Talk:Voisava Kastrioti/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Triballi or Bulgari

Hey, @Dardhani. Most of your edit was reverted. Reasons being that Triballi, as explained among four sources, is being used explicitly to refer to Serbs. You on the other hand, wrote that Triballi is also used to refer to Bulgars but that statement has no support from any current sources. Please precede to use sources next time. I also reverted some of your attempt to fix the grammar. It is "Bulgarians or Triballi" not "Bulgarians, or Triballi". Cheers. --Azor (talk). 09:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Read the source yourself. It says "Bulgari, sive Tribali habitant..." translating to "Bulgarians, or Triballians live here". The way the sentence proceeds, "..., ferox in armis gens, et non minus Scanderbego multis praeclarae virtutis fideis meritis grata." shows that the author indeed referred to only one people, the Bulgarians.

"Bulgari, sive Triballi, habitant, ferox in arm-i-s gens…" translated to “The Bulgarians, or Triballi, live (there), a people”, has "armis" in singular form too. There is nothing that refers to the Serbs here. Dardhani (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Azor, Barletius uses the "Triballi" appellation to refer to the Bulgarians, and not the Serbs. ShockedSkater (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That is 100% original research. Muzaka himself explicitly referred to Triballi as an exonym for Serbs "Tribali overo Misii ch' hoggi se nominato Serviani" ("Triballi who are today named Serbs"). Provide sources for your statements, this article don't benefit from your personal intuitions. --Azor (talk). 23:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct. However, Muzaka is not the source of that text and what he says is completely irrelevant. Marin Barletius in his own works referred to the Bulgars as Triballi. Whether you agree with that or not is your problem. He still called them Triballians. You cannot change the facts to fit in with your ideology of pushing Voisava as a Serb. Even if she were one, the source still makes no mention of Serbs. Dardhani (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dardhani The citation from the source does not refer to the term "Triballi" as Bulgarian. That's why it says "Bulgari or Triballi". Retain from edit warring by continuously adding your own original research. --Azor (talk). 20:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The citation very much does call the Bulgars Triballians. This is also why I added the comma in the quote, because it is "Bulgarians, or Triballians...", not "Bulgarians or Triballians...". There is a difference there, and as I stated earlier, the quote is in singular form and not plural, as seen with the word "armis". This is very clearly referring to one group of people. You have made no argument as to why I am wrong. I am also not the only one saying this and, even if I was, it still very clearly shows that Bulgarians are being called Triballians, whether you like that or not. Wiki should be a place for true and valid information, not opinions motivated by politics. Until you can prove that it does indeed refer to Serbs by presenting valid evidence, do not undo the edit. Dardhani (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dardhani Why are you putting a comma if the source isn't using a comma? The citation states "Bulgari or Triballi", hence clearly separating these two terms. Also, I am not sure why we are discussing over a comma. The source does not, in any shape or form, support what you are editing with or without comma. Are you aware that you are edit warring to keep your own original research on this article? --Azor (talk). 18:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Go read it. The source very clearly has a comma. The comma is only one part of the argument. What about the words being in singular form and not plural? There is nothing at all supporting the fact that Triballi here is used for Serbs. It is you who should provide evidence for such a claim. Just because Muzaka, another author completely unrelated to Barleti, said Triballi are Serbs, it does not mean that Barleti says the same. Read the text from the book itself.

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_i7BuVXCOATAC/page/n153/mode/2up here is the book and the page. Read it and see for yourself. Dardhani (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

For the very last time, you are not supposed to use your own interpretations based on primary sources on Wikipedia. See WP:PRIMARY; Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. We might be able to cite primary sources directly, but it's crucial to avoid offering personal interpretations of those primary sources. Wikipedia maintains strict guidelines on this topic. --Azor (talk). 20:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand. I am telling you what is right there in front of your face when you look. Do you need an expert to tell you that it indeed says "Bulgarians, or Triballians live there..." and that Triballians are just Bulgars? Where is the research that states Triballians here refer to Serbs? There is nothing here stating that. And with the grammar too, why revert a comma when you see it right there? That is exactly how the quote should be, no matter how you interpret it. Dardhani (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Voisava's name

• Listed some of the few, out of plenty, sources from the article regarding the relation between Voisava and Vojislav(a).
• I kept the direct translation of the parts "voi" and "slava", while I removed the interpretation of the name.

This is not an article on the name ‘Voisava’ or any other related name. Unless those sources actually mention Voisava Kastrioti, then they either fall under WP:OR or are irrelevant to the topic at hand. It’s like adding the etymology of the name ‘John’ under every article of a person named John… Botushali (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the sources before you start assuming. Four of the sources on this page reflect on Voisava's name, in which multiple are historical, rather than etymological. --Azor (talk). 10:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Point out which of those sources discusses Voisava Kastrioti. As I stated, this is an article on the figure, not the name. Botushali (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

All of them discuss Voisava's name, except "Rječnik osobnih imena" (1988) by Šimundić. The work of Šimundić is not OR though, it includes interpretations from its original in University of Michigan. The most detailed example is the one from Vukanović, Tatomir P. in "Словенска симбиоза породице Ђурђа Кастриота Скендербега" (1971). --Azor (talk). 13:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, inclusion of the name's etymology doesn't seem necessary for the article itself. It would be more appropriate for Wiktionary or a separate article. Furthermore, these sources were included as if they were evidence for Voisava's Slavic origin, when in fact they only discuss etymology and not Voisava's descent. Voisava itself is the Albanian rendition of a South Slavic name, nothing too unusual here. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The name's etymology is of course directly relevant to the subject and should be included. Suggestions to create a separate article for it are absurd, and a transparent attempt to hide an "inconvenient" etymology. This is a clear case of WP:JDL, as at first the etymology was removed because it was "unsourced", when sources were added it was argued that they don't discuss "Voisava Kastrioti", and now that this has been refuted, it's being argued that "more appropriate for Wiktionary" and "Create a separate article" (both absurd). Clearly, the etymology of Voisava's name seems to bother some users for the usual reasons, but it is relevant and sourced and will not be removed. On the other hand the claim that Voisava itself is the Albanian rendition of a South Slavic name is unsourced and original research, although that can be added too provided a source is found. Khirurg (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Countless articles across the Balkans, especially Kosovo related topics, utilize etymology to deduce an origin. A precedent has already been set and given that Voisava's origin is a matter of debate, discussing the origin of her name using sources isn't out of the question. The article is lacking content and deserves any new addition. If the statement wasn't sourced then it would be considered POV pushing, however given that it is, removal of it could be considered WP:JDL, as mentioned. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Do any of these sources actually mention Voisava Kastrioti? If they do not refer to the etymology of her name in the context of the woman herself, as in “Voisava Kastrioti’s first name is derived from x and y” then they really have no place on the article and are, in fact, suited for wiktionary use, as mentioned by Lezhjani above. If none of the sources discuss Voisava Kastrioti herself, then they have no place on this article, and linking unrelated sources either falls under OR or is simply irrelevant.

I would like direct quotes from the sources, because I cannot access them. Botushali (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The source I already sent you don't have any availability restrictions. Here; " ... his wife Voisava Tripalda (from Voislav — Vojislav)". --Azor (talk). 08:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Which source is this one? And what do the other sources cited say? Botushali (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The citation is from the work of Vukanović, Tatomir P. --Azor (talk). 16:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I asked you what the other cited sources say. Botushali (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I already presented you (twice) a source on Voisava's name, backed by an etymological source on the first name itself. I am sure you more than capable of doing your own research. --Azor (talk). 22:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I asked you for direct quotes on the sources you used, please place them on the article to back up the sources. If they don’t mention Voisava Kastrioti herself, then they can go. Botushali (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF. There is no need to mention Voisava Kastrioti anyway, an etymology of the name Voisava is sufficient. Making unreasonable demands is disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand how requesting quotes is unreasonable or disruptive. Additionally, if we could simply add the etymology of people’s names on Wikipedia without the sources discussing the figure in question, why is it not common practice to add the etymology of every Tom, Dick and Harry on their articles? Botushali (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Because a) her name is unusual, and b) the etymology is tied to her origin, which is the reason we are having this discussion in the first place. Look, you asked for sources, and now you have been given sources. Time to move on, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Khirurg (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

So we shouldn’t ask for verification on sources? My point still stands. Quotes should be added to the article as I cannot access the sources. Once that is done, then I have no more issues as long as the source relates to the article at hand. Botushali (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Vanjagenije. I reverted your edit due to the implementation of better suited sources. Cheers. --Azor

@AlexBachmann Next time you revert, take it to the TP. Per WP:REVEXP, your reasons for reverting needs elaboration. "Low quality non-RS source that represents Vojislav as a sole Serbian name. It is widely considered to be a Slavic name, no need to cherry-pick or misrepresent"

1. "Non-RS source". For what exact reason would that be? To me, it currently sounds like your opinion rather than anything else.
2. "It is widely considered to be a Slavic name". The article already says the name is Slavic. Moreover, it says it is derived from the Serbian "Vojislav(a)". --Azor (talk). 16:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Since when do we use a source dating back to 1970 for something like this? The name is Slavic and is regarded as such in multiple sources and in this article, there are even theories that she was of Bulgarian origin, so writing that its a variant of a Serbian name is just misrepresentation at this point.

Apart from that, most importantly, he doesn't say that Vojisav is a Serbian name (what was stated in this article), he just adds a little bit later "Slavic personal names". AlexBachmann (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:AGE MATTERS, I don't see how it violates the source's reliability. In the historiography section, we have sources dating back to the early 19th century which speculates on her name. As for her name, I agree "Voisava" could be written as "Slavic" due to the fact that Voisava Kastrioti (which ethnic origin is disputed) is the only historical individual known to carry that specific name variant. However, that is not the case for Voisava's name derivation - Vojislava. "Vojislav(a)" originates from Stefan Vojislav and is an old Serbian ethnocultural name. Per WP:NOTBLUE, citing a source for the labeling of "Vojislav" as Serbian is ridiculous. --Azor (talk). 18:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And since when is Epirus the homeland of Skanderbeg? L'Epire est le pays d'origine de Georges Castriote Scander-Beg. His "homeland" was Diber and is not located in Epirus. That's literally the first sentence on this website that unfortunately looks very messy. The name Vojislav is a compound of the words "voj" and "sláva" which is found in many Slavic languages (even villages: Woislav). So could the name in fact also be Bulgarian? A Bulgarian origin of her has already been suggested. Regarding my points, it would be better just either to leave it out or to replace "Serbian" with "Slavic". AlexBachmann (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Avoid taking content out of context. Through origins, he talks about Skanderbeg's grandfather (paternal linage). Read the entire article. As for the name, I'm not really sure I follow your point. It is a common linguistic phenomenon for words to form variations in different languages, each with its distinct form. The presence of name variants can not be interpreted as an indication that the name is not affiliated with a particular language. In regards to your question if "Vojislav" can be considered Bulgarian - why don you try to find that name in Bulgarian ethnocultural history? See if you succeed. --Azor (talk). 21:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Alex is not taking content out of context, they are simply showing that Vukanović‘s outdated work contains a lot of incorrect information.

1. Дед Скендарбегов, као што је из историјских извора познато, био је кефалија у то доба у Јанини (јужна Арбанија). Kastriot of Kanina (and not of Ioannina, as Vukanović claims) was believed by some people to be Skanderbeg’s ancestor, but modern historiography denies this. Vukanović is incorrect on Skanderbeg’s grandfather Pal Kastrioti, and even the southern Albania claim is incorrect as he doesn’t even talk about the correct city.

2. Постојбина Ђурђа Кастриота Скендербега је Епир.[1] This is simply not true. Skanderbeg was not born in the Epirus region. He was from north-central Albania.

3. … и жене му Voisava Tripalda[4] (од Воислава — Војислава) … три члана имају чисто словенска лична имена: мајка Скендербегова Воислава… Vukanović does not say Serbian here, he says Slavic. He also does not talk about the meaning of the name. You are falsifying the source and writing OR content. That’s a violation.

4. Они почивају с једне стране на етничкој симбиози словенских етничких скупина и племена у Епиру, баштини Ивана Кастриота, оца Скендербеговог… Again, the source discusses the Epirus region and the Kastrioti family, even though they did not hail from Epirus and were not a southern Albanian tribe. The whole basis of this text is on Albanian-Slavic symbiosis in Epirus and it uses Skanderbeg’s family as an example, even though they are not from Epirus.

As you can see, the work contains a number of major fundamental inaccuracies, including Skanderbeg’s birthplace. It is outdated, which would be fine if it had at least the basic facts correct, but it doesn’t. I am in favour of removing it altogether. On top of that, you have falsified the source and written your own OR content regarding Voisava’s name up until AlexBachmann’s edit. Vukanović does not say Serbian, but says ‘Slavic’ instead, yet you put ‘Serbian’ on the article. Vukanović also fails to provide an etymology for Voisava or Vojislav, yet you have written one. Even though three editors were initially debating me on this matter, an admin actually removed your additions as OR (which was my argument this whole time), yet you RV and still keep OR content on the article. Vukanović is inaccurate and should stay removed, and your OR content deleted. Botushali (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah, this is just nitpicking to remove an inconvenient source. With "arguments" like these it is possible to remove literally any source. In fact, it is arguable that Voisava derives from "Vojislav" falls under WP:BLUESKY, it's plain as day to anyone willing to look at it with a neutral point of view. Khirurg (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know why you are getting involved when you haven’t even looked at the source. The fact that an admin supported the changes I was arguing for should be enough for you to understand that what was said was OR content. Your edit added back “Serbian” even though Vukanović calls it a “Slavic” name instead, so either you haven’t read the source and are simply reverting out of spite, or you are intentionally falsifying a source. Poor behaviour. Botushali (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You have a very bad habit of doing so. You do not have mind-reading powers, so stop trying to impute others' motives. Anyway, I removed Vukanovic and replaced it with an etymological dictionary of names, which 100% backs the claim that "Voisava" is the female version of "Vojislav".Khirurg (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not an aspersion, because there is no alternative - either you RV’ed without reading the source for the sake of it, or you intentionally falsified the source. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have done that. It’s not the first time you’ve done so, only to be wrong - see here [1] where it was apparent that you didn’t read the source or just RV’ed for the sake of it. After that, I opened up a TP discussion [2], where you admitted that the source was falsified in the past but you clearly hadn’t checked up until that discussion. I do not need mind-reading powers to know when someone is opposing an edit of mien with no actual knowledge regarding the matter whatsoever. Anyways, that’s irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I am going to remove your most recent addition. Vukanović actually talks about Vojsava Kastrioti, this source does not. If it doesn’t talk about Vojsava Kastrioti, it is OR or off-topic, as Vanja (an admin, by the way) seems to agree on. You can add Vukanović back as it is on-topic, but don’t falsify what he writes like you did last time. Botushali (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The source mentions the name Voisava, so it's not "off-topic". You know full well that the name "Voisava" is derived from "Vosjislav", it's plain as day. An etymology of the name Voisava with a link to the article Vojislav is WP:DUE. I also wrote in the article that The name Voisava derives from..., not "her name derives from". The source is an etymological dictionary, which is the perfect source to back this kind of claim. Khirurg (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not an article about the name ‘Voisava’, it is an article about an historical figure called Voisava Kastrioti. Vukanović states that her name is derived from Vojislav, but he is on-topic as he actually talks about her despite the fact that he is unreliable regarding other matters he covers in the text. Therefore, if any source can be used backing up such a claim, it is Vukanović. These other sources do not mention Voisava Kastrioti, and so they are off-topic. Botushali (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an extremely small range of information that is actually confirmed about the grandfather of Skanderbeg. Even something as fundamental as his first name lack consensus. As for Skanderbeg's place of birth - it is also unknown. A big portion of Kastrioti's domains does in fact cover the historical Epirus. Overall, Vukanović's work on a topic can not be considered unreliable simply because some unrelated parts of his work is disputed. For example, the name of Skanderbeg's mother is 100% unrelated to whoever his paternal grandfather was. --Azor (talk). 13:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Just want to inform that I will restore the the old content back, as there are no obvious reasons as to why the source of Vukanovic is a breach of RS. As explained, none of his content goes against any "concrete truth", but rather discuss his interpretations of still-unclear topics. If there are still any disagreements regarding the reliability of Vukanovic, please take the discussion to WP:RSN. --Azor (talk). 16:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

He still talks about "Slavic" names, not Serbian ones. The first sentence of the source is a false information. While some facts regarding the Kastrioti are obscure, he upholds them and doesn't even mention Diber once as his birthplace. He doesn't even implicate that there may be some dispute regarding his homeland, instead, this "reliable source" mentions Epirus as his place of origin. I'm fine with having the source in the article, but Wikipedia is not a place for crystal clear misrepresentation. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Vojslav is not a Serbian name exclusively, but found in all slavic languages (see Wojsław). The slavic population of the Pollog valley spoke a Bulgarian/Macedonian dialect, not Serbian. The name "Voisava" is an Albanian rendition of this Slavic name and it is not uncommon among medieval Albanians. Per Omari Secondo Kristo Frashëri alcuni storici, per via del nome, considerano Voisava di famiglia slava, ma altri storici partendo dal fatto che gli albanesi abbiano utilizzato nomi stranieri con grande facilità (altri signori come Carlo Thopia e Giorgio Arianiti avevano figlie col nome Voisava) non definiscono la loro nazionalità né dal nome e né dal cognome (ther historians starting from the fact that the Albanians used foreign names with great ease (other gentlemen such as Carlo Thopia and Giorgio Arianiti had daughters with the name Voisava) do not define their nationality either by name or surname). Durraz0 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Good points. Albania has always been significantly influenced by Bulgarians, as it can be seen in toponyms in all Albania. Regarding the circumstances that Vojislav is not exclusively Serbian and the undisputed fact that Bulgarians had a large influence on Albania and on the Macedonian Diber it is better to replace "Serbian" with "Slavic". AlexBachmann (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention Vukanović doesn’t even say Serbian. That’s all repeated source falsification… Botushali (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Durraz0 That statement is undue weight. No place in the article is Voisava being classified as Slavic explicitly due to her name. Her name's origin is being elaborated, not her ethnicity (per WP:OFFTOPIC). You are bringing unnecessary attention to the depths of the relations between name and ethnicity. Note: It would also give room for further elaboration through the mentioning of Karl Thopia's wife Vojislava Balšić (and mother of Voisava Thopia), in fact, being a Slavic noblewoman. You did not discuss the majority of your edit. You removed content that has been earlier discussed, such as "what most sources imply". You completely removed the the relation between the "Triballian" exonym to Serbs, and instead wrote that Muzaka used it to refer to Albanians. That is entirely contradicting to what the article says and what Muzaka himself discuss in this own work. @AlexBachmann I keep getting confused on why you mention Bulgarians continuously. If you have found a relation between "Vojislav" and Bulgarian ethnohistory, then I would love to read it. And @Botushali, the source doesn't say Reposh stayed and died in the Albanian Tower either. I assume you edited it per WP:NOTBLUE, which is the same concept behind Vojislav being viewed as Serbian. --Azor (talk). 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:HUH?. The name is obviously not exclusively Serbian, which you fail to acknowledge. I'm not saying that Vojislav is a common Bulgarian name, I'm saying that Bulgarians had a great impact on Albania in Medieval times. That's the correlation between these two sentences. And by the way, there's no need to constantly ping us, we are aware that this discussion is ongoing. Those who want to keep "Serbian" instead of the catch-all term "Slavic" which is much more appropriate based on our points have clearly not understood what this is about. Durraz0s addition is directly relevant to the name section, where else on Wikipedia should it be? Nobody's saying that she's Serbian because of the name, however, the quote clears up confusion which may be relevant due to a thing in the Balkans called Nationalism. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Also I'm gonna create a new sub-heading for the name since it doesn't have a relation with the origin at all. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Literally just write "Although not always an indication of ethnic roots, her name Voisava is of Slavic origin" or something like that. Why bother with an entire section? Splitting already-limited information into even smaller sections does not improve an article. --Azor (talk). 22:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann What was the point in mentioning "Bulgarian" explicitly, as you did here? There is a reason why "South Slavic" is written, it is literally to combine both the Serb and Bulgarian view in one term. Respectfully, you're making the section less effective for absolutely no reason. --Azor (talk). 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. The section mentions "Serbian" but not Bulgarian, even though it mentions "South Slavic". Therefore Bulgarian is absolutely necessary. It unfortunately is not my fault that there have been so many theories about her origin. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't "mention" the Serbian theory. It is being elaborated. You are more than welcome to further elaborate the Bulgarian theory, but no reason to simply just mention it again - when it was already mentioned through the "South Slavic" term. Do everyone a favor and fix it. --Azor (talk). 13:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Everyone? I only see you and maybe Khirurg in a couple of hours. It seems like WP:IDL. I don't see your point.

An anonymous Venetian chronicle mentions her as the daughter of the Bulgarian lord of Polog

This better? It is focused on the source. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Different theories about her origin are based on different interpretations of what the term Triballian may refer to. One of them is related to the Brankovic, another is linked to a Bulgarian background and a third one is based directly on Muzaka's statement that her father was related to his family. The name Voisava itself isn't related to any theory. I have corrected some aspects in several edits and made the section accessible to readers.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  From your edit; Muzaka himself didn't connect it to an ethnic background. The article contain citations from Muzaka's own work: "...Tribali overo Misii ch' hoggi se nominato Serviani" which explicitly refers to a Serbian background. --Azor (talk). 17:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I removed that statement. As it seems to be your own interpretation which is contradictory to the source by Hopf (1873). As for the rest, your version seems to be an overall improvement. I removed the statement that was recently put "The name was in use among Albanian nobility, Karl Thopia and Gjergj Arianiti both had daughters named Voisava and does not refer to a particular ethnic origin". It is undue weight and doesn't actually reflect on other factors, for example Vojislava Balsic (Thopia's wife and Voisava Thopia's mother) in fact being from a South Slavic dynasty. Not to mention it is also off-topic. No scholarly work in the article base their opinions on her origins due to her first name, so I don't see why us editors should. --Azor (talk). 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The statement is not in contradiction with the original document because the term Muzaka uses is Tripalda for this family and he doesn't connect it to any Slavic "Triballians". Omari (2014) is RS and cannot be removed from the article as what he mentions is within its scope.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

"Tribali overo Misii ch' hoggi se nominato Serviani" Hopf (1873) is contradictory to the statement of yours. Through exonym, "Triballi" is being connected explicitly to Serbs by Muzaka. The origin section works as a summary of the "sources" sections. It would be very confusing to readers by adding cherry picked content, which is in explicit contradiction to others parts of the article, on the section of origin without further elaboration. In order to fix the undue weight, it would be necessary to put in the statement by Muzaka on that section too, for example. --Azor (talk). 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Muzaka uses two different terms with different meanings and he doesn't include Voisava in the "Tribalians". The citation from Omari (2014) isn't undue as it discusses this issue.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have excluded the mention of Voisava's usage among the "Albanian nobility". As previously explained, this topic requires additional elaboration. For instance, Vojislava Balsic, who was married to Thopia and is Voisava Thopia's mother, belonged to a South Slavic dynasty (hence most likely explaining the use of Slavic names). A biography-related article is simply not the suitable context for such details without risking going off topic. Scholarly works within the article do not derive their opinions on her origins from her first name.--Azor (talk). 20:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Reposh

@AlexBachmann You added a source with the relevant quote; "While staying at Chilandar , one of his four sons , Reposh , died , and was buried in King Milutin's narthex , beside the north wall". Thus, I don't quite see how that explains Repoš retiring and having his burial explicitly on the Albanian tower? As far as I am aware, King Milutin's narthex was not located in that part of the Hilander monastery. --Azor (talk). 09:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you checked the quote (Vukanović 1971) that was given there? And the article does not say explicitly, it says in the vicinity of the Tower. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Your edit say Reposh retired at the Albanian tower. Neither of the source by Vukanović or the citation you recently added says Reposh retired at the Albanian Tower. Both of the them says he retired at Hilander. --Azor (talk). 18:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. This version should be acceptable to both of us [1]. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You write "the family" (for some reason including Voisava and her children?), but the source actually says: Ivan was devoutly Orthodox, having donated a tower in the Serbian monastery. His son Reposh died at Hilandar as an Orthodox monk. As far as I can see, the only content about Voisava from the source is an explanation of her roots; "Ivan had married a Serbian noblewoman, likely from the Brankovic dynasty..". The donation to Hilandar isn't explained to have anything to do with Voisava (which this biography-related article is about) nor any of her children. While I understand you wish to expand this article, but try to do so without original research and going off topic. Sometimes, simple is better. --Azor (talk). 21:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You should read Vukanović as well as other sources on this particular matter. The adelphates and the like purchased by Voisava’s husband and her sons resulted in the establishment of the Albanian Tower. You wrote about Reposh that he died in the Serbian Orthodox Hilandar Monastery, which is true, but he retired at the Albanian Tower (where the adelphates were purchased) and was buried in its vicinity. This context should be included if you want to mention what he did with his life and where he died. Botushali (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Azor's campaign of removing "Albanian" everywhere, even here, isn't going to end well. For some reason, he instantly used "š" instead of "sh" when referring to Reposh in the heading. I wonder why. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Repoš is used by the source of Vukanović. The same source you hinted me to read. --Azor (talk). 22:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The main problem lies in persistent edits driven by original research. If there are additional sources providing more detailed information on Repoš/Reposh or Voisava's involvement in the Albanian tower, reference those instead. --Azor (talk). 22:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no OR, read Vukanović, these adelphates were purchased and only Reposh retired to them. Botushali (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, you are yet to present a citation saying Reposh retired or was buried at the Albanian tower. The current sources only say he retired at Hilandar and was buried in King Milutin's narthex. --Azor (talk). 00:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Azor, I’d direct you towards reading WP:BLUESKY. If Reposh and his family purchased adelphates at Hilandar for possible future use, and then Reposh would later retire to said monastery, where do you think he retired to? Obviously he retired to his adelphate in the Albanian Tower, how else would he have been allowed to remain at Hilandar? You purchase things like adelphates for a reason. I am pretty certain Vukanović alludes to it, but I currently cannot double-check or find other sources. Botushali (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The source presented by AlexBachmann says Reposh was buried in the King Milutin's narthex. If this topic was a case of "blue sky", shouldn't we have expected Reposh to be buried at the Albanian tower? --Azor (talk). 08:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not talking about burying, I am talking about retiring. Adelphates are not tombs… Botushali (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The statement The name was in use among Albanian nobility, Karl Thopia and Gjergj Arianiti both had daughters named Voisava and does not refer to a particular ethnic origin is not WP:UNDUE. It is explicitly discussed by the source in connection to the subject of the article. If Azor asks for this statement to be removed, then there is no reason why the statement The name Voisava is a feminine rendition of the Slavic name Vojislav from voj (war, struggle) and slava (fame, glory) won't be removed because unlike the first one, the sentence about the name's etymology is not discussed in bibliography in relation to this subject. It can be removed because it is just a wiktionary entry.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  It is WP:UNDUE. The name of Voisava is related to, exactly, Voisava (in which the etymology is explained in the source by Vukanović). The correlation between Slavic names within the Albanian nobility and the actual ethnicity of individuals is irrelevant to this biography. If so, we might as well further elaborate that the mother of Voisava Thopia was Vojislava Balsic from a South Slavic dynasty, hence giving Voisava Thopia a South Slavic heritage. So perhaps there is a correlation between Slavic names among Albanian nobility and Slavic ethnicity after all? Do you find this further elaboration fit for this article? --Azor (talk). 13:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  What does the etymology have to do with her early life? Creating a section with "Name" and including both quotes, namely the etymology and the quote that has been restored by Maleschreiber would be better for all. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how elaborating on a new section "Name" about the correlation between Slavic names within the Albanian nobility and the actual heritage of individuals is improving this article. This is a biography-related article and Vukanović speak of her name's etymology, yet don't use it to support any origin claim. The only time in this entire article that her name is being connected to the topic of origins is, in fact, in the statement @Maleschreiber brought back. This way, it doesn't elaborate on any previous topic - it only forces the need of further (irrelevant) elaboration. Such discussion of correlation could be taken to other articles, like for example Vojislava. --Azor (talk). 20:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  The line about Albanian nobility's use of the name that follows the name's etymology should not be separated for the sake of pushing a certain viewpoint without the other to counter it, particularly when the etymology does not even discuss Voisava. They go hand-in-hand and are directly relevant to each other. Botushali (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Omari's source is, in fact, only the author's opinion on a quite complex ethnohistorical topic. Even by studying Voisava Thopia family tree, you would find clear aspects of Slavic heritage. Moreover, I suppose you would also support the implementation of sources to further discuss the correlation between Slavic names among Albanian nobility and Slavic ethnicity on this biography-related article? Let Maleschreiber comment on this, I want to hear from the one who actually reverted me to make sure we are on the same page. --Azor (talk). 08:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Maleschreiber Precede to answer to the concerns you raised when you reverted and added back that statement. You jump to revert at other articles, yet your involvement in the talkpages is extremely limited. Let me remind you that avoiding to communicate is stonewalling. --Azor (talk). 09:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  @AzorzaI Omari's work is a doctoral thesis from 2014, and as stated in WP:SCHOLARSHIP you are perfectly right to take it with caution:

  Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources.[...] Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

  In this particular case, Omari's 10-year-old thesis has not been widely cited, nor has it had any significant impact on the literature, so great care should be taken when using it. In particular, all statements referring to it should explicitly mention Omari's name and the fact that they are derived from his doctoral work. Krisitor (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Omari's work reports archival data and the statement about Voisava's name refers to such data. The name Voisava itself was not uncommon in the medieval Albanian feudal class and it has no ethnic connotation among Albanians. It's a non-controversial observation. The statement falls under the scope of the article per WP:TOPIC. If some editors bring up the same issue over and over again, other editors who have already replied to them will not respond every time to voice their opposition to their edits. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM where the last comment gets to be imposed as the consensus version.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted ShockedSkater's latest edit per WP:AGEMATTERS. Avoid citing 100+ year old sources, especially since there are more than enough modern sources on this topic out there. --Azor (talk). 10:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I have placed Omari's findings in the Dubrovnik archives at the end of the Origin section, as it is a much more appropriate place. And besides, its previous location was breaking the flow of the introduction section. The other editor who always removes Omari's name at the beginning of the sentence has no valid arguments for doing so. Krisitor (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think documents that give another name to Vojsava, are important and should be left in the lead. Maybe she took monastic vows thus changing the name. ShockedSkater (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Miss-understanding of Hopf's Chroniques gréco-romanes 1873.

Only the pages from 272 to 302 are Giovanni's (Gjon Muzaka's); the other pages are from a confused genealogy by one Andrea Angelo Comneno and a fragment of Spanduginos' History, which Giovanni's son Costantino reproduces, cf. Chroniques gréco-romanes, 1873, p. XXXV. Also page 313 quotes Pope Pius; so Gjon Muzaka does not say "Tribali overo Misii ch hoggi se nominano Serviani"! @Maleschreiber, @AzorzaI, @ShockedSkater. Ungjited (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Voisava Castrioti, née Musachi (the article is in Albanian)

[3] ShockedSkater (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Most Scholars?

Hi @AzorzaI, please point out which source says "most scholars" and remember to include a quote. As far as I can see, the next reference after that claim is cited to Noli, who wrote his work in 1947. Is there a recent source which states that most 21st century or late 20th century scholars consider her to be of Slavic origin? If not, such a statement is not supported by sources and should be changed. Botushali (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you changing 'most' to 'many' because you have a source that specifically uses 'many'? --Azor (talk). 13:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@AzorzaI Where is the source where it states that "Most scholars" I'm very confused where you got that information from. As well as why are you switching the question up on Botushali when he asked you the question? Arberian2444 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The current version has been stable for a year and was built through comprehensive discussions (4/10/23) among editors, considering a variety of sources rather than any single one. The version you support has not been previously discussed or substantiated by any specific source, as far as I can tell, which is why I asked. --Azor (talk). 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That was not my question or my concern. If you cannot provide a source which supports the wording of “most scholars”, then it needs to be changed. Just because a version that has an error has been long-standing, doesn’t mean it can’t be altered. You know very well that “stable version” is not a valid reason for RV’s, and I’m pretty certain an admin has warned you of that in the past. If you cannot provide a source that supports the current wording, I will be changing it again. Botushali (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you changing 'most' to 'many' because you have a source that specifically uses 'many'? - ok, no worries, we can change it to “some scholars” since there is no source that says “most” or “many”. Meanwhile, the article has some sources listed which support a Slavic origin, although not enough to say “most” or “many”. Botushali (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The wording "most" is not an unsupported claim because it does not fall under the category of "phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint". In this article, all available sources, both early and modern, are presented to the readers. This ensures that the reader has the opportunity to assess the sources of the different viewpoints presented. Therefore, the wording "most" does not require an additional source. Definition of most: the biggest number or amount of; more than anything or anyone else. In previous discussions, editors examined various sources and concluded that the majority supported a South Slavic origin. --Azor (talk). 09:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@AzorzaI: that's not how Wikipedia works. The word most can be used only if a reliable source uses it as per WP:SUBSTANTIATE: "Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey. I have experienced several content disputes about such cases, and if a source does not support that specific strong wording, then it cannot be used. In this case the content can be neutrally reworded without original research as a number of scholars. – Βατο (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Βατο Thank you for your input. However, you are addressing a different guideline. WP:SUBSTANTIATE deals with opinions. The word 'most' is not an opinion but a factual summary of the article's content, supported by the positions of the sources cited in the article, as extensively debated in prior discussions covering each source in the article. If there were additional updated sources to support the Muzaka origin, it would indeed challenge the use of 'most.' However, as it stands, 'most' accurately reflects the majority of the sources. The correct guideline is MOS:WEASEL which provides no indication that 'most' is a weasel word.

In essence, the requirement for published surveys applies to discussions of opinions, not to the wording used to summarize the article for readers. For instance, if you have four apples - three red and one green - it is not an opinion to state that the majority of the apples are red. There would be no need for a published survey to support this factual statement. However, claiming that all apples in every household are mostly red could be an opinion requiring such survey-based support. To clarify this distinction, I have expanded the wording to prevent confusion among readers. --Azor (talk). 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

In all my time on Wikipedia, I have never once seen an article say “most scholars referenced on this article support x”. This article is not the topic of discussion, whereas Voisava is. I count four editors who do not support the way it was worded, and I too endorse Bato’s neutral wording of “a number of scholars”. Botushali (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting me on the basis of "4v1" logic is not how Wikipedia works. --Azor (talk). 11:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you because you don’t have a source that says “most scholars”. If you wish to continue edit-warring against multiple editors who have the same issue with your unsourced personal preferences regarding word choice, feel free to do so. Botushali (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)