Talk:Voisava Kastrioti

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

[1] 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)

Nationality

@Ktrimi991 In medieval times, nationality was linked to family names and local culture rather than modern concepts. The author uses "nationality" to stress that a name alone does not define family background or ethnicity. While Voisava's name might suggest Serbian ethnicity, "nationality" better reflects legal status. For instance, by using Voisava Thopia's father, Karl Thopia, as an example, the author illustrates that medieval nationality was tied to paternal lineage and legal status. The oversight of her mother, Vojislava Balsic, underscores the importance of paternal lineage. Therefore, the author’s use of "nationality" is accurate and should not be altered based on modern or personal interpretations.

To simplify with an example: although medieval noble Albanians might have used Slavic names, this was typically seen among those who had been assimilated or heavily influenced by Slavic culture, indicating a Slavic-leaning ethnicity. However, their nationality - reflecting the legal status inherited from their lands - would remain Albanian. Ethnicity is more than just descent and is more complex than some might think. "Simplifying" it for readers, if that's your aim, could do more harm than good. --Azor (talk). 20:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Nationality as an identity concept belongs to modern times, when nation states were created. Even then, it is hard to point where it is different from ethnicity. To simplify with an example: although medieval noble Albanians might have used Slavic names, this was typically seen among those who had been assimilated or heavily influenced by Slavic culture, indicating a Slavic-leaning ethnicity. Unless you have a reliable, academic source for that, it is your own conclusion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

OR and fringe

Hi @Durraz0. You misused the quote from Biçoku 2007 by claiming that "In Barleti's work, Triballian is used as a synonym for Bulgarians." This is entirely inaccurate. The author does not make this claim. What Biçoku actually states is that " .. her father was from a 'very noble lineage and a leader of the Tribals' (a synonym for the Bulgarians)." Biçoku is not referring to Barleti's work in this context at all.

Regarding the quote itself, it is a highly fringe statement. Overall sources agree that "Triballi" is an exonym for Serbs, as supported by three separate sources in this article, which you attempted to remove based on a single, contradictory quote from Albanian historiography. If "Triballi" were actually used to refer to Bulgarians during the medieval period, there would be countless sources supporting such claim. To challenge the extensive Byzantine work on Serbs (not just in this article), you will need to find additional sources to support that claim. --Azor (talk). 18:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Biçoku is speaking about the quote of barleti when he talkes about voisavas father. And this is further elaborated if you read barleti where he calls the defenders of svetigrad for dibrans and elaborates that the dibrans were not albanians but bulgarians or tribalians. The term that he uses for serbs is moesian, not tribalian in his works. Its neither OR nor is it fringe as that is what the source is saying. what is WP:SYNTH is speaking about the term triballian when it was not used by barleti, but by byzantines hundreds of years prior. Durraz0 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

" Burimet e kësaj të dhëne dëshmojnë se i ati i saj ka qenë prej një dere “shumë fisnike dhe prijës i tribalëve” (sinonim i bullgarëve)104 ... 104 M. Barletius, vep. e përm., fl.IIv, XCv (përkth. shqip, f.50, 302);" as we can the source used is Marin Barleti. Furthermore "Martesa me Vojsavën, vajzën e prijësit të bullgarëve,..". hope this clearified it. Durraz0 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Azor on this one, the term Triballi was used primaly for Serbs, with 3 sources confirming that. If Barleti claims otherwise, the other sources should not be removed. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is disagreeing that triballian was used as a synonym for serbs by byzantines, that section is about the early sources on Voisava, not about what triballi meant to byzantines. In Barleti the term is used as a synonym for bulgarians as per RS. Durraz0 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Byzantine authors used "Triballi" as a term for the Serbs, but Barleti was not a Byzantine author. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't mean that the sources should be removed who state otherwise, especially if they are not in Barleti section.Theonewithreason (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have RS that say that Barleti used "Triballi" to refer to Serbs, add them. Otherwise we will not add off-topic material about what Byzantine authors used "Triballi" for. Barleti was not a Byzantine. Pre-Byzantine authors used "Triballi" for the Thracians and someone used "Triballi" for the Vlachs. Will we add that material as well? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, because this section doesn't cover only Barleti, that is why it was in other section, it covers early sources, and yes you removed 3 sources which have other claims than Barleti. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is only Barleti who refers to Vaoisava as a "Triballi". Sources that say what Byzantine authors (not Barleti) meant with "Triballi" are off-topic here, as are the sources which say how other non-Byzantine, pre-Barleti authors used "Triballi" for the Thracians or Vlachs. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Which only confirms that Barleti claim about Triballians being Bulgarians as WP:undue, therefore incomplete. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what on earth are you trying to say. Barleti is the only primary source that refers to Voisava's ethnicity, and he says she was a Triballi. A RS says that Barleti elsewhere in his work used "Triballi" for the Bulgarians. How is that "incomplete"? You have no sources that say Barleti used the term for something other than Bulgarians. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not see the point of having the meaning of triballi to byzantine authors in the "early sources" section about voisava. those sources do not mention voisava at all. Durraz0 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

But most of the sources confirm that Triballi were used as exonym for Serbs, especially in medieval period, therefore, Barleti claim that Triballi were Bulgarians is undue, so it is simple, if he claims that her ethnicity was Triballian, that should be enough, without adding Bulgarian claim, since this doesn't agree with other sources. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again. Other non-Byzantine authors used "Triballi" for the Thracians or Vlachs. Different authors used "Triballi" for different ethnic groups. It does not matter what Byzantines, X or Y meant with "Triballi"; what is important is what Barleti meant with "Triballi" because he is the only primary source who describes Voisava as a Triballi. No other primary source describer her as a Triballi, including no Byzantine author whatsoever. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In other words. Since no Byzantine author talks about Voisava and her Triballi family, it does not matter what Byzantine authors meant with "Triballi" in other, unrelated contexts. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Barleti was a renaissance author who used motifs related to antiquity in his works, he refered to albanians as epirotes for example. his use of triballian was for bulgarians, which he specifies in his book when speaking about the siege of svetigrad where he explains that triballian is another name for bulgarians. Moesian is the term he uses for serbia/serbs Durraz0 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And it doesnt matter what Barleti means as Triballi, since his claim is undue. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It does matter, because the early sources is from him. what he means with triballi is what should be specified in the early sources, not what byzantines before him or even ancient greeks or romans used the term for. this page is about voisava, not triballi. Durraz0 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Barleti is not "undue", as he is one of the only two primary sources on Voisava. I can't believe we are have having such a discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Me neither since it is obvious that Barleti claim of Triballians being Bulgarians is wp:undue comparing to other medieval sources. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Triballian was used in this context (Barleti) as a synonym for Bulgarians, when barleti was speaking about Triballians he meant Bulgarians. It is not WP:DUE because we are not discussing the Triballians as a whole, this article is about Voisava and what context she was called the daughter of a Triballian in by Barleti. Durraz0 (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Numerous scholars in this article base their position that Voisava was Serbian on Barleti's quote, and there are therefore strong reasons to believe Barleti could be referring to Serb descent. This is further supported by the broader historiography, which is why these sources cannot be disregarded. The source by Biçoku (2007) is very much on the fringe and contradicts Barleti's reference to 'Bulgarians or Triballi' (Bulgari sive Tribali). It doesn't require advanced language comprehension to see that Barleti distinguishes between Bulgarians and Triballi. Therefore, adding the Biçoku (2007) quote cannot justify the removal of other sources. --Azor (talk). 16:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that Bicoku is neither presenting fringe views nor contradicting Barleti's statements. The full quote from Clemente's 1850 translation states: "It is peopled by Bulgarians or Tribullians, a fierce warlike race, who were much esteemed by Scanderbeg as the people of the lower country, both their prowess and their fidelity and devotion." As we can see, Barleti refers to Bulgarians or Tribullians as a singular entity. Introducing sources on how the Byzantines perceived the Triballians is, as noted by several other users, irrelevant to understanding Barleti's use of the term "Triballian," which he equates with "Bulgarian." This approach could be seen as a case of WP:SYNTH, which constitutes original research (OR).--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, @Gaius Claudius Nero. The argument from Byzantine works regarding Serbs is consistently used across many sources in the article to discuss Voisava origins. Whether or not Barleti was Byzantine is not a relevant reason to remove content, given that scholarly perspectives are consistently drawn from this argument. --Azor (talk). 17:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • Ahistorical titles which don't exist in historiography have been removed. There never was a Lady of Mat or a Princess Consort. Tribalda is not a name.
  • No pre-1970 sources should be used. They're not WP:RS by today's standards.
  • Bulgari sive Tribali means Bulgarians, or else known as Triballians.
  • Byzantine authors don't mention Serbs or Bulgarians as Triballians as a rule. This equation appears in the work of the author Laonikos Chalkokondyles who uses the ethnonym Mysians about Bulgarians and Triballians about Serbs. This is unrelated to the use of the term Triballian in Barleti, doesn't have any connection to Voisava and shouldn't be included in the article. Chalkokondyles considers the Slavs who lived south of north Kosovo to be Mysians and the ones who lived to its north to be Triballians, hence Voisava wouldn't even be Triballian, but Mysian if he wrote anything about her origin. These terms are not part of any "canonical form" in medieval literature. They simply are term which every author who wanted to use terms he read in the work of Herodotos chose in his own particular manner. This is how A. Kaldellis describes the use of Serbs = Triballoi and Bulgarians = Mysoi by Chalkokondyles: Most of Laonikos's vocabulary is borrowed from the classical authors, especially Herodotos and Thucydides; he largely avoids postclassical terms and demotic Greek. The same is true of his names for peoples and places, though he will sometimes explain that, for example, Bulgarians is what people who do not use "the better sort of Greek" call Mysians (1.39). He knows the vernacular terms; he just prefers not to use them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)