Talk:Kuči (tribe)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pohara Kuča / Ravaging of the Kuči tribe

We should probably add more info in history section of the tribe, about a conflict between Kuči and Danilo I Petrović, who killed hundreds of people in the tribe including children, because Kuči declined to pay taxes (According to Marko Miljanov).

Would anyone object to that? I am talking about conflict in 1856. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources which discuss it you can write about it, but you need to find such sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, i would only use sources that are already in the article itself, which are approved by you guys :) Setxkbmap (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

Ok, let's get a consensus @Maleschreiber.

I have a modern source, that is accepted by other editors here (we are already quoting her in the article multiple times) and that source addresses directly the question of origin, based on the defters of 15th century.

Do you have any other sources that do that, without you having to assume something? 17th century quotes are nice and all, but the tribe formed at the end of 15th century. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Djukanovic, Bojka (2023). Historical Dictionary of Montenegro. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 190. ISBN 978-1538139141. According to their ethnic origins, the Kuči tribe is a mixture of Slavic and Albanian population{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) is a tertiary source which can't be used for details which go beyond the scope of tertiary sources and contradict secondary sources. Per WP:TERTIARY: Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others..
• Today, there is highly detailed research about the Malësia and Brda tribes. There is not a single Kuçi lineage which is of Slavic origin and this isn't something which can be contrasted by tertiary sources. The article discusses linguistic Slavicization via reliable, secondary sources. Linguistic Slavicization is not the same as Slavic origin. There is not a single Kuçi brotherhood which has Slavic origins. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:TERTIARY: Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others..

Of course, and as we saw, the tertiary sources we have right now are not addressing the claim.

Today, there is highly detailed research about the Malësia and Brda tribes. There is not a single Kuçi lineage which is of Slavic origin and this isn't something which can be contrasted by tertiary sources. The article discusses linguistic Slavicization via reliable, secondary sources. Linguistic Slavicization is not the same as Slavic origin. There is not a single Kuçi brotherhood which has Slavic origins

Sorry, either get a source that will address the question of claim, OR just use your opinions in conversations, as wiki shouldn't be about opinions. Your own claim is contradicting what YOU deem correct that is still in the article

In the 253 households, 105 households heads had Albanian names, 53 had mixed Albanian-Slavic names and 91 had Slavic names

In the next defter, it had 338 households in eleven settlements including new or renamed settlements like Pavlovići, Petrovići, Lješovići (Leshoviq), Lopari, Banjovići and Koći (Koja). This increase by 85 households in a few years represents a wave of refugees and other communities that settled in the area as the Ottomans were consolidating their power base. Pavlovići and Banjovići, which represent more than half of the new households have a predominantly Slavic Orthodox anthroponymy.

So give your sources about origins of the tribe in 15th century, so we can come to consensus. Otherwise approve the only source that addresses the claim. I don't care about linguistic situation of the tribe in 17th century, nor do i care about the haplogroups. I care about what data states. You threw your haplogroup argument with Zukorlic situation. So yeah, sources man, sources.

Don't try to argue, i don't want to have same discussions we've had. Just provide books and we shall read them! :) Setxkbmap (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Haplogroups have no meanings to them they can’t tell your ethnicity plus the defters of 1485 clearly shows that in Kuči there were many inhabitants with Serbian names. 2A02:3100:5EA8:2600:2892:4840:CB95:27CC (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

You should create an account and join the discussion Setxkbmap (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In his report (1614), Bolizza notes that Lale Drecalou (Lale Drekalov) and Nico Raizcou (Niko Rajckov) were the commanders of the Catholic Albanian Kuči (Chuzzi Albanesi) which had 490 households and 1,500 men-in-arms described as very war-like and courageous Whenever the tribe formed this is the first observation about the ethnic affiliation of Kuçi in contemporary sources. The Kuçi are listed as Catholic Albanians led by Lale Drekalov alongside Kelmendi, Hoti and others. About half a century later after many had converted to Orthodoxy, another source observed the linguistic Slavicization of the converts. Both of the earliest sources about Kuçi discuss their Albanian origin and one observed the Slavicization process. Tertiary sources can't be expected to discuss such details properly. All sources are already in the article. There is no archival or secondary, reliable source which argues for any 15th century Slavic Kuçi.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you're still talking about something that happened 200 years later.

Whenever the tribe formed this is the first observation about the ethnic affiliation of Kuçi in contemporary sources.

And that's what the origins of tribe are.

The Kuçi are listed as Catholic Albanians led by Lale Drekalov alongside Kelmendi, Hoti and others.

And in 1455. Kuči were part of a contract that would force catholic priests out of the region of a tribe, and let orthodoxy back in. Yet i don't claim tribe is Serbian because of that.

another source observed the linguistic Slavicization of the converts.

I didn't remove that.

Both of the earliest sources about Kuçi discuss their Albanian origin and one observed the Slavicization process.

The oldest source we have, defters, show mixed population.

There is no archival or secondary source which argues for any 15th century Slavic Kuçi.

There's Lazaro Soranzo's report from 16th century. It states:

Serbs wish this the most. Nation that lives from Albania to Danube, and those closer to Dardania and those mountains are always in an uprising. Those are: Piperi, Kuči, Climenti, Bjelopavlići and tribes in the region of Plav where there are some Albanian catholics.

Should we quote that the tribe is Serb based on that source?

Again, your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine. Sources, sources, sources. Quote them. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The Kuçi are directly described as Albanians in both contemporary sources we have about their ethnic affiliation. You need to read more about the subject if you want to have a discussion about it. The nahiye of Kuçi which is described in the defters is an administrative unit, it's not equivalent to the tribe Kuçi, which means that a substantial number of settlements weren't Kuçi. None of the settlements Pavlovići, Petrovići, Lješovići (Leshoviq), Lopari, Banjovići and Koći (Koja) have any relation to the tribe itself and their location is in the areas between Fundina, Orahovo and Koja e Kuçit--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The Kuçi are directly described as Albanians in both contemporary sources we have about their ethnic affiliation. You need to read more about the subject if you want to have a discussion about it.

Cool, many describe them as Serbs too. I don't care about descriptions, i am interested in facts. I gave you a source, i gave you a quote.

The nahiye of Kuçi which is described in the defters is an administrative unit, it's not equivalent to the tribe Kuçi, which means that a substantial number of settlements weren't Kuçi. None of the settlements Pavlovići, Petrovići, Lješovići (Leshoviq), Lopari, Banjovići and Koći (Koja) have any relation to the tribe itself and their location is in the areas between Fundina, Orahovo and Koja e Kuçit

Those people just dissapeared i guess, by your OR.

Like it or not, those villages are part of Kuči nahiya, which is the earliest data on the tribe itself. (That includes some data, other than the name. Because the 1455. Zetski Zbor agreement where they banned catholic priests in favor for orthodox Serbs has no info on population of Kuči)

No OR please. Your info on lineages, haplogroups and blood is irrelevant. Setxkbmap (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If you misquote sources, then we can't have a discussion. This is the Lazaro Soranzo 1603 quote: the Serviani being a nation that inhabiteth in the mountaines of Albania, even to the Danow, among whome those that are in Dardania, and most near unti the saide Mountaines, are best able to make the great stirres. And they be the Piperi, the Cucci, the Clementi, the Bellopauligi, and others in the country of Plaua, and among them there are many Albanians that live after the Romish rite Such quotes can be discussed via secondary sources, but if the Serviani include many Albanians that live after the Romish rite, the term refers to the territory of the medieval Kingdom of Serbia without any ethnic affiliation.

The villages which you listed are in the area of Fundina, Orahovo and Koja e Kuçit, they don't exist today and they're not areas where Kuçi brotherhoods come from. I don't need to find a source for WP:BLUESKY statements or subjects which are already discussed in the article. If you want to claim that the Kuçi descend from these villages, then you need to find sources which put forward such a theory. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Setxkbmap: I think that you are exploring a version of a theory which I've read many times: not all Kuçi descend from Lale Drekalov's descendants, some of them come from the "old, Serbian Orthodox" villagers who are a different population of Slavic origin. Today, we know that such a thing definitely doesn't exist. All Kuçi proper lineages are the same as the Lale Drekalov's lineage which is the same as the Bankeqi-Trieshi and the ones from Rozaje that aren't but are discussed as such in bibliography - like the Zukorlici - come from some other northern Albanian lineage. There is no other lineage within Kuci which could represent a different origin or another population.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The villages which you listed are in the area of Fundina, Orahovo and Koja e Kuçit, they don't exist today and they're not areas where Kuçi brotherhoods come from

Those villages do not exist by those names, but the location is still in the current location of Trieshi. Even back in 1455. when Kuči was one or two settlements, they were still in the current location of Trieshi. Check 1455. agreement and you shall see that Kupusci and Lazorci, which were later part of the tribe, are separate "tribes" in the agreement.

Those villages existed, they are in the defters, and the population was mixed. Sorry.

I don't need to find a source for WP:BLUESKY statements or subjects which are already discussed in the article.

Yeah, if i find you a source that claims otherwise, and you include defters which claim otherwise, you should definitely find a quote and a source that will prove your opinion.

then you need to find sources which put forward such a theory.

I gave you a quote and a source about origin. Stop moving the goalpost. You debunk your own statements in every single reply to me.

I think that you are exploring a version of a theory which I've read many times: not all Kuçi descend from Lale Drekalov's descendants, some of them come from the "old, Serbian Orthodox" villagers who are a different population of Slavic origin. Today, we know that such a thing definitely doesn't exist. All Kuçi proper lineages are the same as the Lale Drekalov's lineage which is the same as the Bankeqi-Trieshi and the ones from Rozaje that aren't but are discussed as such in bibliography - like the Zukorlici - come from some other northern Albanian lineage. There is no other lineage within Kuci which could represent a different origin or another population

I am not. I simply look at the defters, and see mixed population. I then look for the source on "Kuči are of Albanian origin", and only find Bojka who states otherwise.

You are obsessed with lineages and haplogroups, but you still say that Zukorlic is the same as any other descendant from Kuči tribe, while he, by his own words is not. He stated that he tested himself and that he was R1b.

I don't care about that, because i don't care about blood. Being Albanian or Slavic is not about blood, but about culture. There are thousands of people in Montenegro and Serbia who would trace their origins back to Albania, and i assure you that there are thousand of Albanians that can trace their origins back to the Greeks or Slavs. I couldn't care less and i would never question their ethnic affiliations because of a haplogroup.

Provide me with source, provide me with quote. It's not WP:BLUESKY just because you said so. I could easily say it's WP:BLUESKY based on Defters, 1455. Venice Agreement and Bojka's book. Setxkbmap (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I simply look at the defters, and see mixed population. You looked at settlements which were present in the territory of the nahiye of Kuçi in areas which are unrelated to Kuçi brotherhoods. You draw the connection that this population must be part of the Kuçi tribe, but this is WP:OR. You didn't understand what I wrote about the Zukorlici. They can't be removed from the article because the sources describe them as "descended from Kuçi", while it is clear that they aren't descended from Kuçi and more importantly: it is clear that in older times the Zukorlici didn't have claim any line of connection with any Kuçi proper lineage. I didn't claim that the Zukorlici are Kuçi because of culture and identity, I only clarified that they can't be removed at the moment because they are described as such in our existing and outdated bibliography, while in reality there is nothing at all which allows for such a connection because there is no historical document which contains information about such a connection. Being Albanian, Slavic, Greek, Turkish is a product of many factors but we're not discussing identity. We're discussing origins. If you claim that a clan has mixed origins of any kind, then you need to show that at least two major lineages (of any origin) make up this tribe. Kuçi is not such a case.

You're discussing with me as if I have a specific POV, but I don't have any. This is the version of the article I wrote in 2020: 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. [1] The quotes about Slavic anthroponymy were first written by me. You're pushing for a similar version to what I wrote 4 years ago, but I've changed my opinion since then because at the time we didn't have the extensive genealogical research which we have today. My 2020 opinion was shown to be wrong by the genealogical data of three genealogical projects (Serbian, Albanian, Bosniak) and you need to actually read them and understand what they mean.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

y 2020 opinion was shown to be wrong by the genealogical data of three genealogical projects (Serbian, Albanian, Bosniak) and you need to actually read them and understand what they mean.

What do they mean to Zukorlic family? He's not from the same lineage :)

That's why i say you have a certain POV. You kinda believe in your story, but not strong enough to accept that you would have to remove some other parts of the article because of that.

Please, i am asking you again for sources that will address the claim of origin directly. Setxkbmap (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I referred to the Kuçi proper, not the Zukorlici. All Kuçi proper come from one lineage (E-BY165837) and it is the same as the Trieshi one. As such, there couldn't be any sort of mixed population even of the same origin. All Kuçi proper brotherhoods are literally descended from a single man who lived in medieval ages. What you're asking for is discussed by Curtis (2012): On the other hand, there are some areas, particularly in Montenegro, where Albanian-speaking populations have shifted to Slavic-speaking ones, such as the tribes of Piperi and Kuči, the Slavic Muslim populations in Plav/Plavë and Gusinje/Gucia, and perhaps with the Mrković. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I referred to the Kuçi proper, not the Zukorlici. All Kuçi proper come from one lineage (E-BY165837) and it is the same as the Trieshi one. As such, there couldn't be any sort of mixed population even of the same origin. All Kuçi proper brotherhoods are literally descended from a single man who lived in medieval ages.

First, you have haplogroups from 10-15 people, if so.

Second, Zukorlici are also a part of this tribe by your opinion, and they are not E-BY165837.

Third, defters still show Slavic names. Haplogroups have nothing to do with nations, sorry. Even though you may think they do, again, they do not. You are defined by your identity, not by a haplogroup.

Defters, defters, defters. I will not repeat myself.

What you're asking for is discussed by Curtis (2012): On the other hand, there are some areas, particularly in Montenegro, where Albanian-speaking populations have shifted to Slavic-speaking ones, such as the tribes of Piperi and Kuči, the Slavic Muslim populations in Plav/Plavë and Gusinje/Gucia, and perhaps with the Mrković

Nah, that just references the 17th century Franciscian report. Tribe was first orthodox, then catholic, then orthodox again in a span of what, 200 years? Same was happening to language and anthroponyms. By the end of 17th century, tribe was already 200 years old.

That's not about the origin, that's about 200 year old tribe.

Provide me with a source on origin, thank you! Setxkbmap (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What defters show is anthroponymy and it is already discussed in the article. The vast majority of Kuçi brotherhoods have been mapped by three different projects. I suggest that you read their data. If someone is from Kuçi, he carries this lineage.

The Zukorlici are discussed in bibliography as such: "Their ancestor Zuk Orla is believe to have migrated from Kuci to Gusinje/Gucia and then to Sandzak". This isn't equivalent to them being Kuçi per se. They may have no relation at all even to the broader area of Malësia/Brda. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What defters show is anthroponymy and it is already discussed in the article. The vast majority of Kuçi brotherhoods have been mapped by three different projects. I suggest that you read their data. If someone is from Kuçi, he carries this lineage.

Good for amateur projects that base their data on small sample of haplogroups, those are pretty reliable and academic.

The Zukorlici are discussed in bibliography as such: "Their ancestor Zuk Orla is believe to have migrated from Kuci to Gusinje/Gucia and then to Sandzak". This isn't equivalent to them being Kuçi per se. They may have no relation at all even to the broader area of Malësia/Brda.

I've read that info few days ago when i was looking for source on Zukorlic part of the page. You still include them.

Still, no academic sources on origin.

I will end this discussion now, there's no reason to go further if you are going to bring up amateur DNA projects from random Albanian, Bosniak and Serbian sites. Haplogroups mean nothing to ethnic identity, because there would be no reason to ever stop going back through the lineages.

Why stop at Slavs and Albanians? Why not just go back to Illyrians? Maybe Romans and Greeks? Why would we ever stop? National identity is built by culture, not by blood and haplogroups.

Academic sources on origin is all we need. Setxkbmap (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

A similar discussion was had a couple of years ago, going over much of the same points and issues. In regards to the earliest source with implications on the ethno-linguistic character of the Kuči/Kuçi, that is the Dečani chrysobulls of 1330, a branch of the clan appears among the heads of the Albanian katun led by Llesh Tuzi; the ethno-linguistic character of the community as a whole is explicitly mentioned by the primary source itself. Later, in 1416-1417, branches of the clan appear spread out across Albanian settlements in northern Albania.

The 1455 assembly is rather inconsequential as various other Albanian communities participated, among those being the Hoti, Tuzi, Gruda, Bushati, Matagushi and others. At most, this assembly can only be of significance in regards to its religious and political implications.

Both the 1485 and 1582-3 defters are discussed in the article. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

A similar discussion was had a couple of years ago

Sorry, i'm not going through history of the article :D

In regards to the earliest source with implications on the ethno-linguistic character of the Kuči/Kuçi, that is the Dečani chrysobulls of 1330, a branch of the clan appears among the heads of the Albanian katun led by Llesh Tuzi

The earliest mention of the name. The article states that connection between tribe and people from Dečani chrysobulls is a possibility. Oldest known confirmed document about the tribe, that is proven to be connected to the current tribe, is 1455. agreement.

The 1455 assembly is rather inconsequential as various other Albanian communities participated, among those being the Hoti, Tuzi, Gruda, Bushati, Matagushi and others. At most, this assembly can only be of significance in regards to its religious and political implications.

And i agree. I bring it up to prove that region was changing fast. Tribe was orthodox, and was only few villages back then. (as some of the "tribes" in that agreement were villages that later became part of Kuči tribe, which was back then in the current position of Trieshi).

Both the 1485 and 1582-3 defters are discussed in the article.

Of course, and i use them in conjunction with the source that directly addresses the origin.

I don't mind quote that is after that. It should be stated that there were albanian speakers in the tribe, as again, i never said that the tribe was Slavic, Serb or whatever. As a matter of fact, i never came to my own conclusions based on language and other stuff, i have a academic source to do that for me. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE Alltan (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

"describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views"

Just because 5 people that edit Albanian tribes article for the last 4 years agree on this here, doesn't mean it's mainstream view.

I don't have theory, i have a direct source.

"According to their ethnic origins, the Kuči tribe is a mixture of Slavic and Albanian population"

No theories, no "this means that they were", no "i think that"

Simple quote, good source, no opinions, NPOV. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s a fringe theory source, I can find you plenty of sources that the Niksici are Albanian in origin, that the Malesevci are Albanian in origin, that the Rovcani are Albanian in origin. But I dont actually go ram them into articles because I’ve researched enough to know that the Rovčani are Slavs. That’s why I call them Rovčani and not Rovçani. The overwhelming evidence we have points and always confirms an Albanian orgin of them. You would need to find sources which prove all the historical documents were faked or manipulated because no serious academic will ever take a theory of yours seriously otherwise. Alltan (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s a fringe theory source

Sorry, it's an academic source that is already used in the article. Just because it doesn't go with your POV doesn't mean it's fringe.

Actually, it's the only source that addresses the claim. Other sources currently have nothing to do with origin.

You would need to find sources which prove all the historical documents were faked or manipulated because no serious academic will ever take a theory of yours seriously otherwise.

Why would i state that all the documents are fake? Defters clearly agree with the source i've provided. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The point to understand is that the Kuçi themselves are of Albanian origin. One man is the ancestor of all Kuçi today, the different lineages may have lived in Kuçi for example Zuk Orlas one, but they are about as Kuçi as Karadorde Petrovic is proper Vasojevici (hint: He isn’t, it’s just that his family is from there) Alltan (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The point to understand is that the Kuçi themselves are of Albanian origin

WP:OPINION, unless you provide a source that directly addresses the claim. I dont want 17th century Franciscan report, tribe was formed 2 centuries before. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Well they were in the Article before you deleted them. Now if you will ignore my statement and keep reverting that would be a waste of time on your end. Alltan (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I deleted sources? Care to explain?

I never deleted any sources, the sources that talk about 17th century are still there. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok fine you deleted a text sourced by 8 references and put in a fringe tertiary source instead. Alltan (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No? Text that is sourced by 8 references was the one about the language.

Sorry, but just because one writer bundles up Kuči with Albanian tribes, doesn't mean they actually say anything about the origin of the tribe.

Just like me saying that all the tribes in 1455. agreement are Montenegrin won't address anything. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Please see WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT Alltan (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I hear you. I will stop. Thanks for discussing! Setxkbmap (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Various academics are in agreement with the fact that the Kuči originated from the Albanian katun, this position isn't only held by Albanian historians such as Pulaha, but also by Serbian historians such as Đurđev (1984):

Zar je čudno što su u Dečanskoj hrisovulji katuni vlaha upisani sa međama, a katun Arbanasa bez međa! Katun tamo navedenih vlaha nisu u visokim planinama, kako to pokazuju i sami podači i kako je to. P. Ivanović utvrdno, a katun Arbanasa se nalazio u visokim pljaninama. Ponesen tim što su svi ostali katuni iz Dečanske povelje i dukađinskoj niziji, Ivanović tvrdi da se katun Arbanasa "nalazno u niziji u Dukađinu, u okolini današnjeg sela Greve, koje je, po Hrisovulji, bilo naseljeno Arbanasima". Međutim, taj katun Arbanasa sa starešinom Lješom Tuzom u potvrdi Dečanske povelje upisan je iza Kuševu u Zeti. Neka imena u selu Kuševu su srodna izvesnim imenima u katunu Arbanasa, odnosno za neke ljude u Kuševu može se uzeti da su im braća ili očevi u spomenutom katunu (Pavle Bušat u Kuševa i Đon Bušat u katunu, Pavle Busados u Kuševu, Busados u katunu itd.). Selo Kuševo se graniči sa međom Kupelnika, nalazi se dakle na graniči Zete. Da tu treba staviti katun Arbanasa o kome je peč, vidi se i po tome što je starešina katuna Lješ Tuz, koji pripada rodu od kojeg su postali Tuzi, pa se tu nalazi Petar Kuč, starešina roda od kojeg su postali Kuči, a može se videti da odatle potiču i Bušati, Lazorči, Bitadosi i druga neka bratsva i plemena koja su se kasnije u toj oblasti nalazila, a neka se i spada nalaze. Prva činjeniča da se taj katun nalazi u visokim planinama objašnjava zašto on nije naveden sa međama. Drugo, vlasi u Dečanskoj povelji nisu više etnički drugi elemenat nego ostalo stanovništvo.

Furthermore, as mentioned in the article, in 1485 105/253 of household heads bore Albanian anthroponyms, 91/253 bore Slavic names while 53/253 bore mixed Albanian-Slavic names. 59/91 of the Slavic names are concentrated in two villages: Radona and Stani. Thus, across the villages of the region (bar the two mentioned), the Albanian onomastic element predominated.

The fact is that there is no evidence supporting the claim that in its earliest history as a community the Kuči were Slavs. The evidence is clear that this tribe originated from an Albanian pastoralist community that was gradually Slavicised during the early Ottoman period onwards. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Various academics are in agreement with the fact that the Kuči originated from the Albanian katun, this position isn't only held by Albanian historians such as Pulaha, but also by Serbian historians such as Đurđev (1984): Zar je čudno što su u Dečanskoj hrisovulji katuni vlaha upisani sa međama, a katun Arbanasa bez međa! Katun tamo navedenih vlaha nisu u visokim planinama, kako to pokazuju i sami podači i kako je to. P. Ivanović utvrdno, a katun Arbanasa se nalazio u visokim pljaninama. Ponesen tim što su svi ostali katuni iz Dečanske povelje i dukađinskoj niziji, Ivanović tvrdi da se katun Arbanasa "nalazno u niziji u Dukađinu, u okolini današnjeg sela Greve, koje je, po Hrisovulji, bilo naseljeno Arbanasima". Međutim, taj katun Arbanasa sa starešinom Lješom Tuzom u potvrdi Dečanske povelje upisan je iza Kuševu u Zeti. Neka imena u selu Kuševu su srodna izvesnim imenima u katunu Arbanasa, odnosno za neke ljude u Kuševu može se uzeti da su im braća ili očevi u spomenutom katunu (Pavle Bušat u Kuševa i Đon Bušat u katunu, Pavle Busados u Kuševu, Busados u katunu itd.). Selo Kuševo se graniči sa međom Kupelnika, nalazi se dakle na graniči Zete. Da tu treba staviti katun Arbanasa o kome je peč, vidi se i po tome što je starešina katuna Lješ Tuz, koji pripada rodu od kojeg su postali Tuzi, pa se tu nalazi Petar Kuč, starešina roda od kojeg su postali Kuči, a može se videti da odatle potiču i Bušati, Lazorči, Bitadosi i druga neka bratsva i plemena koja su se kasnije u toj oblasti nalazila, a neka se i spada nalaze. Prva činjeniča da se taj katun nalazi u visokim planinama objašnjava zašto on nije naveden sa međama. Drugo, vlasi u Dečanskoj povelji nisu više etnički drugi elemenat nego ostalo stanovništvo.

I never stated that it's something one sided, that it's Albanian POV or anything like that. But, the fact remains, it's only a possibility, even though one Serbian historian believess in it.

Personally, i like that theory as well, i think it makes sense but there's just not enough proof.

Furthermore, as mentioned in the article, in 1485 105/253 of household heads bore Albanian anthroponyms, 91/253 bore Slavic names while 53/253 bore mixed Albanian-Slavic names. 59/91 of the Slavic names are concentrated in two villages: Radona and Stani. Thus, across the villages of the region (bar the two mentioned), the Albanian onomastic element predominated.

And those two villages are also part of Kuči. The fact is, most of those villages in the first two defters are actually in the region of todays Trieshi, while villages that are now in what someone here defined as Kuči proper joined the territory of the tribe later, starting with the second defter 10 years later.

Still, 105 household heads bore Albanian anthroponyms, 91 Slavic, and 53 mixed. And if the history of the tribe taught us something, is that the number of people having children with both Slavic and Albanian names at that time in the tribe was very, very high.

Hell, even the village of Kuč (the one where Petar Kuč is from) had a guy called Nenad, which is a Slavic name, who had children that bore mixed names. Lazar, which is not Slavic, but used more by Slavs than Albanians, Gjerg/Đurađ which is used by both and Jon/Jovan which is also used by both Slavs and Albanians. Now, i am not stating anything about identity of these people, as the proof that they are connected to the Kuči tribe is non-existant.

The fact is that there is no evidence supporting the claim that in its earliest history as a community the Kuči were Slavs. The evidence is clear that this tribe originated from an Albanian pastoralist community that was gradually Slavicised during the early Ottoman period onwards.

Those same defters you quote are the evidence. If you are willing to say that those Slavs in defters are actually slavicized, and were of Albanian descent, i could maybe see where you are coming from, but even then that happened way before defters and the formation of the tribe, so, at the moment of formation, tribe was a mixture of cultures.

Also, when discussing this and the history of tribe, keep in mind that the Kuči tribe at the beginning, still included Trieshi (in fact, most of the tribe at the first defter is Trieshi). But, as we can see in an article that you are editing and moderating (Trieshi), they are not of the same patrilineal ancestry. Which means that this whole story about people moving, and tribe having one ancestor which is Petar Kuč is basically incorrect.

Whoever moved into the tribe, found people already living there, those people didn't dissapear, and even if the theory of Petar Kuč was correct (which i can't agree with, because it's not proven), he would still only be ancestor to a part of the tribe. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That Kuči descends from the Albanian katun is the consensus in academia, Wikipedia operates via academic consensus. Same thing goes for the Albanian element predominating in the defters, that we begin to see Slavicisation is made clear in the article:

In a 1582/83 defter (Ottoman tax registry), the Kuči nahiya had 13 villages, belonging to the Sanjak of Scutari. Anthroponymy in the region was mixed. In the settlements of Bankeq, Bytadosa, Bardić, Lazarniči, and Lješovići, mixed Albanian-Slavic anthroponyms now predominated over typical Albanian personal names - borne by a minority of household heads. However, in the villages of Petrovići, Koći, and Brokina half of household heads bore typical Albanian anthroponyms, the other half bearing mixed Albanian-Slavic names. In contrast, typical Slavic anthroponymy dominated in Pavlovići and Radona. This period marks the time where Albanian toponymy begins to be either translated into Slavic or acquire Slavic suffixes like in the village of Bardhani that begins to appears as Bardić, and in Llazorçi which appears as Lazarniči.

As for the village Kuçi recorded in 1416-1417, the presence of Nenad is inconsequential since we already know that medieval Albanians acquired Slavic personal names. Lazar (and forms such as Lazër, Lazor) was used across Albania during this period, it is a pan-Christian name. In the document the form used for George is Giergi, this directly corresponds to Albanian Gjergj and not Đurađ. Lastly, Jon is a form of Gjon (cf. Jonima < Gjonima). However, this is not a forum for us to discuss such things. We should keep it strictly to the sources relevant to the article. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That Kuči descends from the Albanian katun is the consensus in academia, Wikipedia operates via academic consensus.

Sorry, what i see in the article is only: theory, possibility, etc

I do have to agree with the consensus that the name itself probably comes from last name of Petar Kuc. I still do not think that his descendants formed a tribe alone, as there were already a few villages around the settlements possibly made by them in 1455. which are later found as part of the tribe, only 30 years later.

And as you have also stated, there was a process of slavicization in 16th century, and i agree with you BUT that doesn't make original defters invalid. At the time of formation, tribe was mixed. And as such both Bojka Djukanovic and Rastislav Petrovic have an opinion that the tribe was mixed. Also, if i remember correctly, Erdeljanovic has a similar opinion, and he is even quoted by someone in the article itself, although he goes way back in time and talks about Vlachs, Illyrians, or any other native tribes before arrival of Slavs and formation of Albanian nation. They all address the claim of origin directly, and leave no space for us to interpret that according to our own POV.

There are also documents which state that the tribe is Serb in origin, which is simply not correct, as again, defters claim otherwise.

As for the village Kuçi recorded in 1416-1417

I agree that the discussion on them is not relevant, i was just stating that it's not only about Kuci, but there's been Slavic influence in northern Albania as well. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You are treating this TP like a forum. That is not what Wikipedia is for. This whole discussion, in which you provide your own personal thoughts and ideas, is starting to become really unproductive. For example:

I still do not think that his descendants formed a tribe alone...

I don't mean to be rude, but what you think is completely irrelevant to the article. At the end of the day, Wikipedia uses what reliable sources say, particularly those that form the academic and scholarly consensus. Older documents comment on the Albanian origin of the Kuçi, or quite clearly record it (e.g. defters). New scholars for the most part also consider the Kuçi to have an Albanian origin. At what point are you going to drop the stick? This conversation keeps going around in circles to no avail. Botushali (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but what you think is completely irrelevant to the article.

Exactly. And that's why it's not my opinion, but a fact that is written on the wiki pages by you guys.

Older documents comment on the Albanian origin of the Kuçi, or quite clearly record it (e.g. defters).

Clearly, we do not read the same defters. Are there any defters that came before the one at the end of 15th century that shows mixed population?

New scholars for the most part also consider the Kuçi to have an Albanian origin.

Clearly not, if i have a new scholar, new source, that states otherwise and addresses your claim directly.

At what point are you going to drop the stick?

I've been advised by administrators NOT to drop it. They agree that citation is needed for origin claim, and told me to use dispute resolution or RfC.

I started with dispute resolution, because i assumed good faith, but people that are involved in that are simply ignoring it, because they do not wish to resolve anything.

You can simply stop replying, and i will have nothing to reply to. I will follow wiki rules and administrator advice, and just wait out for dispute resolution to be closed due to inactivity. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a whole bunch of citations available throughout the article talking about the Kuçi's Albanian origin. It's really that simple.

One source does not change the scholarly consensus. The theory that the Kuçi have a Slavic origin has even been genealogically proven to be false (and this is corroborated by old documents, which literally describe the Slavicisation of a large portion of the tribe, as well as modern studies on the Kuçi), so I don't know how you're seriously denying it at this point. You started off by trying to change the way they're described in the lead, to now disputing their origin, at what point are you going to accept the scholarly consensus? Botushali (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a whole bunch of citations available throughout the article talking about the Kuçi's Albanian origin. It's really that simple.

Actually, nope. Not a single one addresses the claim of origin directly. And while i don't mind language reports from 17th century, basing opinion (WP:NOTOPINION) on that would be same as me saying that the whole tribe is orthodox in origin, because in 1455. it was part of Zetski zbor.

One source does not change the scholarly consensus.

But when there is none that directly talk about this, one or two sources could change your scholarly opinion :)

The theory that the Kuçi have a Slavic origin has even been genealogically proven to be false (and this is corroborated by old documents, which literally describe the Slavicisation of a large portion of the tribe, as well as modern studies on the Kuçi), so I don't know how you're seriously denying it at this point.

Never said they were Slavic in origin. Sorry.

But yeah, i agree that there was process of slavicisation that gradually moved the tribe away from any Albanian identity.

You started off by trying to change the way they're described in the lead

Yes, i tried putting "one of the Montenegrin tribes", but got declined by other editors because they think that it would hurt Serbs, Bosniaks and Albanians. While the term is literally already used in Tribes of Montenegro. I still don't agree with you, i was just curious why everyone was like "Yeah, you can't use word Montenegrin, but Albanian is ok because it's a fact about origin" so i checked and found out that it's really not and the sources are bad.

at what point are you going to accept the scholarly consensus?

Stop pushing the narrative that there is consensus that i am going against. The only consensus i go against is the one that few editors formed here. I tried being civil and invited 2 editors to dispute resolution, but again, they simply ignored it. I talked to administrators, who don't pick sides as the topic can be tricky, but they agreed that citation is needed, and recommended RfC. RfC can't be done now since there is dispute resolution in progress.

This only shows that i am the one willing to discuss and talk (and as can be seen by edit history, i am the only one who actually talks about changes of the article, while most of the active editors just do them however they want, without any communication between us).

So. It's not WP:BLUESKY, there's no consensus about tribe in 15th century that promotes your view, it's only  :) Setxkbmap (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This can go around in circles forever. Just read the sources and the content. Or don’t. At this point, I don’t really care. There’s no point arguing with someone who cannot read the article. Botushali (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It wont go in circles. At one point i will ask for RfC. Once dispute resolution fails due to lack of good will from other editors Setxkbmap (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources do in fact claim an Albanian origin in their contents, f.e., an instance from Xhufi (2013), albeit written in Albanian (Google Translate should work fine):

Për një proces serbizimi nëpërmjet konvertimit fetar bëhet fjalë sa në Kodin e Stefan Dushanit e në ankesat e vazhdueshme të Papatit, aq edhe në Statutet e Budvës, ndërkohë që shembulli i cituar më sipër i fiseve të Kuçëve, Piprëve, Bratonozhiqëve e Bjelopavliqëve në shek. XVII, shqiptarë në origjinë por tashmë ortodoksë në besim e sllavë në gjuhë, ofron një shembull të qartë të ecurisë praktike të këtij procesi.

What matters here is what the academics are claiming, not necessarily whether or not you agree with the primary sources used. The 1455 assembly had very little to do with ethno-linguistic identity, Kuči having been possibly primarily Orthodox during this period in no way nullifies an Albanian origin. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources do in fact claim an Albanian origin in their contents, f.e., an instance from Xhufi (2013), albeit written in Albanian (Google Translate should work fine):

Për një proces serbizimi nëpërmjet konvertimit fetar bëhet fjalë sa në Kodin e Stefan Dushanit e në ankesat e vazhdueshme të Papatit, aq edhe në Statutet e Budvës, ndërkohë që shembulli i cituar më sipër i fiseve të Kuçëve, Piprëve, Bratonozhiqëve e Bjelopavliqëve në shek. XVII, shqiptarë në origjinë por tashmë ortodoksë në besim e sllavë në gjuhë, ofron një shembull të qartë të ecurisë praktike të këtij procesi.

Great, while he/she is still using 17th century data to base this claim, at least this source and citation addresses the claim DIRECTLY. Not through our opinion. I like it Setxkbmap (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would exclude most Western sources here as they are non-specialists on the Brda tribes: we don't exclude sources based on the origin of a publication. We include/exclude sources per WP:RS. As such, 1928 Yugoslav encyclopedias or self-published POV works won't be included in the article. This isn't negotiable via RfC, no matter how many IPs try to "vote" in a discussion which isn't an RfC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  We also exclude sources based on context, as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which explicitely states:

  Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.

  And in the present article, most of the sources used to make the "Albanian origin" claim are merely passing mentions of sources that are not focused on the Kuči or the Brda tribes in general. As such, most of these sources are not RS as far as the "Origins" section is concerned and should therefore be removed. Krisitor (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  None of the sources provided have anything to do with tribe. Some of them were even cherry picked, which i fixed this morning (the author they used as a claim that tribe was Albanian actually states mixed origin lol). One of the sources, Hetzner, has been disproven here, as the author cites Sufflay who said this: Old Vlach tribes were quickly assimilated. Amalgamation between Serbs and Albanians continues to this day. Most famous is the example of Kuči tribe, for which in 1610. was said >>Half orthodox, half Albanian<< (questi Dalmatini et Cucci la meta di quali di quali e scismatica e l' altra latina) and in 1614. reports say >>Chuzzi Albanesi del rito Romano<<. Today, that is a Serb tribe

  So the only valid part of the first Hetzner citation is this: The Montenegrins believe that their largest 'tribe', the Kuči, was originally Albanian.

  Which is unfounded, but still his opinion.

  But let's keep discussion under RfC. Setxkbmap (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alltan last edit was good, but may i ask why was this part removed? In 1688, the Kuči, with help from Kelmendi and Piperi, destroyed the army of Süleyman Pasha twice, took over Medun and got their hands of large quantities of weapons and equipment.

I also had problem with wording, as i think it can be worded much, much better, but i don't think that's a reason for deletion. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You may ask if it's actually removed, which it isn't. Alltan (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad, edit history showed it as deleted just because you added additional sentence at the end of it. Sorry Setxkbmap (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing

@Lezhjani1444 I wont revert it, but you gotta realize that you have to use references, and not just say "Biris (1998) connects the name to Albanian kuç ("puppy, doggie"), while Sarris (1928) and Fourikis (1929) suggest" What book, what quote? Just reference it instead of having it in the text. Setxkbmap (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily, similar writing styles are used across different articles (cf. Souliotes). Furthermore, the paragraph above the one I added falls into the same issue that you are raising, f.e., the opinions of Skok and Stanišić are cited in a book by Loma. The individual sources themselves are not cited.

The opinions of the aforementioned academics are mentioned in a reliable source (Liakopoulos), this is sufficient. If you would like to reword the paragraph without mention of the academics directly but rather just their opinions, then please do share a version on here and we can discuss adding it into the article. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. The whole paragraph is referenced by this?

Liakopoulos, Georgios (2019). The Early Ottoman Peloponnese: A study in Light of an Annotated editio princeps of the TT10-1/14662 Ottoman Taxation Cadastre (ca. 1460-1463). pp. 73, 115. Setxkbmap (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Liakopoulos cites Biris, Sarris, Fourikis and Symeonidis. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Could you provide me with a way to read that document? Setxkbmap (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Could i get access to that document? @Lezhjani1444 Setxkbmap (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is no freely accessible digital version, I have a physical copy of the book. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you share the page with me?

I never read about Greek villages of the name Kuci, seems interesting. Setxkbmap (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from p. 73 which cites the abovementioned academics:

Κούτσης (Arv. sn.) < kuç (Al. n. colloq. puppy, doggie): BIRIS 1998, 195; kucë (Arb. n. puppy). According to Sarris, < kuci (Al. n. place of high altitude, summit) and, according to Fourikis, < kuci (Al. n. steep high rock), which I was unable to confirm: SARRIS 1928, 134; FOURIKIS 1929, 119. According to Georgacas-McDonald, Kuç (Al. sn.) < place name Kuç in Shkodër, Tiranë, Berat, Vlorë and Korçë, Albania: GEORGACAS-MCDONALD 1968, 319. Symeonidis suggested an etymology from i kuq (Al. adj. red): SYMEONIDIS 2010, I 761.

Below are two examples of villages named Kuçi recorded in the 1460-3 register and their household heads, note that this is a direct transliteration from Ottoman Turkish (I have added in brackets the nahiyahs in English):

Nāḥiyyet-i Ḫulumiç (i.e., Nahiyah of Chlemoutsi, north-western Elis)

Ḳarye-i Ḳuçi ez cemā'at-i Arnavudān

Petro Ḳuçi, Niḳola Ḳoḳla, Yorgi Ranesi

And:

Nāḥiyyet-i Kirvuḳor (i.e., Nahiyah of Palaiokastro/Koufoplaiiko Kastro)

Ḳarye-i Ḳuçi ez cemā'at-i Arnavudān

Pr[o]ġono Ḳuçi, [Do]meniḳa Ḳuçi, Petro Ḳuçi, Ḳuçi Domeniḳa, [L]ori birāder-i o (i.e., brother of Ḳuçi Domeniḳa), Gin Ḳuçi, Yorgi Ḳuçi, Petro Ḳuçi-i dīğer, [Ma]rti Peta, Yani [Todoros], Papas Miḫal Protonotari. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Btw i find it interesting that "kuce" means puppy in Albanian too, because it's used by all Yugoslav languages now. I would never make a connection between that and a tribe, but still it's fun to think about :D Setxkbmap (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM... Botushali (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you give me a source for that ? 2A02:3100:5EA8:2600:2892:4840:CB95:27CC (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alltan Sorry for not discussing Zdravko here, we should probably remove all the other sources, like Peter Lang, because there was no discussion here. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see Zdravkovic only notes past opinions of some scholars, he doesnt actually put forward his own. Alltan (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You are looking at it the wrong way. He states all the opinions of other editors and writers, and provides his own conclusions.

Most of the book is opinions of other scholars, i agree, but he does provides his own. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Durazz0 care to explain why Historical institute of University of Montenegro is not RS? And while you are at it, why professor of that same university and his work being published by Matica Crnogorska is not a RS? Setxkbmap (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

please quote his own opinion here @Setxkbmap Alltan (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"Rv. Removal of non-RS sources"

He reverted to edit that removed Zdravko and Historical institute of university of Montenegro. Feel free to ask him in your chat Setxkbmap (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

How am I gonna ask Zdravkovic? Is he one of the editors here you mean? Alltan (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Great joke! Now, what's wrong with Historical institute of University of Montenegro?

What's wrong with Ivanovic? Setxkbmap (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lezhjani1444 The thing you removed that you thought was Bolizza is actually Marin Bizzi, ant not Bolizza. I don't mind removing his name, but just so you know :)

His name is recorded by other historians as well, like Rastislav. Setxkbmap (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I have added Marin Bizzi back. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem. If Xhufi doesn't mention him, i can try and look for someone other than Rastislav who does. I remember reading somewhere else about Bizzi too. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Franciscan Report

Can someone please provide a picture or a source which showed the statement of Franciscan saying that the Kuči will be assimilated into Serbs. 2A02:3100:5EA8:2600:2892:4840:CB95:27CC (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)