Montenegrin tribes, but it's mentioned nowhere that the tribe is Montenegrin. Article states that the tribe is of Albanian origin, currently in Montenegro, and that members identify as all 4 groups of people living there. From my POV, this is wrong, and the current state of tribe should be mentioned first, instead of cleverly hiding it behind links. Setxkbmap (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The tribe's origin refers to its past. Today, its descendants are part of 4 ethnic groups. More people identify as Bosniaks, not Montenegrins, but this is the identity was decided to be mentioned last because it is the last identity which was formed. Hence the article can't mention more than part of the people from Kuči today identify as Montenegrins because it's a fact that most people from Kuči don't identify themselves as Montenegrins. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not about the identity of people. It's about the fact that the tribe is in Montenegro and part of group of Highlander tribes, and then part of bigger group of Montenegrin tribes.

If you read article carefully, you can already see that Kuči are defined as part of tribes of Montenegro, only thing missing is the word of the country, and there is no reason for that to be missing. Saying that this tribe is Montenegrin is not offending anyone as this has nothing to do with ethnicity and because personal identity will not change the fact that this is one of the tribes of Montenegro. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The article mentions their location in Montenegro in the introduction. The term Montenegrin refers to an identity which is shared by only a part of them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Montenegrin identity is basically split in 2 right now, on Serbs and ethnic Montenegrins.

There is not a single tribe in Montenegro where you will find ethnic unity.

Again, it's already stated that the tribe is Montenegrin, but it hides behind a link and just says: "historical tribe". Identity issue is only mentioned here, and not a single Serb, Montenegrin, Bosniak in Montenegro will ever say that tribe is Serbian or Albanian or Bosniak, it's always Montenegrin. If you are really that into making everyone happy, you are free to state what 99% of the tribe will state, that it's Montenegrin/Serb tribe. But i think it's better to keep it clean. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is not a single tribe in Montenegro where you will find ethnic unity. In this case, no but most other tribes tend to have mostly one identity. We just report what happens on the ground. As such, the current statement people from the Kuči today largely identify themselves as Montenegrins and Serbs, with a minority still identifying as Albanians. In other areas such as the Sandžak, many Muslim descendants of the Kuči today identify as Bosniaks is balanced.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In this case, no but most other tribes tend to have mostly one identity. We just report what happens on the ground.

Situation with Kuči is the same. Just because you have a small minority currently living in the tribe (If you want to report what's on the ground, you will find mostly empty villages), extreme majority is Serb/Montenegrin, and a minority is Albanian.

Bosniaks are extremely small minority in Kuči territory, and there was probably very small amount of them throughout the history, if any, because most of them changed religion after moving from the region to Sandžak in search for a better life.

But if you really want to be correct, we can always check what census states Setxkbmap (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Maleschreiber So neighbour, both 2003. and 2011. census shows this: https://i.imgur.com/YrWL0Il.png

What do you think is better, a Serb tribe or Montenegrin tribe, or we can state Montenegrin/Serb tribe? Setxkbmap (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The Kuçi tribe is Albanian by origin, and today, its descendants variously identify as Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians and Bosniaks. What the census shows is irrelevant to the actual tribe; people no longer live in tribal communities, and the census doesn't ask whether you're a descendent of the Kuçi who self-identifies as Montenegrin, Albanian, Bosniak etc. To state that Kuçi is a Serbo-Montenegrin tribe is simply incorrect. Botushali (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Last statement is simple untrue.

Just because you have few % of people identifying as Bosniak/Albanian doesnt erase that the vast majority is Serb/Montenegrin. Even without a census, even when counting descendants, you will get that the majority is identifying like that. Especially when you are not counting Trieshi and Koja e Kucit as part of the tribe, because they shouldn't be as they are their own tribes.

So you agree that Serbo-Montenegrin would be a correct term? And please use the correct term for the tribe, it's Kuci in english. Or, if you really want to use language of the tribe, Кучи is always welcome, but i feel like using that in an English conversation is simply wrong. Just like "Kuçi" Setxkbmap (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Kuçi is very much a valid way to refer to the tribe, and no, I don’t agree that Serbo-Montenegrin is the correct term. They’re not a Serbo-Montenegrin tribe, it’s that simple.

It’s like referring to Aboriginal Australian clans - whose descendants have been widely assimilated into broader Australian society - as Anglo-Saxon tribes simply because many of their descendants now identify as Anglo Australians. It makes no sense, especially seeing as descendants of the Kuçi are divided primarily amongst four main ethnic groups. Botushali (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, descendants of the tribe are divided primarily amongst two groups. Serbs and Montenegrins.

The other two you state are very, very small minority, especially if you dont count Trieshi into the tribe. It's even stated in the article itself, you should read it. I just think that we should state that first.

And no, it's not the same as Aboriginals, as the tribe identity has not been a part of discussion for centuries now, and Aboriginal tribes themselves wouldn't consider themselves Australians, unlike Kuci tribe who consider themselves Montenegrin/Serb. (Again, use correct term please, not the term used by Trieshi) Setxkbmap (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Botushali, and Kuçi is very much a correct way to refer to them in English. Alltan (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think you really agree, since if we are going by that logic that tribe identity can't be checked now since there is no tribal community anymore, the origins would be wrong, since by the time tribal community was formed the tribe was already mixed (check Pulaha and the ottoman defters).

I just think that this should be way earlier: "people from the Kuči today largely identify themselves as Montenegrins and Serbs, with a minority still identifying as Albanians."

But if you dont agree that the tribe is Serbo-Montenegrin, we can also remove this completely, and let's just keep Albanian stuff, because what's happening currently is completely irrelevant to the tribe i guess Setxkbmap (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You're wasting your time @Setxkbmap. This article has been confiscated for years by Greater Albanian nationalists, with the aim of promoting a single point of view, which is that certain Montenegrin tribes are essentially Albanian tribes that have been assimilated by Slavs. Never mind that most of these tribes have been essentially Slavic-speaking since their first mentions in the Middle Ages, every attempt to rectify this, in order to promote a more neutral point of view, is immediately reverted by the same users, always. Even when you try to add a serious reference to the tribe's origin by providing alternative versions from academic studies other than the usual Albanian or pro-Albanian ones, your changes will be reverted. The fact that the Brda tribes may have been of mixed origin, that ethnicities were often blurred in the past and that what is Albanian and Slavic today, or Serbian and Montenegrin, or even Vlach, does not have the same meaning as it did in the past, is not something you will be authorized to introduce in this article. So while you're absolutely right when you say that the initial sentence of the article should first state that the Kuči are a Montenegrin tribe, which they have been for over 150 years, without immediately mentioning an obscure Albanian affiliation, your only chance of achieving this change is to fill an RfC. Krisitor (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries, i work in IT, there is plenty of time for me to discuss this.

And yeah, the teams are pretty obvious here, as some of them are friends since 2020. that i know of, and that is easy to check :)

But, i will try my best to bring WP:NPV into this, since the changes on the article were made without any discussions here, which i assume was OK by their standards because they communicate by telepathy OR they just like their own POV :) Setxkbmap (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS from both of you. That’s a sanctionable offense, and I’d recommended striking claims of tag-teaming, and especially the “Greater Albanian nationalists” part by Krisitor. Botushali (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I never said that there is tag teaming.

I just saw that few of you know each other for a few years, and revert same wiki articles to represent your POV. Which is fine by me, i will discuss with you and i hope we will come to consensus :) Setxkbmap (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• The article is based on the consensus in bibliography. All Kuçi proper are descendants of a single lineage. It's a typical patrilineal community. In relation to the Kuçi, this statement doesn't apply at all: essentially Slavic-speaking since their first mentions in the Middle Ages The Kuçi were an Albanian community which gradually became bilingual and today the majority are monolingual Slavic-speakers which hold different modern South Slavic identities. But even today there are Albanian-speaking Kuçi who have not become Slavic-speakers. @Setxkbmap: The map you posted shows mostly semi-abandoned settlements. Most Kuçi today lived in Sandzak and they identify themselves as Bosniaks, but we don't discuss the whole community as Bosniak. The intro is balanced because it allows room for all identities without giving priority to any of them in the modern context. You can file a discussion via RfC to change it, but I consider it very unlikely that you'll get a consensus for the promotion of a single identity as it doesn't correspond to bibliography or reality on the ground.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  The Kuçi were an Albanian community which gradually became bilingual and today the majority are monolingual Slavic-speakers which hold different modern South Slavic identities. But even today there are Albanian-speaking Kuçi who have not become Slavic-speakers.

  Actually, since the tribe was formed in late 15th century, and the first defters shows you that the names are pretty much already mixed, were they really all Albanian community that BECAME bilingual? It seems like first defters shows that the tribe was mixed from the start.

  As for the Bosniak part, that's a big big no. Majority is Serb/Montenegrin. Kuci as a tribe even have written records of all the families and members that consider themselves part of the tribe, so it's really not that hard to see how many Bosniaks there are. As for the empty settlements, it was always like that, the demographics of the region haven't really changed in the last few centuries. Tribe was pretty much orthodox (with exception of Trieshi, which are not a part of the tribe but still count sometimes) and the identity was Serbian or Montenegrin, name it however you want. And i also ask you to use proper name, as i don't want to use the name in the language of the tribe, Serbian, so you should try and use english name for the tribe as well. Thanks! Setxkbmap (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's the same name and there is no English name, hence I don't mind at all if you use your native spelling. Religious names don't tell us much about language, but we certainly know that most were bilingual even when Marko Miljanov died in the early 20th century. In order to find out which identity most Kuçi today hold, we would have to count all Kuçi brotherhoods and then see where they live and how they identify in these areas. Most Kuçi live in Sandzak, they don't live in the Kuçi villages or in Podgorica. You are wrong about the relation between Kuçi and Trieshi. The ancestor of Lale Drekalov and the Trieshi is the same individual and we know that this is so because of widespread testing of Kuçi and Trieshi brotherhoods. As such, this is the only inclusive and viable introduction which doesn't give unnecessary weight to any POV: Processes of Slavicisation during the Ottoman era and onwards facilitated ethno-linguistic shifts within much of the community. As such, people from the Kuči today largely identify themselves as Montenegrins and Serbs, with a minority still identifying as Albanians. In other areas such as the Sandžak, many Muslim descendants of the Kuči today identify as Bosniaks.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Most "Kuçi" live in Montenegro and Serbia, and most of them are orthodox. I am sorry, but just because majority of the Kuci tribe is outside the current territory of the tribe, doesn't mean that the majority is in Sandzak. And what is evidence for that? Because i have a census from the tribe region, and i have a book where most of the tribesmen, so i assume you also have a book that has all the info and all the members from Kuci who went to live in Sandzak Also, there is a name defined for the tribe that is used in English language, it's this: Kuči. Please speak English, and not Albanian, respect Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

And just because you share ancestor, doesn't mean that you are same tribe or people. As i've seen in this talk page, you are the one that is constantly bringing up the blood and haplogroups into this, neither of which create identity, and if you were to create map based on haplogroups you would get much, much different borders for the whole world. And btw, you can get all the info on Trieshi tribe on the wiki, where the same people that are active on this article state that it's a separate tribe.

And names tells us enough to know that the tribe was mixed in origin. And as far as 19th century goes, we have the exact number of how many people in the tribe were Albanians. At the end of the 19th century Stevan Ducic, tribesman himself, wrote that there was 1500 families in the tribe, and around 9000 people. Out of 1500 families, 224 were Albanians and he states that those live in a separate part of the tribe, called "Zatrijebac" (Trieshi).

So it didn't really change that much since then, and we have written evidence for that. So best course is not to bring up 19th century at all, since we have data for that.

If you want, i can provide you with this book, as it's really interesting in other terms, as the author describes life in the tribe, and some traditions that were both Serb/Montenegrin and some Albanian. And some weird stuff, like how the tribe is talking trash about Trieshi way of making cheese :)

It's in Serbian, but i can see that you are from Montenegro so it won't be an issue for you to read it.

So yeah, majority of the tribe is really Serbo-Montenegrin, since Trieshi is a separate tribe, and majority of the current population is Serb/Montenegrin, and the data you have on Sandzak is dubious, since you don't quote that there are some Muslim tribesman, you state that majority is Bosniak... Setxkbmap (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

As i've seen in this talk page, you are the one that is constantly bringing up the blood and haplogroups into this, neither of which create identity These clans are patrilineal social formations. They are organized around patrilineality, which is the principle which argues that membership is determined via the patrilineal descent from the progenitor of the tribe. The progenitor of Kuçi and Trieshi is the same individual who lived in the late Middle Ages. New tribes are created when old ones branch out and form new ones. Y-DNA provides significant tools in the discussions of these clans. If they weren't formed patrilineally, we wouldn't be having any discussion about Y-DNA, which is just a tool to examine patrilineality. Most of them are orthodox To avoid WP:FORUM, I suggest that you count all Muslim brotherhoods and compare them to the Orthodox brotherhoods in Montenegro/Serbia. You can discuss your other ideas via RfC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

These clans are patrilineal social formations. They are organized around patrilineality, which is the principle which argues that membership is determined via the patrilineal descent from the progenitor of the tribe. The progenitor of Kuçi and Trieshi is the same individual who lived in the late Middle Ages. New tribes are created when old ones branch out and form new ones. Y-DNA provides significant tools in the discussions of these clans.

You are fighting the wrong battle man. Nobody argues about whether Kuci and Trieshi have same ancestor, i am saying that even if they have exact same DNA, tribes are different. And even wiki states that. As a matter of fact, this is the quote from the page for that tribe:

These clans are patrilineal social formations. They are organized around patrilineality, which is the principle which argues that membership is determined via the patrilineal descent from the progenitor of the tribe. The progenitor of Kuçi and Trieshi is the same individual who lived in the late Middle Ages. New tribes are created when old ones branch out and form new ones. Y-DNA provides significant tools in the discussions of these clans.

So the tribe themselves don't consider that they are part of Kuci. And while i agree that DNA may show similarities between two people from Kuci and Trieshi, that doesn't form an identity, and has nothing to do with how someone feels.

If they weren't formed patrilineally, we wouldn't be having any discussion about Y-DNA, which is just a tool to examine patrilineality.

We dont, you are the only one that is bringing this into discussion, as if haplogroup matters. Many Serbs today are not Slavic, many Albanians are not E-V13, and Turks are more similar to Greeks now than to Turkic people that came to Anatolia, yet that won't change the reality, because haplogroups are irrelevant for questions about identity.

Btw, there are smaller brotherhoods in Kuci tribe that are neither Old Kuci, nor Drekalovici.

Those include: Асановићи, Пренкочевићи, part of Бакочевићи, Уљићи, Ђељошевићи, Бојановићи, Гољевићи, Муховићи, Мартиновићи etc. which are all written down by Miljan Jokanovic in his book about the tribe.

Also, there are many families that moved from Kuci to other tribes, and they consider themselves those tribes (For example, Roganovic brotherhood is from tribe of Cuce, yet their ancestor was from Lakovic brotherhood which is in Kuci), and despite them sharing blood, they are different tribe and identify as such.

To avoid WP:FORUM, I suggest that you count all Muslim brotherhoods and compare them to the Orthodox brotherhoods in Montenegro/Serbia.

Exactly, instead of arguing, i am the one giving a census for tribe region, and i can give you a book which has all the members of the tribe still identifying as such written down, including Bosniaks and Albanians. The book is around 300MB and includes 582 pages of data and drawn images of family trees.

But, i will respect your wish, and i will count all the families and get how many were Orthodox (Serb, Montenegrin) and how many Bosniaks there are. Setxkbmap (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Here you go User:Maleschreiber, this is the list that doesn't include Trieshi tribe. Keep in mind, while i got this out of the book "Pleme Kuči", the info is based on what was known at the end of 20th century. For example, my family is on the list, and i know that there is one branch of family, which counts around 5 people that are Muslim. But since there are hundreds of orthodox people, stating that 1% of family is muslim is irrelevant to the information, and kinda hard to do for all the brotherhoods. List of last names is here. There is also a list of people that left tribe throughout the history, most of them just switched to other tribes, but situation is pretty similar, and many of those families are defined in this list as well, but some are missing. For example: Komatine, Babići, Simonovići, Čabarkape, Aćimovići, Barjaktarovići, Rastoder. When i say situation is pretty similar, i mean that most of those are still Orthodox if they are from Kuči, and if they are from Trieshi they are Albanian. You can look for book called: Племе Кучи by Миљан Јокановић. Pages are 269 and onwards. After list of all these brotherhoods, you have around 500 pages of family trees, including Trieshi tribe.

Old Kuči:

Dedići: Orthodox

Ljačevići (Dedići): Orthodox in the tribe, Muslims in Podgorica

Paljevići (Dedići): Orthodox

Arovići (Dedići): Muslims

Gudovići (Dedići): Orthodox

Spasojevići (Dedići): Orthodox

Rajkovići (Dedići): Orthodox

Perovići: Orthodox

Stakići: Orthodox

Đekići: Orthodox (there's also Gjekaj in Trieshi, they should be Catholic)

Đurđevići: Muslims in Sandzak, orthodox in rest of Montenegro and Serbia

Vujoševići (Đurđevići): Orthodox

Vukovići (Three different families): All Orthodox

Milići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Rašovići (Milići): Orthodox

Dučići: Muslims in Plav, orthodox in rest of Montenegro and Serbia

Rakovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Cekovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Đurovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Vulevići (Dučići): Orthodox

Ivanovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Dragovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Savovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Mitrovići (Dučići): Orthodox

Nikezići: Orthodox everywhere except in Velja Gorana

Durkovići (Nikezići): Orthodox

Vučevići (Nikezići): Orthodox

Dmitrovići/Mitrovići (Vučevići): Orthodox

Dragovići (Vučevići): Orthodox

Đurići (Vučevići): Orthodox

Perići: Christian, not sure if Orthodox

Kuč (Perići): Christian, not sure if Orthodox

Glavatovići: Orthodox, with minority being muslim

Kuči (Glavatovići): Orthodox

Gašići: Orthodox

Vučinići: Orthodox

Oraovci (Vučinići): Orthodox

Maljevići (Vučinići): Muslims

Drakulovići: Orthodox

Nikočevići: Orthodox

Živkovići: Orthodox

Adžići (Živkovići): Orthodox

Stojanović (Adžić/Adžijić): Orthodox

Milićevići (Živkovići): Orthodox

Maksimovići (Živkovići): Orthodox

Spasojevići (Živkovići): Orthodox

Neljevići: Orthodox, Muslims only in Gusinje

Rajčetići: Orthodox

Arambašići: Orthodox

Kaljevići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Đetkovići (Ljuljanovići): Muslims

Mijovići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Jovanovići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Savići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Gošovići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Bojovići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Prentići (Bojovići): Orthodox

Pakevići (Bojovići): Orthodox

Miljići (Ljuljanovići): Orthodox

Šćepovići (Miljići): Orthodox

Marići (Miljići): Orthodox

Kostovići (Marići): Orthodox

Manojlovići: Orthodox

Krgovići (Manojlovići): Orthodox

Ćetkovići: Orthodox

Nikolići: Orthodox

Pajovići: Orthodox

Zogovići: Orthodox

Krdžići (Zogovići): Orthodox

Draškovići: Orthodox

Perovići: Orthodox

Zonjići: Orthodox

Jusuframići: Muslims

Janjići: Orthodox

Nikolići: Orthodox

Veljovići: Orthodox

Krstovići: Orthodox

Aksovići (Krstovići): Orthodox

Mitrovići (Veljovići): Orthodox

Krstovići (Mrnjavčići): Orthodox

Boškovići (Kostrovići): Orthodox

Krkovići (Kostrovići): Orthodox

Drekalovići:

Drekalovići (main line): Orthodox

Turkovići: Muslims

Vujoševići: Orthodox

Dedići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Ivanovići (Dedići): Orthodox

Ivanovići: Orthodox

Popovići: Orthodox

Ljakovići: Orthodox

Vuksanovići: Orthodox

Vukoslavovići: Orthodox

Milačići (Vukoslavovići): Orthodox

Čejovići: Orthodox everywhere, few muslims in Ulcinj

Mijovići: Orthodox

Čarapići: Orthodox

Simići: Orthodox

Savovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Radovanovići (Čarapići): Orthodox

Božovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Vujadinovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Rašovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Paljevići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Petrovići (Vujadinovići): Orthodox

Vukovići (Petrovići): Orthodox

Mirovići (Vujadinovići): Orthodox

Marovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Jovanovići (Vujoševići): Orthodox

Petrovići: Orthodox

Omerbožovići (Ivanovići): Muslims

Čovići (Ivanovići): Orthodox

Rašovići (Popovići): Orthodox

Lazovići (Vuksanovići): Orthodox

Došovići (Milačići): Orthodox

Nešovići (Milačići): Orthodox

Matovići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Camovići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Paunovići (Camovići): Orthodox

Božovići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Mićkovići (Božovići): Orthodox

Pavićevići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Prelevići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Belojevići (Prelevići): Orthodox

Radovići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Radonjići (Čejovići): Orthodox

Mijovići: Orthodox

Spajići (Mijovići): Orthodox

Begovići (Spajići): Orthodox

Stanojevići (Mijovići): Orthodox Setxkbmap (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM, no sources, and that’s not even all of the Kuçi brotherhoods. I can count numerous Kuçi families that still identify as Albanians that are not counted in your list, but that won’t matter because our own personal data is not to be used on Wikipedia. You have no sources to back the change. A modern census is not really a reliable source for such changes, because people no longer live in tribal communities. We don’t look at maps and then make our own WP:SYNTH assertions. Botushali (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

He asked for info.

and that’s not even all of the Kuçi brotherhoods

Of course not, as i've stated, many of tribes are left as ones who left tribe earlier, and are now part of other tribes.

I can count numerous Kuçi families that still identify as Albanians that are not counted in your list

Again, i've stated that Trieshi and Koja e Kucit parts of the tribe are missing, as they are separate tribes. They even have their own wiki pages.

but that won’t matter because our own personal data is not to be used on Wikipedia. You have no sources to back the change.

Not my personal data, it's written in probably most comprehensive book on the tribe. And i gave you the title, the autor, and you can look for it and read it yourself. You should probably read full comment i made, instead of just disagreeing because it's not your POV.

A modern census is not really a reliable source for such changes, because people no longer live in tribal communities.

It's one of the informations we have, and it pretty much shows that it's the same as it was in the last 200 years. We can also use Jovan Ducic, as he was the one that actually did a census in the end of the 19th century, and i also gave that info. 9000 people, 1500 Albanians, most of them in Trieshi and Koja e Kucit.

We don’t look at maps and then make our own WP:SYNTH assertions.

You can get the data yourself from MONSTAT.

I gave multiple sources that in the last AT least 150 years the tribe has been majority Serb/Montenegrin.

You came here with wrong argument, as you are talking about something completely unrelated, which again gives me the impression that you are not reading what you are replying to. Maleschreiber said that the majority of population is Bosniak, which is unfounded and untrue. I asked for source, and then he did "UNO REVERSE" and asked me for one. Which i provided.

So, to give TLDR:

Tribe was Serb/Montenegrin in 19th century, with Trieshi as a separate tribe being almost completely Albanian.

At the end of 20th century, book Pleme Kuci was published by Jokanovic, which has all brotherhoods, including ones from Trieshi and Koja e Kucit, which he puts into "other brotherhoods".

During 21th century, there were two censuses that both show that the situation hasn't really changed since 19th century, and regions haven't really changed their ethnic affiliations.

If you want to claim that Trieshi are part of Kuci, be my guest and let's delete Trieshi page.

Also, you can see that i am saying Trieshi and not Затријебач, as we should all use English per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Setxkbmap (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know why you’re fixated on Trieshi so much. I know of proper Kuçi families that identify as Albanians that are not Trieshi, that’s my whole point.

I was not the one who claimed that most Kuçi descendants are now Bosniaks - my argument sits on the fact that descendants of the Kuçi now identify as 4 different ethnic groups at the least. So, to describe them exclusively as an Albanian, “Bosniak” or Serbo-Montenegrin tribe would simply be incorrect and undue. The only thing that is certain is that they have an Albanian origin, which is why it’s in the lede. Botushali (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know why you’re fixated on Trieshi so much. I know of proper Kuçi families that identify as Albanians that are not Trieshi, that’s my whole point.

Sorry, WP:FORUM. I know that there are some Albanian families in Kuci proper, but the majority is still Orthodox and Serb/Montenegrin, as all the sources state. But, if you have a book that has all the lineages of missing families written down, i am willing to read it!

I was not the one who claimed that most Kuçi descendants are now Bosniaks - my argument sits on the fact that descendants of the Kuçi now identify as 4 different ethnic groups at the least.

Yes, and just because there is a minority that identifies as such, won't change the documented fact that majority is still Serb/Montenegrin. I have a friend from Krasniqi tribe who is fully slavicized, and identifies as Montenegrin. Maybe we can change the intro section of Krasniqi based on my personal feelings and observations... OR, we just follow what info we have, books, documents, census, and just use common sense and those things as a source?

So, to describe them exclusively as an Albanian, “Bosniak” or Serbo-Montenegrin tribe would simply be incorrect and undue. The only thing that is certain is that they have an Albanian origin, which is why it’s in the lede.

It wouldn't be incorrect. You could always state that the tribe identifies as Serb/Montenegrin while minorities include Albanians and Bosniaks. That way, you will include everyone.

As for the origin part, we can discuss it later, that's not the point now. Setxkbmap (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Jokanović is not a reliable source overall as his work is not academic, but we can discuss numbers of brotherhoods based on such sources as long as it's clear that they can't be used about anything else besides genealogy and their geneaological information should be verified in other sources. You listed 120-130 branches. Some of them are Muslim and include Albanians. Jokanović cites Milisav Lutovac (1960) who mentions that there were 620 families divided in 57 branches in the areas of Rozhaje and Štavica. Jokanović cites Ejup Mušović (1979) who lists 109 branches in the area of Novi Pazar. These figures are old and don't include many other branches which exist today in Novi Pazar and Sjenica. The source you cited doesn't provide figures but even the limited data it does have about Muslim Kuçi highlights that these branches are a major part of Kuçi. In your latest comments, I don't see any disagreement with the statement people from the Kuči today largely identify themselves as Montenegrins and Serbs, with a minority still identifying as Albanians. In other areas such as the Sandžak, many Muslim descendants of the Kuči today identify as Bosniaks. The only change I could see as feasible in this statement has to do with Kuçi who identify as Bosniaks becoming a major group in the last 20 years. But I don't think that we have modern sources yet. As such, this the current version of this part is probably the best case scenario for the narrative which you argue for, because it's very likely that in the next years more and more readers who ancestral ties to the tribe will ask for a better representation of Muslim Bosniak Kuçi as a reflection of the demographic reality. The source you cited already suggests such a direction.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Jokanović is not a reliable source overall as his work is not academic, but we can discuss numbers of brotherhoods based on such sources as long as it's clear that they can't be used about anything else besides genealogy and their geneaological information should be verified in other sources. You listed 120-130 branches. Some of them are Muslim and include Albanians. Jokanović cites Milisav Lutovac (1960) who mentions that there were 620 families divided in 57 branches in the areas of Rozhaje and Štavica. Jokanović cites Ejup Mušović (1979) who lists 109 branches in the area of Novi Pazar.

Yeah, but he's the best source we have right? Since census is not ok, Ducic is pretty old source, and Jokanovic is the newest one. I didn't want to quote him, but you asked me to give you a list of brotherhoods, which i did.

These figures are old and don't include many other branches which exist today in Novi Pazar and Sjenica. The source you cited doesn't provide figures but even the limited data it does have about Muslim Kuçi highlights that these branches are a major part of Kuçi.

Yet, newest we have. Again, same goes for all of Kuči. Including Albanians, Montenegrins and Serbs. The numbers are rising as the tribe is getting bigger and bigger.

It provides a lot of info on families who moved to Sandzak. You should definitely read it, it's a fun read. Most of the Muslim descendants are from Trieshi and smaller brotherhoods. For example, the article states that Muamer Zukorlic is part of the tribe, which he is not, by his own account and your own logic. This is what Muamer Zukorlic said about his origins:

Rezultat mog DNK testa glasi: R1b – indoevropsko/keltsko-ilirsko porijeklo – rod BY611 sa Skadarskog jezera. Preci Zukorlića su došli sa Bliskog istoka preko Kavkaza na Balkan u periodu prije formiranja Ilirije. Svi keltski narodi su dalji rođaci Zukorlićima. Zukorlićima je srodno 8 odsto Srba i 0 odsto Rusa – precizirao je bivši muftija. source: https://sandzakpress.net/zukorlicev-dnk-test-potvrdio-da-nije-srbin-muftija-poziva-seselja-da-se-testira-i-uvjeri-da-ni-on-ne-pripada-srpskom-narodu/

So, while i agree that there are many muslims in the tribe, you can't even get this right, as you were the one that added him without any source, which seems like an agenda to me. So, as you claimed: R1b can't be Kuci, OR, they can and the tribe was mixed in origin.

The only change I could see as feasible in this statement has to do with Kuçi who identify as Bosniaks becoming a major group in the last 20 years. But I don't think that we have modern sources yet. As such, this the current version of this part is probably the best case scenario for the narrative which you argue for, because it's very likely that in the next years more and more readers who ancestral ties to the tribe will ask for a better representation of Muslim Bosniak Kuçi as a reflection of the demographic reality. The source you cited already suggests such a direction.

Whatever the direction is, and whatever you think that direction is, is completely irrelevant.

What we have here is:

1. Census, which shows that the tribe is still mostly Serb/Montenegrin, with exception of 1 village in Kuči proper (not counting Trieshi and Koja) - Which is irrelevant to you since there is no tribal society anymore

2. Dučić that states that the tribe at the end of 19th century has 9000 people, out of which 1500 are Albanian who mostly live in Trieshi. - Which is irrelevant to you since it's from the end of 19th century

3. Jokanović, with best attempt to get a census of all the tribesman. - Which is irrelevant to you because Jokanovic is not academic, ignoring the fact that most of the info we have right now is based on unacademic writings that are later quoted.

Yet, you provide no info, only your POV.

But in the end, fact is: tribe is something you identify with as well. Just because you found E-V13 in people that identify as Bosniak, will never change the fact that the tribe is currently Serb/Montenegrin. I mean, if we find that haplogroup in Bulgaria, will the tribe become Bulgarian?

And tribe is still very active, maybe we don't live in a tribal society, but it's still pretty active. People still build monuments, people still fight for the rights of Kuči brotherhoods, and people still write and share traditions and history of the tribe.

So, first thing i recommend is removing Zukorlic from the list, as that info is fake. Then, we may proceed with other suggestions. Setxkbmap (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not about "E-V13", but about the specific Kuçi lineage which is E-BY165837. The Trieshi and Kuçi of all identities are descendants of this medieval lineage. If we find this lineage in Bulgaria, it means that it descends from either the Trieshi or the Kuçi, but it hasn't been found anywhere we wouldn't expect it to be found.
• You can't use Y-DNA research selectively. The Zukorlici are mentioned in the article because they are recognized as Kuçi by the sources - including the one you posted. You say that their inclusion is "fake", but the only information you have refers to the Y-DNA evidence, hence you can't claim that Y-DNA is irrelevant and then use Y-DNA as proof. The Zukorlici won't be removed because the name "Kuçi" refers to them as well in bibliography and it's not our decision to remove them. If a reliable source provided another name, I would support removal, but right now Zuk Orla is considered Kuçi in bibliography and if we didn't have Y-DNA testing, you wouldn't know that he's not E-BY165837.
• You cited Jokanović and most of the Kuçi he lists live outside the area near Podgorica, hence we're not going to count as Kuçi only the people who live in a few villages near Podgorica, as most people don't live there and most of the ones who don't live there are Muslims from Sandzak.
• What you're asking for is already mentioned in the introduction: As such, people from Kuči today largely identify themselves as Montenegrins and Serbs.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's not about "E-V13", but about the specific Kuçi lineage which is E-BY165837. The Trieshi and Kuçi of all identities are descendants of this medieval lineage. If we find this lineage in Bulgaria, it means that it descends from either the Trieshi or the Kuçi, but it hasn't been found anywhere we wouldn't expect it to be found.

  Sorry, i don't know the exact haplogroup, i dont really spend time on forums that discuss this and other irrelevant stuff. But you are missing the point. It's not about the place where haplogroup would be found, i just stated that if you find members of Kuči tribe that live in Bulgaria, you wouldn't state that the tribe also has Bulgarian identity, as tribe itself has nothing to do with Bulgaria.

  You can't use Y-DNA research selectively. The Zukorlici are mentioned in the article because they are recognized as Kuçi by the sources - including the one you posted. You say that their inclusion is "fake", but the only information you have refers to the Y-DNA evidence, hence you can't claim that Y-DNA is irrelevant and then use Y-DNA as proof. The Zukorlici won't be removed because the name "Kuçi" refers to them as well in bibliography and it's not our decision to remove them. If a reliable source provided another name, I would support removal, but right now Zuk Orla is considered Kuçi in bibliography and if we didn't have Y-DNA testing, you wouldn't know that he's not E-BY165837.

  Great! So we agree that the tribe itself has nothing to do with haplogroups, but rather it's an identity thing. I will not remove it anymore, but i would like you to source your info about Zukorlic and Zuk Orla if you want to keep this in intro of the article, if you cant provide them, just move Zukorlic to notable people instead of introduction. Thank you very much!

  You cited Jokanović and most of the Kuçi he lists live outside the area near Podgorica, hence we're not going to count as Kuçi only the people who live in a few villages near Podgorica, as most people don't live there and most of the ones who don't live there are Muslims from Sandzak.

  I found members of brotherhoods that are not in Montenegro at all. Some from Djakovica, some from Belgrade, many from Sandzak as well. You just have to read the book :)

  What you're asking for is already mentioned in the introduction: As such, people from Kuči today largely identify themselves as Montenegrins and Serbs.

  And i agree that it's good enough, but the current identity should be stated first. Would you agree to a rewrite?

  First, the intro should state that the tribe is historical highlander tribe, which is integral to the article, and after that we can say identities?

  Oh and btw, name "Kuçi" refers to nothing, it has no meaning in English language. Please use English, thanks! Setxkbmap (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is no consensus in on wether or not Kuçi is Serb, Montenegrin or Serbo-Montenegrin, as such we cant post it in Wikivoice in Wikipedia. Their Albanian origin is established as fact, and unless it somehow comes that all the hundreds of years of documentation of the Kuçi as Albanian were FAKED by evil people, that part will stay in the lede because it basically is the only certain thing we can say about the tribe. Alltan (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  I never said we need to remove it. I just stated that current identity of the tribe is more important than the origin which is shown in defters of 1485... Setxkbmap (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is no consensus on the tribe’s current identity, probably cause the tribe doesn’t really exist anymore in it’s tribal form and because it’s people can identify however they want. Alltan (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, tribe is still highlander, which is a fact, still in Montenegro (which is already stated) and has mix of identities majority Serb/Montenegrin and minority Albanian, Bosniak and however people identify nowadays.

  You can still write it down like that, i wouldn't mind. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is already all there. Alltan (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  You're missing the point of whole conversation. Current tribe identity should be in there first.

  Also, while we are also on topic of origin, would you mind if i added more sources on that, since "Albanian in origin" is not sourced, rather the next sentence is very well sourced. We should find a document to quote that, just to future proof the article. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I said, there is no bibliographic consensus on current tribe identity, as such you can not post one in Wikivoice in the lead. Secondly an article lead doesn’t need specific sources, the sources on Albanian origin are already in the articles body. Alltan (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I said, there is no bibliographic consensus on current tribe identity, as such you can not post one in Wikivoice in the lead.

  Identity doesn't need to be single one. We can move the sentence that is already in the article.

  the sources on Albanian origin are already in the articles body.

  I didn't really mean lead, i thought about origin section. Yes, it starts with "Albanian in origin" but that part is not sourced and doesn't quote anything.

  Closest we have is this: The now Slavic-speaking Kuçi [Kuči] tribe of Montenegro, for instance, was originally Albanian-speaking. For more see: Robert Elsie (2015) The Tribes of Albania History

  Some of them have nothing to do with origin at all, like: Bernd J. Fischer, Oliver Jens Schmitt (2022) A Concise History of Albania, Cambridge University Press; which just states that the tribe is split into three parts with 1 common ancestor.

  We should add a proper source, that states that Kuči are a tribe of Albanian origin, and not give any space to speculations Setxkbmap (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  The sources currently present as far as I can see mention the Albanian origin of the Kuçi, but this topic is too beaten to death for me to entertain it. You can just watch the archives of the talk page.

  As for the lede part, it’s best to keep a chronological order of the lead which explains how a once Albanian tribe became slavicised and that thereafter its members adopted different modern identities. Chronologically correct, simple and factual. The best version we can come up with. Now if for some reason some people don’t like what Google formats and displays on its search engine and would like to move the part about Albanian origin further away in the lead to avoid it popping up well those people should contact Google HR and file an hour long complaint. Alltan (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  The sources currently present as far as I can see mention the Albanian origin of the Kuçi

  Not really, most of them have nothing to do with origin, they talk about other stuff completely. For example, the great cauldron (great book btw, i recommend it) merges tribes together to talk about their rules and ways of living. It's not about Kuči at all, they are only grouped there because they are tribal society.

  Jusuf Mulić says that Islam is only accepted by Albanian tribes, and puts Kuči in that group, quoting defters that even in 15th century show mixed population.

  That's why i wanted to find a good and reliable book that we can quote. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have no idea what you are trying to say. The quotes are literally there, all sources mention the Albanian origin if the Kuçi either that or they say the tribe was once Albanian, which is the same thing. Alltan (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Xhufi, Pëllumb (2013). "Përkime shqiptaro-malazeze në mesjetë" - translates language report from 17th century

  Calic, Marie-Janine (2019). The Great Cauldron: A History of Southeastern Europe - talks about compositions of tribes and clans, their rules and how whole clans share lineages. Nothing to do with origin.

  Robert Elsie (2015) The Tribes of Albania History, Society and Culture, Bloomsbury Publishing states that language changed, but if you actually read the source you would see that the same author says that north Albanian tribes were Slavic speaking. Again, nothing of origin.

  Bernd J. Fischer, Oliver Jens Schmitt (2022) A Concise History of Albania the author states that the tribe is made out of 3 parts, and they share common lineage

  Zdenko Zlatar (2007) The Poetics of Slavdom. The Mythopoeic Foundations of Yugoslavia - Author quotes Erdeljanovic who says that tribe has existed before arrival of Slavs. If you read what Erdeljanovic wrote, you could see that he doesn't mean tribal society, but instead talks about Illyrians, Celts and other groups of people that moved through the territory of what is now tribe Kuči.

  These sources have nothing to do with original quote. Others are mostly about language, except for Jusuf Mulic who claims that only Albanian tribes switched to Islam, and puts Kuci into a group of Albanian tribes.

  I wish to find a better source, and i hope i will find it! :) Setxkbmap (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  All off these sources describe how the Kuçi 1.) were an Albanian tribe or 2). Are of Albanian origin.

  Except the 2022 Oliver Jens Schmitt source, which is actually good to show how the names Kuçi and Kuči are interchangeable. Alltan (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  were an Albanian tribe

  Are of Albanian origin

  Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing

  This is why i want to find exact quotes, i want ethnic origins and not only language. Because those defters that show population of the tribe at its beginning show mixture of Slavic and Albanian names, and i wish to find an author that i can quote word for word. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Albanian ethnic emic and etic identity have always been based on language, that is why all these authors have over the years recognized the Kuçi as having been ethnic Albanians that were Slavicised i.e lost their language. See Xhufi’s account where a Franciscan report notes how the loss of Kuçi’s Albanian language should signal the Kuçi being considered as Slavs soon instead of ethnic Albanians.

  As for those other Slavic names, they were either Albanians with Serbian Orthodox Christian names (which does not make them Serbs) or they were migrants who were not Kuçi by origin. Alltan (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Albanian ethnic emic and etic identity have always been based on language, that is why all these authors have over the years recognized the Kuçi as having been ethnic Albanians that were Slavicised i.e lost their language. See Xhufi’s account where a Franciscan report notes how the loss of Kuçi’s Albanian language should signal the Kuçi being considered as Slavs soon instead of ethnic Albanians.

  Yes, but you have other sources from 16th century that already state that the process was in motion, way before Franciscan report. That's why i don't want to base things on names and languages, but on facts and stuff that is written by reputable authors.

  Your opinion, just like mine, is irrelevant. I need to find a good source that will state that Kuci are of Albanian origin.

  As for those other Slavic names, they were either Albanians with Serbian Orthodox Christian names (which does not make them Serbs) or they were migrants who were not Kuçi by origin.

  What do you mean they were not Kuci by origin? Kuci as a tribe didn't exist until the end of 15th century. There was no Kuci before 15th century. Petar Kuč and that story is great, and seems to be grounded in reality, but as the article states that's only a possibility, not a proven fact.

  So earliest confirmed stuff about the tribe we have was 1455. agreement with the Venice, where "tribe" was named with multiple villages that are now considered to be a part of the tribe. That means, that the tribe didn't exist until late 15th century when they got their first chieftain/duke. And this is not my opinion, this is what this article states. So when Kuci tribe was formed, it involved all those people in defters. That's why i don't want to leave this to our discussion, and i search for a better source. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Those reputable sources are themselves based on primary sources, that is why they are included in the article. The sources already there are RS so do not remove them without discussion. If you want to add sourcing that the Kuči are of Albanian origin, that is ok by itself as long as you do not add fringe, outdated or unreliable material into the article. Alltan (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry I meant “Kuçi”. Alltan (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Alltan

  No worries, nothing would be changed without using Talk page. But, i still don't know what source states exactly the origin of the tribe (except for Mulic, who really does), and why are you so defensive? Try not to take them personally. Good night! Setxkbmap (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  How am I being defensive? Aren’t you you the one who accused me of not warning another user because he is my countryman? And when I asked you said you could but wouldn’t respond? [2]

  So it’s ok for you to be assuming my race and intentions and judge me based on those baseless judgemental presumptions, but me getting serious nerve damage having to explain the same thing 5 times over and over and over makes me “defensive”?

  And didn’t you before state Mulic doesn’t say they are Albanian, now you’re saying he does? Or maybe… he’s always said that? Alltan (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  How am I being defensive?

  Let's not argue about this here. You are automatically thinking that i will remove sources, which i won't. Those sources are ok for the second part of the sentence, that talks about language. I am looking for source for the first part, and if i find it i will share it with you guys here.

  Aren’t you you the one who accused me of not warning another user because he is my countryman? And when I asked you said you could but wouldn’t respond?

  You accused wrong person of edit warring, sorry. Man got warned by mod or something and he is no longer changing the article.

  So it’s ok for you to be assuming my race and intentions and judge me based on those baseless judgemental presumptions, but me getting serious nerve damage having to explain the same thing 5 times over and over and over makes me “defensive”?

  This is not a forum, i am not assuming anything, stop watering down the discussion with stuff like this please.

  And didn’t you before state Mulic doesn’t say they are Albanian, now you’re saying he does? Or maybe… he’s always said that?

  He doesn't even state that the tribe is Albanian in origin. He states that the tribe is Albanian, that's it. You may try to use him to state that the tribe is Albanian in 2024, but i don't think that will work out. Please, read the sources of the article if you are defending them, otherwise this discussion has no meaning. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  The sources already talk about the first part too, you’re making it seem like there are no sources’s which describe the tribes origin, which is demonstrably false. The article already deals with the Slavisation and assimilation of the tribe. Any attempt to water this down as if there are “no sources” on it is just wrong. The article has sources on the Albanian origin part, and has actually plenty more than needed. Alltan (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Alltan I gave you like 3 that have nothing to do with it.

  And one source claims that tribe is Albanian, not in origin, but overall. after long discussions with you and Maleschreiber, i think we can all agree that it's simply not true.

  Again, no worries, if i find good sources i will post them here. I don't like to make my own assumptions, so i will try to look for direct quote for "Kuci are a tribe of Albanian origin" Setxkbmap (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even if the quotes do not quote word by word the sentence "Kuçi is of Albanian origin", we are actually advised to paraphrase on Wikipedia. You can not directly quote an authors opinion in Wikivoice word by word said author said it. This is why I'm telling you it is already fully sourced in the article. You can not deny the validity of sources just because you have deemed them to be not clear enough or whatever. Alltan (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Alltan i don't deny validity of sources, i just say they are used for incorrect thing. It's not that you are not quoting word for word, it's that it's not even close to what you are stating. None of the sources talk about origin. If one aource said: "Kuci, who were originally Albanians" and then you rephrased it to "Kuci are of Albanian origin" i wouldn't mind.

  From what i see, you make assumptions on one set of data from 17th century (way past the creation of the tribe).

  No reason to discuss this anymore, as i've said, i will look for sources and read more. If i find anything, i will post it here. Of course, WP:NPV that i try to hold will prevent me from making my own assumptions. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  The sources are not misused, they all are meant to show how the Kuçi at one point were Albanians who got Slavicised, or that they are of Albanian origin.

  Except the one which just mentions Kuçi/Kuči as being interchangable names, and that in modern times the Kuçi are divided in different identities. It mentions Kuçi specifically and not the Trieshi or Koja, since these are fully Albanian. Alltan (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Kuçi is a perfectly ok way to say it, plenty of people call it this way natively and what’s more important is that it also has it’s use in Bibliography. To say Kuçi is correct just as much as it is to say Kuči. Alltan (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)