Talk:Vasojevići

Montenegrin

It is the fact that montenegrin are Serbs, montenegrin as a ethnic and language term is nowdays political stuff. Montenegrin as a term is equal to hercegovac, krajisnik. Montenegrins always considered themselves Serbs as well as their rulers. All montenegrins are considered themselves Serbs until 1945. How it is possible that two brothers from the same mother and father today, one is considering himself Serb the other montenegrin. That is ideological/party stuff not ethnic because ethnic difference between montenegrins and other Serbs never existed. Talking about Vasojevic Albanian origin is nonsense. Vasojevici are only true and pure Serbs who speak the Serbian language The montenegrins active on Wikipedia are all of non-serb origin, calling themselves montenegrins by blood, very strange and provocative. "In Montenegro live only true and pure Serbs who speak Serbian" (Montenegrin geography textbook from 1911) "Tell the Austrian representative to tell his Emperor, if God would turn him around to do good, to let Serbdom unite: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Old Serbia, and let that become the Serb Kingdom" - Marko Miljanov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranbo60 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unneccesary signs

I see no reason why "cleanup" and "references" signs are assigned to the article... The article is quite logically structured, there are no unsubstantiated claims (at least I see none), reliable sources are placed in the reference section... so can anyone point out the problem with this article? I will wait a few weeks and if nobody provides any justification for these signes I will remove them both. 217.153.207.18 (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I hail from the kraq keqi clan and we have never been serbian but only albanian,the Vasojevići clan vas keqi was assimulated in around 1700s to 1800s,these assimulated albanians still use the lahuta witch is used in all northern albanian tribes,,krasnich resisted and fled from north albanian reigion because of the assimulation was happening to other albanian tribes,,now the Vasojevići clan are our bitter foes and have been since they turned slav their are 4 other tribes that also resisted the assimulation who are related to Vasojevići tirbe that remained albanian,albanians of these tribes can trace back of whom the hoti tribe is and the assimulated albanians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.197.149 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please, before you make any significant changes DISCUSS it first. By "significant changes" I mean for exaple changing all words from Serb, Serbian etc to Montenegrin etc. Couple of people have made a real effort to write this article so pay respect - CONSULT. thanks in advance 217.153.207.18 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Nikola

Again, there is vandalism going on here... May I ask (repeting the above post) to discuss changes PRIOR to the change? Otherwise it will be reverted. Simple as that... 89.77.106.218 (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC) The times and dates the are wrong and does not conclude anything with what this page says,The krasnich clan when fleeing fled from north albania to settle in kosova areas of peja,rahovec are still albanians they turned muslim in the 1800s when they came to kosova before that they were a intire catholic albanian tribe as all of the hoti tribes are and were — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.197.149 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Albanian ancestory

Vasojevci are the only genetically real Ilirs in Montenegro. They are not serbs, they are more close to Albanians. They only have christian orthodox religion and they speak montenegrin, but naturally they are Albanians. They only want to be serbians, it's their complex attitude to life, but they will never be.

Who told you that Vasojevici are Albanians? Such statement would not be appreciated at all by them - as they consider them "Serbs living in Montenegro". Have you ever read anything about their history? There has been some kind of project, during last 20 years by one historian who published that Vasojevics are actually Nemanjic descendants (and it would be insult if you say that Nemanjic Royal House aren't Serbs). I have obtained Vasojevic's family tree, and I will soon publish it here - to prove you are wrong. But you weren't completely wrong, I must admit. Two wings of Vasojevic clan are Albanian Orthodox, but that doesn't mean that Vasojevici are Albanians! Do you know that brotherhood clans of Vasojevici are Piperi - one of the largest Montenegrin clans (they both have same ascendant - Vaso, unofficial son of Dusan the Emperor, and grand-grand son of King Vukan of Zeta), which is another proof Vasojevici, generally are not Albanians, but Serbs.

They are Albanians according to Miranda Vickers. She is a scholar, and does not beleive legends:

"In Montenegro entire tribes such as the Kuc, Bjellopavliq, Palabardha, Piprraj and Vasovic were assimilated; those who resisted assimilation retreated into the hills of what is now northern Albania." http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/v/vickers-serb.html

I am Vasojevic and I am Serb, as well as my father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather. Albanian minority doesn't even exist within Vasojevici clan and there is not one single Albanian in the world who is Vasojevic. -Novakovic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.141.84 (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As written in the article, Vasojevici are mentioned for the first time in 1444 - that is undisputed. Yet another hundreds of years passed before Vasojevici were properly described in any written sources. Vickers claims that Albanian Vasojevici were being "assimilated" in the middle of XII century so her claim is clearly based on a very old word of mouth (presumably Albanian one). So here you go: she also believes in legends...

But seriously speaking:

- you have provided one unreferenced sentence (the author does not provide her source),

- from a book on Kosovo (not on Vasojevici or at least on Montenegro - Vasojevici are mentioned in that book once only!),

- that has been published in 1999 (book on Osetian history written during Russian intervention might be a little bit biased, don't you think?),

- written by a scholar that is so fond of Albanian history that even speaks Albanian...:)

On the other hand you have long list of books and sources on Vasojevici (see bibliography and references below), some of the more than 200 years old (e.g. Vasojevicki Zakon u Dvanaest Tocaka) many written by Vasojevici themselves (e.g. Cemovic, Vesovic) and nether even once (!) is this Albanian ancestry mentioned. Not only don't they mention Albanian ancestry but they even give probable names of Vasojevici ancestors back to the begining of XII c. (and that is before alleged "assimilation"): Vukan, Kostadin, Vasoje, Stevan, Kostadin, Vaso, Novak, Vujica... Have you noticed any Albanian names?;)

We will definitely need some more grounded sources to include information of Vasojevici Albanian ancestry into the article (not to mention crating a separate one-sentence chapter about this!;))

regards

Drmiko (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Slobodan Milosevic, Zeljko Raznatovic (Arkan), Karadjordje and his family was Albanians???? Why then the Albanians hate thise people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.251.67 (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Use native terms

I suggest that you don't use terms 'tribe' and 'clan' or 'bratherhood' since they may be misleading, but use native terms (Pleme and Bratstvo) instead. Please see discussion page at the article Serbian clans. In the way it is now, it is not clear if you speak of pleme or bratstvo, since you use both clan and tribe in English text. It would be also necessary to add refferences to some printed work. Bezvardis 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) All you slavs from Vasojevići have no idea what was happening with albanian tribes and Vasojevićh when use assimulated use tryed to assimulate albanian tribes with use,,use are not native serb lol,hoti tribe was told of in the 1300s,i know a family pemati whom are related to slobadan malosovic they are from shkodra and are 100% albanian cathliocs,,,slobadan wanted to assimulate the muslims of krasnich in kosova because he belived they were serbs that turned muslim, but really it was catholics that turned muslim,,,the serb historian who came up with that vas keqi are of slav origion,it was proven to be not by other albanians whom no their culture an history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.197.149 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

who are montenegrins

just one thing. i am a "member" of vasojevic tribe and its not true that vasojevici consider themselves "serbs living in montenegro". we are both serbs AND montenegrins. my great grand father used to say that montenegrins are best serbs :) in response to the stupid claim that montenegrins are albanians - it seems that it is just a common albanian way of insulting serbs.. ("you are albanians as well, we are not in this shit alone"). indeed all people are related in one way or another - after all vikings genes are most common in.. czech republic :) nikola

True, Nikola. I am a Vasojevic also, and I consider myself Montenegrin in geographic and regional sense and it is my homeland identity, but Serb in ethnic and national sense. I am a Serb AND Montenegrin, Serb by ethnicity, language and nationality, and Montenegrin by my homeland and local customs and ways of Montenegro, which don't exist in other Serbian lands. -Novakovic.

I agree completely with you, Nikola! Sorry, it was my mistake - I written that when I spent several years out of touch with Montenegro. Now, when I spend a third of every year in Montenegro I completely agree with your grandfather's saying 'Montenegrins are the best Serbs'. Ziv bio! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.156.120 (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

contradiction

Some of these families are in contradiction / belong to other tribes especially CEKLIN. Would someone who know please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.181.143 (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, you are right. i have fixed that. 89.77.106.218 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

?

It's not correct those in the first sentence (Vasojevici are one of the Seven Serb Clans)... Because, clan/tribe of Kuci are not only Serbs - the majority of them are members of Drekalovici part, which were Albanians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.1.122 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, regarding claimed "Albanian ancestory" of Kuci refere to the article on Kuči. This is not the place to discuss validity of another article... And by the way what does it mean: "Drekalovici part, which were Albanians"? What are they now?;) 89.77.106.218 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vasojevići. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313015959/http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-al/zbornik1990/mbarjaktarevic-predanja_l.php to http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-al/zbornik1990/mbarjaktarevic-predanja_l.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Original research

Documents, especially the letter of Ivan Radonjić from 1789, show that the Montenegrins were identified as Serbs, and that the Banjani, Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, Zećani, Vasojevići, Bratonožići were not identified as "Montenegrins" but only as Serb tribes. They were all mentioned only in a regional, geographical, and tribal manner, and never as an ethnic category.

• Information from the source: "Those letters don't just prove that Montenegrins are Serbs, they say much more, they say that Banjani, Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, Zećani, Vasojevići, Bratonožići are not Montenegrins." It is not mentioned here that Vasojevići are Serb tribe. The source says they are not Montenegrins and that Montenegrins are Serbs. Letter of Ivan Radonjić from 1789 say that all of us Serbs from Montenegro, Prizren, Vasojevići, Albania, Macedonia etc. There is no mention that Vasojevići are only Serb tribe. If this formulation from article is taken into account, this mean that Albanians are also Serbs. Thus, nor primary or secondary(claim of historian) source speak that Vasojevići are Serb tribe. Secondary source says they are not Montenegrins and primary letter say that Serbs are and from Vasojevići. The source does not say that Vasojevići are Serb tribe. Mikola22 (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: One more time that you understand: U prvom pismu Jovan Radonjić guvernadur kaže: "Sada mi svi Srbi Crnogorci molimo vašu carsku milost" u drugom piše: "Sada mi svi Srbi iz Crne gore, Hercegovine, Banjana, Drobnjaka, Kuča, Pipera, Bijelopavlića, Zete, Klimenata, Vasojevića, Bratonožića, Peći, Kosova, Albanije, Makedonije, pripadamo vašem veličanstvu..In the first letter, the Jovan Radonjić guvernadur says: "Now all Serb Montenegrins are begging your imperial mercy," in the second he writes: "Now all Serbs from Montenegro, Herzegovina, Banjani, Drobnjaci, Kuči, Piperi, Bijelopavlići, Zete, Klimenti, Vasojevići, Bratonozići, Peći, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, we belong to your majesty." Historian from the source: "Those letters don't just prove that Montenegrins are Serbs, they say much more, they say that Banjani, Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, Zećani, Vasojevići, Bratonožići are not Montenegrins."

• This is information from a source, where is mentioned "Serb tribes"? I told you that source does not mention this and we must not invent what the source says, it is OR. It is not written in the source. Show me where source say "were not identified as "Montenegrins" but only as "Serb tribes". Mikola22 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Content

@Mikola22: @Sadko: I have removed the same content in every article that I have encountered it and as I have explained to Sadko elsewhere, no letter from that era could "show" nothing at all about a very modern national question. No 18th century document can show whether a Shtokavian-speaking Orthodox from Montenegro was "Montenegrin" (Montenegrin itself meant just "Old Montenegrin" at that point) or "Serb" (in the modern sense) because that division didn't exist yet. The same can be said about speakers of Torlakian. To ask whether they identified in a substantial manner as Bulgarians or Serbs or Macedonians would be incomprehensible in the 18th century.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Letter is WP:PRIMARY, this letter as such must not be used as a historical fact in Wikipedia article. What we have (useful for the article) in the source, is conclusion of historian based on several letters that Montenegrins are Serbs(I don't know if this information is allowed on Wikipedia) and that Vasojevići etc are not Montenegrins. Source does not mention that Vasojevići etc are Serb tribe which means that this term in the sentence is OR. Mikola22 (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise these are big conclusions, for this information "that Banjani, Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, Zećani, Vasojevići, Bratonožići are identified "only as Serb tribes" we need confirmation in a neutral source (english source). From Bjelopavlići article: "According to some sources they are an Albanian tribe". Mikola22 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

These articles are written from the WP:OUTDATED perspective of 19th century Serbian historiography. In light of modern bibliography, they should basically be rewritten. The irrelevancy of this sort of Serbian historiography in the contemporary world becomes glaring when you consider that both Bjelopavlići and Vasojevići samples in genomic studies are consistently not I2 or R1a subclades, but E-V13, which in the case of Bjelopavlići branched out from its paternal subclade very recently.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I am opposed to massive changes/removals performed by Maleschreiber without gaining consensus on the talpkage first. None of the sources used to support removed text belongs to 19th century Serbian historiography. I will revert this massive changes/removals, while editors struggling to perform them should seek consensus first.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Be opposed, but consensus is needed when there actually is a dispute, which the framework that policies provide, allows for. You, asking for the community to accept that an 18th century document can be interpreted in a way that addresses a 20th century discussion is WP:FRINGE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator You are the editor on Wikipedia and you must read the source first. You can't return something into article if is WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. First check in the source and then state your opinion clearly on talk page. You must not hide behind "consensus" when you don't even know what the source says or you don't care. Mikola22 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What Sadko&Ant are trying to put forward is similar to someone finding a document about old Norse people and then asking "does it call X subgroup Norwegian or Dane" as if that question had any meaningful content at that time. We're not going to have another typically essentialist discussion. Identities evolve and change over time.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What is WP:OR? Let's see. There is no "19th century Serbian historiography" here. I want details and explanations and not edit-warring and silly parallels. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Where in the source writes this: "were not identified as Montenegrins "but only as Serb tribes". Mikola22 (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There are quotes provided, some tweaks and new formulation can be introduced. It is properly sourced and important for the CONTEXT. What sort of problem do you really have with this part? Be honest. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: You don't see what information speaks? First, the source does not mention "but only as Serb tribes", and it is OR. Secondly, if this remains part of the article then every article which talk about Montenegrin tribes may have this information, but for such OR claim first we need confirmation in the source itself and then additional neutral confirmations in the sources because this is a big conclusion. When I put information for Albanian tribe Bjelopavlići you edit this article ( I have added the text in accordance with NPOV.) and this: "According to some sources they are an Albanian tribe". But in this article you support OR source(maybe and fringe) and "Serb tribe" fact. This is not right. Mikola22 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is it "OR"? Because you think so? "Big conclusion"? It makes very little sense.

Serb identity of Montenegrin, Brda and other tribes as well as Petrovic dynasty is a historical fact which does not need to be proven. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bjelopavlići are mentioned in the sources and as Albanians, here they are listed as a Serb tribe, "..Bjelopavlići, Zećani, Vasojevići, Bratonožići were not identified as "Montenegrins" but only as Serb tribes." "But only as Serb tribe" is OR because the source does not say so and "only" is big conclusion. If this is not true(big conclusion) you will prove it with other English sources because many or some sources mention these tribes. Just find information where sources say that all these tribes are "only a Serb tribes". And that's it, after you prove it with other sources, this information goes back to the article, until then it has a blockage. Mikola22 (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Serb identity of Montenegrin, Brda and other tribes as well as Petrovic dynasty is a historical fact which does not need to be proven. is the exact opposite of how wikipedia functions and in project which claims for itself to be part of a knowledge-generating process, in an academic or citizen science environment. There has to be reliable bibliography for any particular claim.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Just find information where sources say that all these tribes are "only a Serb tribes". For the quote about the tribes from Sadko, see, for example, where you can find that quote from Ivan Radonjic letters. As we are talking about Vasojevići, they are regarded as Serbian tribe in the literature, both foreign and the ones from Montenegro/Yugoslavia. And if historian even originates from the region and has done a relevant researches of it, then you got the bonus. For that, even the distinguished historians such as Radoslav Vešović and Milisav Lutovac (both of them even originated from the tribe itself), regard the tribe as Serbian. @Maleschreiber: And if you have done even more research from the literature, you will find out that for the members of the Vasojevići tribe in the 18th century, Serbian identity was very important for them as they fought for it and to unite with Serbia at first, but later united with Montenegro as it was closer. So, there is a reliable bibliography about the tribe and the only problem was that you weren't aware of it, which is fine. I recommend you to begin with Radoslav Vešović and his book Vasojevići Tribe, as you will find it quoted in a lot of literature which regards the tribe.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the inputs from @Mikola22: and @Maleschreiber:, and in the respect of what @Sadko: was saying, I brought back, changed that part in the text and added some references. I hope that in the future, this really minor issues will not be the focus of us, and instead to focus on how to improve the article with the regards of, for example, battles for liberation, customs and rich Serb Orthodox traditions of the tribe which I find more interesting.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

According to a memorandum sent on 20 June 1877, by the Austria-Hungary's Consul in Skodra F. Lippich to Vienna: The northern linguistic Albanian frontier runs from west to east, starting from the Adriatic coast somewhat below Antivari, above the mountain ridge and the northwestern corner of the Shkodër lake, following the Sem (Zem) upstream above Fundina through Kuči to Vasojević and Kolašin; the latter two districts, although Serbian-speaking in the majority, still seem to be in part of Albanian origin—perhaps the only instance of a slavization of Albanians. Jingiby (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Since we're going for primary sources with attribution of particular authors, good find @Jingiby:.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary's Consul is irrelevant. Is that person a respected scholar or a scientist? He was a representative of a country with serious political interest in the Balkans and with the goal of squashing the Serbian state and interest all over. I guess the joke was on them. :)

If this material is introduced and edit-warred over in order to push it to the article, which I can not approve as it's breaking several Wiki guidlines, I'll add the writings of Serbian consuls like Branislav Nušić and Milan Rakić about the citizens of the territory of Kosovo etc. It seems fair. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is Radonjic any different in that respect? If you want to be consistent, then you should yourself remove information about his reports too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Radonjic is different, as he is a representative of those people, as opposed for Austro-Hungarian consul who is a foreigner and representative of a foreign power. As for the primary sources, I find more relevant what the members of the tribe themselves have said about them, than Austro-Hungarian consul. For example, papers from that period, such as Montenegrin paper "Orlic": In Lower Vasojevici, there are 1800 houses, all Serbs and real Serbian heros. Or as a hero from that region, Jovan Stefanovic in his article said: We are all Slaveno-Serb people, and among us are: Vasojevici, Bratonozici, Kuci.... I just don't see where are we going with this discussion.James Jim Moriarty (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't use WP:OUTDATED or WP:PRIMARY on the basis of whether someone is "foreign" or "native". So, Radonjic can't be used either.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

And we didn't used Radonjic only as WP:OUTDATED or WP:PRIMARY, as the source in question was Nikola Vukcevic as secondary source, not the Radonjic's original letter. And as I said, he is significant as he was representative of them to a historically important person. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

According to a Serbian scientist Gordana Gorunović from the University of Belgrade and his article: "Mihailo Lalić and Serbian Ethnology: Ethnography and Mimesis of Patriarchal Society in Montenegrin Highlands", published in VOL 12 NO 4 (2017): ISSUES IN ETHNOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY, DOI:https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v12i4.10 pp. 1211-1212: Lalić originates from the Vasojević tribe, the largest Montenegrin-Highlands tribe. The Vasojević grouping was first mentioned in historical sources in 1444... At that time the Vasojević grouping has not fully formed a tribe yet, but was most likely a clan or fraternity of the type attributable to the so-called katun organization of Vlach and Albanian stock farmers. Jingiby (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@James Jim Moriarty: So is Lippich, but you removed his report. Wikipedia is built upon following the same standards about every part of bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Look here please, on p. 1212: According to folk sagas, the Vasojevićs were fictively kindred to the Montenegrin tribes of Ozrinići and Piperi and the northern Albanian Krasniçi and Hoti. These tribes were allegedly originating from five brothers, Ozro, Pipo, Vaso,Kraso and Oto (Hot), who came a long time ago from Herzegovina to Kučevo in Old Montenegro, where Ozro stayed and others dispersed to various sides. Eponymic ancestor of the Vasojević tribe, Vaso was an immigrant in Lijeva Rijeka, in an unknown time when the area was desolate, and built a house on the right bank of the Nožica creek. Jingiby (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: I didn't removed his report, I am discussing it's relevance here. As I said, I am talking about relevance of Ivan versus of Lippich - Ivan is a representative of Vasojevici to the Catherine the Great, during the time when local people were seeking help from the Russians. While Lippich is a consul of a foreign power, Austro-Hungarian, who is not sure of the Vasojevici origin. As Lippich himself said, in the quote given above: ..still seem to be in part of Albanian origin—perhaps... - he is not sure. On the other hand, members of the tribe are, for sure, sure about their origin. Historiography and Wikipedia also considers relevance of the source and its study, as you will, as a our new member, see and practice, just as we were and still are in these numerous of years of being the users here. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not how WP:RS, WP:OUTDATED, WP:PRIMARY work. You've reached 3RR, so take a step back and reflect about the policies on which wikipedia is based.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In the first place, the above-mentioned contemporary Serbian academic source in English claims that this tribe was first mentioned in 1444, and not as in the current article about 100 years earlier. The author claims also that at that time the tribe was not fully formed and consisted of Vlachs and Albanians. Later, they mixed with Montenegrin Serbs. Jingiby (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The articles mixes up folk stories with actual history. This sort of thinking was quite popular in 19th century Serbian historiography and persisted until very recently. It's not WP:RS.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

@James Jim Moriarty: You put as evidence (Đorđević, Tihomir R. (1919), this is old Serbian source and WP:AGE MATTERS, ok next, (The Slavonic and East European Review. Jonathan Cape Limited. 1931) but and this is WP:AGE MATTERS.

• Some informations which I know, 1) "Piperi označavaju kao pleme "srpske" ili "grčke vjere", što i po mišljenju Erdeljanovića tek "daje oslonca" za pretpostavku, ali ne dokazuje srpsku narodnost.... the Pipers are marked as a tribe of the "Serbian" or "Greek faith", which, in Erdeljanovic's opinion, only "provides support" for the assumption, but does not prove Serbian nationality." This is for Piperi tribe. 2) "nahija Zeta - Bjelopavlići, sa četiri džemata Vlaha, koji su, kako je u nauci već pretpostavljeno, najvjerovatnije bili katuni... in 1477, the Zeta-Bjelopavlići nahija is also mentioned, with four Vlach congregations, which, as has already been assumed in science, were most likely katuns." Bijelopavlići tribe in this source are mentioned as Vlachs. 3) "U nahiji Kuči navedena su imena katuna sa slovenskom formacijom, pored albanskih imena katuna: ili selo Radun sa slovensko-vlaškom kombinacijom...In the Kuči nahija, the names of katuns with a Slavic formation are listed, next to them the Albanian names of katuns are listed: village of Radun with a Slavic-Vlach combination." Tribe Kuči with Slavic, Albanianan and Slavic-Vlach combination of names. 4) "Prema tome, i stanovništvo Vasojevića, svojim porijeklom, i po svom etničkom karakteru je crnogorsko, što se posebno ispoljava u nizu karakterističnih običaja. To pokazuje i prvi pisani pomen Vasojevića pored Pipera u jednom dubrovačkom izvoru iz 1444. godine..Therefore, the population of Vasojević, by its origin, and by its ethnic character, is Montenegrin, which is especially evident in a number of characteristic customs. This is shown by the first written mention of Vasojević next to Piper in a Dubrovnik source from 1444". This are informations from the book of Špiro Kulišić (1980) "O Etnogenezi Crnogoraca"[1].
• And some information from the book of Sima Ćirković (2004) "The Serbs". Chapter: "Clans and Clan Society", from page 129, he mentions the Vlachs and Albanians throughout the chapter and mentions them in context of Paštrović clan, Banjani, Drobnjaci, and Ridjani, "Neighboring Montenegro had its own clans (Vasojevići, Bjelopavlići, Piperi, Njeguši, etc.)" etc. Serbian academician although he mentions Serb medieval influence in the area, he does not mention a single word ie that all these tribes are Serbs or Serb tribes.
• Therefore there must be confirmation from a neutral source that all these tribes are Serb tribes. You have exposed some sources and quote what exactly this sources speak to all see what it is about. Mikola22 (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

First, I reacted towards the specific mention of Ivan Radonjić - he was representative of those tribes in the 18th century, he considered his people as Serbs and sources given are modern and not primary. As for other tribes and their origins, it is a very broad talk and completely off the topic. (Đorđević, Tihomir R. (1919)) is not the only source I have put so that argument doesn't stand (if you tag something as WP:AGE MATTERS, then you need elaborate, not just claim old source). Next, regards towards Sima Ćirković, his book The Serbs deals with the topic of history of Serbs in general. The author is a very respectable Serbian medievalist, with a excellent research of Bosnia, but clans and it formations are not his primary area of interest, as you can see from the book or his other works. That's the reason why, in the mentioned book, he doesn't provide more information about the tribes themselves. Nor he specifically mentions them as Serbian (but yet again, the book is about the Serbs), but also not specifically as Vlachs, so I don't see why you mentioned him. What I see that you missed the logical point - when we are talking about tribes, we are talking about clans when they have got their tribal organization (late 16th century) after merge(s) of different brotherhoods etc, not the XV century clans (for which better word is brotherhood in majority of the cases), nor even about the people who formed those clans earlier. If we are talking about the not so short process of the tribal formation from those early clans, you are oversimplifying it in the sense "Vlachs formed the tribe" etc. When literature deals with the origins of the tribe, it deals with the oral tradition of the members from the tribe itself, or, which is far better as you would agree, scientific historiography with precise results or at least, opinions from the historians. When in the literature says Serbian tribe, that means that we are talking about already formed tribe and that these people already had Serbian identity. You mentioned Špiro Kulišić, which is fine argument as he stated that the tribes didn't have Serbian identity, but rather Montenegrin. But numerous other historians (Đurđev, Jovan Vukmanović, Vukčević Nikola...) from his country, during that same period, successfully challenged his views and proved, for examples, that he made mistakes in his methodology, so you can't challenge the whole historiography, based only on him. In contrast, for example, mentioned Branislav Đurđev really masterfully described, based on the sources such as Ottoman surveys in the 15th century, how early mixture of Serbs and Vlachs started development of the tribal organization in Montenegro. And even those Vlach brotherhoods, in that time, were more-or-less, in majority assimilated into Slavs, because of the strong influence of medieval Serbian states and more numerous Slavs around them. But because early katun organization came from them, as proved by Đurđev when he challenged Erdeljanović, for example, and not from the early Serbs (as Vlachs were in majority cattlemen), and as Slavs also started to deal with cattle-breeding, Vlach gradually transformed into a synonym for cattlemen, not other ethnicity, as stated by Branislav. That is, as you can see, far more complex process, and even I went off-topic as I didn't talked about Vasojevići only. When the Vasojevići tribe was formed, you already had Serbian names, Orthodox religion, language, customs and identity, among them. And we see that from the members of the tribe itself, and their representatives, during the centuries after. That's the reason why, for example, excellent historians who really specialized in the topic, such as Radoslav Vešović or Lutovac, who were also from the tribe itself, and concluded without a doubt that the tribe had strong Serbian identity during its existence. And I didn't mentioned even Jovan Vukmanović, Lalević Bogdan, Mirko Vukićević and rest. As I said, instead of wasting the time to discuss did Ivan Radonjić thought of Vasojevići as Serbs, when he said in the letter twice that they are Serbs, it was far better if the article itself was expanded with other topics such as battles against the Ottomans, customs and traditions, etc. That's all from me, as this discussion is going outside of the bounds of historiography and into political topics. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(That's the reason why, in the mentioned book, he doesn't provide more information about the tribes themselves. Nor he specifically mentions them as Serbian (but yet again, the book is about the Serbs), but also not specifically as Vlachs, so I don't see why you mentioned him.) I mentioned Ćirković because he mentions all these Montenegrin tribes and he does not mention them as Serbs. Ћирковић Сима. Црна Гора од досељавања Словена до пада под Турке(Sima Ćirković - Montenegro from the arrival of Slavs to the fall under the Turks) Therefore he knows history of Montenegro very well. (When in the literature says Serbian tribe, that means that we are talking about already formed tribe and that these people already had Serbian identity.) Yes, but the source does not say that ie (Serb tribe). Where it is written in the source show me. [2] (But numerous other historians (Đurđev, Jovan Vukmanović, Vukčević Nikola...) from his country, during that same period, successfully challenged his views") Then and Đurđev, Jovan Vukmanović, state or claim that all these tribes are Serb tribes, show sources and quotes which say so, but from his Yugoslavian time. (mentioned Branislav Đurđev really masterfully described, based on the sources such as Ottoman surveys in the 15th century, how early mixture of Serbs and Vlachs started development of the tribal organization in Montenegro.) Sima Ćirković mentione Albanians and Vlachs, and Vlachs as different from Serbs: "Segregation policies were included in royal charters from the fourteenth century declaring that “a Serb shall not marry a Vlach,". (When the Vasojevići tribe was formed, you already had Serbian names, Orthodox religion, language, customs and identity, among them.) And still in the source is not mentioned "Serb tribe" and this is OR ("Radoslav Vešović or Lutovac, who were also from the tribe itself, and concluded without a doubt that the tribe had strong Serbian identity during its existence. And I didn't mentioned even Jovan Vukmanović, Lalević Bogdan, Mirko Vukićević and rest.) That is why we need an independent foreign source , which all these tribes mention as Serb tribes, Sima Ćirković for them says that they are Montenegrin tribes. Mikola22 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

From here, I see that you probably didn't understood or read well what I explained you there for Sima Ćirković. But for the sake of the answers, I will again answer your points. As for the quotes, I prefer reading the whole books in order to get a better context from the author, but if you need quotes, I will provide you with some of them. I mentioned Ćirković because he mentions all these Montenegrin tribes and he does not mention them as Serbs. Ћирковић Сима. Црна Гора од досељавања Словена до пада под Турке(Sima Ćirković - Montenegro from the arrival of Slavs to the fall under the Turks) Therefore he knows history of Montenegro very well. Therefore he knows history of Montenegro very well. Again, the book is about giving an overview of the Serbs, not a specifically oriented towards the topic of tribal formation and its deeper details. To clarify, I am not saying he is irrelevant, but I say that if somebody specialized in some specific area than the second, then he is more relevant. Also, again, Sima didn't mentioned them as anyone else either, but putted them to the book about Serbs where he wraps also Montenegro and its history in his discussion of Serbs. Sima Ćirković mentions Vasojevići geographical/regional belonging, not the ethnical one. I don't see whats your point there. In contrast, authors and the books I mentioned deals specifically with the topics of Vasojevići tribe and formation of the tribal organization and how some elements were got from Vlachs. Sima Ćirković mentione Albanians and Vlachs, and Vlachs as different from Serbs: "Segregation policies were included in royal charters from the fourteenth century declaring that “a Serb shall not marry a Vlach,". Again, you made no further point here. Read what I wrote - there is difference between Vlachs from XIV century and the term Vlachs from XVI century. And also in XIV century clans didn't event got proper tribal organizations. Where it is written in the source show me. Again, I am pointing you to the books, such as the ones from Radoslav Vešović The Vasojevići tribe. It is not a good idea to seek only for references, as, for example, German author will in majority of the cases, not mention the word German [castle] if he is writing in German language about the castle in Germany. But, if you like those quotations, in the mentioned book, for example in the chapter About the origin and development of the tribe of Vasojevići, in which he mentions them multiple times as Serbian tribe. You can see it for historical events, such as the one from 1737., where he concludes that Serbian element was represented in a Brda tribes for which Vasojevići belonged, and continues with: ...Brđani went to the Novi Pazar and taken it from the Turks. So, Serbian element was that strong, as Vasojevići aligned in their movements together other Brda tribes. He even elaborates their Serbian identity and discuss about the major stories from the tribe itself, such as From Tomice Vukov and others in Lijeva Rijeka, it is recorded the story that Vaso Vasojević (founder of the tribe) was from old Serbian roots and nobility (pp. 89) and after that discusses why these origin stories and alleged connections with Serb nobility were so strong in Vasojevići. And these are just some of the mentions. I recommend you to find the book online and read it. As for the others, dr Milisav Lutovac (Bihor and Korita and other books or, as you like quotes, you have his quotes in his other works, such as Serbs [Vasojevići in Berane]] burned Šabanagića tower, when they liberated Berane (Geographical Bulletin, Berane, pp. 197)), you have mentioned Vukmanović, Cvijić (in his book Psychological attributes of Dynaric tribes he written: ...That's why they [Vasojevići] consider themselves as most pure Serbs), Bataković and others. That is why we need an independent foreign source , which all these tribes mention as Serb tribes, Sima Ćirković for them says that they are Montenegrin tribes. As explained above, Sima is not in a conflict with the rest. As for the foreign source, if historians give relevant and proper sources, then that reason for an independent foreign source is not a proper one, because that kind of source segregation is a political, not a historiographical one. If you said, for example, Momčilo Lutovac (relative of Milisav who wrote a book "Vasojevići, the old Serbian tribe") is not a strong source then I will agree, because he isn't by his professional career, and we need some other. But saying that because, for example, Vešović was born in Kolašin, we can then ignore that he is an excellent historian specialized in the topic and who has advantage that his family originated from the tribe, then that is not a proper reason. We can then eliminate 90% of the sources not just of this topic, but also, for example, topics about Croats in Krk and their culture, etc, because sources are in majority Croatian. There is a not a big interest in foreign historiography about Vasojevići tribe in particular, so it is logical why there are so many Yugoslav and Montenegrin sources about them, and why almost all of the foreign sources are based on those Mne/Yugoslav sources or on the sources from neighbour countries. But, I have put up there one foreign source in which you have: The Vasojevici pride themselves for being particulary pure Serbs. which was tried to be labeled as WP:AGE MATTERS for some unknown reason as it is not updated and for sure not for the particular matter. Also, if Vasojevići themselves, even today, say that they are Serbs, who are we to deny that to them? To the end, as I said, I warmly recommend you to read the books from mentioned historians, especially Vešović. I hope that this will help you to expand more your knowledge about Vasojevići tribe and thanks for mentioning Sima Ćirković whose books I read couple of years ago, but its a good idea to read them again. As I don't have too much time in these days, that's all from me. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Genetic genealogy

In addition to edit war, genetic studies are a big issue here. Such content that must accurately summarize recent, high quality, published secondary sources, where experts in the field have already gathered up and defined current knowledge, more precisely peer-reviewed journal articles. It is most often mistaken when these researches are cited in the context of proving the origin and whether someone came there sooner or later. Nations and ethnic groups are a social construct, biological sciences cannot be used to prove such things.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nations that formed in the era of nation-states are indeed socially constructed - within certain cultural boundaries. I also agree that we shouldn't cite poreklo's blog posts or yfull directly because the results need a context which can only be provided by genomic studies. Thus, Y-DNA origins can tell us a lot about the historical journey of a people but by themselves they can't be used - outside of an interdisciplinary approach - in a way that directly says "X group is actually an Y-ized Z population". I cited a newspaper article (not poreklo's blog posts or yfull directly) and just kept the simplest of details: "Paleo-Balkan E-V13". I think we can all work with that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We should not cite a newspaper article, only recent peer-reviewed journal articles where experts have already suggested certain conclusions. What does "Paleo-Balkan E-V13" mean? Thus, Y-DNA origins can tell us a lot about the historical journey of a people - Yes, but mostly for early human migrations more than 10-50 000 years ago. Certainly not a few centuries ago. If a subclass of a haplotype is most frequent in a region, is it due to genetic drift, gene flow or founder effect? All nations today are great mixtures. E-V13 originated many thousands of years ago and not in the Balkans. Misunderstanding of the topic often leads to over-simplistic genetic interpretations in newspapers, but unfortunately also on Wikipedia. Therefore, we should leave it to the experts in the field and write their conclusions that have already passed the expert review.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but mostly for early human migrations more than 10-50 000 years ago. With the high level level of Y-DNA research as of 2020 and the sampling size that is on the rise every day (literally!) we're moving towards an unprecedented level of mapping accuracy about our past. For example, just from the available sample size and the way that it presents itself uniformly throughout all Balkan DNA Projects (check the same information from the Bosniak DNA Project about the Bosniak Vasojevići, we know when the particular E-V13 branch of Vasojevići was formed. I'm not arguing to use DNA Projects as sources directly but many issues that they have brought up are now common knowledge and articles its members write in the media can be cited for basic purposes. Also, haplogroup E in general didn't originate in the Balkans - its E-V13 variant emerged in the Balkans (The Y-DNA marker E-V13 originated in the Balkans where it is to be found at its highest frequency). We don't have to discuss about it in this article since it would be WP:COATRACK, a simpler version of what is now present in the article will be enough.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)